President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It is a great honor for this country and for the President. For civil libertarians, however, the prize is a bit of a mixed message. Obama has blocked any investigation of war crimes or torture in violation of international law. He has also supported the limitation of free speech to allow the criminalization of criticism of religion. With less than a year in office, the selection may send the wrong message to Obama that personality rather than principles succeed in both domestic and international politics.
I know that it is not going to be popular to question the basis for this selection, but Obama has not proven to be exactly a ray of light on questions of human rights and international law. He is now in violation of various international agreements over torture and United Nations officials have denounced the United States for refusing to carry out its duty to prosecute those responsible for the torture program. Yet, the Nobel Committee has chosen this time to award him with the Peace Prize — undermining the importance of the Geneva Conventions.
To his considerable credit, he has re-examined our positions on a host of international agreements, including most notably global warming. However, one would expect to wait for at least a year to see if he carried through on such statements and policies. I believe if you look objectively at the record, it is hard to see why Obama warrants such an honor at this time. At least Teddy Roosevelt helped end the Russo-Japanese war and supported the creation of the Hague arbitration court. To put it simply, Obama’s selection is the triumph of hope over experience and he will have to earn this distinction in the years to come.
What do you think?
I don’t like a lot of what Obama has been doing, but there is this:
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/10249/31888
I know it happened a couple of weeks ago, but that’s the bottom line. In the meantime, I’ll keep writing to Congress and my locals, and tell them to MAN UP! Do something!
FFLeo,
Good article, thanks. My home page is really 3 pages long, and I got stuck on my Reader. I hadn’t gotten to Huffington yet, but they are both on my first page.
I think he’s right. But, you may hate me for this. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book (very short) on Mother Theresa. I discovered it by watching that brief resurgence of Tom Snyder. Because Hitchens said something negative about her, Snyder THREW HIM OFF the set. I read it. It took an enormous amount of courage to write that book. And I don’t think ego was part of his motivation.
I had heard of the contrast effect (specifically the water experiment) but didn’t think of it. I’m really beginning to see Mespo’s quote from Lewis Carroll. Language is so essential to politics and perception. Witness 1994 contract on America. Instead of saying your opponent is misguided, say he’s psychotic. There was an actual list of words, far more egregious words. I believe that, in part, is setting the stage for the rhetoric.
I could really go on, but (taking your advice) I’ll work on that in notepad first. I have been doing that, and my responses turn into essays, too long to post. But maybe I’ll put them in my blog.
My favorite “god” is the Kuan-Yin, compassion. Very popular in China, and has both Buddhist and Hindu representations: The woman with a hundred arms.
Here is a good, brief article by Dr. Robert Epstein. Author, editor, radio talk-show host, and longtime psychology researcher
_________________________________
The “Thank-God-You’re-Not-Bush” Prize: A Psychologist Weighs in on Obama’s Nobel
“The contrast effect works in many domains, including the political. And yes, it can even cause intelligent, well meaning people to confuse bringing peace to people with giving inspirational speeches about bringing peace to people.”
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert-epstein/the-thank-god-youre-not-b_b_315715.html
_________________________________
FFLEO,
mespo had multi god worshiping abilities.
Mesopotamia
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Ancient Iraq” redirects here. See also: History of Iraq.”
I wonder if we need to worry about terrorist threats from him.
But alas, the Primary gods and goddesses of Mesopotamia ( < meso (μέσος) = middle and potamia < ποταμός = river, literally means "between two rivers"
However, I am sure that he worshiped this one extensively.
* Gula or Utu (in Sumerian), Shamash (in Akkadian) was the sun god and god of justice
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia
Hardly exploding heads, rcampbell, just not ideologues such as you represent.
One of the reasons this site is so important is that—although Professor Turley is a liberal-leaning, civil libertarian—he is not an ideologue. There are also others here who are intelligent, free thinkers with rather deep religious backgrounds, such as Mike Appleton, who would never blindly support a cause or action—as in this case—just because of some ideology or ideological leader. Another example is the somewhat irreligious Mespo, who is an Obama supporter, or appears to be, although he too finds this coronation of Mr. Obama a curious act and incongruous with the facts. I trust that I did not misrepresent their thoughts—notice, I did not say ‘beliefs’.
As a lifelong conservative Republican, I voted against Mr. Bush and McCain/Palin, although all of my closest relatives voted for them, out of religious, conservative ideologies instead of thinking of the harm their votes could cause.
Anyone who genuinely thinks that Mr. Obama deserves this award—including him—epitomizes the term ideologue, just as those who praised/praise Mr. Bush/Cheney for their war crimes that surely saved us from evildoers. Illogical, rigid ideologues of any stripe–liberal or conservative–are the real threats to our U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and associated freedoms.
Mr. Glen Greenwald’s column, that Jill referenced, clearly states my position regarding the man for whom I voted but for whom I have lost most of the respect that elicited my vote for him.
rcampbell,
I don’t understand how you are able to say Obama is promoting peace over war, death and destruction. We are in three escalating wars: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Obama has illegally used drones in Afghanistan which have killed civilians, including children. This isn’t a lack of plans coming to fruition, it is exactly his plans’ logical outcome. You cannot escalate wars and claim you are for peace. You cannot order torture, rendition and the imprisonment of the innocent and claim to be a man of peace. This selection simply rings hollow.
FormerFedLeo: I totally agree. The whole cognitive dissonance thing that’s going on.
Budda,
Nice to see you, and I agree with you. I vote my preferences during primary elections, but I had hoped that Obama would wait eight years and then take the Presidency. I’m not ashamed of having voted for him.
I also agree with JT. Most of my time is spent sending emails and letters as a member of Amnesty Int’l and ACLU. The torture thing really, really gets to me. But he has released some Guantanamo inmates. If they do go on to join a terrorist cell, whether by previous inclination or because of their treatment here, our men and women in the military can take care of that.
I am VERY disappointed with Obama’s actions, but I am NOT going to join in with the “let’s rejoice in his failure” movement. Having said that, now I’m going to enjoy myself with vids from Fixed News. The first report I heard from that side is “I didn’t know the Committee had affirmative action.” I expect more “anti-Christ” believers finding the Nobel as proof of their assertions.
Mespo: I love the Lewis Carroll quote.
N.B. If you are looking for a good book that won the Nobel in 1994, Kenzaburo Oe, “The Pitch Runner Memorandum” is a great read. I just reordered it, along with some of his other works. It’s very political.
I am very pleased with this much deserved selection. There are many new names on board today with plenty of negative things to say—exactly the kinds of exploding heads I referred to in my earlier post.
The Nobel Prize Selection Committee could have chosen anyone from around our war and poverty torn world. They chose someone who represents and who is truly promoting peace and dialogue over war, death and destruction because the world is so desperate for what Mr Obama represents even if it hasn’t yet come to full fruition. Just as Mr Obama is a different kind of politician, the folks at the Nobel Prize are telling us the world wants to be different. Great for them and good for Mr Obama.
Apparently Glenn Greenwald is getting a ration of the smelly stuff for his column. The right wing desire for a strongman screams for itself. Here is the left wing with that same need:
“UPDATE II: Numerous commenters are angrily chiding me for failing to cheer for Obama’s award and, worse, for failing to refrain from criticizing him on this most special day. Those who are saying that sound exactly — and I mean exactly — like Chris Matthews, on April 9, 2003, when he scolded Democrats for criticizing George Bush and the Iraq War on the glorious day when the Saddam statute was pulled down:
Why don’t the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today.
Apparently — just like Chris Matthews taught Democrats back then and some Obama supporters are insisting today — Presidents are entitled to certain Special Days where citizens are obligated to cheer for the leader and refrain from expressing criticisms. Similarly, it’s excessively negative and disrespectful to point out the glaring inconsistency between (a) escalating a war, killing civilians with air raids and imprisoning people with no charges and (b) receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. And anyone who disagrees that Obama deserves the Prize is a Far Leftist purist on the same side as the Terrorists and other America-haters and enemies. Today is one of those days when 2003 doesn’t seem to be too far in the past.”
Mespo wrote:
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”
_________________________________
Mr. Carroll’s statement is about all that makes sense nowadays in all things tegarding politics, finance, religion, and war.
J,
In that case, have you ever heard of Poe’s Law? Not one about poetry.
Mike A.,
There was a documentary that examined the question about the votes. It went through them carefully and concluded Nader actually hadn’t lost the election for Gore. I’m going to try to find this for you. It was on PBS, I think.
This is it: http://www.anunreasonableman.com/
You may have seen it. It was a while back, but I believe my memory of this info is correct.
As to the other issues, I consider the matter resolved!
Jill, I appreciate your point of view, but I am convinced that Nader votes lost Florida for Gore in 2000. I have admired Mr. Nader for many years, but I believe his election efforts have been quixotic at best. However, I do respect the idea of voting one’s conscience and agree that we should not tear each other apart over this. Besides, the president still has over three years to prove that my increasing cynicism is unfounded.
It is only a false man who can shoulder the shame and burden of wearing a false medal or who accepts an undeserved accolade; regardless of how humbled and honored are his professions of gratitude.
The Emperor has no clothes…
My racist comment was a JOKE.
see
J Guy
1, October 9, 2009 at 10:54 am
Mike A.,
I voted my conscience, third party. I did not waste my vote. Nadar voters didn’t lose the election for Gore or Kerry, that simply isn’t true. I am afraid we will all get at each other´s throat with this conversation and I don’t want to do this. But I just can’t accept that it is a waste of my vote to vote my conscience. I’m glad I made the choice I did.
I did not vote for Obama call me a racist. I would have voted for Edwards and McCain, until he was forced to take Palin. I voted my conscience and hit the Nader ticket.
I think that a Junior Senator who had not even fished the first election from 2004. Count em 4 years as a US Senator. That is it. That is why I did not vote for him. Period.
The Nobel Peace prize has been degenerated with the award to Obama in his role as President. Did I get lost and somehow or another his presidency has been longer than a year? The nominations start in February for the previous years work. If I am correct in my assumption he was still running for office in an unexpired US Senate Seat from the state of Illinois.
I do not think that he was eligible for his work at that time as he had not even gotten his cabinet through congress. You know the tax issues and all of the other stuff.
I think that this award is BULL SHIT AND IT IS BASED ON RACE. But then again, it has been touted as what he’s going to do. Yeah BS again.
The strictly enforced deadline for postmarking of nominations is 1st February. If someone nominated himself or herself, they would automatically be disqualified. Only living persons may be nominated for the Nobel Prize. This has sometimes sparked criticism that persons deserving of a Nobel Prize never received the award because they passed away before being nominated.
Link for qualifications:
http://www.worldcolleges.info/nobel_index.php
I want the bank to give me a loan so that I can set up a business that can make some money. I am think high end offset printing presses with some really cool green and many other colored ink with that good ole specialized paper.
I think a cool million should just about cover the set up, the first couple of runs and the legal defense after the government gets pissed off about the competition in the supply of currency. And to think that the government wants to shut down free enterprise.
The above was meant only for humor.
Mark Appleton:
The justification given by Jagland, the committee leader, is that sometimes the committee has to dive into realpolitik to encourage trends that has been started. Willy Brandt was given the award for his Ostpolitik – his new approach towards Eastern-European countries. Back then it may have helped to reaffirm the commitment to such policies and it helped make Europe safer. This is similar. Obama shows a new approach towards the middle east.
I’m pretty sure that today next to no one questions Willy Brandts award.