‘Humbled’ Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
Committee says president gives world’s people ‘hope for a better future’
NBC News and news services
OSLO, Norway - President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
Here's the decision:
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”
“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the United States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population,” the citation said.
“For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”
*********************************************************
Today I learned that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awards this prize to individuals not only for their accomplishments but for their POTENTIAL as individuals to effect worldwide change toward peaceful solutions to difficult and dangerous problems.
I see this as a prize for all Americans of good will who still hold onto the hope that we can always do better and will always strive to listen to our better angels.
Think about it. This is an honor for the whole country, and Mr. Obama humbly acknowledged in his speech that he didn't deserve it, but will work diligently for the justice and peace we all yearn for.
77 comments:
Unexpected news, shaw. But there'll be gnashing of teeth in certain parts of the country while the rest of us are dancing in the streets.
I am still suppressing the taste of bile in the back of my throat while reading the headline of your blog.
All I'm going to say is that ACORN must have counted the votes!
This makes a total mockery of the award. It is a disgrace to the award.
Rightwingers' responses to Mr. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize:
John J. Miller:
This is insane.
Mona Charen:
Before they break out the champagne at the White House, they may want to pause over the fact that Obama now shares this honor with Mohammed el-Baradei, Yasser Arafat, and flagrant liar Rigoberta Menchu Tum.
Michael Graham:
What do Barack Obama and Yassir Arafat have in common? They both hung out with anti-Semites who think Israel should be pushed into the sea. Oh, yeah—and they both were given the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Matt Lewis:
I mean, shouldn't you at least do something before winning such a prestigious award?
Townhall:
This is just more evidence the "messiah" mentality has reached the world stage...
Hot Air:
This makes three times, incidentally, in just seven years that the committee’s turned the Peace Prize into a “f*** Bush” award by bestowing it on a liberal American Democrat.
Dan Riehl:
At this rate, the man is going to become reviled by a majority of the American people in four years.
“Obama’s done nothing to deserve this award…” says Taliban spokesman.
So, the the Righties and "callmekat" all agree with the Taliban, our enemies?
LOL!
BTW: To Mona Charen: Mother Teresa and Dr. King won the Nobel Peace Prize. So what's your point?
Guy named Dave, you can spin this anyway you want to.
Call me and the others anything you wish to.
The facts speak for themselves. Obama did absolutey NOTHING to deserve this "Watered Down" award.
Unless it was because of because of his brilliant policy toward Honduras. Or the dismantling of our missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland
This is beyond disgusting and embarrassing.
The current Nobel peace prize committee is a gaggle of left wing America haters. Obama has joined a distinguished group of winners that include Al Gore, Mohamed Elbaradei, Yasser Arafat, Amnesty International, and that old perennial favorite, Jimmy Carter. This is nothing more than the left paying homage to themselves and Obama is certainly a good addition to their list.
I suspect that next year it will be given to Ahmadinejad ..
So have fun playing your name calling games, you came to the right place to do it.
callmekat,
No need to taste the bile.
Mr. Obama had nothing to do with this, and was probably as shocked as all of us are.
The nominating committee is made up of former Nobel laureates, and other international people of distinction.
After hearing people like Limbaugh mock Mr. Obama last week and say that "the world" rejected him, it is nice to see his idiotic words refuted.
Let's hope Mr. Obama will live up to what this prize stands for.
callmekat wrote:
"Obama has joined a distinguished group of winners that include Al Gore, Mohamed Elbaradei, Yasser Arafat, Amnesty International, and that old perennial favorite, Jimmy Carter. This is nothing more than the left paying homage to themselves and Obama is certainly a good addition to their list.
I suspect that next year it will be given to Ahmadinejad ..
So have fun playing your name calling games, you came to the right place to do it."
Mother Teresa and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., also won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, callmecat, "A guy named Dave" DID NOT CALL ANYONE ANY NAMES.
I just reread the post by "A guy named Dave" and he called NO ONE any name.
"A guy named Dave" merely pointed out that callmekat and other Righties AGREED WITH THE TALIBAN, America's enemies.
This happens all the time with people who come here with an axe to grind.
They make stuff up, then go to other blogs and accuse people here of writing things that WERE NEVER WRITTEN.
callmekat: Don't bother coming here if all you want to do is make stuff up.
Thank you.
Saying that I agree with the Taliban, who are our enemies.. Is name calling TO ME
And I won't bother coming here again.
I need this place like I need a hole in the head.
You can wallow in your own filth.
"Nominations for this award must be received by February 1, which means he had been in office a total of 11 days prior to his name being submitted." TAO
Okay if this is the case, then please tell me what on earth he did in his 11 days of office that earned him this award?
I realize you really like Obama and that is fine, but to give him the Nobel Peace Prize cheapens it, to nothing more than a political toy. Martin Luther King....well deserved! Mother Theresa.....well deserved! To put him or even Gore and Carter in that class is a pretty sad testament of what we have become.
An award that held such prestige now is just another meaningless award in my eyes. Even loving Obama as you do, I just can't see where anyone would think that he actually deserved this??
Jennifer,
No one is saying he "deserves" the prize, even Mr. Obama said it in his speech just telecast on the teevee. He said it too. But he then used the opportunity to say that this country and he will be dedicated to striving for peace.
He had absolutely nothing to do with the nomination or the awarding of the Prize. He was as stunned as everyone else.
I did some research on the Peace Prize and discovered that it is a myth that it is awarded only to people who have effected peace in the world--it is also awarded to people who have the POTENTIAL to effect peace in troubled parts of the world. Those are the rules I read that guide the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
I think it was obvious that Mr. Obama is uncomfortable with this Prize, but is accepting it on behalf of our country--it gives the US prestige to have its leader recognized as someone who strives for peace.
I'll take that honor for all Americans.
It's about what we AMERICANS CAN be as a nation; it's not about Mr. Obama.
Jenn,
I appreciate your ability to express your opinion without rancor. You did a great job. Thank you.
callmekat,
You could learn a lot from Jennifer. She's a class act.
Michael Graham had said
"What do Barack Obama and Yassir Arafat have in common? They both hung out with anti-Semites who think Israel should be pushed into the sea. Oh, yeah—and they both were given the Nobel Prize for Peace."
My take on this is related, but decidedly different. It is quite preposterous to call President Obama antisemitic. This is one of the clearly false charges again him, and I will defend him against it.
However, the description clearly fits Yassir Arafat, a man who devoted his lifes work to the cause of exterminating Jews.
I think this so-called peace award became worthless when a man devoted to genocide and war won it.
I don't think it is that great of an honor anymore. And in this criticism, I have nothing bad to say about President Obama.
Jennifer: If anyone deserves to win a great peace prize, it is Jimmy Carter. The Camp David deal he crafted was significant and created a lasting peace. No US president since has done anything close. If Obama ends up equaling this, I'd say he'd deserve a great peace price. Not the one besmirched by giving it to Arafat.
BTW, I just went onto the whitehouse.gov website at 11:41 am Eastern Time, and there is nothing posted about Mr. Obama winning the Prize.
callmekat,
You misrepresent what was written here. No one called you names. "A guy named Dave" merely pointed out that you, some Rightwingers, and the Taliban all agree that Mr. Obama doesn't deserve the Prize.
Erick Erickson of "Red State" injects race into the reason for Obama's Peace Prize honor:
"I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota," wrote Erick Erickson, of the site RedState.com, "but that is the only thing I can think of for this news."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html
Hows those Red Sox doing?
I'm looking for a SPEEP
Sorry for the typo..
Hows those Red Sox doing?
I'm looking for a SWEEP
Clearly, the subcommittee of the Norwegian Parliament who decides the winner didn't want to be called RAAAAACIST!
Up next: Obama wins Pulitzer Prize for writing op-ed piece run by NYT!
Obama awarded Nobel for Medicine for attempting Health Care Reform!
Obama wins James Beard food award for "crustless PB&J sandwiches" for his kids!
Obama awarded Nobel for Physics for convincing sea levels to fall and earth to begin to heal!
Obama wins Cy Young award and named MVP of Major League Baseball for throwing out that one-hopper on opening day!
Obama awarded Nobel for Economics for inventing entirely new language forms for explaining how tax increases really aren't, um, tax increases.
dmarks typed:
'I think this so-called peace award became worthless when a man devoted to genocide and war won it.'
Nonsense the award survived bestowing upon Henry Kissinger.
Gordon, you forgot this one:
Nobel Prize in physics for walking on water awarded to President Barack Hussein Obama.
BTW, he didn't ask for this.
Go Gordon go!
You too callmekat.
An observation.
It's amusing how the right has clasped Martin Luther King to its collective bosom not that he's long dead. I seem to recall a great deal of the treatment folks like Van Jones have received of late as more typical of the 1960's response to MLK.
From 'Conservatives' that is.
Stick around long enough and one sees most everything.
You're right, Shaw, he didn't. That's why I didn't attack him; my beef would be with the Norwegian parliamentarians. But it's not much of a beef; we've seen this sort of thing from them before.
A week ago this would have been a good theme for a parody article.
I must admit this news was a shock to me as well. Guess I can agree with Mr. Obama about something! ;-)
The Nobel Press Release:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
Oops.
Sorry.
I thought I posted this elsewhere. This iPhone confuses me now and again. Teeny weeny screen where I lose track of sites.
No problem, Arthurstone. I can leave it up or delete it, it's up to you.
Either way Shaw.
Nice to see you back.
"it is also awarded to people who have the POTENTIAL to effect peace in troubled parts of the world."
Shaw....I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. I wish that in the piece that Arthurstone posted, it would have spoken only of the potential he has of promoting peace instead of saying that he already has done it. I think it would have gone over a little better and been more believable. You are right that he didn't ask for it, so like Gordon, I'm not criticizing Obama for it.
"extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy"
"work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics."
Using statements like those above change the outlook on it. I think they should have stayed with the "vision" aspect of the piece.
Dmarks....My apologies. I shouldn't have thrown Carter in there, being that I am not as familiar with his presidence.
"You could learn a lot from Jennifer. She's a class act."
Thanks, that's very kind of you! :-)
oops! presidency
Arthur said: " I seem to recall a great deal of the treatment folks like Van Jones have received of late as more typical of the 1960's response to MLK."
Van Jones is a hate-filled man, is a Maoist. King was nothing of the sort. You tarnish King's memory to equate him with a modern fringe kook.
Contemporary:
http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html
http://www.greaterthings.com/Editorial/MartinLuther.htm
1960's:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html
http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-jeh.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4638275/
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200207/garrow
I personally never had much use for Bobby Kennedy and this piece from the Atlantic describes a large part of why. The FBI dug and dug and dug into MLK's life and leaked and leaked and leaked wrong-headed assertions, innuendo and lies about him.
The attacks on MLK, some poster's protests notwithstanding, set the stage for the current smears of one Van Jones, ACORN, Bill Ayers and various and sundry other Left-leaning activists and groups.
Post Peace Prize Comments:
Giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is a "premature canonization" and an "embarrassment" to the process of designating a laureate, a presidential historian says. For Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-obama-embarrassment-process-expert-says/
Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals
News of Barack Obama's award Friday drew a rebuke from the Republican Party chairman, ridicule from conservative bloggers, and even gripes from some liberals who think he hasn't done enough to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r3:c0.360447:b28217702:z0
"Since when has Sweden learned to kiss America’s a$$?" one angry comment said. It was followed by another one, "Isn’t it ironic that the leader of a hegemony country wins Nobel Peace Prize?"
And: Very few people applauded the president’s honor on the comment thread. After any comments that say something like, "I think Obama deserves the prize," the comment is immediately followed by angry replies. Comments like, "Yeah the whole country and Iraq and Afghanistan are laughing at you!" Or "Why don’t they just give it to Adolf Hitler?" Quite a few Chinese netizens raised the same question: "Is today April Fool’s Day?" Full Article: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/09/2093914.aspx
I hate to be repetitious but this was too good to pass up! From the same MSNBC article already sourced.
Kenyan's ask 'why?'
By Paul Goldman, NBC News Producer
LOKICHOGGIO, Turkana District, Kenya – In this village in northern Kenya aid workers were shocked when they heard the news that native son President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
"Why?" asked a logistics officer of the World Food Program. "What has he done to deserve it?"
We were on an assignment unrelated to the announcement, traveling from a refugee camp to a local airport, and were the first to deliver the news. Although from the same tribe as Obama's family, the Luo, the aid worker said that he feared that "this will devalue the Nobel Peace Prize."
But his friend separately asked, "Does he deserve it?"
"What do you think?" I asked.
"No!" he replied instantly.
Jim posted a quote from a particularly well-informed critic of the Nobel committee:
"Since when has Sweden learned to kiss America’s a$$?" one angry comment said."
Sounds about right.
Still it's very odd to me. I would rather they give it to someone like Thich Nhat Hanh. I think giving it to politicians in general is too divisive. That said, if a politician really goes above and beyond during the lifetime of their career to bring above major peace then I guess they would deserve one.
I'm glad that he was humbled and felt he didn't deserve it because in a way--he doesn't. Shaw, you know I love Obama and will most likely vote for him again but the Nobel Peace Prize? This is all quite a stretch I think. Oh well.
What could he do. It was thrust upon him. He would have been criticized had to accepted it too. I don't blame him--he didn't ask for it but I don't get what the Nobel committee was thinking. just my two cents.
From Arthurstone: Nonsense the award survived bestowing upon Henry Kissinger.
From Newsweek.com: Obama Not First Surprising Nobel Peace Prize Winner: Seven Controversial Recipients
3. Henry Kissinger: Love him or hate him, everyone has a strong opinion about the massively influential former secretary of state and national-security adviser. His detractors don't argue that Kissinger has done anything since he won the award in 1973 that would merit its retraction. It's that the things he did before receiving the award should have disqualified him in the first place. He was implicated in the escalation of America's Vietnam War strategy and accused of supporting right-wing dictators to advance American Cold War policy, at the expense of democracy and human rights in their countries. But Kissinger won the award for working to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam and correct policy errors there. That still wasn't enough for political joker Tom Lehrer, who has said that "political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize" (although he's often misquoted as having said instead that irony died when Kissinger won).
At least Mr. Kissinger did something before the award! ;-)
Oops!! That "James Ure" is me. I used my Buddhist blog account. I forgot to tick the box for follow up comments. I'm just posting this so I can activate that option. :)
Arthur: Again, there is no smear of Van Jones. He made some serious mistakes, and they have damaged his career. The same with Bill Ayers, who was an actual terrorist. There have been no smears of Ayers. "Left-leaning" is too mild of a word for these extremists. In fact, "left leaning" implies someone close to the center. There have been no smears of these men: they tarnished themselves with their own actions.
If there is any smear going on, it is you almost seeming to smear Dr. King by lumping him in with these truly vile men.
Now hopefully we can move on from your unreasoned defense of indefensible men, to the interesting point you made about Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King. Dr. King was no terrorist, or communist. He was truly smeared. I have liked what I have read about Bobby Kennedy in the past, but these links change my view about him.
To everyone who questions the appropriateness of Mr. Obama's honor:
He didn't ask for it.
He was surprised and deeply humbled.
He did not view it as a recognition of his own accomplishments.
He said he did not feel he deserved to be in the company of the other Nobel Peace Prize winners.
Mr. Obama had nothing to do with this choice.
He was gracious and humble in his acceptance; and he would have caused more controversy had he not accepted it.
Let's leave it at that.
This award has me a little conflicted, but I think it can also be viewed as a vote of confidence for America; it says the world thinks we are headed in the right direction with foreign policy and that we are still a major player in global stability.
I agree with SK, let's leave it at that. No more about Mr. Obama and Nobel.
Let's get back to sniping at each other over more important issues. Like, well, I don't know . . . Al Gore's insane use of electricity!
dmarks typed:
'If there is any smear going on, it is you almost seeming to smear Dr. King by lumping him in with these truly vile men.'
Van Jones and Bill Ayers are not 'truly vile men'.
Sorry.
Perhaps you're thinking of someone like Elliot Abrams whose connection with the notorious Roberto D'Aubisson & the Contras left real blood on that neocons hands. Oddly enough his connection to and enabling of actual murderers seemed not to have disqualified him for government service in the subsequent GWB criminal regimes.
Go figure.
From rockync: . . . it says the world thinks we are headed in the right direction with foreign policy and that we are still a major player in global stability.
Would that direction be appeasement and weakness? I'm sure the world's despots are welcoming such a direction. Such a policy would give them free reign in crushing their peoples.
Certainly, Neville Chamberlain, an icon of appeasement, found out the hard way what to expect from tyrants. Let's not repeat that past, one of global instability due to weakness.
Arthur: Check into the statements and record of Van Jones and Bill Ayers. Few defend them, not even the President. They are truly vile men. One endorsed and embraced Maoism, and the other was an actual terrorist.
(Your second paragraph made no sense, as you tossed out the mostly meaningless "neocon" label for situations where they did not apply. Besides, it is rather off topic, and has nothing to do with the extremists and terrorists whom you think belong in the Obama administration).
Some facts about Bill Ayers to prove you wrong:
" In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s"
Even Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck haven't stooped this low. Shaw and others have rightly criticized some conservative leaders for rhetoric which might lead to violence like this. A line which Ayers happily crossed.
You are going out on a "Terrorism is Great" limb, and few will follow you there.
dmarks typed:
"You are going out on a "Terrorism is Great" limb, and few will follow you there."
Thanks for your concern dmarks but I think I'll be okay. Outside of a couple posters hereabouts who remain unrepentant red-baiters I'd be surprised if anyone else would find what I've written in any sense suggests "Terrorism is Great". I hate to speak for others but that's my take on things.
It is an abuse of the term "red baiter" to apply it to those who only point out the existence of actual communists. Which includes Mao Zedong and Van Jones, but does not include MLK.
Dr. King is entirely irrelevant to these discussions. The accusations against Van Jones and Ayers are true (based on their own actions, which they are proud of), while the accusations against King were not true, and really were a smear.
And, to bring it back to the subject, similar accusations against President Obama are not factual either. Unlike Van Jones, Obama is not a Maoist. Unlike Ayers, Obama is not a terrorist.
I don't get why Obama got the award either. Other than he's the biggest celebrity in the world not named Tiger Woods. But why is this an issue of divisivness anyway. I certainly understand why you all think a more deserving person such as myself should have won the Nobel Peace Prize. But I can live with finishing behind President Obama with no malice.
In keeping with the discussion, Rush offered nonsense about Iranians and Bin Laden liking Obama. That us just plain stupid. But typical of this clown, his appeal is to stupid people.
From Arthurstone: Van Jones and Bill Ayers are not 'truly vile men'.
Well, I suppose that's right. Van Jones is just a misguided community activist and Bill Ayers was nothing more than a 'tagger' in his youthful days.
But let's follow your analogy with Elliot Abrams a little further. If I understand you, Abrams has blood on his hands because of groups he mentored, let's say. That makes him, Abrams, a vile man. Bill Ayers mentored a group as well, whose members murdered 2 policeman and a Brink's guard during a botched robbery. This happened after the WUO was officially no longer a viable organization but the perps were WUO. Thus, Bill Ayers is a vile man. (Click Here for Source)
As to Van Jones, I agree with Arthurstone. He is not a vile man, though he is a self-described commie. In this article, it gives his background and what he is doing with his green plan. Interesting reading.
truth101 says . . . his appeal is to stupid people.
I was going to nominate you for that Nobel Prize but I'm having second thoughts.
Whether you decide to nominate or not, I only ask you do so kindly, gently and peacefully Jim. Peace be with you...
I apologize for using the term 'red-baiter' to describe a couple of my friends here. I was wrong to have done so.
Sorry.
Are you sure you want to be nominated, T101? After all, that could lead to a sentence like, "T101, along with his fellow Peace Prize nominee Rush Limbaugh...."
New Nobel theory: The Norwegians are actually crafty raaaaacists playing a deep game. By awarding President Obama, they subject him to a full weekend of "for what?" commentary.
After all, this is the country that invented lutefisk and a-ha. I wouldn't put it past them.
"Red-baiter" is an archaic term anyway. Since we adopted election-night color schemes into our political descriptions with "red state vs. blue state," red-baiting could be used to describe lefty polemics.
Perhaps "commie-baiter" would substitute. Not as pithy, true, but it could grow on one.
The peace movement is not happy about this at all. Obama has been at least as much of a war monger as Bush. They should change the name to the Nobel War Is Peace prize.
"Obama has been at least as much of a war monger as Bush."
In real world terms, that means "not at all".
The truth of it, Libhom, is that Obama is sitting in a place where he is getting all the facts, many of them classified. That is why he's not caving in to the so-called "peace movement", nor is he satisfying their "nothing to do with the real world" demands by quickly surrendering to the terrorists.
As for the so-called "peace movement", they typically only call for one side to surrender in a war, and hardly ever criticize the aggressors. How many protesters went to the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the period between 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan to convince them to call off their holy war?
It truly is more like a "war is peace" movement.
Gordon: You make a great point there. The term "red" is slowly and inexorably coming to mean conservatives and Republicans.
The red state, blue state terms according to the Washington Post "were coined by television journalist Tim Russert during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election."
So it probably boils down to a split-second arbitrary decision by a major network graphics designer. He could just as well have chosen pink and green.
Jim - Obama, in his speech in the Middle East promised to work with other countries as long as they extended their hand and not their fist, he outed Iran on their clandistine bomb factory, he has stayed the course in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The reference to Chamberlain has no relevance.
Rocky: You make some good points there.
I see "Obama as Chamberlain" as a prediction by some. A warning of what might happen, but has not happened. And hopefully won't happen. But regardless, it has not happened yet.
dMarks,
Ah, that makes sense. It seemed like before that, the networks would individually alternate the color every four years. David Brinkley's famous comment about Reagan's 1980 win was that the map looked "like a suburban swimming pool."
Now we're stuck with the two assigned colors. Curse your memory, Tim Russert!
I can well understand the impulse to hav a phrase like 'red-baiter' disappear. It is very unbecoming. But it has a solid historical basis and, as evidenced in the attacks on Ayers, Jones, ACORN etc. is back in fashion. It was and remains a sordid chapter in our history.
Persecution of 'thought crimes' is the issue. Jones is no terrorist. Ayers used tactics I disagree with but given our governments manipulation and mis-management of cases regarding Leftist radicals we'll never know if he was criminally culpable. The government spent so much time & effort doctoring evidence, hatching plots and murdering Black Panthers in their own beds they failed to get many convictions.
There is a double standard. Far- Leftist politics can disqualify persons from participating in the process in a way rightist
Arthurstone, I don't really give a whiff if it disappears or not. It really doesn't concern me. I was just pointing out that "red" doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Ayres has admitted that he was "guilty as hell." He, at least, has the excuse that he joined up when it was trendy among the left to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, with attendant mass murder.
Jones hooked up with the Maoists after the fall of the USSR, when most of the communists in the west decided that the environmental movement was the place to hang their banners. He's a relatively recent convert to the greenies, who wish to use the fear of global warming to gain the power they were denied earlier.
Arthur said: "as evidenced in the attacks on Ayers, Jones, ACORN etc. is back in fashion. It was and remains a sordid chapter in our history."
Jones and Ayers have admitted it, so it is hardly any sort of sordid "attack". Pointing out these facts about them is not any sort of baiting.
"Persecution of 'thought crimes' is the issue. Jones is no terrorist."
"Thought crimes" are not the issue. Espousing radical views of hate and extremism and violence are. Jones is no terrorist. Nor is David Duke. But that does not make any of them heroes or even good guys.
Ayers used tactics I disagree with but given our governments manipulation and mis-management of cases regarding Leftist radicals we'll never know if he was criminally culpable."
Any radicals, left or right, deserve to be exposed and shut out of civilized society.
"There is a double standard. Far- Leftist politics can disqualify persons from participating in the process in a way rightist"
A double-standard I have fought against. I believe that the violent extremes (both far left and far right) have no place in civilized discourse. And I have readily named similar figures on the right (similar to Jones) whom I also denounce.
dmarks,
Are you aware that Helen Keller was a Socialist?
And that Nobel Peace Prize winner Woodrow Wilson was a racist?
dmarks typed:
'Any radicals, left or right, deserve to be exposed and shut out of civilized society.'
I'm glad you finally typed it dmarks.
You've been hinting at this for months so it's nice to have it spelled out.
Of course there is always the question of just what a *radical* is.
And what are you so frightened of? Don't trust your fellow citizens to be as discerning as yourself?
From my point of view your suggestion David Duke be 'shut out of civil society' is preposterous. Unpopular opinions have every right to be heard. And the voters have spoken time and again as regards the views of the pitiful David Duke.
Sorry dmarks.
You're going to have to do better than that.
Arthur said: "You've been hinting at this for months so it's nice to have it spelled out."
I made this clear a long time ago.
"Of course there is always the question of just what a *radical* is."
Why not the fringes? The far left, and the far right. What is so hard about defining it that way?
"And what are you so frightened of? Don't trust your fellow citizens to be as discerning as yourself? "
No. I just don't trust the extremists. When the far right or far left get into power, they quickly and easily go about the business of large-scale slaughter and oppression.
No "discerning" person would appoint a Nazi or Communist to a high office.
"From my point of view your suggestion David Duke be 'shut out of civil society' is preposterous. Unpopular opinions have every right to be heard."
You know as well as I do how much I am against censorship. I've neve ever denied anyone's right to be heard. My suggestion is not proposterous, but is quite reasonable. No one should be appointing people like this to government posts.
I would not outlaw it. Pressure from an informed public should be enough to keep the Dukes' and Jones's from being appointed to any unelected positions of power. Executive leaders such as Presidents and governors are indeed held accountable by the electorate for their executive political appointments.
The same informed public has also ensured that these radical parties get few votes in elections.
"Sorry dmarks.You're going to have to do better than that."
I did much better than "that". "That" being your views, and the straw man you presented of me (in which I favored censorship).
------------------
Shaw said: "Are you aware that Helen Keller was a Socialist?"
There are some nice socialists in Europe too. The thing is, that socialism is a pretty wide scale. There are a lot of people on the relatively benign end. On the extreme end you will find "pure socialism": the communists. It is on that end that the real loony toons reside. Just as with the far right.
People like Keller and Einstein were on the mild end of the socialist scale.
"And that Nobel Peace Prize winner Woodrow Wilson was a racist?"
I already had a lot of "disfavor" for Wilson, who was one of the main architects of Yugoslavia. His mistake at forcing nations against their will into one hodgepodge nation reached full flower in the 1940s and 1990s.
Imagine the lack of deaths in the 1990s if Kosovo had not earlier been forced into Yugoslavia against its will.
The definitive view:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910130051
dmarks typed:
'Why not the fringes? The far left, and the far right. What is so hard about defining it that way?'
For one thing you and I, two reasonable people, can't agree between us just what the 'fringes' are. What happens when we introduce unreasonable people into the discussion?
For you Van Jones is. For me he's not.
Actually, wouldn't most agree that the "fringes" are the same as the "far-" wing of either left or right?
Agree?
Now, earlier you yourself said that Van Jones was "far left". Which puts him in the fringe.
I don't agree at all.
Your labels are completely subjective. Personally I find the politics of guys like Eliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Pipes extreme. You don't. For some reason David Duke is the only rightest you seem to find offensive.
I find each of these men far from suitable for serving in my government that. Our government is full (particularly after the last eight miserable years) of far-right, hawkish, fundamentalist theocrats. Not that hawks haven't always dominated in Washington DC mind you.
I find Van Jones, on the other hand, completely acceptable. He was arrested once (as many were) during a Rodney King demonstration. Belonged for a period of time to a Marxist organization and regrets signing a petition he claims he misunderstood. None of what I've ever read about Van Jones would disqualify him, in my view, from serving in government.
"Your labels are completely subjective"
This is not the case, actually. I make an effort to measure the fringes, and extremes, by how the public perceives the fringes and extremes. Not from my own subjective view.
"Belonged for a period of time to a Marxist organization"
Well, just about everyone, except those on the fringe, consider Marxism to be rather extreme. However, you are not being specific. Is that intentional?
The STORM group is "Maoist"... subscribing a particular branch of Marxism that is without parallel in its bloodiness and oppression and insanity. The ideology of Mao, Pol Pot, and Peru's "Shining Path".
Why would Jones join?
It shows that either Jones is a stupid bungler and has no idea what he is doing (an idea supported by his petition mistake you mentioned earlier), or is extremely ill-willed. Either way, do we want anyone like that in a position of power?
How is either "completely acceptible"? Especially his Maoism?
Read up on the history of Maoism. Unless Van Jones has completely repudiated any connection or support for this, how can this be "competely acceptible"?
Isn't a worldview in which Maoism is "completely acceptible" a fringe or far view by objective measurements, since so few support it?
(By the way, I am offended by many rightists. I only bring up David Duke, because as a self-professed Nazi, he is a fringe/far parallel to Van Jones).
Van Jones can only 'completely repudiate' is past associations by becoming a right-wing mouthpiece ala David Horowitz. He won't. His politics remain leftist. That he has chosen to work within the system will simply not do for a certain segment of the population. He, regretably will never be judged by his actions by that crowd but rather as they choose to view his associations.
As I've written before. That's what red-baiting is all about and it seems to remain as American as apple pie.
Arthur said: "Van Jones can only 'completely repudiate' is past associations by becoming a right-wing mouthpiece ala David Horowitz"
You stated this before, and it made absolutely no sense at all back then.
"He won't. His politics remain leftist."
He can easily repudiate Maoism
and reiterate that he is a progressive. After all, liberalism and progressivism really has little to do with the murderous fringe that is Maoism.
Jones can easily say that he is still on the left, but that his advocoacy of the policies of Mao was a big mistake.
Only the Limbaugh-types use fear mongering and claim that Maoism is part of the progressive movement. It comes to this again and again, isn't it? That I see a big difference between Maoism (Mao, Pol Pot, etc) and progressivism (Paul Wellstone, Obama, Ted Kennedy). And you do not.
"That he has chosen to work within the system will simply not do for a certain segment of the population."
That implies that he has chosen to work within the system to bring about the goals of Maoism. That does not look the best.
"He, regretably will never be judged by his actions by that crowd but rather as they choose to view his associations."
Whoever they are, I don't care. I judge him by his actions and statements.
"As I've written before. That's what red-baiting is all about and it seems to remain as American as apple pie."
Red-baiting is all about falsely accusing someone of being a communist, just because that person happens to be on the left side. A great example of this is what was done to Dr. King. It has no applicability here, when the person being discussed readily accused himself of being a communist in his own words.
To spell it out more plainly to you:
"Dr. King = communist": Example of FBI lies.
"Van Jones = communist": A specific statement Jones made himself.
Big difference. These are the facts, and hopefully the nonsequitur equating of Dr. King with Jones can be retired now.
"I was a communist", said Jones. I guess this might mean that Jones was red-baiting himself?
I wish we could put the red-baiting of Dr. King to rest but sadly (as I posted earlier in this thread) it continues to this day. As with so many Black civil rights leaders, Van Jones included, his leftist politics continue to be a source of contention.
Main Entry: red–bait·ing
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized R
Date: 1928
: the act of attacking or persecuting as a Communist or as communistic
You quoted Van Jones saying, "I was a communist".
Last time I checked it wasn't illegal in the US to have leftist politics.
But still the attacks and the persecution continue even though Jones works above board, openly and transparently.
Sorry. It's wrong to do so.
" As with so many Black civil rights leaders, Van Jones included, his leftist politics continue to be a source of contention."
It is a smear of King and actual civil rights leaders to include this minor hatemonger among their ranks.
Yes, his leftist politics continue to be a source of contention. Not because they are left wing, but because they are rather extreme.
You know as well as I do that my issue with Jones is not his leftism. It is his extreme fringe views, especially his support of Maoism.
"Last time I checked it wasn't illegal in the US to have leftist politics."
Actually, the issue of contention is not "leftist politics", but membership in nominally-left-wing extreme hate groups. Obama's czar list and cabinet is filled almost entirely with leftists. So what. That does not bother me. It it when administration officials are members of genocidal hate groups that it is a problem.
Nor is it illegal to be in the Ku Klux Klan, by the way.
But anyone who puts either a communist or a Klansman in high office sure well deserves loud criticism for it. And an elected official who appoints and keeps such monsters deserves a drubbing at the polls for it.
(But not Obama. He did the wise thing. Jones is out).
My dislike of hate groups extends to the right side as well. I doubt I could in good conscience vote for a Republican who is cozy with the crypto-Klan "Council of Conservative Citizens"
dmarks typed:
'Actually, the issue of contention is not "leftist politics", but membership in nominally-left-wing extreme hate groups.'
Van Jones is not a member of any 'extreme hate group'. That is your assertion. Like many you make it is simply preposterous.
The suggestion that Spike Lee is 'for mindless rioting' is another fine example.
Arthur said: "Van Jones is not a member of any 'extreme hate group'. That is your assertion. Like many you make it is simply preposterous."
Actually, Jones was a member of an extreme hate group. That is not an assertion, it is mere fact. Part of history that you can't erase. He is no longer a member of STORM (a group based on Maoism). I never said he still was a member.
Wikipedia describes STORM this way: "STORM considered Mao Zedong as their ideological leader". I know of course that Wikipedia is not conclusive, but it is telling that nobody has bothered to correct this summary. So it stands for now. And in the historical record, Mao stands as far and away the worst mass murderer in human history. Those who think that Mao is a great guy need to be held accountable just like those who think that Hitler is a great guy.
As a former member, his repudiation of his hate-politics of his past has been lacking. And he can easily do so without turning into a right-winger. After all, liberals and progressives do find it easy not being foam-at-the-mouth Maoists.
The difference between Maoism and liberalism is far greater than that between liberalism and conservativism, in fact.
So, there you have it. The hard cold facts of Jones' extremism. No "assertions" by me. If you have further hard cold facts about Jones repudiating his past, I'd welcome it.
------------
Spike Lee did a famous movie which justified mindless rioting. (the violent actions by the Mookie character which touched off the riot). Whether or not Lee really thinks it is a great idea, he did do a movie that supports it, which makes discussing Lee as favoring such things into a reasonable topic.
'Wikipedia describes Storm...'
Sorry Dmarks. Not quite good enough. Somebody describes what somebody is
On the other hand the late, unlamented Lee Atwater was and Karl Rove is a Maoist it appears.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/white-house-vs-fox-chairman-mao/?hp
Careful about interpreting works of art dmarks. Mookie did indeed help touch off a riot. Mookie is a fictional character in a fictitious work of cinema. It didn't 'justify' the acts of violence as much it portrayed them as the director imagined it could have unfolded.
Is Clint Eastwood an actual vigilante?
Sorry, Arthur. The description of STORM is indeed "good enough". It is in fact uncontroversial. Your objection appears to be just because you do not like the facts, and is not based on any evidence to the contrary.
You might have an interesting point about Atwater. However, the link you provide is rather vague, and not specific. If it is true, then it is much worse than Atwater's anti-Dukakis campaign ad that was falsely identified as racist. And if it is true, or not, it has nothing to do with Van Jones.
You DID for once make a good point. The one about Spike Lee. However, it is still not "libel" to discuss points of view put across in one's art. Whether it is Lee or Eastwood.
Seems like you ended up retreating and hanging your fact-free defense of Jones on an assertion that the Wikipedia entry is false. An assertion based on a hunch or reaction, and not any evidence.
Well, even that is gone. I have dug into original source documents. Summaries of STORM written by leftist academics, which go into detail about how the philosophy and goals of the organization were specifically inspired by Mao, Lenin, and others.
Post a Comment