Powered by TypePad

« Fair Weather Fans Of Gallup Polls | Main | Possible Unrest In North Korea? »

December 10, 2009


Captain Hate

But he struck a note of humility, saying that “compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize” his own accomplishments were “slight.”

I never knew "slight" was a synonym for "nonexistent". Obviously I never went to Columbia or Harvard.


The speech was as lost at sea as the skinny socialist who delivered it. To steal a line from Chris Wallace, who's on next, Topo Giggio?


I just love it when a 10 minute speech lasts an hour! Note to Obama--Lincoln--Gettysburg Address. Got it?

That speech truly had something for everyone. As usual.

I was kind of shocked that he actually credited America with keeping the peace for the last 60 years.

JM Hanes

I just knew it, TM! You started a whole 'nother thread while I was live blogging myself to kingdom come over in an old one!


I have to disagree this speech was very much a Nixon China speech, the main focus of it justified US wars and acknowledged that Europe's peace and their 20th century security and life is due to American Blood.

I thought it was first rate with only a few of the socialistic bits of nonsense that he normally gives.

My take here


With only minor exceptions George Bush could have given that speech.


a simple Thanks, King! would have sufficed ...


man those norwegians were looking grim during the speech


For Flotus fashion watchers, Politico has a brief video of the photo op in Norway.

No bondage belts, but she still managed to look rather frumpy and spent a lot of time picking lint off of Potus's sleeve.


This was the greatest most bestest acceptance speech ever by a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Steve C.

"Oh, well, it probably sounded better in the college dorm where it was written."

BEST one line summary of a poltical speech since

"It was probably better in the original German."


O lost a couple of points since yesterday - from -10 to -12:

Maybe he will get a little Oslo bounce tomorrow?


"It was probably better in the original GermanAustrian."


OT: A funny story: Our LT Gov is Tim Murray. He and I had an ugly run in at a meeting many months ago when he called me "rude" because I was exasperated with his tax hikes. I was mortified, and apologized profusely altho most of the attendees said it was he who should apologize. He did not accept my apology. I was pretty freaked out about it.

SO I follow him on Twitter because I like seeing what the opposition is doing. He holds a trivia contest every week and last week I won.

SO he sent me a prize (I was thinking I got the last laugh). The prize is a thumbdrive filled with a video of Tim Murray.

Score one for Tim.


Flush it down the toilet, Jane, and make the score even.

Or erase it and fill it with audio of your radio show and send it back to him.


Actually I twittered it - so that might even the score.

Captain Hate

Laura Ingraham is talking about how Il Douche is going to be on 60 Minutes for the whole freaking hour on the same night that Oprah will be on ABC doing a White House tour with the Bammy family. Doesn't he know that every time he goes on tv his approval ratings drop even further because people don't want or need to see the Preznit all the time.

Ugh, the poll next to this comment box asks "Who is the most deserving double winner of People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive Award". I try to help Maguire out with these things (although the one for the White House party crashers never extends far enough down for me to vote) but this is asking a lot since I don't like Looney Clooney, Pitt and Richard Gere is a complete idiot. So lacking a "None of the above and who cares anyway" choice I held my nose and voted for Johnny Depp, who amazingly is winning.

Jim Ryan

Jane, it doesn't do to get angry. That's what the bastards want. They realize you will feel undignified by being angry and, as a lady or gentleman, apologize to them for it. A state of permanent rage is inconsistent with a good character and they know how to exploit this loophole. What did Mrs. Iselin do to her son Raymond Shaw? Make him angry and sorry. Then make him do what she wanted.

This is why you should never let the bastards make you angry. If you think they're playing the same game you are, you're wrong.


Any word on what the snubbed Norwegian king thought of the speech?


"Looks like I picked the wrong week. . ." All in all a good speech, from the reviews, and this is a tough crowd. Jim, is right, showing
anger is a nonstarter, although sometimes it's hard to hold back. One realizes who is the only one who really gets under his skin,
with a calm clear voice, and a touch of humor.

Jim Ryan

the only one who really gets under his skin, with a calm clear voice, and a touch of humor.

Ronnie, Palin.


Hhhmmmmm - Karl Rove tweets:

Obama using Bush speechwriters? Gerson, Wehner, Theissen seen leaving WH by Kristol, Kagan who were there for coffee


Jane, it doesn't do to get angry.


I wasn't that kind of angry. What happened is I sighed at the precise moment everyone in the room shut up. If you ever hear my radio show you will realize I am a sigher - or maybe a grunter and it's pretty involuntary.

I was mortified TBh - but he was a complete Dick about it.

But your advice is good regardless.


Narciso, there was something in there for everyone. That doesn't make a great speech, just a grab bag of incoherence. Really, Lang Lang's facial expressions while playing Chopin made about as much sense.


Oslo, eh? That means we're talkin' War and Peace. While we're on the subject there are a couple of interesting articles linked at RealClearWorld.

First we have Meir Javedanfar's Israel Should Hold Its Fire on Iran. Javedanfar's basic idea is might very well not serve Israel's best long term interests, especially when the very real problem of Iranian nukes could end up being solved in a way that might be more to Israel's liking. Read it yourself, but here are some of the concluding paragraphs:

...Israel's leaders should weigh their options very carefully. It is unlikely that America's unwillingness to attack is solely due to political considerations. Defense planners may also have doubts over the effectiveness of an assault on Iran's nuclear installations.

Should Israel's planners reach the same conclusion, they would be well advised to follow Washington's lead. Any attack which would set back Iran's nuclear program by less than five years could be counterproductive, both politically and militarily.

Judging by its relationship with Iran during the rule of the Shah, the state of Israel is not against the Iranian nuclear program. It is against Iranian leaders and administrations who want its destruction. A nuclear bomb did not prevent the fall of the Soviet Union, nor did it halt regime change in Pakistan during the reign of Nawaz Sharif. The same may be said for Iran's current leaders.

Israel must weigh all its options, and thus beware the advice of trigger-happy "friends."

The second article, from Foreign Policy, Iran's Conservative Crackup: A series of political defections and a new poll provesthat Ahmadinejad is losing support among the conservatives who once made up his base, lends support that regime change--of some sort--may be in the cards in Iran, and that the direction from which it is coming may be somewhat unexpected. Nevertheless, these ideas suggest that Javedanfar's caution's may be well taken. The whole article is worth a read, but here are some selections:

Before the election, Ahmadinejad had enjoyed 58 percent support in rural areas and 44 percent support in the small urban areas. After the election, however, it was a different story. The two post-election polls showed that 39 percent of the youth and 23 percent of those over 45 who had voted for Ahmadinejad now regretted their vote. The reasons for this included the rape, murder, and torture of young men and women who participated in demonstrations after the June presidential election and the belief that Ahmadinejad was to blame for the country's economic crisis. ...

Ahmadinejad is also facing increased public opposition from traditional conservatives. Their action can only be viewed as an act of protest against Ahmadinejad and his all-powerful supporter, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Now, clerics from the traditional right have joined leftists, such as Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri and Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha, in moving away from Ahmadinejad's political faction.


As the regime's powerful inner circle shrinks, formerly central figures are being alienated in the political realm, too. These conservative politicians and military figures have nowhere to go: Disillusioned with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei's clique, they are also at odds with the symbolic leaders of the opposition movement, including Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and former President Mohammad Khatami.


Now that the system is so fractured -- even among conservatives -- Iran's political future is uncertain. But it is unlikely the conservatives who now oppose Ahmadinejad and Khamenei will remain silently on the sidelines for too much longer.


Central Cal, It's true, about 65% of that speech could have been given by GWB. But I wager that has much more to do with the Gallup poll than ant personal conviction on the part of the J-E-M (Jug-Eared Marxist).

If he would have given an "I'm sorry" speech to that bunch of worthless socialist eurocrats, his gallup wpuld have "flatlined" at 30% by Christmas.

By the way, how 'bout those jobless numbers!


There is a upside to all of this.

Politicians will be quoting from this speech for decades to come.

I mean, how many times do you get any body who stands in front of a group who is giving him a "peace prize" when he just escalated a war.

The cojones on this man are not to be underestimated, or is he really just that stupid.


I read something that someone saw GWB's speechwriters leaving the WH yesterday. Since O made a big deal about writing the speech himself, I suspect they did it for him.


I respect Javendefar in general, but that excerpt doesn't bring confidence.If Netanyahu
is looking at a much smaller window as Quom and the new processing facilities would indicate he will go for it.

To deny that the nuclear umbrella didn't proclude Western intervention in not only Russia but Eastern Europe and the Caribbean
Satellites, Korea, Berlin, Budapest, the Cuban Missile Crisis is disingenous in the extreme. Likewise, Pakistan's nuclear weapons forestalls India's decisions about actions against a future Islamist regime


Here">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwghabw4N80">Here is the link I've been raving about, thanks to Hit. Don't miss it.


"...the continued expansion of our moral imagination."

I joked about this line in the other thread, but it is a sentiment to be wary of. I am sure that the "moral imagination" of a Marxist/Socialist/Extreme Environmentalist would not be in sync with my core beliefs.

I agree anger is not the way to go, but as a minority conservative with my in-laws and neighbors I find that the polite, "good point", looking for common ground conversation is one sided. The left never concedes a point, or looks for common ground. If they reach a point where they can not answer, they call me a name. They seem to depend on our politeness to shut us up. It is like a small scale meeting of terrorist vs. US Military. They have no boundaries, rules, or inhibitions......we do.


CH, wouldn't Jon Hamm, the perfect antihero of Mad Men, who happens to be a fraud, be the iconic choice for that poll


I find that the polite, "good point", looking for common ground conversation is one sided. The left never concedes a point, or looks for common ground. If they reach a point where they can not answer, they call me a name. They seem to depend on our politeness to shut us up.

Well said. And it's not just the left...


Jane! That is too great! New #1 youtube! Thanks to you and Hit for going to the effort to post it.


Jane: that school recording has been out awhile (found it here at JOM, IIRC, a couple of months ago.

I emailed a link to it to my daughter who works at an elementary school (surrounded by libs). Even they loved it! Here in Calif. there are many, many barely able to speak English students, so it was especially amusing at the end.


Don Suber claims Obama did a quarter-bow.


Re: GWB's speechwriters__that was a tweet by karl Rove at The Corner. I think it was a joke.


peter: yes, it was a joke. His tweet had a link included (which I omitted) to Kristol doing a comparison with portions of Obama's Nobel acceptance speech to a speech by W.


Here is the Kristol link . . .

Plus ca change


No, much like signal flares or those paddles that the conductors use on a flight deck, one tries to steer the conversation, so one doesn't crash and burn, here. That's been my impression. Sometimes people don't take the hint, and stronger measures are recquired.

It seemed like a good speech, I know he doesn't mean a world of it, or else he wouldn't have behaved the way he has this last year. I held low expectations for him,
yet he often doesn't reach up to them.


FLOTUS has apparently given up bondage belts for winter and is how sporting the strangled look in scarves - draped, fluffed, and knotted.

Good Gold!


"...the continued expansion of our moral imagination."


I agree with you. That should be chiseled in Obama's memorial.

Obama should of said:

Imagining morals in the continued expansion..

because we are scolded daily that it is immoral if you don't believe in global warming, it is immoral not to fund abortion with taxpayer's dollars, and it is immoral to vote against government health care.




It was quite a night for the Obamas. He gets a Nobel prize for zero and Michelle got the "Most Fascinating Person of 2009" award for her arms!

Have you seen the video: ..
her fashion sense, confident style, sense of purpose and her intelligence

It really highlights her intelligence. What a hoot!


Expanding the moral imagination, means what was immoral is now moral, like betraying the aspiration of the American soldier, the practices of Kevin Jennings, the safe schools
czar et al. BTW, the PPP poll is out, I'm not linking it, and it has Huckabee in the lead again,??? although it shows some improvement,
for Sarah.


Rush just said that 1/5th of the country wants Obama impeached.


Ann the chiseled in stone sentiment was from JMH -
"What we need is... the continued expansion of our moral imagination. Chisel that on his memorial."

Posted by: JM Hanes

Live blogging on the For Whom thread. She did a great job.


I can't click on that video, Ann, just can't do it. But what did the JOM ladies think of that dumpy cardigan over the gold dress? (I don't care that it was an Anna Ricci cardigan, it looked frumpish and out of place esp. with her shoulders slouched as they always are).


Masterful job, JM, I think I would attack my keyboard with a sharp object


Porch, I thought the whole gold outfit (with coat or with cardigan) was just awful.


I think the scarves are an improvement over the belts as a distraction from her hips.



She really resents Barack, doesn't she?

Rick Ballard

"By the way, how 'bout those jobless numbers!"

I get a total month over month increase in the number of people receiving benefits of 69,000. Not bad - a weak venous flow which correlates well with the drop in blood pressure and respiration.

Rosenberg says that the pupils are fixed and dilated but I'm sure that's just temporary. Besides, how do you really know with a zombie?


Oops. Janet, thanks for the correction. JMH is awesome!


Yep. I can't believe she admitted to working out at 4am so stinky had to get up and feed the baby. Her little revenge.

Oh! And the part where She decided to Let Obama go into politics. She made the right choice!

Hey, at least, she is not wearing the large scarfs under her boobs! :)



It is so windy here, there are Christmas ornaments rolling down the street. Pretty funny.


Do you think the Stache, Bolton, was too harsh in this overview, in the LUN


centralcal, ditto. I don't mind the dress (or the cardigan in a different application) but the whole thing together, on her - eh.


Belts and/or scarves are both alright from time to time and with certain outfits. However, MaBelle Michelle tends to overdo whatever trend it is that she is trying to set.

The belts got larger and larger and were worn with everything (even her pj's?). It seems she plans on doing something similar with the scarf trend.

And then there is her hair...I noted 6 weeks or more that she was complimented on her updo at HuffPo. She hasn't been photographed with her hair any other way since. A change up now and then is always nice, but whether hair or clothing she seems to be styled in one way only, carried to an extreme.


narciso, naturally I'd agree with Bolton.



The right designer could work wonders. But whomever she's hired continues to pretend she's someone she's not - younger, more petite, more svelte, and with a less formal lifestyle. That's why it never really pans out.

Like her husband, she either has crummy advisors or she doesn't listen to them, or both.


See I thought the scarf was ok, then they had
that other outfit, and ay yay yay, is the only
thing. And seeing how that advisor got the nod for GQ's top 50 in Washington, they're not
gone to change any time soon.


The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

I guess that whole "surge thingy" just went out the proverbial window.


"if the force used is proportional"??????

What the hell?



Late Breaking News!

New Fox News Poll: A majority – 57% -oppose the health-care reform legislation. 34% -- favor the reforms. Highest opposition to date.


Michelle Obama's shiny gold dress looks like she's wearing Christmas wrapping paper. The gold sweater is unbelievably dull, doesn't go with the wrapping paper, and looks used -- by a homeless person. Besides that, her hair style is unbecoming. She slouches so badly she looks like she's ashamed of her ta ta's. Actually, she is one ugly lump of a woman. So. There.


Oh, goodness, I just looked at the video re Michelle's arms and her sense of style and Barbara naming her the most fascinating person of the year.

You know what I was fascinated with? Her huge knees. At first I thought maybe I was looking at a table leg.


Actually, PD, COIN would be a canonical example of a just war. It focuses on separating the bad guys from their support in the civilian population, and the main strategy is protecting civilians. A war strategy which has the goal of getting the enemy to put down their arms and say "never mind" as opposed to killing them all -- that's certainly morally preferable if you can make it work. (And, in Iraq, it's working.)


Politico has now posted a new video of the Obamas going to the banquet.

The Juan and Evita Peron moment aside (at the beginning of the video), Michelle's gown (and jacket worn for the balcony scene) is quite lovely, very elegant.


Michelle Obama's shiny gold dress looks like she's wearing Christmas wrapping paper.

I have no interest in flotus or her fashion but this really made me laugh.


Jane: speaking of laughing, Lucianne has a bit about the Norwegians being miffed at Obama:

"Save the Children" concert among official functions Obamas blew off. Organizers replaced him with an Obama cardboard cutout.We kid not."

OMG. See how easily replaced the guy is! Cardboard cutout - yep, perfect.


One of these wars is winding down.

Huh. I wonder why that is?

The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway

As distinct from the first one, in which we were joined by only forty countries - including, for three years, Norway. It must have been so unpopular because it was a conflict that America sought out for no good reason at all.


Okay, credit where credit is due. Michelle does look lovely in the video that C-cal linked to.

Captain Hate

CH, wouldn't Jon Hamm, the perfect antihero of Mad Men, who happens to be a fraud, be the iconic choice for that poll

Narciso, I don't know who that is but if you think highly of him (although for a People Magazine award I'm not sure that's a prerequisite) I'm sure I'd agree. Or did you mean ironic? Or am I understanding any of it?


--"if the force used is proportional"??????

What the hell?--

Sue that doesn't imply that the force used should be proportional or equivalent to the force used against us.

It is the doctrine that the force used against a belligerant should be proportional to the threat it poses.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fair game in a World War, but turning the sandy beaches of Central America into glass would not have been a proportional use of force for Noriega's hijinx.

Mister X

Wow, TM taking issue with Obama's Nobel speech. No one saw that coming.


China add a "poison pill" to Climate talks ...

COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.


Would you be surprised though, Mr. X, who did like the speech?

Captain Hate

I never thought I'd appreciate the Chinese so much as when they give the big Yuck Foo to Climate idiocy.


Well the Chinese gerontocrats and the PLA are evil, but they're not stupid, and you have be to buy this garbage

Mister X

"Would you be surprised though, Mr. X, who did like the speech?"

Christ, Obama could deliver the cure to cancer and the nimwits on the right would bitch about why he didn't tell us about how to fix diabetes. But then again, they think Palin is a deep thinker.

You betcha!


The whole "perfectable" thing seems too unexamined, given its prominence in all political issues as I have understood it in history. Isn't the difference between "improvement" and "perfection" understood as the crux of the conflict between absolute government and limited government? Don't all rational, serious people know that no, humanity is NOT perfectable although eminently improveable? From the Right, religious or otherwise, a program of perfection is a perversion and usurpation of God's turf. From the Left, theoretical perfection is the enemy of practical good. "Perfection" I had thought, was more or less a dirty word in serious rhetoric as this occassion seems to demand. Isn't the statement SUPPOSED to go, hey, it is foolish to think one can "perfect" humanity but it is our constant duty to improve humanity's lot? One of two things has happened here: either someone ignorant of the philosophical struggle and the rationalist victory of improvement over perfection was at the helm of the teleprompter OR someone, high or not-so-high is well aware but thinks we have come to the point where "perfection" is attainable. I hesitate to delve, as either circumstance is a hideous prospect.


Christ, Palin could deliver the cure to cancer and the nimwits on the left would bitch about why she didn't tell us about how to fix diabetes. But then again, they think Obama is a deep thinker.


Actually, that was certainly more true with the last President, his antipoverty efforts
in Africa, The liberation of 50 million from oppression, the efforts to extricate persons from a severe climatogical event, despite the
dysfunction of the local government. Bush
was tabbed as evil or stupid for all of that.


That was a quick fix, there Porchlight, I guess this proves Janet's point, even if you
concur on one issue, they want you to repudiate your entire position


Christ, Obama


-Who else is stunned to see a leftist write those names in that order?

-Name two men who have as much in common as a bowl of lemon pudding and a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II.

-One of those is a widely beloved person who worshipers will celebrate on December 25, though skeptics claim he is an almost completely mythical figure and the December 25 pageantry is an attempt to borrow the prestige of an older religion. The other was Jewish.

Mister X

"-Who else is stunned to see a leftist write those names in that order?"

So calling out the idiocy of the Neanderthals on the right (talk about redundancies) automatically makes one a "leftist"? Whatever.

"-One of those is a widely beloved person who worshipers will celebrate on December 25, though skeptics claim he is an almost completely mythical figure and the December 25 pageantry is an attempt to borrow the prestige of an older religion. The other was Jewish."

Obama is Jewish? I thought you nitwits claimed he is a Bhuddist/Nazi/Socialist/Muslim/Atheist/Non-American/Black Panther/Yippie.

JM Hanes

"Christ, Palin could deliver the cure to cancer...."

I love you for your mind, not your body, Porchlight. Not that your body isn't AbFab.

Captain Hate

Christ, Obama could deliver the cure to cancer

Yeah that's really likely with him declaring the medical system broken and demonizing the pharmaceutical companies that could possibly do that, you simpleton fuck.

Publius, a.k.a. The Idaho Publius

"No holy war can ever be a just war".

Would someone, preferably at a NCAAP meeting, please ask our CnC to reconcile that comment with "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", or lacking that, ask him if he has ever heard of the tune?

Mister X

To borrow ....

Yes -- obviously, what Obama should have said was:

America has never made a mistake in the 233 years of its existence. Not a single one. That's because, unless the rest of you little pissant countries, ours was created personally by Jesus Christ. So suck on that. You want peace, you bastards? Just shut up and do whatever Jesus and I tell you to do.


Free Radical

the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Utter. Bullshit. That's Christianity by and large. Not that I would expect Obama's speechwriters to know a thing about religion.

(A number of religions use the 'silver rule' and a 'bronze rule,' but not the golden rule, above. Oh, and that was NOT the bit that Klein quoted in his article- but we mocks hims anyways.)

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Troll feeding - ugh.

How stupid do you have to be not to know that you can harp on all America's warts to your heart's content while you are in the country. But...once you get to the water's edge, you are the HEAD OF STATE, you are America, and you damn well don't go around trashing your own country or your countrymen. It belittles Obama and just makes the rest of the world laugh at him for being such a disloyal wuss and us for electing him. It also frightens sane leaders who depend on both America's strength and her stability.

The more he trashes America and apologizes, the more our enemies like it. It is a nice big white flag of surrender. There is a very big difference between liking and respecting. No one respects a leader who has no pride in the country he is elected to lead, nor can anyone respect a leader who does not believe in the mission he swore to uphold.


Right back atcha, JMH. :)


Obama's already cured cancer in 7 States. Only 50 more to go.


--Yes -- obviously, what Obama should have said was:
America has never made a mistake in the 233 years of its existence. Not a single one. That's because, unless the rest of you little pissant countries, ours was created personally by Jesus Christ. So suck on that. You want peace, you bastards? Just shut up and do whatever Jesus and I tell you to do.--

A little over the top but preferable to every speech I've heard Barry deliver overseas, so far.
Mister X ought to be feeding TOTUS instead of the current idiots.

JM Hanes

Mister X:

I was pleased that Obama defended America as a positive force in the world, a most welcome change from the usual litany of sins. Pointedly ignoring his predecessor was a major improvement on whining about the mess he inherited.

I'm not sure,however, why you would expect most folks here to laud his speech, when with few exceptions they have profound disagreements with the ideology he represents (ideology in its neutral sense). Folks generally focus on things they don't like. That's certainly what you did when you blew in, no?

Was it well constructed rhetorically? Sure. Was it a competent outline of a liberal, internationalist position? Yes. Was it full of flowery generic sentiments? Yes. Was there a lot of big talk about helping the oppressed, despite his administration's conspicuously retracting support for such folks around the globe? Yes. Was his specific highlighting of the protesters in Iran one of the most hypocritical things I've heard from a politician evah? Yes. Did he withdrew funding from one of the only groups tracking human rights abuses in Iran, at the height of the protests? Why yes, he did. Did he throw in a few barbs at dictators he's been so assiduously courting, to little positive effect, around the globe. Indeed he did.

So, aside from disagreeing with him ideologically on most issues, I'd say it was a good speech, and a very good speech, given the setting. Ironically, GWB could have written a chunk of it himself. If I thought Obama would similarly follow through on the aspirations they ostensibly share, my own reaction might be considerably different. Bush, himself, delivered some excellent speeches, which the press virtually ignored, so there's probably not much room for comparing responses.

Obama clearly knows how to say the right things. Let me know when he comes through with that cure for cancer, and I'll start giving him higher marks.


"Just shut up and do whatever Jesus and I tell you to do."

Other than giving Jesus priority over Obama, how is that different from everything Zero has said since he got elected?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Seems the Golden Rule "bullshit" is more wide spread than the bullshit caller cares to admit.

Shared belief in the "Golden Rule"
(a/k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)

Religious groups differ greatly in their concepts of deity, other beliefs and practices. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, also exhibit a wide range of beliefs. But there is near unanimity of opinion among almost all religions, ethical systems and philosophies on one topic: that each person should treat others in a decent manner. Almost all of these religious and secular groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you."

I count 21 major religions in addition to philosophers and humanists.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

SMART DIPLOMACY: Snubbed Norwegians replace absent Obama at event with … cardboard cutout.



Nope, I haven't read Obama's speech, and I'm not gonna. Why should I, when I have Peter Beinart to tell me what he meant: Obama's Bush-Bashing Speech.

Harry Truman, who George W. Bush often praised but never understood, once said that “We all have to recognize—not matter how great our strength—that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.” To Bush and Cheney and Palin, the sentiment is offensive. Why should America not do as it pleases? After all, since our power stems from our virtue, the more unrestrained we are, the more good we will do.

But Barack Obama, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech Thursday morning, showed that he understands just what Truman meant. Because he understands, in a way Cheney and Palin never will, that true moral universalism requires recognizing that Americans are just as capable of evil as anyone else. And that means recognizing that we are in just as much need of restraint. For Obama and Truman, the paradox of American exceptionalism is that only by recognizing that we are not inherently better than anyone else, and thus must bind our power within a framework of law, can we distinguish ourselves from the predatory powers of the past.

That’s what Obama was trying to say in his address at Oslo City Hall. At the speech’s core lay a vision of moral reciprocity totally lacking during the Bush years. For Bush, American virtue was taken as a given. There were fallen, sinful human beings, and then there were Americans—and from non-proliferation to counter-terrorism to human rights, we instructed our moral inferiors on how to behave. If they had the audacity to try to turn the monologue into a dialogue, and judge the morality of our actions, we trotted out John Bolton.

Problem is, I have a hard time reconciling myself to Obama's notion of morality.

Terry Gain

With only minor exceptions George Bush could have given that speech

Except that if Bush had given it, the parts about there being no peace without freedom and civil rights would have been authentic.

I thought it was a good speech by the wrong person. It's embarrassing to see a man who abandoned Iranians this summer, and before that Iraqis, receive a peace award. He has no clue what is necessary to achieve peace.


--Shared belief in the "Golden Rule"
(a/k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)--

Actually the full context of the Christian version is better characterized as the Ethic of Non Reciprocity, which is not terribly compatible with most other religions; Buddhism probably coming the closest, but for far different reasons.

The comments to this entry are closed.