Is this the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony or have I blundered into a comedy club?
OSLO — Nine days after announcing a major escalation in the war in Afghanistan, President Obama arrived at Norway’s City Hall on Thursday to formally accept the Nobel Peace Prize, evoking the notion of a “just war” and robustly defending the use of military force “on humanitarian grounds” and to preserve peace.
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.” Mr. Obama flew here overnight from Washington with his wife, Michelle, and a small group of friends and relatives.
Yet compared to some of the other giants, Obama is looking pretty good? Or is he suggesting that some past recipients are comparably undeserving? An awkward moment! Someone cut to Mr. Peanut for reax.
Obama attempted some profundities:
“Perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars,” Mr. Obama said in his prepared remarks. “One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.”
“Still, we are at war,” he said, “ and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.”
Urging his listeners to “think in new ways about the notions of a just war and the imperatives of a just peace,” he said the “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.” But, he said, the practice of war should be governed by “certain rules of conduct.”
If platitudes were warheads Obama would have violated a treaty. Oh, well, it probably sounded better in the college dorm where it was written.
As to the notion that nations should govern war by "certain rules of conduct", I will check the text to see whether he suggested a convention to address that insight, perhaps to be held in Geneva.
PHRASES TO FIND: Other phrases that may or may not appear in Obma's speech: "War to end all wars": "Peace in our time"; "We had to destroy the village in order to save it"; "Turn the corner"; "Win their hearts and minds"; "Give peace a chance"; "War is peace"; "Peace through strength".
I don't have the heart to look just now. Or the stomach.
THINGS YOU YOUNGSTERS DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT (YET!) WHILE WATCHING 'THE ONE': Was that a tingle down my leg, or did I laugh so hard I lost control of my bladder?
AND IF THEY COME FROM THE LAND DOWN UNDER?
From Obama's speech:
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress – must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
I deplore his Northernism.
OH FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE:
Obama took a moment to explain that anyone with a religious motivation is a moral midget:
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for 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.
What? Suppose a soldier believes that it is divine will that he kill evil-doers and protect the innocent. Would such a soldier really kill pregnant mothers and medics? It is surely the case that some fighters claiming a religious motivation have committed horrible excesses; does it really follow that every soldier with a religious motivation must commit excesses?
My goodness - plenty of Northerners thought there were important religious reasons to oppose slavery and fight the South - has the Civil war now become unjust? Obama boldly supported it back in 2002. When Obama hears "He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword", to whom does he imagine the writer referred?
Joe Klein loved that passage - I rest my case.
INTERESTING FEEDBACK: "Alien Abductee", who I presume to be a deservedly obscure diarist at the Daily Kos, rounds up right wing reaction to Obama's speech, and Yours Truly is cited:
Some of those who opposed slavery in the Civil War did so for religious reasons, and Obama approved of them, so how can he complain that religion can lead to violence and war? (Really, I'm not making this up!)
Actually, the Alien is making this up - Obama's point was that religious motivation must always end badly; I accepted the point that sometimes it does.
So I discovered lying liars at Daily Kos - tear out the front page!
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.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 10, 2009 at 08:25 AM
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?
Posted by: peter | December 10, 2009 at 08:35 AM
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.
Posted by: verner | December 10, 2009 at 08:35 AM
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!
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 10, 2009 at 08:46 AM
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
http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/im-listening-to-obamas-nobel-speech/
With only minor exceptions George Bush could have given that speech.
Posted by: datechguy | December 10, 2009 at 08:51 AM
a simple Thanks, King! would have sufficed ...
Posted by: BumperStickerist | December 10, 2009 at 08:54 AM
man those norwegians were looking grim during the speech
Posted by: windansea | December 10, 2009 at 09:07 AM
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.
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 09:10 AM
This was the greatest most bestest acceptance speech ever by a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
Posted by: DAVOD | December 10, 2009 at 09:36 AM
"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."
Posted by: Steve C. | December 10, 2009 at 09:46 AM
O lost a couple of points since yesterday - from -10 to -12:
Maybe he will get a little Oslo bounce tomorrow?
Posted by: Porchlight | December 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM
"It was probably better in the original
GermanAustrian."Posted by: DAVOD | December 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Jane | December 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 10, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Actually I twittered it - so that might even the score.
Posted by: Jane | December 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM
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.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 10, 2009 at 10:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | December 10, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Any word on what the snubbed Norwegian king thought of the speech?
Posted by: PD | December 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM
"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.
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 10:37 AM
the only one who really gets under his skin, with a calm clear voice, and a touch of humor.
Ronnie, Palin.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | December 10, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Hhhmmmmm - Karl Rove tweets:
Obama using Bush speechwriters? Gerson, Wehner, Theissen seen leaving WH by Kristol, Kagan who were there for coffee
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Jane, it doesn't do to get angry.
Jim,
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.
Posted by: Jane | December 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM
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.
Posted by: peter | December 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM
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:
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:
Posted by: anduril | December 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM
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!
Posted by: verner | December 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM
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.
Posted by: Neo | December 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Jane | December 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
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
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Here">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwghabw4N80">Here is the link I've been raving about, thanks to Hit. Don't miss it.
Posted by: Jane | December 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM
"...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.
Posted by: Janet | December 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM
CH, wouldn't Jon Hamm, the perfect antihero of Mad Men, who happens to be a fraud, be the iconic choice for that poll
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM
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...
Posted by: anduril | December 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Jane! That is too great! New #1 youtube! Thanks to you and Hit for going to the effort to post it.
Posted by: Janet | December 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM
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.
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Don Suber claims Obama did a quarter-bow.
Posted by: Neo | December 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Re: GWB's speechwriters__that was a tweet by karl Rove at The Corner. I think it was a joke.
Posted by: peter | December 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
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.
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Here is the Kristol link . . .
Plus ca change
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM
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.
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM
FLOTUS has apparently given up bondage belts for winter and is how sporting the strangled look in scarves - draped, fluffed, and knotted.
Good Gold!
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM
"...the continued expansion of our moral imagination."
Janet:
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.
Phooey!
Posted by: Ann | December 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM
cc:
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!
Posted by: Ann | December 10, 2009 at 12:10 PM
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.
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Rush just said that 1/5th of the country wants Obama impeached.
Posted by: Jane | December 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet | December 10, 2009 at 12:24 PM
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).
Posted by: Porchlight | December 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Masterful job, JM, I think I would attack my keyboard with a sharp object
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Porch, I thought the whole gold outfit (with coat or with cardigan) was just awful.
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I think the scarves are an improvement over the belts as a distraction from her hips.
Posted by: clarice | December 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Ann,
She really resents Barack, doesn't she?
Posted by: Sue | December 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM
"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?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Oops. Janet, thanks for the correction. JMH is awesome!
Sue:
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! :)
Posted by: Ann | December 10, 2009 at 01:02 PM
OT,
It is so windy here, there are Christmas ornaments rolling down the street. Pretty funny.
Posted by: Ann | December 10, 2009 at 01:05 PM
Do you think the Stache, Bolton, was too harsh in this overview, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 01:10 PM
centralcal, ditto. I don't mind the dress (or the cardigan in a different application) but the whole thing together, on her - eh.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 10, 2009 at 01:11 PM
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.
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 01:22 PM
narciso, naturally I'd agree with Bolton.
Posted by: Clarice | December 10, 2009 at 01:29 PM
centralcal,
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.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 10, 2009 at 01:29 PM
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.
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 01:39 PM
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.
Posted by: PDinDetroit | December 10, 2009 at 01:56 PM
"if the force used is proportional"??????
What the hell?
Posted by: Sue | December 10, 2009 at 02:09 PM
Lucianne:
Late Breaking News!
New Fox News Poll: A majority – 57% -oppose the health-care reform legislation. 34% -- favor the reforms. Highest opposition to date.
·
Posted by: Clarice | December 10, 2009 at 02:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Joan | December 10, 2009 at 02:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Joan | December 10, 2009 at 02:32 PM
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.)
Posted by: cathyf | December 10, 2009 at 02:35 PM
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.
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 02:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Jane | December 10, 2009 at 02:46 PM
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.
Posted by: centralcal | December 10, 2009 at 02:54 PM
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.
Posted by: bgates | December 10, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Okay, credit where credit is due. Michelle does look lovely in the video that C-cal linked to.
Posted by: Sue | December 10, 2009 at 03:04 PM
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?
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 10, 2009 at 03:06 PM
--"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.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 10, 2009 at 03:13 PM
Wow, TM taking issue with Obama's Nobel speech. No one saw that coming.
Posted by: Mister X | December 10, 2009 at 03:55 PM
China add a "poison pill" to Climate talks ...
Posted by: Neo | December 10, 2009 at 03:57 PM
Would you be surprised though, Mr. X, who did like the speech?
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 04:10 PM
I never thought I'd appreciate the Chinese so much as when they give the big Yuck Foo to Climate idiocy.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 10, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Well the Chinese gerontocrats and the PLA are evil, but they're not stupid, and you have be to buy this garbage
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 04:18 PM
"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!
Posted by: Mister X | December 10, 2009 at 04:37 PM
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.
Posted by: megapotamus | December 10, 2009 at 04:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 10, 2009 at 04:41 PM
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.
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 04:46 PM
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
Posted by: narciso | December 10, 2009 at 04:53 PM
Christ, Obama
-Redundancy!
-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.
Posted by: bgates | December 10, 2009 at 04:53 PM
"-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.
Posted by: Mister X | December 10, 2009 at 05:39 PM
"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.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 10, 2009 at 06:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 10, 2009 at 06:33 PM
"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?
Posted by: Publius, a.k.a. The Idaho Publius | December 10, 2009 at 06:35 PM
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.
Right?
Posted by: Mister X | December 10, 2009 at 06:37 PM
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.)
Posted by: Free Radical | December 10, 2009 at 06:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 10, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Right back atcha, JMH. :)
Posted by: Porchlight | December 10, 2009 at 06:56 PM
Obama's already cured cancer in 7 States. Only 50 more to go.
Posted by: daddy | December 10, 2009 at 07:05 PM
--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.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 10, 2009 at 07:07 PM
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.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 10, 2009 at 07:12 PM
"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?
Posted by: bgates | December 10, 2009 at 07:14 PM
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)
I count 21 major religions in addition to philosophers and humanists.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 10, 2009 at 07:21 PM
SMART DIPLOMACY: Snubbed Norwegians replace absent Obama at event with … cardboard cutout.
LOL.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 10, 2009 at 07:24 PM
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.
Problem is, I have a hard time reconciling myself to Obama's notion of morality.
Posted by: anduril | December 10, 2009 at 07:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Terry Gain | December 10, 2009 at 07:43 PM
--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.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 10, 2009 at 07:45 PM