I swear I am not making this up
October 09, 2009 1:53 pm ET by Jamison Foser
You know what'll ruin your day like nothing else?
Winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Time magazine explains, in two separate pieces:
This is so true. Sure, some people may think finding out you have cancer is the last thing you need. Or that your kid has cancer. But not me. I spend every day of my life grateful that I'm never going to win a Nobel Peace Prize. 'Cause that would really be terrible. It's literally the last thing anyone needs. You know, what with it being the most prestigious award in the entire world and all. Nobody wants that.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
What has this country gone too when our President wins the nobel peace prize and some people actually agree with terrorist groups.
Sad.
But that's not true. His leadership and his vision are the kind of action and the vision that they are applauding. His efforts, his desire to change the way that America behaves in the international community, is what is being judged here.
This is the same false smear that happens when people say that Obama has failed in his efforts to be bipartisan because the Republicans haven't been bipartisan, but that's just not true. He has done all that he should have done, and more, to foster bipartisanship. If it fails, it's not his fault.
No one says that we don't want more from Obama. But his vision so far is enough by the committee's standards.
It's been like watching a fireworks display of exploding wingnut heads today. Pretty ugly, but fascinating and enjoyable.
He certainly did more for world peace than Benjamin Netanyahu.
I also don't agree with anyone who think he should not accept it. That could be percieved by some as being just as arrogant, if not more so, than accepting it. (Which is what is really expected anyway!) SO that's just an absurd idea.
That being said, and knowing (hopefully by now) my staunch support of the president, my belief in his vision, and my hope that what he is striving for comes to pass...
I find myself agreeing with a lot of what the Time articles say. And part of it is the fault of his critics, those Party-before-country, America-haters on the Right, who have enough of a platform of their own that they've managed to actually convince a large number of people that this all somehow is a BAD THING. Yes, it sad how far this country has fallen after all these years of listening to Am Radio and Watching Fox News, but that IS still the country he's running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sad as it is, I think TIME is right.
Not true. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs told me stuff about he's destroying America and the Constitution and Our Freedoms and the economy---not just talking about doing it. They're not wrong, are they?!?
There's really no mystery to it. They're all conventional status-quo types who are closet republicans, even if they think not. When news breaks fast like this, they get unhinged, and lack the time to moderate their opinions. The truth wills out about them.
Since the election of Obama, this country's reputation around the world has bounced back. See, we are members of the world's community . . . we can't escape that fact Under Bush, we were seen as a threat to the security of the world and we were hated in many corners of the world. Obama is seen by the rest of the world as a beacon of hope after 8 years of fear, whether it is true or not.
People who constantly use this excuse are the true racists.
I'm sorry, but racism really does still exist.
In any event, I asked this on a related thread, but I'll ask again of the naysayers out there--who do you think should have won the award? Does any particular person or organization stand out as being worthy, and why?
"But peacemaking is more about ingenuity than inspiration, about reading other nations' selfish interests and cynically, strategically exploiting them for the common good. "
This sounds like the Peach Techniques used by our previous Administration (with some good old war mongering thrown in). I understand doing an analysis piece, but, with a statement like this, Ms. Gibbs colors the rest of her piece. She appears to have the intellectual background (Yale, Oxford, Princeton) and the experience, but this piece is really just a poor excuse for good analysis.
Rather disappointing to see it written by the likes of Ms. Gibbs. However, with her frequent appearances on T.V. talk shows perhaps she is polishing her resume for a jump to cable news.
Line, not like.
Yes, because it just gives the right something else to whine about.
No, because, they were going to keep whining anyway.
Of course this loss of bipartisanship has nothing to do with republicans using this moment to be more partisan.
Actually the Taliban statements are not nearly as harsh.
Stay classy Republicans!
The the basis of award will consider the facial skin texture of the various contenders to determine which is the most peachlike. The spirit of bipartisanship imediately threw out the ideas of basing it on whether the contender was considered a peach, by unregistered voters, peachlike, by peers, or of a peachy kind of personality, by members of Cynics Anonymous.
Many citations for smirking were issued.
There was a great exhultation!
Swirled peas ran amuck.
One prize to find them,
One prize to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them.
In the land of Sweeden, where the shadows lie.