No one was more surprised than I was when Barack Obama received the Nobel Prize shortly after taking office. After all, he hadn’t had a chance to do much of anything yet and I’m not sure a few months of grappling with the large bag of burning dog poo left on his doorstep qualified him to be the bringer of world peace.

I thought then, as I do now, that Obama got the nod not so much for advancing peace as he did for not being George Bush. An honor for not being someone else isn’t much of a prize. Still, I thought it odd, but not troubling.

Although the Messiah-in-Chief donated the $1.4 million prize to charity, I would have preferred he politely decline it on the grounds he hadn’t done much peacifying yet. I think that would’ve been the classier move, but it was what it was and even John McThuselah supported the award.

Now Bolivian President Evo Morales and the Vice Chairman of Russia’s Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, are agitating to take it away for attacking Libya. Being the great advocates of human rights they are certainly qualifies them to pass judgment – at least they think so.

Indian-giving peace prizes is petty, stupid, and more image destroying than awarding the prize to someone ill deserving it in the first place. That even goes for George McMakepeace Bush even in the highly unlikely event he had won it – or, if Newt Gingrich wins it after President Carebear shuffles off his mortal throne.

If this issue – and I use that term loosely – goes according to the usual form, a thousand nattering nabobs will rise up and feel obliged to make this into a latter-day flag pin drama. The only thing more surprising than Obama winning the award would be if the Republicans didn’t propose a Constitutional amendment disallowing Muslim Kenyans from becoming President. Maybe Sarah Palin will make a stern statement like, “That Russian guy Moldevort, thinks Nobama didn’t deserve it, and he’s a lamestream COMMIE. Didja know I can see Russia from my front porch? (Psst, I’m REALLY running for President. I just make a lot of money giving speeches saying I’m not.) You betcha…wink…wink. I’m a maverick rogue.”

There, I’ve said my peace so go ahead and say yours.

Just do it quickly please. We’re going to hell in a hand basket whether he deserved the award or not.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

No one was more surprised than I was when Barack Obama received the Nobel Prize shortly after taking office. After all, he hadn’t had a chance to do much of anything yet and I’m not sure a few months of grappling with the large bag of burning dog poo left on his doorstep qualified him to be the bringer of world peace.

I thought then, as I do now, that Obama got the nod not so much for advancing peace as he did for not being George Bush. An honor for not being someone else isn’t much of a prize. Still, I thought it odd, but not troubling.

Although the Messiah-in-Chief donated the $1.4 million prize to charity, I would have preferred he politely decline it on the grounds he hadn’t done much peacifying yet. I think that would’ve been the classier move, but it was what it was and even John McThuselah supported the award.

Now Bolivian President Evo Morales and the Vice Chairman of Russia’s Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, are agitating to take it away for attacking Libya. Being the great advocates of human rights they are certainly qualifies them to pass judgment – at least they think so.

Indian-giving peace prizes is petty, stupid, and more image destroying than awarding the prize to someone ill deserving it in the first place. That even goes for George McMakepeace Bush even in the highly unlikely event he had won it – or, if Newt Gingrich wins it after President Carebear shuffles off his mortal throne.

If this issue – and I use that term loosely – goes according to the usual form, a thousand nattering nabobs will rise up and feel obliged to make this into a latter-day flag pin drama. The only thing more surprising than Obama winning the award would be if the Republicans didn’t propose a Constitutional amendment disallowing Muslim Kenyans from becoming President. Maybe Sarah Palin will make a stern statement like, “That Russian guy Moldevort, thinks Nobama didn’t deserve it, and he’s a lamestream COMMIE. Didja know I can see Russia from my front porch? (Psst, I’m REALLY running for President. I just make a lot of money giving speeches saying I’m not.) You betcha…wink…wink. I’m a maverick rogue.”

There, I’ve said my peace so go ahead and say yours.

Just do it quickly please. We’re going to hell in a hand basket whether he deserved the award or not.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

I was recently pursing through old political commentary, when I came upon these gems. The context: this was immediately after President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; pundits were thoroughly analyzing the event. The predictable reactions from both parties, however, were most humorous.

Michael Steele immediately shot out a press release criticizing Obama:

The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

Wow. That was quite harsh. It's generally considered polite to congratulate a guy when he's won an award. And when that guy is our president, disingenuously criticizing him at every turn doesn't exactly do our country any good.

The Democratic National Committee's way of pointing this out, however, is just hilarious:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.

When I read that "The Republican party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists," I chuckled for a good long while. The rest of the statement actually makes a good argument, but that sentence's hyperbole is just ridiculously funny.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

There's more...

I was recently pursing through old political commentary, when I came upon these gems. The context: this was immediately after President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; pundits were thoroughly analyzing the event. The predictable reactions from both parties, however, were most humorous.

Michael Steele immediately shot out a press release criticizing Obama:

The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

Wow. That was quite harsh. It's generally considered polite to congratulate a guy when he's won an award. And when that guy is our president, disingenuously criticizing him at every turn doesn't exactly do our country any good.

The Democratic National Committee's way of pointing this out, however, is just hilarious:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.

When I read that "The Republican party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists," I chuckled for a good long while. The rest of the statement actually makes a good argument, but that sentence's hyperbole is just ridiculously funny.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

There's more...

January 17, 2009, Israeli airstrike on UN school in Gaza

Always good when popular pressure forces a politician to do the right thing. In this case, the right thing is to discuss and act on the Goldstone report, which detailed possible Israeli and Hamas war crimes during Israel's invasion of Gaza last December and January. West Bank president Mahmoud Abbas reversed an earlier stance (purchased by the U.S.) to delay action, and now supports getting the report discussed on Wednesday by the Security Council and then referred to the UN Human Rights Council:

Criticism forces Abbas to harden stance
October 12, 2009
Michael Jansensus

. . . Many Palestinians were outraged when [Abbas] shook hands with Mr Netanyahu at an encounter arranged by US president Barack Obama on the sidelines of opening of the UN General Assembly.

Mr Abbas had said that he would not meet or negotiate with Mr Netanyahu until he agreed to freeze all Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Under US political and financial pressure, Mr Abbas capitulated to what a Palestinian observer called a "$200 million handshake,"referring to the amount the US pledged for PA budgetary support by the end of the year.

Outrage became fury when the PA agreed to postpone endorsement by the UN Human Rights Council of a report on crimes committed during Israel's war on Gaza earlier this year.

Palestinian economy minister Bassem Khoury resigned in protest, other PA figures called the decision a mistake, and Palestinians staged a rally in Ramallah. . . .

. . . In an attempt to limit damage over the Goldstone report, Mr Abbas instructed the PA delegation in Geneva and the Palestinian observer at UN to press for an early discussion in either the Human Rights Council or the Security Council of the 575-page document, which provides evidence of Israeli and, to a lesser extent, Hamas war crimes.

Fearing involvement of the International Criminal Court, Israel has threatened to pull out of US-brokered talks if the Goldstone report is endorsed and its recommendations are adopted.

Though it won't be as effective as human rights activists wish, especially not in the U.S., displaying Israeli immorality and criminality to the world is still the most promising path for international resistance to take. At least it gets real results (a series of diplomatic and popular blows against Israel are listed in "Israel-Turkey relations hit new low"), and the real results would mount if Israel continues on its present path. In addition, campaigning for basic human rights in Palestine and against war criminality on both sides is so obviously right and fair-minded that even members of the Israeli home team are swayed (see British UN ambassador in article below). Maybe even more so when the main argument against justice is 'you/they did it too':

There's more...