We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
One of my dearest, longest and most respected friends has stared more deeply and widely into the dark side of reality than anyone.We just discussed my “Davy Crockett attitude” toward President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. My way of being is to find reasons to smile in the face of challenges.I, also, believe this travesty further removes him from the ability of serious-minded people to support him.
My friend is qualified to be less sanguine: he served as a combat advisor in Vietnam, a MSM war correspondent in SE Asia, a refugee worker for the Cambodians who could escape massacre, became a Catholic priest, served at the Vatican, is currently a challenging professor of philosophy at a major college, and continues his priestly ministering.
Here’s what my friend has to say about what he titles “Taliban Peace Prize For Obama.” (My friend chooses to withhold his name from this post, so as not to intrude politics into his classroom or ministry.)
Giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is an even more political act than giving it to Arafat. More shrewd as well.
The Nobel committee hopes to influence Obama's decisions on Afghanistan. Now that he is an internationally recognized man of peace, he is not going to order a surge in Afhanistan. McChrystal won't get the troops he says he needs.
The White House has been preparing this ground for weeks, suggesting that since Al Qaeda is now weak a Taliban return to power needn't worry us. We can live with that, they say off the record. The great military thinkers Joe Biden, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod have developed a long-range John Murtha strategy that will operate along the lines of a video game: if you see movement on the screen, push a button.
And with the Taliban back in power, we won't have to worry about messy elections. But what about those who fought with us? What has the Taliban in store for them? If Afghanistan were not a land-locked country, we could expect thousands of boat people.
But not to worry. When asked about a possible bloodbath following a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, Obama said he didn't really have a problem with it and its possibility should not determine policy. He won't have a problem with it in Afghanistan either. After all, we've been told, Afghanistan, like Vietnam or Iraq before the surge, was always unwinnable. We'll accept a certain number of refugees to help ease the short-term sting of conscience over betraying an allly. But as with all vices, repetition makes the practice easier. This won't be the first time we've betrayed an ally.
I love your friend! He is as wise & shrewd as he is sharp & sarcastic :-) Would he, perhaps, consider running for office? I am waiting for (expecting?) our own Honduras, when the hapless Commie in Chief does something to warrant his ousting.
"We'll accept a certain number of refugees to help ease the short-term sting of conscience over betraying an allly" I cant help but believe That these refugees will be brought here in HUGE numbers and fast tracked to be voting citizens, probley settling in an area(with govt. assistance) that will tip the balance of power to dems .
well, I think they are drinking "the kool-aid" in Stockholm as well. sad that this award means next to nothing for most people because of these types of picks. Ridiculous but then Hopey Changey is in office and who would have ever thought that could happen. it is a mystery.....
Well this would only work if Obama were a narcissist. Oh, wait...he is that easily controlled? Then David Axelrod would just have to say the right thing and this egomaniac would do anything? I guess you could say this would be Stockholm syndrome?
feevert ... I noted here when Zelaya conspired with Chavez to alter Honduras' official Constitution, in order to change its basic statute that a president of their country could only serve one term, that our Administration's initial reaction was completely wrong in calling the Honduran reaction "a coup". I suggested that in thinking about it, we substitute our own situation if, for instance, our sitting President decided that he could serve another additional term, or terms. As the Honduran constitution requires, our own Constitution also requires that such changes have to be preceded by a national vote to pass a Constitutional amendment. Zelaya decided to trash their constitution and use ballots illegally acquired from Chavez, without waiting for a Constitutional amendment to be passed [or not].
So the Honduran Supreme Court mandated that such an action was illegal, just as our Supreme Court would do in such a situation, and ordered that Zelaya be arrested, and that the head of the Honduran Congress be appointed to an interim presidency until the regular presidential election this coming November. All these actions were legally congruent with their constitution.
And they are a sovereign country after all. So this was not a coup d'etat, which means literally a 'blow against the state,' but rather a legitimate state sponsored action.
But then our President immediately [obviously without thinking about it] declared that this was a coup d'etat. And Hillary loyally backed him up. So now our country is officially in opposition to one of our best friends in this hemisphere, and Michelletti, the Honduran interim President, was denied entry to this country to attend the UN meeting.
If we keep making stupid decisions and treating our friends like enemies, we soon won't have any friends left.
From 'The Times Online' (It would seem they nominated him themselves.)
"The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.
Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. “If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” he said. “It could be too late to respond three years from now.”
Look at the last sentence. The committee has bought into the HOPE meme and given themselves over to wishful thinking and denied fact. Rather than support achievement, they now see themselves as hoping to affect world politics. Hoping. I daresay Alfred Nobel is twisting and turning in rage.