Nobel Prize For...

This is the statement issued by the committee with my emphasis and comments in bold...

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Note that they cite "efforts," "vision," and "work for" things like international diplomacy and cooperation. This has been the case in the awarding of the prize to many other recipients. The committee often awards the prize based upon intentions and efforts rather than outcomes.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

There is an obvious reference here to a renewal of diplomacy over the past era of aggression that was endured under the Bush administration. Additionally, the emphasis in making the award was largely based upon Obama's efforts and dialogue which have both resulted in a more favorable view of the United States and in world stability and climate. Again, the award is not always based upon outcome. What part of that is so difficult for people to understand? It is irrefutable that with the election of Obama and his move toward diplomacy and negotiation rather than aggression and bullying that a more rational and peaceful tone is being set in the international sector.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

Can anyone argue the point that President Obama has captured the world's attention? Or that he has given millions upon millions of people around the world hope? Hope that peace will come. Hope that, perhaps, sanity will rule the day. Hope that the greatest country on Earth will no longer be the aggressor but the peace-maker.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Clearly, the intent of the prize is not to applaud or reward accomplishments or outcomes but to honor those who the committee believes are endeavoring to make this world a better place.

Across the nation, right-wing pundits and disgruntled Republicans, so-called "Patriots" and militia-minded individuals are denouncing the awarding of this honor to our President. Some on the left are joining with them in a chorus of disapproval citing his lack of tenure and actual accomplishments as a reason for their discontent.

But, is their disapproval really that benign? Perhaps it is rooted in their lack of true understanding of the prize itself. Or, perhaps it is simply another vehicle by which they can attempt to besmirch and belittle the man to whom they lost their power base. Maybe it's all of those things.

The whine of the right is a loud one, for certain. Pitiable, really. For, in all of their lamenting and bemoaning it appears they have lost all of their joy, all of their emotional appetite for happiness, all of their sense of pride, all of their dignity, and all of their self-respect. In all of their plans to "take this country back," they seem to have forgotten what it was like to be a "real" American who celebrates our victories, our recognitions, and our people.

Keep Your Eye On The Prize

AWESOME! That's exactly what I thought when I got the news that our President, Barack Obama, had been awarded the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. What a statement and a testament to a man who has only held the office of Presidency for ten short months! It's a proud moment, indeed, for the United States of America who had lost so much stature in world affairs over the last several years.

Then...my jaw dropped, my eyes teared, and my heart sank as pundits and the right-wing began wagging their necrotic tongues. Their effusive dialogue can only be said to belie their continuous postulations of patriotism and love of this country.

While, I guess, the reaction should have been predictable, my optimistic and hopeful nature evidently blurred any prescience I might have had at my disposal. My moment of pride was soon defiled by the vitriol unleashed by loathsome pseudo-patriots of the right-wing.

Understanding that much of the current rancor among right-wingers and Republicans is lodged in the bowels of abject racism it should have come as no surprise when Erick Erickson of Red State retorted "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an Affirmative Action quota, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news."

It was surprising, however, in that he should make such an overtly racist statement and be so blatantly ignorant as to the nature of the prize which has recognized individuals of every race and nationality worldwide. Through such an acerbic statement Erickson not only cheapened the coveted prize but himself as well.

Additionally, the reaction by Rush Limbaugh was one that should have been easily predicted as the voracious and disgruntled Republican has been spewing his hate-filled, right wingnuttery for months now. This morning was no different as he said, "The Nobel gang just suicide bombed themselves," and "Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award."

The equally distasteful and repugnant Glenn Beck commented, "Obama doesn't deserve the prize but the Tea Party protestors do." Now, just what have the tea-baggers accomplished for world peace, I ask you?

With that, things got worse. Many suggest that he should not accept the prize while others question his "achievements," therefore whether or not he is deserving of such an honor. Still others belittle the prize itself.

In fairness, there are many who reside on the democratic and progressive side of the fence who believe that the awarding of the coveted prize to Obama came to quickly. Some question the timing and the validity of presenting him with such an award.

One can only imagine what the rest of the world is thinking. Last week, when the U.S. lost the bid for the 2016 Olympics, media personalities and people on the streets reveled in that loss. Today, as it was announced that President Obama would be the recipient of one of the greatest world-wide honors, the act was met with derision and denouncement.

From the Huffington Post we are told...

In its statement, the Committee said he had "created a new climate in international politics. ... Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." It continued, "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." That is, in other words, a true commitment to democracy.

You see, the Nobel Peace Prize isn't always about honoring a lifetime of achievement. Recipients aren't always determined upon criteria that requires concrete accomplishments or measurable outcomes. Sometimes it's awarded for the setting of a tone, the promise of change, or leadership and role-modeling.

Those who are hemorraghing and squealing like stuck pigs seem to lack the ability to think either in the abstract or deal with the reality that apparently the rest of the world prefers diplomacy, values, and character to a cowboy hat, boots, and a big belt buckle. The rest of the world would prefer leaders who are committed to solutions and peace to those with the "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

This isn't about who has the biggest and the baddest bombs or who can shock and awe the rest of the world into submission. It's about who has the ability and the acumen to recognize that we are all sharing this planet and that we must learn how to do so together and to lead us in the direction of peace rather than bullying people into submission.

As Robert Creamer so aptly noted...

" The Nobel Committee gave the prize to Barack Obama because he gave the world hope that its most powerful, wealthy nation would once again provide humankind with inspiration and leadership that can be trusted and admired.
Since his election, President Obama has launched a worldwide campaign to eliminate all nuclear weapons - recognizing that controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a practical impossibility unless we work to eliminate them from the globe. He has rededicated America to cope with the massive threat of climate change. He has reset our relationship with the Muslim world. He has rededicated America to the world's international institutions. And, he has begun to use all of the tools available to our country - including diplomacy - to create a more just and peaceful planet.

All of this is just the beginning of a long journey. But at least we have once again begun that journey down the right road. In and of itself that has made America safer, restored our respect in the world, and has begun to build a foundation for peace in the world over the long term.
Americans may not fully appreciate how completely they changed our relations to the rest of the world when they voted to elect Barack Obama last November. The rest of the world does. We should consider Barack Obama's Nobel peace prize as a giant gesture of gratitude.

I see it that way.

Are We There Yet? - Almost, Honey

I’m not about to mince words here or even try to play down the seriousness of what is happening in America at this point in time. As we, as a nation, try to heal from eight years of the most inept and bogus leadership ever to be chronicled in American history we find that the division in this country is ever-increasing. Disgruntled right-wing zealots are having none of the change that was promised to us. From behind their bully-pulpits, from their Congressional offices, from their radio microphones and television studios the ultra-right wing has raised its ugly head with a vengence. This vengence has generated much ire and downright ‘pissedoffedness’ from those of us seeking truth, integrity, and change.

While much has been written over the last few weeks about the disruptions and distortions engaged in by the radical right from the “birthers” and health-care reform opponents, for much of America the alarm bells haven’t really sounded yet – but they better. They better ring out and it had better happen soon.

Sara Robinson of Campaign For America’s Future has written a series of articles that really demand to be read by anyone who is concerned about what is happening in this country…here’s an excerpt from the first article:

All through the Bush years, progressive right-wing watchers refused to call it “fascism” because, though we kept looking, we never saw clear signs of a deliberate, committed institutional partnership forming between America’s conservative elites and its emerging homegrown brownshirt horde. We caught tantalizing signs of brief flirtations — passing political alliances, money passing hands, far-right moonbat talking points flying out of the mouths of “mainstream” conservative leaders. But it was all circumstantial, and fairly transitory. The two sides kept a discreet distance from each other, at least in public. What went on behind closed doors, we could only guess. They certainly didn’t act like a married couple.Now, the guessing game is over. We know beyond doubt that the Teabag movement was created out of whole cloth by astroturf groups like Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and Tim Phillips’ Americans for Prosperity, with massive media help from FOX News. We see the Birther fracas — the kind of urban myth-making that should have never made it out of the pages of the National Enquirer — being openly ratified by Congressional Republicans. We’ve seen Armey’s own professionally-produced field manual that carefully instructs conservative goon squads in the fine art of disrupting the democratic governing process — and the film of public officials being terrorized and threatened to the point where some of them required armed escorts to leave the building. We’ve seen Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to “a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress.”

This is the sign we were waiting for — the one that tells us that yes, kids: we are there now. America’s conservative elites have openly thrown in with the country’s legions of discontented far right thugs. They have explicitly deputized them and empowered them to act as their enforcement arm on America’s streets, sanctioning the physical harassment and intimidation of workers, liberals, and public officials who won’t do their political or economic bidding.

This is the catalyzing moment at which honest-to-Hitler fascism begins. It’s also our very last chance to stop it.

The articles can be found here…
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083205/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083311/fascist-america-ii-last-turnoff


Read the articles – and take a stand.

Quotes of the Week...

John R. Bihrer on Eunice Kennedy Shriver...

..."The triumph of inclusion: that is the woman's greatest legacy -- one she would insist be shared with her eldest sister.

So the idea that mentally challenged children would be murdered by the American government is not only ludicrous, it is a disgusting insult to Eunice Kennedy Shriver. And yet Sarah Palin repeated that vile lie for a third time today, the day Eunice was laid to rest.

Palin's own child's life has so much more potential for no other reason than that he was born ninety years after Rosemary, who had a sister and family that cared so much. That Palin would show so much disrespect to this lovely woman by lying about the legislation her brother Ted has fought so hard for... it is beneath contempt."

Chris Kelly on Health Care & Sarah Palin...

Are we really stripping counseling from health care because of what doctors might say? (We all know, given the chance, a doctor will always talk you into suicide. That's where the money is.) Why not forbid doctors from talking to patients at all, just to be safe? Call it the Palin-Grassley Freedom from Information Act.

Of course that's not what we're really talking about. We know that end-of-life counseling doesn't mean euthanizing the gullible. (Soylent Green is Palins! Soylent Green is Palins!) Getting this bill rewritten -- or getting it killed altogether -- is about something more primal than that.

It's about how good it feels to bully someone.

(That's what the town hall protests are about to. What could be more a more basic human pleasure than to scream at someone until they give you what you want?)

(And what's the most satisfying thing to demand? Silence.)

Bill Maher on President Obama's playing golf...

...Time magazine is reporting that since he became president, Barack Obama has taken up golf with a passion, playing almost every weekend for the past few months -- and I feel betrayed. He campaigned as a basketball player. It said to us, "I'm urban and athletic and hip and a team player." Golf says, "I like Lipitor and white collar crime." And it's not just golf -- he's been purposefully eating a lot of hamburgers in public lately, to prove he loves meat. And he said that, unlike before he became president, he prays all the time now and that his Faith and Neighbor Initiatives Director sends him scripture on his Blackberry to start every day. Jesus, is there something about that house that turns people into assholes?

I kid the Commander in Chief, he's very far from an asshole, he's a cool dude, and I want to keep him that way! I don't want a regular guy running the country. We tried that for eight years and New Orleans still smells like mildew. Obama was different. He wasn't Joe Six-Pack. He had a six-pack. And when he gave a speech it didn't make English teachers cry. He wasn't some regular schmuck who spent five hours a weekend on the golf course. Why? Because he actually likes his family!

...What they do,[President & Mrs. Obama] Americans want to do, because they're stars, and we're star-fuckers! And, like I said last week, we're not very bright, so we need direction -- if Obama grabbed Biden for lunch next week and ordered a veggie burger -- yes, Sean Hannity will call him a mincing fairy, like he did when Obama used mustard instead of ketchup -- like I ever knew one was more manly than the other. Stop caring what Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin will say about you. Be who you really are - a basketball playing, Jay-Z listening, city-dwelling hipster. The only sand trap I want to see you get out of is Afghanistan. And next time you have to get two guys over for a beer, smoke a little weed.

Mythbusting the Right

Sara Robinson is the cohort of David Neiwert at Orcinus. I have long been a fan of both writers and her latest article entitled "Mythbusting Right Wing Domestic Terrorists" hits the proverbial nail squarely on the head. In part:

Mythbusting Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism
Friday, June 19, 2009

-- by Sara

It's been a wild couple of weeks for those of us in the wingnutology business. Our services have been in tremendous demand as the mainstream media tries to sort out the meaning of what Scott Roeder and James von Brunn did. I've done an average of one radio show every day for the past two weeks trying to help various lefty talkers around the country make some sense of it all; and I'm generally gratified at how seriously people are starting to take this.

At the same time, I'm also appalled (though, sadly, hardly surprised) by the conservative mythmaking that's going on around the very serious issue of right-wing domestic terrorism. So it's obviously time to pull together another "Firing Back" piece to give progressives what they need to separate fact from fiction when these talking points start flying.

I've actually had every one of the following myths pitched to me by on-air interviewers, phone-in callers, and/or online commenters over the last two weeks. Most of them have come up over and over, which suggests to me that you're likely to encounter them, too. So let's walk 'em through:

1. These are just "lone wolf" psychos who are acting alone. You can't hold anybody else responsible for what crazy people decide to do.

True and false. But mostly false.

It's true that every one of the nine right-wing terrorists who've made the news since January 20 had a history of mental illness, domestic violence, and/or drug abuse. Several were veterans who were having a really hard time adjusting to civilian life. None of these people could reasonably be considered sane; and, for whatever twisted reasons, they made a personal choice to do what they did.

But it's not true that they were acting alone. People who are dealing with these kinds of demons are often drawn into movements that offer a strong narrative that helps them make sense of a world that never seems to add up right for them. They're usually drawn into organizations like Operation Rescue or the Minutemen that are nominally non-violent; but which also indoctrinate them into a worldview that justifies and motivates people to commit terrorist acts. They come to believe that they must do this to save the world, to serve God, and to be the heroes they desperately want to be.

They're already walking sticks of dynamite. But it takes the heat of that apocalyptic, dualistic, eliminationist, pro-violence narrative to light their fuses and make them explode.

Unfortunately, these groups also make it easy to take that final step over the line, because they often have close ties to other more secretive groups that do advocate and plan terrorist violence as a solution. Operation Rescue teaches that killing abortion doctors is justfiable homicide; and then feeds its most extreme members into the Army of God. The Aryan Nations and several other white nationalist groups supplied the nine members of The Order, a racist terrorist group that killed two people (including left-wing talker Alan Berg) and stole over $4 million during a nine-month spree in 1984. Al Qaeda got many of its recruits from the nominally non-violent (but still radical) Hizb al-Tahrir. Of course, when violence actually occurs, these groups always denounce it -- but they also usually have a very good idea of who was involved, because they've been hanging around with the perpetrators for quite a while themselves.

One of the things the public is finally beginning to understand is that the "lone wolf" story has never been accurate, because these guys are never really alone in the world. Every one of them was well-marinated in large, long-established subcultures that put them up to terrorism, and promised to make heroes out of them if they succeeded. ...PLEASE CONTINUE HERE

POCKET FULL OF MIRACLES

FROM NIKKI'S NEST


Pocket Full of Miracles

Being a white nationalist in today's world just isn't getting any easier. As a matter of fact, it can be downright difficult and, at times, more than a little confusing. I mean, just think about it.

What does a good white nationalist really stand for? Is he a Christian, a pagan, or an atheist? Is he anti-government or a patriotic American? Dose he believe in genocide or separation? Does he hate everything non-white or is he just anti-Semitic? Is he a little bit anti-Semitic, or does he hate all Jews? Should he fight for a white homeland or just a neighborhood? And...who should lead him to his long-awaited racial holy war?

Other issues plaguing the utterly disheveled white racist are things like should he get a tattoo or should he shave his head. Jack-boots or loafers? Suit and tie, or white power tee shirt? Beer bottle or tea-cup?...continued

REPUBLICAN TANTRUM

FROM THE DAILY KOS

Republican Tantrum: Your Tax Dollars At Work
by BarbinMD
Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 07:46:04 AM PDT
If you thought the Party of No had already shown us the outer limits of what whiney-ass victims they could be, think again:

Republicans angry over what they regarded as mistreatment by the majority Democrats retaliated by demanding roll call votes 52 times on one bill, a $64 billion spending bill for law enforcement and science programs next year.

They asked for votes on some two dozen amendments, even noncontroversial ones that passed unanimously. Then they asked for revotes. Then they demanded votes on whether they could vote for a third time. Once they ran out of amendments they came up with a couple more revisions to the bill they could vote on.

And these are the people that Democrats are bending over backwards to placate on issues like health care reform.