I was surprised to hear that Obama won the Nobel Peace prize after such a short time in power. On the cutoff date for nominations, he was barely in his second week of office. And I'm still scratching my head trying to identify what achievement justifies the honor. Then I remembered that the Nobel Peace prize doesn't always go to people who earn it. Teddy Roosevelt won it. So did Henry Kissinger. As much as I respect Teddy for his creation of the national park system, I have a different vision when I think of him charging up San Juan Hill. I was more amazed than amused when the prize was awarded to Henry Kissinger, a war criminal who deserves incarceration for life without possibility of parole.
Not that Obama is like Kissinger or Roosevelt. It's simply that Obama hasn't earned it. It looks like a windfall. The five-member committee in Oslo, bending the rules to name him the winner before he deserved it, may be optimists or perhaps psychics. Their show. Their rules.
Maybe Oslo gives him too much credit simply because he has a dash of charisma, espouses values that promote peace and world cooperation, and knows how to talk. After the mean-spirited, go-it-alone prick exited the stage, Obama's commitment to rejoin the community of nations is a long-sought after breath of fresh air, equal parts warm and fuzzy. But it's the fuzzy part that bothers me. Looking good and saying things people want to hear is not sufficient.
Obama's dilemma is that he rules an empire with more military firepower than any other sovereign state on earth. He presides over two wars that he doesn't seem able or willing to end. As long as he stays the Bush course in Afghanistan and Iraq, he cannot be a person deserving of a Nobel Peace prize.
Oslo should have a rule that says you don't get the prize if you prosecute a war knowing that you are killing innocent civilians every day in far away places even if you don't mean to. Obama may intend peace as the outcome of his efforts but waging war for peace is like drinking your way to sobriety. It doesn't work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Now David! Are you jealous because you think you should have gotten the award! Gosh now may be your aren't you're just wising us up to our job. Yes our job, our destiny as proven by history, is to wield the power of the people. Enough of us expecting that someone we put in power will not succemb to the headiness of the power they now hold. REality brings us our job our destiny. Pushing back or resisting is necessary and that is our job, that is the power that the people have. Beyond protest lies vision and with vision the people can because they must redirect this man to his higher calling and the people to theirs. You see what we have here is lynching by award. You can quote me. The award has been used to make a mockry of the real efforts that have brought this man to power. We need to see the ugly racism as it is in its most naked form. This award is an interesing and unique method charactor assassination " dating only as far back as the killers of Julius Caesar, so its the new kid on the block syndrome and he's got to be put in his place, the little hitleric bastard, who does he think he is anyway? the Nobel Peace Prize has been kidnapped by facists long ago and they oncde again are using it to color their world "white".
ReplyDeleteOkay, Dave, I'm a skeptic, too. But here's a list of possible scenarios taking place right now. We can't know what is really going on, but these are my best guesses:
ReplyDelete1. Take it as a given that Obama is sincere. Also suppose that he's really not able to do what he promised. Suppose that he clearly realizes the limits of the power of the presidents office ever since JFK got his head blown off, more than ever now since he assumed office. What good is Obama without a head?
Maybe Obama got told a message when the CIA first briefed him, that he couldn't really do everything he promised and still survive. Maybe Rubin and Wall St. told him he could not really be the reformer he promised to be regulating the markets unless he wanted to go down the same road as Clinton. He's walking a razor thin tightrope. Maybe he knew when he ran for office that there were only a certain number of things he could do, and only as long as he didn't try to bring down certain people, and he took the job knowing he could do some good as part of his bargain. Like LBJ bargained his consent for maintaining the VietNam war to the military for his ability to pursue the Great Society. He knows that he can't investigte the torture or the Bushies without taking some major personal risks. These guys are going to take a long while to shut down.
In fact, a diehard cynic would suggest the possiblity that the deep cover interests that have entrenched themselves since JFK WANT a conspicuous demonstration that our democratic instititions have been so weakened that nothing we will ever do again will revive them, making them unchallengeable, and giving us as a country a good lesson in learned helplessness. Here, we won, right? But it didn't matter. A huge majority of voters wants a public option in health care they say. We have Congress, the White House, the mandate. What do they have? The big guns. We finally win but we lose anyway. "Things are too broke to fix, folks, just go away and leave us elites to run things the way we see fit." The elites are tired of playing games with us pretending we are really in charge whereas they know the truth. They want to end the charade and come out of the closet and let us know we aren't in charge anymore. Not really. This is the scenario that worries me the most.
1. Next, suppose the Nobel committee thinks that Obama cannot succeed in what he inspried us to do without major recognition that places him in the Pantheon of major leaders. He needs a boost to do what he wants to get done, they think. If they don't give him recognition early, maybe there won't be another chance. Maybe he will increase his chances of survival in his job, notwithstanding some very gutsy moves, by being deified and placed above the fray. The inquiry I'd like to see is, how many Nobel Laureates were ever shot? (Or maybe, How many of them SHOULD have beens shot but weren't? (K)) When you discuss that figure, don't forget the barbaric brutal massacres in Santiago in 1973.
Boy, that's a lot of maybes. But we can only guess. I've learned my lesson already. I'm not expecting too much anymore. I'll be quiet and go away. Maybe.
Here's why.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/101209.html