Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
The Nobel farce
President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize for giving speeches? Former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri seemed rightly exasperated: “What has he done? It’s a joke.” I hope Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live don’t chicken out on this one. Lech Walesa, the brave leader of Solidarity in Poland, who won the prize in 1983, said it well: Obama “has no contribution so far.”
Theodore Roosevelt won the prize in 1906 for some action: mediating talks that ended the 1905 Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson’s post-World War I efforts contributed to the advent of World War II, but at least he won the prize in 1919 for some action, starting the League of Nations. One joke I heard: Obama will win the Heisman Trophy because he’s talked about setting up a college football playoff system.
The awards to Jimmy Carter in 2002, Al Gore in 2007, and Obama now have cheapened the Prize and exposed it for what it represents: the views of several left-wing Norwegian politicians. In any event, it will be interesting to see what Obama does with the $1 million award: With the hyperinflation his spending policies may bring, the award could be $1 trillion in 10 years.
back to top167 Comments to “The Nobel farce”
What has he done? We may find out two years from now that his policies prove disasterous — what will the Nobel people do then?
This presentation has all the marks of minimized group-think — I’m confident the parameters set by Nobel to receive this prize were not consulted, much less met.
This further cheapens a meaningless award.
Report comment to moderator
I had posted this on another Nobel thread, however I believe it needs repeating.
They admit it isn’t WHAT Obama has done, it’s a prize for what he is trying to achieve – they make a mockery of the award, which now means nothing – it’s a SHAM!
Report comment to moderator
If it’s not for what he has done, but what they want him to achieve. Doesn’t that make the prize a bribe?
Report comment to moderator
I predict, as I have before, that if Mr. Obama wins a second term, there will be political action to recind the two term limit for the presidency.
Report comment to moderator
Like Victoria, I posted this before, but
Jimmy Carter won it for bringing peace to the Middle East.
Al Gore won it for saving the planet.
Barak Obama won it for making the world free from nuclear weapons.
Report comment to moderator
Marvin,
I suggest that the highly negative, and often personal, critique of this by the right may perhaps explain this award on its own.
And I suggest that the more issue the right makes of it, the more this will bw driven deeper into the mind of the public.
I do suggest that the best thing the right can do is play this up:
1) it will provide wide spread understanding that the rest of the world admires our president
2) it will continue to demonstrate that the right is the party of no and is focused on opposing Obama no matter what
It would be possible to be gracious about this win without necessarily agreeing it was fully justified.
The right has demonstrated repeatedly that it has a lack of graciousness and it is demonstrating this yet again.
Report comment to moderator
It is perhaps instructive that WMB has three separate discussions on this one topic in the space of several hours.
Do they realy think that the nature of the discusison will change from group to group?
What it does show is that this award seems to have hit a sensitive nerve aong the conservatvies.
And the knee jerk negative often personal response demonstrates further that the conservatives have no ideas of their own, but rather appear to base their entire strategy on dragging down their opposition.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 9,
actually it demonstrates very convincingly how the world used to view America and how they view us now.
And indeed if this generates so much heat from the conservatvies we can draw some conclusions:
1) this is indeed a realy big thing and the conservatvies admit this
2) conservatives fully realize just how much this is a refutation of the conservative foreign policy
Very interesting. As I noted before, increasingly I suggest that the conservative response demonstrates just how much Obama really does deserve this honor.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize for giving speeches?
Absolutely. Speeches are the craft of leadership and peacemaking.
Obama also deserves the prize in medicine for discovering the cure for bush fever.
While giving speeches that held George W. Bush up as a menace to the world, Obama defeated McCain – Palin. He delivered US citizens a moral victory that was just as impossible as it was for the Serbians to renounce Slobodan Milosevic.
Report comment to moderator
Lets do admit this is more about the Nobel committee and what they’re doing to the legacy of the prize than it is about Obama’s character or politics. Unless someone is saying he engineered this, and I don’t think that’s being said seriously. I have plenty to disagree with Obama about, but I’ll find a better occasion to ventilate it.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and Marvin, at least Andy Borowitz didn’t chicken out. His headline today “Nobel Insiders: Beer Summit Sealed it for Obama”
http://borowitzreport.com/
Report comment to moderator
In a sense, anyone’s “Peace Prize” is premature, since there has never been a millenium when those who are peacemakers can rest on their laurels. Peace is always a work in progress, given the propensity of human beings to constantly see others as “enemy” who need to be killed.
We had an election, in which one side spoke of war without end as being the eternal price for “freedom,” while another proposed moving to the possibility of international reconciliation after the failures of so many years to achieve “peace” through pre-emptive and endless war.
The pro-war side did not prevail in the election, which was simply the people’s majority decision, but yet to be implemented.
There’s a reason the pro-war side hates the President so viscerally and it’s precisely because his rationality sees the endless war scenario they favor as futile and destructive to the majority’s peace and security.
There’s a reason Jerry Falwell and his followers never received a peace prize, despite supposedly emulating the Prince of Peace: his stated belief system was, “Kill them all, in the name of the Lord.”
Some Americans need to look outside our now heavily-militarized borders, to see the human faces reflected there. An angry America, focused on dominance and revenge through violence, lashing out in ignorance, dehumanizing others, is how we appeared to many of the other 6.7 billion people on our shared planet, over the past 8 years.
Obama was being generous to our self-image, and to his predecessors, when he said that America has always been for peace. Now they and their followers ought to be as generous to him, and be inspired by the hope that the world, extending its good will to us, has in America finally living up to its noble founding documents.
Report comment to moderator
nmrod post 140,
nicely stated!
Report comment to moderator
what it represents: the views of several left-wing Norwegian politicians.
Olasky is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The prize has always represented the spirit of internationalism, which Obama has decisively restored, against enormous opposition.
The prize has always represented the struggle for racial equality throughout the world. Obama has actualized, for the entire world, a dream of MLK, Mandella, and Tutu.
The prize has always represented aspirations for democracy. As the first Black president, Obama validated the legitimacy of American democracy.
Olasky contrasts Obama unfavorably with TR and Wilson because Olasky mistakes the prize as an award for Obama’s presidential accomplishments.
Report comment to moderator
Let me guess:
Is it for being a community organizer?
Is it for getting all the main stream media not to talk bad about him?
Is it for hidden pork he sent them in the last stimulus?
Were one of them appointed czar of something?
It’s for best bi-partisanship ever.
He’s going to make anyone living in America a citizen (so they can vote in the next election)
Wait…the new healthcare IS called UNIVERSAL healthcare. Which means it will cover everyone on the planet?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth post 160,
are you realy taking the right wing fulminations over Obama’s Nobel seriously???
The importance of the honor is, I suggest, directly proportional to how much the right fulminates.
Based on WMB’s effort, I suggest we can now be sure that this is indeed a very very big thing!
Report comment to moderator
The grandfather of modern murderous violent terrorism targeting innocents, Yasser Arafat, is a Nobel Peace prize winner. That is enough.
_________________________
Report comment to moderator
Your dishonest trumped up quote regarding Falwell is most bazar. However, your sophomoric attempt to persuade many of us as to Obama’s performance as being anything but poor says more about you and your lack of knowledge.
The reason most American’s were amazed that Obama won, (even Obama was surprised) was simply because he doesn’t deserve it, he hasn’t done anything except waste billions of dollars – that certainly isn’t anything to be proud of –
Many parts of the world have been jealous of the United States for a very long time (if one travels abroad, it becomes apparent tout suite) – however, when they need someone to help them, be it financially or with our military, we become their best new friend.
Many parts of the world would most likely not care if the U.S. went down, not just militarily but financially as well. With the plans Obama makes, that could very well be a possibility – but if that happens those who have depended upon the American’s will ‘go it alone’ as we won’t be able to help them any longer.
Report comment to moderator
If Olasky seems excessively burned, you have to understand that he truly believes Obama stole the prize from the players who busted ACORN.
Richard Wolffe, author of a book about Obama’s campaign, speculates that Obama’s reaction upon being awakened with the news was profanity.
Report comment to moderator
Falwell’s well-known and easily-verifiable quotation is actually, “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”
I submit, dear friends, that this is directly contrary to Jesus’ commands to us in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 – about loving our enemies.
If you disagree, your disagreement, like that of Pat Robertson, who advocated assassinating leaders he didn’t like, I submit, is not with me but with our Lord and Savior, Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING #18 – You are describing a day of reaction that deserves to be remembered in the story of our country along with the water hoses, police dogs, and billy clubs of the civil rights marches.
The most shocking thing to me about today’s response to this personal and national triumph is that the ugliness is being generated by Christians or by those who cater to Christians.
Report comment to moderator
NMRod – 22
This is the context in which Falwell made the remark:
This was after 9-11, everyone wanted the terrorists to be stopped –
You ADDED to the remark to make a point you don’t have -
Report comment to moderator
NMROD post 220,
does this quote come from an October 2004 debate with Jesse Jackson?
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 24,
now I have a practical problem with this approach. The key issue in terroism is to root out the cause of terrorists. While killing terrorist may be satisfying and in some cases is necessary, as Captain Ferris descrbied in a different discusion group, pure force is unlikely to effectively eliminate terrorism.
Killing terrorist does create martyrs for the cause and a recruiting opportunity.
And it is not clear to me that this approach is truly Biblical or certainly as a minimum consistent with the Gospels (I believe they say love your enemies).
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
are you really interested in trying to justify the various comments that Falwell made about 9/11?
Report comment to moderator
I agreed earlier that the award’s premature at best. They should have waited a couple of years and then actually evaluated achievements instead of potential.
That said, is there any reason we need three separate threads on the same issue?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG post 28,
because the conswervatvies perhgpas understand the importance of this award, and are infuriated by it?
I was hesitant at first, but the more I listen to the conservatives, the more convinced I become on the appropriateness of the award.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 27
Our country did go after, and still does, for those who were involved with 9-11 -
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 30,
as perhaps it must.
But it is straight forward anti-terrorism and anti-guerrilla doctrine that we need to convince people that terrorism is not useful, not try to kill them all: you can never kill them all.
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
and what did we do at Tora Bora?
Report comment to moderator
Musing –
Tora Bora has nothing to do with this discussion – if you’ve run out of material you’ll just have to wing it, I’m not interested.
Report comment to moderator
Unlike Jerry and Pat, I cannot any longer follow a nationalistic, tribal “War Jesus” idol.
I think megachurch pastor Greg Boyd’s “The Myth of a Christian Nation” and his newest, “The Myth of a Christian Religion” would be good places to start some self-education, along with prayer to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Constantinianism has permeated the Protestant church as much as it did Catholicism, but replaced Christendom with nationalism as the source of “Holy” wars.
Only the Anabaptists during the reformation period did not engage in wholesale violence and killing, remaining true to Jesus’ commandments to his followers. They were the martyrs who were burnt at the stake, strangled, drowned, impaled by both Catholics and Protestants who considered them heretic – all without returning evil for evil.
No war is holy. Regardless of the immediate provocation, which is part of a cycle of revenge and violence consequences stretching back to antiquity, once war begins, all fight on the same side – that of death and destruction.
Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind.
True Christianity cannot be like the religion of the false prophets of ancient Israel, who flattered the leaders and pretended divine approval for what they already wanted to do, out of their own lusts, while the true prophets were persecuted and killed, as Jesus warned.
Our pastors should not be war chaplains to the nation, having their pride of place with those in power, according to their keeping up the morale and appetite of citizens for the state’s wars, just as Constantine demanded of them from the 4th century.
Those Christians who seek this kind of dominating political power, regardless of good intention, betray Jesus, who Himself was tempted by Satan to be able to control the state, if only He would bow down, but refused.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 33,
I believe it was you who commented that we were intent on killing the terrorists form 9/11.
I believe as I understand the history that we had an opportunity to do so at Tora Boira and failed.
Amnd I:
- misreading your statement?
- misunderstanding Tora Bora?
Quite simply Falwell’s comments surrounding the events of 9/11 would appear to be bad policy and bad theology. They are also effectively impossible and a path which the US appears ot have at best selectively taken, so excusing Falwell by American anti-terroist activities would seem a stretch at best.
We can discuss all sorts of reasons why Falwell would make a number of unfortunate comments after 9/11. It is hard to say, however, that they were justified.
Report comment to moderator
I nominate Brittny Spears.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 35
NMRod brought up Falwell, with a quote that was untrue – I corrected the quote and put it in context, that took care of it –
I have no interest in discussing Falwell or Tora Bora -
Report comment to moderator
The fact is, Jerry Falwell, as a public figure, was no follower of Jesus, however much he used His name, for Jerry violated the only meaningful difference in mission that separates the figure of Jesus from all the other religious ones – that is, His order to those who would follow Him to love our enemies, do only good to those who do us evil, and never to return evil for evil – just as He, the Son of God did.
Jesus never took anyone else’s life, consistently forbade the taking of life even of the guilty and in the instance where a disciple tried to defend His life through violence, He forbade it and actually healed the severe injury of the enemy instead.
This “enemy love” is the essence of Christianity and without it, “Christianism” degenerates into just another fundamentalism that can be used to further the domination aims of the state, as all fundamentalisms are, whether in Iran, Israel, India or America.
Recall, that without love, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians teaches, nothing else, not even religious zeal, learning or correct theology have any divine effect.
Jesus Himself warned that there would be those who told Him they did so much in His name, preaching, casting out demons – and yet, He will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” On the contrary, those who did the Lord’s will, rather than simply speaking religiously, essentially profaning His name, will be acceptable because their actions mirrored real faith.
“Blessed are the peacemakers…” even should peace be refused, Jesus calls them the children of God.
And those religious leaders who counsel war, what shall they be called? “Why is my language not clear to you?” Jesus asks them, but He has the answer: “Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire.”
When the Lord Himself came as a suffering servant to those who reject Him, who made themselves His enemies, how can we dare tor revise His teaching and commands as incorrect?
Report comment to moderator
I hope Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live don’t chicken out on this one.
Why is it necessary to ridicule? Disagree, ok. Ridicule, however, is demeaning.
Do we put ourselves in a position to judge the worthiness of another’s efforts and accomplishments?
Should we not ask ourselves perhaps what divine intentions could be orchestrating such circumstances? If Joseph can confess that the evil his brothers intended was God’s way of intending good, then I suggest Mr. Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is no accident. God is intending something beyond my present ability to judge. There is a purpose for our President receiving such an award and we should look upon the situation with much more circumspection than scorn or ridicule.
Mr. Olasky, I thought you believed in the sovereignty of God. Why are you mocking this?
OH
Report comment to moderator
The more I read of the leftist and liberals who post on here defending the Nobel Peace Prize for President Obama the more sickened and disappointed I become in Americans that would find that a man who has done absolutely nothing is so qualified to receive a prestigious award. This cheapens the award. What would Gandhi think? What would Martin Luther King think, a man who truly deserved this award for what he DID to help to achieve the end of racism.
So keep praising him and keep saying that Republicans, conservatives or anybody who thinks this is an absolute joke of an award are morons.
Like I have said before I don’t care what you say because the more you defend awards and accolades like this, the more you prove correct everybody who is saying this is a joke.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
When Harry Reid stated on the record that he “hated” George W. Bush, was that the “graciousness” of the left?
I have heard nobody today speak ill of Obama himself, no personal attacks, no “hate speech”, no margininalizing…just asking a question. The question of what has he done to earn this once prestigious award…it’s valid and liberals would do your side a favor by asking it too. To continue to swoon over “hope” only decreases your credibility…so please…swoon on.
Report comment to moderator
I notice that in the Biblical record, there’s no mention of left or right, and that Jesus never exhorts how one must be a liberal or a conservative, to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
He consorts with extremists like zealots, with collaborators like tax collectors, with prostitutes and centurions, with the impoverished and occasionally the rich. He engages, but takes the side neither of Sadducees nor of Pharisees.
His message is that to be on His side, all that any of these need to begin to do, is to be born again.
Report comment to moderator
NMRod -
When you brought up Greg Boyd’s name in post #34 you blew it, he’s an open theist and connected to the Emergent Church -
Report comment to moderator
The question of what has he done to earn this once prestigious award…it’s valid and liberals would do your side a favor by asking it too.
It’s a valid question, KMURRILL. So what do you think of the answers? Americans are objecting to the right wing’s bad faith in repeating the question without taking any interest in discussing the answers.
Report comment to moderator
IAF
I don’t know if you were posting in reference to my post or not, but if you were, I’ll simply say that nothing I’ve said about Mr. Obama had anything to do with whether or not he “deserved” it or was “qualified” to receive it.
My concern was dealing directly with Mr. Olasky’s comments above. Mr. Olasky says he admires John Calvin. And given the emphasis on God’s sovereignty within Calvinism, I thought Mr. Olasky’s ridicule was unbecoming and suggested that it would be a much more interesting and thoughtful discussion to consider this situation in light of God’s sovereignty and the good the Lord could bring from it.
Nothing more. I’m not a liberal, a leftist or any other such thing. I’m a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and do not derive my identity from my political points of view.
My best to you this evening.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OH – I wasn’t referring to you at all……your comments are very helpful. It does help to make fun of this award though. The more serious we take it I believe the more sickening it will get.
I for one am extremely glad that we now give out awards for intentions instead of actual achievement, for words instead of for actual doing something.
I now will go to bed dreaming of whirled peas.
Report comment to moderator
Fair enough Scroop..but the answers are not about what he has accomplished, but what he MAY accomplish. That’s fine, but enough to lasso the Nobel?? C’mon.
Another answer I’ve seen is that it is because he is a uniter (or a “keeper-togetherer” in Bush-speak-lol)in the international community. I’m not really seeing this. Only two days ago he came home from Norway with a black eye from the Olympic selection committee…no one was talking about what a uniter he was. I’m not saying he never could earn it, just seems a bit empty right now. I will acknowledge that it was not BO who did the thing…he woke with it in his lap. This speaks more of the Nobel Committee than anyone.
Report comment to moderator
NMRod –
Although I’m not a big fan of Mr. Boyd, I agree with what you say and for the most part find myself agreeing with Mr. Boyd’s observations regarding Christians and politics.
I appreciate your posts tonight.
OH
Report comment to moderator
IAF
No worries. I didn’t really think you were, I just was wondering and wanted to clarify. Thank you.
OH
Report comment to moderator
You are welcome OH – may Whirled Peas come to the earth.
Report comment to moderator
IAF
Glory to God in the highest! Peace on earth and goodwill toward men!
Man I wish I was there to see and hear the angelic host that night. That would’ve been spectacularly frightening, a good kind of scary.
Better than peas.
I mean I like peas, but if I had to choose of course…
OH
Report comment to moderator
I grew up outside of Boulder CO and “Think Whirled Peas” was a very popular bumper sticker. I mean peace is so boring but the picture of whirled peas? Come on you would take peace on earth and goodwill toward men over whirled peas? You must be joking?
Think Whirled Peas and all those bombs and everything will just go away….poof…see….all gone.
Report comment to moderator
What do many of the Nobel Peace prize winners in recent decades have in common?
They all criticize America.
Report comment to moderator
XION
Is America exempt from critique?
OH
Report comment to moderator
MERLEBOY – see #16 for three good, unrefuted reasons.
Rachel Maddow tonight ran a collage of clips of statements Obama made before he was nominated Feb. 1. For example, Obama battled both Hillary and McCain over his promise to conduct talks with enemies without preconditions.
Obama’s election and inauguration restored America’s place “in the hearts of the peoples of the world” according to Pres. Sarkozy. Can four billion people be wrong? I propose that it’s impossible for the right wing to understand the prize, because they cannot recognize Bush as a menace to peace.
Report comment to moderator
To many, the prize seems to be worthwhile or not according to whether or not one is a political enemy of the current recipient.
I do note that many conservatives voted for Obama precisely for the reason that they no longer supported war without end, and they saw him as the best hope of extricating America from those self-destructive wars.
The Republican Party had become permanently welded to the neo-con “Endless War Theory” and so, to many Republicans, Obama was the most acceptable Republican in the race.
If even reasonable Republicans in droves found Obama to be the best hope for peace, then it’s easy to understand how much more frustrated the rest of the world would be by a superpower endlessly seeking war and how relieved they would be by such a stunning development as electing a President from a minority historically aggrieved by the worst of American policies.
This is a vote of confidence by the world in America, in the America they want to be inspired by, even though it may not be the America that a rump party of disgruntled dead-enders for an unsustainable past that favored racial elitism wants to return to.
Whether some of us like it or not, by the democratic process Obama was elected President by an unassailable majority. His legitimacy is without doubt, something only a minority blinded by and stuck in their own extreme provincialism refuse to see. In this, the world sees them as they are, and I can only pray that as the poet Robbie Burns longed for, they will receive the gift to see themselves as accurately as others see them.
Report comment to moderator
#54 Old Hick “Is America exempt from critique?”
Of course not. But let’s say every time you went out with your wife you criticized her and apologized for everything she did prior to meeting you. At them same time you constantly praise yourself and explain how lucky she is to have you to make her a better person.
Obama consistently trashes America wherever he goes and praises himself for all of the wonderful things he hasn’t done yet.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama should have refused the award, no matter how he thinks it might help his stature.
Report comment to moderator
Moth,
I see Bush as a menace but I don’t see Obama as a Savior.
Are you sure Pres. Sarkozy talked to four billion people before he made his comment?
And perhaps Musing will help us quantify the actual achievements of Obama–do tell us how much he has done “for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Report comment to moderator
Very thoughtful posts, NMROD.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus said: “MY kingdom is not of this wotld…” I’m with Him. PTL!
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 37,
I suggest that nmrod’s quote was misstated, but intriguing not necessarily incorrect in its capture of meaning.
I beleive you and I are discussing the meaning and context of this quote by Falwell.
Report comment to moderator
OldHickory68,
I wish you well my friend. YUours are arguably the most intelligent comments on this topic.
I will venture the following: if the conservative movement had a perspective such as you are demonstrating, the conservatives would be in firm political control of the country at this point.
Report comment to moderator
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.” (Heb 11:13-16)
Report comment to moderator
reader post 59,
despite apparenlty being on opposite sides of the political spectrum I agree with your pont:
“I see Bush as a menace but I don’t see Obama as a Savior.”
Obama is just a person. A very intelligent person and one with a different political perspective than we typically have seen for quite some time, but nonetheless just a person.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
You describe me pretty well and it is perhaps why I am not married. On a smaller scale, lots of folks tell me I’m a wonderful teacher but yet every year I’ve taught when students, my students, take standardized achievement tests, they do not do well. The acolades go to my head but the student test scores tell a different story. I struggle with it every year. I get high-scoring evaluations from principal observations but my students have never done well on the tests that “count”.
Let’s just say I know I don’t deserve the good reports, but they come. So with the President, I can somewhat understand with what he might be struggling having been given the recent award. Not knowning him personally, however, and not following everything he says, I do not honestly know enough to make a valid judgment of course.
OH
Report comment to moderator
I do believe though that God will bring about and intends to bring about good through Mr. Obama’s receiving this award, at least I think the possibility remains and it is why I shall not judge, condemn, heap scorn upon the Nobel folks or Mr. Obama.
It’s no accident that you wake up one morning to discover you’ve won such a prize. It’s not a coincidence, happenstance, oversight, whatever human judgment we may apply to it – it is ultimately of the Lord and that’s why we ought to be circumspect in our commentary about it I think.
That’s all.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OldHickotry68,
I am always amazed at the quality of your insight and comments.
My hat is off to you, and as I have said before, you appear to be a very very special teacher and your students are blessed.
Standardized tests are funny things. I found I did well at them, but I also found that it did not require the same skills which are critical in my work since then.
Standardized tests require one to understand the answers and material which is being expected of you.
Hard intellecutual work requires understanding the answers and material which are critical and important.
I suggest that the latter are often not the same as the former.
Good luck, and please keep posting.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
You are far too gracious and flattering. I must admit one of the reasons I blog is that within each of my posts I do fish for compliments such as yours, no lie. Makes blogging fun. True, I do hope what I post edifies people but in the end, I hope everyone, and I do mean everyone (the self-agrandizing aspect of my sinful nature which craves an audience and their applause), either learns something or is awed with what I write.
Inwardly sometimes, I do think myself worthy of such things as Nobel prizes and book publications – wouldn’t mind the Nobel Prize for literature one day. But I will say an inflated sense of self-importance is one characteristic of melancholia and depression. On a good day, some of us melancholies think we can and ought to rule the world.
I should have a disclaimer attatched to my posts – “Do not feed my Ego.”
Nonetheless, thanks for your encouragement Musing. Blessings to you this day and thank you for your posts as well.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OldHickory68,
you did not fish for this compliment, it was given willingly and on my own.
At root, to make any statements which are not in concert with the common understanding requires tremendous ego: therefore it is clear that ego is not just not bad, but is actually essential.
While I sense that in your formulation of the intent of argumentation, specifically its resting on a foundation of sound data and sound logic, you and I are in agreement, you and I are on different sides in our intent of action on this blog.
These are in effect your friends, and your effort to help them raise their standards to the level which they could achieve is both inspiring and admirtable.
This community has made it clear fomr the beginning that they are not my friends nor do they have any intent to be, no matter how I act.
So while I will regularly enjoin the community to behave better, I have no expectation that they will consider my words.
But while you can attempt to convince people to raise the quality of their arguments, I try to raise the price of not raising the quality of their arguments.
Peculiarly, I suggest observationally both paths improve the quality of the argument.
Your approach also improves the tenor of the argument.
Sadly, my approach will not, but based on long history, I sense that from my position in the argument, nothing I can do is likely in the short term at least to improve the tenor of the argument.
There is an interesting game theory discussion here, but that is itself a long discussion.
Report comment to moderator
The wonderful irony is that for all his campaign rhetoric, Obama has essentially continued the policies of George Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan to date. This is really George W. Bush’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Appeasement has never led to peace. Peacekeepers are not peacemakers but war enablers. The unrelenting lesson of history is that bullies need to be stopped, sooner rather than later. The notion that America is the bully to the world is a pernicious lie, an inverted American Exceptionalism that excuses all kinds of brutality and venality to focus its opprobrium against a vigorous defense of liberty and human flourishing.
The world consensus about the US differs markedly from the Norwegiam parliament and the chattering classes of old Europe. The countries that suffered under Soviet oppression, the citizens of Iraq, the people of Africa who received so much humanitarian relief under the previous administration, are far less enamored of our current president’s willingness to abandon their interests to curry favor with the self-righteous and self-immolating effete European intelligentsia.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
You know what you’ve helped me to do and I think your presence helps others to do, is to treat people with whom you might have a difference of opinion cordially. It is not that I reduce your presence to a matter of utility for my own benefit, but that what you say and how you say it demonstrates that it’s not the unpardonable sin to support the President. That’s what your thoughts help me to see.
It seems difficult for folks who have a difference of political opinion to be cordial, but I think your presence is essential, ordained of the Lord and contributory to the discussions. I appreciate it, eventhough we might disagree on some things. But so what? Such is life. Keep on man. It would be boring if this were just a blog of folks who told each other how much they agree with each other.
Thanks for the encouragement. As far as my own self-effacing, self-depricating commentary I just want to be sure I expose any potential false motives for which I may be accused. Sort of a preemptive confession.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#67 Ole Hick, “I do believe though that God will bring about and intends to bring about good through Mr. Obama’s receiving this award, at least I think the possibility remains and it is why I shall not judge, condemn, heap scorn upon the Nobel folks or Mr. Obama.”
That sounds noble, but you haven’t avoided judging. You are judging in favor of giving awards to people who haven’t earned them.
Would you say the same thing about past recipients, say Yasser Arafat the world’s most notorious terrorist who murdered innocent people, robbed his people blind and by some accounts had orgies with 13 year old boys eventually dying presumably of AIDS? Should we simply say, “Oh, isn’t that nice?”.
Report comment to moderator
XION
I’ve never claimed I was avoiding judgment entirely. Of course not. We use discernment and judgment all the time. I’ve simply offered another point of view as to what this award could mean (see my post on Noonan’s comments).
But I likewise have never stated or even implied, that I favor as you say, “giving awards to people who haven’t earned them.” That is reading far too much between my lines. I as the author of my words can attest to that. Never once have I brought up the merits of the recipients, past or present nor have I judged the intentions of the Nobel foundation in their selection of recipients. And to set the record straight, I personally believe awards are up to the “awarder” to determine the standards necessary. Of course there is an “earned” factor involved, but not being able to judge rightly myself as to who “earns” a Nobel, I shall refrain from commentary. I’ve never sat on the board and been among those who’ve made the decisions. It’s up to them, not me.
All I’ve said in short is that “God has a purpose in this and I believe scorn, ridicule, sarcasm and the likes blinds us to other perspectives on the matter which take God’s sovereignty into account.”
Likewise, I’ve said nothing of Mr. Arafat either nor have I commented on the decision by the Nobel folks to award him the prize. To take what I’ve posted XION about Mr. Obama and the sovereignty of God and to imply that I condone Arafat’s actions or to say I feel such a man “worthy” of an award is quite wide the mark of the intentions of my commentary.
Thanks for your reply.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Kenpost 71,
while you may assert with some truth:
“The wonderful irony is that for all his campaign rhetoric, Obama has essentially continued the policies of George Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan to date. This is really George W. Bush’s Nobel Peace Prize.”
Obama has clearly not maintained the same stance of American domination, and while it may comfort you to suggest your model, I suggest a review of the actual award wording provides a very different message than you suppose.
Report comment to moderator
Oldhickory68 post 71,
I suggest you may be seeing some of the behaviors I have suggested. At root yuor perspective is closer to xion than to mine, and yet xion challenges you, presumably because you do not follow his strict litmus tests, rather than consider your posts on their merits.
You are a very patient person!
Report comment to moderator
Bottom line for me in this thread is that I am disappointed by Mr. Olasky, a Calvinist, using the word “Farce” in the title of his post. I thought it would have been much more interesting to discuss Mr. Obama’s being awarded the NPP from the perspective of God’s sovereignty rather than John Daily or SNL parodies.
This remains the heart of my postings in this thread.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Obama has clearly not maintained the same stance of American domination….
But it’s still A stance of American domination. His changes aren’t deserving of an award, and his continued militarism should disqualify him. But it’s a private award, so their call.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabag post 78,
well I suspect that neither you nor I fully understand the reasoning of the awards committee.
That the vote was unanimous perhaps says something, although this may have been the classical political party unanimous (I remember my teenage Republicans group had a clause that an 85% vote was unanimous
).
But even you admit that it is differnet from Bush’s and I sense in what I have read that this difference was considered crucial by the committee.
Report comment to moderator
OldHickory68,
but where you are disappointed, I find it actually meets my expectations.
This is one of the best right wing environments for solid argument (an interesting statement in itself).
Lynn Vincent enforced a particualr code of posting and in the main (we see exceptions), her tradition lives on.
My sense is that Olasky, Mickey, and Tokarev do not demonstrate the same love for this blog which Lynn did, but the love they do show is perhaps sufficient.
But under no regime on this blog that I am aware of has sarcasm not been the order of the day.
It is still much better than Sean Hannity’s blog, Orly Taitz’s blog, obamabirthers blog (alas now defunct), worldnetdaily, etc., so my sense is I count the blessing we have and not bemoan the ones we do not have.
Report comment to moderator
Imagine that Barack Obama had been elected as an Evangelical right-wing Republican. He campaigned on criminalizing abortion, universal school vouchers, border fences and deportation, taxing the poor, stacking SCOTUS with federalist society scholars, eliminating all torts, expanding the death penalty, expelling the UN, shutting down Medicare and Social Security, the gold standard, destroying Iran, restoring school prayer and Bible reading, and withdrawing from climate change treaties. Imagine that the Nobel Peace Prize committee consists of James Dobson and members of the Heritage Foundation. Ten days after his inauguration, Obama is nominated for the prize.
I’ll eat my laptop if Marvin Olasky would be calling the Nobel a farce.
Report comment to moderator
reader, you should have told us that you see no use in random sampling.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like we have another SciFi fan in Scroop Moth, what with that alternative universe thing. Good thing about those hypothetical scenarios is there’s a built in hedge against having to live up to your bets. Who knows? Maybe Olasky would have been critical of the award in Scroop’s world. It’s not like the left has been univocal on the thing.
Report comment to moderator
I forgot the legalized torture, indefinite executive detention, and the termination of all security against unreasonable surveillance. That alone would have been worth a Peace Prize.
Report comment to moderator
So lets consider a different version of Scroop’s comments.
I have seen only one right wing blog wich argues that Obama bought the Nobel Peace prize, not unsurprisingly a statement made without any supporting information.
It is worth noting that the level of discourse on this site is at a level that is simply not tolerated in WMB.
So I believe we can say that the decision was the Nobel committee’s, not Obama’s.
And in saying that it follows that all the vitrupitive comments should rightly be directed at the Nobel committee: this is not of Obama’s doing.
But in castigating the Nobel committee, there is literally no new information: the right has been castigating the Nobel committee for years.
That the conservative community directs the bulk of their attacks on Obama demonstrates clearly that:
1) this opposition is not based on the Nobel prize but against any act or accomplishment of Obama’s (see xions posts)
2) is not based on a reasoned and thoughtful look at the situation
In short, Olasky’s lead in and the vast bulk of the right wing comments demonstrate the emotional, non-fact based, knee jerk response which has led to the dramatic decline of the conservative movement.
OldHickory68 is depsarately trying to save you from yourselves.
No one on the right seems to be listening.
Report comment to moderator
No Musing….I’m listening……I already explained that for now (just for now but as Obama’s intentions unfold into results this will change) I will only bow to my Savior Jesus Christ. But if President Obama does prove that he may be the last and best prophet and my choice is to be killed or bow to him I may, maybe, if I am not too old just bow to him also.
So, see we are listening to you Musing. I think Barack Hussein Obama is the absolute best president that has ever served and think that we should do away with that stupid amendment about two terms and let him serve forever.
And have everything run by him and his cronies. It will be so awesome. And there will be no wars because he will simply talk to everybody and they are going to put down all their bullets and bombs. In fact Obama is so awesome that I can see there no longer being a market for guns, bombs and bullets and all these factories are going to start producing little Obama dolls, kind of like Buddha. Rub his belly for a blessing. I see a whole new market unfolding.
Got to go….I have to look into purchasing a bomb factory so I can be first in line to have it nationalized and start producing ecologically friendly Obama statues. I can probably get some stimulus because I will be providing green jobs. Huh?????? I may be on to something here.
Anybody want to invest in my new business venture?
Report comment to moderator
There’s nothing knee-jerk about saying an award which is given based on perceived effort and not results is effectively worthless.
Report comment to moderator
#74 Ole Hick,
If all you are saying is that God is sovereign than what Christian would disagree with that? But you are asking Christians to withhold judgment about things because God is sovereign.
And so, taking that as a premise, I was pressing to see how far you would take that logic. Not very far. You simply got offended at the question.
I am very sorry that you are offended at my questions. I don’t see how we can have a discussion if I am not allowed to disagree or ask probing questions about your statements.
It is very common here for people who begin to lose an argument to claim victim status and call the other side mean. I am not saying you are, but it is something to watch for. A thicker skin is an asset when participating in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, we should also all remain civil.
Let me leave it like this: we like you even when we disagree. Same goes for Musing and others. I hope you have a tremendously pleasant day! Signing out for now.
Report comment to moderator
XION
I have never advocated Christians should withhold judgment because God is sovereign.
I have however suggested that when we exercise judgment and discernment we should do so with civility. Being a avid reader and deriving a tremendous pleasure in writing, not to mention the fact I make my living interacting with words all the time, I believe there is a vast difference between “joke”/”farce” and having a civil discourse which avoids personal degredation.
I took offense at your questions because they were very personal and believed them to be unwarranted. And yes, my skin isn’t very thick. I’m still working on that, or check that, God is still working on that. You should see how miserable I get whenever a parent has a complaint about me! We can disagree without getting personal XION. Never in a million years would I have thought to bring your job performance into the discussion. It was just a surprise, that’s all.
Thanks for your responses and encouraging exhortations.
OH
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 86,
when you say:
“But if President Obama does prove that he may be the last and best prophet”
are you asserting that Obama is a prophet????
I know of no Obama supporters who claim that. This is an interesting position for you to take.
Nor is Obama asking you to bow down to him. I do not believe that bowing is a typical protocol for president, but again you may know someting I do not.
Interesting perspective you seem to have ItsAboutFreedom, I did not expect that you would consider raising Obama to religious status.
Report comment to moderator
ringbearer post 87,
actually since kneejerk would arguably mean predictable and without contirbuting much new to the discussion, I believe I predicted this with my first post in WMB on the toipic.
And kneejerk and predictable indeed it has been.
Report comment to moderator
[Side note to Xion - have you asked OldHickory if he minds you calling him Ole Hick? It might just be *me*, but it's coming across as silly and disrespectful. Maybe you two have that kind of relationship (I'm not here enough to know), but just in case you don't I thought I'd mention it. If I'm totally off, please forgive.]
Report comment to moderator
No Musing I am reiterating as I did yesterday that Obama like Mohammed did not himself claim to be the last prophet. It was after his followers had taken over much of the territory of what we now refer to as the Middle East that they began claiming that his utterances were directly from God and that he was the last prophet of God. I am simply saying that like Mohammed, Obama has a lot of followers who blindly follow everything he says, they do not criticize him, they simply blindly follow. Maybe one day we will find that this following will turn out to be a whole new religion.
Report comment to moderator
But you just keep criticizing everything I say……if it makes you feel better to be superior to everybody around you that is great. If criticizing me makes you feel better about yourself, then fantastic, keep criticizing. Meanwhile I will continue to build my business, do the things I do in community and be very happy much of the time.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue
I know XION means nothing personal by it and I have not the least bit of concern regarding it. I am confident his shortening of my screen name is nothing more than good-sportedness.
BTW do you think I come across as self-righteous?
OH
Report comment to moderator
moth, 82
random sampling – that might explain it all
1. sarkozy randomly sampled the opinion of the world
2. the world randomly sampled 5 people to serve on the nobel committee
3. the committee randomly sampled obama as a winner
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom,
I believe Mohammed did claim to be the last and most perfect prophet. Do you have a reference that he did not claim this position?
Report comment to moderator
reader post 96,
lovely! Although I am unsure that step 3 was truly random.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 94,
given the amount you have said, it would be impossible for me to challenge everything you said, and it is not necessary.
I only challnege those things which you say which I consider to be substantive and incorrect.
So far, it appears when I do challenge your specfic data, it appears you are in error.
The simple solution if you choose to continue down this path is to check your data and make sure it is correct.
This is the second of the two oiptions which I earlier posed as possible.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom,
actualy you show some potential for analysis, although with the approach you have taken so far, it is difficult to be sure.
As a starting point, before you assert something is true, look it up on the web for confirmation and if you want to nail your point, provide the link.
It usually helps if your source is not an oped piece, or you are simply using opinion to support opinion.
I find semi-primary sources with the actual unfiltered data is usually the best. I particulary like the GAO, the CBO, thomas.gov, and the census.
Bizarely enough, and much to victoria’s annoyance, wikipedia is also useful, although I try to recheck anything I find in wikipedia.
Some thoughts; I hope they help.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
What’s your definition of “the vast bulk”?
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga,
I suggest a clear majority.
I assume you are referring to post 85.
For simplicity in this group count those articles which argue that:
1) the Nobel committee provides that their standards are ..
2) based on these standards Obama has/has not accomplished the requirements based on …
3) therefore it seems that Obama would not be an appropriate awardee because 2 and 1 are inconsistent
NO I dont think I saw anyting of the sort.
I did see a lot of posts that Obama hasn’t done anything.
I did see a lot of posts which assert that Obama’s actions are not good actions (a subjectvie stament)
I did see arguments that the NObel prize is of little value (then why be concerned about it).
Etc.
I think vast bulk does just fine here. Are you suggesting we do a detailed count???
Do you believe it will substantially change the analysis?
What other understanding would your argued attempted precision provide for us?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you wrote,
That the conservative community directs the bulk of their attacks on Obama demonstrates clearly that…
Not sure if you mean the “vast” bulk, or merely “the bulk,” but either way, I’m calling ‘baloney.’ You made the assertion; now prove it’s “the bulk” (or vast bulk, if you prefer).
Are you suggesting we do a detailed count???
Sure. Doing so would be “backing it up.” Let’s see it.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga,
but I already provided the crisp test for those which are not basiucally personally directed against Obama, and you did not challenge it, and under this standard, which his a clean objective data driven analysis of the Nobel committee behavior, we see that the majority of the rest of the complaints specfricialy reference Obama. As such they fail the test.
YOu of course may say baloney, but you amusinlgy did not challenge my test of those which would not fit this category.
So have you done a count? I suggest that as a starting point anyone which includes the comment” Obama has not” in any form is automaticaly suspect.
Now here you are correct, the left commentaries are of a similar vein and equaly personal.
But this is a right wing blog and I am responding to conservatvies not left leaning individuals. Further, the damage ot the right would appear to be far deeper than the damage to the left. I suggest either way the damage to Obama is effectviely nil.
I already made my sense known on this issue early on: I was unsure whether he did or did not deserve it, but by receiving it this early it places a heavy burden on Obama and his presidentcy. I am sensing that in some circles this analysis is beginning to gain currency.
Report comment to moderator
macrutabaga,
I found the following exemplar to demonstrate the problem:
BY tjs catlover 10.10.09 AT 4:38 PM
OH: I don’t really think Obama’s a terrorist. That was a joke. Equating hime with Gore was admittedly only half of a joke.
And we can continue through the perhaps 400 posts so far on this topic.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Baloney AND ludicrous.
So we’re supposed to just take your word that “the bulk” of conservative commentary on the prize is “emotional, non-fact based, [and] knee jerk”, and they are that way because they point out that “Obama has not” this or that? Well, he *was* the recipient, you know. You’ve made the claim; now I’m challenging your little “test.” So here’s where you provide your data and supply the detailed numbers.
And you did it again: I never said the left commentaries are personal at all. What a strange habit you have of attributing to others things they never said. Now I suggest that says something about you, something very interesting.
Report comment to moderator
macrutasbaga,
sop I did the co0unt.
Only four posts, other than mine, argued that this was an issue with the Nobel committee. Out of 109 posts I believe.
Yup – sounds like the “vast bulk” to me.
To change this statement you would have to say that perhaps 90 of the posts did not discuss the the prize at all, which seems highly unlikely.
I stand by my vast bulk statement.
Report comment to moderator
If I run up a multi trillion dollar deficit can I have a Nobel peace prize too?
Report comment to moderator
MauiDave post 108,
I think Bush tried that and it didn’t work.
Report comment to moderator
macrutabaga post 106,
no actualy as I noted, I did a count using my criteria, and indeed trying to err on the side of the conservatives if I could.
I cam up with at most four cnservatvie posts which seemed to correctly attribute the situatiuon to the Nobel committee.
If you are going to make this kind of challenge, would it not have been better to do the count yourself first?
I did not make the vast bulk lightly and had already estimated the approximate number of posts against the Nobel committee rather than Obama and it seems in retrospect that I overestimated after I did the final count.
Report comment to moderator
Uhh, yeah. Anyone else here buyin’ that Musing did a count of the posts to filter for the emotional, non-fact based, knee-jerk ones?
Me either.
Besides, Musing, your criteria are entirely artificial. I reject them. (Like it doesn’t have a place in the discussion to say Obama’s actions aren’t good actions? Yeah, baloney.)
Report comment to moderator
#39 – Does a believe in the sovereignty of God require that the Nobel Peace prize committee never be questioned or criticized?
Report comment to moderator
#34 – “Unlike Jerry and Pat, I cannot any longer follow a nationalistic, tribal “War Jesus” idol.”
NMROD, you are free to worship and believe as you see fit and I respect your freedom. But it is not honest or decent for you to so blatantly misrepresent the beliefs and practices of other people. Please try to disagree with others more honestly and honorably.
Report comment to moderator
#34 – “No war is holy. Regardless of the immediate provocation, which is part of a cycle of revenge and violence consequences stretching back to antiquity, once war begins, all fight on the same side – that of death and destruction.”
However, some wars are just and necessary. Some are not. It is unhelpful to think in such simplistic blanket generalties. Context and causes do make a difference. And the New Testament teaches that God ordained government authorities to weild the sward against evildoers. This does not justify all wars but it does not prohibit them all either.
It is intellectually dishonest to state that “all fight on the same side–that of death and destruction.” Study World War 2 and it is clear that the forces of death and destruction were predominately on one side (the Nazis) and they needed to be resisted. The current war against jihadist terrorists is also NOT a war with both sides on the same moral level. I admire those who are standing up to murderous and cowardly terrorists (even though many in their own country are ungrateful and hateful toward them).
Report comment to moderator
JM
Good afternoon, sir. Let me just give you a brief summary of my thoughts in response to yours.
I never intended or meant to imply in the slightest one could not disagree with the Nobel folks for their decision by invoking the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. Never.
I brought up sovereignty because I know, or at least I assume, Mr. Olasky is a Calvinist. I thought his choice of words and direction of the post about Daily and SNL as well as the word “farce” was far less interesting than discussing a line of thought that would have been more in keeping with God’s sovereignty.
Also I mention sovereignty because at least for me, it gives me pause in making a snap judgment. Rather than say, “This is a joke” or “This is a farce” why not “I disagree” or “It seems premature”? The latter I have no problem with. I think there is a difference. But I’ve paid for it today in attempting to articulate this distinction.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory, if you don’t care how Xion addresses you it’s no problem with me! I just know that some people would (and have) taken offense at the shortening of their names, and it seemed disrespectful to me. But I take your word for it!
To answer your question, I learning not to judge people (either which way), so I can’t answer your question!
Report comment to moderator
This is a paper not to be missed – Krauthammer has struck what can only be defined as the bulls eye regarding America, the crossroads we find ourselves in. It’s a time for careful study as to what each one of us will do.
Decline Is a Choice
The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.
by Charles Krauthammer
10/19/2009, Volume 015, Issue 05
“Among these crosscurrents, my thesis is simple: The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that
somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands.”
Another excerpt
“These gestures have not gone unnoticed abroad. The Nobel Committee effused about Obama’s radical reorientation of U.S. foreign policy. Its citation awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize lauded him for having “created a new climate” in international relations in which “multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other institutions can play.”
Of course, the idea of the “international community” acting through the U.N.–a fiction and a farce respectively–to enforce norms and maintain stability is absurd. So absurd that I suspect it’s really just a metaphor for a world run by a kind of multipolar arrangement not of nation-states but of groups of states acting through multilateral bodies, whether institutional (like the International Atomic Energy Agency) or ad hoc (like the P5+1 Iran negotiators).”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/056lfnpr.asp?pg=2
Report comment to moderator
Or if I want to use good grammar: I’m learning not to judge. Which I suppose, if this were true, I wouldn’t have made my original post in the first place, eh?
Report comment to moderator
#38 – “The fact is, Jerry Falwell, as a public figure, was no follower of Jesus, however much he used His name, for Jerry violated the only meaningful difference in mission that separates the figure of Jesus from all the other religious ones – that is, His order to those who would follow Him to love our enemies, do only good to those who do us evil, and never to return evil for evil – just as He, the Son of God did.”
This is unjustified judgmentalism. I am content to let God be the judge of such things and people. And I think NMROD needs to learn how to state an opinion without playing God. The New Testament also tells us to “hate what is evil” (Romans 12:9) and it gives God-given authority for government authorities (a category that may not include Christian individuals and/or the church) to weild the sward against wrong-doers.
A solid biblical case can be made for advocating that people acting under the umbrella of governing authorities placed in power with God’s sovereign oversight can fight to stop terrorism and capture and/or kill eliminate terrorists.
I also think that it was NOT unChristian for the men in that plane over Pennsylvania to violently rush the cabin to stop (and kill, if necessary) the terrorist hijackers from taking that plane bace to Washington DC to do more mass murdering.
Report comment to moderator
Well, thank you Endyblue. I’ve been trying to do that myself but I see that life demands I use a bit of discernment and judgment nonetheless. It’s precarious business to judge the thoughts and intents of others based on words on a blog. I try to address the issues and topics at hand myself without getting personal.
Old Hickory isn’t anything but a blog nome de plume. I don’t mind OH, Old Hick, Hickory, Hick, Old, whatever suits anyone. My real name is Dan.
BTW, if you are trying not to judge others, why the comment to XION? Just curious.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Falwell I believe was a believer. I know people who knew him personally. Like all of us, he struggled to live consistently with his beliefs.
OH
Report comment to moderator
RE: post 117
This the link to the first page of article
Decline Is a Choice
The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.
by Charles Krauthammer
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/056lfnpr.asp
Report comment to moderator
I should say I know a person who knew him personally (my former pastor in Tennessee) and a few others who currently attend Liberty in Virginia.
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory re: final comment in #120 — see post #118.
Report comment to moderator
117
Not to spread rumors but I’ve heard CK believes in evolution. But to mention this would be cause for thread derailment. Don’t wish to do that, of course.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#56 – “I do note that many conservatives voted for Obama precisely for the reason that they no longer supported war without end, and they saw him as the best hope of extricating America from those self-destructive wars.”
Actually, no one I know of supported a “war without end.” No one at all! The difference was between those who wanted the war to end with the torrorists undefeated and the field of battle still in chaos, and those who wanted to thoroughly defeat the terrorists before quitting and not leave the field with the remaining nation is chaos.
Report comment to moderator
#56 – “The Republican Party had become permanently welded to the neo-con “Endless War Theory” and so, to many Republicans, Obama was the most acceptable Republican in the race.”
This is a blatant falsehood, NMROD. I know of zero Republicans who spoke or thought that way. Disagree, but be honest.
Report comment to moderator
EB
Whoops! Those tiny little one-liners are easy to miss. Thanks! Don’t mean to pick at you. I’m full of contradictions myself.
For one, you wouldn’t think someone as melancholy and intellectually/biblically serious as I sometimes tend to be would be the sort of person who DJ’s weddings on the side.
But I do. I even dance to get the folks into it, eventhough I’m ugly and cannot dance.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#56 – “…it’s easy to understand how much more frustrated the rest of the world would be by a superpower endlessly seeking war…”
The fact is that the jihadists terrorists and Al Qaeda are the ONLY ones “endlessly seeking war,” and I do not regard them to be a “superpower.” NMROD is confusing the Republicans with the terrorists and that is rude, ridiculous and dishonorable in my view.
Report comment to moderator
macrutabaga post 111,
if you look carefuly at my argument that the correct model is to critique the NObel committee rather than blmae obama, then I merely need to do a search fo the posts in this thread for nobel committee.
When I did it I found four that were not my postings, and for generosities sake I credited all four of these to conservatvies.
I was incidently delighted to see that Victoria had critiqued the Nobel committee: victoria has a sharp mind which can be very incisive on these issues,
You are of course free to perform my test and provide alternate numbers if you so find.
Then we can discuss this on a fact based basis.
I look forward to your numbers.
Report comment to moderator
I only say I’m ugly, not as a slant against my Creator, but because after the innumerable events such as weddings, were there are always a plethora of single women ready to catch the bride’s flowers (I’m too lazy to check and see how to spell “beau – k”) never but once have I been asked to dance by anyone. That one time was only because she was trying to make her ex-husband jealous.
So, that’s sort of my empirical evidence that a majority of single women have determined I’m not physically attractive, which may in fact lend credence to the notion I’m ugly. I really cannot say myself with any certainty, though and I do not lament my physical appearance. It just seems that after 40 years, it has been tried and found wanting.
OH
Report comment to moderator
NMROD wrote; “Whether some of us like it or not, by the democratic process Obama was elected President by an unassailable majority. His legitimacy is without doubt, something only a minority blinded by and stuck in their own extreme provincialism refuse to see.”
And who would this be, NMROD? I know of no reasonable thinkers, Republicans, Christians or any group who is denying Obama’s legitimacy as an elected President. Please identify whom your are writing about. Who is blinded?
But many reasonable people ARE correctly identifying this peace prize as an illegitimate and cheap partisan joke.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 117,
I find your excerts from Krauthauer appealing.
I agree that America is in an interestng positons.
My one observation is that by electing Obama wiht a significant majority, my sense is the people said they wanted a change form the old paths which were, I suggest leading us into decline.
The new path may itself fail, in fact arguably will, but it is a different path from that which we can say with high confidence will fail.
And in this I suggest captures much of the rhythm of the present political confrontation.
Report comment to moderator
#67 – OLDHICKORY wrote; “I do believe though that God will bring about and intends to bring about good through Mr. Obama’s receiving this award, at least I think the possibility remains…”
This, I agree with. After all, God even brought GREAT good out of the most stupid think human beings ever did — namely; crucify God’s Son.
But this true principle, stated by Old Hickory, is not grounds for prohibiting us from identifying the Nobel choice as an illegitimate and overly partisan choice.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 133,
again the key statement you make is “I know of” which has the same embeed fallacy as yor argument about racists voting.
I certainly can not know what you know until as a minimum you tell me or I tell you.
I can say since I peruse many conservaqtvie blogs that there is a measureable contingent who argue that Obama is not legitimate. We have actually seen such posters in WMB, although they did not stay long.
Even in this discussion, I suggest there is a subtle undercurrent of lack of legitimacy, otherewise there would be at least repsect for the office if not the person.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Specifically (repeat: specifically) what do you believe are the most significant differences between the old paths and the new?
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 127,m
so Cheney is not a Republican?
Again your choice of words is cute, but it covers what I suggest is a major misstatement of the situation.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
based on your posts, it would seem that you know very very few people, never read newspapers, or ever see any other form of media.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
I agree with your first two paragraphs but shall contend to the bitter end that I ever suggested anyone refrain from offering a critique or difference of opinion regarding the Nobel folks’ choice of recipient simply because God is sovereign.
I simply was stating what I thought was a difference between taking an a priori stance that this was a “joke” and discussing it in a civil fashion. Nothing, absolutely nothing more than that. I was not judging other Christians’ faith, I was not attempting to be condescending, I did not intend to be self-righteous and I’ve posted way more than I should have about it, like I always do.
Anyhow, pax, brother.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory,
I don’t mean to pester you about this, but isn’t it possible that some folks judged the award was a joke based not on a priori assumptions, but after considering the merits of the Nobel case?
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga post 136,m
so yo have dropped your challenge of my numbers? Excellent.
The simples model is that the old path argues that elections are won by tearing down your opposition, and by misstating to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt.
The cleanest recent examples are:
1) health reform includes death panels
2) health reform will provide free insurance to all so private insurance will not be able to compete
3) health reform will remove $500B form medicare benefits
etc, wihtoyut providing a significant viable and real;isitic policy option to dealwith th eproblem.
The newer path, and it is still nascent and incokmpelte, is to argue that we should discuss based on fact, for example:
1) health care must be reformed or it will consume such a large part of our GDP that we will be uncompetitive
2) the first step whihc must be addressed is ensuring that all American have health insurance
3) health insurance reform is required to ensure that all Americans can keep their health insurance
4) that this can be done without necessarily increasing the federal deficit
The first set are quite simply misstatements dsigned to instill fear.
The last set provides a comprehensive data driven approach to the issue. One may disagree with the data, but one still has real data to discuss.
That is the clearest and most recent case for demonstrating the difference between the old path and the new.
Report comment to moderator
macrutabaga post 140,
based on my numbers for this discussion thread, not many at all.
Report comment to moderator
OldHIckory68,
I trust you are finding the nature and tenor of the discussion enlightening.
Report comment to moderator
Bottom line for me in this thread is that I commend Mr. Olasky for his level-headed critique of the award decision and for the fair and correct use of the wrod “farce” in the headline. When Jesus, fully under the sovereignty of God, came to this earth, he often used such terms (he preferred the word “hypocrite”) to describe those of his day who were earning such a critique from Jesus. Brave people are not afraid to use words that fit the context in all fairness.
Perhaps God sovereignly ordained that Obama win this award for the very purpose of so clearly revealing to all clear-thinking people what a farce it has been for so long. The wisdom of men is foolishness to God and it does not get more foolish or farcical than this award (it was MOST foolish when Arafat got it).
________________
Report comment to moderator
Scroop is right – a self-indulgent theological debate.
Report comment to moderator
Mac
Absolutely possible, brother.
That wasn’t my contention. “Joke” or “farce” is. I can say, “I don’t agree with this because I do not believe Mr. Obama has done enough to merit the award” or I can say, “This is a joke.”
Is there not a difference? I should just drop it, though. My insistence upon this point has made me look pretty foolish. Although I’ll contend I was only posting in response to others responses, which is why I like to blog in the first place – exchange ideas, etc.
Anyhow, no worries.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Nah, I still call baloney on your numbers. I wouldn’t exactly call your methods “scientific.” But I did notice you gave up arguing I was making a big deal out of the freewill stuff. That was the right thing to do, so well done
.
So one significant difference between the old and new paths is healthcare reform debate. OK, that’s one example. I say it’s insignificant as an example of a radical difference, but I’ll give it to you for the sake of argument.
So what other big differences are there?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you skated entirely by my point. Referring to those “I know of” was my way of asking NMROD to tell us who on earth he was referring to as having “extreme provincialism” and refusing to see the legitimacy of Obama’s election? I know of no one who is denying that. Do you know of anyone? If so, tell us who it is rahter than just being obtuse to me. It seemed to me that NMROD was arguing against a straw man that has not been seriously advocated by the right or any serious people I know of.
Tell us who the guilty ones are if you think that NMROD had a point. Who is it that are denying Obama’s legitimacy as an elected President? Address my points honestly.
Report comment to moderator
#138, Musing wrote; “based on your posts, it would seem that you know very very few people, never read newspapers, or ever see any other form of media.”
Again, please address my point intellectually rather than just trying to be cute.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 133
Many times people want a change, they don’t like what they have so they go in search for something,….. that ’something’ isn’t always investigated before one chooses, often times ignoring the obvious. This scenario is played out in peoples lives all the time using marriage as an example. Many people see the grass to be greener so to speak, and once on that grass find out it’s full of weeds, and centipede’s, which were never revealed before taking a plunge to something far worse than before.
Using the above as an example many people voted for Obama in the election, not checking his credentials, but blinded by what they didn’t like about Bush – hence the polls prove how disgruntled the public has become with Obama. Obama’s credentials were investigated by many, but there were far more who didn’t pay attention and waited for the ‘change’ – the ‘change has proven to be full of weeds and centipede’s – the cost to the American people and our children and grandchildren is a burden that might be too heavy.
The U.S. owes great financial amounts to other countries, countries which we do not agree with, who abuse human rights, etc. What are we left with? – we have been shamed by those who pretended to know the answers, who played a nasty game, and continue to do so. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out DECLINE is a choice. The hour is late, but if the American people pulled together, not letting Congress, the Senate and White House dictate where our country is going, but insist that “we the people” do not want the direction they have taken, but instead have made a mistake as to our elected Senators and Congress and President want a NEW DIRECTION one that encompasses self responsibility of each citizen of this country, making provisions for those who are helpless, afflicted with disease and mental disabilities – we could then move forward.
We have too many individuals who believe they are entitled to other peoples resources, rather than doing their part for themselves and their families. The time is coming when there won’t be resources, the illegal alien problem of over 20 million people plus all the children from their families will double and triple within a few short years – we cannot support these people nor can we make them citizens, they have broken the law intentionally.
Report comment to moderator
OLD HICKORY, we both agree on the sovereignty of God and so does Olasky I’m sure. But it seems to me to be a red herring in this particular conversation. After reading your posts, I still have no idea how it applies to this practical and temporal difference of opinion.
Report comment to moderator
JM
Are you suggesting the thoughts which I offer regarding Mr. Olasky’s choice of words and tone are hypocritical?
I don’t get that. I offer a difference of opinion and have been called “self-righteous” that I “lack discernment” that I think this is “all about me” that I am “self-indulgent” and now you appear to suggest I’m a hypocrite.
If I’m misunderstanding, forgive me. What gets me is that I’ve been more than candid about my own false motives and struggles with sin and pride when I post. I say nothing against anyone personally, not even Mr. Olasky – not on a personal level anyway. I only mentioned sovereignty because I knew Mr. O to be a Calvinsist and I simply thought that a discussion related to God’s sovereignty instead of one laced with overtones of ridicule (Daily Show and SNL references) to be beneath the sort of discourse of Mr. Olaksy’s otherwise thoughtful and insightful writings.
Is that so bad?
OH
Report comment to moderator
JM
I don’t want to discuss it anymore. It’s not worth it. Thanks, though.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Amen, JM 151.
Report comment to moderator
A Dutch proverb teaches us:”Those are strong legs that can bear-up
under enormous luxury.”(or flattering exultation.) With so much the more fervor let us pray for our President’s seeking after God’s grace to transform his Office to instill many blessings at home and
abroad.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 150,
I sugegst however that this was not a case of change for change sake.
And I suspect we are only beginning to see just how big a change this is.
But as with most things, only time will tell.
P.S. it is interesting to note that Obama has apparentrly never lost the level of support with which he got elected.
Report comment to moderator
OH we see the changes, yes we do ….. billions of dollars blown out the WH windows – we don’t have to wait for time, the windy air surrounding Obama and all his schemes blowing around without substance aren’t a secret. Obama talked about “change” and that’s about all we have after the billions have been squandered, just a bit of change in the pocket to buy a coffee….. MAYBE!
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 157,
yes I did find the approximately $3T deployed unde rthe Bush administration for bailing out a financial system which melted down due to failure of Bush administrations regulatiuons and $3T wasted on the Iraq war because the Bush administration very frustrating.
Fortunately for only $775B or so, Obama seems to be making progress against the economic carnage of the Bush administration. A bargain by comparison I would suggest.
Report comment to moderator
OH asked me; “Are you suggesting the thoughts which I offer regarding Mr. Olasky’s choice of words and tone are hypocritical?”
Not in the slightest. Where on earth did you get such an impression?
OH wrote; “I offer a difference of opinion and have been called “self-righteous” that I “lack discernment” that I think this is “all about me” that I am “self-indulgent” and now you appear to suggest I’m a hypocrite.”
OldHickory, why are you importing things others said into your response to me? It makes no sense. I don’t think I called you any of those things and I did not read posts that did. I was nothing but respectful. Did you NOT want anyone to response to the opinion of offered? If not, why did you post it?
OH wrote; “What gets me is that I’ve been more than candid about my own false motives and struggles with sin and pride when I post.”
Please get a grip, OH. Your complaints in your response to me have nothing to do with anything I said in response to you.
OH asked; “Is that so bad?
I merely disagreed with your point, OH. I never said anything your said was bad.
Report comment to moderator
OH wrote; “I don’t want to discuss it anymore. It’s not worth it.”
You have every right to opt out of a conversation, but you have zero grounds for any frustration with me. I was only respectful to you. I think you have imagined some strange motives in my comments to you that are not there at all. I thought, since your posted on this thread, that you welcomed repsectful responses, including disagreement.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
recognizing of course that when certain posters then find that they have run out of argument they will turn towards personal invective?
Report comment to moderator
You know, the Nobel committee could have avoided much criticism by simply saying that Obama had won the prize for being the first black president… That is something he has already accomplished.
However, I agree that he has neither earned it or deserved it. Furthermore, someone above stated that Obama got it for ridding the world of Nukes? What world? I assume that must have been a joke because it is certainly not true…
Report comment to moderator
#92 Ole Blue “Side note to Xion – have you asked OldHickory if he minds you calling him Ole Hick?”
Terms of endearment. I shorten most polysyllabic names. Like calling someone named Rumpelstiltskin, Rump. (Oooo bad example).
I could use OH, but that means hydrogen peroxide. What malintent could be read into that? Maybe this is a teachable moment that we as a society have become too sensitive.
Have you seen Clint Eastwood’s movie Gran Torino? It was a bad movie, but I laughed at the throwback to male interplay that was popular when I was a kid.
I assume that if anyone objects they can tell me themselves and I’ll call them whatever they like.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark’s concept of a discussion is that he writes a formula on the blackboard and then whacks it with a white pointer and orders people to “read what I wrote!” If they laugh at him, he says, “Please show respect!”
Report comment to moderator
“The awards to Jimmy Carter in 2002, Al Gore in 2007, and Obama now have cheapened the Prize and exposed it for what it represents: the views of several left-wing Norwegian politicians.”
But you left out the worst one Olasky!
When the fat little terrorist from Palestine won it, there was no question that the Nobel Peace Prize was meaningless….
So who is surprised when a nobody like Obama wins it?
Report comment to moderator
“It was a bad movie, but I laughed at the throwback to male interplay that was popular when I was a kid.”
You laugh, and say that it was popular, but I still get that stuff in some of the shops around here. You only know that you’re “one of the guys” if they can rag on you… It’s when they give you the evil eye, and the cold shoulder that you know you’re never going to fit in.
Report comment to moderator
#166 Really MIM? You must live in middle America somewhere out of earshot of the Thought Police.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!