Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
It is interesting that one of those things inexorably morphs into the other of those things. The prize is supposed to be about bringing and sustaining peace. In a perfect world, wouldn’t that be a different thing from speechmaking? In a world without glaring problems with how people think out weighty, taxing problems, wouldn’t these at least be somewhat different things?
Well, analyzing speeches can be a useful exercise…if for no other reason, than that speeches are designed to pack an influence on evolving events. And so it piqued my curiosity when James Fallows analyzed each of the four paragraphs President Obama delivered — yes, once again, about Himself and His thoughts — and evaluated each one. Fallows awards the President something equivalent to an A-plus, and I agree. Every Obama speech brings on a rush to anoint said speech as the “Best One Evar!” but Obama speeches really rise above other Obama speeches when there is a vexing public relations problem to be taken on, one that would defeat the efforts of a lesser speechmaker. This is when President Obama’s talents are really put on display for all to see.
Which of course, leaves the question of how & why there is a vexing public relations problem arising from what is supposed to be an enormous personal and political win. The question is certainly there…but for the time being I’ll leave it to others.
Fallows linked to Jerome Doolittle, who has ten points handy for a Republican response. Doolittle is a lefty blogger so I’m not sure what the intent is here. It seems to be a prediction of what the opposition is going to be doing; the old “if I can predict what it is going to do, that says something against it” argument. But ninety percent of these, accidentally or otherwise, are good points. Especially #7.
1. What do you expect from a bunch of socialists?
2. Not that I’m a racist, but I know affirmative action when I see it.
3. Carter, Gore, Obama? Do we see a pattern here?
4. A clumsy attempt by Europe to save a failing presidency.
5. The Norwegians are just using Obama to slap George W. Bush in the face.
6. Besides, who cares what a bunch of geeks in Oslo think? The International Olympic Committee speaks for the whole world.
7. No thinking person has taken the Nobel Peace Prize seriously since Reagan didn’t win one for ending the Cold War.
8. We elect a president to keep America safe, not to win prizes.
9. True leadership is not an international popularity contest.
10. Peace is no big deal anyway. No, wait a minute. Strike that last one.
I would modify #10 to say something like this: As is the case with all of the rest of us, the Nobel Prize committee fails at its mission when it fails to define what it is. The failure to acknowledge Reagan’s victory in bringing about exactly the kind of world that was desired by liberals for generations, proves that for the benefit of anyone who would seriously question it. To achieve victory at anything, you have to define things.
We call on the Nobel Prize Committee to renew their commitment to their mission, by defining what it is. What is peace? Does hope have something to do with peace? Did hope ever have anything to do with peace? Does peace have something to do with people feeling positive about recent events…or public figures…like Barack Obama. Does it have a close kinship with feelings of excitement and inspiration? I’ll leave it to the readers of my words to invoke the Godwin rule, for Hitler doesn’t have much to do with what I’m talking about — but let’s face it, he made a lot of people hopeful, excited and inspired. So the peace-and-positive-feelings connection is at the very least disturbed, if not rent asunder.
How about feelings of security? Are they peace? Do all wars erupt from people feeling insecure, like they’re facing an uncertain future, and can achieve lasting prosperity by no means other than to hurt others? Or would it be more accurate to say our smaller skirmishes, great wars, and conflicts of any magnitude between result from people who simply lack moral restraint occupying positions of great power…and then when looking for ways to make their power even greater, realizing a benefit is theirs for the taking.
These are deep thoughts. There is, perhaps, no panel on the face of the earth better suited to noodle ’em out. I/We call on the Nobel Prize Committee to do so. They need to. As noted before, we all fail in our more challenging pursuits if we don’t take the time to define what exactly they are. The Committee has failed to define what exactly it is trying to do…or to adhere to it, anyway…and this is to its detriment.
Here’s my suggestion.
Peace is a situation in which all malevolent entities who would bring harm to the defenseless, lacking any moral code that would restrain them from doing so, are placed in situations that make them unable to do so.
“Unable” has nothing to do with a treaty. Treaties are enforced by means of carrots and sticks; carrots can be only so juicy and tasty, and sticks can sting only so much. Treaties, therefore, are antithetical to genuine peace. A smaller prize to be won by the making of war, may be trumped by the promise of the carrot or the sting of the stick, but in that situation all it takes for a more coveted prize to come along and make the “impossible” war a certainty. You won’t be receptive to the point made if you’re the kind of person who demands I make a list of historical examples…I shouldn’t have to…
“Unable” means unable. It does not mean unwilling or unready, for those are temporary characteristics. It means vanquished. It means defeated. Like the Soviet Union after the arms race. Like the Japanese Empire after the surrender. Like Saddam Hussein after he was fished out of his little hole.
“Prizes” for this situation would logically, therefore, be awarded to those who put it someplace where it did not exist before. If that were to be the case, the Prize Committee would look much, much better than they did yesterday.
You guys need to go somewhere and work at defining peace. It’s just your job.
And don’t worry, I won’t be insisting you retroactively award a peace prize to George Bush for ripping out the old Iraq and putting in a new one. But on that subject — if, in the unlikely event you were to do such a thing, it would make a great deal of sense.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] LIz Cheney Rescues the President Memo For File C Foam Rubber Finger Thoughts About the Nobel Prize; Thoughts About Speeches… Using Pins to Sell Records I Gots Me A Hard Drive Western Digital Passport The Big Nobel News I and […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 10/12/2009 @ 06:06