I'm sorry to see that someone didn't find the humor in my entry yesterday about Conservapedia. Mean commenter make Beth cry. :*( It was suggested that instead of making fun of a "book," I focus on issues affecting our nation at the moment.
Exsqueeze me? Someone hasn't been paying attention in class! I write fairly often about issues, and in fact, I'd be willing to bet there are more than a few out there who wish I wouldn't write about issues quite so much! Oddly enough, one of my favorite issues, right up there at the top of the list, Number One with a bullet, Top of the Pops, it's got a great beat and you can dance to it, happens to be health care reform. I've written about it extensively here, I have not been shy about my opinion, and I've stated very clearly that I support health care reform.
Hey, I've got an idea, kids. I think it's great that people are concerned about things and would hope that they would spend at least a little time investigating the truth rather than simply spouting talking points like a mindless drone. So if you are interested in such things, yay for you! But here's an idea. Instead of spending your time hijacking the comment section of my blog in order to state your opinion, one that you would know, if you spent any amount of time here at all, that I am diametrically opposed to, how about you do your research, think about what you want to say...and write it on your own blog? [holding up a hand] I know, I know...it sounds crazy, but give me a chance. This would ensure that you can write as much as you want, as passionately as you want, and at the same time, you wouldn't be exhibiting what is widely considered to be incredibly rude blogging behavior. That's what I do, and although it may seem a little unconventional at first blush, it really does work pretty well. If I really disagree with another's point of view that they state on their blog, I don't leave them a long comment about it. I go write about it on my own blog. A novel approach, don't you think?
Nutwood Junction is not some sort of clearinghouse for personal axe-grinding. If you do happen to have an axe to grind, do your grinding at your own place.
Now, on to other things!
You know, something strange happened early this morning. I was happily snoozing when I heard a loud sound, almost as if a bomb had gone off. It startled me out of sleep, and as I struggled to think of what it might have been, I remembered that they were shooting a missile at the moon this morning as part of an experiment. Since our planet wasn't vaporized, I assumed that all had gone well, and the gravitational balance hadn't shifted and sent our planet careening into the sun. I went back to sleep.
When I got up a little bit later, the big news was that President Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize, and then I knew what I had really heard.
That large boom was the sound of Glenn Beck's head exploding.
I've had more than one person write to me today saying that they wondered about my opinion on this, and who am I to disappoint?
Just as with the IOC decision about the 2016 Olympics, the predictable response from the right was that it was a travesty, it made a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize, and that its prestige was tarnished by the choice of our President. Man, buy a new record, because that one is broken. We get it already...no matter what he does, or what good things happen, you're going to hate it because you want him to fail. Of course, that ignores the fact that the Nobel committee has the right to make the decision using whatever reasoning they wish to use. It's their prize to award, so why are they being second-guessed? How rude. It also ignores the fact that most nations and most people consider the Nobel a prestigious award, and most countries are proud of one of its citizens receiving it.
The Democratic National Committee issued this statement after the right responded as expected:
Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize—an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride—unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore—it’s an embarrassing label to claim.
I was surprised by this selection, too. Obviously, I'm a supporter of our President, and I think this is great, but he really hasn't been in office for long, so what was their reasoning? Alfred Nobel's wishes, as laid out in his 1895 will, were that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses." The members of the Committee said that their choice was an "early vote of confidence" in Obama. They praised the change in the mood around the world upon Obama's election, and appreciate his efforts to reduce the world's stock of nuclear arms; they feel his efforts to reach out to Muslim nations and to work with the world in combating climate change will make the world a better and safer place.
In short, I get the impression that they issued an unspoken challenge to our President: we like your ideas, and we want to see them implemented. We want to see you succeed.
It's too bad that more people here in our own country don't feel that way.
President Obama does indeed seem to be taking it as a challenge, and I hope this makes him even more resolved to get things done.
The Committee's choice of Obama is also obviously a reaction to eight years of President Bush. I'm not bashing the guy, I'm just stating fact. Our image as a global leader was severely damaged by our belligerent attitude and warmongering ways in the past few years. While it might seem paradoxical to award the Peace Prize to the leader of a nation which is fighting two wars—and some have criticized the choice for exactly that reason—these were not wars initiated by our current President. I think we can all certainly agree that we want to get the hell out of there, but once we have gotten ourselves into such a situation, getting out is not as easy...sort of like quicksand. However, President Obama has shown that he is willing to use diplomacy as much as possible before being forced to use military options. This is a positive step in our efforts to repair the damage that has been done.
Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
It is time for us to lead once again. The best leaders utilize compassion and diplomacy and teach by example; the worst merely bludgeon the enemy into submission. I am glad that President Obama sees the Nobel Committee's award to be the throwing down of the gauntlet that it is, and I am hopeful that he will meet the challenge. In fact, I hope he succeeds. I hope he succeeds beyond anyone's wildest imagination. In his doing so, our country and our planet will also succeed. Safer, peaceful, and cleaner. Why would anyone wish for anything else?
So how long do you think it’s going to take before “hilarious” pictures of Obama wearing the Nobel Peace Prize like a piece of bling start showing up on the Web? They’re probably already up. Again…boringly predictable.
The White House has announced that President Obama will give the $1.4 million dollar prize to charity.