Nobel Announces Winner of Renamed-Desert Prize
I like to think that all people of good will, no matter our opinions on health-insurance reform, a second stimulus or cap-and-trade legislation, can agree that awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is one of the bigger fucking absurd fucking travesties of a low fucking dishonest fucking decade. At least Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, despite being major-league butchers and war criminals, got the prize for actually (sort of) ending a war. (For a couple years.) Obama’s proposals to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons are good ones, and should anything ever come of them, would be prizeworthy at that time. Barack Obama, God love him, has continued the American military presence in Iraq, spread the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan, continued to rain remote death down on Somalis who wander too close to people our famously inept intelligence operations flag as enemies and continues to keep “all options” on the famous “table” regarding the country sitting between Iraq and Afghanistan. His administration proposed and will approve a real increase to the world’s most bloated military budget. The Committee might as well give the Biology Prize to the Discovery Institute.
Pingback by Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize —
October 9, 2009 @ 9:07 am
[...] to Dave above (who, after all, voted for Obama and on the basis of his foreign policy at that) Jim Henley, Robert Farley, Steven Taylor, and most commenters even at the lefty blogs where the poster defends [...]
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 9:17 am
eh, it’s the peace prize. it’s got a rocky record to being with and is entirely symbolic. at least the science stuff goes to actual scientists.
Comment by Mona —
October 9, 2009 @ 9:26 am
So, like, I wake up in the morning, stumble to my coffeemaker and grab a cup of java, then sit at my ‘puter to see what’s up. And I figure I must still be in bed dreaming.
WTF!?
Comment by mrfred —
October 9, 2009 @ 9:42 am
I was sure it was one of those times an article from the Onion was accidentally believed to be true and leaked into the MSM…
Comment by The Medium Lobster —
October 9, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Just above this headline, on the BBC News ticker, was another one reading “NASA Successfully Bombs Moon.” We have been aware of the invasion of parody into reality for quite some time, but it has now become clear we are living in occupied territory…
Comment by Tom Jackson —
October 9, 2009 @ 10:11 am
This should be handy in providing political cover when the next batch of additional troops are shipped off to Afghanistan.
Comment by Satan Mayo —
October 9, 2009 @ 10:26 am
There is no Biology prize. There’s a prize in Physiology Or Medicine, which is given to biologists, and there’s a prize in Chemistry, which is also given to biologists (though in earlier decades chemists were eligible).
Comment by Ginger —
October 9, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Not being George Bush is a pretty low hurdle for the Peace Prize. If Obama is going to get a prize for multilateralism and nonproliferation, it would have been nice if they’d waited until those efforts bore some fruit. (Not to mention all those pesky wars he could end!)
On the other hand, he did give a lot of people hope, and not just in the US. I personally don’t think that’s enough, but I don’t sit on the committee either.
Comment by Nell —
October 9, 2009 @ 10:35 am
The only positive outcome would be for Obama to follow the example of Le Duc Tho, who had the intellectual integrity to decline the prize.
Comment by Taktix® —
October 9, 2009 @ 10:58 am
This is not surprising, the Nobel Prize has been irrelevant for quite some time…
Comment by Steven Taylor —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Mona:
I had the same reaction, but worse as the coffee wasn’t ready yet and so I read the CNN news alert e-mail like three times. I actually thought I was mis-reading it in my not-quite-awake-yet haze.
Pingback by I woke up in Bizarro World this morning. | Making Conservatives Cringe Since 1977 —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:08 am
[...] it away, Jim: I like to think that all people of good will, no matter our opinions on health-insurance reform, a [...]
Comment by Kolohe —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:21 am
I thought at first that 4chan had in fact hacked the nobel committee’s website.
Comment by mb —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Here’s Andrew Sullivan pounding out the kind of measured, incisive analysis that will someday earn him the Nobel Punditry Prize:
“If any person has done more to advance some measure of calm, reason and peace in this troubled word lately, it’s president Obama. I think the Cairo speech and the Wright speech alone merited this both bridging ancient rifts even while they remain, of course, deep and intractable. He has already done more to heal the open wound between the West and Islam than anyone else on the planet.”
More deep thoughts here.
Comment by Hellmut —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:23 am
I am a little taken aback by Mr. Henley’s presumption and incivility. Just because someone sees things differently, doesn’t mean that they are dishonest.
On the contrary, if you cannot understand somebody else’s decisions, perhaps, you ought to look at the situation more carefully.
The Nobel peace price is the world’s celebration of America. America as in opportunity, justice, freedom, equality, and neighborliness.
I am afraid that many Americans don’t get it because they do not appreciate how much the Bush years have traumatized our allies and partners.
No matter how bad things were at home, there was always America that would shelter the downtrodden. When Bush broke that by shredding the Geneva Conventions, he broke people’s hearts and deprived the world of hope.
Barack Obama restored America as the world’s best hope. To many people around the world, that is worth a lot.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Helmut, believe me when I say, I cannot tell you how much your comment abashed me.
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:30 am
so not only are we the center of the universe, our lack of appreciating just how much of the center of the universe hurts everyone else because, like, we’re a teen heartthrob and the rest of the world are teenage girls?
or was that a long way of saying “the world is overwhelmingly filled with those who would rather have a bit of meaningless symbolism than see things as they actually are.”?
in which case, well…probably.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Even the otherwise approving hosts of NPR this morning conceded that this was a feel-good award, not for any actual accomplishments.
Comment by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
“joefromlowell” was just a clever ruse. It’s been joefromoslo all along!
Comment by Hellmut —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
I am afraid, Jim, that your response is once again full of emotion and devoid of reason.
In my opinion, it makes a lot of sense if someone like you argues that the award might be premature. But reasonable people can see things differently.
Just because people disagree with you does not mean that they do not have “good will.”
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Hellmut: Is hyperbole an official literary device in your country?
Comment by mr.fun —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
I think it’s just a confirmation that he’s a Master of War.
Comment by John Chase —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
“one of the bigger fucking absurd fucking travesties of a low fucking dishonest fucking decade.”
The statement of the decade so far. One begins to see what Patton meant when he said, “My God do I hate the 20th century.”
I’m with Henley on this, the 21st century officially sucks so far. If this isn’t the height of handing out a ridiculous, freakin’ Participation Trophy, I don’t know what.
Actual achievement in this society, or any society, in the world is officially dead. What a crock of shite.
Comment by mr.fun —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Hellmut, whatever you are smoking dude, pass it.
Comment by Orangetile —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
There’s a six-foot-ten guy at work who over the past eight years has been increasingly scary. Muttering to himself, “accidentally” knocking people over, getting in the way, making everyone jumpy and nervous and wondering when he’ll go postal and shoot the place up. Of course, no one wants to fire him, because that could make things worse. But one day he changes his meds and everything is fine! He’s pleasant to be around, he helped Suzie in accounting with that horrible project of hers, he’s started to be a productive member of the team. So he gets made Employee of the Month as a way of saying “Thank you for changing.” Sure, he didn’t deserve it, but since you weren’t ever going to attack the problem directly it’s a way to make you feel better.
Pingback by Assorted reactions to the Nobel Prize « Three Word Chant! —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
[...] Jim Henley: I like to think that all people of good will, no matter our opinions on health-insurance reform, a second stimulus or cap-and-trade legislation, can agree that awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is one of the bigger fucking absurd fucking travesties of a low fucking dishonest fucking decade. [...]
Comment by John —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
I think Hellmut has got it just about right. This isn’t really so much about any great set of accomplishments on the part of President Obama. I’ll concede they are pretty ephemeral at this point. Nor is it just that those lefties in Europe really didn’t like George W. Bush, although I will concede that they didn’t. What this says, I think, is that people in much of the rest of the world really did look to the United States as a sort of beacon, however mawkish that may sound to some, and that much of the world, including many of our friends and allies, were profoundly troubled by the belligerent, bellicose, arrogant bull-headedness that passed for “foreign policy” over the past 8 years. It was a sign of their great and abiding respect for us and our history that they were so disappointed and, frankly, frightened, by the prospect and the EVIDENCE that we had somehow lost our way. I’m not hallucinating this; I heard it many times from friends and colleagues abroad. (Yeah, yeah, I know, they are nothing but a bunch of soft, pinko, commie, socialist, blah, blah, blah. Who cares what they think? We’re America, goddamit.) This Prize is like a great, heaving sigh of relief that the Bush/Cheney days are behind us. The world has yet to be transformed, obviously. But we at least don’t have to travel overseas in disguise anymore. And our friends don’t have to wince every time the American President opens his mouth.
Comment by BDB —
October 9, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
This is the most lame Nobel prize in fucking history. He hasn’t even been President FOR A YEAR and we’re still fighting two wars.
What the FUCK? Are they trying to give him a consolation prize for the Olympics?
Comment by neil —
October 9, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
My first reaction was also “really? just because he’s not Bush?” But, of course, he really is much more. He has already done more work towards nuclear disarmament than anyone else I can think of for the past decade, or maybe more. Did President Clinton proclaim that his goal was ‘a world without nuclear weapons?’ I dare say he didn’t. Actions speak louder than words, but words are not meaningless.
That said, I can’t blame anybody for wrongly assuming the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be a lifetime achievement award like every other Nobel Prize is.
Comment by neil —
October 9, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
My favorite part is how the conservative blogs can argue that the prize actually is a bad thing to win and simultaneously argue that he didn’t deserve it.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
“To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize…”
The White House has expressed “surprise” over the award.
I think, for one shining, befuddled moment, Obama and many of us are sitting on the same page going, “Wait, what?”
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
…Also, I like Sullivan, and I’ve defended him against a lot of smears and criticisms, but yeah. He’s lost his head on the Obama-worship thing.
Comment by doubled —
October 9, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Obama wins Nobel peace prize weeks after snubbing Dalai Lama to curry favor with notorious peace maker China. Life really does enjoy a good ironic turn of events doesn’t it?
Comment by BDB —
October 9, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
“:Obama wins Nobel peace prize weeks after snubbing Dalai Lama to curry favor with notorious peace maker China.”
Ha! And probably shortly before he adds 40,000 troops to a land war in Asia.
Comment by J sub D —
October 9, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Wait a cotton picking minute here!
I’m not George W. Bush either. I also
A) Haven’t withdrawn combat troops fro Iraq
B) Haven’t withdrawn comabat troops from Afghanistan
C) Haven’t ended indefinite detention of terrorist suspects
D) Haven’t closed Gitmo
Where’s my million bucks?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
I started out thinking Obama hadn’t done enough to warrant this award, but reading hysterical pieces like this – not just “almost as bad” as giving it to Kissinger, not even as bad, but worse – has just about changed my mind.
Hysterical much?
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
You know who else had a way with snarky blog comments? A certain charismatic Central-European politician of the second third of the 20th Century, that’s who.
The question is now, is Barack Obama the worst person in history, or the worst person who will ever live?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
…asks the man who proclaimed this award to be “one of the bigger fucking absurd fucking travesties of a low fucking dishonest fucking decade.”
So, bigger than the WMD scam, but not as big as Abu Ghraib?
Shrieking hysteria. You just cannot write in a reasonable manner about Obama, can you? Something about him just drives you completely around the bend.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch!
Henry Kissinger.
Yassir Arafat.
Here’s one you libertoids will love: Woodrow Wilson.
But no, Barack Obama, whose accomplishments to date are arguable too symbolic and tentative, is “the lamest” Nobel recipient ever.
I wouldn’t count on receiving a Nobel Prize in Perspective if I were you…but then, that’s really nothing new.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
But they had, you know, actually been in power for more than two weeks before being nominated.
Like you say, joe, you’re an idea guy.
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
it does seem a bit odd to give a peace prize to someone who is currently directing a war or two, but what would i know?
Comment by John —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
I do have to say that it is high entertainment to watch and read and listen to the wingnut fringe go just absolutely batshit insane over this. Isn’t it curious though how these super-patriotic Amurrrr-icans were so gleeful over the President’s inability to secure the Olympics for our second largest city, and are now so deeply – what, ashamed?, embarrassed?, humiliated? – that the President of the United States of America has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? Oh, the horrors!!! Next thing you know something really horrible will occur, like the economy will start rebounding.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
I didn’t realize power was one of the standards for the award.
Yup, and one of my ideas is that you can tell a lot about somebody by his detractors.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Apparently, very little. Woodrow Wilson. FDR. Henry Kissinger.
Comment by BDB —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Joe, I said “lame”, not “outrageous and horrifying”. Understand the difference?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
It’s funny; people who had not trouble whatsoever understanding that George Bush’s diversion of the presidency from the ordinary historical standard to the depths of his atrocities was an extremely meaningful process, don’t seem willing to acknowledge that the reverse process is worthy of notice or respect.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
BDB,
Thank you ever so much for your semantic distinction, but so what?
Call me crazy, but I don’t have any trouble applying to term “lame” to the decision to give the award to the architect of the Cambodian bombing campaign.
But I really don’t feel any need to phrase my rebuttal to you in a manner that proclaims my superior understanding.
Comment by BDB —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Kissenger, Arafat, and Wilson were horrible leaders that actually promoted WAR in their lives. Their selections were outrageous.
Obama just han’t done anything major on the international scene yet. Which makes it lame. As in stupid. Not outrageous.
Comment by BDB —
October 9, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
In fact Joe, here’s a guy I actually think was more deserving, who is also an American President and a Democrat: Bill Clinton, for the global initiative and getting two journalists released from a prison camp.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Sounds good to me!
Think we’d be in a war with Iran yet if McCain had won?
I look at awarding this Nobel to Obama as a symbolic award to the American public, for making the decision to abjure the “Why not 100 years? Why not 1000? Why not 10,000?” worldview, and changing course so dramatically. Quite frankly, replacing the Bush foreign policy with the Obama foreign policy is a great deal more significant that the Clinton global initiative and the release of two journalists.
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
“Apparently, very little. Woodrow Wilson. FDR. Henry Kissinger.”
yup. hence comment #2 waaaay up there.
Comment by mr.fun —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
joe from Lowell (MA?),
I don’t think Jim was disassociating himself from his own hyperbole in the post. the question is: why is Hellmut trying to read Jim’s hyperbole as anything but? can he accept it as it is? and I know Jim can do just fine on his own (Ezra has his back or whatever), but I would add that it seems to me that a lot of the reaction, from Jim and others, is largely due to, how do I put this, the continuing fucking farce that is the United States of America, its government, and the brainless zombies in our midst that wander around heaping on platitudes and praise.
perhaps we all read a bit too much IOZ.
but really, Barack Obama? dude signs like a Euro elite. what’d you expect from the rest of the world? dude was sure to be a hit.
and it is a very good day to be a gansta.
Comment by BDB —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Aren’t we still in Iraq? And isn’t Obama using the Bush timeline for withdraw?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Eh, I just find that tiresome. The amusing bit for me is watching Blues try to justify the award in some sense even as Obama himself is going, “WTF? I mean, um, thanks?”
Good point, but I already think pretty well of Jim without your help.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Hey, you’re right. Ron Paul was totally robbed!
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Aw, that’s sweet, Eric!
I don’t see too many “Blues” trying to justify the award,really. I mean, joe, sure, but even joe is more anti-anti-justification, and it’s his hobby. Most non-professional Dems seem to be saying “Srsly?” but following it up with “Whatevs then” rather than “OMG Satan!”
Comment by mr.fun —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
and if joe from Lowell were so concerned about Jim’s inability to talk about Obama reasonably or whatever, he might inquire, being a sensitive fellow himself (in tune with how others are feeling), how Jim is doing lately, since his blogging has been a bit on the light side, with a strong heaping of bitter.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
We’re leaving. You prefer we were arranging for a permanent presence?
How did you go from “Obama hasn’t been in office long enough to do anything!” to “Obama hasn’t eliminated our presence in Iraq?”
No, halfway through 2008, Bush was forced, but domestic politics and Iraqi politics, to adopt Obama’s timeline for withdrawal. You can tell, because it’s actually a timeline for withdrawal, as opposed to a plan for a permanent occupation and offensive military presence.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
It’s starting to go around, Jim; I’m hoping a little peer pressure from the more sober Blues will calm them down.
Of course, I’m hoping that like I’m hoping that supposed Brad Woodhouse quote doesn’t pan out (and I won’t quote it here, because every quote of it on Google goes back to people citing the same dubious source) – while cringing a little and waiting for my hopes to be dashed.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
I don’t really concern myself with personalities, but ideas.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
But you’re right, mr. fun.
If I were really concerned about Jim’s over-the-top-ed-ness, I might do that.
If.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
joe is a character out of Ibsen!
I’m fine, btw, for those wondering. Personally anyway. Politically I think we are eff you see cay eEE dee.
Comment by Kolohe —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
When did FDR win a nobel prize?
What supersecret warpower would McCain have been able to pull out of his arse that Bush didn’t have?
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Of course, I’m hoping that like I’m hoping that supposed Brad Woodhouse quote doesn’t pan out
it seemed semi-legit, or at least not surprising. there’s a limited number of rhetorical modalities to rely upon in the public square, even in the edenic, way-back-when, “lincoln and douglass debated for 72 hours straight without having so much as a sip of water” school.
that we’re stuck with “you’re a terrorist!” versus “stop calling hardworking americans terrorist, terrorist!” is unfortunate, though.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Not FDR, Cordell Hull. My bad.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
It’s not a question of power, but of what’s done with it.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Well, Cordell Hull gets a cool-name bonus.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
No, Obama’s timeline has shifted back a bit.
Of course, so would have Bush’s/McCain’s in 2009.
We’re planning to leave. I’m not heating queso for the big “Welcome Home” party yet. (Like I said, waiting for my hopes to be dashed…)
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
You know what’s interesting? Neither dhex nor Eric have offered a single argument why anything I have written is wrong. They just assume that it must be, because it is favorable to Obama – and yet, they offer their opinions, such as they are, in a pose of anti-partisanship.
You must be wrong, because what you wrote is favorable to a Democrat. Stop being so partisan!
C’mon, guys. You’re getting lazy.
Comment by Kolohe —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
So Bush jr should get kudos or something more for not going to war with Iran then?
Comment by doubled —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
joe from lowell : “Think we’d be in a war with Iran yet if McCain had won?”
How the hell can anyone know ? But a favorite trick of detractors is to impugn the motives of those they don’t like.
One of the reasons I started to majorly distrust the press was how they assured me that Reagan was an evil bastard who wanted to start armaggedon only to see him fell the Berlin wall without a shot fired. But republicans are war-mongers by definition for some I guess.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Technically incorrect, but we may have crossposted.
But aside from that one point I pointed out your error, correct. Entertaining, content-free silliness doesn’t need debunking, it just needs popcorn.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
It’s astounding to me that people who presume to take the high ground by virtue of their allegedly strong anti-imperialism don’t consider the fact that one party wishes to maintain a permanent, colonial-style occupation and offensive military presence in Iraq, and one wishes to end it, to be a matter worth drawing a distinction over.
The domestic political victories of the anti-imperialist party emboldened the Iraqi government enough that they insisted on our withdrawal, and the pro-imperialist party was forced to accept it. So, therefore, both parties would have accepted withdrawal, and they are no different.
So weak. So transparent. So partisan. So removed from any principled stance against imperialism, or even any practical political stance against imperialism.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Bush Jr. was forced by events not to go to war with Iran. He, and his administration, spent years trying to make it happen, from the Axis of Evil speech, to the bogus assertions about Iranians supplying weapons to al Qaeda-linked insurgents.
Obama, on the other hand, has done precisely the opposite, working to ratchet down the likelihood of war, and promote peaceful solutions to our disagreements.
Yes, I consider that to be a meaningful distinction.
Comment by Nell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
It’s funny; people who had not trouble whatsoever understanding that George Bush’s diversion of the presidency from the ordinary historical standard to the depths of his atrocities was an extremely meaningful process, don’t seem willing to acknowledge that the reverse process is worthy of notice or respect.
The reverse process, when it’s an actual process rather than some nice words, is plenty worthy of notice and respect.
The Nobel peace prize is several cuts above simple “notice and respect”.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You could kick my ass any time you feel like. You just don’t feel like it. I’ve been hearing that same line from kewl kidz surprised that I won’t back down since I was six.
Content-free: whatever. I’ve made my points. There right there for everyone to see. You’ve got nothing.
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
joe, the main difference between you and i – beyond my incredible handsomeness and artistic talent – is that you believe that the democrats “want to leave” and i believe that their base sincerely believes *that* we’re probably not going anywhere for a while and neither are the folks pulling the levers.
so while you can call the democratic party the “anti-imperialist” party – presumably with a straight face – i’m less convinced on that front. though i’ll have eric note i’m not really into queso, preferring a sharp british cheddar instead. love the mexicans but their cheesemaking isn’t the strongest point of their cusine.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Oh, fair enough, dhex. I’m lactose-intolerant, myself. It’s just a favorite party food, here.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
joe, I agree with you that the only significant constituency for non-imperialism is in the base of the Democratic Party. It’s a big reason why I’m a Democrat these days, whatever misgivings I may have. It’s a big reason I voted for Obama last year.
But what everyone here recognizes, probably including you, definitely including people like Eric who have not deserted the libertarian ship like I did, is that the sentiments of the base are not shared by the existing party elite. Quite the opposite. So none of us cut the elite any slack for actual imperialism. Nor do we confuse the sentiments of the elite with the opinions of Avedon Carol or Jane Hamsher. But Avedon and Hamsher aren’t running the Democratic Party.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Being better than the other candidate may be a good reason to get somebody’s vote, but the Nobel Peace Prize is, to steal a phrase from Nell, several cuts above pulling the level on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Sometimes, Nell, it’s the dog that doesn’t bark.
The Axis of Evil speech: just words? Blaming Iran for the Iraqi resistance – that is, falsely accusing them of actions that provide a legitimate cassus belli under international law: just words?
Perhaps it’s a survival mechanism, like how mothers get over the pain of child birth so quickly. People seem to have forgotten just how much more dangerous Bush was as president, and they don’t appreciate just how far we’ve come.
Comment by Kolohe —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
The ‘grading on the curve’ thing has already been addressed, so I’m just trying to figure out how a President McCain would not have been forced by the same events that you say Bush was (for Iran and Iraq) – because your rhetorical question above that implied we *would* be at war with Iran under his adminstration.
(btw, I’m willing to grant you that this debate over troop levels in Afghanistan wouldn’t have happened under McCain; they would have just been sent)
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Given that Obama has stated all military options are on the table with regard to Iran I think that disqualifies him right there. Of course this is just part of the fine American tradition of going after states which we can kick the crap out of with ease.
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
“Oh, fair enough, dhex. I’m lactose-intolerant, myself. It’s just a favorite party food, here.”
i’m more of a hummus guy, really. sabra makes a “supremely spicy” version that, while not really “supremely spicy” is actually quite tasty. all of my personal experiments in hummus creation have largely been dismal failures in comparison.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Jim,
That’s insane. Two months before the 2002 elections – do you remember what politics were like in this country back then – 58% of the Democrats in Congress voted against the AUMF. A number of those who voted for it came out explicitly in their floor speeches against invading Iraq, and stated that they were voting for the bill in order to provide the president with the tools he needed to compel cooperation with the inspection regime (a naive position, sure, but not a pro-war one.) The current House Speaker led the charge against it. The most prominent anti-war candidate in the next presidential election became Chairman of the DNC. That sounds like the party elite to me.
Obama didn’t start these war. He inherited them six and eight years in. That he can’t snap his fingers and make them go away is not evidence of how he wishes to relate to the world – he’s playing a hand he were dealt.
It’s his relations with other countries – Russia and Iran, for instance – that gives us the best view into his style of geopolitics, and I daresay we can draw a pretty meaningful conclusion about the differences between him and Bush from how things have gone so far.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Jim,
There is a small faction with the Democratic party elite that could not accurately be described as anti-imperialist.
They tried to win the nomination in 2008, and failed, and now, they work for Obama.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Easy there, big guy.
Joe, I’m wholly unsurprised that you won’t back down. I’m unsurprised that you’re willing to fervently attack reasonable statements due to a little hyperbole. I’m only surprised it took so long for you to invent phantom opponent’s positions like “So, therefore, both parties would have accepted withdrawal, and they are no different” in order to have more to argue against.
You can’t beat trolls and fanatics.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Agreed. And if he plays the hand in a manner that delivers concrete results on the ground, not just better feelings all around, then that may be a Nobel-worthy result.
When he actually brings the troops home, then we can talk about deserving a prize. It may be that it is not realistic to expect such a result tomorrow, and that’s fine, whenever it finally happens we can talk about deserving a Nobel.
I joined my department the same year that our cold fusion guy retired. By any objective measure the change is dramatic. That doesn’t mean I get a prize just because of the guy I’m replacing. Freshman exams may be graded on a curve, but Nobel prizes are a bit different.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Thoreau,
It’s not just “better.” Hell, McCain was “better” than President Cheney. He wouldn’t have tortured, for instance. Hillary was “better.” Even Joe Lieberman would have been “better.”
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
I’ve been keeping an eye out for that brand – is it national?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
When we get there, sensible people should indeed bemoan such an attitude.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Kolohe,
McCain would have been at the beginning of his administration, and wouldn’t have been a discredited shell of a president.
On Iran, presidents never start wars at the end of their administrations, for their successors to pick up. (Think I’m wrong? Name one. Clinton? Poppy? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Johnson? Kennedy? I’m not talking about little humanitarian missions or something, but an action comparable to bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bombing Iran.) That’s why Clinton didn’t launch strikes after the report on the Cole came in.
On Iraq, I’ve already stated that McCain was forced to accept the Iraqis’ demand that we leave. The point here is twofold: 1) that demand was made possible by the rise of the anti-Iraq War politics of the Democrats, and 2) Iraq isn’t the end of American foreign policy. Where he had a freer hand, McCain would have been a great deal more aggressive than Obama, because it’s what he believes.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
joe from Lowell,
Obama made it a central plank of his Presidential campaign to ramp up the war in Afghanistan. He started to own the war in Afghanistan from that point forward. And generally speaking, Democrats didn’t start having qualms about Afghanistan until Obama came into power. The Democratic talking points up to that time was that was the war that needed to be fought, that Iraq was at best a distraction, etc.
As for his geopolitics, Obama is even more aggressive towards Iran than Bush was and well, as with regards to Russia, he’s apparently willing to make deals with that regime. I don’t know if deal making with a regime like that in Russia is any better than being aggressive (indeed, one of the liberal critiques historically of U.S. foreign policy has been its real politic aspects).
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Imagine what Obama’s electoral prospects would have been if he had opposed the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Despite a lot of very misinformed people, Obama was never a peace candidate nor was he ever a civil liberties candidate.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
joe, looking at the list of winners, I don’t see a German leader getting the Peace Prize in 1946 simply for being many, many, many, many orders of magnitude better than his predecessor.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Seward,
No, that’s just standard diplomacy. Once something is on the table, you don’t take it off unless you’re getting something in return, or you are offering it as part of an exchange.
The actions a president takes that any president would have had to take aren’t useful information for drawing a conclusion about him. Heck, Bush sent his Secretary of State to make a presentation at the UN to make our case – should we therefore judge him to be a multilateralist? No, he was just following protocol established before him.
Iran calls us the Great Satan, we say that all options are on the table – that’s just the background noise. That was going on before Bush, and during Bush, and after Bush. The true action is elsewhere.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Whatever, Eric. Any time you’d care to address any point I’ve made, you go on with your bad self.
As long as you keep writing personal attacks on me and puffing yourself up as Mr. Superior, I’ll keep pointing out that you won’t back up your position or argue against mine, and just assume your rightness on the grounds that you must be right.
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
“I’ve been keeping an eye out for that brand – is it national?”
as far as i know, yes. i get it from the local gino deli but it’s available in regular supermarkets around here and not just in the organic-industrial complex joints.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
joe from Lowell,
Heck, Bush sent his Secretary of State to make a presentation at the UN to make our case – should we therefore judge him to be a multilateralist? No, he was just following protocol established before him.
He sent Powell there because Powell argued that it was a good idea, not because of protocol. Indeed, “the U.S.” ignores this sort of protocol all the time when it suits its needs. Just not buying the “standard protocol” argument because “standard protocol” is only honored when it suits the interests of a nation.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
So, where is the big screen TV in this sports bar?
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Anyway, what this discussion has so far missed (from what I have read of it) is just how good the Nobel Peace Prize is as a predictor of future peace promotion.
Here is a list of winners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates
Case in point; Kellogg of the Kellogg-Briand pact.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Eric: I’m only surprised it took so long for you to invent phantom opponent’s positions like “So, therefore, both parties would have accepted withdrawal, and they are no different” in order to have more to argue against.
Oh, and lookie here:
There I go, inventing a phantom argument about Bush and McCain being forced to accept withdrawal from Iraq. God, your partisan hackery is tiresome.
Comment by dhex —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
over at monsieur’s place, a commenter offered this pithy remark:
“If they had a sense of humor, they’d deliver that sucker via pilotless drone.”
there is a joke in there, but it’s bittersweet. power is an engine that runs on blood.
“serious people” recognize this, and accept it because they have a chance of accomplishing goal a, b, or c, or at least getting within spitting distance. i too might accept a few thousand dead in a foreign land if i thought it would lead to an end to the drug war (and thus prevent the future deaths of tens of thousands, and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands).
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Anyway, I’ll give Obama credit for donating the prize money. But the guy clearly hasn’t done much to deserve the award (but that seems to be the case with a lot of the winners and thus he is in good company). Not that the award of this prize means much. Or rather, it means about as much as him “losing” the Olympics. This is basically political theater.
Anyway, if Obama is taking suggestions on where to spend the prize money I would suggest that he spend some portion of it on Amnesty International.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Again, easy there. Last I checked, there was no rule that said everything I say online, or even in the comments of a blog we both read, has to serve as argument against whatever position Joe Boyle has taken on an issue.
My “position” is the same as our president’s apparent position – that he should say thanks, and then smile, nod, and back away.
You don’t want to oppose the president, now do you, joe?
Comment by matthew hogan —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Well, for one thing, now you’re being horribly anti-semantic.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Where I say not, both parties would have accepted withdrawal, and they are no different, but instead, both parties ended up promised they’d be out by 2010, but that was suspect at best, so that schedule has “slipped”.
Though, if you flip what I said over on that one side, I guess they look the same.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Seward,
Once again, all of this was in the context of a war that had not only already been launched, but in which we were deeply involved as an occupying power.
What does “own this war” even mean, except as an exercise in using rhetoric to conceal? Did he make the decision that we were to have a large presence in Afghanistan? No, he came to power in a circumstance in which that was the status quo, and had to decide what to do from there. Look back at British politics in the 30s and 40s. Even the anti-imperialists who wanted an end to our presence in India didn’t want to let the place fall all to hell, and we have a much more legitimate reason for fighting in Af-Pak (that is, al Qaeda) than the British ever had in India.
That is insane. Holding the first bilateral talks since the 70s is “more aggressive than Bush?” The Cairo speech was “more aggressive than Bush?” (And don’t give me any “just words” b.s., either – you certainly didn’t take that tack when Bush gave the Axis of Evil speech). The holiday greetings message towards Iran was “more aggressive than Bush?” How about the complete absence of denunciations of alleged Iranian actions in Iraq?
Do you see what I get frustrated? “Obama is an aggressive imperialist, even worse than Bush. Except when he’s not, and that’s bad, too.”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
There were no globally-prominent leaders in Germany in 1946 whose actions were having significant effects on how the world operated.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Thoreau,
When he actually doesn’t bring the troops home – when he actually endorses a policy of occupation and basing for regional force projection – then we can talk about this award being a travesty.
It’s funny – he hasn’t been in office long enough to draw conclusions about his presidency, except when those conclusions are unfavorable.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Seward,
But Powell argued for make such a presentation because it was expected among the world community. Had we taken military action on the scale of the Iraq invasion without first going to the UN, it would have been a dramatic break from precedent.
Yes, we overlook that procedure for smaller-scale actions, but as with AUMFs, that’s just the way it’s done. The US and the president can get away with going it alone on small actions, but are expected to go to the UN/Congress for larger ones.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 9, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Fine, I’ll withhold judgement on his presidency. I think that’s fair.
The standard should not be “You get a Nobel and then we wait for you to fuck up before declaring it a travesty.” The standard should be “You do something really, really major, then you get a Nobel.”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
But don’t you see? That’s the point. They use the prize to try to bring about peace, to provide support for efforts to promote peace by putting their prestige and the world’s attention behind those movements and individuals that might be able to do so.
That their efforts fail just demonstrates that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is jumping into ongoing struggles whose outcomes are still up in the air – and good for them!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Then why do you?
Hey, now! I have semantic friends!
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Well, when those conclusions are “he hasn’t yet actually caused satisfactory change”, that seems fair. And an honest answer to that would not be to whine about how people are being mean and partisan in opposing his getting a prize for wishing to cause change.
Comment by JasonL —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
The award isn’t a travesty. That makes it seem important. It’s hilarious. The award decision as described in the speech I heard this morning on NPR had nothing to do with any actual act. It was granted because Obama agrees with European values and, uh, that’s it. Creating an environment of multilateral blah blah? Doesn’t that really mean that he hasn’t disagreed with Europe on anything important yet? The connection to peace is nonexistent. Transparent, ham-handed politics.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
I hear you, and that’s a reasonable standard.
But once again: the Bush presidency and its aftermath are not standard times.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
You mean like Kellogg? Mary Robinson?
The Nobel Committee uses its heft to get behind the good guys and push in ongoing fights, and sometimes, the good guys lose anyway.
I’m still not going to bash them for doing this.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
*quirks, looks up at his initial comments, which had nothing to do with joe*
*looks at joe jumping in to attack people for doubting that Obama deserves the prize and that people are pathetic partisan philistines for doubting his awesomeness*
*looks at joe demanding that dhex and him get serious and fight him!!! when they mock one of the comments he’s filling the thread with*
*shrugs*
…Oh, I just dunno, man.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
So, you’re casting Kissinger and Arafat as “good guys”?
Seriously, though – thank you. This was an irritating day before you lightened the mood.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Yeah, Bart, what about all those times I DIDN’T come to school in women’s clothes? How come you never talk about that?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
But as for your question:
Odd question for the “ideas, not personalities” guy.
But no, more like, as in us actually withdrawing from Iraq.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
No – and try, as difficult and unfamiliar as it might be for you – to actually think about and understand the point I’m about to make:
They didn’t give those two Nobel prizes because they thought those two individuals were men of surpassing goodness. They awarded them in order to promote the peace causes that they were engaged in. Both of them were somewhat reluctant peacemakers – to say the least – but both had found themselves in the role of peace negotiator.
Granting them those prizes was intended to be a carrot, to encourage them to continue along the path of peace. Granting those awards was a strategic effort to put the shoulder of the Nobel Committee behind those peace efforts.
Now, if you want to write your favorite thing comment – “Aha! I got you, Joe! The way you wrote that is slightly different than your previous expression of the same thought!” – you go right ahead. That’s not important.
What’s important is the Nobel Committee’s strategy of using the Nobel to provide ballast for the side of peace in circumstances in which it isn’t clear whether peace will win out.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
You know, Eric, if you don’t quite follow my train of thought – which happens a lot – you should just ask.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Now, you don’t have to ask. I’ve explained it a few times now.
If you want to go back over what I’ve written, out of a novel good-faith effort to understand ideas, you’re free to do that.
If you’re determined not to understand my point, there’s nothing I can do about that.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
joe from Lowell,
What does “own this war” even mean, except as an exercise in using rhetoric to conceal?
It means that he owns it; that this is where he has staked his ground. Just like Bush owned the Iraq war. Obama also owns health insurance/payment “reform.” Nothing – and this obvious to anyone with half a brain – is being concealed by the statement.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
*a couple hundred huffy words later*
Pro-tip: those cheery little yellow images of broadly smiling faces indicate that the preceding was explicitly less-than-absolutely serious.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
So you can’t even explain what you mean, just repeat your cliche, then offer another one.
George Bush started the Iraq War, and the situations he found himself in at every single step were entirely the consequences of his own actions, not his predecessors. There is nothing remotely similar about Bush’s situation in the Iraq War, and Obama’s situation in Afghanistan. Bush was never, not even once, faced with a fait accompli in Iraq.
Again, you are using this vague metaphor because you can’t phrase your idea in concrete, meaningful terms. You’re still using “owns,” and you still won’t explain it.
Obama initiated health insurance reform. (And what’s with the scare quotes? If it not really a “reform” if it’s not something out of Hayek?) This initiative really is his responsibility. Nobody can say, if a bad program is implemented, that Obama came in halfway through health care reform and had to make the best of what he found – as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rrrrrrowwwww, pussycat! I think I’ve demonstrated myself to have well over half a brain, and you are still using the term “own” to paper over the distinction I just laid out.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Eric the .5b,
You know, that extreme libertarian outfit known as Frontline has an episode coming out titled “Obama’s War” on Oct. 13th.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Eric, have you ever noticed how many words you use to declare your awesomeness?
If you were able to discuss ideas at a post-high school level, you wouldn’t have to do that.
Nor would you find yourself inclined to phrase your ideas in a manner that allows to to retreat to the “Whoa, just a joke” defense.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
joe from Lowell,
You are just being an asshole at this point.
The meaning very clear. I’m not going to sit here and have one of these fruitless, time consuming 100 post arguments about the definition of a word or a phrase that ends in a lot of stupid acrimony. I think the point is clear myself, if you don’t, tough shit.
Comment by neil —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
At the end of the day I can safely say that even more people consider themselves capable of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize than consider themselves capable of referring their sporting event of choice.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
I’ve made a meaningful, substantive point. The fact that it refutes yours doesn’t make it unfair, or untrue.
Obama does not “own” the Afghan War the way Bush “owned” the Iraq War, or the way Obama “owns” health care reform. This is because Obama inherited that war in the middle, and his actions are a response to circumstances created by his predecessor.
And this goes back to your earlier point – that Obama’s actions in Afghanistan demonstrate that he is equally, or more, imperialist as George W. Bush. This point is untrue, because once again, his actions there represent his responses when dropped into the middle of the war. Once the decision to go to war was made, and once it was launched, and once that war continued beyond the end of Bush’s term, his predecessors no longer had the choice of not waging a war in Afghanistan. Even the decision to leave is a decision to fight his way out.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
…”Pro-tip” is a declaration of awesomeness? I thought it was an outdated expression.
But you’re right. I’m sorry, joe. For a crazy little moment, I grinned at a harmless juxtaposition that was clearly not intentional or meant by you. I then fucked up and treated you like a human being and not a angry little partisan robot by pointing it out jokingly – and made sure to include a clear indicator that I did not seriously think you meant Kissinger and Arafat were good guys.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
joe from Lowell,
Again, you’re just an asshole. No matter what your ideas are, you are simply unpleasant to talk to.
And this goes back to your earlier point – that Obama’s actions in Afghanistan demonstrate that he is equally, or more, imperialist as George W. Bush.
I never said anything like that. I never mentioned the word imperialist nor did it even come to my head. I guess that is probably because that is the U.S. dude. The U.S. is fucking imperialist. It does not matter who the President is, so whether Obama is more or less imperialist is sort of moot to me. BTW, this isn’t the first time I’ve stated this. The standard operating procedure across party lines is that the U.S. is the “indispensable nation.” Obama has not walked away from that point at all; we continue to meddle everywhere.
That is my position and it is well known. Disagree with it if you want to, but nothing to do with any particular President; it has to do IMHO with the mental framework that surrounds our foreign policy and how political actors interact with that.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Maybe if you would stick your neck out and actually try to express or consider ideas once in a while, instead of sitting on the sidelines, spouting off snark while doing your best to leave yourself an out, this wouldn’t keep happening.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
joe from Lowell,
Do get off that giant cross that you are on.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Oh, really? Tell you what, champ: I’ve never had to change my handle – over and over again – because I’ve offended so many people that I can’t post under my own handle anymore.
And you, Croesus?
So, you spend the first quarter of the paragraph whining at me for attributing to you a position which you spend the rest of the paragraph defending.
That’s just wonderful.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
joe from Lowell,
Most of the old crew from Hit n’ Run grew out of the asshole stage by 2005-2006.
There is a significant difference between stating the the U.S. is simply imperialist no matter who is in charge, and that Obama or Bush are more imperialist. U.S. imperialism didn’t start with Bush nor is it going to end with Obama. It will end when the U.S. is too bankrupt to continue along that path.
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Anyway, I got sucked into something I said I had no desire to get sucked into. Revealed preference? Whatever the case, bad on me.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
I do, ALRP-3000 – those are the very comments you conspicuously avoid responding to, especially when I point out your creative mis-interpretation of something I said, like #107.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
There is not a significant difference between stating As for his geopolitics, Obama is even more aggressive towards Iran than Bush was and stating Obama is as imperialist as, or more imperialist than, Bush.
A decent enough point, but the character of the president matters. It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to appreciate that the United States became a great deal more imperialist under Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld; or that it became less so under Carter. You may argue that these changes were differences of degree more than kind, but given the size of our nation’s footprint, a difference of degree in this field can matter very much.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 9, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Once again, perhaps if you could gin up the gumption to MAKE A POINT instead of a brief bleat about how I’ve wronged you, I’d have something to respond to.
Comment by All Your Summer Songs —
October 9, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Y’ know who’s feeling like shit, right now? (Besides Sammy Haggar…) It’s Tony Blair. He could have gotten one of these medals, in the style of Carter, after leaving office, leading a charge (w/ Prince Charles (on the real)) against anthropogenic (often catastrophic) climate change. Instead, he tethered himself to Bush in the 9/12 World, & while that got him & GWB a Nobel nom (’03 or ‘04, I think), it won’t get him anything real, ever.
Yuks on you, Tony.
Comment by von Laue —
October 9, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
do they still post “oh god, this thread sucks” at fark?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 9, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Mm, I said my points early on. Then, after you showed up and started posting, I observed, correctly, that you had introduced a whole novel argument and attributed it to other people in the thread.
That’s as substantive an argument from me as you’re going to get in this thread, short of you actually saying something substantive and collected (and that I find myself disagreeing with).
Comment by Seward —
October 9, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
joe from Lowell,
There is not a significant difference between stating As for his geopolitics, Obama is even more aggressive towards Iran than Bush was and stating Obama is as imperialist as, or more imperialist than, Bush.
Well, he is more aggressive with regard to that one particular state. He’s getting countries lined up for sanctions against Iran when Iran is not a threat to the U.S.
It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to appreciate that the United States became a great deal more imperialist under Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld; or that it became less so under Carter.
There is the myth of the Carter administration, then there is the reality.
(1) The Carter administration increased military aid to the Indonesian regime which had just recently invaded East Timor with such disasterous results for the East Timorese. They continued the policy of Ford, Nixon, LBJ, etc. in supporting the Indonesian regime though it had an abysmal human rights record.
(2) The Carter administration gave (in the case of Morocco) military aid or resumed it (in the case of Turkey) even both states had invaded their neighbors not longer before he came into office.
(3) Carter gave significant aid the regime of Mobutu Sese Seko when it was facing a revolution; now, I don’t know what an alternate history would have unfolded without this help, but perhaps we wouldn’t have the bloodiest war of the last half of the 20th century without it.
(4) The Carter administration released South Korean troops so that they could suppress the uprising against the South Korean dictatorship; those troops were involved in the deaths of thousands of protesters.
This all comes from that wonderfully libertarian website known as common dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm
You may argue that these changes were differences of degree more than kind, but given the size of our nation’s footprint, a difference of degree in this field can matter very much.
They aren’t differences in degree at all. Honestly, you do not have to invade a country to seriously fuck it up; indeed, our nation has done as much damage releasing airborne pests and causing crop failures (a common practice through the 1980s at the very least) as it has ever done by invading another country. So the metric is effect, not whether one action is more prominent than another. Bush may have been more flashy, but Carter was just as much of an imperialist.
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
joe | October 17, 2008, 2:47pm | #
God bless ACORN, out there registering 13 million new voters. They’re doing God’s work in some of the toughest neighborhoods in America.
10/17/08 NEVER FORGET
Comment by Mona —
October 9, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
joe: did you really write this:
Comment by Kolohe —
October 10, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Once the decision to go to war was made, and once it was launched, and once that war continued beyond the end of Bush’s term, his predecessors no longer had the choice of not waging a war in Afghanistan. Even the decision to leave is a decision to fight his way out.
Um, none of the coalition forces need to ‘fight there way out’- they simply get on planes an leave, as some have already done, and many are doing before the end of next year, regardless of the circumstances
Comment by BDB —
October 10, 2009 @ 7:39 am
“Um, none of the coalition forces need to ‘fight there way out’- they simply get on planes an leave, as some have already done, and many are doing before the end of next year, ”
That reminds me of a funny TAC cover from circa 2006. The title says HOW DO WE LEAVE IRAQ? and under it, a subtitle says “By land” and shows a bus.
Comment by BDB —
October 10, 2009 @ 7:40 am
Oh Jesus Christ are we having archive wars now?
Comment by dhex —
October 10, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
That reminds me of a funny TAC cover from circa 2006. The title says HOW DO WE LEAVE IRAQ? and under it, a subtitle says “By land” and shows a bus.
you know, i have the feeling i’d probably enjoy robbing taki just ’cause, but he is a clever little guy.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 10, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
There is a famous story of the Velvet Revolution. It had been agreed in principle that Soviet troops would quit Czechoslovakia and now Vaclav Havel and the new government were meeting with the general in charge of the occupying army to finalize arragements. The Czechs kept pushing for a prompt exit and the Soviets kept demurring, finally telling their exasperated and unwilling hosts that “We have transportation problems.”
To which Havel replied, “We’ll drive you to the train station.”
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 10, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
OK, serious (though tangential) question – aside from the Team Red lather over it, who really thinks ACORN is an organization worth worrying about?
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 10, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
OK, serious (though tangential) question – aside from the Team Red lather over it, who really thinks ACORN is an organization worth worrying about?
Who thinks ACORN is an organization worth defending? Do you?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 10, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Don’t need to defend it, Johnny. Just need a real reason to give a shit.
You clearly won’t provide one, so I’ll leave the question open for any adults who can think of a reason ACORN is of any interest, aside from a case study in Red political dog-whistling.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 10, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
An Acorn manager once interviewed with me for a job, back in my bookstore days. Nice lady. Something I liked was, they were doing housing advocacy in DC and eventually noticed that, hey, a lot of the vacant properties are owned by the City, not private slumlords! So they were shifting their advocacy to pressure the City about housing stock. IIRC I offered her a job but it didn’t work out.
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 11, 2009 @ 12:14 am
Don’t need to defend it, Johnny. Just need a real reason to give a shit.
Why the multiple posts from you on a subject you don’t give a shit about? If you don’t care, you don’t you drop it?
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 11, 2009 @ 12:16 am
So far then, joe’s take, “Acorn does good work in bad neighborhoods,” goes unrebutted then. No worries.
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 11, 2009 @ 1:35 am
So far then, joe’s take, “Acorn does good work in bad neighborhoods,” goes unrebutted then. No worries.
The rebuttals are the BigGovernment.com videos and the ongoing embezzlement scandals.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 11, 2009 @ 4:32 am
So the answer is “no”, I see.
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 11, 2009 @ 9:06 am
So the answer is “no”, I see.
Again, why the obsession with a subject you claim not to care about?
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 11, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Not really.
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 11, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Not really.
You honestly don’t think they rebut ACORN’s claim of “we’re just morally superior liberals selflessly dedicating our lives to nothing more than helping others, so give in to our political demands as your progressive moral and intellectual superiors?”
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 11, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Joe, you’re awfully silent on this thread now.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 11, 2009 @ 10:15 am
For crying out loud, that’s the good part.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 11, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Perhaps they begin to rebut the words you insist on putting in their mouths?
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 11, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Perhaps they begin to rebut the words you insist on putting in their mouths?
Just how much corruption to they have to demonstrate before they become walking, talking proof of the very Public Choice theory that refutes their political position of “give us power because we’re the morally superior people who can be trusted with it”?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 11, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
You mean, I didn’t spend my Saturday night obsessively checking blog threads? Oh, my.
Yep, I wrote it, and I’ll write it again:
GOD BLESS ACORN FOR ALL THE GOOD WORK IT DOES.
It’s a lot of fun watching this story about the pimp-and-ho practical joke fall apart – the one they called the police about – but it was obvious to anyone who isn’t a passionate opponent of registering poor people to vote that is was bullshit from the beginning.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 11, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
Wow, that didn’t take long.
It takes about half a second for the oh-so-concerned-about-corruption ACORN-bashers to acknowledge that they’re just out to bash anyone on the left they perceive as effective.
God bless ACORN for all the good work they do. Registering the most put-upon members of our society to vote and take their share of political power. Helping people avoid foreclosures. Promoting more responsible lending practices (I just wish they’d had more influence across the industry). Protesting slum lords and neighborhood dumpers. Basically, standing up for the little guy, and working to take the top dogs down a few pegs.
God bless them. No wonder the defenders of wealth and privilege hate them. No wonder they pushed bullshit voter registrations stories, and now wonder they turned to a pimp-and-ho gag when that failed.
You think I’m going to be embarrassed because ACORN workers alternately punked their would-be punkers, called the police on them, or didn’t quite know what to do when faced with someone making improbable claims of being in danger? Good luck with that.
GOD BLESS ACORN FOR ALL THE GOOD WORK THEY DO.
Comment by BDB —
October 11, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Ok, I never heard the part about them calling the police. Care to show a link, joe? Not to “prove” anything, I’m genuinely curoius about the rest of the story.
I think the ACORN stuff is a hurricane in a teacup. Whatever corruption is in that organization is dwarfed by, say, any government department you can name. State, local, or federal. But we just accept that as a matter of course (including the wingnuts if a Republican is in charge).
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 11, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
BDB,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fblogs%2Fglennthrush%2F0909%2FACORN_staffer_called_cops_on_filmmaker.html&ei=YSPSSuLGOtC8lAfDwcCmCg&usg=AFQjCNHTvjTMyY0P-9PtlxfLm-aSXLwKig
Link button no workee for me.
Anyway, the guy who called the police was the very same guy whose tape was the lead in the propraganda campaign.
Although I don’t think that’s as awesome as the woman who punked the “film makers” by making up a story about shooting her husband.
Comment by Johnny Longtorso —
October 11, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Although I don’t think that’s as awesome as the woman who punked the “film makers” by making up a story about shooting her husband.
So “I lied to you about something horrible I did and you repeated it, thus proving how evil you are” is a legit argument?
Comment by fish —
October 12, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
It’s funny; people who had not trouble whatsoever understanding that George Bush’s diversion of the presidency from the ordinary historical standard to the depths of his atrocities was an extremely meaningful process, don’t seem willing to acknowledge that the reverse process is worthy of notice or respect.
All GWB did differently was not hide (very well) the facts of what he was doing.
Pingback by Signs of the apocalypse « Entitled to an Opinion —
October 17, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
[...] 2009 Signs of the apocalypse Posted by teageegeepea under Uncategorized Leave a Comment A number of foreboding signs have appeared heralding the final day of judgment. One that nobody has [...]