What a breathtakingly stupid idea.
Oct. 9th, 2009 09:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fr_defenestratoNever mind whether Precedent Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize (well, not never mind; we'll mind that presently). But in terms purely of public relations, just what in the blistering FUCK does the Nobel Committee think they're doing? Have they recently been infiltrated by Karl Rove or one of his ideological spawn? Because I can't think of any other way these assholes could bumble their way into doing the single most likely thing to get Obama killed—by further convincing teabaggers, dittoheads, and general paranoids that Mr. Obama represents the hostile takeover of the entire fucking world.
Thorbjoern Jagland, the chair of the Nobel committee, is quoted as saying, 'Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.'
Well, ok. There was Walt Disney, in whose mendacious mythologies of a happily-ever-after Obama seems unerringly to be treading; and whose tales are about as believable. Is Uncle Walt up for a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize?
The AP sez the prize was 'designed to encourage [Obama's] initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.' Well, juggle my gingerbread! In order:
One. The Obama United States 'agreed' on April 5, 2009 to reduce its nuclear arsenal and called on everybody else to do so, which is like a little like saying, 'Ok, on the count of three we'll both put down our guns. Ready? One, two, THREE! Ah-ha, you didn't put yours down! No, I didn't either, but I will this time. Ready? One, two THREE! Ah-ha!' In any case, here was Obama at the U.N. Security Council last month, promising a summit in April 2010 (I typed 3020 by accident, but who knows when we'll actually get around to it) to discuss arms reduction and containment of proliferation and lockdown of 'vulnerable nuclear materials.' (Oh, and reverently quoting Ronald Reagan and fondly citing Henry Killssinger and Sam Nunn in the process.) Thanks, B! I'm sure you'll continue to be just as fierce an advocate of cutting back America's stockpile as you have been of equal rights for queer people.
Two. Easing tensions with the Muslim world? Ah, that's what increasing the troop strength in Afghanistan is about. I understand now. Great. I'm on board.
(For the record, I give Mr. Obama credit for his persistent rhetoric that Muslims are people, too; but even his predecessor went out of his way to so stress. Words are only good for so much. For Bush, they were good for less because his actions belied them. For Obama they're apparently all that's good for anything.)
Three. 'Stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.' Ok; but wouldn't any president, even John McCain, have represented an improvement from the pigheaded 'with us or agin us' attitude of that fuckstain that came before? For that matter, didn't every single president leading up to George W. Fuckstain have a better record in that arena? (Notwithstanding the doctrinaire James Monroe and successors: isolationism is not necessarily unilateralism.) I'm not so naive (or forgetful, for that matter) as to think Mr. Fuckstain was the first president to drive the United States to do something of questionable morality without regard for the world's opinion. But he was the first to make it a point of pride and taunting so to do. That asshole never, ever lost the sheer joy he got out of being that asshole.
But for this we heap honors on his successor? That's not so much praise as sheer relief for an end to the reign of the rogue gun terrorizing Tombstone. In their effusion and haste to reward the new sheriff, the Nobel Committee has acted with astonishing stupidity, blindness, an utter lack of foresight or contextual analysis. The muddle Americans who've been clamouring for Mr. Obama's assassination are just waiting for crap like this to happen to solidify their claims—and make plenty of new converts in the process—that BO is the new emperor whose ever-widening, seamless power will soon enough reduce them to socialist serfdom.
Thanks, Jagland and co.! You're truly a bunch of clueless wankers.
Thorbjoern Jagland, the chair of the Nobel committee, is quoted as saying, 'Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.'
Well, ok. There was Walt Disney, in whose mendacious mythologies of a happily-ever-after Obama seems unerringly to be treading; and whose tales are about as believable. Is Uncle Walt up for a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize?
The AP sez the prize was 'designed to encourage [Obama's] initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.' Well, juggle my gingerbread! In order:
One. The Obama United States 'agreed' on April 5, 2009 to reduce its nuclear arsenal and called on everybody else to do so, which is like a little like saying, 'Ok, on the count of three we'll both put down our guns. Ready? One, two, THREE! Ah-ha, you didn't put yours down! No, I didn't either, but I will this time. Ready? One, two THREE! Ah-ha!' In any case, here was Obama at the U.N. Security Council last month, promising a summit in April 2010 (I typed 3020 by accident, but who knows when we'll actually get around to it) to discuss arms reduction and containment of proliferation and lockdown of 'vulnerable nuclear materials.' (Oh, and reverently quoting Ronald Reagan and fondly citing Henry Ki
Two. Easing tensions with the Muslim world? Ah, that's what increasing the troop strength in Afghanistan is about. I understand now. Great. I'm on board.
(For the record, I give Mr. Obama credit for his persistent rhetoric that Muslims are people, too; but even his predecessor went out of his way to so stress. Words are only good for so much. For Bush, they were good for less because his actions belied them. For Obama they're apparently all that's good for anything.)
Three. 'Stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.' Ok; but wouldn't any president, even John McCain, have represented an improvement from the pigheaded 'with us or agin us' attitude of that fuckstain that came before? For that matter, didn't every single president leading up to George W. Fuckstain have a better record in that arena? (Notwithstanding the doctrinaire James Monroe and successors: isolationism is not necessarily unilateralism.) I'm not so naive (or forgetful, for that matter) as to think Mr. Fuckstain was the first president to drive the United States to do something of questionable morality without regard for the world's opinion. But he was the first to make it a point of pride and taunting so to do. That asshole never, ever lost the sheer joy he got out of being that asshole.
But for this we heap honors on his successor? That's not so much praise as sheer relief for an end to the reign of the rogue gun terrorizing Tombstone. In their effusion and haste to reward the new sheriff, the Nobel Committee has acted with astonishing stupidity, blindness, an utter lack of foresight or contextual analysis. The muddle Americans who've been clamouring for Mr. Obama's assassination are just waiting for crap like this to happen to solidify their claims—and make plenty of new converts in the process—that BO is the new emperor whose ever-widening, seamless power will soon enough reduce them to socialist serfdom.
Thanks, Jagland and co.! You're truly a bunch of clueless wankers.
