No confirmation that before making the award official Thursday, the Nobel committee demanded genealogical evidence supporting Obama's primary qualification for the Peace Prize: that he is not related in any way to George W. Bush. I'm not sure, but could it be the reason that Obama skipped certain events is because he thought his stimulus bill, which he believes stopped a second, greater Depression, was also deserving of the Nobel Prize for economics?
The official story for skipping traditional events is the fact that the President is a busy man (which is probably why the earlier Nobel Laureate Presidents (Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) did not attend their own ceremonies). But on behalf of American taxpayers, I'm willing to sign your excuse note--how about an early Christmas break? May I borrow your nifty pen? You know, the one with all that red ink? The one paid for by American blood and treasure?
Oh, and while you were out of the country, economists have been analyzing your program vehicle's sputtering job engine, and the Democratic Congressional leaders are claiming it's going to take a lot of money to fix the problem (and health care...and climate change..and...), but the Chinese are refusing to raise your credit limit.
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech: A Mixed Bag
Obama does his usual talking points. For example, take this excerpt:
I believe that the United States of America [must hold to a higher standard] than those whom we fight... That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed Americas commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.This is polemical by obvious inference. It implies the United States government (under George W. Bush) condoned "torture" and knowingly refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. It's simply not true; Obama is equating a milder form of waterboarding with torture (in fact, waterboarding is not specifically defined as torture in the acts Obama cites; there are legitimate differences of opinion as to whether it constituted unpleasant treatment, not banned by the conventions, or "torture" ), and it was administered to just 3 high-value terrorist suspects, whom had specific knowledge of upcoming terrorist attacks on American citizens, over a limited time period. It was not done for arbitrary or sadistic purposes to ordinary foot soldiers, covered by the Geneva Convention.
But even if you were to grant, for the sake of argument, Obama's characterization of these events, out of thousands of prisoners or detainees, how material are the allegations involving 3 detainees? I reject Obama's smear of the professionalism of our servicemen. The fact that events like Abu Ghraib make news is because they are the exception, not the rule, and to compare the sanctioned unspeakable atrocities under the Hussein regime with the dishonorable actions of a few rogue soldiers is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of a legitimate American President.
But let's go even beyond that. The fact is, Obama did not "ban torture"; the United States already was a signatory to the conventions in question. The CIA director announced an end to enhanced interrogation procedures years before Obama took office. Former President Bush and Obama's opponent, Senator McCain, both advocated closure of the Guantanamo Bay detainee center. So what exactly did Obama achieve that was distinctive? More to the point, what more has he done beyond those mostly symbolic actions during his first week as President? What we do know is that he announced the Gitmo closure without first figuring out what to do with all the detainees.
It is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family.This is a rather disturbing statement; what exactly does he mean to say? That the United States must "spread the wealth around" with those nations led by dysfunctional, ineffectual, corrupt individuals? Is he seeking to rationalize or excuse countries waging war over the Politics of Envy?
He also confuses political correctness among certain scientists (many of them without relevant expertise or research credentials) with legitimate scientific consensus over the predictive validity of climate models:
There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades.There is no doubt that drought, famine and misplacement have occurred during world history without man-made carbon emissions, and no doubt there's a good chance (regardless of the scientific merits of the climate change groupthink) these will occur in the future as well. It's more problematic to ascertain the materiality of man's contribution (relative to natural factors, including sunspot activity) or (more importantly) the questionable efficacy of mankind's efforts to alleviate climate issues.
I was not impressed with Obama's idea that pacifists serve as the conscience of the world. Nobody is for war; ask any beauty pageant finalist, and she'll express her fervent wishes for world peace (Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet). I dare say any man or woman whom came close to losing his life in battle, has been wounded or seen his buddies killed or maimed does not to be lectured about the horror of war.
I also found his reference to Nixon's breakthrough diplomacy with Communist China rather odd; Obama reads this in the context of the disastrous Cultural Revolution during the 1960's. Whatever Nixon's considerable flaws, one must not underestimate the significance and unlikely nature of this breakthrough from a politician whom built his career on strident anti-Communist views. Many conservatives resented what they regarded as the abandonment of an ally, Taiwan. No liberal Democrat could have afforded to be seen as soft on Communism (e.g., JFK in Cuba and Vietnam). Obama has yet to demonstrate comparable remarkable unexpected leadership.
I wasn't all that convinced over the theoretical discussion of "just wars". (The reality of war is hardly clear-cut, and collateral loss of civilian lives, which got extensive play in the speech, is typically not intentional.) And his casual implied negative reference to the Crusades is not balanced with the historic expansion of Islam by conquest.
But there were a few good things about the speech. He explicitly acknowledged his actual accomplishments for the prize were minimal. We saw a significant toning down of his familiar "apology tour" rhetoric, and Obama was much more subtle than usual in Bush-bashing--denying the Nobel Prize committee confirmatory validation for their manipulative choice. Not only did he refuse to play to the strident anti-Americanism of European socialists, he made his strongest statement ever on behalf of American exceptionalism and make it clear that he was building on an American legacy of global international leadership (even paying a rare compliment to Ronald Reagan). He also made a strong case on behalf of American and NATO involvement in Afghanistan and made it clear that pacifistic ideals, talk and good wishes aren't enough in confronting adversaries like the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies.
Political Cartoon
Brian Fairrington points out even Albert Einstein wouldn't be able to cross-foot Obama's rhetoric with his spending spree record. (No doubt Einstein works for Fox News...)
Christmas Musical Interlude: "Minuit chrétiens"
I attended a junior high near an Air Force base in South Carolina and took a French class in seventh grade. One of the highlights of class was performing in a play based on the classic French tale of The Juggler of Notre Dame. In particular, at the apex of the performance, we sang "Minuit chrétiens" If there ever has been an obvious choice of a Christmas song for a Franco-American, it's this one. (I have to admit I was puzzled that Celine Dion did the English variation, "O Holy Night" on her best-selling Christmas album; at the very least, I envisioned her doing a bilingual version of the song, say, similar to Freddie Fender's English/Spanish version of "Secret Love" several years ago.) In my judgment, the French version is superior (eat your heart out, Josh Groban...) I provide two versions below:
Translation Courtesy of Laura K. Lawless
Minuit, chrétiens, c'est l'heure solennelle,
Où l'Homme-Dieu descendit jusqu'à nous
Pour effacer la tache originelle
Midnight, Christians, it's the solemn hour,
When God-man descended to us
To erase the stain of original sin
Et de Son Père arrêter le courroux.
Le monde entier tressaille d'espérance
En cette nuit qui lui donne un Sauveur.
And to end the wrath of His Father.
The entire world thrills with hope
On this night that gives it a Savior.
Peuple à genoux, attends ta délivrance.
Noël, Noël, voici le Rédempteur,
Noël, Noël, voici le Rédempteur !
People kneel down, wait for your deliverance.
Christmas, Christmas, here is the Redeemer,
Christmas, Christmas, here is the Redeemer!
Le Rédempteur a brisé toute entrave :
La terre est libre, et le ciel est ouvert.
Il voit un frère où n'était qu'un esclave,
The Redeemer has overcome every obstacle:
The Earth is free, and Heaven is open.
He sees a brother where there was only a slave,
L'amour unit ceux qu'enchaînait le fer.
Qui Lui dira notre reconnaissance,
C'est pour nous tous qu'Il naît,
Qu'Il souffre et meurt.
Love unites those that iron had chained.
Who will tell Him of our gratitude,
It's for all of us that He is born,
That He suffers and dies.
Peuple debout ! Chante ta délivrance,
Noël, Noël, chantons le Rédempteur,
Noël, Noël, chantons le Rédempteur !
People stand up! Sing of your deliverance,
Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer,
Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer!
