Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

I was surprised by the news as well.

I wasn’t upset by it, of course, I was merely shocked that a domestically controversial figure was selected.  Initially, I was concerned.  I envisioned outraged comments decrying the honor and dismissing the award as a meaningless pat on the back from the inconsequential worldwide community who doesn’t understand what it’s like to be a salt of the earth working man who does real good for his family (or something).

I found a lot of compelling articles from both sides of the spectrum criticizing the prematureness of the award.  It’s true that well Obama has made a lot of refreshing promises, he hasn’t had enough time to follow through.  These ideas take time to materialize.  The relationships between countries in conflict are terribly complicated, and they can’t be resolved in mere months.

At the same time, I understand the desire of some (and obviously members of the Norwegian committee) to encourage progress.  Obama has a lot of roadblocks to contend with – both abroad and at home.  He’s a leader who’s both loved, hated, doubted and supported by his country.  Some call him a genius, others deny he’s a real person.  He has a tough line to toe, and I can appreciate influential people wanting to give ideologically positive policies a leg up.

I can understand both arguments, and I always love a good discussion.

With news like this, however, comes the deluge of asinine comments.  Fox News linked to an article that chronicled Obama’s first 12 days in office (the list of nominees for the prize was finalized by February 1, which was 12 days after Obama took office).  It said, among other things, that he partied and skipped church. The article ended with something like this:

“There you have it.  You want the Nobel Prize? Just skip church!”

I’d say skipping church is usually better than advocating war and torture – but that’s coming from someone outside the moral majority, so perhaps I’m mistaken.

Concerned Women for America (I always refer back to them) said that the decision is appalling considering Obama is at the helm of two wars.  This is true, but these weren’t wars he started (and one of which he voted against as a senator).  I also suspect that should Bush have been awarded the prize (to liberal disdain, of course), CWFA would have argued that he was waging a just and righteous war to protect Western freedom and democracy.  When Obama received the award whilst still entangled in wars that predated his presidency, his position was suddenly abhorrent and a black mark on the prestigious prize.

I have to say what amused me most was an article posted on CNN.com that quoted top Taliban officials.  The Taliban was, of course, appalled.  They said the prize was a joke given Obama’s promise to send more troops to Afghanistan.  One couldn’t expect them to say otherwise, but the most amusing detail was that the article said that the Taliban called from a private number in an undisclosed location?

Who, upon hearing this morning’s news, decided to call the Taliban?

Seriously?

What did CNN think they were going to say?

Who had their number?

If the Taliban contacted them, why?  Why would they call CNN to express their horror?  Wouldn’t it have been easier to just make a video and post it online? It’s odd that the inherent non-violence of a casual phone call is only ever used when warring leaders wish to call each other stupid via major news outlets.  Perhaps people should reach for their secret phones to talk about real concessions and solutions.

In ironic news, the Taliban and the Republicans are officially in agreement on something other than the necessity of widely imposed religious orthodoxy.  Someone needs to rewrite their argument.

I suggest opponents of Obama’s award go the “the Nobel Prize is stupid!” route.

I’m Worried

After class this past Friday I happened to catch the last half of the The View (my mother PVRs it regularly).

I enjoy The View from time to time.  It’s entertaining more than enlightening, but still a fine way to pass an hour or so.  Things are said that I disagree with (and find stupid), but most political discussions are usually enthralling in these paranoid and hysterical times of clashing ideologies and wild conspiracy theories.

Last week, that woman who (I think) is famous for having a fight with her friend and marrying some sleazy camera whore-turned born again Christian, was co-hosting.  Her name is Heidi Montag, and she said something that I could hardly laugh at I was so appalled.  She, along with fellow (but permanent) co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted positively to a stunningly ignorant political ad made by Christian media darling Kirk Cameron decrying the atheist takeover of post-secondary education.  Cameron claimed that non-religious professors were brainwashing students to abandon faith and embrace, well, godlessness.

Shepherd praised him for telling the public that God is, indeed, being cast out of schools.  Montag agreed that Cameron was speaking truth to power and reminding the public that there’s discrimination brewing against faithful folks.  Shepherd said she was horrified to learn that a friend was told by a college professor that she couldn’t use the bible in a research paper.

I’ll bet you dollars to fucking donuts that that friend wanted to use it for a science or history class.  If that’s the case, then the bible should not have been used as supporting evidence.  The bible should never be used to prop up an academic argument unrelated to theology.  The bible could be helpful in the analytical discussion of historical literature, particularly medieval material, but it would not enhance a discussion of politics or history or science.  Just as one could not reference King Lear in a physics paper, the gospel of Matthew is not relevant to a discussion about biology.

Montag said that creationism should be taught alongside evolution.  Others, shockingly, nodded their heads in agreement (not Whoopi or Joy Behar or Barbara Walters).  Walters responded by saying that the debate has been going on for a long time.  Whoopi Goldberg said that science is science and creationism is religion, and religious studies can be pursued on any college or university campus.  No one said, outright, that Cameron, Shepherd, and Montag were talking nonsense.

Creationism is the Christian belief that God waved his hand and created one man, one woman, the planet, and the animals in seven days.  It has no basis in fact, it’s not scientifically sound, and it doesn’t resonate with billions of other people who subscribe to different theories (some of which are actually upheld by facts).  It does not belong in a secular class.  Keeping it out of a post-secondary science curriculum is not discrimination.  It’s not a scandal or a thumbed nose at intellectuals desperately seeking balance in their studies.  It’s a way to preserve logic.

There seems to be reluctance to tell ridiculous people “no!”

All of those fringy conspiracy theorists who blog about Obama’s communist/fascist/muslim/Kenyan background? They’re mocked on Comedy Central and HBO, but not in the mainstream media, and certainly not by the politicians they seek to discredit and, quite possibly, endanger.  We’re told that they’re just angry and misinformed, that they represent just the tiniest minority of the GOP base.

However, conservative websites that are politically active and influential are posting or linking to far-right websites with articles “confirming” the right’s greatest fears about Obama.  Concerned Women for America frequently links to WorldNetDaily, a site that calls upon “experts” to show “new” evidence that Obama is, indeed, an African rebel usurping the now-denigrated White House throne.

CWFA also links to “respected” websites that prove, somehow, that the health care reforms are secret ploys to destroy the elderly and disabled and cripple America’s economy so the czars can rise and recreate the glorious Mother Russia of the Stalin years.  They also have an unflattering picture of a scowling Obama that’s accompanied by rolling text that reminds viewers that he kills babies (and probably eats them in the same hut where he practices Islam-inspired witchcraft).

A conservative website recently removed an inflammatory article that said that a military coup to remove Obama might not be so bad.

How long has this been going on?

Some say that this is a consequence of lingering racism.  It probably is, but I think it’s about more than that.

In 2004, anti-Bush sentiment was on the rise and conservative supporters were getting their backs up about criticism of their president.  He was protecting them from another terrorist attack.  He was taking WMDs away from Saddam, and even if they weren’t there, well, they were giving oppressed people a chance at American prosperity.  He was a good, God-fearing man with the best interests of good ol’ America in his heart.  He was narrowing contraceptive rights, pushing back progress on sexual education and stopping the gay marriage movement in its tracks.  He was feeding antibiotics into a bloodstream poisoned by Clinton-era liberalism.

Ah, those liberals.

In Europe, liberal often means right of center.  In Canada (my neck of the woods), liberal means center.  In the U.S., liberal (to some) means criminal and depraved.

Perhaps some traditional types see America as an untouched, slender young white woman.  She’s blonde and fair and delicate.  She goes to church with her parents, babysits the neighbour’s children, pets dogs, helps her mama cook and sew, reads the bible with her pa, wears a pink ribbon in her hair and never, ever thinks about boys.  One day, while she’s gathering flowers in a meadow, a hulking, snarling, drooling liberal wolfman emerges from the forest in torn jeans and fucks the ever living shit out of her.  He fills her pristine body with lecherous semen.  He makes her want to destroy free enterprise and poke fetuses in the eye with paperclips.  In a few short years, she’ll covered in tattoos and spending way too much money on tofu and sex clubs.

Perhaps some of the vitriol aimed at Obama has to do with his supposed liberalism, not only his race.  He’s the embodiment of that feral monster threatening to destroy a noble land from the inside.  He’s going to turn people away from their values, and he’ll laugh and dance while churches burn and capitalism falls (nevermind that Christ probably never envisioned Wall Street when he praised the Golden Rule).

When will someone – someone powerful – say that this president is not out to get the working class? When will he or she say that this outrage is nonsense, this childlike impudence abhorrent, and this online flame-fanning unacceptable? When will people admit that sometimes one “side” is wrong and should be shunned by silence until they’re willing to play nicely?

I like compromise, and I like fairness.  Letting these people trample debate by giving credence to their cause is counterproductive.  Don’t take away their right to express themselves, but counter their arguments with stern assertions that their ranting and raving is illogical.

This is worrisome period in time.  Not as bad as others before it, but bad enough that something needs to be said about honesty, integrity, and worthwhile debate.  No more shrieking about police states and white men concentration camps.  Seriously.