This post is very late, but it is only at this moment that I appear to realize Barack Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm a little shocked, because I have no idea why he has received it.
I have watched his entire speech at the prize ceremony, but I really don't understand why it is he who receives it. My suspicion that any large prize, like the Emmy's or the Nobel prizes, is primarily given by the hand of political concern, not the concern of who really deserves the prize. I hate how he says "But make no mistake; evil does exist in the world." because it is the stupid and irrational explanation for wrong-doing of people. People don't do wrong because they are evil, evil isn't inherent in people, people do evil, because they have grown up in a wrong environment. It is the government and culture of people that is the cause of bad acts by its people. "The soldiers courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms, but war itself is never glorious." only expresses and thereby affirms America's militarism. Using empty terms like 'glorious', and 'devotion'; devotion to what? Peace? You're kidding me.
The American 'peace-wars' are criminal, because they are the aggressors, the invaders. It should be suspicious enough that the UN is not in the Iraq war. And what is this talk about adherring to international law? If America was abiding international law, America would not have weapons of mass destruction. "America's commitment to global security will never waver..." His next words seem right, but he ends up saying America cannot do this alone, because they are too weak; not because their jurisdiction is limited. America isn't a militia that is allowed to be defensive against other countries, 'defensive' meaning 'aggressive'. Only a full, international forum, like the UN, can be ascribed such powers. NATO is a similar militia, a bunch of armed countries pretending to be the police of the world. They're not much different from the Michigan Militia, just larger. Obama keeps on saying that America needs to uphold certain rules of ethics during war, because that separates them from those they fight and, I think, would somehow justify the American aggression. But those ethics are hard to see through the smoke of secret military prisons, abuse of prisoners of war, the throwing off cliffs of cute puppy dogs and the neglect concerning the military status quo, concerning homosexual men. The immaturity of the American army, is certain to maintain its lack of ethics.
Militarism is probably an equal threat of old to mankind, as religion is. They're both completely stupid, immature and barbaric. It seems to be the people who are most likely to call the good ones beast-like, but ask yourself: is accepting our natural heritage more animalistic, or would the violent fear of other human beings be more of what the stone age must have been like?Bottom line is: Obama's 'change' sounded swell, but we're still waiting to see the results. He is an American Democrat, in that he is a New Republican. Conservative as hell, his first months in office have lost him much of his worshippers, and I'm not just talking about the gay community he's kept waiting too long. Change will come, as it always does in the evolution of the world and its societies; but I wonder who it is we should thank for it.
It seems we nowadays prize people who are least wrong, instead of those who are most good.
The Amazing Atheist, my favourite straight fatty; I recommend watching this.
6 comments:
Obama has batted 0.00 in his first year in office. He has capitulated to Wall street, sold out working people, completely screwed up on health care, you name it. He threw away every chance he had to accomplish something. He is already a lame duck president after only one year in office.
Oh, and I forgot, he increased the military budget while announcing a freeze on everything else. He has increased war. The Nobel prize lost all it's luster when they sucked up to Obama.
Obama himself said that he wasn't deserving of the prize. He as everyone else knows that it was basically a western European community political snub at George Bush--an expression of Obama being a more desirable character over the bumbling Bush.
Obama spoke left-of-center rhetoric during his campaign, but like all "left-of-center" Democrats, he moved to the center after being seated in office.
The man was obviously an astute and successful lawyer, but nevertheless inexperienced politician unqualified to be president unless surrounded by honest and experienced advisors of various fields. But instead of recruiting the best and brightest from the around the nation to advise him and head the various federal departments, he primarily selected cronies from his Chicago good-old-boys network headed by David Axelrod and Rahm Immanuel.
And last but not least, he's a member of one of two of the most intrusive, hypocritical, and corrupt political parties on the face of the earth.
The other most intrusive, hypocritical and corrupt political party being the Republicans?
Yes indeed, the Republicans.
Good fill someone in on and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.
Post a Comment