RAGGED THOTS

The old conventional wisdom: Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

The new conventional wisdom: Be careful of what you never-in-a-million-years-thought-you-might-get; it just might cause you unending headaches.

Last week's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama had the unusual effect of uniting the American political class in universally declaring that the award was premature -- at best. While conservatives largely unleashed mockery and venom, the left hardly rose up in defense of the award. On the contrary, some were so puzzled that they were forced to try to explain the award giving process; but with the notable exception of Democratic elected leaders, the awarding gave the left the opportunity to note the aspects of its agenda that had yet to be completed. Like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. While not specifically attached to issues of global peace, Obama nonetheless was also forced to play defense over the weekend on another level: At the Human Rights Campaign Fund annual dinner, Obama renewed his promise to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing gays in the military -- an issue along with gay marriage that was the point of a march on Washington this Sunday.

Meanwhile, one week after it's "Not Done" skit went immediately viral, "Saturday Night Live" was back at it again this weekend with another skit that mocked Obama -- this time with Fred Armisen-as-Obama declaring that he won it because, "I'm not George Bush." SNL also likened Obama getting the award as comparable to winning the Powerball lottery. The opening skit also got in a dig at Obama's economic advisers, who he was going to ask how he should invest his winnings. After all, "Obama" said, "Those guys do not make mistakes." Ouch.

Of course, when Obama does make a final decision on Afghanistan, the Nobel will continue to haunt him, one way or another: If he increases troops, those on the left will say that he has betrayed the hopes and optimism that the Nobel Committee had invested in him. On the other hand, a failure to increase troops -- i.e., ignore the suggestions of Stanley McChrystal, his commander in the field -- will give the right a talking point that will be used well into the 2010 mid-terms: Barack Obama loves basking in the love and adulation of the global elite -- to the detriment of U.S. national interests. Politically, it becomes a no-win for the prize winner.

Ironically, however, there is one way that the Nobe farce may be used to the White House's advantage on the domestic front. Watch the pivot: While the focus remains on things the president hasn't done and an Afghanistan decision not yet made, at some point during this week, the political class will wake to the fact that the Baucus bill is going to be voted out of the Senate Finance Committee (possibly as soon as Tuesday). That means that the reports of the death of the president's primary domestic agenda item -- a health care bill -- may just have been exaggerated.

Like it or not, individuals of all ideological backgrounds will soon be forced to concede that this president is right now far closer to passing a near-universal health care reform bill than anyone of his predecessors. Despite all the heat and fury of the past summer (town hall meetings and so forth), an issue that has bedeviled Democratic presidents since at least Harry Truman is going to be closer to reality. A president that is currently roundly criticized as being unduly praised and flattered for little accomplishment will suddenly have a rather significant political and policy success to display.

That will be far more significant and long-lasting than the weekend headaches brought on by an unrequested Nobel Peace Prize.

Labels: Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize

# posted by Robert A. George @ 8:50 AM

Lose the Olympics, get the Nobel Peace Prize?

So, exactly one week after one communal world organization (the International Olympics Committee) delivered President Obama a personal snub by rejecting Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Games, another one (the Nobel Prize Committee) comes up with a "do-over"?

President Obama is now the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Obama, said the committee, has "given [the world's] people hope for a better future."

Huh?

In its own way, this is almost as embarrassing as Chicago getting dissed by the IOC in the opening round last week -- despite Obama's overtures. He's now been recognized internationally, even as he juggles with a struggling economy and a daunting agenda domestically.

With all due respect to the president, he hasn't done anything to earn such an award, even by the often-warped political messaging in which the Nobel Peace Prize Committee delves.

By contrast, Jimmy Carter didn't get the award when he brokered the 1978 Middle East peace accord between Israel and Egypt; he got it years later as sort of a Lifetime Achievement Award (that also served to poke the Bush administration that was ramping up the case for war with Iraq). Similarly, Bill Clinton never got an award despite his attempts to get a deal done between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the late-90s.

Al Gore got the prize a couple of years ago, but that was also another political statement that affirmed his years of lobbying to get the world to take on global warming.

But this one takes the cake. Talk about premature! The president has made several trips abroad and made many speeches declaring that America was putting aside its presumed belligerence of the last few years. Most notably, Obama spoke at Cairo University to deliver an address to the "Muslim World." These have been part of what presidential critics caustically refer to as Obama's "apology tour."

But, apropos of a charge that Hillary Clinton made during the campaign last year, these are just "words" -- a series of speeches. They are neither one seminal action that brings about peace or understanding between long-antagonistic peoples -- nor, at 48, has he managed to build a body of work worthy of a prestigious award. (Though his anti-Iraq War campaign rhetoric undoubtedly won him some points.)

In fact, given that the committee has a Feb. 1 deadline, Obama had only been in office less than two weeks before he was nominated. This is exactly the opposite of the Arizona State University farce earlier this year. Then, the university chose to snub the president who was delivering a commencement address by not giving him an honorary degree -- because his "body of work" was not yet complete. In fact, having been elected president was a worthy enough achievement to merit an honorary degree.

The Nobel Peace Prize supposedly once meant something, reserved for truly large achievements on the world stage. On that measure, the jury is still way out on President Obama's life and career.

On its face, skeptics could reasonably conclude that the Nobel committee became infatuated with the concept that the American people managed to elect a black man president -- and awarded him for that seminal moment.

Bu that accomplishment was as much about the nation as it was the man. It had nothing to do with the supposed criteria for earning a Nobel Peace Prize. The committee should be embarrassed.

Labels: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Nobel Peace Prize

# posted by Robert A. George @ 10:00 AM

Judge Michael Burton ruled at the High Court of London that the movie is biased
and contains "nine scientific errors."
The film depicts a bleak future in which the world is threatened by climate change, which it claims is already responsible for everything from Hurricane Katrina to the disappearance of snow from atop Mount Kilimanjaro.
But Burton said the scientific community doesn't buy those claims.
The film dramatically warns that polar bears are drowning as they try to swim up to 60 miles to find rapidly disappearing Arctic ice.
But the evidence that came out in court says it's just not true, said the judge.
"The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm," he said.
The film also claims the world's sea levels will rise up to 20 feet "in the near future."
The judge said scientists dispute this "Armageddon scenario" and say that the sea levels would rise that much "only after" thousands of years.

Labels: Al Gore, Global Warming, Nobel Peace Prize

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:38 AM