There are days when I have to ask myself, "what's in the water"? In Oslo, Norway, where nothing ever seems to happen, a 32 year old right wingnut by the name of Anders Behring Breivik goes on a bombing and shooting rampage. He's successful with some moderate building damage, but its his systemic hunting down and murdering of at least 90 young adults attending a politically oriented retreat sponsored by Norway's liberal Labour Party on a remote island of Utoeya that causes the most carnage. His explanation was that he was trying to spark a conservative coup or something against "cultural Marxists". He has reportedly said that his actions were largely in response to Norway's extreme open policy to immigration and the large influx of Moslems and Africans.
I guess I can understand his frustration. No one wants to see their culture, language, or religion usurped by any group, but just how does blowing up a building or shooting a bunch of kids in cold blood help his cause? Sure, it's going to bring the world's attention to his cause; the media will examine ad nauseam his childhood, his relationships, his motives, and, of course, the impact (both real and anticipated) of his actions. The media will interview the subjects of his hatred, Moslems, Africans, and other third world immigrants living in Norway and throughout Europe. Much will be made of the socialist policies of the Scandinavian countries, and the all but free social care they receive and the high tax base native (and working) Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians pay for this social safety net. I suspect too there will be some comparison to the Scandinavian socialist polices and Obama's efforts to socialize America's social safety net as well as immigration (both legal and illegal).
But, in the end, what will have been accomplished? Mr. Breivik will be tried amid the glare of cameras, and in the end, sentenced to life in prison since Norway (and the rest of Europe) doesn't believe in the death penalty. He will pay for his fifteen minutes of fame with someone else's pound of flesh. Most people, even those who agree with his cause, will attempt to distance themselves from any conservative groups, and the more liberal groups, such as the Labour Party, may even seen a slight increase in membership or donations as form of sympatric support. And parents will bury their children.
Actions like this seldom have their desired effect. Assassinations rarely alter policies. In America, Timothy McVey, who was 26 years old at the time, attempted the something similar by blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Instead of sparking a civil war or revolution, his actions only sparked revolution at the carnage. McVey's actions were triggered by outraged at the FBI's botched raids at Ruby Ridge in 1992 and Waco in 1993 where a number of innocent individuals were killed (and in some cases, murdered) by FBI and ATF agents. But, in the end, many like minded individuals distanced themselves from anti-government oriented militias and similar groups, while others simply faded into the woodwork. McVey, in many ways, did more harm to his cause than the forces he was fighting ever could. I think Mr. Breivik's action will have the same result for his cause. Cold comfort for the survivors or the families of the dead.
Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Obama Picks Up Peace Prize
On December 10, 2009, Obama flew to Oslo Norway to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize. In his acceptance speech, Obama acknowledged that his contributions were “slight” compared to all those who came before him, and he went on to reference such great individuals as Gandhi, George C. Marshall, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. Let’s be honest. Barak Obama doesn’t even have “slight” accomplishments. He has none. Zip. Zilch. Nada, Nichts. Obama was nominated for the now once prestigious award based on speeches about peace he made while campaigning for President. That’s right—speeches. Other recipients have spent their entire lives trying to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. So what gives here?
The requirements for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize state the award was to be given on accomplishments one year prior to the nomination (see reference at the bottom of this article). That would mean that Obama was nominated for what then? Being an unknown Chicago community activist? How about being an unknown Illinois State Senator with mediocre voting record? No? Would you believe an unknown junior US Senator with virtually no voting record and certainly no foreign policy experience? How does compare to, let’s say, Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1906 mediated the end of the war between Japan and Russia.
Well, all that’s left then are his campaign speeches (mostly written by unknown staffers) talking about peace. Yet ironically, Obama has just signed in effect an executive order committing thousands of additional US troops to the war in Afghanistan before picking up his “peace prize” (and the rather substantial check---1.4 million dollars---which goes with it I should add). He added in his acceptance speech that war was sometimes necessary (“To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history”) and why, in his opinion, war was sometimes justified. Ok, everyone can acknowledge that wars happen. Its part of our darker nature. But isn’t this a contradiction to what he was given his “Peace Prize” for? I mean, come on, a speech is a speech right? The first was to end war (gets an award and big check) and now this one is about fighting “justifiable” war (so does he have to give it back?).
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no problem with Obama per se. I think it would be great if he or any other American received the award for doing something like resolving the Middle East issues or put together a plan to control climate change. You know, actually did something? At least to Obama’s credit, he admitted in his speech that there were others “far more deserving”. Frankly I think Nobel Peace Selection Committee has tarnished the not just its reputation, but devalued all that the Nobel Peace Prize stands---excuse me---stood for. I am, however, thankful that the reputations of all those great men and women who have come before are beyond the reproach of the petty political pandering of a few.
Suggested article:
http://hosse.blogspot.com/2009/10/nobel-committee-blunders.ht
Poll results
Our last poll asked you if you thought that the terrorist currently being held on Gitmo, should be brought to New York City, near the sight of 9/11, for trial. 10% of you said “no way” and thought they should be tried elsewhere. 40% of you thought they should be tired before a military tribunal at some other location. The rest of you seem to have either a strong sense of irony or a real mean streak in you (that’s why I really love my readers) and think NYC is the place to be.
Personally, I think it would be too hard on the widows and others to bring these murders to New York, I can see a certain justice to being the criminal back to the scene of the crime to face his victims. However, I would not try them in civilian court. There’s just too much that could go wrong. Plus, I wouldn’t want to see this turned into a circus. A military tribunal would be much more fitting because of the broader rules of evidence; tighter control; and there would be no doubt of a swift and fitting execution for these punks.
Lastly, Happy Chanukah to all my Jewish readers!
Shopping for the Holidays?
I know if you're like me, you're so busy you don't have time to shop. May I make a suggestion that will help you and help this blog site? Check out my book recommendation to the right. You can also browse through not just the great books Amazon offers, but also the many great products offered by Amazon, and by shopping Amazon through AO, you help this blog keep going!
The requirements for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize state the award was to be given on accomplishments one year prior to the nomination (see reference at the bottom of this article). That would mean that Obama was nominated for what then? Being an unknown Chicago community activist? How about being an unknown Illinois State Senator with mediocre voting record? No? Would you believe an unknown junior US Senator with virtually no voting record and certainly no foreign policy experience? How does compare to, let’s say, Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1906 mediated the end of the war between Japan and Russia.
Well, all that’s left then are his campaign speeches (mostly written by unknown staffers) talking about peace. Yet ironically, Obama has just signed in effect an executive order committing thousands of additional US troops to the war in Afghanistan before picking up his “peace prize” (and the rather substantial check---1.4 million dollars---which goes with it I should add). He added in his acceptance speech that war was sometimes necessary (“To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history”) and why, in his opinion, war was sometimes justified. Ok, everyone can acknowledge that wars happen. Its part of our darker nature. But isn’t this a contradiction to what he was given his “Peace Prize” for? I mean, come on, a speech is a speech right? The first was to end war (gets an award and big check) and now this one is about fighting “justifiable” war (so does he have to give it back?).
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no problem with Obama per se. I think it would be great if he or any other American received the award for doing something like resolving the Middle East issues or put together a plan to control climate change. You know, actually did something? At least to Obama’s credit, he admitted in his speech that there were others “far more deserving”. Frankly I think Nobel Peace Selection Committee has tarnished the not just its reputation, but devalued all that the Nobel Peace Prize stands---excuse me---stood for. I am, however, thankful that the reputations of all those great men and women who have come before are beyond the reproach of the petty political pandering of a few.
Suggested article:
http://hosse.blogspot.com/2009/10/nobel-committee-blunders.ht
Poll results
Our last poll asked you if you thought that the terrorist currently being held on Gitmo, should be brought to New York City, near the sight of 9/11, for trial. 10% of you said “no way” and thought they should be tried elsewhere. 40% of you thought they should be tired before a military tribunal at some other location. The rest of you seem to have either a strong sense of irony or a real mean streak in you (that’s why I really love my readers) and think NYC is the place to be.
Personally, I think it would be too hard on the widows and others to bring these murders to New York, I can see a certain justice to being the criminal back to the scene of the crime to face his victims. However, I would not try them in civilian court. There’s just too much that could go wrong. Plus, I wouldn’t want to see this turned into a circus. A military tribunal would be much more fitting because of the broader rules of evidence; tighter control; and there would be no doubt of a swift and fitting execution for these punks.
Lastly, Happy Chanukah to all my Jewish readers!
Shopping for the Holidays?
I know if you're like me, you're so busy you don't have time to shop. May I make a suggestion that will help you and help this blog site? Check out my book recommendation to the right. You can also browse through not just the great books Amazon offers, but also the many great products offered by Amazon, and by shopping Amazon through AO, you help this blog keep going!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Nobel Committee Blunders
Now, I’m the first guy who likes to see Americans get the Nobel Peace Prize, but don’t you actually have to do something to earn it? So, what exactly did Obama do during the ten days between the time he was sworn in a President and the cut off date for nominations for the Nobel Award? I don’t know about you, but given the size of the White House, my greatest accomplishment in ten days would be to find the kitchen and all the restrooms! Heck, during the first few weeks after his inauguration, Obama was still picking staff and unpacking. So then, perhaps the best place to start is by looking at what Obama did prior to becoming America’s first bi-racial President. Maybe that would give us a clue as to why he was nominated by the Nobel Committee.
As far as I can tell in reading his bio, he was a junior US Senator from Illinois who really didn’t accomplish anything particularly important. He sponsored no world altering legislation. He wasn’t part of any investigative committee examining current financial practices or overseeing military intelligence reports, or even our healthcare system. Ok, how about as Illinois State Senator? Nope, I found nothing there either. He was kinda popular, but didn’t really ever take the lead on much legislation; certainly nothing of a national or international nature. Well then, what does the Nobel Committee look at in making their selections and what about past American Presidents (I’ll give you a hint—there were three)?
The Nobel Peace Prize was established by Alfred Nobel upon his death in 1896 and the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901. Nobel requested that the Norwegian Government, through its Parliament, appoint a committee of five individuals to select individuals for their work in peace related work using the following criteria:
“…during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
All nominations have to be submitted by February 1, and based therefore, on the nominee’s work for the previous year. The Committee generally has a list of approximately 200 nominees which is then whittled down to a much shorter (and workable) list. This list is then reviewed by the permanent advisers to the Nobel Institute, consisting of the Institute's Director and the Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. The advisers will usually have a few months to complete their reviews, which are then considered by the Committee to select the winner. The Committee seeks to achieve a unanimous decision, which is not always possible.
The current Nobel Committee members are:
Thorbjørn Jagland (the Committee chairman and former Member of Parliament. He is the former Prime Minister for the Labour Party and current Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Kaci Kullmann Five (a deputy chairman and former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister for the Conservative Party.
Sissel Rønbeck (a deputy director and former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister for the Labour Party
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (a former member of Parliament for the Progress Party.
Ågot Valle (a former member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party
So, who were the three US Presidents and what did they do to earn their nomination?
The first was Theodore “Teedy” Roosevelt (my personal favorite). “TR” as he was often called, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his successful mediation to end the war between Russia and Japan, thus saving tens of thousands of lives. The next American President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize was Woodrow Wilson in 1919. President Wilson received the honor for his work in brokering an end to World War I and for his efforts in establishing the League of Nations, which was the precursor to the United Nations. The central idea behind the League of Nations was to create a forum whereby nations could resolve their disputes peacefully and to foster international cooperation. The third American President was Jimmy Carter, who was given the award in 2002 for his work, while President, in brokering peace between Egypt and Israel (also known as the Camp David Accords) during the 1970’s.
So, where does that leave us? Pretty much right where we started. The Nobel Committee defended their decision to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize (and its $1.5 million dollar award) based on his speeches and call for international cooperation and peace (since the rules state that the nomination has to be for work one year previous, we have to assume the award was therefore given for his campaign speeches, and we all know about campaign promises). Thus the award would have been based on Obama’s “promises” of change while running for office. If that was the case, every candidate who ever ran for office should have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama accepted the award “on behalf of the American People”, which I assuming means that we will get a piece of that $1.5 million dollars (or at the very least, his speech writers should get some of the action).
All and all, the Nobel Committee blundered badly in eyes of the world and greatly diminished the value of this great award. It said to the global community that promises mattered more than deeds. The Nobel Foundation and Institute are going to have to work hard to regain the integrity it has lost. Until then, there is no reason not to expect a Noble Peace Prize at the bottom of every box of Cracker Jacks. I promise.
Poll Results
In our last poll, we asked if you would support “ObamaCare” if it dropped the so-called “public option” for illegal immigrants. 30% of you said you would. 10% of you said might support it, while an overwhelming 60% said no way. I have to agree. America’s healthcare system is in shambles. We can and should do better but socializing our healthcare system isn’t the answer, and especially if that includes providing healthcare coverage at taxpayer expense to individuals who have come to this country illegally. If they want healthcare coverage, then either take steps to be here legally or feel free to return home.
As far as I can tell in reading his bio, he was a junior US Senator from Illinois who really didn’t accomplish anything particularly important. He sponsored no world altering legislation. He wasn’t part of any investigative committee examining current financial practices or overseeing military intelligence reports, or even our healthcare system. Ok, how about as Illinois State Senator? Nope, I found nothing there either. He was kinda popular, but didn’t really ever take the lead on much legislation; certainly nothing of a national or international nature. Well then, what does the Nobel Committee look at in making their selections and what about past American Presidents (I’ll give you a hint—there were three)?
The Nobel Peace Prize was established by Alfred Nobel upon his death in 1896 and the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901. Nobel requested that the Norwegian Government, through its Parliament, appoint a committee of five individuals to select individuals for their work in peace related work using the following criteria:
“…during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
All nominations have to be submitted by February 1, and based therefore, on the nominee’s work for the previous year. The Committee generally has a list of approximately 200 nominees which is then whittled down to a much shorter (and workable) list. This list is then reviewed by the permanent advisers to the Nobel Institute, consisting of the Institute's Director and the Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. The advisers will usually have a few months to complete their reviews, which are then considered by the Committee to select the winner. The Committee seeks to achieve a unanimous decision, which is not always possible.
The current Nobel Committee members are:
Thorbjørn Jagland (the Committee chairman and former Member of Parliament. He is the former Prime Minister for the Labour Party and current Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Kaci Kullmann Five (a deputy chairman and former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister for the Conservative Party.
Sissel Rønbeck (a deputy director and former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister for the Labour Party
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (a former member of Parliament for the Progress Party.
Ågot Valle (a former member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party
So, who were the three US Presidents and what did they do to earn their nomination?
The first was Theodore “Teedy” Roosevelt (my personal favorite). “TR” as he was often called, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his successful mediation to end the war between Russia and Japan, thus saving tens of thousands of lives. The next American President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize was Woodrow Wilson in 1919. President Wilson received the honor for his work in brokering an end to World War I and for his efforts in establishing the League of Nations, which was the precursor to the United Nations. The central idea behind the League of Nations was to create a forum whereby nations could resolve their disputes peacefully and to foster international cooperation. The third American President was Jimmy Carter, who was given the award in 2002 for his work, while President, in brokering peace between Egypt and Israel (also known as the Camp David Accords) during the 1970’s.
So, where does that leave us? Pretty much right where we started. The Nobel Committee defended their decision to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize (and its $1.5 million dollar award) based on his speeches and call for international cooperation and peace (since the rules state that the nomination has to be for work one year previous, we have to assume the award was therefore given for his campaign speeches, and we all know about campaign promises). Thus the award would have been based on Obama’s “promises” of change while running for office. If that was the case, every candidate who ever ran for office should have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama accepted the award “on behalf of the American People”, which I assuming means that we will get a piece of that $1.5 million dollars (or at the very least, his speech writers should get some of the action).
All and all, the Nobel Committee blundered badly in eyes of the world and greatly diminished the value of this great award. It said to the global community that promises mattered more than deeds. The Nobel Foundation and Institute are going to have to work hard to regain the integrity it has lost. Until then, there is no reason not to expect a Noble Peace Prize at the bottom of every box of Cracker Jacks. I promise.
Poll Results
In our last poll, we asked if you would support “ObamaCare” if it dropped the so-called “public option” for illegal immigrants. 30% of you said you would. 10% of you said might support it, while an overwhelming 60% said no way. I have to agree. America’s healthcare system is in shambles. We can and should do better but socializing our healthcare system isn’t the answer, and especially if that includes providing healthcare coverage at taxpayer expense to individuals who have come to this country illegally. If they want healthcare coverage, then either take steps to be here legally or feel free to return home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)