Much was made of President Obama's Nobel Prize speech last week, the World Wide Web was abuzz, with mostly pro reviews (See Glenn Greenwald's post - "The strange consensus on Obama's Nobel address")
And, let's face, it was Bizzareville, having a sitting president, who is conducting two wars, escalating one of them, up there, accepting a Peace Prize, for Peace that he hasn't actually accomplished (Yeah, I know, wait a few years, for after the escalation in Flintstonevilleastan).
Of all the megabytes and pixels, bloviating on it, there was one that stood out, cut to the chase, nailed it - Will Bunch, on his Attytood Blog;
Maybe U.S. presidents shouldn't get peace prizes
Hey, I didn't say which president. You know what? I hate to say it, but sitting American presidents are never a good choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, period. Since 1901, the honor has been bestowed on three White House occupants.Now, that, certainly, is something hopeful we can believe in.
[snip]
The world needs uncompromising fighters for real peace and for meaningful justice -- people like a Martin Luther King -- who can go to Oslo and remind the world of what we must eternally strive to make it. Such worthy Nobel recepients are truth-tellers, and people they are telling that truth to are the world's kings and potentates and, yes, the American president -- a job that is engineered for compromise, and disappointments. If the world is to become a better place, we need more people who risk jail, risk pain, and risk death -- people like Dr. King or Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi -- have done, for the eternal ideals of peace that are uncompromising. The Nobel Peace Prize can be a valuable tool to remind us who these people are, and that you are going to find them in the streets, not in the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment