Friday, October 9, 2009

He's Just Not That Into You

Before anyone gets all indignant about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, I hope we can remember that Paul Krugman (he of the "post-office-and-MVA-are-models-of-efficiency" school) won the Peace Prize for Economics. We're not talking about non-partisans over there.

I've heard plenty of people say "what did he do" and my answer is "he won the Nobel peace prize." This award is meant more to give the President additional authority than it is to reward him for a job well done. As far as I am aware, the President's only international agreement has been a "Prom Promise" type document saying that we promise not to screw up the economy again. Most could look at it as a general censure on America for being such a dominant force in the economy.

But at the end of the day, the award says something more. When Obama's approval rating has gone way into the red domestically, he is being encouraged by his overseas know...those people he visited DURING the Presidential campaign. In an age when our ears are being filled with "the world is flat" dogma, a President will seek out international favor even when it is pissing off the people at home. Nonetheless, the Olympics are in Rio, Iran is building a bomb, and Russia is about to have a gulag party in the Ukraine. Nice job.

So for now, congrats Mr. President. I'm sure your acceptance speech will be pretty. But unfortunately you ran for office here. Get back to work.


  1. A shock. I thought this prize meant something, until now. I like Obama and want him to succeed for all of us, but this nomination happened after he was in office for 2 WEEKS! It just looks foolish. How could Obama possibly use this in his next presidential campaign? He CAN'T! It's too absurd. What a shame.

  2. I went to see Capitalism: A Love Story yesterday. It did keep my attention, though little new information was provided. The entertainment value was most clear when Michael Moore visited the bailed out banks & AGI in an attempt to make a citizen’s arrest and lock up their CEOs for thievery. Loved that part.

    Good: Glad to see the balance, however delayed, between Democrats and Republicans. We’re all spiraling south until we vote out those incumbents.

    Bad: Moore missed a fantastic oppty to market this film by focusing on the bailouts – people are mad, really mad about this. I saw a poll today that said Maryland voters want big changes in campaign finance reform. But also, the subject could have been better delivered by showing the early benes of Capitalism and then hit more squarely and thematically on the undermining of Democracy that morphed Capitalism into the beast we have today. It’s not that Cap is evil, but the people exploiting Cap have changed it. You can’t even call what we have today Capitalism, it’s simply control of our gov’t by those with massive amounts of money. That is not Capitalism.

    Learned: Wow. The part about one-income families paying off mortgages in 5-6 years during the 1950-60’s really brought home how far we’ve fallen. Now it takes 2 income families 30-40 years to pay off the roof over their heads. My father paid off our family home in 6 years but the contrast didn’t occur to me until I heard it stated this way.

    Over-the-top: Realizing this is Michael Moore’s style, making fun of Bush was a bit much considering the gravity of the subject. But maybe that’s what it took to keep my 17 yo son interested. And he was.

  3. One last thing about this movie, the people who lost their home and then in desperation were paid by the foreclosing bank to burn their own belongings was tragic. I was affected. The scene was out of something like Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. Wrath indeed.