I’m listening to Obama’s Nobel speech…

Posted: December 10, 2009 by datechguy in Afghanistan war, internet/free speech, opinion/news
Tags: , , , , ,

…and so far the speech is first rate.

The acknowledgment of those who came before him, winning the prize due to decades of action and suffering, was and is very important. The call out to those who are actually doing peacemaking and are imprisoned for the cause of freedom (it would have been nice to say a few by name but I’ll take it).

He acknowledges the war and his involvement in deploying troops. He declares it a just war.

He then talks about the history of the 20th century and talks about the doctrine of Just war and makes it clear that the United States is justly proud of it’s actions.

He talks about “A few small men with outsized rage.” That is the best description of the terrorists we fight that I’ve heard. He says that you can not negotiate with Al Qaeda.

“To say that force is sometimes necessary is not cynicism”. Is this Actually Barack Obama talking?

He declares publicly that the peace of the latter half of the 20th century was directly purchased by American power and blood. This is a Nixon/China moment. They would have laughed at George Bush saying that even if it was true.

Whoever wrote this speech isn’t being paid enough, this is clearly the best speech I’ve ever heard him give.

Now he is going back to his normal stuff, he is about to hit Gitmo etc…

Ran outside to sand the walk before the wife leaves for work so missed it from that point where he says Wanting peace is not enough it make it happen.

The only applause he gets is when he hits Gitmo, the torture line is BS. this tells us more about this crowd then anything else.

I think he is going too long now, if he is smart he will cut is short here.

He is now talking about proliferation.

Those who care about their own security can’t ignore localized arms races.

He talks about the need to act rather than sit back concerning sanctions.

He talks about freedom of speech and religion and it’s necessity for peace.

He hits Burma and Zimbabwe and Iran by name holy shit he is sounding like an Actual president!

Update: The Wall Street Journal is liveblogging this speech.

He now gives Copenhagen a thumbs up and plugs climate change. Nonsense but not unexpected.

Hits the concept of “Holy War”, throws a bone to Islam by attacking the Crusades. He hasn’t read his Thomas Madden.

Clearly a first rate speech and a decent job. I think it was very much a Nixon China speech. On Morning Joe they point out that the European left will not like this speech.

Update 2: The NYT Take is here.

Talkleft describes the situation as a travesty of a Mockery, it’s true in my opinion he doesn’t deserve the prize but it’s a consolation that the socialist European left that gave him the prize had to listen to him tell them that their ideal world only exists thanks to American Power and Blood, that’s gotta leave a mark!

I guess this is sort of a non-traditional liveblog of President Obama Nobel Olympic Speech, I’d be interested if people think I should have done a more traditional one with timestamps and more direct quotes.

Update 3: Is it just me or could George Bush have given that speech with only minor alterations?

Update 4: I guess I’m in good company

Sarah Palin and President Obama don’t agree on much, but last year’s Republican vice presidential nominee just gave the president’s defense of “just wars” a thumbs up in an interview with USA TODAY. In fact, she said that the president’s address in Oslo, where he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today, reminded her of what she wrote on the same subject in her hugely successful memoir, Going Rogue.

Smart woman that.

Comments
  1. waterfriend says:

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH- circulate among friends.
    IS CARBON DI OXIDE THE VILLAIN?

    Such terms as carbon credit find a place in newspapers almost daily. I don’t know what is all this about. To me CO2 sustains life on earth. Has the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gone up? Has it been proved experimentally?
    Before Industrialization
    The whole of America and most of the old world were inhabited by a comparatively small population, a majority of whom depended upon meat and fish. Farming depended entirely on rain water as big dams were unknown. The grasslands of America and Australia didn’t produce food grains. Coal and other fossil fuels were not commercially exploited. In those days we may presume that a proper balance existed between CO2 and other ingredients of the air like N2 and O2 in spite of forest fires, the like of which we witnessed in California recently.

    After Industrialization
    Commercial exploitation of coal began first followed by oil and natural gas, resulting in increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Simultaneously two other developments followed: increase in population (both human and animal) and corresponding growth in food grains production. Big dams were constructed and more and more areas of land were brought under cultivation. Mechanization and the use of artificial fertilizers made leaps and bounds in production of food grains, fruits and other commercial crops. The Prairies of North America became the granary of the world. Compared to grass, food grains and sugar fix a large quantity of CO2. The major items responsible for such CO2 fixation are:

    food grains like wheat, corn, rice, oats, soybean etc
    underground vegetables like potato, tapioca, beetroot etc
    fruits like apple, grapes, banana, dates, cherry, pineapple etc
    sugarcane etc

    Experts can calculate the total quantity of CO2 produced by industry and that absorbed by vegetation as mentioned above and the marine vegetation in order to find out whether the net balance is favoring CO2 concentration in the air. An easier way would be to experimentally ascertain the percentage of CO2 in the atmospheric air (being heavier than air CO2 is available near the surface of the earth). If CO2 level increases O2 level should decrease. In my childhood (I am 70+) O2 level was 20% as mentioned in my text book. Has it changed? An atom of carbon combines with two atoms of oxygen to form CO2 which is absorbed by the leaves of the plant to form starch. In the process two atoms of oxygen are released into the atmosphere. We may say that each carbon atom burnt ultimately results in the release of two atoms of oxygen, thus resulting in increase in the level of O2. Level of CO2 dissolved in the ocean water should also be checked. If this level increases, fishes would die en mass. Has this happened? If the level of CO2 dissolved in ocean waters decreases, plant life in the ocean cannot produce enough starch by photosynthesis. This will be a hazard for fishes and other marine life.

    The volume of animal and hence plant life in the oceans is much more than that on the continents. This is because the area of the oceans is seven times the area of the continents. Also, the oceans are deep. Hence the volume of water is very much more and can contain a large population of marine life. The necessary starch has to come from plant life. So, the total bio mass in the oceans is considerably higher than that in the continent. The carbon di oxideàPlant starchàAnimalsàCarbon di oxide cycle is there in the watery medium, just as in our atmosphere. All the gases, including nitrogen, will be present in dissolved state in the oceans too. Here industrialization has not affected the ‘atmosphere’ of the ocean. This fact has to be recognized in any discussion on Global Warming.

    [The percentage of various components of atmospheric air as obtained from the websites is given below:

    Nitrogen 78.1
    Oxygen 20.9
    Argon 0.9
    Neon 0.002
    Helium 0.0005
    Krypton 0.0001
    Hydrogen 0.00005
    Carbon di oxide 0.035!!!!!!!! (Poor, innocent CO2 has been maligned unnecessarily)
    Methane 0.0002
    Ozone 0.000004

    This would suggest that the percentage of oxygen has slightly increased. If this is true it augers ill, as forest fires may become uncontrollable with increase in the level of oxygen in the coming years. Therefore, this line should be investigated separately by experts. My guess is that with unchecked use of nitrogenous fertilizers, the total bio mass in the earth could have increased. The requisite extra nitrogen must have been drawn from the atmosphere along with CO2 releasing extra oxygen into the atmosphere as pointed out above.]

    The importance of proper scientific study cannot be over emphasized. Mother Nature maintains her balance, whatever her children may do!
    MELTING OF POLAR ICE CAP
    The density of water at zero degrees centigrade is 0.9999 grams per cm. The density of ice at zero degree centigrade is 0.9150. In other words, 1 cc of ice weights only 0.91 gm and hence will displace only 0.915cc of water, when the ice is floating in water. When the ice float, almost the whole of body sinks below the surface of water, expect a small portion projecting above the surface. In the North Pole area, there is no land. The crust of the earth forms a huge bowl filled with seawater and a huge mass of ice floating in it just like an ice cube placed in a bowl of water. The volume of ice submerged below the ice may be almost 9 times more than the icecap which we observe above the surface of water. The molecules covering the underwater portion of the icecap absorb heat from the sea water in which it floats and melt into water. This is a continuous process happening round the clock, allover the year, irrespective of summer or winter. As I have explained in my booklet, the necessary energy is supplied by the earth itself. The role of the Sun which shines only for a limited period is too insignificant to have any impact on this process. As the density of water is more than that of ice, the volume of water generated by the melting of ice is less than that of water originally occupied by the ice block in the ratio 9999:9150. Therefore the sea level will actually come down because of the melting process. In practice, this may not happen because of the continuous deposition of snow in the polar region which will continuously push down the ice cap.
    A lot has been talked about the rising of sea level because of Global warming. This is a misconception. In some places, the sea level goes up and in other places, it recedes. This phenomenon has been extensively discussed in Milner’s geography.
    My contention can be tested by a simple experiment. Place ice cubes in a tumbler and fill it with water until the water overflows. Leave it until all the ice melts. Watch for any overflow of water during this process.

  2. […] then proceeds to Fisk the speech raising a some valid points. I personally think he is missing the forest for the trees but it is a valid […]