Saturday, October 10, 2009

Oh, CRAP! The World Is Beginning To Like Us Again...


When my sister served a mission (2002) in Taiwan, church leaders told her to lie and say she was from Canada and not from America so that she would not be assaulted.

When I toured Europe (2004) signs everywhere in every country I visited said things like, "Yankees out!", "Amis go home!", etc.

It seems there was a period of time where the world truly hated us. We were seen by other countries as bullies and believed we could do anything and everything we wanted with no thought of the consequences. My friends from foreign countries have affirmed these last statements to be true. I won't go so far as to say it was all George Bush, though the Iraq War certainly did not help this image. Our country has done many unforgivable things to obtain these feelings from others- just look at we did in the Congo, it was horrible. But it was during Bush's reign that the loathing from other countries seemed, to me, to escalate.

Now we have a president that other countries like. He is a likeable guy- a great smile, good looks- a JFK persona, if you will. And, well, his wife is also mesmerizing. Obama is willing to talk to other countries and show them respect- not immediately start calling French Fries Freedom Fries just because the French disagree with him. The feeling of other countries toward America has changed- drastically. And yet, for some reason, some people believe that is a bad thing.

We lost the 2016 bid for Chicago to host the olympics. I feel as though I am the only one surprised that we lost, but look at it from an IOC voter. If you could choose anywhere in the world, would you rather:

A. Have the olympics at one of the most beautiful beaches in the world with throngs of supermodels walking along the coastline, or

B. Have the olympics where you could see fat people eating at restaurants

To me, it was a no brainer, and I am incredibly happy at where the Olympics will be held. When I think of Chicago, I think of wind and cold- NOT summer and outside activities. The obvious choice, in my mind, won. I do not think for one second it has any bearing on Obama- there are WAY too many other factors involved to blame it on one person.

Now Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize- and, of course, people are lined up to say why he doesn't deserve it.

I, however, am proud that our nation is once again being seen in a positive light by others. I am excited that missionaries no longer have to lie about where they come from for fear of being beaten. I am thrilled that our president is respected by other national leaders, instead of laughed at. In other words, I like having a president who is liked and respected- and am very confused as to why others don't.

17 comments:

Lula O said...

Hee hee. Excellent Christina! Exactly what I was thinking, about the Nobel, about the Olympics, everything. You know Carlos is actually from Brazil (I think) and is way excited they got the games. Go Carlos!

I love this quote from Rushbo:
"The Nobel gang just suicide-bombed themselves (lovely imagery)...Obama gives speeches trashing his own country (what? when exactly did he do that you nimrod) and for that he gets a prize (you bet he did hahahahaha!), which is now worth as much as whatever prizes they are putting in Cracker Jacks these days (yeah you would know because I bet you eat these for breakfast). This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama (hope). It is a greater embarrassment that losing the Olympics bid (like anybody but Chicagoans care about that. And a lot of them didn't want it there!)."

You know what I hear in that statement?
Pure primevil jealousy.
Hahahahahahahahahah..fantastic!
You know what you are RL?
You're a used car salesman.
Nobody believes what you say.

srbushman said...

I think this award can only help the United States image internationally. And I find it almost humorous (almost) that people are upset with Obama. He didn't fly to Norway to campaign for it, I honestly didn't hear that he was even nominated until he won it!

Was he the best choice? No, I personally don't think so. He's a great spokesman for peace and change, but I don't see his ideals implemented (which I'm not complaining, because I don't see eye-to-eye).

But I'm not going to hold it against him. I wouldn't be surprised if he wished he didn't win. Let's just raise the expectations 10 times higher than being the first black President, following President Bush, and being the "agent of change".

Maybe his promotion of peace has actually spread to me... or maybe it's just too late for me to provide a good argument. The latter is more likely. Goodnight!

Mandy said...

I totally agree Christina about the peace prize. Like my husband said, Obama just can't win no matter what he does. He wins this incredibly prestigious award, that he didn't even know he was nominated for, and all I have heard is how this can only hurt his presidency. What??!! He could discover the cure for cancer and his critics would find something wrong with that.

You know those Europeans, they must be out to get the GOP. I agree Lula, sounds like jealousy to me.

Judy said...

I would rather be a respected leader than win some popularity contest. You know the {I would say BROWN NOSERs but that would be politically incorrect} KISS-ASS type. Really I am scared to death for our future.

Carlos said...

Nicely said, Ben and Christina.

Oh, the President is a very respected leader. That's the whole idea. Better to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize than to be dissed by most of the world's leaders, hated globally (except in Africa, b/c of what he did to curb AIDS, which to me is the best of his legacy), and having to duck shoe projectiles, which is the ultimate sign of disrespect in Muslim societies. I'm speaking of W., of course.

For some perspective, it's been 90 years since a sitting U.S. President. Woodrow Wilson, won the Nobel Peace Prize. I join all the positive comments here.

Lula, yes, I grew up in Rio, of a Brazilian dad and American mom, a dual national, which has given me a pretty expansive perspective. I recommend it!

"Primevil jealousy" ... I love it! It's a perfect description for the wingnuts aligning themselves with Iran and the Taliban in criticizing the award. Imagine that: The Taliban, Iran, and RL on the same side! And he's proud of it, too.

Methinks you're being unfair to used car salesmen. :)

curtis.noble said...

yes, it's great that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. And based on the Nobel Prize organizations criteria, he kind of did deserve it. here is a quote:

The Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who "during the preceding year(obama was nominated before elected)...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." http://bit.ly/17DijE

So yes, during the preceding year Obama did a lot of talking about how he was going to end the wars, bring troops home, and mediate with our enemies to promote peace.

The reason I say "kind of" deserved it is because the award is supposed to go to people who have DONE the most or best WORK...not talked the most about the topic...if that were the case I wonder how many miss Universe contestants were nominated?!

If you go to the Nobel Prize website and look at winners in other categories there is language like "for his writings..." "for developing..." "for completing..." you know "action" words. Then Obama's says "for his efforts...!" what?! Efforts? Nowhere in Nobel Peace Prize award criteria does it say the award could go to someone who only made an effort, however valiant it may be...it's intended to award accomplishment.

We're still at war, Gitmo is still opened, and we're faced w/ a decision whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. I wonder if since the criteria specifically states "reduction of standing armies..." if the Nobel Prize committee will be upset and retract the prize if Obama INCREASES our standing armies?

Al Gore actually deserved it based on the published criteria...he "made" a movie. He didn't just talk about global warming, he acted on it.

curtis.noble said...

other notable historic nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize...Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.

as published by the Nobel organization.

Creations by Laurel-Rain Snow said...

I measure our "likeability" as a nation by the input of my son who lives in Europe.

He's happy with our current Prez.

Ben and Christina said...

Another arguement ruined by comparing Obama to Hitler...

Lula O said...

Judy - My dearest MIL, you'd be a lot less scared if you'd quit listening to those harbingers of doom. I honestly don't know how you can stand it, but heck I love you anyway despite your conservative genes (because I know you secretly luv your birkenstocks!)

Lula O said...

Curt - Thanks for comparing him to communists and nazis. Again.

Carlos said...

French President Sarkozy had one of the best reactions to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: “It recognizes the return of America to the hearts of the peoples of the world.”

This cannot be overstated. The world looks to the United States for leadership and inspiration. “The return of America” is cause for great hope and celebration around the world. America is BACK, and this is what the Nobel Committee, in its wisdom, recognized.

But it’s not only prospective, nor was the President nominated before his election. The Nobel Committee said “Obama HAS as President created a new climate in international politics” in which “multilateral diplomacy HAS regained a central position, with emphasis on the role of the United Nations and other international institutions. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms HAS powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's INITIATIVE, the USA IS NOW PLAYING a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”

The Nobel Committee concluded, “For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Sounds like a pretty compelling argument to me. The Nobel Committee was responding to our President’s call to action on the world’s most vexing problems because of what MLK called “the fierce urgency of NOW.” The Nobel Committee saw a transformational leader who inspired millions of Americans but also billions of world citizens with his message of hope, change, and peace.

Once again, it seems the last refuge of Obama bashers is to raise specious references to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. If they ever bothered to check, the Nobel nominating process is open and the criteria are broad: “since nomination requires only support from one of the thousands of qualified individuals around the world, and since the Nobel committee has no control over the nominations, being nominated does not indicate an endorsement by the committee itself.”

The fact that Hitler, nominated by a Swedish professor who then withdrew the nomination days later, or Stalin or Mussolini were Nobel nominees is irrelevant to the honor and prestige of the awards.

Speaking of the Nazis, the 1935 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was a German journalist and pacifist, Carl von Ossietzky. He was convicted of treason by the Nazis for publishing details of their violation of the Treaty of Versailles in rebuilding their air force. He was sent to a concentration camp and later died of tuberculosis.

This is what the Nobel Committee said in the award speech:

“But, many people ask, has Ossietzky really contributed so much to peace? Has he not become a symbol of the struggle for peace rather than its champion?

 In my opinion, this is not so. But even if it were, how great is the significance of the symbol in our life! In religion, in politics, in public affairs, in peace and war, we rally round symbols. We understand the power they hold over us. Moreover, as a rallying point, a symbol may well be preferable to a personality.”

So much for the Nobel Committee’s history with Nazis. And if there's a lesson in this for 2009 it's that the power of symbols –- hope, peace, change -- in their determination of who is a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was once more very much in the minds of the Nobel Committee.

curtis.noble said...

whoops, you put your liberal glasses on that allow you to read "hate" into what I write. I did not and have NEVER made a comparison between Obama and Hitler. I purposely posted those as two separate posts as to avoid being seen in that light. I ONLY pointed out that the Nobel organization allows outrageous nominations and considers ALL nominations by "qualified" nominees. (thanks for pointing that out to the readers for me Carlos...I assumed they would understand that)

I said that they have allowed evil doers to be nominated although they don't meet ANY of the criteria. They should have rejected those nominations IMMEDIATELY, not wait until the nominating individual retracts his nomination the next day.

Obama is nothing like HItler or any other communist leader. My argument was that the Nobel Prize org. is becoming more and more meaningless. They do lose prestige by even ALLOWING the nominations of people who don't fit the criteria. The fact that they consider evil men such as Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin discredits the entire peace prize organization. It doesn't matter that Hitler's nomination was retracted....it was considered, and only took one day to be retracted.

For all we know, George Bush could have been nominated. We won't know for another 42 years though since they seal all nominations for 50 years.

And Carlos, Obama WAS nominated in 2008. And the award should have been based on accomplishments toward peace and reduction of standing armies in 2008. (just need to research a little bit more, and you'll find that...although your research thus far is accurate and truthful) So yes, he kind of deserved it based on that criteria. He did talk a big game about ending the wars we're involved in back in 2008. So he was right to be nominated. But then they make a statement about what he's done as a president. It is apparent that he was selected based on what he's done/not done as President. The Nobel Prize committee must not have heard about Obama's new Afghanistan strategy implemented back in March that is now failing and will require the sending of an additional 40,000 troops over there. If we retreat and accept defeat, then yes, Obama deserves the award...NEXT year, not now.

Giving him the award now is kind of like celebrating a Superbowl win when your team is up by 3 points at half time! I heard someone say we should Induct Obama into the Baseball Hall of Fame after throwing out the first pitch of a Major League Baseball game! Funny, I know.

Bottom line, dems are happy he won the award...and I don't really care. The fact is that the organization re-wrote their award criteria by awarding Obama based on "efforts" and "promoting" which is another word for "selling."

curtis.noble said...

"to be trusted is better than to be loved..." Anonymous...

Obama is loved...but not trusted. God loves all his children as well...but he does not trust all of them.

Carlos said...

Funny you should mention trust. A lot of Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence, because they trusted the President on such a weighty question. Then Senate candidate Obama went on record opposing the Iraq war before it ever started, and a few courageous souls, Kennedy and Feingold among them, voted no. Obama was right and Bush was wrong.

Now we learn Bush went to war because “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

Apparently Bush thought God spoke directly to him. Watching President Obama's careful deliberative process on the strategy for Afghanistan and what troops and resources to commit there, I'm glad that, however imperfect, we live in a country where the separation of church and state rules.

President Obama makes decisions based on objective facts rather than the Book of Revelation. That's reason enough to trust him.

Re: HSM, Curtis, your explanation makes no sense and you ought to know better than to mention them in this context.

Ben and Christina said...

(Imagine me yelling and punching my fists in the air)

The reason Reps. feel the need to put Obama and Hitler in the same sentence regardless of the topic is NOT because of any of the rediculous reasons postulated: not because of Fascists theories, not because of Hitler's great speeches, not because of Nobel Prize nominations.

Reps. want to put those two in the same sentence at EVERY opportunity because of the connotation behind the word Hitler. You say his name and you automatically think of gas chambers- not political ideologies. The Glenn Beck's and the Rush Limbaugh's will say their comparisons of the two are innocent, when they are absolutely not. They want us to think that Obama is as evil as him, and so they will make up whatever crap they want to compare the two- even that they were both nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

That is why EVERY arguement where Hitler is mentioned becomes irrevelent- because the image of a mass-murdering torturer and Obama do not go together.

srbushman said...

I agree that making those kinds of comparisons are inflammatory. Just like I hated the same kinds of comparisons made between Hitler and Pres. Bush. What kind of message was implied when so many called Pres Bush a war criminal? Thoughts of Nazi's and Nuremberg comes to my mind. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Both sides play words-smiths. Those extreme right will use a photo of President Obama sporting a Hitler stache. Rep. Grayson from FL compares Republican's against this health care reform bill promoting a holocaust. I think so much time is wasted explaining out ridiculous claims instead of finding common ground. And I think this is intentional on the politicians and news media's part.