Nobel fallout: Noted atheist blasphemes against the son of god
posted at 5:39 pm on October 12, 2009 by Allahpundit
A video companion to his print piece in Newsweek this weekend sneering righteously at the committee for misunderstanding what peace requires:
We thus find ourselves in a rather peculiar universe where good intentions are rewarded before they have undergone the strenuous metamorphosis of being translated into good deeds, or hard facts. And it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid entertaining the suspicion that there is something explicitly political in the underlying process of Nobelista decision making. I do not think that I am shying at shadows here, either. Especially of late, the literature awards, on which I am more qualified to pronounce, have reflected the same or a similar mentality. The choices of an Italian anarchist, an Austrian Stalinist, a Portuguese Stalinist, and the hysterical anti-American Harold Pinter are or should be fresh in our minds, and we might remember that this is a Nobel committee that let Vladimir Nabokov and Jorge Luis Borges go to their graves -unrecognized…
[T]he task of the chief executive of the United States is more complicated than manifesting a vague and general sympathy for the oppressed. It is, in the last resort, to be a commander in chief, and to consult closely with an elected Congress on the grave matters of war and peace and security. If he manages to get any of this right—if, for a pregnant instance, he manages to negotiate a nonviolent transition to an Iran that has nuclear power but not nuclear weapons (and that perhaps allows its own people to intervene in their own internal affairs)—then he will have done very well, and will deserve much more than a medal and a large check. He is, however, unlikely even to get a hearing on these serious questions without the believable threat of American power and force, economic and diplomatic as well as military. Something in the mental universe of the Nobel committee is palpably hostile to the facts that underpin that consideration.
Picking up on that same point, he gets off a good, stinging line at the very end here about the North Korean contribution to the tone of the “international conversation.” Exit question: Should Obama have taken his advice and refused the prize? I see the argument for it, but there’s a lot of good he can do with the Nobel imprimatur if — if — he’s so inclined. For one thing, he’s got a stage in Oslo next month that’ll draw global media. If — if — he’s up to it, he could use his speech as an opportunity to salute peacemakers who deserve more recognition like Sima Samar, Iran’s green revolution, or of course the United States military. Beyond that, now that he’s wearing a peace crown, he’s got tons of political cover to escalate in Afghanistan or get tough with sanctions on Iran. The committee gave him the award to “geld” him, in Frum’s words, but he could just as easily turn that back on them by being aggressive with Islamist fascists in the name, quite rightly, of peace. If, that is, he’s willing to be aggressive. Anyone think so?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Hitchens is staring in a Documentary about to be released:
Collision: http://www.collisionmovie.com/
right up your ally AP
jp on October 12, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Obama will give an egocentric speech and apologize for America. Anything else would be above his paygrade.
kingsjester on October 12, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Oh no, not this idiot again. I had forgotten that he even existed.
bessex on October 12, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Hitchens was just on Hardball and was even better.
Go RBNY on October 12, 2009 at 5:43 PM
those are alot of big ‘ifs’….
cmsinaz on October 12, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Too many conditionals, Allah!
I’m not counting on him following through on any of them.
warrenmr on October 12, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Too true, Mr. Hitchens. Aren’t you glad now you didn’t vote for him?
Oh. Wait. You did.
TheQuestion on October 12, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Does a bear poop in the woods?
nope… he is going to remain null and void.
upinak on October 12, 2009 at 5:45 PM
the only time he is aggressive is towards Fox news and anyone who may criticize him…
cmsinaz on October 12, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Yes, there was someone who turned down the Nobel Peace Prize: Le Duc Tho.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Not sure how that works.
fogw on October 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Nice….
Squid Shark on October 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Those are all big ifs, AP.
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Give Peace a chance
faraway on October 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Yo
Hussain,
Done anything for him lately
http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/articles/edu_shalit_060509-350.jpg
macncheez on October 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Not just no, but hell no. His speech will, as usual, be liberally infused with “I” and “me”, will be all about how he doesn’t deserve it but will accept it on behalf of the “little people”, etc. A total embarrassment. Count on it.
uncivilized on October 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Me either, but then, I also don’t see how you can give the peace prize to a man waging two wars.
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Agree with him or not, Hitchens is certainly not an idiot.
Scrappy on October 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Didn’t Hitchens vote for Obama?
Blake on October 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM
If there is one (other) word that Hitchens seriously needs added to his vocabulary, it is BREVITY!
pilamaye on October 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM
No, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Midas on October 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Got Peace?
faraway on October 12, 2009 at 5:50 PM
LOL!
Erich66 on October 12, 2009 at 5:50 PM
If there is one word that he needs to remvove from his vocabulary, it’s BRAZILIAN.
Blake on October 12, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Unless he can find a way to put “I” and “me” in there, it ain’t happening.
lorien1973 on October 12, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Brevity is the soul of wit. He does think he has a soul, thus he does not need it. :P
lorien1973 on October 12, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Let’s just say I don’t think he wants to get too wee wee’d up over it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 12, 2009 at 5:54 PM
No.
Dopavash on October 12, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Just read Bill Ayers’ communist manifesto, Prairie Fire, and all your questions will be answered. Obama hasn’t failed Ayers yet.
faraway on October 12, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Dream on. It’s not in his DNA.
I doubt he’d know how to be agressive with Islamic fascists, other than the generally recognized boogeyman Bin Laden, of course. When you have an administration that talks of turning the Taliban into Hezbollah, like that’s a good thing, it’s hopeless.
Nichevo on October 12, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Hitchens becomes one more person who refuses to see that the Nobel was being awarded as nothing more than an affirmative action honorific – to celebrate blackness and nothing much else. Political considerations were far down the list on this one. It was all about skin and jumping on the Precedential bandwagon.
And the Nobel committee was worried that The Precedent was too incompentent and making too much of a fool of himself to be able to wait with this prize for his being a Precedent. In the committee’s own words,
“Some people say – and I understand it – ‘Isn’t it premature? Too early?’ Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP.
As far as I’m concerned, the Norwegian government’s (as their Nobel committee comes from the government) intrusion into American politics (by picking a current occupier of the White House) is pretty close to an act of war. THat’s how I view it, at least. They are actively and obnoxiously allying with an enemy of the US (as The Precedent clearly is).
progressoverpeace on October 12, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I expect the first MOP dropped on Iran to be name Nobel Prize and the second to be President Pantywaist.
WashJeff on October 12, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I’d like to agree, but the man endorsed Obama.
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Saluting peace makers would mean saluting our men and women in the armed forces and that is probably the last thing Obama could force himself to do.
fourdeucer on October 12, 2009 at 6:00 PM
People sure were typing about you and this drivel during Ed’s show today, AP. Did you see? Lots o’ fun.
TwinkietheKid on October 12, 2009 at 6:01 PM
” From 1999 through 2008, [Nobel Chairman] Jagland was vice president of Socialist International. “
faraway on October 12, 2009 at 6:02 PM
It’s telling that some of our most accomplished authors, some who have championed for our champ in the past, are now astonished that he was given and accepted this award, knowing full well he doesn’t deserve it. It was reported that Obama “humbly” accepted it but I fail to see any humility in the man. I wonder if he has any earthly idea how many people think he should turn it down. And they aren’t all on FOX. I for one might change my whole opinion of him if he gave it back. But I don’t hold much hope for that.
scalleywag on October 12, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Barry’s only willing to be aggressive when he’s dealing with oppressive whitey types who’ve kept him and his union-buddy homies down for so long.
AZCoyote on October 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM
I would say yes if, indeed, he believed in the mission itself or in our country. But the Afghanistan war is nothing more to him than a pesky campaign issue with which he now must deal.
In the end, he is but a pacifist lib to whom any kind of war is anathema. This has been his life’s experience. As has been hating our country.
A leopard is a leopard is a leopard.
TXUS on October 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM
MSNBC got pwnd!
regal on October 12, 2009 at 6:05 PM
I think there are those who “endorsed” Obama in large part because they couldn’t endorse his opponent. I think Hutchens falls in that category. That, and they fell for his rhetoric and grandiose speeches.
scalleywag on October 12, 2009 at 6:06 PM
BTW, I bet fifty bucks someone like, oh, Sarah Palin tells Obama to do just this a day or two before he gives his acceptance speech. He won’t. She, or whoever, scores political points.
Erich66 on October 12, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Nope.
Starlink on October 12, 2009 at 6:07 PM
of course TOTUS should have declined the award, it would have pulled the teeth out of the narcissist/celebrity meme
the fact that he accepted it, proves that argument
and FWIW in a purely superstitious view he is asking for fate to screw him by accepting it BEFORE he achieves anything
ginaswo on October 12, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Obama was elected president for all the things he might do, the same as the NPP, failure all the way around.
fourdeucer on October 12, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Rush kind of floated out the idea today, (and forgive me if I’m coming in on the “late show” on this one) that Obama might have known about the nomination and was doing all his “Bash America” speeches solely for the benefit of winning this award. I don’t doubt he WOULD do this, I just don’t know if this administration could have carried out the secrecy of it.
anniekc on October 12, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Ahahahaha…no.
Emily M. on October 12, 2009 at 6:09 PM
How come all the people who supported Obama last year are now complaining that he didn’t deserve the Nobel because he hasn’t accomplished anything close to delivering peace anywhere?
How come they were NOT concerned he hadn’t accomplished anything that would make him qualified to be president of the US?
Stephanie on October 12, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Only against capitalism and liberty.
rbj on October 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM
You mean like beer summit type aggressive? Or Olympic bid type aggressive? Or waging a campaign against FOX news type agressive? Or fighting for the gay/lesbian community aggressive? Or coming up with a strategy for Afghanistan aggressive? Meh. Don’t think he’s able.
scalleywag on October 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM
and Allah, TOTUS needing the Oslo platform to ‘give good speech’? he does that every other day, and the media cover it like any good TigerBeat report on scott baio in the 70s
ginaswo on October 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM
That’s if you believe American power and force in the world is a good thing. Or can be used for good results.
Or, alternatively, as Krauthammer argues, one that needs to be renounced.
This is more than just about Obama as the award clearly shows.
SteveMG on October 12, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Good question. They were too starry-eyed? Duped? Drank the hopey-changey koolaid?
scalleywag on October 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Yes. As you quite clearly understand (judging by all your ‘ifs’), President Obama is not willing to be aggressive nor is he willing to even threaten being aggressive to achieve certain things. Things he probably finds objectionable in the first place.
He should take a couple of the more deserving recipients with him to Oslo and pass the award on to them. Politically, it would be dynamite. The collective right would have no way to respond to such a move. He’d reap massive rewards from independents and the media here at home, and he’d still effectively have the title as cover if - If – he chose to get more aggressive in Afghanistan.
BadgerHawk on October 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Allah, you and others keep forgetting; when it comes to The One, IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT ME!
GarandFan on October 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Disgusted with the title of this thread and sick and tired of the lame and oh-so-over-it linking of Obama with my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It’s supposed to be clever, but I think that God Almighty should be above being used as a prop for a dig against our nightmare-in-cheif. On a merely secular level, it’s old, lame, boring and totally overused. Let’s try some real creativity, shall we. And, I don’t care if you are an atheist or not, I will speak my mind against the linking of Obama, a doer of vile deeds, including promotion of the killing of millions of unborn, even after they are born, with the Creator of heaven and earth. And don’t think for a minute that in a backhanded way you aren’t empowering the weasel in the White House by even considering it a “joke” to link him as an equal to God, or even to be God. As Shakespeare said, “Many a truth is spoke in jest”. Obama thinks that in this case, Shakespeare surely must be correct. Let’s prove him wrong in this case. Let’s knock it off.
tigerlily on October 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM
I caught that while I was at the gym. He demolished Mathews’ weak sauce reasoning behind President Obama’s Nobel.
BadgerHawk on October 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Wow! That will be a first! I predict a lot of I’s and Me’s and I’m sorry for’s….
Caper29 on October 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM
You give it to him if you think doing so will cause him to stop those two wars.
BadgerHawk on October 12, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Exactly my point. They fell for it.
Of course I would. Sorry, I should clarify. I just meant that those who give out the prize can’t. This goes completely against what they stand for.
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Depends. Who do you think he might be agressive with the Islamist AGAINST? It that means helping take down America, then I’d guess yeah, probably so.
MikeA on October 12, 2009 at 6:19 PM
I don’t think this argument has a lot to back it up. It pretty clearly looks to be a political move. The Nobel Committee likely got a little ‘feel good’ boost because President Obama is black, but I think they would have given it to Edwards, or any other charismatic liberal if they thought it would influence their foreign policy.
BadgerHawk on October 12, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Incorrect. Allah, you have as many problems understanding the shallowness of the Nobel Peace committee as you have understanding the desire to exact revenge on us that drives The Precedent.
progressoverpeace on October 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
“Hitchens is staring in a Documentary about to be released:”
Whoa! At the end of the trailer I saw something I’ve never seen in years of looking at Hitchens on TV – he laughs.
BJ* on October 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Agreed.
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Maybe, but the Committee long ago stopped having peace as it’s primary consideration when handing out the award. They’re elected by Norwegian legislators, and it’s the one time they get to actually influence world politics and try to steer it a little bit more towards their socialist model. It’s become a primarily political award that usually goes to someone who has accomplished something with regards to world peace.
BadgerHawk on October 12, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Exactly when hasn’t the global media gave Obama a stage/
This does nothing other than stand in the way of peace and will ultimately cause many deaths and much misery as the world’s tyrants go n the march.
jukin on October 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM
No.
ProfessorMiao on October 12, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Do you really think that Shrillary would have gotten the award? Or John Edwards, if he had won? No. People were not surprised by the Al Gore award, so much, as that was political, but this was a different universe all together. When the White House staff thinks it’s a joke, to start, we are in new territory. What is different that prompted this? It’s pretty obvious.
I was resding as I responded, so we obviously disagree on the Edwards issue. I can’t see any one else getting this award with the same sort of record/non-record. If this award doesn’t jump out at you as being totally different from everything before, then we just have to agree to disagree on this.
They’ve never done it before. Carter had, at least, Camp David, which many thought he deserved it for (as the other three there had already gotten it). Gore was a bit of a surprise, but he was out of work at the time.
I don’t see how anyone views this Nobel in any parallel to past awards. It was just too ridiculous. And the Nobel committee’s worry that The Precedent would screw it all up, and then they wouldn’t be able to give it to him, says everything you need to know.
progressoverpeace on October 12, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Hey Hitchens……
“you da racist”
mountainmanbob on October 12, 2009 at 6:28 PM
I just love this leftie nonsense about how Obama has made people like us better. They like him, because he does not seem American to them, they still hate the rest of us.
And besides, what have we gotten out of all this love? Hmmm? I don’t see anything real from any of these socalled transnationals.
Terrye on October 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Vince Flynn was on GB tonight and said the same five people who awarded the NPP to Obama are the same ones who oppose disciplining children, giving out grades and promoting on merit. That explains a lot.
fourdeucer on October 12, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Obama hasn’t got the sack to do anything but pander to the Euroweenies. He’s gonna give up Afghanistan & blame the results on Bush.
OhioCoastie on October 12, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Exactly. They like him because he doesn’t like us. They like him because he wants to knock us down a peg.
BadgerHawk on October 12, 2009 at 6:34 PM
I agree 100%, very well said.
Jeff from WI on October 12, 2009 at 6:36 PM
You can’t geld a gelding.
Aviator on October 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Somebody don’t like sarcasm.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Heh.
Of course, Allah, Jesus doesn’t think He’s Barack Obama.
Rich Fader on October 12, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Disgusted with the title of this thread and sick and tired of the lame and oh-so-over-it linking of Obama with my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It’s supposed to be clever, but I think that God Almighty should be above being used as a prop for a dig against our nightmare-in-cheif. On a merely secular level, it’s old, lame, boring and totally overused. Let’s try some real creativity, shall we. And, I don’t care if you are an atheist or not, I will speak my mind against the linking of Obama, a doer of vile deeds, including promotion of the killing of millions of unborn, even after they are born, with the Creator of heaven and earth. And don’t think for a minute that in a backhanded way you aren’t empowering the weasel in the White House by even considering it a “joke” to link him as an equal to God, or even to be God. As Shakespeare said, “Many a truth is spoke in jest”. Obama thinks that in this case, Shakespeare surely must be correct. Let’s prove him wrong in this case. Let’s knock it off.
tigerlily on October 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM
I agree 100%, very well said.
Jeff from WI on October 12, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Muchas gracis.
tigerlily on October 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM
To the Nobel committee this is how it went down.
Strong America = strong Israel
Strong Israel starts wars with those innocent Arabs
Weak America = weak Israel
With Obama, America is weak, therefore no more Israeli wars to start.
angryed on October 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I disagree, I think was the F***Bush award–hence the Al Gore travesty…
lovingmyUSA on October 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Am I the only one who cant look at Hitchens w/o wanting to either put a barrette in his hair or shave his head? That hank of hair on the sweaty forehead thing is distracting as heck.
di butler on October 12, 2009 at 7:04 PM
That’s okay, loving. Many seem to disagree with me on this. But the whole world didn’t gasp when Gore got the prize. Some thought it stupid. Most thought it nakedly political. But there wasn’t a sense of “WTF?” from just about everyone (including White House staff and reporters at the initial announcement) as there was when this news broke. This was very, very, very different. People forget all that as time goes by, but there is no doubt in my mind about what actually happened.
progressoverpeace on October 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I read somewhere that this is the reason that Obama has sat on the McChrystal’s report for two months…there is no factual evidence to back this up, only conjecture…
lovingmyUSA on October 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Tigerlily: Thank you and well said! Once again, the atheists think they are so clever to compare something to that which they claim they do not believe. It’s the same listening to people using the Name of our Lord in vain. Why not use buddha or mohammed’s name in vain? In fact, I think the next time I feel like cursing I will use MadisonConservative’s moniker in vain, just for the fun it. After all, it’s just “sarcasm.” The last time allah-i-don’t-believe-pundit put up a link, all the atheists kept claiming there is no proof of God’s existence. I noted they sure avoided my statements about the Shroud of Turin; you know, that medieval “fake” that just won’t go away. So here for those who think they are so clever when they denigrate the reality of God and His true Son, just do yourself a favor and look at the Face on the Shroud so that you can really kick yourself in the arse when you say for Eternity: “I did not know, there was no evidence; no evidence.”
simeon on October 12, 2009 at 7:09 PM
I think the “WTF” gasp was in response to the fact that someone who has not achieved anything, leapfrogged over all the more deserving contenders. Heck, if you saw what the bookies were betting on before the awards, Obama had been dismissed…They love having a socialist in their midst.
lovingmyUSA on October 12, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Ok, I listened to CH again w/o looking at his hair. Liked his jab back at Mika at the end. Direct hit. That’s why he smiled. He was pleased at his own excellent rejoinder. Hehe.
di butler on October 12, 2009 at 7:13 PM
yawn,
CH looks like he had been out drinking all nite and was experiencing a nasty hangover.
for something that he believes doesn’t exist why does he extend so much effort talking about it? oh….it generates $$$$$$$$
poppieseeds on October 12, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Hitch is right on here — but anyone notice how terrible he looks?
Not too healthy being an atheist, I guess?
Richard Romano on October 12, 2009 at 7:24 PM
I knew who the thread was by, I didn’t even need to look up to see it. It’s getting old.
Jeff from WI on October 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Tigerlily: Thank you and well said! Once again, the atheists think they are so clever to compare something to that which they claim they do not believe. It’s the same listening to people using the Name of our Lord in vain. Why not use buddha or mohammed’s name in vain? In fact, I think the next time I feel like cursing I will use MadisonConservative’s moniker in vain, just for the fun it. After all, it’s just “sarcasm.” The last time allah-i-don’t-believe-pundit put up a link, all the atheists kept claiming there is no proof of God’s existence. I noted they sure avoided my statements about the Shroud of Turin; you know, that medieval “fake” that just won’t go away. So here for those who think they are so clever when they denigrate the reality of God and His true Son, just do yourself a favor and look at the Face on the Shroud so that you can really kick yourself in the arse when you say for Eternity: “I did not know, there was no evidence; no evidence.”
simeon on October 12, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Your remind me of another Simeon. Thanks for helping carry His Cross.
tigerlily on October 12, 2009 at 7:26 PM
This sort of oblique wordiness is NOT why I’ve enjoyed Hitchens in the past. I’m disappointed.
Hitchens has huge gaps in his moral thinking, in my view — caused I suspect by certain idols from his more radical past. He also likes to fashion himself after Orwell, but he doesn’t have Orwell’s clarity and suppleness.
rrpjr on October 12, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Noted >alchoholic< atheist blasphemes against the son of god
seejanemom on October 12, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Teh Gelding….. are you kidding?
Seven Percent Solution on October 12, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Not a [expletive deleted] chance.
gryphon202 on October 12, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Betas simply do not physically qualify for gelding.
Ask Allah.
***snark***
seejanemom on October 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Obama the Gelding. Dude.
On the other topic of evidence for Jesus being the Christ, I truly believe that people reject God/Christ for purely emotional reasons. There’s no rationality whatsoever in a decision like that. It is merely a decision to turn away from the obvious.
Mojave Mark on October 12, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Why is it that Andy lets Otis out of his jail cell just so that he can appear on leftist television programs?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on October 12, 2009 at 8:43 PM
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
seejanemom on October 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »