The final sentence in the The Star’s editorial “Obama’s Nobel a prize for America” (10/10, Opinion) captures the essence of any and all justification for Barack Obama’s selection for the Nobel Peace Prize: “... sometimes, hope is worth rewarding.”
I, like the president, advocate for the resolution of world conflicts through peaceful means.
I also hope that economic growth, job creation, health care, Social Security, Medicare and other vital domestic challenges facing America are resolved in responsible ways for the betterment of all. I can hope till the cows come home, but that doesn’t make it happen.
Hope in and of itself can be a strong motivator, but without action (and dare I say cooperation), it does not translate into results that constitute legitimate rewards.
To sum up the vacuous defense of Obama receiving the award, I will paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt’s remarks given during his 1933 inaugural address: “The only thing we have to hope for is hope itself.”
Chuck Scott
Leavenworth
Your editorial saying that President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was “a way to welcome the United States back into the global community” was excellent. In agreeing, U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Rep. Jason Kander and Sen. Claire McCaskill (10/10, National/Local) were more perceptive than those you quoted elsewhere.
When Martin Luther King Jr. met with Lyndon Johnson to urge passage of a voting rights law, Johnson said he had just signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and could not move so quickly on another. But when they walked to the door, LBJ put his arm around King’s shoulder and said, “Go out there and generate pressure to make me do what I should do.”
The result was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Obama’s prize could have similar results. Certainly, it won’t weaken him.
Oh yes; you should have included Charles Dawes, vice president under Calvin Coolidge, in your list of notable American Nobel Peace laureates.
Max J. Skidmore
Overland Park
When I read that President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, I was confused and disappointed.
I was confused about why he wasn’t awarded all categories, since he appears equally qualified in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and economics.
I was disappointed that, once again, I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize after all these years that I have hoped for world peace.
Maybe next year.
Clyde Waltermate
Raytown
He receives $1.4M dollars, how many of you knew that? Shame on him, that makes him part of that greedy wealthy crowd. Is he going to spread the wealth equally and fairly or will he only help black urban kids? I wonder if he will be receiving Heisman as well. As for "stimulus", spending money you don;t have is called irresponsible. If we did that our banks would trun us over to the DA and we would be doing time.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | October 15, 2009 at 09:30 AM
Smarter,
Alliterative avocation ALWAYS allows an advancement of aideas!
Posted by: JoCo | October 15, 2009 at 03:38 AM
Good, as always, to hear from you Joco.
The stimulus package was promoted as a way to keep unemployment below a certain level. It failed. 69% of CFO's surveyed stated the stimulus package hasn't stimulated the economy.
While I grant there are a few positive signs of life out there, these are part of a natural rebounding process that would have occurred without said package. The funny thing is how Obama supporters want it both ways; you've got folks like ksdog arguing that the money hasn't really been spent so that's the hold up and other folks claiming the package is the only thing that's kept us from (heavy breathing in truck show announcer voice) plunging over the precipice of pecuniary peril. (alliteration at it's worst).
Posted by: Smarter Than You | October 14, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Smarter Thn You,
I wouldn't be so absolute on the stimulus statement. I mean, in this case employment lags, but maybe that can be tweaked; but capital formation (Mark Robertson's pet) seems to be on the way back. Just like this years "regrowth", however, the long-term rebound is yet to be realized and ,really, the O initiatives are still very much in the hammering-out process, as they should be. I'd like to anticipate good things, no matter who or what, and hope the naysayers don't perform your castration.
Posted by: JoCo | October 14, 2009 at 06:35 PM
Failure to follow through on campaign promises. A stimulus package that didn’t stimulate. Continued lies to try to push through his pet project.
Are we sure it wasn’t the “Noballs” prize that Obama won?
(Let the beatings begin from our chagrined and now emotionally damaged friends on the left who found this offensive. In the words of Sergeant Hulka, “Lighten up, Francis!”)
Posted by: Smarter Than You | October 14, 2009 at 05:12 PM
Sick of it. Not touching this. CAN'T touch this. Hey, there's an idy: Howzabout MC Hammuh next time? One peaceful dude.
Posted by: JoCo | October 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM
There is no mystery why the Nobel Committee chose to recognize Obama!
HUMBLE Europeans and HUMBLE Americans now share the search for world peace with a common response or approach to International blackmail and terrorism, a predetermined promise to ignore, capitulate or cut and run if necessary when faced with adversity.
Unfortunately that tact or diplomacy has not proven too successful. The U.S. has bailed Europe out of two world wars and enabled their economic recoveries with an American military presence they now condemn or believe unneeded. --- Without that past protection chances are “Peace Prizes” would still be presented in OSLO but made public in RUSSIAN -- (The recipients at this moment? -- Probably North Korea and Iran)
On 10/9 Editorial Page Editor Miriam Pepper charges “The award is no doubt red meat to the braying critics who fear - more than embrace - thoughts of international cooperation”
Naiveté or the possibility of Pepper having to Google rather than experience the events or aftermath of WWII will ensure more undeserved Obama Idolatry from her and her fellow travelers on the Star, Barb Shelly and Yael Abracadabra!
Posted by: renfro | October 14, 2009 at 10:53 AM
President Obama is not to blame.
The blame is the Nobel committee using politics rather than merit to choose the winner.
Posted by: EL | October 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Flash perhaps you should read his comment again! He was'nt blaming Obama for "recieving" the reward!
Posted by: Greghand | October 14, 2009 at 09:59 AM
Here ya go!
http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/10/14/7
Posted by: Kee | October 14, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Clyde,
What's your point?
It's not like he nominated himself nor did he award the prize to himself.
If you have a complaint you should take it up with the prize committee.
Posted by: Flash | October 14, 2009 at 08:58 AM