I read a diary at DailyKos that made an interesting observation about the Nobel Prize. The overall tilt of the piece is pretty partisan, but I do think they've got the right lens for sorting out the answer to whether the question of whether Obama deserves the Nobel Prize. The core argument goes like this:

The distinction between earnings and gifts is a key element in this moral analysis. Earnings implies an exchange of goods and/or services where, in theory, the exchange is deemed equitable by mutual consent. While the reality doesn't always match the theory - one party may not receive an equitable share because their bargaining power is very different - the underlying concept of an exchange of goods and/or services remains. Each party should get what he/she deserves.

Gifts are quite different. A gift does not imply an equitable exchange of goods and/or services. Quite the contrary, its status as a gift means that one party has freely chosen to bestow it with no expectation of any equitable return, except perhaps for gratitude. The necessary elements are that the giver is willing to offer it, and that the recipient accept it. It may be offered in the hope that the recipient will put it to good use, but ultimately that good use is for the recipient to determine. A gift with strings attached is not really a gift at all.

..snip..

Had President Obama sought the prize based on explicit or implicit promises - campaigning for it as he did the presidency - it would make sense for progressives to consider Fairness/Reciprocity. Then it would be earnings. But he didn't seek or campaign for the prize. It was a gift,

This makes a lot of sense to me, and actually fits with my initial emotional reaction to the news -- pleased surprise. The question "why?" was the next thought I had about it, but figured they undoubtedly would explain the decision.

In reading more, I think Rachel essentially has it right on their reasoning, coming as it is from an international/European viewpoint.

Bush had effectively turned the United States into the most dangerous rogue nation the world had ever seen, and Obama has entirely reversed that course. There's no more nascent resurgence of a Cold War with Russia. There's no more open disdain for the European powers. There's no more disregard for the UN. There is no more flagrant mockery of environmental issues. America has returned to being a citizen of the world.

There are still two active wars the US is engaged in, but one is being drawn to a close, and the other is under review, with a goal of establishing an exit strategy.

I do think it's more aimed at encouraging Obama to "stay the course", than a recognition of any tangible goal achieved, and it seems clear to me that Obama recognizes it as such.

Sounds like a good idea to give Obama a strong push to follow through on his promises. Again, I hope it works.

>> ^thepinky:
^Oh, please.
To my most honorable fellow sifters,
Your ability to so easily lump all of Christianity into one great steaming pile of idiocy is amazing. It's as if you've figured it all out, and you're so sure that you're right that you delight in mocking people who don't agree with you. Humor is one thing, but people have repeatedly admitted that the point of this video is to deal a blow to Christians through mockery. Disdain and disrespect are not admirable traits, especially when you should just be admitting to yourself and everyone else that you know as little about the universe as the next idiot.
>> ^thinker247:
Yeah, because mockery denounces something for its idiocy, while reverence shows respect for its idiocy.
>> ^thepinky:
Call me crazy, but I think that there is a big difference between mockery and reverence.


The next idiot is exactly the point.

^Oh, please.

To my most honorable fellow sifters,

Your ability to so easily lump all of Christianity into one great steaming pile of idiocy is amazing. It's as if you've figured it all out, and you're so sure that you're right that you delight in mocking people who don't agree with you. Humor is one thing, but people have repeatedly admitted that the point of this video is to deal a blow to Christians through mockery. Disdain and disrespect are not admirable traits, especially when you should just be admitting to yourself and everyone else that you know as little about the universe as the next idiot.

>> ^thinker247:
Yeah, because mockery denounces something for its idiocy, while reverence shows respect for its idiocy.
>> ^thepinky:
Call me crazy, but I think that there is a big difference between mockery and reverence.

Yeah, because mockery denounces something for its idiocy, while reverence shows respect for its idiocy.

>> ^thepinky:
Call me crazy, but I think that there is a big difference between mockery and reverence.

Even though I neither value the cross as a symbol nor agree that it should be used, I will defend it by saying that the cross is not mocked by Christians. It is the symbol of a martyrdom. Call me crazy, but I think that there is a big difference between mockery and reverence.

There's a difference between reverence for a martyr by wearing a crucifix and mockery of him. Based on your explanation of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, I believe that you have a limited understanding of the doctrine of the Atonement. I agree that many people's definition of Christianity is absurd, but I am annoyed by people who don't really understand the gospel as it was taught by Jesus Christ, and yet they feel entitled to look down upon and mock believers.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
You're all so eager to mock Christianity that I think you failed to notice how perverse this is. I wonder what's funny about a crucifixion machine. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people that were brutally and indiscriminately murdered in that way, both in the ancient and modern world, a crucifixion machine is about as funny as gas chambers and guillotines. At least gas chambers and guillotines are quick, whereas crucifixion is prolonged torture. Yeah. Hilarious.

Crucifixion was horrible torture, true. So: how many people have you seen lately wearing mini guillotines around the necks, or praying in front of mock gas chambers? How many people do you know, on the other hand, who worship an omniscient god who sent his son/self to get brutally tortured and murdered as a scapegoat for his believers?
Despite christianity's absurdity, millions still believe in it. Sometimes the absurd can only be tackled with more absurd. It's called satire.

-THIS- is the kind of work for which she has a show. A reasoned analysis of current factual events compared to historical patterns. Too often of late, she's fallen into sloppy habits of mockery and ridicule. But this show, this show would serve wonderfully as the example of what should be her goal (and the goal of all op/ed pieces) at all times.

dan savage is not trying to help atheism. hes trying to help society. the point is that mockery is a powerful tool to help people see the stupidity of their actions.

I don't think most independents feel Democratic policy will bring about Nazi death camps, and any Republican rhetoric saying so will be rightly ignored. But, I guarantee a majority of the middle is growing intensely apprehensive about the whole idea and any mockery against dissenting opinions should be tempered.

Of course, I hope your party doesn't temper it, because this recent 'nani-nani-boo-boo-stick-your-face-in-doo-doo" righteousness from Dems is exactly what I like to see so to keep your party from fucking shit up too much. Sure, your guy is better than their guy, but that's no reason to thumb your teeth at the rest of the country who may disagree with your guy.

A mockery! A mockery!

I think that the KKK Nazis make a mockery of themselves on a regular basis. It is even better when they prove it when their leaders run off to quell free speech!


Here is a hearty "Jog On":



to the KKK and their asshattery.

Is this a mockery of Y2K, when Ronald McDonald "stole" the election for "Best French Fries" from the Burger King?

Sorry I missed your roast, holmes. I was hiking and BBQing. I guess I'll just have to intensify my mockery of Ron Paul for the next few months to make up for it.

You mentioned you might be going to Montana with your girl. Is that still happening? Whereabouts were you planning to go?

>> ^longde:
LOL, don't exploit animals, but it's OK to exploit and objectify women, and make a mockery of a peoples' revolution!

Quit yer Stalin, and tell us what you really think!

LOL, don't exploit animals, but it's OK to exploit and objectify women, and make a mockery of a peoples' revolution!

This is why I hate PETA, they always put animals above humans.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^KamikazeCricket:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^imstellar28:
Whats the difference between a dead cop and a trampoline?
You take off your boots before jumping on a trampoline.

Somebody been playing madlibs?
What's the difference between a dead _profession and a _noun?
You take your _noun off before _verbing on a _noun

What's the difference between a geologist and a car?
you take your hair off before swimming on a shoelace.
Your mockery fails

I think it was brilliant, poetic, and probably pretty fun, no?
I've got another one:
Why don't you go f_{the letter u}ck yourself


Those who call themselves brilliant are typically perceived as the opposite by everyone else. The fact that you got all butt-hurt over my comment shows just how pretentious you really are. Oh, and no, it was not funny, nor poetic, and certainly not brilliant. Go die in a fire.