The Mercury News Editorial Board used the “R” word again. You know, “Republican.”
In their Oct. 11 editorial, the Mercury News expressed its concern that the Nobel Peace Prize committee may have provided fodder for Obama’s political opponents by awarding him this year’s prize. “The award unfortunately emphasizes one of the biggest criticisms of Obama: that he gives lovely speeches but has no record of accomplishment. The condemnation he faced Friday was swift and largely ungracious, much like a week earlier, when Republicans reacted with glee after the U.S. lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympics.”
Excuse me…was that all Republicans, some Republicans, or three Republicans? Shouldn’t such a statement come with some qualification? Truth is, there was a survey done just prior to the Olympic vote that indicated that a significant number of Chicago area residents (more than 40 percent) did not want the games to be held in their city.
As for the Peace Prize going to Obama, the Mercury News conceeds that, “even liberals were surprised.” And former Mayor Willie Brown asked in his San Francisco Sunday column, “After Nobel, what’s next for Obama—sainthood?”
Brown also wrote, “Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for one thing—getting elected president in a country that has never had a woman or a person of color as its leader. I expect an Oscar, a Tony, and a Pulitzer will all follow; and all will be equally deserved.”
Just imagine what the reaction would have been if these same words had been spoken or written by a Republican.
Pete is so disappointed he did not get the prize. There is something to be said about being proud of an American President. However, when you are President Obama, you have to be twice as good in order to be regarded as just as good. It is the old story that people like our President faced from the same type of people who write this stuff that they are puzzled that such a person would get it.
It is just sad that pride in our leaders comes sometimes “qualified,” when they are from groups that thia poster is uncomfortable with. Goodness knows what the reaction would be from the Great Commentator of San Jose, if Obama had Irish roots.
When you write, “from the same type of people who write this stuff…” are you referring to Willie Brown or to me?
Great scholarship.
Gee, the Mayor of Limerick commented on your scholarship, Petey.
“Paddy is a slur and we do not appreciate people who ignore that.”
This is the same guy who thought that random sampling in survey taking was unnecessary
President Obama is an Irish American, Peter.
No wonder you have little pride in his accomplishments.
Sad.
Who would take the Murky News seriously anyway?! Their sad attempt at putting out a decent product instead reminds me of the old weekly shopping news that was tossed on driveways back in the 70’s.
Beyond that, those damned half-pages they now liberally use make it very difficult to properly wrap fish or garbage.
Rowen writes: “It is just sad that pride in our leaders comes sometimes “qualified” when they are from groups that thia poster is uncomfortable with.”
If we assume “thia” is a typo, and that Rowen meant to write “this,” …that implies that the author is uncomfortable with a designated group. What group?
Rowen’s implications border on slander.
Pete,
You and James have been battling back and forth for some time now over this Irish issue. Why don’t you just address this head on, and explain your side of the “Paddy” concern so you two can move on?
It just may make for a good column, you never know~
Kathleen,
I’d propose they do battle in a three-round mud wrestling contest.
Kathleen:
20 years ago, while a member of the SJ Human Rights Commission, I did not vote for a resolution condemning the use of the word “paddy.” Being part-Irish, I chose/choose not to be offended by the term, believing that some day/some group would rise above the “name calling” and sensitivity.
-Take a second look at my comments and questions on this thread and see if any were answered-
Funny, New York Times v. Sullivan would differ, waa, waa.
Obama joins the esteemed ranks of Al Gore and Yasir Arafat in winning the Nobel Prize….what a joke.
James, Obama doesn’t have to be twice as good; he just needs to do something besides giving lovely speeches. He’s spending too much time as a talking head, and not enough as a head of state. Obama needs to stop sitting on the end of the bed telling me how good it’s going to be and start doing something.
I want him to be a great president, just like I want all of our presidents to be great. But being a great president involves more than being a great orator.
Hold on to your hat Pat, but I completely agree with you.
Kathleen, I think we generally agree on where things should go. Where we normally conflict is on how best to get there.
True. Too bad people in office don’t work together for the good of all like we do.
You don’t have to agree on the route to fix it, but you do at least need to agree on the problem!
That’s the problem. We don’t agree on the problem. For example, Pat will tell you that there is no climate change. He also thinks that health care access and cost isn’t that much of an issue. If you can’t agree there is a problem, then how can you work together to solve them?
Kathleen, I believe you and Pat are actually diametrically opposed on some of the issues. When that is the case, there can’t be bipartisanship.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of folks like Pat that they want the US to succeed and “our presidents to be great.” I think all elected officials (well, most) want that. But there can’t be common ground when you are in the opposite end zones on the issues.
Problem, I beg to differ with your assessment of my positions on the issues of climate change and health care.
1) Climate change is a fact of life that has been going on for billions of years. I just don’t believe that humans are a significant cause and, further, that Cap and Trade is a huge tax that will drive business overseas and increase costs for all Americans, with no discernable benefit. Some of the peer reviewed research indicates a high correlation between climate change and sun spot activity; can Congress legislate a change in that? Nevertheless, I do believe that conservation is something that everybody should practice as responsible stewards of our earth.
2) Health care access and cost is a huge issue. The current proposals in Congress do nothing to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and are more likely to have the unintended consequence of increasing health care costs.
It is possible to agree on the issues and differ on the solutions. And oftentimes, “do nothing” is a viable alternative (not that I would advocate that for health care, but perhaps for climate change).
Well, you make my point on #1. Your view that climate change is not human caused is diametrically opposed to the view that if we don’t act to slow greenhouse gas emissions, we are doomed. With no common ground, there can be no cooperation. If your solution is to take no action, then how can those who want action work with you?
The same goes for health care. While I exaggerated your views on health care and admit that you see that a problem exists, every time a solution is proposed, no matter how much compromise is in it, or how much it is watered down, the Republicans in Congress vote no. At some point, there is no common ground to be had.
We all want what is best for the country and community, but don’t agree on what that is. On health care, you and I want everyone to have access, thus reducing the numbers of bankruptcies and deaths caused by health problems. Others think survival of the fittest is best for our society, and that those who don’t have health care access probably did something to deserve their lot in life. Whose view of a better society is right? It isn’t my place to decide that. But if I believe that mine is right, it is necessary that I fight to carry it out. If the public agrees with one view over the other, the makeup of our elected bodies will reflect it.
My belief is that the American public has spoken in the past two elections and have demanded action on climate change and health care. The minority is standing in the way, obstructing on these issues. As a result, partisan rancor continues. How do we come together under such circumstances?
You raise some excellent points I must admit. Being a mediator of 26 years, I can tell you that part of my job is to find common ground between parties in conflict, and in most cases when people really want to resolve something, they do. Otherwise I’d be out of a job!
I personally believe we are destroying the planet and need to take action YESTERDAY! Even when I was a kid, and I’m 52, our teachers were touting personal responsibility toward our environment. They also discussed the toxic waste being dumped into our air and water by huge companies.
I personally believe we do need low cost health care for all. But I don’t believe that people should get it for free unless everyone else does too, or unless they are poor elderly, or poor disabled folks. I do think insurance, and drug companies, like banks and credit card companies are ripping off hard working people everyday. Tonight’s news talked about 60% of all bankruptcies filed are the direct result of health care debt, and that 80% of these folks HAD health insurance. Now that is pretty concerning to me.
Pat and I don’t agree on a lot, but our common ground, at least in my mind, is that we both want the best for our country and community. Now define what type of community we both want, and we’ll have to start negotiating all over again!
“How do we come together under such circumstances?”
Sadly, it takes something so horrific it shocks our society into change. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at least, that profit, greed, and power is the motivating factor in our society today, not fairness, human compassion, or equality. Our world is in a lot of trouble right now and it saddens me deeply that greed driven corporations are driving the bus. One day however the have nots will wage one hell of a protest and the haves better be ready because survival is a much stronger motivator than greed~
Kathleen, I agree 100%.
I would add to your sentence: “greed driven corporations are driving the bus” and the Republican party.
“Just imagine what the reaction would have been if these same words had been spoken or written by a Republican.”
Why should we debate hypotheses? Is this a serious blog or not?
Certainly many Republicans did applaud and otherwise express glee when it was announced that Chicago had lost its Olympic bid. For example,
http://digg.com/d316T4E
where you can see the nice folks at Americans for Prosperity, a conservative conference, breaking out into applause when the off-screen speaker says Obama has failed to get the Olympics for Chicago.
On the Weekly Standard blog, also a conservative publication, a blog entry was posted (and later removed) saying that “cheers” had broken out in their offices after the announcement. Redstate.com had several items that express happiness that the US failed to get the games, and placed the blame on President Obama. Rush Limbaugh called it the “worst” day of Obama’s presidency and spent much of the show denigrating the president for this failure.
So, yes, I think it’s reasonable to say “Republicans” expressed glee at the announcement. More than one; more than three; less than all.
I see the basic question here and it goes beyond the Rowen kerfuffle. Campbell writes about President Obama with some skepticism. Ok, we will grant that,
However, Mr. Campbell is subject to the same scrutiny don’t you think? What qualifies Peter Campbell to be a pundit? Pat Waite and Kathleen Flynn seem to be activists and community leaders. The question about Campbell and his actions, in this case, inaction as a Human Rights Commissioner, has been raised by more people than Rowen the jester. So, we have to ask, what program, what cause, what group, what campaign has Campbell ever engaged in that would make him qualified to comment on our community affairs? More than one comment has appeared comparing Campbell’s logic to a badly made pretzel, so what is the great interest in hearing from this fellow with no following, and no qualification? These are things Campbell says about Obama, so isn’t it fair game to turn the tide?
So, you have to have a “following” to speak out about issues? What qualifications do you have to impose such a standard on the rest of us?
who is “us?” Just see you, Petey, a very small “you”
“What qualifies Peter Campbell to be a pundit?”, you ask. Most pundits are self-qualified. And if what they say resonates with a lot of folks, they succeed. Look @ Rush, for instance.
Breaking News………………. . .
This just in!!!
Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!
And the Cy Young award too after Obama watched Tim Lincecum pitch an inning for the Giants!!
The Olympic Committee is obviously racist.
It’s the only possible explanation.
On the other hand, the Nobel Prize organization is obviously “enlightened” and “gets it”.
One things for sure. Our “green” President, on his fool’s errand to Copenhagen, totally offset any efforts I can possibly make over my entire lifetime to offset my own carbon footprint.
What the hell’s the matter with some of you people that you can’t see what a phony this guy is?
Problem, one does not have to view climate change as man made to understand the importance of prudent stewardship of our planet. My issue is with a government using the banner of “global warming” to grab great gobs of money and redistribute it to their pet projects.
I don’t believe that man causes climate change, yet I drive a hybrid, have photovoltaic panels on my roof, recycle as much as possible, ask shippers to use alternatives to styrofoam, carry reusable water bottles, use drip irrigation, carry reusable grocery bags, shop the farmers’ markets, and practice precycling as much as possible.
There is not unanimity in the scientific community regarding man’s affect on climate. There is a school of thought that so-called greenhouse gasses are a lagging indicator of global temperatures. And as evidence to the cyclicality of global temperatures, I would point out that the Vikings chose the name Greenland for a reason (did you know it was once temperate enough to grow grapevines?), and that 10,000 years ago there was a city where the English Channel currently runs.
Just because I don’t agree with your proposed solutions doesn’t make me wrong.
And, by the way, conservatives have offered alternatives solutions for health care but liberals don’t like them…yet.
Pat,
Some clarification please. Are you saying that all the pollution, toxic chemicals, and other dangerous things leaking into our atmosphere have absolutely no barring on our climate changes, never mind our health? Changes like melting ice caps, cancer etc.? You do realize we have come light years from the era of Vikings right? They certainly never had nuclear power plants, toxic waste filled with radiation….
Kathleen, the amount of waste and pollution we generate is tragic and we absolutely should work to reduce it. But our climate has been changing for billions of years, and will continue to do so. My reference to the Vikings is that Greenland was once much warmer than it is today, and will be so again.
None of your actions are enough if we don’t stop the release of greenhouse gases into the environment through larger scale societal commitment. You keep saying there isn’t scientific unanmimity, but there is scientific consensus. There hasn’t been a peer-reviewed scientific publication that disputes that man-made emissions are causing global climate change. If you don’t believe it, then you make my point that your view on the subject is dimatrically opposite to mine. We MUST reduce greenhouse gas emissions or our planet is in trouble.
Thanks though for your responsible personal choices, which are important and collectively do make a difference. Personal stewardship, while noble and commendable, isn’t enough unless we force it on a larger scale through polices at the local, national, and international level. Your denial of the science just stands in the way of progress – progress that we can ill-afford to delay.
I beg to differ with your opinion that there is “scientific consensus.” As evidence, consider the following.
“The close relationship between the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and global temperature, as described in [a paper published in the July 23, 2009 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research], leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.” Bob Carter, professor, Marine Research Laboratory, James Cook University.
“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role [in climate change].” Letter from 60 German scientists to Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.” Same letter.
“Many meteorologists have interpreted the increase in global surface temperature since the late 1960s, and the overall global surface temperature increases since 1900 as an indication that global warming from man induced greenhouse gases. But there are likely other more plausible explanations for such global temperature changes. It is more likely that the surface temperature changes of the last century are a response to naturally occurring temperature changes which are not or very little related to man-induced greenhouse gas increases. Surface temperature changes appear to have resulted from variations in the global ocean conveyor belt circulation.” William Gray, Dept of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (in a 1966 paper delivered at the 21st NOAA Climate Workshop).
Oh, and by the way, Republicans in Congress have offered NOTHING as a solution to health care. They have only said NO over and over, even as key parts of the initial proposals are being removed to please. All I’m hearing is that either you do it our way (tort reform and interstate competition and nothing else) or we’ll vote no. That isn’t working together. That isn’t compromise. That is holding America hostage over a completely intransigent viewpoint.
On the one hand, you claim that “Republicans in Congress have offered nothing as a solution to health care.” Yet you follow it with “you do it our way (tort reform and interstate competition and nothing else).” That sounds like a solution to me…
The continued deforestation of the Amazon Basin has exacerbated a growing greenhouse gas problem. But it’s not PC to criticize bacward economies for their contributions to the problem. Trees suck up carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. We need more trees, not fewer trees.
The climate of the globe has changed over the eons for many reasons. Not too long ago we had an ice age, and we’ll probably have another. We’ve also had warming periods. I doubt that will ever change. Long term climate variations are inevitable.
I also have little doubt that man’s impact has aggravated recent short term changes.
The political and scientific communities need to stop bickering about who is right and who is to blame. Al Gore bored us with his turgid delivery of his side of the important story, all the while driving a huge SUV and having a huge house that is non-green, and having made his money off big tobacco.
I am certain there are things all of us can do to minimize our negative impact on a closed ecosystem of which we still have but minimal knowledge of its workings over centuries, let alone eons.
But we can’t let the “developing countries” off the hook, either, especially Cina and India.
I don’t know what the limit is that we can put on our planet to continue to sustain us; but I have little doubt that we haven’t found the solution yet. One huge impact is the continuing increase in population, especially in developing large nations. For instance, there seem to be no pollution controls in either India or China. Soon they will have the dubious distinction of contributing more greenhouse gasses than the USA. India’s population will exceed Cinas within 20 years. Thus, India is clearly not on board with the biggest contributor to every problem, including climate change—unchecked population growth.
Let’s all of us stop squabbling and work together for solutions. Let’s stop fixing blame and start fixing the problem.
JMO,
Agreed and very well stated.
Unless I’m mistaken, “problem” amd “around in circles” from a previous thread are one and the same.
It’d be nice if you could settle on a consistent pseudonym. Would that be so hard?
You brought up the idea of “survival of the fittest”.
This is the concept that is at the heart of Darwin’s “natural selection”- a concept that is dear to the hearts of today’s progressive thinkers when they find themselves in opposition to Christian fundamentalists, particularly in the arena of public education. In these discussions, liberals appear to understand that the organisms that thrive are the ones who are best adapted to a given environment. Sound logic. Why then, is it not applicable to politics?
Liberals abandon the philosophy of “survival of the fittest” when it comes to the politics of social programs. But they shouldn’t.
When the Government creates a program such as national health care, the environment changes. Where before, having initiative and self reliance were once qualities which helped people to prosper, suddenly being self reliant is no longer a trait that is encouraged. Self reliant individuals will dwindle in number. A new environment has been created that emphasizes dependence. The number of dependent people will become larger. It’s Darwinism.
Is this what we want? A majority of the population dependent for it’s needs on a minority? That’s the direction that Obamacare will send us.
Seems to me that we’re only feeding a problem that will manifest itself in other ways.
Liberal American politicians have been working of this dependency upon the government for everything from cradle to grave since FDR started us down the slippery slope of reliance on government to save us all, which has replaced the self-reliance that made this country great.
That disease may be irreversible.
We have fewer and fewer supporting more and more—Social Security, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid. And it gets worse, since educated high earners breed fewer offspring than uneducated and non-working folks who rely on “the system” for their support.
And now, we in the USA also support 20 or 30 million illegals.
This cannot be sustained for very much longer. Taxing the productive people to support the non-productive people is not the answer.
You say that the “republicans” have no solutions offerred for the health care problems in this country. I suggest you open up your perspective a bit so you can see and hear what is really out there.
Congressman Paul Ryan has represented Wisconsin’s First Congressional District for six terms. He is the
ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee.Congressman Ryan has laid out clear alternatives.
Read a summary of a recent speach of his here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv7n4.pdf
You have to be willing to listen to other views, then make a decision. No one ever won in the end by drinking the Kool Aid!
In my own life, it’s struck me that when conflicted, the best course of action has been to doggedly move forward. I wonder if this might be true for the nation as a whole.
The assertion by liberals that climate change will soon become irreversible feels like strong pressure to sign up for something that is being hyped up.
Ireversible eh? I’ve lately been wondering why it is that if human activity is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, couldn’t human activity also remove that CO2 from the atmosphere? Maybe the technology’s not there YET. But perhaps, with an optimistic spirit, we might decide to take a chance- to be bold. Instead of commissioning our Government to regulate and limit businesses, in a misguided effort to pressure them into conforming to standards that are politically advantageous to certain special interest groups, we opt instead to give people free reign to look for reality-driven solutions to our problems.
Who knows? One day we might see giant factories in the desert using enormous banks of photovoltaic cells, extracting prodigious volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into oxygen and methane gas, thus offsetting all the CO2 that is being produced by human activity and freeing people to progress unencumbered by onerous governmental restrictions.
How would the “progressives” feel about THAT? I wonder. Would they be glad that “global warming” had been solved or would they start scrambling for fresh reasons to control us?
John, I’m sure there’s some desert tortoise or something that would preclude us from ever putting giant banks of photovoltaic cells in the desert! But I like you thinking.
I’ve lately been wondering why it is that if human activity is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, couldn’t human activity also remove that CO2 from the atmosphere? Maybe the technology’s not there YET.
Actually, removing CO2 from the atmosphere is what is being proposed by the various CO2 reduction plans that conservatives are so spun up about.
However, I suspect your suggestion s just more short-sighted irrational thinking. In other words, it is business as usual, and wait for technology to save the planet.
It might happen, but then again faster than light warp engines might also be invented. Then we can just leave this planet behind, and go to some other star.
That will be nice when it does occur. We can have planets for people of one political mind to ruin, and we can have planets for people of another political mind to nurture and live in peace.
Decisions, decisions. Maybe Glen Beck has the answer as to which lifestyle is best.
The CO2 reduction plan that I’m most spun up about is the one where CARB has me scrapping the 2 pieces of diesel powered equipment that I use in my business and replacing them to the tune of about $80,000.
I wonder if the overpaid bureaucrats who come up with these ideas are prepared to make the same level of sacrifice that they demand of others. Somehow I doubt it. Watching our “green” President and Oprah jetting all over the globe assures me that there will be one set of rules for us peons and another set for our elite rulers.
You want that planet? You can have it.
Peter Campbell is a disappointment to his people, and should go back to the porch where he belongs.
So many posts, so little likelihood that anyone will care or read mine. But like Don Quixote, I will jilt at my windmills just the same.
The folks in Sweden/Norway wished they could have been a part of our historic election, and wanted to give Obama a nobel prize in solidarity with his political accomplishments.
The folks in Sweden/Norway had advance intelligence (common sense and keen observation skills) about the pending request for a troop surge in Afghanistan, and wanted to de-stabilize the American effort in the war by creating a climate where the political leadership were be shamed out of listening to their military commanders while concurrent political efforts were destabilize the Afghanistan (“puppet?”) government, making it ripe for replacement in the post-American era of political consolidation.
The folks in Sweden/Norway were advised by their advertising and PR folks that they needed a bold-move to re-brand the Nobel Prize as hip and relevant and not something that only those pre-modern newspaper reading folks care about. This is the NEW Nobel for the 21st Century, hip, edgy, cool.
Folks in Sweden/Norway wanted to give Shepard Fairey a chance to digitally add a Nobel Medal to the HOPE poster to help him argue that he didn’t steal intellectual property from the AP/Photographer but rather substantially altered it making the image his own.
And on a related note, the folks in Norway are prepared to argue that by adding a Nobel medal to Obama, they are substantially altering “found art” and can claim him as the new President of Norway.
Read up on the Nobel prize and think its funny that of the 5 Nobel prizes, 4 are given by a Swedish panel, and the Peace Prize is given by a Norwegian panel for:
“The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who “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 of peace congresses.” The prize was to be awarded “by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting.”