Quantcast
Welcome

Mrs-O.com is a blog dedicated to chronicling the fashion and style of First Lady Michelle Obama. Founded September 2008. 

Community

Search
Social

Twitter
Facebook

BOOK

Chat > Nobel Peace Prize

Shall we start with Passchaendale? I think that was too early and was a terrible mistake.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM | Registered CommenterPosh Tater

If only you Brits had taken care of Hitler then... :)

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM | Registered CommenterChicagoan

Tell me about it.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM | Registered CommenterPosh Tater

@Sharon, oh, goodness, "happy happy joy joy" is nothing but an inside joke-family expression that describes people who are generally positive. Please note "twerp" was never a word I ascribed to that description. In fact, I agree with your assessment of the situation vis a vis the Nobel Prize itself.

True, I would have been happier if the President had won the award next year simply because he would have had accomplishments already under his belt that would have taken the wind out of the critics' sails. But he didn't, he won it this year. So I think of the honor--as he suggests--as a platform for continuing work toward what we all hope is an achievable goal. C'est tout.

@Posh, well, I can tell you actually read Willow's post word for word. . .which is more than I can say for myself! It just might be that because (as she herself says) she doesn't have much interaction with the "outside world," she simply has more time to fret and worry and navel-contemplate than many of us do. Willow, honey, sometimes you do remind me of the character "Eeyore" in the Winnie the Pooh stories.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM | Registered CommenterNancy

Well Nancy, I don't always read all of Willow's posts because they are so long I get bored. But lately I've been very concerned about them so I have been paying more attention. I think that the "outside world" story is as much a load of tosh as the rest of it. Willow's on a mission as far as I can see. Covert, but quite plain.

***

Anyway, moving on to something more interesting, I thought it might be cool to drag in a fact or two. For a change. I went to look at the criteria that Alfred Nobel set down for the Peace Prize.

It will, of course, explain clearly and succinctly why Barack Obama was more than eligible to win, and why it was absolutely appropriate that he got it RIGHT NOW.

(Bearing in mind that after the election in November, he got right back on a plane and went to meet world leaders to talk about what he wanted to achieve with them. So he started a year ago.)

OK? Here it is:

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:

"during the preceding year [...] 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"

Let the squealing of indignation commence.......

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM | Registered CommenterPosh Tater

Posh & Chicagoan,

Love it all!! ;-P

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM | Registered CommenterNyon

I am SOOOOO appalled by all of the talk about whether the President "deserves" the prize he won!!! The day the announcements were made--or maybe the day after--I sat down to watch the "news," only to discover that an entire one-hour show was being devoted to answering the question "Does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?" This disturbs me on so many levels I hardly even know where to begin!!

First of all, the Nobel foundation is a completely private organization founded by a private citizen who was NOT from the U. S. According to the Nobel website, Alfred Nobel stated in his will that "much of his wealth" would go to fund the prize. Now if I'm reading this correctly, that means that not a single tax-payer dollar from any nation is involved here! And IF I'm reading it correctly, this is NOT a public organization that is responsible to tax payers to explain and justify the decisions that are made! The committee makes the decisions based on their own set of criteria and their own judgment, and they are not accountable to anyone!

Then of course there's the obvious point that this is not a contest which one enters. The President did not know that he'd been nominated nor did he know that he'd been selected until just before the rest of the world knew. He didn't pursue this in any way. It's NOT a contest!

Then there's the fact that even in competitions that people do enter, everyone knows that judging for such things is SUBJECTIVE! The final decision is the product of the individual preferences and judgments of the specific set of judges. Look at American Idol as an example! They have three or four judges who often don't even agree among themselves and millions of viewers who don't agree with any of the judges.

My view on this "question" is that it's a ridiculous question. It's none of my business, and it's none of anyone else's busines, and it's sure as hell none of Fox News's business whom the Nobel Committee decides to award the honor and the money that are theirs alone to award. The rest of us can either congratulate the winner (as I do!) or shut-up. It is what it is.

As for whether this will hurt Obama's presidency, I have enough confidence in our President to believe that he'll figure out how to handle this little "inconvenience" that's been thrown at him (poor guy!). He'll be fine! Congratulations, Mr. President!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 4:03 PM | Registered CommenterMsG

well said MsG.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM | Registered CommenterNyon

Nancy,

Thank you very much for your words of common sense and support.

Leah D, Thank you very much for this:

"I haven't seen anyone say that there isn't a downside. Of course there is a downside: people are using this issue to bash Obama in the media, that's the biggest downside that I see."

Thank you very much for saying that, Leah D. This is one of the things I find most hurtful about this situation. I believe that President Obama could have been spared much of the ridicule and bashing if this award had not looked so premature in the eyes of so many.

I am so grateful to hear just one person voice something other than full-throated support for the timing of this award. Because it is given so early in Obama's presidency, it invites much negativity, which could have been avoided if the award had been given later. That is my only point. Thank you for being the first person on this blog to recognize it.

IVA, what have you figured out about me? That I love this President so much that I think he could have been better served by receiving this award after there were more concrete results of his influence on the world stage? That would be the truth of what there is to figure out.

Sharon, I will "show up" when I have the emotional energy to take it. I'm taking quite a hammering here, don't you think? All because I see the downside to this early award. And I feel this so strongly because of my respect and love and support for the President. Odd, that unless I jump up and down for joy about this, my motives are questioned. I think that it's possible that on balance, he could reap more harm than good from this on the domestic front. And we don't know how it will play out on the international stage. The story is far from written, and I'm worried about it.

Sharon, I take your point #2 very well. I had not thought about that. The fierce urgency of now. Yes, the world stands on several dangerous precipices. Nukes, Climate Change, the economy, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Al Qaida. I can see that by giving Obama this award now, the Nobel Committee hopes to applaud the vision he has placed before the world community, and encourage other nations to cooperate with it. That's very good.

I'll try to clear to up what baffles you. As I recall, the Nobel Prize for Peace has in the past been awarded to people who have worked longer toward their goals than our President has. Archbishop Desmond Tutu received the award before Aprarthied was over, but he had been working for years to see that accomplished. Although Civil Rights had not yet been passed when Martin Luther King received his award, he had been sacrificing for years for his cause. Unless I'm way wrong, the Nobel Committee has rarely given the Peace Prize to someone whose work has been so brief. That is what causes all the problems with it.

Nyon, I take your post very well. The reason I think so many people here are "cheerleaders" is because I've never heard them say one word about how the President may be less than perfect. If people on this site never ever say one thing to indicate that they just might see some fault or weakness in this president, and will not tolerate anyone else recognizing that he is human and has faults, then how can I not conclude that they are "cheerleaders"? This president isn't God. He's human. He's not perfect. He's been weak and slow on some issues. He made promises during the campaign, and assured us that he would not be like every other politician who sings a different tune after election. But he's done that on more than one issue. These are facts. But no one here ever reports these facts, and if I dare to, my motives are questioned. What's with that? Why must we all pretend that Barack Obama is perfect? Why can we not discuss the real facts of what is going on? If you or others do not want to be perceived as "cheerleaders" then I think you need to start being honest. Obama is a great man. But he has faults. He's made some mistakes. He's the first to admit them. Recognizing that he is human, has weaknesses, and has made mistakes does not mean that I'm trying to undermine him.

What would happen if you and others began to voice the things you question about his actions? How would that undermine him? Or whatever it is that seems to be feared so much? I don't get it. I was smitten with Obama because of who he is as a human being, and because his positions on almost every issue were mine. It seems to me that if we all believed in his agenda during the campaign, we can best help him by speaking up when we see him waiting, holding back, compromising on what he campaigned on. I voted for the man, but I voted for his agenda, too. He said during the campaign that he would need all of us to get his agenda passed. How are we helping if we all just say, "I don't question him. He's always right." We need to speak up to let him know that "we the people" want him to act on an issue, even when the congress and senate are dragging their feet.

Nyon, I appreciate your posts and your opinions. Since I've never heard you say one thing to indicate that you recognize President Obama is a limited human being, I thought you were a "cheerleader". I can only go by the evidence.

Posh,

I feel that I need to take special care in responding to you, because I'm not really sure where you are coming from. I'm disappointed that you seem to be carried away by your own ease with words, taking you a little over-board in more than a few places.

I think I've already stated what I would like to see.

Posh, you are getting carried away with yourself. As I hope everyone but you can see, I shoot from the hip. I'm not a strategist. You give me way too much credit and power if you think I'm orchestrating something. Perhaps you could be given to flights of fancy in your analysis of me.

Posh quotes me: ""The President is not necessarily best loved by whole-hearted approval of every single thing he does"

Then answers: Absolutely. Good job none of us do that.

Show me examples.

Posh, I believe you when you say that you haven't seen Obama do anything you don't like yet. But, you are not here in the states, where many of his strongest supporters feel he hasn't been as quick to move on certain issues as he promised to during the campaign.

Posh, I didn't think I'd need to explain "helping US find OUR way." I hope that everyone else understood the "our" to mean, OUR way, ours, as in the human family, ours, as in the United States citizens. The President said often that he needed to hear from everyone to get the best information so he could make the best decisions. By finding "our" way, that is what I meant. I thought it was obvious. I think that, for some reason, you are looking for petty things to put me down with, and it doesn't look good on you.

Posh, I was trying not to name you. Perhaps that was a mistake. I thought it was beneath YOU to question my motives. But, there seems to be some particular dislike you have for me which apparently leads you to question my motives. I can't control your reaction to me.

Your next paragraph of personal attacks on me is beneath you. You really seem to have tallied up quite a load of negativity toward me. I'm sorry that on some level, I must offend you. I'm sorry for you because I think your tirade looks worse on you than it does on me.

I'm having a hard time following the rest of your post, Posh. I think you got yourself wound up and your words may have left reason behind a little bit.

Posh, I'm sorry if I've been "ramming something down everyone's throat". My opinion remains unchanged. But if I say that I'll not voice it hear again, Sharon says I shouldn't run away. I'll not be able to please everyone.

Posh, dear, The timing of this award IS divisive. As recognized by Leah D above.

I really think that carrying on this discussion further is not a good idea

I think it is devolving, and some people are saying things that they might one day regret.

I appreciate all of you pointing out the positive benefits than can come from the Nobel Committee granting this award to our President at this time. I hope with all my heart that he will be able to fulfill the promise and hope we all see in him, and that this award assists him in accomplishing his goals. That would be a dream come true.

I'm sorry to see the negative backlash this early award has unleashed. I believe it could have been avoided had the award been granted to him some years from now -- like when he's leaving office. But, then, it might have been too late to lend its weight to his vision, and that could have been a mistake.

I shuddered when I first read the announcement, because I instinctively knew how it could/would be used against him. I hope that ultimately the positive in this timing far outweighs the negative.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 10:04 PM | Registered CommenterWillow

Wow, Willow. I agree, this should be an end to this discussion. You clearly don't appear to understand what anyone is saying here, nor what motivates their opinions.

Time to move on.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 10:52 PM | Registered CommenterChicagoan

Willow,
Apparently you didn't read all of my comments.
And I think you misunderstood what I said.
I said that the downside is that they are bashing him in the media.
But I FULLY SUPPORT Obama getting the award at this time, I think he deserves it and I am very happy he is receiving it. The bit of bashing in the media will go away, but the President will still have the honor of the award and the charities will have the $1.4 million.
I AM HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM | Registered CommenterLeah D

Willow,
I just finished reading your full comment.
I am disgusted by the fact that you used my words out of context and tried to spin them into something to confirm your line of thought.

You said: "Posh, dear, The timing of this award IS divisive. As recognized by Leah D above."

I did NOT say the award is divisive. The 'right' uses EVERYTHING to bash Obama, this is not anything out of the ordinary, they even bash him when he takes Michelle out to dinner - but he MUST live his life and ignore the bashers (apparently like we must now ignore your rants).
What I said was: "" I haven't seen anyone say that there isn't a downside. Of course there is a downside: people are using this issue to bash Obama in the media, that's the biggest downside that I see. BUT I agree with the Nobel committee and think NOW is the time to award Obama with the prize.""
You can read my full comment at: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM

DO NOT USE ME! Do not take my comments out of context! Do not spin my words to make them seem they are something that they are NOT. And please stop attacking the other people on this thread. Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

It appears you are a very negative and confrontational person and I will no longer waste my time on this ridiculous discussion.

CONGRATS President Obama - You deserve to be awarded the Nobel Prize NOW, no matter what Willow thinks ;)

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 11:10 PM | Registered CommenterLeah D

I think I'm about burned out by this topic. It seems the only people that this award is dividing is this blog. LOL.

Willow, I did not like your response where you labeled us, including me, cheerleaders and fans - which you wrote in a manner to demean and personally attack us. If you go back and read any of my comments regarding this matter, while I argued a contrary position than you, I never personally attacked you and called you names. You were FIRST to do that. So that is what my comment about knowing where you are coming from is all about.

I do not know you. I don't need to prove my "creds" to you that I am sufficiently a critical thinker when it comes to the president. If you notice, I tend not to make negative comments in general. I don't like to criticize Mrs. O's clothes like others do. Part of why I do that is because I don't see what good I'm doing in saying "I really hate this belt," or "why did she wear this shirt with that skirt," etc. It is not because I'm some mindless "fan" of hers, it's because I don't see it as constructive to post negative comments on a blog, which will never reach Mrs. O and has no chance of moving her one way or another, and will only foster a negative atmosphere and bring out negative emotions in other people, and possibly attract people with ill motives to join.

Similarly, I don't see the need to complain about the president on things I cannot directly affect. I am honestly not one of those people who believes he hasn't moved sufficiently fast enough on certain issues. So my concerns are more about certain initiatives that are already in the mix that I feel could be different. In instances like that, I have found ways to actively try and communicate my position to possibly reach him or relevant people by joining organizations and lobbying my Congressmen.

As Leah D indicated, this award was/is an opportunity for his enemies to attack. But what's done is done. I did not and still don't, understand your incessant need to fret over this, which is quite small in the scale of things that can take this presidency down. That is the source of my frustration with you over this issue. It really isn't a big deal, and if it becomes a big deal, the president and his team will have to handle it. Would it have been better if it had happened later? Perhaps. But it would have been better if I had picked the right lottery numbers yesterday too and won a million dollars. I cannot worry about things that are out of my control. I feel like it is the same with the president. He didn't ask for this, this wasn't his "fault" so why worry over it? Why not just enjoy the positive side of this situation, see the benefits of him receiving the award? Why add to the chorus of negativity over it, especially since there were many people, unlike you, whose criticisms over this were done to hurt the president.

You are right that this conversation has gotten to a place where people are about to, or have written things they may regret. I haven't gotten there and I'm not close to it. But I am bored of this particular topic. As I said, so far the biggest division I've seen from this award is on here. I don't really know what I'm taking from this dust-up. I confess I'm still forming opinions of people on here, and this has been helpful with that. I have long felt like politically you and I are probably pretty similar, but we have very different personalities and temperaments. I feel like this discussion has highlighted that fact.

Anyway, take it easy.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 11:30 PM | Registered CommenterIVA

Leah D,

Please forgive me if I quoted you out of context. I had no intention of doing so. I had no intention of using you. You referred to the downside as the media bashing Obama. I see the timing of the award as the reason for the bashing -- ie. people seeing it as premature. Therefore, I thought you were agreeing that the timing was divisive. I'm sorry if that doesn't seem to be logical to you, or that it seems to assign some other meaning to your words. I had no intention of misquoting you or wronging you in any way.

IVA, I'm so glad to read this: "So my concerns are more about certain initiatives that are already in the mix that I feel could be different. In instances like that, I have found ways to actively try and communicate my position to possibly reach him or relevant people by joining organizations and lobbying my Congressmen."

I had gotten the impression that this President was always right in your eyes. I think that seeing him as always right and always perfect doesn't serve him or our country well. I see value in letting others know when I think the President needs a push, because it may inspire someone else to contact him or to contact members of congress or to take some action to move the agenda forward. I don't see criticism of him as a negative, but as a spur to action. We must all be alert and willing to fight.

IVA - this is a very enlightening sentence to me: "I did not and still don't, understand your incessant need to fret over this", It calls on me to ask myself why I'm fretting over it so much. You put it into a new context for me, and I see that I am obsessed with it, and inflicting that obsession on everyone here. Wow! What a breakthrough. Because of your sentence, I'm asking myself why I'm doing that.

As I think about it, I will tell what I'm discovering. I feel broken hearted about it. I feel great pain about it. My heart aches about it and I am close to tears about it. Why? Well, maybe because I'm the biggest fan and cheerleader of them all. You see, my dream would have been to see this President win the Nobel Prize after he had many concrete things to show for the new direction he set the world on in 2009. My dream would have been to see him win it when no one (except the extreme haters) could possibly have questioned his worthiness. I feel sad that what could have been such a glorious day for him was diminished by how premature this was.

So, I guess that's my obsession. That's what breaks my heart. And I'm sorry I've inflicted it on everyone.

I agree that we are politically similar. I'm not sure how we compare in temperament or personality. I tend to be very straight-forward and honest. It looks like I need to learn to be less forward with my opinions, and to be more sensitive to the fact that I might be obsessing about something.

One never knows where the key will come from to help one see what they are doing, and you, IVA, provided the key for me tonight. Thank you very much.

And to everyone else, I'm sorry that I inflicted my obsession on you.

I feel very relieved. I hope this may ease the tension I caused for others, too.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 12:55 AM | Registered CommenterWillow

Willow, dear, I do not for a moment question your right to express your opinion here nor do I question others’ right to post dissenting opinions; but frankly, it’s painful to read exchanges like the one among you, Posh, and Iva; and I have to say with all the love that I can muster that it was primarily your obsession with making your point multiple times that fueled the exchange. I am not among those who question your motives or who read dark, sinister plots into your posts. I just think enough is enough!

So I have a suggestion which you are free to take or leave. Many, many years ago when I was having a bit of a problem controlling my credit card balances because of impulse shopping, I decided to take firm action. I took ALL of the credit cards out of my wallet and locked them up in my fireproof box at home. At the time, I lived about a half hour from the major shopping area of town; so if I didn’t buy something on the spot, I’d probably wait until the next day to go back for it. That gave me a 24-hour cooling off period to think about how badly I REALLY wanted something before I went back with my credit card in hand. And what I discovered is that probably 9 times out of 10, I didn’t go back at all. Whew! There went the credit card problem!

My suggestion for you is to give yourself a little time between writing and posting. Use Microsoft Word to compose, and then let it sit for an hour, 2 hours, 24 hours—or whatever. And then see if you still feel the same sense of urgency to get every little word of it out there. And ask yourself whether it’s worth risking disturbing the peace in our little community here just to make the same point all over again. You’re never going to convince everyone to agree with you, so after you’ve said it, just let it go. Even IF people want to be cheerleaders, they’re still going to be cheerleaders after reading a few more pages about why they shouldn’t be. Here’s a little checklist that you MAY want to use before you do finally post: Does this say anything that I haven’t already said? Is this likely to cause people to think about the subject in a different way or just piss them off? Will this take more than a minute or two to read? Is my tone insightful and thought-provoking or just negative?

You’ve been coming to this site longer than I have, and your name is one of the first that I saw when I joined the community. And it’s one that I always respected; I was drawn to your posts because of your knowledge and wisdom. And that’s why it’s painful to see you reduced to what I have seen in the last week. Most of us have said that we come to the discussion board to get away from the fights on the main thread, but keeping these rooms the safe haven they have been requires everyone’s cooperation. I’m NOT suggesting that anyone should soft pedal her/his opinion, only that we all should think about how we affect the community.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 6:19 AM | Registered CommenterMsG

You're relieved. Well you must be. You managed to say it all AGAIN. Twice!!!!

My West Highland Terrier is a lot like this. When I am trying to stop him barking he always has to have the last little "oof". Right down to the near-silent "fff". Like those Tshirts that say "what part of no do you not understand?" I'm getting shades of that here.

I'm going to do a little bit of "oof" myself. For those of you who are bored to tears, please skip to the line of asterisks way down.

Willow, let's take it slowly and clearly.

Everyone here who can read (think about it), read your first post and understood it.

You don't think it's good that the President won the Nobel Peace Prize.
You think it's a mistake that the President won the Peace Prize.
You think he got it too early.
You think it's an opportunity for the right wingers to attack him.
You think it should have come later.
You think he should have been able to go "TA DAAAA!" and hold up a To-Do List with a giant TICK next to disarmament, or Iraq war, or the end of poverty.

WE. GOT. IT.

Honestly.

The words you used were not long, or difficult to understand. The phrase "I think he should have got this award later" are very, very, very simple.

So, yes it could be said that you are obsessing about something. It could be said you are worrying it to DEATH with a terrier-like whinging, plaintive grip that is the most frustrating thing ever seen online. However, my personal opinion is that you are a bored rightwinger and this is a cute little game for you.

I would love to agree with chicagoan that you clearly don't understand anything that is being said here, except it's my opinion that you do understand it very well.

Now then, to address that pseudo sympathetic goop you wrote earlier:

"I'm not really sure where you are coming from. I'm disappointed that you seem to be carried away by your own ease with words, taking you a little over-board in more than a few places."
No disappointment necessary. I wasn't at all carried away. Allow me to be very clear. It is my belief that you are posing as an Obama supporter but are a rightwinger using this forum to try and plant negative ideas about the president and his administration. Or to put people off posting back here as well, when they've already been put off from posting on the front pages. I hope that clarifies the issue for you.

"Posh, you are getting carried away with yourself."
Please see above.

"As I hope everyone but you can see, I shoot from the hip."
Apart from the person who said "sheesh Willow we get it" before I did. Which makes two. And the ones who got bored with your multiple postings on the health magazine thread, the others on the Obama thread who responded when I said that I didn't like the persistent negative comments that made my palms itch, and anyone else on this thread who has said "um, Willow actually the Nobel is really good for Mr O".

"You give me way too much credit and power if you think I'm orchestrating something. Perhaps you could be given to flights of fancy in your analysis of me."
I don't give you any credit. Or power. Nor do I have a flight of fancy about you.

"Posh quotes me: ""The President is not necessarily best loved by whole-hearted approval of every single thing he does" Then answers: Absolutely. Good job none of us do that. Show me examples."
Er, no. Thank you. What for?

"Posh, I believe you when you say that you haven't seen Obama do anything you don't like yet. But, you are not here in the states, where many of his strongest supporters feel he hasn't been as quick to move on certain issues as he promised to during the campaign."
My opinion is no less valid on the basis of longitude and latitude. On the basis of opinions offered on this thread you are the only person saying that it's dreadful he won the Nobel prize right now, while everyone else is trying to talk to you slowly and clearly about why you might be overreacting or perhaps misunderstanding.

"By finding "our" way, that is what I meant. I thought it was obvious. I think that, for some reason, you are looking for petty things to put me down with, and it doesn't look good on you."
I don't care what it looks like. Nothing I said was petty. I'd say they were pretty big issues myself.

"Posh, I was trying not to name you. Perhaps that was a mistake. I thought it was beneath YOU to question my motives. But, there seems to be some particular dislike you have for me which apparently leads you to question my motives. I can't control your reaction to me."
Why not name me? We can all read. Shoot from the HIP, why don't you. It's not beneath me to question your motives, it's essential. I am currently the only person publicly saying that I think you are not what you claim to be, or that they have suspicions about you. That does not mean that I AM the only person who thinks you are not who you say you are, or who finds your motives suspect.

"You really seem to have tallied up quite a load of negativity toward me. I'm sorry that on some level, I must offend you. I'm sorry for you because I think your tirade looks worse on you than it does on me. "
Judging from the number of emails I got last night from people on this blog saying "well done, that needed to be said" I would have to disagree. Sadly.

"I'm having a hard time following the rest of your post, Posh. I think you got yourself wound up and your words may have left reason behind a little bit."
Not wound up at all. I love that you've gone to the trouble of inferring that my thoughts aren't rational no less than five times! I meant everything I said, and it reads very clearly. If you read it again, your discerning academic mind will be able to work it out almost instantly. I'm sure of it.

"My opinion remains unchanged."
I noticed that when you repeated it. Both times.

"Sharon says I shouldn't run away. I'll not be able to please everyone."
No, indeed. You shouldn't run away. If you're going to talk about things then expect to be called out if someone doesn't agree. If you are going to routinely and subtley undermine people, expect to be called out. If you don't want to be called out, don't do it.

"Posh, dear, The timing of this award IS divisive. As recognized by Leah D above."
I believe Leah D has already dealt with this little bit of truth twisting. (LOVE the "dear".)

"I really think that carrying on this discussion further is not a good idea"
I think, for you, it probably isn't. There comes a point where the wailing operatic soprano who jumps over the battlements to her death at the end of the third act should just STAY down, even though the stagehands have put a trampoline down to break her considerable fall and she keeps BOUNCing up into plain view while the tenor begins singing of his grief.

"I think it is devolving, and some people are saying things that they might one day regret."
I wouldn't regret a word. Unless Mrs T said I was banned from the blog. And then I would regret being banned from the blog, but not for saying what I said.

"I appreciate all of you pointing out the positive benefits than can come from the Nobel Committee granting this award to our President at this time."
Allow me to re-iterate the one point you haven't responded to - presumably because it's a fact that you can't upset with insinuating words:
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:
“ during the preceding year [...] 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.
Obama worked from directly after the election to now. That's eleven months. For the Nobel Committee that qualifies as a year. It does for me too.

"I'm sorry to see the negative backlash"
Willow, you ARE the negative backlash!

"I shuddered when I ....."
Yeah, yeah, we got it. You're heartbroken. You ache. It'll be a dream come true if it all works out but it's unlikely, it's all been diminished by the timing. Yadda yadda.

**********

Thanks for all the messages last night lovely people. Sorry I got cut off at one point, we had our third power cut of the day, which was infuriating!

In my view it's worth noting BarbG's point that it's a shame to bring a row to the threads of discussion when some of us have been put off posting on the main thread because of the rows there.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 7:01 AM | Registered CommenterPosh Tater

Posh,

If you agree that " it's a shame to bring a row to the threads of discussion when some of us have been put off posting on the main thread because of the rows there," WHY in heaven's name have you just added another 6 pages to that row??? You are correct in saying that we've gotten Willow's point. We've also gotten your point. Now can we PLEASE go back to some interesting, fun, CIVIL discussions?!!!

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 7:42 AM | Registered CommenterMsG

Whew, yes, BarbG, YES, let's.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 7:58 AM | Registered CommenterNancy

I added it because Willow is still talking utter pants.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 10:51 AM | Registered CommenterPosh Tater

Someone must be the bigger person here and stop responding and fanning the flames.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 10:56 AM | Registered CommenterMsG

MsG. I hadn't put my post in the category of fanning flames. That would mean I am deliberately trying to wind up Willow, which I'm not. I put it in the category of answering someone's stupid comments with common sense in the hope that they might actually listen. I do get what you're saying though and have two responses:

Firstly, ma'am, you don't have to be here either! If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm sure Willow and I are perfectly capable of having our conversation without help, if we wish to carry on.

Secondly, I had thought that I'd had enough and would stop, but wanted to wait and see if Willow actually got it this time. Which I am allowed to do.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM | Registered CommenterPosh Tater

Actually, Posh, I'd put your lengthy responses in the category of the pot calling the kettle black, but that's just my opinion.

You are correct in saying that I don't have to be here; however, I am as entitled to be here as you and Willow are. And yes, you are allowed to continue this infantile rant at each other as long as you wish--just as you are allowed to stand in a public space and carry on a private shouting match with someone. You are exercising your right, however, at the expense of the rights of those other people who share the space. Actually, I have read very little of either your posts to Willow or hers to you. But this ongoing shouting match is spoiling the atmosphere and putting a damper on the polite conversation that the rest of us come here for.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM | Registered CommenterMsG

Am I the only one laughing while I am reading this? I find the whole situation funny. Because now this exchange is ruining the WHOLE community? Hmmm. Because I just left the other threads and people seem to be talking regularly. I think it is just this thread that is heated. And you know what they say about if you can't stand the heat, you gotta do what? Get out the kitchen!

Now of course, I am not a fan of people arguing, matter of fact, I hate it. I wish it all could be "happy, happy, joy, joy" but that is not the case, as it is in real life. Me, being my peacemaker self, would try to prevent something like this from taking place, but it could not be prevented, it came from left field, and plus I was included in the mix. So, of course I am going to stand my ground and I expect the same from every other lady on here. People argue, then they choose to make up or break up, whichever is clever. If this dust up is going to ruin the community, then we all have been lying to each other, and our bond is not as strong as we say it is.

So I guess I am suppose to not respond to Willow's last post. Well, sorry peeps, that is not going to happen. I have some questions that I want to answer and if you don't want to read it, THIS IS YOUR CUT-OFF POINT.

Hi Willow, I have a few questions that you asked me that I would like to answer.

Why must we all pretend that Barack Obama is perfect?
I have never said BO was perfect, nor have I heard anyone else say that. Or better yet pretended. I put nothing past no man or woman for that matter.

If you or others do not want to be perceived as "cheerleaders" then I think you need to start being honest?
So now I am a liar or am I delusional? What have I not been honest about? Matter of fact, when do I ever get into you guys' heavy political discussions. I might say a little here and there or I probably will state that I agree with someone, but you will not see a long post from NYON on the Obama thread. And please believe me, when I do say something, it is what I think and feel and that is honest enough for me.

What would happen if you and others began to voice the things you question about his actions? How would that undermine him? Or whatever it is that seems to be feared so much?
What would happen if I voiced my questions about the president to you? That is a great question. What would happen? Do you and others on here have a direct line to him or his people? Please let me know because then I will be happy to pass my messages for him on to you. Also, I am not afraid to say anything about the president. I just choose to voice what I want, the same way I choose to say certain things to you and others on this blog.

Willow, I can understand your need to have someone agree with you. But when that does not happen, it doesn't help to say then, "well your this and you look like that because you don't agree with me and you never have". We all are taking chances for people to agree or disagree with us when we hit that submit button. And you have to take the good with the not so good. You were obsessed, although I am inclined to believe that your obsession had less to do with the NPP and more to do with not looking like the odd one out and trying to convert us to your side. Which I don't understand because everyone accepted your opinion, eventhough they might have disagreed.

Willow, you made a lot of assumptions in your posts and most of them were wrong. However, one was right. I am a cheerleader for Obama. Just not in the demeaning way you define it. I love my President, I stand behind him, faults and all, and there's nothing that can change that or no one who can make me feel bad for being that way.

That's all folks!

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM | Registered CommenterNyon

Good post, Nyon.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM | Registered CommenterIVA

Indeed. Well said.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 4:25 PM | Registered CommenterPosh Tater