insignificances » Obama

Peace prize as political support

Jarle Petterson — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:53:35 +0000

International reactions to U.S. president Obama’s Nobel peace prize award have been mixed, to say the least, since last week’s announcement, as they’ve been at home. In fact, the Norwegian public is split down the middle in the matter, despite general support for Obama and his political agenda.

Of course, it comes as no surprise, as, after all, the laureate himself has very little to show for himself. In fact, he seems just as surprised as the rest of us.

Much as I share president Obama’s ideas, goals, hopes and aspirations, I must admit that I’m prone to join the sceptics in this matter. Granted the prize appears aspirationally motivated, rather than by accomplishments, but, I fear, in breech of the Nobel committee’s bylaws – and Alfred Nobel’s intentions (whose legacy the committee’s been appointed to honour and enforce).

Could it be, as claimed by some, that U.S. president Barack H. Obama has been awarded for not being George W. Bush jr? Yes, it could, or better still, it is. There’s no point in denying the obvious; The Norwegian public and our politicians, included yours truly, had a hard time stomaching president Bush and his hard-line conservative policies.

In many ways this year’s Nobel peace prize can – and should – be viewed as expression for the Norwegian government’s rejoice in finally being rid of the old master, waggingly welcoming the new one, whose bidding we’ll eagerly do (hence the above picture). Of course, you could argue that our government’s involvement is irrelevant, if not non-existing, as the Nobel committee is an independent body. Only in the name, I’m afraid. Believing in that independence is highly naïve, at best. Make no mistake about it: These guys talk a lot (between themselves, that is).

The Norwegian Labour party is considered what we’ve dubbed a state-bearing party, filling crucial positions in our bureaucracy and our institutions for generations – including the Nobel committee. In fact, the committee’s chairman, Mr. Thorbjørn Jagland, has held a number of posts on Labour’s behalf:

MP (1993–2009)
PM (1996–1997)
Minister of foreign affairs (2000–2001)
President of parliament (2005–2009)
Secretary general of the Council of Europe (2009–)

(God forbid that the Council of Europe’s peace prize candidacy should arise)

If you want to convince me that Labour had nothing to do with this year’s peace prize reward, please be my guest.

Full disclosure: I’m a member of the Norwegian Labour, but not prone to comply with party programmes or dogmas – and not about to begin to now. I follow my own, constantly revised and evolving thoughts and convictions only, rendering me unsuited for political memberships, really.

In a sense we have a set of dogs, only too happy to comply with his master’s voice: The Nobel committee, eagerly executing the government’s (so long as it’s Labour) bid, and the Norwegian government, whose zeal to please America is legendary. You have to applaud the strategists behind it all, though:

What better way to ensure an American presidential visit – and to draw the world’s attention to the Norwegian capital?

Yes, I’m a huge fan of U.S. president Obama and the promise of his current conduct, and yes, I fully understand the Nobel committee’s intentions, but fear they’re about to ruin the institution’s reputation.

However, we’d do well to keep in mind that the road to hell remains paved with good intentions.

Obama: New era for global economy

Jarle Petterson — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:23:23 +0000

Most of us have harboured great expectations to U.S. president Barack H. Obama, but very few of us expected immediate — and such welcome — results. If he keeps up this pace, there’s really no limits to what he can achieve.

Only last night, for instance, president Obama signalled a new era for global economy, indicating that America can no longer “be the sole engine of global growth”, which is something the rest of us have known for quite som time (as, I suspect, has he):

[…] However, the days of super powers are counted. The 21st century has brought about a far much more diversified global economy, sporting near super powers, such as China and India, alongside several emerging economies not to be ignored. President Obama is aware of this, as is Dmitry Medvedev (or, really Vladimir Putin). Re-establishing the old-time balance of powers may simply not be the way to go, and yet, in Northen Europe, Russia’s threat is very real, very tangible.

— USA taking the back seat?

It would appear that, by taking initiative, as president Obama now does, America will take anything but the back seat in global economic dealings, and by acknowledging the U.S. limitations, inviting emerging economies to partake, America’s economy may well flourish once more. Perhaps even sooner than we expected.

You really got to hand it to the man.

Photo: U.S. president Barack Obama (D).

New New Deal™ for America?

Jarle Petterson — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:30:01 +0000

Amid daily news of an ever-crumbling US auto industry, there’s been much talk of the bailout the automaker CEOs tried to negotiate in Washington DC the other day, among so many bailouts that it’s beginning to get increasingly harder to believe in the Federal Reserve’s ability to carry the weight. President-elect Barack Obama acted pretty swiftly on the matter, too, on the first possible occasion – during his wife’s and his guided tour of The White House the other week.

If action isn’t taken, and taken fast, the entire industry is in peril, potentially hurling millions of Americans – and the industry’s employees overseas – into unemployment, if the ripple effects are included in the equation (as they should). The global consequences are likely to exceed the effect of the ongoing credit crunch, not only beacuse it affects America itself, but as a result of how the global auto industry is intertwined, by ownership, alliances and partnerships — the symbol effect not withstanding.

Of course, the current or the soon-to-be U.S. administration isn’t likely to let that happen, but, bearing the overall American economy in mind, for how long will The Fed be able to bail out global corporation upon corporation, seeing as the country itself is, in effect, technically bankrupt?

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama (D).

Film-maker Michael Moore introduced an idea the other day, reiterated in yesterday’s Larry King show on CNN, which implies taking drastic measures, Franklin D. Roosevelt-style, advocating a principle whereby the government bails out the auto industry, provided that its managements are replaced and that they replace huge American cars with smaller, less fuel-demanding vehicles, focusing on hybrids, as well as cars running on alternative fuel. Given the declining US household economy, the cars should be affordable, too, of course.

There’s a lot to be said about Michael Moore and his conduct, but this just could be it. Cheaper cars are in demand – stateside and on a global basis. If GM, Ford and Chrysler are to survive, you just can’t tell them to delve into the food and beverages market. Sustainable car-making, on the other hand, sounds like a plan.

I would like to pour some ice on your expectations, though: The American administration simply cannot go on bailing out one business after the other.

They’re in dire need of one themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0bbOZ-nkJs

Total incapacitation

Jarle Petterson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:07:40 +0000

Have to get started. Work is piling up, but I feel utterly incapacitated by current events. One would’ve thought it had an energising effect, no? Not so.

Oh, and yes: Seeing state by state turning blue was a sight for sore eyes (that turned sorer and sorer by the hour, by the way). Even the white snow in our garden acquired a certain bluish shade today. Whities turning to the blue party, huh?

The sky is blue, too, and here’s Ella for you, singing Blue skies – and then some:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvM_d90vff0

Here we are then, Dr. King

Jarle Petterson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:28:48 +0000

You had a dream, you said. Could this possibly be it? Well, it certainly took its time coming true, but here we are: 338 Obama electoral votes and a total of 53,516,786 votes – and counting (at 7:10 AM Norwegian time). This has to be it.

“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America — I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you — we as a people will get there,” president-elect Barack Obama told the hundreds of thousands attending the Grant Park celebration, and I’m sure he’s right.

But we’ve seen interview upon interview with American voters, politicians and dignitaries playing down the race issue, saying “the best candidate won, and yes, he’s African American,” but really, they cannot be serious:

Well, of course the best candidate won. There’s no doubt about that, but leave a little room for Doctor Martin Luther King’s dream, if you please, for surely, this has to be a great moment – for America and the world at large.

Congratulations, all. It was about time.

So you think you can win

Jarle Petterson — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:08:08 +0000

Dear Senator McCain,

I’m sure you’re a fine man, in every sense. Maybe not president material, but in every way a trustworthy, honest, through and through decent man, in whom I in fact recently regained some faith (in Norwegian) when you tried to stagger your running-mate’s crazed stampede against Obama only weeks ago. And that’s not all:

I’m also quite grateful that you seem to have taken a sustainable stand in environmental matters, unlike the president currently in office and, again, your running-mate Governor Palin. There’s not a doubt in my soul that, although you voted with president Bush in so many cases, you represent an altogether different view on foreign politics and America’s place in the global community. If there’s any truth to your promise that you’re not Bush, I’m confident that, in supporting him, you were only being loyal. A fine quality in an old soldier like yourself.

Having said that, I fail to see a clear vision behind your policies, unlike your opponent.

In short: If you come out of this victoriously, I promise I’ll eat my… Breakfast tomorrow.

May the best man win.

Coffee and politics

Jarle Petterson — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:30:56 +0000

First of all, I think I owe you a warning, as this post indeed lives up to the blog name, insignificant, after all, as it is. A mere result of thoughts going through my head as I brewed my latest pot of joe. The thing is, see, I do not much care for the once oh so exotic varieties that used to be popular up until ten years ago or so (granted, some even found them tremendously vanguardish even after that). After the caffè latte, mocca, macchiato and cortado wave subsided around le fin du siècle dernier, I grew a passion for basic, black, coffee machine ground and heavily dark-roasted coffee, just as it used to be before we went all continentally caffeinated.

These days I’m all Damn good coffee! And hot! As prescribed by federal wacko Cooper, who, by the way suffers an umpteenth re-run on Norwegian TV screens these days. Have I been watching? Yes, I have, even if the magic faded almost twenty years ago. I know, it’s actually quite scary, remembering how my now 20-year-old son, newborn at the time, slept in his room while we took in the slightly eccentric coffee junkie’s bizarre adventures. As usual I digress.

I never really had a fancy espresso machine, if we ignore the classic La Pavoni (more or less as depicted) my dad brought home some 30 years ago. I was 16 at the time, just about to experiment with grown-up habits, but never bothered to get one myself, save for a number of Bialetti stove-tops – and one designed by Philippe Starck, I believe. Nowadays they’re rarely put to good use, though.

Could it simply be that I’m growing old – acquiring old people’s coffee habits? I wouldn’t mind if that’s so. After all, it does look kind of silly, doesn’t it, with all these middle-aged execs running to and fro, Starbucks cup in hand. Nah… I think I’d rather age gracefully. I know how vain it must sound, but I wouldn’t like to be seen with the country’s leading pseudo-intellectual newspaper tucked under my arm (compulsory part of the package) either.

And I can’t believe it took me all this rubbish getting to the very point, the 3 November quintessential, as it were:

That I take my coffee damn good, hot and black as midnight on a moonless night – or as a 21st century American president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PcoMrwEa5o

Election outcome decided by Neo-Nazis?

Jarle Petterson — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 10:32:57 +0000

With only three more days to go, the US presidential campaign has turned out to be a closer race than expected only weeks ago. Today, on the other hand, predicting the outcome is something very close to impossible.

So how did that come about? As I recall, news that Neo-Nazis Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman’s plot to “take out” Barack Obama and some 100 black people in a Tennessee killing spree about a week ago, turned out to be something of a turning point. Certainly, there’s been very little change in terms of pure politics, where Obama continues to appear a lot more confident than his opponent. If it hadn’t been for certain other factors, the gap probably would’ve widened, not narowed, as it were.

American Neo Nazi Daniel Cowart.

Of course there’s every reason to question the real threat posed by firearm-romancing Nazi kids, such as Cowart and Schlesselman, but it cannot be ignored. I’m guessing that, although a growing majority of the American electorate was in favour of Obama just a week ago, the two reminded them how unappealing the prospect of an assasinated president actually is. They don’t want to relive that. Better safe than sorry, eh?

And the gap started to close.

You can’t help but wondering though, if news that Muslim terrorists plotted to kill McCain would have the same effect. I’m afraid not – or rather; au contraire!

I’d just like to add this, though: With an ethnic breakdown of 80 percent white citizens, 12.8 percent African American, 4.4 percent Asian, 1 percent Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, 0.2 percent Native Hawaiians and Pacific islanders, 1.6 percent multiracial and 15.1 percent Hispanic or Latinos, there’s no democratic basis for demanding a black president. The colour of the president’s skin is completely irrelevant.

However, when presented with a dynamic, well-spoken and statesman-like candidate and/or one making faces behind his opponent’s back, I’d say the outcome is a given.

Unfortunately, however, it is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

New Middle East conflict en route?

Jarle Petterson — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:33:34 +0000

Two years ago or so, as words between Iranian and US presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush junior grew harsher, many of us feared a US invasion of Iran in the wake of the Iraqi war. It seemed a likely outcome at the time, with Bush accusing Iran of harbouring Iraqi insurgent leader Muqtada al-Sadr – and of weapon supplies to the Iraqi insurgents. Luckily our worst fears didn’t come to pass in 2006, not last year and – up until now, not this year, but we were pretty damned close to a major catastrophe – several times.

In March and April 2007 things didn’t look good at all, when the Iranian navy took 15 crew members of British warship HMS “Cornwall” into custody. Later on, in September, experts were convinced that US vice president Dick Cheney was ready to bomb Iran, based on suspicions of an Iranian nuclear programme. Behind it all there’s the constant chance of an Israeli attack, brought into light again this weekend, by former British foreign secretary David Owen – in The Sunday Times:

Some key decision makers in Israel fear that unless they attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in the next few months, while George W. Bush is still president, there will not be another period when they can rely on the United States as being anywhere near as supportive in the aftermath of a unilateral attack.

Nothing new therein, of course. There’s always been Israeli top officials in favour of an attack, but if Owen’s suspicions are founded by hard evidence, we’re looking at a conflict which is likely to make the war in Iraq seem like a walk in the park.

But I must add: When it comes to Iran, Israel and America, up until now there’s been much talk and no action. Let’s leave it like that, eh?

Deal off: Pelosi to blame?

Jarle Petterson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:53:06 +0000

As we all know, US president George W. Bush’s plead for a USD 700 billion bi-partisan bailout plan failed yesterday. Quite a few Republicans attribute the failure to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, apparently, did not stick to the original transcript for the speech she gave prior to the congressional vote. I think I’d better quote Politico on this one:

[…] But anyone who looked at the transcript of Pelosi’s speech released by her office might have been puzzled by the complaints.

The transcript seemed relatively tame - with only relatively mild shots at the Republicans in the text.

But a review of the video of Pelosi’s comments shows the speaker deviated substantially from her prepared remarks when she stepped into the well of the House at about 12:20 p.m. Monday afternoon – delivering a series of ad-libbed jabs at President Bush and his party.

Have a look at Speaker Pelosi’s transcript here (The New York Times), then compare with her actual speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3J8HpoDDJY

Nancy Pelosi, a seasoned Democratic politician, wasn’t born yesterday. I suspect there’s every reason to believe she knew the outcome of her speech. Which only goes to show that Politico may be right in speculating that she indeed did ad lib doom the deal.

The remaining question, however, is: What did she think she’d achieve by doing so? Pave the way for Barack Obama? Granted, John McCain did a serious slip-up, by prematurely taking credit for the deal, but if further inquiries (I expect there will be some) show that Democratic concern for the American economy means less than a Democratic victory, I fear she may only have accomplished quite the oposite.

As my esteemed reader and avid commenter Finne igen remarks:

[…] There will be strong US in the future but no longer the sole super power, just one of the powers in league with China, Russia and some others. It is funny that every few decades or so the so called free market system needs goverment intervention of some sorts for the simple reason: free markets don’t work. Totally free markets do not benefit us all, just the greediest players, and that is why there must be regulatory system of the markets. What is also funny now is that in the US the people do not understand that unlike 1930′s there will be no credit for no one. US goverment is on debt for thousands of billions so the goverment is almost bankcrupt.

I fear he may be all too right in that assumption. But they (i.e. the Americans) may not be the only ones. Norwegian experts maintain that the crisis may already have landed on our shores, too (in Norwegian), which should come as no surprise, really. Or put in other words (again): When America coughs, the world gets a cold.

First Dude challenges

Jarle Petterson — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:08:30 +0000

As we all know, American presidential and vice presidential spouses usually tend to take the back seat, if, for a moment, we allow ourselves to ignore former first lady Hillary R. Clinton. Sarah Palin’s run for vice presidency may well change that, assuming the McCain/Palin campaign succeeds, that is. In a culture not used to see men acting in the background, Todd Palin’s future role may pose a series of challenges, for which he’s already positioning himself. According to The Washington Post today:

Meghan Stapleton, a McCain spokeswoman who used to serve as Palin’s press secretary, said the presence of Todd Palin has generated unwarranted criticism and that his role is in keeping with that of gubernatorial spouses in other states. “Every bit of his participating is appropriate and pertinent to his role as a spouse and as a father,” she said.

“There are definitely critics out there who will blow up his level of involvement because he happens to be a stay-at-home dad when he’s off from the slope, and he happens to be an active dad who wants to be with his kids and with his wife when he’s not on the slope,” Stapleton said.

Furthermore:

[...] But Todd Palin, 44, the ruggedly handsome four-time winner of the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snowmobile race, was already an Alaska star before his wife’s election in 2006. Along with his family duties, he held two jobs, working occasional 85-hour weeks as an oil production operator for BP and, for a month each summer, as a commercial salmon fisherman in Bristol Bay. He belongs to the steelworkers union, an alliance that may partly explain his wife’s strong labor support. His Yup’ik ancestry, which traces back to his maternal grandmother, gave Sarah Palin special standing with Native Alaskans.

As we will see, the gender issue may soon prove to be a minor one, as it would appear that “First Dude”, playing an active part in his wife’s policy-making, represents interests which stand to be favoured in the event that the Republicans win the election in six weeks (that’s right: Six weeks and counting).

I’m not saying that the Obama gang is totally devoid of similar conflicts, with all probability it isn’t. I just happened to stumble upon this today. Truth be told, I’m a little disappointed that the press doesn’t seem equally eager to dig up unfortunate liaisons in the Obama/Biden campaign – even though I truly hope (but very much doubt) they’ll win the race.

Maybe an altogether different Palin would do the trick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos

Via (…)

European-American differences

Jarle Petterson — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:12:44 +0000

There’s no denying it: We tend to favour Barack Obama in these parts, or the Democrats, for that matter. Unfortunately we’re not allowed to cast our votes in the upcoming US election, even though some would argue that we really should be granted admittance, seeing as American politics affect us all.

However, there’s this thing that I just can’t seem to get my head around: Why is it that Europeans and Americans differ in so many political aspects? One would’ve thought we’d be a lot more alike, given the common cultural background, after all.

I won’t be so presumtuous as to expect American readers to visit, now that the blog is barely launched, but any thoughts at all are most welcome. Plese leave a comment.