Until yesterday, I was unaware that Norway is a home to comedy.

One does have to admit that it is a far better world now that the Vikings running amok in the far seas has been replaced by a few technocrats dispensing lofty awards with the charming conceit of actually thinking they will have anything whatsoever to do with the outcome of the American Suicide Watch.

Next Year, perhaps they shall solemnly dispense the award to Dr. Kervorkian.

I’m surprised at your pessimism. You’re well aware that a great many women and men of the Christian world choose to chase after ideals that appear to be pipe dreams to others—that are unreality in light of the current world: minimization of sin, converting the world, making contemplatives out of people of all shapes and sizes, living up to the Beatitudes, etc. How is *pursuing* the notion of world peace under the guise of cosmopolitanism any less utopian, or any less real, than the everyday goals of serious Christians—a number of whom are FPR contributors? It’s one thing to be and think locally, and another to misunderestimate (hah!–keeping it light) the universal ideals of your brethren who seek common understanding across the urban-rural, nation-state divide. This borders on fantasizing about the local.

Finally, I think you’ll find that a large percentage of cosmopolitan peace-seekers also want to see the dismantling of the M-I complex. Perhaps we all feel complicit in the construction of that sorry edifice?

Peace,

Tim

As if the alternative plan is less of a military solution. Obama is committed to a military solution either way, unless he’s contemplating a complete withdrawal. McChrystal isn’t the only one to blame.

People on the Porch can honestly call for the reduction if not outright disassembling of the m-i complex knowing the porch will persist, because it’s real; one-world cosmopolitans can only fantasize about the apotheosis by overlooking their complicity in supporting war and big biz. They should be guilty, but much guiltier than they allow themselves to be – hence why there is such a great need to avoid facing facts by handing out prizes to people like O. Big diff.

As for Oslo’s motivations—namely Alfred Nobel, oil wealth—isn’t it possible that Oslovians/Norwegians might act out of guilt over the problems with their wealth? And if they are feeling guilty, isn’t it appropriate that they put their health, wealth, and inconsistent place in the international community to good use?

Also, why the harsh words for one-world cosmopolitan peace? How is that unrelated to your ability to sit on a front porch, with tasty bourbon and an aromatic pipe, and think through the problems of one’s neighborhood, the weather, and how the boy scouts are going to make it through their camping trip? Indeed, one-world cosmopolitan peace insures your ability to do that without worrying about erratic corn and barley prices, ecological imbalances that produce lyme disease or bee shortages, and affordable tobacco? – TL

Indeed, as Aristotle put it in The Politics, ‘if there is one person…so pre-eminently superior in goodness that there can be no comparison between the goodness and political capacity which he shows…and what is shown by the rest, such a person…can longer be treated as part of the state…There can be no law which runs against men who are utterly superior to others…The only alternative left…is for all others to pay a willing obedience to the man of outstanding goodness. Such men will accordingly be the permanent kings in their states.’ Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that the US Congress and the Supreme Court have willingly abdicated their positions to King Obama.

Yes, we engaged in some playful banter here in the comments – which I usually don’t do, I guess because everything can be so serious here on the internets. Sorry to have offended, but I got a few chuckles out of the exchange with the good Mr. Cheeks. Not a bad way to start a morning.

My charitable take on this is that the Nobel committee had the hubris to think their award could somehow steer Obama away from the McChrystalline notion that there’s a military solution to the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But, in the name of magnanimity, perhaps O. should thank W. in his Oslo acceptance speech. “Thank you, W., for making this moment possible…”

Or maybe it will suffice for him to say, “You like me, you really really like me….!”

Bob,
“guitars, banjos, fiddles, tobacco, books and booze” – I think this must be what Aristotle thought were the requirements for eudaimonia…