Ah, it just ended. I only heard the last part. About hope. And divine steering by sparks or whatever. [ADDED: The official text was "that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls." So "stirs," not "steers."]
In the part I didn't hear, Obama acknowledged the awkwardness of accepting a peace prize while conducting 2 wars:
"Perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars... One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks...."Presumably, the speechwriters brainstormed about all the peace-y things about war.
Urging his listeners to “think in new ways about the notions of a just war and the imperatives of a just peace,” he said the “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.” But, he said, the practice of war should be governed by “certain rules of conduct.”
The United States, he said, “must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.”
Peace, he went on, was “unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.”
ADDED: I'm looking for the religion-oriented things in the speech. Obama rejects "the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam." He says "no Holy War can ever be a just war."
For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of ones own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.He's doing meta-religion, making assertions about what is in all the religions. All religions have this idea of treating outsiders to the religion the same as insiders to the religion? There's a logic loophole whereby he can deny the modifier "major" to any religion that doesn't hew to the principle. That's why the Islamic terrorists have "distorted and defiled" Islam: It's not really Islam because they weren't following the Golden Rule.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature.Always.
... [W]e do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place....Although Obama acknowledges the immense evil spurred by ideas about God, he presents God as the source of our ability to find our shared humanity and to abandon unjust wars. Atheists can stew off in a corner somewhere, apparently.
So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls....
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
The tinder of idiocy ought to be mentioned too.
In the 80s I was able to attend several of those presentations for more specific prizes rather than the biggie "Peace" one.
It is far easier to give and receive in medicine or chemistry than this and infinitely easier to speak to the justification of receiving. While other winners are often jubilent, Obama looked both serious and somewhat sad which is unfortunate for this is a great honor and we should, regardless of politics, that it was one of us who won it.
Presumably, the speechwriters brainstormed about all the peace-y things about war.
Heh. Did they mention peace through strength?
Having actually done something to merit the prize, even one so nebuluous as the Peace Prize, would have lessened his embarassment.
I think there were several paragraphs written by Paul Wolfowitz. Damn! Maybe Obama really DOES deserve this prize!
Peace through superior firepower.
wv: "queless," which is close enough to clueless that it works and it also means "no line," which also works for Obama in that he didn't have to accomplish anything to get to where he is
"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."
We are all neo-cons now.
"Now give me that peace prize, or I'll kill ya."
I thought it was a very good speech, certainly a much more robust defense of US military power than the audience had expected.
I actually caught a glimpse of Obama here in Oslo as he was entering the City Hall to give the speech. I live nearby and was curious about what the security would be like - it was massive.
I hadn't intended to see the speech, but it was shown on a large outdoor screen nearby, so I, an Obamagnostic, saw it with a thousand or so dewy eyed believers.
hdhouse said...
It is far easier to give and receive in medicine or chemistry than this and infinitely easier to speak to the justification of receiving.
In my memory, those sorts are almost lifetime achievement awards, in that the award typically lagged the "discovery" by 10 or 20 years. Time for the winner's peers to validate the discovery, calculate the value, and leverage it into further research.
I misread the heading: "The spark of the divine still sneers within each of us..."
Or maybe I read it correctly given the source.
I only heard the last part. About hope. And divine steering by sparks or whatever.
Proof of Obama the Almighty?
Anyone for some Arctic roll? Mystery as spiral blue light display hovers above Norway.
I am curious about why one would even want to listen to an "acceptance" speech for an award that was not deserved and proferred only to make a political point about a previous administration.
Now it may be that at some time in the future, Mr. Obama may in fact do something to deserve this award--time will tell on that issue. But now? and for what? Asinine beyond all doubt--
Presumably, the speechwriters brainstormed about all the peace-y things about war.
At least we know Bill Ayers didn't ghost write it.
I suppose there's a reason why this is interesting, but it fails me to understand what that might be.
This is the equivalent of "King of the Prom."
Now that the EPA has declared CO2 a dangerous pollutant, Obama speeches should be limited by regulation to one per month, and under two minutes each.
Indeed, according to estimates by AGW scientists (the data are supersecret), the Nobel speech just raised the average global temperature by 0.5 degrees all by itself.
It's funny Bush was never considered for one.
Wasn't it he that said "When we're talking about war, we're actually talking about peace?"
People are already starting to tune Obama out. It took Bush quite a bit longer to get to that point. Perhaps it's because, with Obama, we've learned that it's best to ignore what he says and just pay attention to what he does -- often, there's no connection between the two. With Bush it was mostly the opposite -- if he said he was going to do something, it was a fair bet that he would.
So it's a public service that you still listen and comment on what Obama has to say.
w/v: Sterben (= to die). It seens that even blogger is in a black mood today.
I totally got up early this morning to listen to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech live.
Not!
It would be nice if Obama figured out we're fighting one war, on two fronts.
Obama looked both serious and somewhat sad which is unfortunate for this is a great honor and we should, regardless of politics, that it was one of us who won it.
This award ceased being an honor a long time ago and I think for most people, carries the same weight as getting an honorary doctorate. Nice to hang on the wall but meaningless in terms of actual accomplishment.
How can we ignore the politics of the prize when that was the sole justification for awarding it to a man who did absolutely nothing, save giving a speech on how life would be full of butterflies and daffodils if the American electorate would just give peace a chance? Evidently the Nobel committee, like the 52% of the American electorate were gullible enough to actually take Obama at his word and simply assumed he’d undo the massive damage Bush had done in the previous eight years. I’m quite confident the Nobel committee is doing its very best to put on a happy face despite Obama’s failure to undo the damage, when in point of fact, he’s ‘doubled down’ on Afghanistan, Gitmo remains open for business and US combat troops are still in Iraq. Of course they wouldn’t do something as idiotic as withdraw the award. That would make them look even more ridiculous for giving it to the man in the first place. It certainly must rub raw that the whole purpose for the award was to repudiate the previous administration policies yet the recipient gives a speech that may well have been given by Bush.
Seems Obama and Tiger Woods do have something in common, a knack for making Scandinavians look like fools.
Funny how bifurcated Obama's theology is:
Just imagine:
He says "no Holy redistribution of wealth by government force and threat of confinement in prison, can ever be a just redistribution of wealth."
For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the single mother finally having some career success, or the family of four minding their own business trying to save for their kid's college.
Such a warped view of religion and government and private proper is not just incompatible with the concept of civic peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Arturius--I blame scandanavian gullibility on lutefisk.
Ralph L said...
It would be nice if Obama figured out we're fighting one war, on two fronts.
You broke the code. We're fighting on several fronts or, more accurately, fighting several campaigns, including the Philippines, the Horn of Africa, and the ones more familiar. This was what the Demos didn't want anybody to think about, so they could peddle their "A-stan is the real war" nonsense.
Anybody else notice how this parsiflage is in contrast to his "non-religious" Christmas at the White House?
I am Your Lord, The Messiah, I shall have no other Messiahs before me.
We're fighting on several fronts or, more accurately, fighting several campaigns, including the Philippines, the Horn of Africa, and the ones more familiar. This was what the Demos didn't want anybody to think about, so they could peddle their "A-stan is the real war" nonsense.
Info is about 5 years old but it gives a sense of how widely deployed is the US military.
Where are the Legions? [SPQR]
Global Deployments of US Forces
The forces of the United States military are located in nearly 130 countries around the world performing a variety of duties from combat operations, to peacekeeping, to training with foreign militaries. Some of these deployments have existed for nearly 50 years, as in Japan, Germany, and South Korea, while other deployments have more recent origins such as the current occupation of Iraq
The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks...."
As an aside, I really have to wonder about the real value of an alliance (NATO) in which 43 nations, including Norway can contribute a whopping 38,000 total troops, a significant number by the way, are forbidden by their respective governments from participating in combat operations. That comes out to around 900 soldiers per nation. That kind of reminds me of the snark about Bush's coalition consisting of countries bought on Ebay.
Info is about 5 years old but it gives a sense of how widely deployed is the US military.
It also begs the question as to the purpose as well. Not sure what we're doing in Germany at this point unless its to thwart some potential attempt by the Polish army to extract revenge for their drubbing in 1939. Same for South Korea as well. The current ROK Army isn't your daddy's 1950 version and is more than capable of blunting an invasion by the North. Ditto for Japan whose desire to a return to the days of Bushido are nil.
Personally I'd like to see the legions come home, preferably stationed on our southern border. There was a time and need for these based and I'm frankly weary of paying for them when there is little appreciation for them by the host country (save the almighty dollar the ugly Americans spend) and little external threat.
I've seen that list before too, but I think it also includes Marines on envoy security at embassies around the world, does it not?
Likewise, comparing our forces to SPQR's legions is a little disingenuous. They fought for land. To take it and hold it. Neither our deployments in Germany/Japan or Korea could possibly be categorized as such. That isn't to say those deployment didn't benefit us back home, but we didn't conquer Europe and Japan to make them American citizens.
One further point. If a special forces team (of which my brother has been a member for nearly 20 years) go somewhere weird to train, for instance, combat medical techniques or how to force entries etc, etc, that's still counted as a deployment even if the soldiers involved were only there over a weekend.
Let's not get carried away.
I was struck by the line "The cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no holy war can be a just war."
As I understand it the philosophy of a 'Just War' was a creation of St. Thomas Aquinas. As I remember from studying Aquinas he absolutely does assert that a holy war of defense can be a just war.
What is amply recorded but rarely recalled is that the Crusades were defensive - the Muslims were offensively attacking Europe until the siege of Vienna in 1683.
Just another opportunity for 'the one' to spout platitudes and urban legend that show he never really did his homework and doesn't know what he is talking about.
We keep those overseas bases open as a place to keep troops and weapons, so they can be deployed faster to places of conflict than from the US. We also have military hospitals in Germany and Japan to treated our wounded, instead of flying them immediately after injury to the US.
Not sure what we're doing in Germany at this point
Why does the cop car cruise down my street? We never get any burglaries?
I am no Obama-cultist, but let's be fair here.
The Nobel people gave the award to Obama because they, like most of the white liberals I work with, were using him as a means for self-congratulation. They gave him the prize for the same reason a lot of young people here voted for him: it made them feel better, morally superior.
In this speech, however, Obama did not genuflect to the squishy pieties of naive transnationalism like they expected. Instead, he accepted the prize as the American commander-in-chief and the leader of the forces of freedom in the world.
Please, let's not ignore that aspect of the speech just because we're cynical toward Obama on other fronts. This is huge -- to go in front of the Nobel people and argue peace-through-strength. When else will you EVER see that happen?
Well done, Mr. President.
By deciding to accept the prize, he compounded the obvious (albeit deliberate) "mistake" of the committee. He adds to those mistakes, yet another by giving a speech which tries to explain the unexplainable (imagine Tiger talking to Elin about why the number keeps rising).
Never mind the snub of Norwegian royalty and Nobel Peace Prize tradition, or the repeat transatlantic travel to talk to a conference about how we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I could go on...
@Mary Martha
Come, come, now. You and I (and Ridley Scott apparently) know that the only barbarous acts were committed by the Christian knights, the Templars in particular. Forgetting for the time being, of course, that the Moors aggressively conquered much of the Iberian peninsula (Spain/Portugal) and made all those hapless Goths and Basques part of the Caliphate before Charles Martel stopped them at the Pyrenees.
@the quietist
Please, let's not ignore that aspect of the speech just because we're cynical toward Obama on other fronts. This is huge -- to go in front of the Nobel people and argue peace-through-strength. When else will you EVER see that happen?
On this point, 100% agreement.
For decades, Britain was our stationary, forward-deployed aircraft carrier. Germany and Japan are now just staging areas for Asia. Our Korean forces are still a tripwire which ensure we will be involved if the North attacks.
Why does the cop car cruise down my street? We never get any burglaries?
Again, what is the threat to Germany, or Europe for that matter that requires our military presence? Back when I was in, there was the Warsaw Pact looming over Western Europe. Now there is no more Warsaw Pact (just an expanded NATO to include those former nations) and the vaunted Russian army is well, not so vaunted. I would think with the current state of European militaries, there is little fear of having to go 'over there' again.
We keep those overseas bases open as a place to keep troops and weapons, so they can be deployed faster to places of conflict than from the US.
Perhaps some re-evaluation of our role in these 'places of conflict' would no longer require the necessity of these bases. Don't get me wrong, there was a time I was ready to go once again into the breach but with age came much cynicism, particulaly toward nations where our bases are.
Is there anything this man can say or do that the assholes here, including the "Queen" won't bitch and whine about?
Here are a couple of other reviews (and not from what one could call a "leftist" or "liberal" point of view)...on what people here consider to be such a horrible presentation:
Robert Kagan, one of the intellectual architects of the Iraq War:
I don’t know what to say about an “Obama doctrine,” because based on this speech, I think we are witnessing a substantial shift, back in the direction of a more muscular moralism, a la, Truman, Reagan. the emphasis on military power, war for just causes, and moral principles recalls Theoedore Roosevelt’s phrase, “the just man armed.” There is something much more quintessentially American and traditional about this speech, compared to most of his rhetorical approach throughout the year.
Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations:
Barack Obama’s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize was a carefully reasoned defense of a foreign policy that differs very little from George Bush’s. He is winding down one war, escalating a second, and stepping up the pressure on Iran. He is asserting America’s sovereign right to unilateral action in self defense while expressing the hope that this right will not need to be exercised.
I was able to hear Obama's speech on the car radio replay just now. It was a fine speech. Now we must wait to see if he meant it. The basketball player will look to the right but run to the left after making a confident head fake.
@Jeremy
Is there anything we can say that will get a "attaboy" from you when we DO give him kudos?
Apparently not.
Best Jeremy comment ever!
All the guy does is give speeches.
Gold star for him!
Maybe I should've voted for Obama in '08 after all.
"Perhaps some re-evaluation of our role in these 'places of conflict' would no longer require the necessity of these bases."
Instead, I would wish for our allies and their citizens to re-evaluate their reactions to our presence abroad.
Some appreciation, even for what you have come to expect, would be a nice beginning.
Best Jeremy comment ever!
His need to whine overwhelmed his politics.
wv - futen
This is huge -- to go in front of the Nobel people and argue peace-through-strength. When else will you EVER see that happen?
Absolutely commendable. It also suggests that he is reading the polls Jeremy is always crowing about that now show people think he is too soft.
As for "that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls" being "a gratuitous insult to atheists," why is that?
The "spark of the divine" either "stirs within our souls" or it does not. It makes little difference what the atheists or the opportunistic Christian, Obama, say or think about it.
@elHombre
I suppose it's less an insult than a backhanded way of telling atheists they're plum wrong. Atheists that voted for Obama already knew he was, at least publicly, one of them thar Christians.
....but let's be fair here.
Why?
Since the first he has done nothing but apologize for America and bow and scrap before other world leaders.
His speech was an attempt to finesse his continuing the war and its surge.
It is cynical and dishonest.
Sorry, no breaks.
I miss Bush.
Is there anything this man can say or do that the assholes here, including the "Queen" won't bitch and whine about?
Actually, if you took time to read the comments, you might realize that the criticism of Obama is not what he said, but the fact he was awarded a prize he did nothing to earn. Much like his winning the presidency.
Although Obama acknowledges the immense evil spurred by ideas about God, he presents God as the source of our ability to find our shared humanity and to abandon unjust wars. Atheists can stew off in a corner somewhere, apparently.
Well, all MAJOR branches of atheism adhere to the Golden Rule too. And most atheists are smugly superior to those that believe in some musty old superstitions about some bearded dude in the sky somewhere. So the SMUG + Golden Rule means that atheists expect to be insulted in minor ways by theists all the time. In fact, they demand it!
Nothing helps maintain smug superiority better than reciprocal condescension.
Meade said...
"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."
We are all neo-cons now.
The Neocons were a perversion of peace through strength. They were a flip side of the proselytizing Marxism of the Soviets.
1. Identify non-"Freedom-loving" nations.
2. Invade.
3. Target their citizenry with imposition of "values" that would make them more "progressive", "woman's rights happy", "better educated", "freedom-loving", "democratic". In fact boilerplate language the Marxists used First. As in the progressive, democratic freedom-loving nations behind the Iron Curtain where children are better educated, get free medical care, and liberated women occupy exciting new non-traditional roles in their wonderful new Soviet workers councils.
4. Didn't work well for the Soviets, didn't worl well for the Bushies in lockstep with Neocon philosphers.
5. As the Soviet Union collapsed, there were still sizable cadres arguing that what was really needed was more endless wars of societal transformation of "non-progressive peoples" who would then be "stabilized and eternally grateful for all the Soviet people did for them"
The real work the US did for 6 decades was containing dangerous ideologies, building a military force that served as a tripwire to warn zealots of limits in spreading ideology, cynical use of useful proxies like Saddam, emplying divide and conquer strategies, stabilizing and providing security for international structures like trade, shipping, finance, air travel...with an eye on benefiting the US citizen from that 1st and foremost.
@Cedarford
The real work the US did for 6 decades was containing dangerous ideologies, building a military force that served as a tripwire to warn zealots of limits in spreading ideology, cynical use of useful proxies like Saddam, emplying divide and conquer strategies, stabilizing and providing security for international structures like trade, shipping, finance, air travel...with an eye on benefiting the US citizen from that 1st and foremost.
Agreed. I have a 30-ish East German-born sister-in-law and know quite a few of her family and friends (both East and West born). A shockingly large number of them don't realize the simple truth that you pointed out. I do not know if that is representative of Europe in general...that same Europe we provided a lion's share of the shield for all those years, but I would assume so based on the French, Spanish, and Danes that I've met. The Brits and Scots don't seem to suffer the same idea.
Scott M "Is there anything we can say that will get a "attaboy" from you when we DO give him kudos?"
First of all, I'd love to read some of these "kudos" you refer to...and second, here's the kind of ass-backward logic Arturius uses to somehow justify the bitching and whining:
"Actually, if you took time to read the comments, you might realize that the criticism of Obama is not what he said, but the fact he was awarded a prize he did nothing to earn. Much like his winning the presidency."
Which follows this drivel:
"Now give me that peace prize, or I'll kill ya."
"I misread the heading: 'The spark of the divine still sneers within each of us...' Or maybe I read it correctly given the source."
"This is the equivalent of 'King of the Prom.'"
"Now that the EPA has declared CO2 a dangerous pollutant, Obama speeches should be limited by regulation to one per month, and under two minutes each."
"Perhaps it's because, with Obama, we've learned that it's best to ignore what he says and just pay attention to what he does -- often, there's no connection between the two."
"It would be nice if Obama figured out we're fighting one war, on two fronts."
"Funny how bifurcated Obama's theology is..."
"I am Your Lord, The Messiah, I shall have no other Messiahs before me."
"Just another opportunity for 'the one' to spout platitudes and urban legend that show he never really did his homework and doesn't know what he is talking about."
"His speech was an attempt to finesse his continuing the war and its surge. It is cynical and dishonest."
"All the guy does is give speeches.
Gold star for him!"
"Nothing helps maintain smug superiority better than reciprocal condescension."
Like I said: Bitch and whine, bitch and whine...that's all you losers can come up with to justify being part of the wing nut / tea bagger crowd.
Oh, and back to Scott M - Provide all of these "kudos" you refer to.
Then we can talk.
@Jeremy
This is huge -- to go in front of the Nobel people and argue peace-through-strength. When else will you EVER see that happen?
On this point, 100% agreement.
Please begin your heaping.
Scott - That was great.
Congratulations and thank you.
I always appreciate a comment that doesn't fall into the standard wing nut drivel denigrating our President with terms like "messiah" or "the one" or much of the other trash posted here every day of the week.
I do appreciate the effort, but it's difficult to accept a single response like yours as some kind of representative "mix."
And GFL getting any of the others here to offer up anything but their regular nonsense.
Sounds like Bush.
@Jeremy
Due to your derisive screed, I take it you assumed I'm to be lumped in with others. I would appreciate some common courtesy in the future. One can make generalizations all one wants, but they are generally useless (to quote a fellow Missourian).
However backhanded the kudos heaped, I'll stand corrected on my doubts that you were unable to acknowledge positive things said about your guy.
Not that any of you will read the entire article, but here's something to dispel the notion that our "current" President is responsible for our "deficit" problem...
"A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-grappling-with-fall_n_387121.html
Just to add, I read the whole text of Obama's NObel Acceptance speech and I was very pleased. At it's core, it was a talk warning that war is a natural state of man, it will always be with us...but we can reduce the prevalence and danger of it.
That for true peace, there must be justice and there must also be times when war is necessary to wage peace because banking on "pacifism". "international institutions", "more diplomacy!!" is not enough. Force is sometimes inevitably called for.
I expected Obama to give the usual Lefty peace platitudes.
What he said was something Eisenhower or Nixon could have delivered in a different time.
Clear-eyed.
Dpending on how much Obama actually beleives what he said, all to the good. But it was a most welcome caution to those who thing "peace" comes only from Lefty candle-holding vigils, human rights lawyers, and elites making "important Declarations and pressing Further Toothless Diplomacy."
And a plus for bringing up the Burma situation, Iranian dissident situation, and Nixon's (vs. Bush's 190-out) example that You-Must-Engage those you oppose in open talks to have any hope of breakthroughs that benefit The People.
180-out.
typo!
Scott M said..."Due to your derisive screed, I take it you assumed I'm to be lumped in with others. I would appreciate some common courtesy in the future."
Give me a break.
You provide your own "kudos" and expect me to provide more "courtesy" to the vast majority of wing nuts who spend every day of the week, badmouthing literally everything and anything President Obama says or does?
I thanked you for your contribution and that's as far as it goes.
Maybe if you were to re-read the comments I provided, just from today, you might see things differently.
I receive no "courtesy" from 99% of those here, and respond accordingly.
@Jeremy
I receive no "courtesy" from 99% of those here, and respond accordingly.
In the short time I've been hanging out here, I've seen very little "courtesy" given by you first and last.
The obvious answer is to 1) stop coming here if you don't like it or 2) stay above the fray as much as you can while still making your point.
I don't see very much evidence of the latter from your posts. Most of it evokes an image of a nearly pounded-to-death keyboard and a chair rarely used while typing.
Just sayin'...
and stepping up the pressure on Iran.
I was with you pretty much up to that point.
Seriously?
WV: Comater. A device to measure comas or Larry the Cable Guy's wife.
We need a Kanye West to stand up against Obama and give the award to W.
Jeremy...Sarah Palin has quickly praised Obama's speech today. Does that change your mind about her intelligence and leadership qualities? It will be time for your promise of a campaign contribution to the Rogue before you know it. President Obama may be tacking to the famous center now to stop her tidal wave of support.
Remember, Obama's principal speechwriter is 27 years old and gropes cardboard cutouts of women when he is drunk.
Interesting question... who wrote this speech? Was it what's-his-name, the Hillary-cutout-groper? Or another speechwriter?
But the Golden Rule is not actually universal. The common variation is Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have done to you. It is only the Christian variation, iirc, that frames it in a positive way.
"Make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
Sounds like W!
Really, it's hard to find much in this Obama speech that couldn't have been said by Bush 43.
Not that that's a bad thing!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा