in other news, i've been awarded the nobel for attempted chemistry

As has been covered at length in this corner of the internet, I voted for Mr. Obama last year almost exclusively because I saw in him a hope to improve the trajectory of US foreign policy, and by extension, to promote the cause of peace in the world. (I know--I feel terribly corny having just written such a sentence.)

But it should be said that there was--to put it mildly--vast room for improvement on the front of "improving international cooperation". The bar was pretty damn low.

I know the Nobel Peace Prize has often been absurdly political for its entire history; this is nothing new. So I'll just leave it at this: I sincerely hope Mr. Obama actually accomplishes something in the next 3-7 years to deserve the prize he was awarded today.


OK, one more thought on this. How often is it that a course of action is both politically savvy and the Right Thing to do? Declining the prize would be exactly that.


Gino said...

i thought the decider factor in your support was his promise to increase funding for research?

Brian said...

That certainly made it easier. But I wouldn't say it was decisive.

chris said...

I wonder how many people get your Simpsons nod?

In defense of your "errant" vote, I don't think things would be any better under his opposition. I believe the only difference would be the beneficiaries of government welfare (AKA the recipients of our current and future tax dollars).

Brian said...

I wonder how many people get your Simpsons nod?

Fewer and fewer, every year...

I feel no need to defend my vote. I'm still convinced that on the issues I care about most, McCain would have been worse (and he would have been no better on most of the others.) And as far as Barr went, I think someone who is running under the banner of "Libertarian" ought to be unambiguously and unapologetically libertarian.