Do something small that won’t change lives

Today I packed a bag for a family or household to have complete sides with the turkey Lutheran Social Services will distribute--mashed potatoes, 2 different vegetables, 2 fruits, a cake, gravy, cranberry sauce and pumpkin. I also packed a bag for "God's Hygiene Help Center" which includes personal care items for women who need to get back their dignity. This was started by Tammy Jewell about 8 years ago who was using her own disability check to buy things for those less fortunate. I packed shampoo, hand lotion, cotton balls, razors, deodorant, hand sanitizer, feminine hygiene products, and new Christmas socks, just for fun.

No one's life will be permanently changed. But the recipient may just be on a temporary slide and can bounce back, but she could be mentally ill and spend the rest of her life on the street. Why not have one good day to feel like everyone else? Would that be so terrible?

A few years ago I was visiting in Mt. Morris around the holidays and my Uncle Gene stopped by to chat. He was feeling great--he and a bunch of guys at the bar had taken up their annual collection for turkeys and were going to distribute them to (there was a list). They felt good and there were some families who had a nice meal--nothing life changing, just people helping people.

I was thinking about this because two Nobel Prize winners won on the basis of small projects enhanced by competition and incentive—finding out that children in Africa learn better if the teacher shows up, and that children are more like to get immunizations if they and the health care worker show up.  So simple.  Yet the author of the article was critical.

https://www.econlib.org/nobel-laureates-aim-too-low-on-global-poverty/

The Peace Prize president--Barack Obama--not one day of peace

 A Russian reporter asks the obvious:

"America, in all the eight years [of Obama], did not have one day where it was completely at peace. There was one war or another, and not all of those wars were inherited by President Obama. And he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

"Then, he -- he's like the first African-American president. But the race relations in this country have become worse. Not better, worse. It's also, I -- you know, you say some things are facts. Those are allegations. But I cannot say that it's a fact. It's an impression I get, that they are worse. But many people share this -- this impression."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/russian-reporter-does-obama-feel-any-responsibility-us-russia-relations

Chinese scientist engaged in lawsuit against the Nobel Prize Assembly

A Chinese scientist, Dr. Rongxiang  Xu, claims to have discovered “human body regenerative restoration science''  and has filed a suit in Orange County, California, seeking credit for the research that led to the work of Sir John B. Gurdon (England) and Shinya Yamanaka (Japan)  for their discovery that "mature, specialised cells can be reprogrammed to become immature cells capable of developing into all tissues of the body."

“The work of Gurdon and Yamanaka led to a practical medical use for stem cell research that sidesteps the main argument by anti-abortion opponents” a feat pretty much ignored by our President who in 2009 reinstated embryonic stem cell research paid for by government funding (it was never illegal or restricted).

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/world/europe/sweden-nobel-prize-medicine/index.html

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8414/rr/619952

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1087407/world-renowned-scientist-dr-rongxiang-xu-speaks-out-about-nobel-assembly-statement-claiming-they-have-not-heard-of-him

Winner of Nobel prize, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka

No need to harvest human embryos in the name of advancing medical breakthroughs.  England's Sir John Gurdon and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka from Japan share the 2012 Nobel Prize in medicine for work on stem cells, revealing that mature cells can be reverted into primitive cells. There are both medical and ethical implications.

“The Nobel committee, however, made no mention of Yamanaka’s moral achievement. Not in its presentation, not in its press release, not in its interview with the laureate. It credited him only with developing “new tools” to study disease and develop therapies. Many reporters took the same approach. In its 600-word story, CNN ignored the ethics of Yamanaka’s work. The Los Angeles Times called restrictions on embryo destruction mere “headaches” for scientists. The New York Times said Yamanaka’s work, like other stem-cell technologies, had “generated objections from people who fear, on ethical or religious grounds, that scientists are pressing too far into nature’s mysteries and the ability to create life artificially.”

That’s completely wrong. Even before Yamanaka’s landmark paper, pro-lifers were all over his work. They loved it. The Vatican had followed his research with interest for years. When Cell published his paper, a pro-life coalition immediately declared his method “superior to cloning as a means of obtaining patient-specific pluripotent stem cells.” In a homily distributed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Rigali declared that Yamanaka’s story about looking into a fertility-clinic microscope showed how “God can use a helpless embryo to change a human heart.” People at the National Right to Life Committee were openly rooting for Yamanaka to win a Nobel.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/10/shinya_yamanaka_s_nobel_prize_he_saved_embryos_not_just_stem_cell_research_.html

"When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters. I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way," this was Dr Shinya Yamanaka, a father of two, in an interview in The New York Times in 2007.

http://www.biospectrumasia.com/biospectrum/influencers/23502/there

Tell me again about the Nobel Peace Prize

“Obama has tripled the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, escalated the nightmare of drone bombings in Pakistan, and started a war with Libya that his administration claimed even Congress had no power to stop. Despite his occasional lip service to free markets, peace, and the rule of law, Obama has pushed for the radical expansion of state power in virtually every area he could. “ Anthony Gregory

And he’s running a pipeline of weapons from Libya to Syria.  Some peace prize he is.  I wonder if they’ll ever do that again—award a prize on the basis of nothing.  Zip. Nada. Zilch.

            

Humility isn't his strength

Or maybe it's just his generation. "By our count there were 38 I's (including two I'ms, but excluding two I's in a quote from Martin Luther King) in President Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize." James Taranto, Dec. 10

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. . . . I cannot argue with those who find these men and women--some known, some obscure to all but those they help--to be far more deserving of this honor than I. . . . I am the Commander-in-Chief. . . . I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict. . . . I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. . . . I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said. . . . I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. . . . I face the world as it is. . . . I--like any head of state--reserve the right to act unilaterally. . . . I prohibited torture. . . . I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. . . . I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Norwegians don't like the snub

Apparently 44% of Norwegians think our president was rude to forgo the festivities. Yes, we know how they feel don't we? Except a much higher percentage of Americans think he did nothing to get this prize and he probably should have stayed home, or turned it down.

Newly minted Nobel Laureate Barack Obama has stirred up some bad feelings in Oslo, Norway, by opting out of a round of events traditionally attended by the prizewinner — not the least of which is lunch with the King of Norway.

According to a report by the U.K.’s Guardian, Obama has scratched off a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace, a music concert — as well as a visit to the exhibition that honors him at the Nobel peace center. Newsmax story

Giving out awards

A The New Republic Jonathan Chait notes in "The case against awards" that:

"A recent statistical analysis by Robert T. Hodgson, published in the Journal of Wine Economics (I kid you not), found that a wine that wins one competition is no more likely to win another competition than any other wine. Which is to say, wine awards are handed out completely at random. If you listen to movie buffs, they will tell you that the Academy Awards regularly commit unforgiveable sins of commission or omission. Look closely at any field that gives out awards, and you will probably find that injustice is more the rule than the exception.

I've often suspected as much at art shows when I look at the winners. However, since I think the point of his article was to reference Obama's recent prize when he erroneously says, "the committee frequently chooses recipients in order to encourage or empower them, rather than to reward actual achievement" at least I can't think of any examples, one person comments:

Originally the award was designed to be given to those who had done the most to bring about peace. This means it should go to international mediators and those who make peace with their internal or external enemies. While there might not be good candidates every year, there are many who fit this criterion who haven't received the award. It took the Nobel Committee in Oslo 23 years to award Carter for mediating the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. There are two figures in the Obama administration who deserve it for their work in the Clinton administration: George Mitchell for mediating the Good Friday Agreement in Belfast in 1998; Richard Holbrooke for mediating the Dayton Accords for Bosnia in 1995. Obama should give each of them half of the peace prize.

I think I could go for that--split it with people who deserve it. Although wasn't Clinton given the credit for the Belfast Agreement? He certainly is revered in Ireland.

Obama gets this one next

What do you mean he's not a museum or a library? Does that matter in awards?

Friedman pens Obama's non acceptance speech

Here's a shocker. Thomas L. Friedman suggests a speech honoring the real peace keepers. Now that Obama is our Commander in Chief, I think he feels better saying what he couldn't have said when Bush was in charge. Even so, I got a bit weepy remembering my Dad and uncles.

"Here is the speech I hope he will give:

“Let me begin by thanking the Nobel committee for awarding me this prize, the highest award to which any statesman can aspire. As I said on the day it was announced, ‘I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.’ Therefore, upon reflection, I cannot accept this award on my behalf at all.

“But I will accept it on behalf of the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century — the men and women of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, to liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi fascism. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers and sailors who fought on the high seas and forlorn islands in the Pacific to free East Asia from Japanese tyranny in the Second World War.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American airmen who in June 1948 broke the Soviet blockade of Berlin with an airlift of food and fuel so that West Berliners could continue to live free. I will accept this award on behalf of the tens of thousands of American soldiers who protected Europe from Communist dictatorship throughout the 50 years of the cold war.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who stand guard today at outposts in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan to give that country, and particularly its women and girls, a chance to live a decent life free from the Taliban’s religious totalitarianism.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American men and women who are still on patrol today in Iraq, helping to protect Baghdad’s fledgling government as it tries to organize the rarest of things in that country and that region — another free and fair election.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the thousands of American soldiers who today help protect a free and Democratic South Korea from an unfree and Communist North Korea.

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the American men and women soldiers who have gone on repeated humanitarian rescue missions after earthquakes and floods from the mountains of Pakistan to the coasts of Indonesia. I will accept this award on behalf of American soldiers who serve in the peacekeeping force in the Sinai desert that has kept relations between Egypt and Israel stable ever since the Camp David treaty was signed.

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the American airmen and sailors today who keep the sea lanes open and free in the Pacific and Atlantic so world trade can flow unhindered between nations.

“Finally, I will accept this award on behalf of my grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who arrived at Normandy six weeks after D-Day, and on behalf of my great-uncle, Charlie Payne, who was among those soldiers who liberated part of the Nazi concentration camp of Buchenwald.

“Members of the Nobel committee, I accept this award on behalf of all these American men and women soldiers, past and present, because I know — and I want you to know — that there is no peace without peacekeepers.

“Until the words of Isaiah are made true and lasting — and nations never again lift up swords against nations and never learn war anymore — we will need peacekeepers. Lord knows, ours are not perfect, and I have already moved to remedy inexcusable excesses we’ve perpetrated in the war on terrorism.

“But have no doubt, those are the exception. If you want to see the true essence of America, visit any U.S. military outpost in Iraq or Afghanistan. You will meet young men and women of every race and religion who work together as one, far from their families, motivated chiefly by their mission to keep the peace and expand the borders of freedom.

“So for all these reasons — and so you understand that I will never hesitate to call on American soldiers where necessary to take the field against the enemies of peace, tolerance and liberty — I accept this peace prize on behalf of the men and women of the U.S. military: the world’s most important peacekeepers.”

Thank you, Mr. Friedman; it's the best thing you've ever written.

Saving these lives gets no peace prize or international praise

"I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life. And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Karen Hughes, former Bush adviser, speaking on CNN April 24, 2004.

But the No-bel judges were correct in stating that Obama had caught the world's attention--during the long campaign and his 10 months in office he talks mostly about himself (which may have cost Chicago the Olympics), which necessarily deceases the emphasis on the United States, which enormously pleases both our enemies and envious friends. Link.

4239

Fun with Al

From a commenter at Tim Blair's blog.

Dear Meester Gore,

As chairman of de Nobel Peace Prize Committee, I haff de unpleasant dewty to inform yew dat, because of certain errors and inaccuracies in yur movie, An Inconvenient Truth, ve are havin’ to cancel yur avard. Ve are distressed at de necessity of doin’ dis, but, yumpin’ yimminy, Meester Gore, yew really stepped in de cow pewp dis time, vit all dem mistakes.

Ve hope yew vill take some comfort in de Committee’s decision to gib de avard, instead, tew dat Iranian feller, Ahmadinejad, in token of hiss not yet blowin’ de beyibbers out of de whole goldurn vurld.

However, ve don’t vant yew do go avay mad, so ve are sendin’ yew a consolation prize – a maus pad vit a picture of a reindeer on it.

Ve be seein’ yew sometime, I bet. In de meantime, “Ha det bra!” from yur friends in Norvay.

Sincerely,

Ole Danbolt Mjøs