Reading about politics in blogs and so forth can be tiresome after awhile, especially given the kneejerk responses about President Obama. I've been down this road before, but for those who say "what did he do for us" why not take a look at this. His Nobel Prize acceptance speech, suitable for Human Rights Day,* is also telling. It is an eloquent speech, even if you disagree with him about the need for force in certain cases. One striking thing is how he defends the use of force ("just war") and our role in the world to possible critics.
More here on a strong effort; thanks Mr. President, even if I disagree with some things you do, such as the use of "evil." Some sneer he sounded like Bush in his support of force and the power the U.S. -- unilateral if necessary -- to defend itself. But, not supporting pure pacifism isn't that. Even the U.N. accepts unilateral use of defensive force. A honest and halfway sane reading of the speech does not lead one to say "oh well, just Bush."
[Update: BTC News is a bit less positive on the whole speech thing. Glenn Greenwald today appears to wonder why both conservatives and liberals like it. Conservatives hook on to the support of force and U.S. power stuff, while liberals (who aren't pacifists to begin with) look at it as a whole, and see much more to like than not. Yeah, even with the use of "evil," particularly since his religious outlook already told us he believes in that sort of thing.
And, then there are Andrew Sullivan sorts, who see in him a sort of realistic optimist, a conservative who remains "audacious" in a troubling time. Not overly familiar with the philosophy stuff, but "slow, uncertain march of human enlightenment" is not bad. I want more sometimes, but given our politicians these days, there is something to be said for it all the same. Someone who didn't vote for him over at Volokh Conspiracy not only praises the speech but notes the Golden Rule point is true overall -- the "major" religions do have the basic idea front and center in various respects.]
Over here, I discuss Dahlia Lithwick's interesting article on how wary we are to deal with the role of religion in judicial nominations. My reply cites Obama's speech, including his sentiment (addressed in a former speech on religion in public life) about certain things that all what is in "every major religion" and what he thinks is the "very purpose of faith." I have said before how this gives me pause, in part since it tries to homogenize religion in ways that don't match reality. Some religion is nasty. Unity isn't always possible here. It's one reason why we have separation of church and state.
Given the day and his promotion of human rights, a nod also is appropriate to Rachel Maddow's efforts (joining others) against bill in Uganda that targets homosexuals, originally making it a death penalty and life imprisonment eligible offense. To the degree this aspect of the bill might be removed, the opposition (including from Secretary of State Clinton) has shown some results. Maddow also reported how "The Family," a conservative religious group with many members (including Stupak of the infamous amendment, and Rick Warren) had a role, Warren eventually coming against it. A good use of responsibility to address the seedy members of your group. [As Rachel Maddow noted tonight, his overall record stinks and he b.s.-ed even on this matter.]
Finally, Nova's Einstein's Big Idea was an interesting and well acted dramatization of the history behind his famous equation, including looking back at fascinating (and some little known) scientists. Many women too.
---
* "Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions."