Last Friday, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts to strengthen international diplomacy” and his goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.
Since then, Obama has received criticism from both the left and the right for having the sheer audacity to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize by a secretive panel of judges he’s never met.
With the cutting insight that has been his hallmark for years, Rush Limbaugh released a statement saying that the “elites of the world” are trying to encourage Barack Obama to “continue his intentions to emasculate the United States.”
Basically, Rush is saying the prize’s judges are encouraging Obama to use America’s military less. He thinks this is bad.
Well put, Rush.
A Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Obama is just Norway telling us to put our military back in our pants.
And Rush is right: What’s with these uppity Norwegians trying to dictate to us how we can or cannot use our military? Those Europeans are probably just upset because they’ve all got tiny armies. If Norway tried to invade Afghanistan with its military, Afghanistan probably wouldn’t even know it was there.
Norway hasn’t even invaded another country in over a hundred years. It probably doesn’t remember what it feels like.
Well, we do.
Let’s not forget that swinging our armed forces all over the world is part of a long American tradition.
Ever since the mid-19th century we’ve been whipping out our military whenever we feel the need.
Sometimes it’s about the price of bananas. Sometimes it’s about the price of oil.
Whatever commodity we happen to be defending, we haven’t been afraid to employ our military and do what it takes to show those other countries who’s boss.
Sometimes just showing it to them is enough. It really is an intimidatingly large military.
But sometimes that’s not enough. And when it isn’t enough, we need someone like former President George W. Bush or former Vice President Dick Cheney. These are people who really know how to handle a military as big as ours.
So, Barack Obama, say “no” to that Nobel Peace Prize.
Rush is right. I don’t know how they do it in other countries, but here in America we don’t listen to anyone else. Especially not when it comes to our military.
The United States has the largest defense budget in the world. Most other countries haven’t even seen a defense budget half the size of ours.
Sometimes we’ve just got to get our boys out there and commit to a prolonged military insertion. And once you’re in there, everyone knows you don’t pull your military out until the job’s done.
Only a Nobel Peace Prize-winning sissy would even think about something like that.
So if you don’t know how to use a military like ours, you need to step aside and let a real man like Rush show the rest of the world how it’s done.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
dargus - on the nature of boycotting -fine you win, that was a minor point. The major point was that the professor made it all the way to 1993 living in an environment where his oxs was incapable of being gored. Traditional values have been under deliberate assault on television since 1968 when Norman Lear launched his self-described projects of social engendering with All In The Family. This was followed with Soap, Maude, the Jeffersons, Murphy Brown, House, etc. the list seemed endless by the time Chapman heard that a conservative program may finally begin retuning fire.
When Operation Rescue first gained notoriety but using the liberal tactic of sit-ins, the famed liberal lawyer William Kuntsler screamed, “The wrong people are using the right methods for the wrong reasons and they have to be stopped!!!” In this nutshell he captured the competitive mentality of all liberals. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. You desperately need and expect, the advantage of an extremely un-level playing field, or somehow, it just isn’t fair.
This has long made me wonder just how long people like you would stand by your liberal beliefs if suddenly the shoe were on the other foot. If tomorrow you were to wake up in a Twilight Zone episode where the Right Wing had a death grip on all media and academia, just how long would take being such an underdog? I have never seen any evidence that a typical liberal has any stomach for such a challenge. Professor Christian proved that in spades. The attitude of “Let him rave on so the world can see he is mad.” was nowhere to be heard. There was only the panicky alarm “We can’t allow the People to hear this type of message!” You still feel that way.
Literally, the left wants to outlaw any form or dissent from their view, all the time bragging about how open minded and desirous of free dialog they are. This is why we see liberalism as a refuge for the gutless
I have pretty heavy weight charge, one that deserves more than putting the hand to the forehead, guffawing, and rolling the eyeballs.
freak197 2 years, 7 months ago
no one should ever listen to that fat head.
ston9794 2 years, 7 months ago
Is this a well played troll on the university? All the points that Dearner makes are actually pretty terrible things about our country. The reason that the rest of the world laughs at us is because of our "bomb the hell out of them" attitude that this article portrays...
If you listen to Limbaugh and actually believe what he has to say then it may be time for a good knock up-side the head!
eightbitgirl 2 years, 7 months ago
Yup, it really did take me a long time to pick up that this is sarcasm. Well-played!
kdbp1213 2 years, 7 months ago
can anybody give me 3 substantial, concrete reasons, wait, how about 1 substantial reason why pres obama should get a nobel peace prize 11 months into his term? i guess i've been living on another planet or seinfeld's bizarro world........
JJanowiak 2 years, 7 months ago
This editorial is not particularly well-written structurally, but I think it's meant to be satirical. Failed satire.
WalkingMan 2 years, 7 months ago
How does stuff like this get published? I don't know if this is supposed to be satire or serious, but either way it is bad.
dargus 2 years, 7 months ago
mustafa, a boycott is also an exercise of free speech. Had he suggested that Rush and or the people at channel 4 should face legal consequences, he would have been trampling free speech. I do love your little stories though. It would be nice if you linked to a source at least once in a while.
swiggy3000 2 years, 7 months ago
Okay, I must be tired. Re-reading it I realize it is satire. Very good my good man, very good.
mfhayes 2 years, 7 months ago
Woooosh!
Satire.
Dandy 2 years, 7 months ago
Is this a serious article? I couldn't tell if it was sarcasm or not. "Nobel Peace Prize-winning sissy"? Really? Let real men like Rush show the rest of the world how it's done? This sounds like a comedian making fun of right-wingers. Hitler, too, "whipped out" the military when he felt the need.
There was no substance to this article whatsoever. Even for an opinion article, have a little argument besides what basically boils down to "we're big and bad, and Europeans are sissys." But Ann Coulter would be proud. Maybe that's what you were going for.
Colbzilla 2 years, 7 months ago
Wow. This has got to be one of the worst opinions I've seen in the Daily in a while, and I've seen some pretty bad ones.
I can't think of anything else to say. It was just that bad.
tim_burr 2 years, 7 months ago
Now matter how much he may wish otherwise, Rush Limbaugh is not the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces; Barack Obama is. Since taking office, how much has he drawn down America's military presence in the Middle East?
I'm not a political conservative, or if I am, I'm a bad one. In the last election cycle I voted Obama for president and almost 100% third-party candidates for state and federal legislature. I think it's too early too call Obama's presidency a success or a failure, but I certainly don't think he has earned a Nobel Peace Prize. The man is running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as military operations in Pakistan.
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot and a hatemonger, to the extent that anyone trying to argue with him is committing the straw man fallacy. Please don't lump everyone who disagrees with the Nobel Prize committee together with the Becks and Limbaughs out there.
Dandy 2 years, 7 months ago
You honestly think Rush is courageous, Mustafa? He sits behind a microphone and says things he knows will outrage some in order to get ratings and a fat paycheck (much like Howard Stern but at least Stern admits it). I don't even think he believes a lot of things he says; he simply wants people to tune in. I guess he did have the "courage" to overcome drug addiction. Give him the medal of honor.
swiggy3000 2 years, 7 months ago
Dear Mr. Dearner,
If I may ask what is wrong with peace? Why should be be proud of having such a large defense budget. The money spent on pointless military items could be used to help people rather than kill. That being said a good defense budget is necessary but it should not eat up the majority of the budget. We should not accept prolonged wars as a fact of life. Sometimes war is necessary but in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars they are not. We should not waste the lives of Americans just because the fact that you seem to hate the very idea of peace troubles me dearly.
I can only hope that this is satire and I am simply missing it.
soonerfan2009 2 years, 7 months ago
Is this column serious? I mean honestly, "... here in America we don't listen to anyone else." This has to be sarcasm, right??
If you "don't know how they do it in other countries" then how do you know "most other countries haven't seen a defense budget half the size of ours?"
Also, calling someone a "Nobel Peace Prize-winning sissy" seems a bit disrespectful to previous winners like President Theodore Roosevelt and Mother Teresa.
And if you honestly think Rush Limbaugh, a college dropout with no formal education or political experience, is better suited to make rational decisions about the lives of the men and women serving defending our country, then you are ill-informed about his personal history.
Also, please do not refer to troops as "our boys." You are definitely not the father of anyone serving, and you seem to be preaching patriotism and militarism but didn't feel it important enough to volunteer yourself.
This column HAS to be sarcastic. Right?
Colbzilla 2 years, 7 months ago
(That was my satirical return lol)
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
If the subject is Limbaugh, then let us consult the Daily archives from the fall of 1993. Channel 4 in OKC announced that they would soon begin showing Limbaugh’s television program. A chemistry professor named Christian, immediately exploded in rage and sounded the alarm to all fellow travelers to join a boycott of all advertisers of Channel 4. According to the professor, Rush Limbaugh should not be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech if it would harm the liberal agenda. Christian was soon crushed by editorial rebuttals in all the local papers for his incredible hypocrisy. Most pointed out that the Left‘s had, until that time , a virtual monopoly on the television and Hollywood medias to launch snide criticism and angry parodies of conservatism.
Like most liberals the thought that his sacred cows would soon be gored, filled Christian with fear and loathing. Like most liberals he had no real stomach for competing on a level playing field. That why liberals are liberals. Liberals feel that they are entitled to benefit from have the deck stacked in their favor. They continue to be supported in that belief by a predominantly liberal news and entertainment media, as well as in academia. It takes real courage to stand up against such an opponent. The type of courage Liberals only claim to have.
dargus 2 years, 7 months ago
Now I can see why you hate liberals so much, mustafa. A conservative would never, ever boycott something their fellow citizens do. Conservatives only boycott the government, this is why they are superior to liberals. Oh, except the Family Research Council (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/profamily.group.ends.mcdonalds.boycott/21636.htm), The American Family Association, The Moral Majority (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+breakdown+of+boycotts:+Kraft+Foods+has+said+it+will+continue+its...-a0148423494), The Catholic League (http://www.religioustolerance.org/disney.htm), and this site entitled Boycott Liberalism (http://www.boycottliberalism.com/). I'm sure this is a complete list though.
JJanowiak 2 years, 7 months ago
Great, how about you two nutbars try listening to a conservative that doesn't hate Blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, or liberals, and then that conspiratorial and monolithic edifice you refer to as "all liberals" might stop treating you both as rotten little children perpetually throwing intellectual temper tantrums about how the whole world is arrayed against you and the twin beacons of truth, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
Except that would require you to be a REAL conservative and not the ghostly whisper of a mid-90's patriot militia/white supremacist group member.
ricflair 2 years, 7 months ago
I'm truly amazed that people had to read past the title of this column to figure out it is a troll.
eightbitgirl 2 years, 7 months ago
I respectfully disagree and would argue that nobody should listen to Limbaugh about anything.
caitlynlacy 2 years, 7 months ago
Well executed satire, Mr. Dearner.
scpeyton 2 years, 7 months ago
Yes, those darn European nations are so upset because they have "tiny armies"...especially with the European Union's combined military strength of about 9 million personel to the United States' 1.5 million personel. Oh and you're so right about Afghanistan not knowing Norway was there if they invaded Afghanistan. I sure would have no clue if there were 51,000 troops invading my country.
Shanaynay 2 years, 7 months ago
Theodore Roosevelt is not someone I would call a "sissy." Have you heard his policy of Big Stick diplomacy? He said, "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Aside from the asinine opinions stated in this column, let's just look at facts.
FACT: The Nobel prizes are given out by SWEDEN not NORWAY. FACT: Norway and Sweden are both allies of the USA and do not impose their belief upon us. FACT: Norway has participated in the War in Afghanistan and the Invasion of Iraq, negating your claim that Norway has not invaded another country in over a hundred years.
Also "just whipping out our military" is not an effective strategy. We lost Vietnam, we lost Korea, and we're losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Dearner, I respectfully ask that in the future you pull your head out of your ass, wipe it up, and actually do some research and check your facts before writing such columns.
Flips88 2 years, 7 months ago
I applaud you and your ability to get the Daily to publish an op-ed so many penis references.
However, I think it should have been: "Afghanistan would be standing there asking Norway, 'did you invade yet? I don't feel a thing.'"
questionmark 2 years, 7 months ago
I cannot believe all the post from the so-called enlighten branch claiming they don’t ,and no one else should, listen to the political rhetoric from the opponent. I was taught to know my opponent’s argument, to know it inside and out, in order to find flaws which can be exploited to discredit it. No such ethic seems to be a part of any liberal's upbringing. If I am being led down a primrose path by a deceiver, there isn’t anyone alive who wants to be alerted than I. But I require proof don’t just ask me to believe.
Unfortunately, virtually all liberals can’t bring themselves to hear even a mild dissent from their religious like ideology. Whether it is the claim that “homosexuality is genetic,” or “global warming is real and manmade,” they simply accept it without question. In spite of their claims to be rationalist or positivists, their enemy is the scientific method of evidence and research. Any attempt to engage them in person, often results with them quickly sinking into rage and stomping out of the room.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
Dandy- RE: saying things he knows will outrage- Bill Maher enjoys bragging about how liberals are snide. What he doesn’t say is that conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to be snide. So what if Limbaugh says things that tick off liberals, he is just playing the game by the rules your side plays by. Like Christian you can’t handle being on the receiving end of you own tactics.
RE: is not believing his own rhetoric- that is some pretty heavy weight denial you got there. To have to retreat to a rationalization that you opponent is only pretending to be against you-wow
Dargus- A boycott to protest a government policy is one thing, a boycott to prevent a fellow citizen’s opinions from being expressed, speaks for itself. I get back you about the Dr.Christain incident. The Daily archives which are located in the microfilm room in the bowels of the library. They have a lot of good stories, like the time a kid was expelled from this university for walking in to Cate Cafeteria wearing a tee-shirt that said “Kill a Commie for Christ.” No liberal cared if that was sarcasm.
Joseph O. It is clear that you have never listened to any conservative. Yet I listen while you recommend a real conservative for me. Who would that be?
Kdbp1213- Basically he is being the awarded for his efforts to collapse his country’s economy, reduce it’s national defense efforts, and open us up to an attack. For those who say those are scurrilous charges that don’t truthfully reflect what Obama is trying to do, I say they are only wrong if they don’t come to pass.
dargus 2 years, 7 months ago
Well, I’m glad to see you know me well enough to tell me what I believe. It is also interesting that you can peer so deeply into the soul of Professor Christian. I assume you two must be close friends. I do find it difficult to believe that Professor Christian was teaching at the University of Oklahoma, yet was never subjected to a conservative point of view. I don’t believe Oklahoma was a bastion of radical liberalism in the 1990’s.
You seem to know more about Professor Christian than I do. I still fail to see how he was seeking an unlevel playing field. Professor Christian is a man, not a cause, and just because you perceive his side to be in power doesn’t make his boycott an attempt to unlevel the playing field. It is everyone’s right to say what they believe at any time, but it isn’t anyone’s right to be broadcast by a private corporation. Corporations put people on the air to make money and they have the right to choose who does and does not get air time. It is also the right of a citizen or group of citizens to pressure a corporation to deny someone air time, assuming they use legal methods of course. This is all done on a perfectly level playing field. Supporters of said broadcaster are free to support him or her as much as others are free to oppose.
dargus 2 years, 7 months ago
Now, on to your claims about what you think I believe. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if they broadcast Rush. I’ve listened to Rush’s and Hannity’s radio programs plenty of times, and I can tell you letting them talk provides more than enough ammo to defeat their asinine points. Guess what, I even sometimes agree with them. It is rare, but it happens. Rush’s perspective on race, while taken to the extreme too often for my taste, isn’t too far from the mark. Rush’s problem is that many people find his tone to be offensive (I wanted to use stronger language here, but the oh so liberal Daily wouldn't allow it). He, like you, feels so oppressed that he loses his point in the side show. I do think people are too hard on him, but Rush is Rush and, like you, shuns all he perceives as “liberal”.
Since you believe people boycotting Rush is somehow unfair, what is you actual belief about freedom of speech and the media? Most conservatives I meet, who aren’t libertarians, don’t believe people should be free to say what they wish in the media. The FCC prohibits certain words and images, and I wonder how you would feel in a society with a truly free media. Would you be boycotting and crying because someone used a word you find objectionable, or airs images that upset you? I suspect you would, and that would be your right, but would you ask the government to protect you from being able to choose to watch or listen to these programs? I’ll be totally with you on this one if you want to go the true freedom route, but that isn’t how it is or ever has been. See, the problem is different people find different things offensive. Some people find Rush offensive and others find programs about homosexuals offensive and perhaps there are one or two people who find Mr. Rogers Neighborhood offensive. The problems arise when people believe the government should step in and prevent one or the other. From your description, this isn’t what professor Christian did, so I fail to see any point to your unlevel argument.
dargus 2 years, 7 months ago
Alright, some corporations put people on the air to make money, and some make political statements. If they don’t make money, the corporations will need to find some other source of funds. If they do so, they stay in business. This is how the free market works. I don’t see how this supports your point of an unlevel field. Rich conservatives can and do do this as well. I’m sorry if they don’t do it to a level of your liking. Perhaps you should invest your money in a conservative media outlet if you think there is a need to be filled. I also think your definition of “liberal” far overlaps my definition of moderate, which makes a big difference in the analysis.
Fine, continue making assumptions and accusations about Professor Christian. I have no idea who he is, what he believes, nor do I particularly care. I still challenge you to explain to me how he was stifling free speech, or at least how it is different than what some conservatives do. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the actions of individuals and some nebulous liberal conspiracy, which you seem to believe I belong to as well.
From what I have gleaned from listening to Rush directly, he believes some, if not much, of the black community is desirous of handouts or special treatment. I tend to agree with this on the face, but Rush chooses to use intentionally inflammatory statements, as do some of those on the other side of the argument. This gets him attention, and more power to him, but he shouldn’t be surprised when there is a backlash. I don’t listen to him all that often, and I don’t keep a list of things he’s said I disagree with, so I can’t point you to any specific quotes to document this. Feel free to disagree. However, as a sportscaster, why did Rush feel it was so important to attack the media and single out Donnovan McNabb? Was he doing his job or was he making a selfishly motivated political point? I’d suggest it was the latter, and if I were employing him I most likely would have questioned his motives and the impact that would have on my product if he continues to use my program as a forum for his political points. As far as I’m concerned, Rush can say whatever he wishes, but if he is going to use his position as a sportscaster to score political points, I’m going to change the channel.
So what makes the field skewed? Perhaps the “liberal” media is successful because that is what people desire. If there were a market for more conservative media, wouldn’t one expect it to be filled? I’m not aware of any law prohibiting conservative or liberal leaning media, at least not since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.
My guy? Obama is my guy? I begrudgingly voted for him in the general election, but that’s because I only had two choices. I didn’t, and wasn’t even eligible, to vote for him in the primary election.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
“Corporations put people on the air to make money…” I suggest you read Michael Medved’s Hollywood vs. America, in which he provides ample evidence that, for political purposes only, Hollywood puts out movies that they know won’t make any money,. One of my favorites is called The Last Supper which (along with Fried Green Tomatoes) demonstrates how easily the Left can work a blood lust against average people they just don’t like.
“…yet was never subjected to a conservative point of view…” He probably wasn’t. Most confirmed liberals in academia and elsewhere prefer to live their entire lives in an ideological cocoon, attending church with, living around, working with, and talking only to their own kind. This is why in 2000 we heard comments like, “I don’t know how Bush got elected! No one I know voted for him!”
“..’Rush’s perspective on race, while taken to the extreme…” and what would those be?? If you’ve been listening lately, Limbaugh has just been the victim of an organized slander campaign which claimed specific hate- rhetoric that cannot located in any in his writings or program tapes.
Liberals have always lied about what Limbaugh supposedly says. Most significantly is the claim that he makes anti-homosexual statements, bashes homosexuality etc. In truth, he virtually never touches the subject. In fact his obvious reluctance to comment on the homosexual movement prompted many professional homosexuals and their allies,to openly speculate that he may be a closeted homosexual.
“I don’t believe Oklahoma was a bastion of radical liberalism in the 1990’s.” Then as now, OU is an oasis of liberalism in a vast conservative sea.
The fact is that the current administration, with the complete approval of the faithful, is now launching a campaign against conservative media on radio and television. The White House Communication director declared war on Fox News just last weekend.
Remember, Richard Nixon is still condemned for his gross dislike of the press, and for his attempts to stifle it. Yet Nixon’s actions don’t hold a candle to what your guy is trying to do.