When I heard about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, I raised and eye brow and thought “what did he win that for?” I thought about it… I remembered the SNL skit from a couple of weeks ago, about how he hasn’t really done most of what he promised. Did he win, simply for becoming President? I shrugged it off. Throughout the course of the day I saw many comments online about it. Some people were upset about it – “he doesn’t deserve shit!” and “did he win for destroying the US?!” – which I also shrugged off because that’s nothing but crap. I found that most people asked same thing I did: “what did he win for?” And a few other people praised our leader for it…

It’s that last group that this Rant comes from. It’s been knocking around my mind for a couple of days now, but since last night it’s in the foreground. While I was going to leave it alone… well, that just wouldn’t be me.

You see, the liberal and free-thinking Democrats are quickly becoming just as single-minded and blinded by a saviour as any other religious group (i.e. Republicans) are and they just don’t know it.

Yes, I was going to leave it alone. Even said last night to Jolene, “Know what? I’m just going to close the browser and leave it alone.” Then I spent 12 hours thinking about… nope: I can’t leave it alone. It needs a little Rant before it can go away.

The bottom line is that the Nobel doesn’t really matter to me much. Obama won one: good for him. My only question to the “YAY HIM!” group was “why did he win?” Even though it was an SNL skit, Michaels did make a number of points about things he campaigned for that haven’t happened whether it was closing Guantanamo Bay or pulling troops out or whatever you like. Know what? This is a good thing. Instead of bending to the mass populous, Obama is looking at the facts that he has and making decisions about policy. A bad leader would walk in Day 1 and unilaterally make changes without having all of the facts. The mass populous doesn’t have 1/2 the facts that the President should have. I applaud him for making what could be an unpopular decision to do what he thinks is the right thing based on his list of facts. I have to believe he has more information than I do to make the decisions and that he’s making the best that he can. That’s strong leadership and I applaud it. That other legislature is bottlenecked – i.e. health care – that’s another matter because he has a majority of supporters in both Houses… it’s something to raise an eye brow over but it’s still a work in progress… either way, it’s still an unfulfilled promise.

Basically my report card on the guy would be mixed… he’s doing an OK job for now – he can get better and he can certainly get worse. Either way, I don’t see anything Nobel worthy, which is why I asked the question of the “YAY HIM!” crowd… but the reasons for the Nobel aren’t what this Rant is about… in fact, I’m hoping the Nobel can help Obama out while talking diplomacy to North Korea and Iran – it’s the international community that cares about stuff like that… sorta like how the world (and the US) sees soccer.

No, this Rant is about the fall out of this. Like I said earlier, I write off the people that are angry about it. I’m with the majority that said “huh?” so I don’t have issue with that. The people that I don’t “get” are the people that are having a circle jerk of happiness that Obama won the award and why they are so blindly certain of their guy.

You see, someone posted a “I’m so happy!” about the award on the intertubs. My reply was terse: “I have no words.” to someone that can praise the guy without reason. After me, other people pointed out that it was a bit of an embarrassment that he won such an award without having signed any laws and that no one could explain why. What followed is what got stuck in my craw:

In November 2000 I had to accept that the Electoral College ruled in George W. Bush’s favor. For eight years I dealt with the decisions and actions of a government I completely disagreed with and NEVER did I tell ANYONE how they should or should not feel. It is absolutely inappropriate and offensive for anyone to criticize my personal opinions and views; especially when I am accepting of other peoples ideals.

Here we go… it always come back to Bush. That’s problem number one: who gives a shit?! It’s over. It’s long since dead. Are we going to rate Obama because of four years of Carter? OMFG I’m so sick to death of people fucking up their own arguments with the wrong data. On top of that, it was the same Electoral College that ruled in Obama’s favor this past election. That’s the law. It’s in the Constitution. It’s been law since 1787 and it’s designed so that no one state would get closed out of the election process due to it’s size. Every state, no matter how small, would get at least three votes, and it limits other states from having runaway power… it’s why things aren’t built strictly on popular vote because that would give too much voting power in concentrated areas. The two haven’t always been in sync over the last 200 years but the system works and that’s why we’ve had it all these years. Sooooo, just because you don’t like the outcome you think you’re been wronged some how? Hey, buddy: someone always has to lose in an election, just as someone has to win. Just because your guy didn’t it doesn’t mean the system is broken. It’s not like WA state when you keep pushing for a recount “because machines can’t be trusted to count accurately” until you win…

As for living through eight years of something you didn’t agree with, that’s also the cross to bare for a representative democracy. Get over it and before you come back with a “what about the W. mess?!” we’re still cleaning up after Reagan’s economic gambles and Clinton’s “everyone needs a house” programs – nothing is different right here and right now. The fact is that there are things that happen to everyone every day that they don’t agree with. That’s life. That’s what we tell our children as we raise them: life isn’t fair – work to make it better.

And are you telling me that why you were in such a state of disagreement with the status quo that you never told anyone how they should feel? I call bullshit. If you protested anything the government did during those eight years, either directly or by promoting the opposition, you did in act tell other people how to feel. You told them what you thought and you encouraged them to think the same way. That’s good and that’s normal. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s sharing opinions and garnering for support. What’s wrong with that? Nothing. Props to you if you did in fact fight the status quo – don’t be ashamed of it, be proud! But also knowledge that you were telling people what to think and know to feel about things.

All said, it’s the last line that I have the biggest issue with. It’s a complete contradiction and it’s a statement that just drips of religious zealous. It says to me: “I’m accepting of other people’s ideals so long as you agree with me.” It says “You can only share your ideals with me if they don’t conflict with mine – you can’t criticize me even if it is your opinion – I’m the only right one here, and I’ll accept your views, only if they are the same as mine.” That’s something that’s so… frustrating that I drove me to Rant about this whole thing in the first place. It’s something I would expect from a religious zealot. It’s the kind of crap I always heard when I was in Catholic school… well, actually, no, it isn’t – Catholics are unable to make allowances for other religions: it’s their way and that’s that. They don’t pretend to be open to other ideals, unless that group is willing to join the religion. The Catholics think the Prods are just as off base as the Jews think the Muslims are and as the Islams think the Buddhist are – it’s why there’s so many wars based in religious conflicts… there’s no room for doubt when you are believing whole-hearted in a faith; there’s no way to be open to new ideals when you are told that “This way is the Only way.”

Thus I smell a new religion forming… Obamists are just as fever pitched as any religious sect. They refuse to listen to anything contrary, no matter how polite or logical; everything comes back to “you’re hating me,” “you’re judging me,” “SQUIRREL!” or “you’re offending me.” There’s no room for actually conversation or debate. Even if you do get to a point of calm conversation, the explanation for such praise and greatness comes down to “he’s great,” “he won,” “he’s about hope,” “BELIEVE!” and eventually an “I’m not sure…” …which is how most religious followers explain their own faith system. “It’s something you have to feel.” I applaud people for having faith. I have it. I have faith in things that I can’t explain through science or logical thought; that’s why it’s faith. But how can you bring faith into something secular and governmental, where there is no unexplained phenomenon? Where you can make sense of things without having faith yet base your entire position on nothing but faith? That’s blind faith and that is a dangerous thing in every possible situation.

That said, if you logically follow the path of the Obamist, you’ll find that they are so steeped in blind faith that they have quietly morphed into a collection of religious followers… they have become exactly like the Republican Right, when it comes to blind faith… oh, the irony of it all.

Why can’t we have a more balanced nation, I don’t know…