Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”

Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.

Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”

Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.’

Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.

With this one I bid all goodbye for now; but this is a good idea, too good not to share.

Obama’s Prize

I won’t fault Obama for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, though I think even he probably agrees he doesn’t deserve it. But the silliness here clearly falls on the Nobel committee.

But it would be menschy and admirable if he politely declined. I mean, imagine if the guy had the humility to say something like…

“While this is a great honor, and I appreciate the hope and faith you’ve put in my leadership, with all due respect, I don’t feel I deserve this award simply out of faith in what I may yet accomplish, or by virtue of the office I hold. I have much yet to do, and hope that by the end of my presidency I’ll have established a record that merits consideration for the Peace Prize. In the meantime, I’d encourage the committee to choose one of the dozens of others who are more deserving.”

It wouldn’t just be admirable, I’d imagine it would be hugely politically popular, too. And it would take the wind out of the sales of the righty pundits dogging him this morning for a decision he had no part in making.

I would suspect torture porn, or the related war porn. Perhaps both, who can say in these matters?

Don't keep us in suspense. Did he?

Well, it looks like Obama will join a long line of people who do not deserve to win a "peace prize". No surprise about that.

Usually a winner must be a major league murderer like Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt to win a peace prize. Obama must have won on his potential.

That was a wonderful comment; thanks for sharing your thoughts. We could use a few more from you here, judging by that one.

1) I agree with ScuzzaMan that most people would call what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan an occupation. Even if the American installed puppet governments ask us to be there. Legalistic word play while innocent men, women, and children are being brutalized is very irritating.

2) I would agree with those who point out that Obama has done nothing to deserve this prize, but that speaks to the prize more than Obama.

3) I can not believe that Arundhati Roy did not win 10 peace prizes before any American President is even considered. Why do they pick a "world leader" over men and women who are really working to achieve peace?

4) I admit there are few men like Desmond Mpilo Tutu around; but there are some. For instance, the Iranian cleric who has committed Islam to never use atomic weapons.

I don't see why you don't like the choice this year.

After all, Obama went to Tehran to talk to the mullahs face to face. He then withdrew our forces from Iraq, Afganistan, and Pakistan. After that he closed the horrible secret prisons of America world wide.

What a guy!

To get back to the topic of the post and off Glenn's side issue that was discussed, let us look at the way history is recorded.

To most people the phrase historical revisionism conjures up lying skinheads who spin crazy stories and call it history. However, history undergoes continual revision and this is proper. For example, once upon a time the history texts of America made a hero out of Christopher Columbus and never mentioned his murdering ways. The information was there for all to see in his own diaries, but the nation wanted a great man to be part of the founding myth of the white man in the Americas. Now, he is not presented in such a heroic light. This is history revised to more properly reflect what really happened.

History always starts with the news accounts of the day; just like the invasion of Iraq can be read about in old newspapers in America. But as our host has pointed out day after day after day to the point of obsession, the newspaper people are often engaged in propaganda rather than truth. Hence, the record will be revised on many occasions over the years to get closer to the truth until an enduring myth gains widespread acceptance. We hope this myth is close to the truth.

However, complete truth in a history book is a very rare animal. You will find more hen's teeth.

We do have an ignore feature. It is provided by the open source world and by commenter "Frankly, my dear".

Read about it here:

http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/2009/09/salon-letter-filter-script-version-002.html

Ignore the warning that it no longer works -- that was a Salon.com problem we all experienced a while back.