I learned more about the Nobel Prize then I wanted to know tonight. Whatever prestige it had was lost today. It's simply one nation trying to influence the politics of another. How can the prize be taken serious when it is obviously so political? The prize for economics is already a joke now we can add the "Peace Prize." Sad
----------------------------- "In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis
Posts: 584 | Location: CA, USA | Registered: 11-12-07
Biggest. Joke. Ever. This is ridiculous. The man did nothing before becoming president and now he's done nothing to earn this *once prestigious* award either.
How can we even blame him for pushing a socialist agenda when all he's ever known is having shit he doesn't deserve given to him?
Maybe if I try to break up a fight among third graders I can win the prize next year...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ananya,
The Nobel committee has made a mockery of their own award. I can't say whether he deserves the honour or not, but I can say that the work he has done does not stand in stead with the likes of other Nobel Peace prize winners like the 14th Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dag Hammarskjold, Martin Luther King Jr., Andrei Sakharov, Mother Teresa, Menachem Begin, Elie Weisel, Nelson Mandela, Shirin Ebadi, Mohammad Yunus etc. These are people who have done consistent work for the society at large for their most of their lifetime.
Obama's nomination is extremely controversial, but then apparently, that's not anything new in the Nobel committee. Other controversial recipients were Shimon Peres, Henry Kissinger, Yitzak Rabin and Woodrow Wilson. It is a documented fact that when Henry Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize, it prompted two dissenting committee members to resign.
Another criticism of the peace-prize are the notable omissions, namely the failure to award individuals with widely recognized contributions to peace. The list includes Mahatma Gandhi, Corazon Aquino, Dorothy Day, Vaclav Havel, Abdul Sattar Edhi, Sari Nusseibeh, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Irena Sendler, and Liu Xiaobo.
The funny thing is that according to the "Nomination Database for the Nobel Peace Prize" (1901 - 1956), the committee has confirmed that Mahatma Gandhi was nominated in the years 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and finally a few days before he was murdered in 1948. But he was never actually given the prize.
It all makes me think - whether all awards are actually supposed to be politicised jokes to pull the wool over the common man's eyes.
The goal toward which all history tends is peace, not peace through the medium of war, not peace through a process of universal intimidation, not peace through a program of mutual impoverishment, not peace by any means that leaves the world too weak or too frightened to go on fighting, but peace pure and simple based on that will to peace which has animated the overwhelming majority of mankind through countless ages. This will to peace does not arise out of a cowardly desire to preserve one's life and property, but out of conviction that the fullest development of the highest powers of men can be achieved only in a world of peace. -- Robert Maynard Hutchins (1899-1977)
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 5738 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
Ananya, good to see you used the "whiteout" feature : ). First time I've seen it used. I would like to suggest using the color gray, however, since that is the background of my post (unless its an off tone gray and looks worse). Also, I am happy that I held that post to that one "objectionable" word.
This is infuriatingly idiotic not only to hear about, but to realize its still true after you've banged your head against a wall to knock the nonsense out.
You may have seen it being used the first time because the word SHIT has not been used by anyone before in a post on GD yet. I was aware that I would get a post back from you while I was using the whiteout, I asked myself whether it was unnecessary/necessary, but then I said to myself, even if I get the flak I should do it. Thanks for being so sporting about it.
I would have used gray ideally but, it does not work on the new EVE Platform. Apparently though, the EVE Platform has a filter on some swear words. I discovered that when I was quoting a dialogue from the movie Freedom Writers by Hilary Swank. It seems that the **** word gets an asterix when its typed in a post. There may be other filters though, which we need to stumble upon.
***
Coming to the NobelObama controversy... I am wondering whether there is a Nobel prize for courage and whether the West would have the courage to award it to Muntazer Al Zaidi (the shoe thrower).
Just remember, there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything and the wrong way is to keep trying to make everybody else do it the right way. -- M*A*S*H, Colonel Potter
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 5738 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
I just wanted to add what the extent of his political career awarding the prize was based on.
He was an Illinois state senator for 8 years with zero national, or international, exposure. He was a US Senator for only 3 plus years with much of that spent running for President. He was President for less than 1 year. All this lack of time on the national and international stage and he gets awarded the Noble Peace Prize. The prize was not awarded on the basis of achievements, like it was in Ananya's examples above, but by promises.
The choice was so blatantly political it should not be viewed as a prestigious honor.
----------------------------- "In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis
Posts: 584 | Location: CA, USA | Registered: 11-12-07
There were a record 205 nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize this year, 172 of them being individuals as opposed to organisations. The front runners who were pipped to the post by Obama:
Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai for his struggle against the dictatorial of Robert Mugabe.
Jailed Chinese dissident Hu Jia.
Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba for campaigning to end the almost 50-year old civil conflict in her country.
French-Columbian ex-hostage Ingrid Betancourt.
Jordan's Prince Ghazi Bin Muhammad Bin Talal, an advocate of inter-religious dialogue.
Afghan doctor and women's right activist Sima Samar.
Vietnamese Buddhist monk and democracy advocate Thich Quang Do.
Russian activist Svetlana Gannushkina.
Cluster Munitions Coalition.
Chechen human rights lawyer Lidiya Yusupova.
Weird thing is that the award can leave Obama open to criticism and even mockery from everybody in general if he fails to live up to the honour. Most of the people arguing over the sanity of awarding him the prize , say that it is an inducement to act, a subtle hint that he should take the award as an encouragement to more proactively resolve the conflict in Palestine and to build bridges with sovereign nations whom his predecessors treated as beyond the pale. But that would be crediting the Committee with a shrewdness and intelligence that they probably do not possess, and which they have rarely displayed in the past.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel committee. To be honest, I do not feel I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformatve figures who have been honoured by this prize. -- Barack Obama.
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 5738 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
This is ridiculous. The man hasn't done anything to deserve this. He's only been president for nine months. And not only that: nominations were due in on Febuary 1. When he'd only been in power for eleven days!
Posts: 190 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 04-19-08
Aside from the excellent points Ananya has made (pointing out others far more deserving and even those who never received one but should have), I think this should serve as a slap in the face to all who got swept up in his charisma during the campaign.
Ah well. As ridiculous, depressing, and destructive as Obama's admin is, it's still better than the Republicans in power doing even more damage. It's a pity the US is such a plutocracy.
Posts: 5614 | Location: Aotearoa (New Zealand) | Registered: 09-22-02
But a white plutocrat wouldn't have been given this "award" after having achieved absolutely nothing, would he? And this ridiculous black egotist wouldn't have the decency to turn it down, would he?
"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."
Posts: 1372 | Location: England | Registered: 07-14-02
Originally posted by afenton: But a white plutocrat wouldn't have been given this "award" after having achieved absolutely nothing, would he? And this ridiculous black egotist wouldn't have the decency to turn it down, would he?
IMO, that comment borders on blatant racism. Correct me if I am wrong.
I thought this discussion was more about the insane decision of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, not about Obama. Why should he deny an honour bestowed upon him? Obama is at present the country head and as such any honour he denounces is akin to the country denouncing the honour. I dont think that would be a very good idea if not for anything else, but at the very least for diplomatic reasons.
We have to wait and watch, whether he really stands true to what's bestowed upon him.
Meanwhile here's some more past trivia on the Nobel Peace Prize...
Mother Teresa refused to attend a Nobel Dinner in 1979, saying the money would be better spent on the poor. The banquet was cancelled that year.
North Vietnamese Le duc Tho, jointly awarded the 1973 prize prize with Henry Kissinger, turned down the award because his country was still at war.
Past Nobel Peace Prize nominations have included Adolf Hitler who was nominated once in 1939 by a Swedish member of parliament. But the nomination was withdrawn by a letter Feb 1, 1939.
Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1945 and 1948 for his efforts to end World War II.
Hitler banned Germans from accepting Nobels after the 1935 award went to pacifist anti-nazi writer Carl Von Ossietzky. Three German scientists lost their prizes in the late 1930's due to this ban.
I congratulate President Obama on receiving this prestigious award. I join my fellow Americans in expressing pride in our president on this John McCain.
*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~* ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 5738 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
As usual, you're wrong. It's difficult to see how you could be wrong about a single comment, but if anyone could be, it would be you.
And then you go from... "I agree. The Nobel committee has made a mockery of their own award."
To... "Why should he deny an honour bestowed upon him?"
Therefore... what the hell are you saying? It's a mockery, but Obama should accept this award, despite it being a mockery, because to not do would offend the sensibilities of some decrepit Norwegian-based mockery-makers? And I'm a racist? Two weeks into a presidency and he was nominated for this (mock) award. He will certainly have been informed well in advance - he was not woken up at 6am to be informed that he'd won, and that was the first he knew of it. I don't give a toss what these interfering old goats say they gave it to him for, the truth is obvious to anyone. Well, perhaps not you, but certainly the rest of us. Only an egotist would have the absolute balls to agree that two weeks as president, and not a bloody tap to show for the time spent, warranted this... thing. And he's already played the 'racist' card, so you ain't alone. Maybe they should give him an award, too, for services to assholing to the IOC. A mighty fine way to spend his presidency, don't you agree? The world's a ****ing mess, but he can spare time to wander over to try and influence the IOC (impossible without a suitcase full of dosh). Naturally, it never occured to him not to. Still, it almost worked; the US came... oh, last. Returning to the supposed reasons for giving this tinsel to Obama. Maybe they should have given it to Hitler in 1939: For future services to not invading Poland and not bringing about a war that ended the lives of many millions. Makes sense, doesn't it?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ananya,
"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."
Posts: 1372 | Location: England | Registered: 07-14-02
This notion that O has been awarded the prize is the most nonsensical notion that I have ever read in my life.
The second most nonsensical notion was to award the same Cracker Jack’s prize to Albert Gore last year.
If I am not mistaken, not one person in this topic disagrees that O should have been awarded the prize. This is a classic example of an award that was given and not earned.
Posts: 2567 | Location: The Volunteer State | Registered: 06-25-03
Matt, seriously take a look at what you have said. You are so anti-conservative you fall under blind idealism.
Trust me when I say that this was said with the utmost respect of you because you are a normally level-headed and well spoken advocate of your ideals.
In this case, however, you are so anti-conservative you are blaming conservatives for the most liberal president we have ever had in our nations history. Period. Everything Obama is spouting has been on the left's agenda for quite some time and I would expect an intelligent person like yourself to not only understand these are liberal ideals in faltering action (not to say that all liberal ideas and thoughts do this. I have some of my own, and although I may appear more conservative, I can go either way on certain issues).
The base point of this thread, which Asa has so aptly pointed out, is that everyone agrees Obama is neither deserving of this award nor was this award granted on merit or results. But you must realize this is what Obama does. He gets results without ever having had any himself.
He won our election through smooth talk, high hopes, and promises it is unlikely he will ever deliver on. The only promise he will make good on is change. Changing our way of life to more reflect those in socialist countries. So if you are criticizing what he is doing, look at your own model (albeit I would imagine yours would be harder to analyze since you are very used to its nature- as I imagine you could say to me about my model living here in the U.S.).
Mr. Obama should have respectfully declined this award for the simple fact he has not done anything substantial to merit it. He was nominated sometime before his 11th day of presidency. This is outstandingly mind numbing. I think his credit would have risen far more among those opposed to him (albeit still unlikely very much) had he admitted he was not yet fit for such an honor. Instead he has accepted the award, like most of his philosophies that embrace double standards.
I feel he should donate, 100% the money that comes with the award (isn't it 1 million dollars?) to some charity or group that helps the unfortunate. That would make him less a hypocrite, and more a man who actually embraces the ideals that spout out of his mouth.
In Ananya's mind, Hitler and Stalin were brought up, even if subconsciously, in a thread about Mr. Obama. Only time will actually tell if this turns out to be the case. By then it might be far too late.
I can only imagine who will fall next if the Noble Prize committee is already trying to suck up to him. I can only shudder at these events.
In this circumstance, do I think McCain would have been better? Yes. Do I think he would have been even considered for this award? No. Do these retrospective questions matter? No.
There are certain vantage points from which we cannot un-bias ourselves, and these are the lofty perches from which we must resist upon ever resting. You are better than that comment Matt. I know you are.
Aeras, Obama's rhetoric is liberal, but his actions are nothing of the sort. To claim that just because he panders to a hopeful public he must be liberal despite his actions suggests to me you're the one blinded by partisanship and ideology.
Obama is introducing a nationalised medical programme that disempowers citizens and general doctors, and makes it easier for insurance companies and large medical organisations to profit. He's not suggesting anything remotely like functioning socialised medical care (something that US citizens desperately need). Obama put billions of public dollars into private hands with Government bailouts, hasn't even hinted at true regulatory reform, and he cannot hope to extract the same amount out of the public further down the track.
These are perhaps not your personal brand of Right-wing, but they're certainly no kind of Left-leaning polices. I find it hard to identify any Left-wing platitudes that Obama has actually backed with solid policy. There's no reason to expect him to follow through on his DADT stance, and even then, opening entry to the military given the way recruitment works in the States is only 'liberal' in the most demeaning sense of the word.
Obama is further to the Right than NZ's current conservative Government, and in fact further to the right that most conservative governments I know anything about. Measured on any global scale (discounting government of developing nations, etc) I severely doubt Obama's Government is 'Left'. Certainly it's not a liberal Government, neither in the Right-wing or Left-wing senses of the term.
Perhaps, at a stretch, you could make a case that pulling out of Iraq is a 'Left' policy, but really, seriously: It's more of an economic necessity.
Set aside what he's saying. What is he doing on any policy front that's 'liberal'?
Posts: 5614 | Location: Aotearoa (New Zealand) | Registered: 09-22-02
