President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
(AP) – 28 minutes ago
OSLO — President Barack Obama on Friday won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
The committee said it attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."
:eek:
Superboy
10-09-09, 05:46 AM
...well, looks like the honeymoon's still on.
SunMonkey
10-09-09, 05:51 AM
It must have been a slow year for peace.
FiveO
10-09-09, 06:21 AM
A very slow year considering the war(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq....
CharlieK
10-09-09, 06:30 AM
Oh man, talk radio is going to go ballistic with this one. I bet their froth & spittle comes right out of my speakers.
This really is pretty ridiculous. Obama after just 9 months? Completely political on the Committee's part. Shamelessly political. It strikes me as just trying to slap Bush in the face for his 8 years.
On the other hand, I bet Obama would have rather not received this while in office, let alone so very early. This really sets the bar high with him for international relations and will be a lightning rod for critics for the next 3 years, 3 months. In a way, the Committee kind of fucked him in order to push their agenda.
TallGuyMe
10-09-09, 06:35 AM
give. me. a. fucking. break.
nemein
10-09-09, 06:57 AM
Looks like the "US owes the world an apology" tour paid off for him...
TallGuyMe
10-09-09, 06:59 AM
Spreading Democracy throughout the world whether you want it or not. This will win you the Noble Peace prize. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and now Barack Obama. We have further proof the prize is the opposite of it says it is.
Chew
10-09-09, 07:18 AM
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-10-09-obama-nobel-peace-prize_N.htm
:whofart:
jfoobar
10-09-09, 07:25 AM
I don't object to the notion of Obama winning the NPP at all. If he stays on his current course and keeps making the efforts he has been trying to make, he might well prove to be someone legitimately worth consideration.
What I have to seriously question (for reasons such as what Chew highlighted) is Obama winning the prize this year. I think this is going to significantly sully the perceived legitimacy of this award, and not just in the United States.
movielib
10-09-09, 07:54 AM
When I saw the thread title I was sure it had to be a joke.
The Nobel Peace Prize hasn't had any credibility for quite a while. But, for example, we at least knew Gore's was coming.
Superman07
10-09-09, 07:58 AM
My co-worker ponited that out too Chew. Very, very odd. Does this make the the price the Emmy's of politics?
professor chaos
10-09-09, 08:04 AM
More like the Grammys (Obama has two of them).
Tracer Bullet
10-09-09, 08:14 AM
What?
Tracer Bullet
10-09-09, 08:15 AM
Seriously?
Tracer Bullet
10-09-09, 08:15 AM
No, come on. Seriously?
Tracer Bullet
10-09-09, 08:15 AM
I must be having a stroke.
antennaball
10-09-09, 08:18 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize has officially jumped the shark. Again.
OldDude
10-09-09, 08:22 AM
I think this is going to significantly sully the perceived legitimacy of this award, and not just in the United States.
Some of the previous recipients leave this award with roughly the status of a SNL skit. I think there is little room left for sullification.
That said, it is not worth getting ones' underwear in a wad.
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 08:23 AM
I agree that if he continues his appeasment of the Muslim world and furthers his apologies for America's existence over the years, you could kind of see how the committee would grant him the prize....but it does seem a bit premature.
FiveO
10-09-09, 08:23 AM
Maybe he can take the "gift" of winning and put it toward the deficit...or cash for clunkers...or the war(s)...or...well you get the idea.
QuirkyMovieGirl
10-09-09, 08:31 AM
I love Obama. I happily voted for him. I have the t-shirt and everything. But, um, my first thought is - what?
And then my second thought - it's really a "thank you for not being George Bush" Prize. And that's actually a pretty good argument for him to get one. I mean, he really isn't George Bush. So, yeah, cool. He should get one next year too.
Brian Shannon
10-09-09, 08:46 AM
He is on a roll, H1N1 next, then maybe cancer. In between he can fix health care, social security and the common cold!
mosquitobite
10-09-09, 08:47 AM
I don't object to the notion of Obama winning the NPP at all. If he stays on his current course and keeps making the efforts he has been trying to make, he might well prove to be someone legitimately worth consideration.
What I have to seriously question (for reasons such as what Chew highlighted) is Obama winning the prize this year. I think this is going to significantly sully the perceived legitimacy of this award, and not just in the United States.
Yeah, it's supposed to be about what has been accomplished not on some hopeful wishes. :rolleyes:
War in Iraq? Check. Still going on
War in Afghanistan? Check. Still going on.
So, how has he improved peace again?? :hscratch:
starman9000
10-09-09, 08:50 AM
This is going to make my office pleasant today :(
Tommy Ceez
10-09-09, 08:50 AM
It would be a fantastic move if the WH turned this down and made a statement that there is too much work to do and too early for celebration
What is the chance of that happening?
PixyJunket
10-09-09, 09:00 AM
I guess sales of Obama t-shirts, calendars and colognes were slumping and they needed to do something to release a new line of products.
Hiro11
10-09-09, 09:02 AM
This is hardly shocking, the NPP has always been a completely political award. To me it's never been particularly relevant. Al Gore? Seriously?
For decades, the Peace Prize (and Prize for literature, IMO) have been more a reflection of prevailing Swedish politics than an honest award for genuine accomplishment. Both should be abolished or at least not taken seriously.
movielib
10-09-09, 09:03 AM
I know you all think I've got one thing on my mind but I do think it may have something to do with global warming. The Copenhagen "Kyoto II" conference is December 7-18. The Nobel Peace Prize ceremony is December 10 in Oslo, a not inconvenient day trip. While I don't doubt Obama was going to Copenhagen, he has been showing signs of waffling and requiring crazy things such as China and India not getting a free emission ride. This will put pressure on Obama to sign on to some kind of agreement that gives more concessions and payoffs to developing countries than he may want to in order to "live up to" his "great honor." Plus, Al Gore will undoubtedly attend the conference and probably the ceremony. It will all be a three ring carbon circus.
B.A.
10-09-09, 09:21 AM
The AP article reads like something out of the Onion.
I love how there was an audible gasp from the audience when the committee read its decision.
suziq999
10-09-09, 09:25 AM
This must be the consolation prize for not winning the Olympic bid.
I'm sure we'll get a good acceptance speech of it anyways.
:/
Groucho
10-09-09, 09:26 AM
I'm all for this, not because Obama deserved the prize, but because it'll set all the talk radio idiots into such a tizzy. :lol:
DeputyDave
10-09-09, 09:28 AM
I'm leaving this alone, other than to say the award lost its legitimacy a long time ago.
Red Dog
10-09-09, 09:32 AM
"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said in a citation.
:lol: rotfl :lol:
I'm just sure that this won't go to Obama's head. ;)
Baron Of Hell
10-09-09, 09:32 AM
Kind of early to pick Obama. I would think someone would need to be out longer to get such a prize. However, I have no idea why some of the other winners won so this could be business as usual. Oprah with the schools she has been opening would have been a better choice. Even Jolie with her international work would have been a better choice.
I can guess the america hating republican response to this. And the response from the democrats at republicans will probably be comedy for a few weeks.
Decadance
10-09-09, 09:37 AM
Even as a democrat, I am stuck with my brow furrowed and scratching my head. Maybe he gives great reach arounds.
Dr Mabuse
10-09-09, 09:40 AM
I laughed and laughed when they announced this last night.
As Conner Rooney said: "...because it's all so fucking hysterical."
General Zod
10-09-09, 09:40 AM
You people. Didn't you remember he sat down the black professor guy and the white cop and they had a beer? Who else could have done that?
So I guess to win you just have to be a good talker - no action required.
Venusian
10-09-09, 09:41 AM
Other than Lit, we got a stake in all of them this year, right?
Go America!
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 09:51 AM
Well, Yasser Arafat won the Peace Prize in the 90's, so I think one could make a somewhat reasonable argument that awarding it to Obama is a mild improvement.
orangecrush
10-09-09, 09:51 AM
Like movielib, I thought this was a joke when I read the thread title.
wishbone
10-09-09, 10:15 AM
I can see President Obama winning this award further into his term but winning it now certainly seems odd. Hopefully as movielib noted this will not push him to acquiesce to alarmist concessions at Copenhagen.
JackBurton
10-09-09, 10:17 AM
I'll be on the lookout for mine to come in the mail, along with samples of Tide and a copy of Frampton Comes Alive!
jfoobar
10-09-09, 10:17 AM
Like movielib, I thought this was a joke when I read the thread title.
Heck, I thought it was a joke even when I clicked the "google.com/hostednews" link in the OP. I thought it must be a "url=" trick and the link would go to this (http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/Cheap-flights/2007/April/Mail-Guardian-fooled.jpg) or an Onion article.
Not their best pick
BARACK OBAMA is, I think, a really terrific politician. And people all over the world like him. A lot. Like Bill Clinton, another American president with stellar global popular ratings, he combines a bedrock dedication to improving people's lives with extraordinary political gifts and a sunny, cooperative attitude.
But the guy has only been in office for nine months. And, apart from more or less stabilising America's financial sector, he hasn't yet quite accomplished any of his major goals. He's on his way there, on health reform and climate-change legislation. But nothing has really come through yet.
True, the administration's approach to international affairs has moderately reduced tension in several areas of the globe. American relations with Russia are less fraught than they were a year ago. The push for progress on nuclear disarmament and the conciliatory move on missile defence in Eastern Europe have helped. But there's no major accomplishment there to point to yet. The move to engage Iran in a non-aggressive fashion was winning, and may have contributed to the democratic uprising there this summer. But the uprising itself was met with repression, and while America is now in a stronger diplomatic position to build a coalition against Iran, there is, again, no accomplishment to point to.
So why the Nobel peace prize?
The pick seems likely to diminish the credibility of the Nobel. The deligitimising effect is similar to that of picking Derek Jeter for MVP in a year when he didn't really do very much. More unnervingly, it seems like it could have a slight negative effect on perceptions of Mr Obama. It's silly, of course, but it seems as though the ease with which Mr Obama picked up the Nobel simply on star power may call Americans' attention to the fact that his administration hasn't yet landed any of its big fish. And there are already negative associations accruing around the attention paid to Mr Obama as a personality, rather than to his office or to America.
One suspects that the Nobel committee may have been trying to reinvigorate their own public image by choosing someone "relevant", rather than someone like Thich Quang Do, the 80-year-old Vietnamese dissident monk. Or they may have wanted to lend Mr Obama some extra mojo for his upcoming pushes on climate change in the Senate and then in Copenhagen. But one fears the effect may be the opposite, on both counts. Every Facebook response I've seen so far has been a variation on the theme of "huh?"
Maybe he can re-gift it somehow.
Geofferson
10-09-09, 10:24 AM
President Obama definitely promotes peace. I mean the guy wouldn't even harm a fly...um, err...nevermind. ;)
Venusian
10-09-09, 10:24 AM
I don't know why yall are saying it is premature. He brought us Hope! Oh, and Change. Don't forget Change!
General Zod
10-09-09, 10:28 AM
I don't know why yall are saying it is premature. He brought us Hope! Oh, and Change. Don't forget Change!
Based on what I'm hearing about proposed tax changes I think he's taking my change :(
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 10:31 AM
This whole thing really shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. Obama won the presidency not because of any record of accomplishments, but because he personifies, physically and ideologically, a utopian, left-wing, multiculturalist, climate-saving, non-violent worldview. This award, like much of his worldwide popularity, is really about people endorsing and celebrating that worldview---not the actual man.
General Zod
10-09-09, 10:35 AM
This whole thing really shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. Obama won the presidency not because of any record of accomplishments, but because he personifies, physically and ideologically, a utopian, left-wing, multiculturalist, climate-saving, non-violent worldview. This award, like much of his worldwide popularity, is really about people endorsing and celebrating that worldview---not the actual man.
Agreed. Like Al Gore in 2007.
Brent L
10-09-09, 10:41 AM
It would be a fantastic move if the WH turned this down and made a statement that there is too much work to do and too early for celebration
What is the chance of that happening?
0%
From Drudge:
SOURCE: Obama will accept award on 'behalf of Americans and America's values'... Developing...
I have no words for any of this.
Surely this is just a big Obama SNL sketch that the news media took seriously again, right?
:lol:
Save Ferris
10-09-09, 10:41 AM
can he win it again in 8 years to bookend his legacy? I can see this making a lot of sense.
I happened to turn on the TV this morning and my TiVo had tuned to BBC News for some reason and I saw the headline at the bottom of the screen "Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize" and I was sure that the BBC was running an Onion video.
Tommy Ceez
10-09-09, 10:59 AM
The Onion should report this story straight off the AP wire, just to point out the ridiculousness of it
Sean O'Hara
10-09-09, 11:03 AM
For decades, the Peace Prize (and Prize for literature, IMO) have been more a reflection of prevailing Swedish politics than an honest award for genuine accomplishment. Both should be abolished or at least not taken seriously.
Here are the last thirty literary winners. Which of them have you read, and why do you think they don't represent the best of world literature? Who do you think should have won instead?
# 2009 - Herta Müller
# 2008 - Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio
# 2007 - Doris Lessing
# 2006 - Orhan Pamuk
# 2005 - Harold Pinter
# 2004 - Elfriede Jelinek
# 2003 - J. M. Coetzee
# 2002 - Imre Kertész
# 2001 - V. S. Naipaul
# 2000 - Gao Xingjian
# 1999 - Günter Grass
# 1998 - José Saramago
# 1997 - Dario Fo
# 1996 - Wislawa Szymborska
# 1995 - Seamus Heaney
# 1994 - Kenzaburo Oe
# 1993 - Toni Morrison
# 1992 - Derek Walcott
# 1991 - Nadine Gordimer
# 1990 - Octavio Paz
# 1989 - Camilo José Cela
# 1988 - Naguib Mahfouz
# 1987 - Joseph Brodsky
# 1986 - Wole Soyinka
# 1985 - Claude Simon
# 1984 - Jaroslav Seifert
# 1983 - William Golding
# 1982 - Gabriel García Márquez
# 1981 - Elias Canetti
# 1980 - Czeslaw Milosz
# 1979 - Odysseus Elytis
I'm really interested in hearing how Golding and Naipaul reflect Swedish politics.
chuckd21
10-09-09, 11:07 AM
I'm amused by people who care about this. Like you had a finalist in the running and you can't believe they didn't get it.
mosquitobite
10-09-09, 11:08 AM
The Onion should report this story straight off the AP wire, just to point out the ridiculousness of it
rotfl that would be funny!
JasonF
10-09-09, 11:11 AM
I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that maybe (hopefully) President Obama will deserve this someday, but it's premature at this point.
But I am loving the whiny tantrums being thrown from the usual suspects. -ohbfrank-
slop101
10-09-09, 11:13 AM
It's like getting an A for effort.
I mean, if I try harder than the person that actually wins the race, will I get the gold medal instead of him?
Although, I'd say that even this "effort" is questionable.
antennaball
10-09-09, 11:14 AM
I have some expense reports to turn in later this afternoon. I'm hoping that will qualify me for the Nobel Prize for Mathematics.
Sean O'Hara
10-09-09, 11:19 AM
Here's Snopes debunking a rumor that Bush was nominated for the Peace Prize in 2001 (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp).
Despite a rumor that circulated late in 2001, President Bush President Bush wasn't amongst the nominees for the 2001 prize (which was awarded to the United Nations and its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan): The deadline for Peace Prize nominations is February 1, and Bush wasn't sworn in as president until January 20. For President Bush (or anyone else) to have produced accomplishments worthy of Nobel Prize recognition after a mere eleven days in office would have been a truly astounding feat indeed.
TheBigDave
10-09-09, 11:20 AM
I loved the headline at RedState:
"Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: He’s Becoming Jimmy Carter Faster Than Jimmy Carter Did."
General Zod
10-09-09, 11:21 AM
So Obama just said he doesn't think he deserves it but he'll accept it. Fair enough.
Sean O'Hara
10-09-09, 11:23 AM
But I am loving the whiny tantrums being thrown from the usual suspects. -ohbfrank-
I'm not seeing any tantrums, just people asking "What the hell?" If you don't think this is deserved, please complete this sentence to show us the error of our ways:
Obama won this prestigious prize for his accomplishments of __________.
Rockmjd23
10-09-09, 11:26 AM
This is worse than the Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry.
starman9000
10-09-09, 11:28 AM
I loved the headline at RedState:
"Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: He’s Becoming Jimmy Carter Faster Than Jimmy Carter Did."
:lol:
orangecrush
10-09-09, 11:40 AM
I'm not seeing any tantrums, just people asking "What the hell?" If you don't think this is deserved, please complete this sentence to show us the error of our ways:
Obama won this prestigious prize for his accomplishments of __________.Being a long legged Mack Daddy
Venusian
10-09-09, 11:41 AM
I'm not seeing any tantrums, just people asking "What the hell?" If you don't think this is deserved, please complete this sentence to show us the error of our ways:
Obama won this prestigious prize for his accomplishments of __________.
Obama won this prestigious prize for his accomplishments of Hope.
Tommy Ceez
10-09-09, 11:43 AM
Obama won this prestigious prize for his accomplishments of Hope.
Obama won this prestigious prize for his accomplishments of manufacture and distribution of Hopeium
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 11:44 AM
Actually, Obama is kind of becoming like Captain Kirk in one of those Star Trek episodes where the Enterprise crew beams down to some primitive planet, and the natives worship them as gods. Kirk eventually has to give them a speech like:
(in Shatner voice) "Look, I'm NOT A GOD!....I'm just..a MAN...like YOU.......I...breathe...and..I eat....and someday I'll DIE....just like you...you don't have...to WORSHIP me..... My people were like you....thousands of years ago...and we made many of the same mistakes....but we learned to...LIVE..... in PEACE!...and YOU....can LEARN..THAT..TOO!"
Suprmallet
10-09-09, 11:55 AM
Clearly none of you are on the Nobel nomination committee, as they were bombarded with a very successful "If you don't give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize, you are racist" marketing campaign.
This whole thing really shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. Obama won the presidency not because of any record of accomplishments, but because he personifies, physically and ideologically, a utopian, left-wing, multiculturalist, climate-saving, non-violent worldview. This award, like much of his worldwide popularity, is really about people endorsing and celebrating that worldview---not the actual man.
I see that even though Obama admitted he doesn't deserve it, it won't curtail the predictable bashfest by the usual suspects.
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 12:07 PM
I see that even though Obama admitted he doesn't deserve it, it won't curtail the predictable bashfest by the usual suspects.
Okay, if you think my analysis was so wrong and unfair, then please give us your explanation as to why Obama was rewarded with this when even he admits he didn't deserve it.
slop101
10-09-09, 12:10 PM
Good morning.
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.
After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday."
And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up."
So it's -- it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
Now, these challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.
We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.
And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons: because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children, sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities.
And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that -- the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.
I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.
These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime.
But I know these challenges can be met, so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
Thank you very much.
jfoobar
10-09-09, 12:21 PM
This is worse than the Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry.
:lol:
Of course, the Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry usually ends up being awarded posthumously. :(
kvrdave
10-09-09, 12:22 PM
I think based on what the prize has been for a very long time, he absolutely deserves it.
The Edit King
10-09-09, 12:32 PM
What next? An Honorary Academy Award for Ed Wood?
Patman
10-09-09, 12:33 PM
The NPP might be a suitable consolation prize for not getting Chicago the 2016 Olympics last week.
Mabuse
10-09-09, 12:40 PM
Slop: Is that Obama's blog?
And why do the President's kids have a three day weekend? WTF!
kvrdave
10-09-09, 12:43 PM
Slop: Is that Obama's blog?
And why do the President's kids have a three day weekend? WTF!
Columbus Day?
movielib
10-09-09, 01:09 PM
I'm amused by people who care about this. Like you had a finalist in the running and you can't believe they didn't get it.
There was certainly someone who should have gotten it in 2007.
sracer
10-09-09, 01:10 PM
I think based on what the prize has been for a very long time, he absolutely deserves it.
I agree.
JasonF
10-09-09, 01:24 PM
I think based on what the prize has been for a very long time, he absolutely deserves it.
Why do you hate Mohammed Younis?
(I do think Barack Obama made a very important contribution to peace in his handling of the financial crisis. However, that is not the basis of his prize. If it were, he would have to share the prize with Secretaries Geithner and Paulso, Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush).
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
Just sayin'.
arminius
10-09-09, 01:34 PM
Okay, if you think my analysis was so wrong and unfair, then please give us your explanation as to why Obama was rewarded with this when even he admits he didn't deserve it.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. I guess it would work as long as all other countries give up realpolitik.
Red Dog
10-09-09, 01:44 PM
Columbus Day?
Ten years from now it will be "Obama Day."
jfoobar
10-09-09, 01:44 PM
And a response to itself from The Economist:
...nor their worst pick
I AGREE with my colleague that this was not the Nobel Committee's very best-ever pick. But let me just be contrarian for its own sake. What on earth has this neophyte 48-year-old done? He has
• announced the closing of Guantánamo
• announced his intent to end the war in Iraq
• announced an end to torture
• begun dialogue with Iran, with whom people thought war was likely last year
• named a top-level negotiator for Israel-Palestine on his first day in office, gotten Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu talking; and gotten Mr Netanyahu to grudgingly say "Palestinian state"
• given the Cairo speech, still being cited as transformative in the Muslim world
• not been George Bush; less flippantly, he has restored the traditional American notion of diplomacy as a first, not a last, resort
Peace prize? I wonder who the other candidates were this year (we noted some unofficial candidates here). The question isn't necessarily whether he compares with Nelson Mandela's decades on Robben Island; the question might as well be whether he had a bigger impact than Wangari Maathai.
There are multiple axes of controversy; is it right to award a peace prize for ecology? You can argue yes, and I wouldn't tell you you're crazy, but others might. What about awarding a peace prize to someone who has just recently been waging a bloody mess of a war and reluctantly decided to stop, sort of? Step forward for your medals, Mr Kissinger and Mr Arafat. Did Mother Teresa actually aid peace? India fought three wars (two with Pakistan, one with China) during her time in Calcutta; we should probably create a prize for philanthropy and poverty relief. What about a young person who has gathered a lot of attention, but hasn't reached the peak of his achievements yet? The 35-year-old Martin Luther King's biggest achievements were still ahead of him (the Voting Rights Act being the cornerstone) when he won it, though this is in no way to say Mr Obama has done what Mr King did.
The point is that literally every winner will be either controversial or forgettable, and my colleague is right that the Nobel committee decided to go for a bit of controversy this time. There's a case for the forgotten man, too. Probably the best recent peace prize winner is Martti Ahtisaari, the Finnish ex-president who was everyone's go-to peace negotiator for a long time. He worked for peace, and achieved some, and he never did evil, either. Martti who?
This award will no doubt feed the conservative crazies. I am tired of saying that something is wrong because it feeds the crazies. Let's not forget: they're crazy, and they shouldn't be setting our agenda. Let people of good sense and good will on both sides debate this with some calm.
It's weird and unorthodox and I'm very surprised. Like I said, I'd oppose it if I could look at the list and think of someone better who hadn't been chosen already. I guess we'll find out who the other finalists are, and America's conservatives will discover their undying love for the Norwegian diplomats who worked tirelessly on Sri Lanka negotiations for a decade. Or whatever. At least "Meet The Press" should be fun this weekend.
Nicely done, actually.
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 01:51 PM
"I guess we'll find out who the other finalists are, and America's conservatives will discover their undying love for the Norwegian diplomats who worked tirelessly on Sri Lanka negotiations for a decade."
Okay, that was a pretty good line. :lol:
Numanoid
10-09-09, 02:09 PM
Has anyone tried to slight the award by demeaning its value yet?
Numanoid
10-09-09, 02:10 PM
Obama won the presidency not because of any record of accomplishments, but because he personifies, physically and ideologically, a utopian, left-wing, multiculturalist, climate-saving, non-violent worldview. What a horrible world that would be.
Brack
10-09-09, 02:15 PM
I love all the hate from folks who couldn't care less about peace.
Suprmallet
10-09-09, 02:22 PM
I can't tell if you're joking or not, but I don't think anyone here is against peace (except kvrdave, who has declared perpetual war on dogs, horses, and hippies). Just the way this particular prize was handled.
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 02:26 PM
What a horrible world that would be.
When that utopian society doesn't rise organically from individuals from the ground up, but is instead foisted upon people from above, the results will usually be horrific--particularly when many of the stated values are mutually contradictory. For example, Multiculturalism and universal human rights.
Brack
10-09-09, 02:26 PM
I didn't say against peace, I said couldn't care less. There's a difference.
Suprmallet
10-09-09, 02:30 PM
Once again, I think the issue here isn't peace, but about the way this particular prize was handled. The thread is about the prize, not peace.
Brack
10-09-09, 02:32 PM
That may be so, but that doesn't change my statement in the slightest.
WallyOPD
10-09-09, 02:34 PM
When that utopian society doesn't rise organically from individuals from the ground up, but is instead foisted upon people from above, the results will usually be horrific--particularly when many of the stated values are mutually contradictory. For example, Multiculturalism and universal human rights.
In a representative democracy isn't voting the way to organically change society from the ground up? Also I don't see how multiculturalism and universal human rights are mutually contradictory.
Sean O'Hara
10-09-09, 02:39 PM
Has anyone tried to slight the award by demeaning its value yet?
No one's thought that necessary since Arafat won.
Sean O'Hara
10-09-09, 02:40 PM
That may be so, but that doesn't change my statement in the slightest.
What do you think Obama's accomplished to merit this prize?
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 02:45 PM
Also I don't see how multiculturalism and universal human rights are mutually contradictory.
If you believe in universal human rights, then you would have to objectively conclude, based on evidence from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and every other source, that in every one of the 56 Islamic countries you have more repression of women, of gays, of artists, of religious minorities, of intellectuals and academics. This is endemic in Muslim culture, and is supported by Islamic texts, and by the interpretation of Islamic texts by scholars and clerics throughout the history of Islam. There is a demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable difference in the treatment and rights of these groups in the liberal West.
If you believe in Multiculturalism, you believe that every culture is to be treated equally and not discriminated against, that all should be equally respected, and that it's xenophobic and intolerant to make any judgements to the contrary.
I don't see how one can simultaneously hold both of these philosophies.
cpgator
10-09-09, 02:47 PM
That may be so, but that doesn't change my statement in the slightest.
So who couldn't care less about peace? I thought most people liked peace.
kvrdave
10-09-09, 02:48 PM
I can't tell if you're joking or not, but I don't think anyone here is against peace (except kvrdave, who has declared perpetual war on dogs, horses, and hippies). Just the way this particular prize was handled.
I have a well known anti-earth position as well.
eXcentris
10-09-09, 02:49 PM
What a horrible world that would be.
That world would make Ky-fi's head explode and we would lose one of our most esteemed members. ;)
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 02:52 PM
In a representative democracy isn't voting the way to organically change society from the ground up?
This is a trickier question, which I can't answer conclusively. Should we have allowed the South to secede and have slaves, since that's what was democratically decided by the population of the Southern states? Should federal troops have not been sent in in the 60's to integrate schools, because it was against the wishes of the majority of the local population? Does Hitler or Hamas deserve recognition of legitimacy just because they won an election? While I think democracy is generally the best option, I can't quite say that I universally would accept the decisions reached by a simple majority democratic vote. So, I can't answer this one very well.
kvrdave
10-09-09, 02:55 PM
That world would make Ky-fi's head explode and we would lose one of our most esteemed members. ;)
Hey Canada Dude, our president won the Nobel Peace Prize and yours didn't. We are more interested in Peace than Canadians.
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 02:58 PM
That world would make Ky-fi's head explode and we would lose one of our most esteemed members. ;)
Au contraire---I'd love to live in that world. I'm just a bit dubious that the guys in the driver's seat would get to that destination with the car and passengers intact. :)
eXcentris
10-09-09, 02:59 PM
Hey Canada Dude, our president won the Nobel Peace Prize and yours didn't. We are more interested in Peace than Canadians.
Hardly a surprise since we don't have a president. :)
WallyOPD
10-09-09, 03:01 PM
If you believe in universal human rights, then you would have to objectively conclude, based on evidence from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and every other source, that in every one of the 56 Islamic countries you have more repression of women, of gays, of artists, of religious minorities, of intellectuals and academics. This is endemic in Muslim culture, and is supported by Islamic texts, and by the interpretation of Islamic texts by scholars and clerics throughout the history of Islam. There is a demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable difference in the treatment and rights of these groups in the liberal West.
If you believe in Multiculturalism, you believe that every culture is to be treated equally and not discriminated against, that all should be equally respected, and that it's xenophobic and intolerant to make any judgements to the contrary.
I don't see how one can simultaneously hold both of these philosophies.
Easy, doublethink.
I don't think Multiculturalism needs to be as hard-line as you make it out to be. It's possible to embrace the philosophy while still believing there is a certain fundamental standard that needs to be met. I firmly believe in freedom of speech but that doesn't mean I have to extend it to yelling fire in a theater.
Tracer Bullet
10-09-09, 03:05 PM
Okay, I've thought about this some more.
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? No, not really.
Does this hurt the country in any way? No, not really. In fact, hey, our head of state won the Peace Prize. Awesome! America, fuck yeah!
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 03:05 PM
. I firmly believe in freedom of speech but that doesn't mean I have to extend it to yelling fire in a theater.
Well sir, you may suddenly find yourself getting rather warm if the theater actually IS on fire. -wink-
Venusian
10-09-09, 03:16 PM
Okay, I've thought about this some more.
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? No, not really.
Does this hurt the country in any way? No, not really. In fact, hey, our head of state won the Peace Prize. Awesome! America, fuck yeah!
Umm...http://forum.dvdtalk.com/9761901-post39.html
Mabuse
10-09-09, 03:24 PM
Okay, I've thought about this some more.
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? No, not really.
Does this hurt the country in any way? No, not really. In fact, hey, our head of state won the Peace Prize. Awesome! America, fuck yeah!
Good point. In a way it's so "typically American". We walk away the winner without even trying. People hand us shit because we're the greatest nation on earth. There's probably some "Mother Theresa" type out there in the world giving everything of herself as we speak, well bitch, you can take the back seat, because America won the prize and we're going to wipe our mouths with the table cloth when we get up to accept the award.
Brack
10-09-09, 03:27 PM
What do you think Obama's accomplished to merit this prize?
Think nuclear disarmament. Think engagement with Iran, North Korea and Cuba. The rest of the world felt bullied for the last eight years, scared to go against the U.S. or get on our bad side. So from their perspective Obama's election is the single biggest development toward world peace in the past 12 months.
exm
10-09-09, 03:27 PM
No one's thought that necessary since Arafat won.
My thoughts exactly. When I read the news this morning at first I thought it is April's Fool day. But wait... It's October.
I love this part of this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500)
"Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress"
And then Obama wins? What's next? The Twins will win the WS? :D
Mabuse
10-09-09, 03:29 PM
Easy, doublethink.
I don't think Multiculturalism needs to be as hard-line as you make it out to be. It's possible to embrace the philosophy while still believing there is a certain fundamental standard that needs to be met. I firmly believe in freedom of speech but that doesn't mean I have to extend it to yelling fire in a theater. I doubt you need it pointed out to you, but there are a lot of politicians and media figures, particularly in europe, who do feel that the repression and discrimination against minorities (particularly gays and women) by Muslims should be tollerated in the name multiculturalism.
Mabuse
10-09-09, 03:31 PM
a former army Medic and mountaineer
Sounds like a fascist, he never had a chance.
kvrdave
10-09-09, 03:34 PM
Hardly a surprise since we don't have a president. :)
:lol: you guys don't even have a president? What about Bob McKenzie?
<img src=http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/sbr_001DaveThomas.jpg>
WallyOPD
10-09-09, 03:39 PM
I doubt you need it pointed out to you, but there are a lot of politicians and media figures, particularly in europe, who do feel that the repression and discrimination against minorities (particularly gays and women) by Muslims should be tollerated in the name multiculturalism.
The fact that the implementation of an idea is flawed does not necessarily mean that the idea itself is flawed.
Venusian
10-09-09, 03:48 PM
Easy, doublethink.
I don't think Multiculturalism needs to be as hard-line as you make it out to be. It's possible to embrace the philosophy while still believing there is a certain fundamental standard that needs to be met. I firmly believe in freedom of speech but that doesn't mean I have to extend it to yelling fire in a theater.
Who decides that fundamental standard? Treating all people equally may seem like a good standard to Americans, but it might not to Arabs. To them it may be more important that religions aren't defamed.
RoyalTea
10-09-09, 03:56 PM
Think nuclear disarmament. Think engagement with Iran, North Korea and Cuba. The rest of the world felt bullied for the last eight years, scared to go against the U.S. or get on our bad side. So from their perspective Obama's election is the single biggest development toward world peace in the past 12 months.
all in his first eleven days in office, too.
Brack
10-09-09, 03:59 PM
all in his first eleven days in office, too.
Notice the last sentence, because you missed it the first time.
So from their perspective Obama's election is the single biggest development toward world peace in the past 12 months.
JasonF
10-09-09, 04:04 PM
If you believe in universal human rights, then you would have to objectively conclude, based on evidence from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and every other source, that in every one of the 56 Islamic countries you have more repression of women, of gays, of artists, of religious minorities, of intellectuals and academics. This is endemic in Muslim culture, and is supported by Islamic texts, and by the interpretation of Islamic texts by scholars and clerics throughout the history of Islam. There is a demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable difference in the treatment and rights of these groups in the liberal West.
If you believe in Multiculturalism, you believe that every culture is to be treated equally and not discriminated against, that all should be equally respected, and that it's xenophobic and intolerant to make any judgements to the contrary.
I don't see how one can simultaneously hold both of these philosophies.
That's probably because you don't understand multiculturalism.
JasonF
10-09-09, 04:06 PM
Okay, I've thought about this some more.
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? No, not really.
Does this hurt the country in any way? No, not really. In fact, hey, our head of state won the Peace Prize. Awesome! America, fuck yeah!
You would think "America, fuck yeah!" would be a sentiment we could all get behind, but apparently, some prefer "America, fuck you!" if any glory for America might reflect on the Democratic Party. ;)
Ky-Fi
10-09-09, 04:07 PM
That's probably because you don't understand multiculturalism.
Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.
Recognizing that there is a place in the world for mainstream U.S. culture and a place in the world for Muslim culture (however you want to define it) does not mean that the U.S. culture must accept all aspects of Muslim culture.
Recognizing that there is a place in the world for mainstream U.S. culture and a place in the world for Muslim culture (however you want to define it) does not mean that the U.S. culture must accept all aspects of Muslim culture.
As the definition said, it generally refers to "within a society", not international relations. And once the mainstream society abdicates its claim on superiority within that society, you move on to cultural relativism and/or parallel societies with different value systems, just as you're seeing throughout Europe.
I don't want to hijack this thread with my pet subject though---I'd be happy to continue in the "Islam..." thread if anyone wants to.
RoyalTea
10-09-09, 04:36 PM
Notice the last sentence, because you missed it the first time.
so he won for HOPE and CHANGE. gotcha.
Hiro11
10-09-09, 04:44 PM
Well, allow me to retort (in italics)
Per The Economist:
• announced the closing of Guantánamo- which is much easier to do now that we have gained other intelligence sources and exhausted the usefulness of the people in Gitmo. Aslo, I might add, this is yet to actually happen.
• announced his intent to end the war in Iraq- which is much easier to do now that things have stabilized in large part thanks to the surge. Also, I might add, this is yet to actually happen
• announced an end to torture- I'll play devil's advocate and just concede that what happened in Gitmo was "torture" (please...). It's pretty easy to be the "good guy" and ban "torture" when planes aren't being blown up. What happens when (God forbid) another 9/11 (times 1000) happens, you've got KSM in custody and you have no idea where the next threat is coming from? Also, what specifically does "banning torture" mean, we waterboarded a grand total of three extremely "high value" and dangerous men. It's not as if this was a daily occurance.
• begun dialogue with Iran, with whom people thought war was likely last year - what does "engage" actually mean? What has actually been accomplished? It's easy to say "we're talking to Iran" another thing entirely to make genuine progress. Recent history has shown that Iran only responds to hardball. Take for example the debacle over the revelation over the Qom nuclear facility. (Sidenote: The WSJ pointed out that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (authored by critics of Bush) said that Iran had given up their nuclear weapons program in the late ninties. That has been proven to be patently false and it's been shown that the US intelligence community in fact has known it was false for years. What a bunch of bullshit.)
• named a top-level negotiator for Israel-Palestine on his first day in office, gotten Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu talking; and gotten Mr Netanyahu to grudgingly say "Palestinian state"- Yet again, so what? Nothing, and I mean nothing has been accomplished here. Isreal is still building settlements, Hammas is still in charge. Also, it's disingenuous to say that Bush did nothing on this front.
• given the Cairo speech, still being cited as transformative in the Muslim world - oh c'mon. He made an effing speech to a bunch of rich elites at a Cairo university and that makes him worthy of the NPP? First of all, it wasn't that great a speech. Secondly, does it really need to be pointed out that speech =/= action? Thirdly, according to the response from the "Muslim World" (if you can really make a monolith out of that diversity) to his winning the NPP, nothing from their viewpoint haas changed.
• not been George Bush; less flippantly, - finally, some honesty from The Economist he has restored the traditional American notion of diplomacy as a first, not a last, resort- this is a blatantly political statement, making it clear that the author is aware that this was a political decision by the Nobel Committee
That's some really biased journalism, if you ask me. I used to really like The Economist, but IMO, they basically lost their mind over Bush and have been going deeper and deeper into a Euro-left rabbit hole in the past couple of years. In another year or so, they'll be indistinguishable from The Guardian...
Brack
10-09-09, 04:51 PM
so he won for HOPE and CHANGE. gotcha.
the Nobel Committee gave their reasons. and that was just the nomination date, not when final votes were tallied.
Nausicaa
10-09-09, 05:00 PM
This is a disaster! Obama needs to invade a Muslim country and kill some brown people to regain his credibility.
Groucho
10-09-09, 05:16 PM
Here's an email I just got from Obama about it (I'm on his mailing list):
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
marty888
10-09-09, 05:18 PM
I would suspect that giving Obama this award is not only about Obama, but a way for the European community to give a final poke in the eye to George W.Bush.
kvrdave
10-09-09, 05:27 PM
Notice the last sentence, because you missed it the first time.
:lol: That is what made it even stupider. They obviously bought into the whole "HOPE" thing.
movielib
10-09-09, 05:27 PM
I know you all think I've got one thing on my mind but I do think it may have something to do with global warming. The Copenhagen "Kyoto II" conference is December 7-18. The Nobel Peace Prize ceremony is December 10 in Oslo, a not inconvenient day trip. While I don't doubt Obama was going to Copenhagen, he has been showing signs of waffling and requiring crazy things such as China and India not getting a free emission ride. This will put pressure on Obama to sign on to some kind of agreement that gives more concessions and payoffs to developing countries than he may want to in order to "live up to" his "great honor." Plus, Al Gore will undoubtedly attend the conference and probably the ceremony. It will all be a three ring carbon circus.
Greenpeace wants Obama to get that message.
Greenpeace: Nobel should motivate Obama on climate change
By Eric Zimmermann - 10/09/09 12:10 PM ET
Receiving the Nobel peace prize should motivate President Obama to get tougher on climate change, the environmental activist group Greenpeace said today.
The Nobel committee specifically cited Obama's committed to fighting global warming as a reason for the award, and the president himself pledged this morning to keep working on the issue.
But Greenpeace says Obama has not yet done nearly enough.
"We hope that the award of the Nobel Peace prize to President Barack Obama will give him the courage of his convictions on climate change," said Gerd Leipold, Greenpeace International Executive Director. "If allowed to go unchecked, climate change will wreak havoc on our societies - spurring mass migration, mass starvation and mass extinction. It will spark conflicts worldwide."
Unlike several other environmental organizations, Greenpeace voiceferously opposed the major climate bill passed by the House this summer, accusing Democrats of watering down the legislation to please corporate interests.
The group is also urging the U.S. to embrace bold action when nations gather in Copenhagen this winter for a climate change summit. Leipold said the U.S. has so far been obstructing international negotiations.
"If President Obama is to be a true Nobel Peace Laureate he must reverse the United States current blocking role in the climate negotiations to secure a fair, ambitious and binding deal for the climate this December," Leipold said.
Recognizing that there is a place in the world for mainstream U.S. culture and a place in the world for Muslim culture (however you want to define it) does not mean that the U.S. culture must accept all aspects of Muslim culture.
Have you ever taken one of those classes?
creekdipper
10-09-09, 06:37 PM
Whether the President deserves the award is open for debate, but just being nominated is a dubious honor.
Consider that Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the prize the year Al Gore won.
I'm just bummed after seeing the post listing the literary winners in the past & realizing that Harold Robbins & Don Pendleton have been passed over again.
Incidentally, does one have to be living to be nominated (or win), or can the award be given posthumously?
BKenn01
10-09-09, 06:48 PM
Here's an email I just got from Obama about it (I'm on his mailing list):
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
Gee, another thing I can agree with him on. Between this and him calling West a Jack Ass, we are on a roll......................
The Cow
10-09-09, 06:49 PM
Here's an email I just got from Obama about it (I'm on his mailing list):
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
He was clearly referring to Optimus Prime.
crazyronin
10-09-09, 07:07 PM
Sigh. Just when you think that the Dritt panne in Oslo can't make the Peace Prize more meaningless...
Dear Nobel Commitee:
Jeg spretta sřstra di mens den tilbakestĺende faren din sto bak og fumlet med ballene mine.
kvrdave
10-09-09, 07:31 PM
I should get my 3 year old nominated next year based on what I believe he will accomplish.
wm lopez
10-09-09, 07:33 PM
You would think "America, fuck yeah!" would be a sentiment we could all get behind, but apparently, some prefer "America, fuck you!" if any glory for America might reflect on the Democratic Party. ;) No, it's more kinda another award that was given because of politics not what one has done. Just think of some of those sports HALL OF FAMERS or those OSCAR winners who didn't deserve it.
Baron Of Hell
10-09-09, 07:41 PM
I would suspect that giving Obama this award is not only about Obama, but a way for the European community to give a final poke in the eye to George W.Bush.
Isn't the prize given by Norwegians.
X
10-09-09, 07:43 PM
I should get my 3 year old nominated next year based on what I believe he will accomplish.Screw the Nobel, get him an Oscar® for the movie he might write or direct with that imagination of his.
CaptainMarvel
10-09-09, 09:03 PM
Screw the Nobel, get him an Oscar® for the movie he might write or direct with that imagination of his.
You guys are thinking too linearly. I'm going to write a book in 2010, which I assume will earn me a Nobel Prize in 2011 for the profound shift in international diplomacy the book is bound to cause in 2012, so I might as well go ahead and solicit the book tomorrow as "By the Nobel Prize winning author..."
TheBigDave
10-09-09, 09:24 PM
Good stuff from IOwnTheWorld:
The Onion Folds
In a brief statement, the principles of the news parody outlet, THE ONION, announced that it will ending it’s long run. “We simply cannot top the announcement of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Writer, Lars Heinman, said, “good luck future comedy writers, I for one, seem to have been permanently cut off at the knees.” Another member of the staff, Bob House, threw a water bottle into a wall and screamed, “way to go, Oslo!” Stig Frieman, senior writer, sat in his chair, rocking back and forth and muttering, “nothing seems ironic, nothing seems funny.” He was finally led away cloaked in a large fluffy robe.
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=7796
On the bright side, this hilarious announcement has been a boon for photochoppers:
I am a big supporter of Obama, more specifically, what Obama wants to be. I understand the logic behind giving him the award, though I, too, think this is a bit premature. His role in rehabilitating the American image internationally cannot be understated. Whether his domestic record is successful so far or not is really not a factor here. His reconnecting with the international community and efforts to stem unilateral decision making are apparent. That is why they gave him the award. The fact that the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world is listening to people outside of his office and is willing to engage in diplomacy is a HUGE improvement in the international community's eyes, despite his lack of results so far.
CRM114
10-09-09, 10:04 PM
I would suspect that giving Obama this award is not only about Obama, but a way for the European community to give a final poke in the eye to George W.Bush.
Yeah, that's it. :lol:
CRM114
10-09-09, 10:08 PM
I am a big supporter of Obama, more specifically, what Obama wants to be. I understand the logic behind giving him the award, though I, too, think this is a bit premature. His role in rehabilitating the American image internationally cannot be understated. Whether his domestic record is successful so far or not is really not a factor hear. His reconnecting with the international community and efforts to stem unilateral decision making are apparent. That is why they gave him the award. The fact that the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world is listening to people outside of his office and is willing to engage in diplomacy is a HUGE improvement in the international community's eyes, despite his lack of results so far.
Sure. But "Peace" and still being in Iraq and being on the verge of escalating the Afghan war with 40,000 more troops doesn't do it for me.
Where is the anti-war left these days?Strangely, Code Pink doesn't think war is so bad right now. I wonder what changed?
'Code Pink' rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout
In Afghanistan, the US women's activist group finds that their Afghan counterparts want US troop presence – as well as more reconstruction.
Kabul, Afghanistan - When Medea Benjamin stood up in a Kabul meeting hall this weekend to ask Masooda Jalal if she would prefer more international troops or more development funds, the cofounder of US antiwar group Code Pink was hoping her fellow activist would support her call for US troop withdrawal.
She was disappointed.
Ms. Jalhal, the former Afghan minister of women, bluntly told her both were needed. "It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources," she answered. "Coming together they will help with better reconstruction."
Rethinking their position
Code Pink, founded in 2002 to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, is one of the more high-profile women's antiwar groups being forced to rethink its position as Afghan women explain theirs: Without international troops, they say, armed groups could return with a vengeance – and that would leave women most vulnerable.
Though Afghans have their grievances against the international troops' presence, chief among them civilian casualties, many fear an abrupt departure would create a dangerous security vacuum to be filled by predatory and rapacious militias. Many women, primary victims of such groups in the past, are adamant that international troops stay until a sufficient number of local forces are trained and the rule of law established. (Read more about Afghan women's concerns here.)
During their weeklong visit here, in which they met with government officials, politicians, ministers, women activists, and civil society groups, the small team of Code Pink members had hoped to gather evidence to bolster their call for US troop withdrawal within two years, and capitalize on growing anxiety back home about the war.
While the group hasn't dropped its call for a pullout, the visit convinced them that setting a deadline isn't in Afghanistan's interests, say Ms. Benjamin and fellow cofounder Jodie Evans.
"We would leave with the same parameters of an exit strategy but we might perhaps be more flexible about a timeline," says Benjamin. "That's where we have opened ourselves, being here, to some other possibilities. We have been feeling a sense of fear of the people of the return of the Taliban. So many people are saying that, 'If the US troops left the country, would collapse. We'd go into civil war.' A palpable sense of fear that is making us start to reconsider that."
Code Pink says it will continue to oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan – a move facing heated debate in Washington – and advocate for more funding for aid and humanitarian projects instead.
The group's visit coincided with a "peace trialogue" organized last week by the Delhi Policy Group that brought together women of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Some participants of the meeting, who have traditionally seen demilitarization as a key to peacebuilding, also faced strong opposition from local activists when they tried to include demilitarization in a statement published at the end of the gathering.
"In the current situation of terrorism, we cannot say troops should be withdrawn," Shinkai Karokhail, an Afghan member of Parliament and woman activist, told them. "International troop presence here is a guarantee for my safety."
Nobel prize for the guy who is currently conducting 2 wars and is in charge of Guantanamo Bay
:lol:
CRM114
10-10-09, 12:30 AM
Where is the anti-war left these days?
:wave:
kvrdave
10-10-09, 01:51 AM
I am a big supporter of Obama, more specifically, what Obama wants to be. I understand the logic behind giving him the award, though I, too, think this is a bit premature. His role in rehabilitating the American image internationally cannot be understated. Whether his domestic record is successful so far or not is really not a factor hear. His reconnecting with the international community and efforts to stem unilateral decision making are apparent. That is why they gave him the award. The fact that the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world is listening to people outside of his office and is willing to engage in diplomacy is a HUGE improvement in the international community's eyes, despite his lack of results so far.
That would be fine if this were the potential peace prize. George Bush should have received it for all our/the money he spent in Africa on AIDS. Most people forget that because Kanye told them that Bush doesn't care about Black people.
The international community rarely has our best interest at heart. They want us to give more to their ideals. They want us to be their bitches. Obama will appease them more than others. That will not bring peace, just false friends and other nations doing what they want without worrying about consquences.
Get ready for those who don't think he deserved the prize based on his two weeks in office to be labeled racists.
But your last point is dead on. For most liberals, it is never about results. It's about intentions and appearances.
JasonF
10-10-09, 02:47 AM
Most people forget that because Kanye told them that Bush doesn't care about Black people.
Given Kanye's popularity (or lack thereof), Kanye's assinine statement was probably the biggest boost to President Bush's popularity during his second term. ;)
The international community rarely has our best interest at heart. They want us to give more to their ideals. They want us to be their bitches. Obama will appease them more than others. That will not bring peace, just false friends and other nations doing what they want without worrying about consquences.
This sounds like a paranoid rant.
Who exactly is in the "international community" and what will Obama do to appease them?
Get ready for those who don't think he deserved the prize based on his two weeks in office to be labeled racists.
"I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news." -- Erick Erickson, Redstate.com
(I don't consider most people who think he didn't deserve the prize to be racists.)
But your last point is dead on. For most liberals, it is never about results. It's about intentions and appearances.
Well, not all results can be as stellar as the ones produced by the previous administration. ;)
(Liberals care about results. They think liberal programs lead to better results than conservative programs. Can't we assume -- in the absence of contrary evidence -- that those we disagree with politically are acting in good faith?)
Hank Ringworm
10-10-09, 05:21 AM
What a fucking joke. (As to the original headline.)
RoyalTea
10-10-09, 08:36 AM
Get ready for those who don't think he deserved the prize based on his two weeks in office to be labeled racists.
i've already seen it
The international community rarely has our best interest at heart. They want us to give more to their ideals. They want us to be their bitches. Obama will appease them more than others. That will not bring peace, just false friends and other nations doing what they want without worrying about consquences......
But your last point is dead on. For most liberals, it is never about results. It's about intentions and appearances.
I wouldn't say they all want us to be their bitches, in that with a lot of our democratic allies, at least, we share similar cultural values and aspirations for what we'd like the world to look like. (And even then, there's still a lot of jockeying for power) But your general point is certainly correct in that most nations are looking out for their own interests and the propogation of their own worldview, and in many cases those countries actually face an existential threat from the preeminence of the US. That's why the United Nations is such a farce. If it were just composed of North America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, India and a few others, it might make sense. But when you throw in a bunch of communist countries, police states, military dictatorships, theocracies, banana republices, etc., obviously a lot of the countries are going to be working for diametrically different goals.
But sometimes comedy is the best medium to illustrate a point, and I think this one does it quite well :lol:
Area Liberal Worried His Asian Dry Cleaner Doesn't Like Him
December 5, 2001 | Issue 37•44
SAN FRANCISCO—Despite his open-mindedness and deep commitment to multiculturalism, Steve Bern, 32, expressed fear Monday that Rei Luo, the Chinese woman who does his dry cleaning, does not like him.
"Whenever I come into [Luo's Laundry & Cleaners], I'm always very friendly," Bern said. "I say hello and ask her how she's doing, but she never reciprocates. She just smiles and hands me my receipt. I hope I haven't done anything to offend her."
"Maybe she's mad about my tags," Bern said. "A lot of my stuff says 'Made In China' or 'Made In Hong Kong,' and I know that a lot of those places run sweatshops. I'd feel awful if she thought I was supporting the exploitation of her people."
Bern, a features editor at the alternative weekly Bay Area Free Press, has been familiar with Rei since March 1998, when he started taking his laundry to her store on Visidero Street. Though there is another dry cleaner closer to his apartment, Bern wanted to patronize a minority-owned establishment.
"I like to interact with and support people of other cultures," Bern said. "This country is a tapestry of many different beliefs and backgrounds, so I try to foster that by spreading my business around to everyone, not just Caucasians like myself. I always tell Rei how much I admire the way an immigrant like her could rise from poverty to run her own store, but she never really gives me much of a response."
Despite his best efforts, Bern has been unable to transform his relationship with Rei into something approaching a friendship, or even a mild acquaintanceship.
"I found out that Rei came of age in a remote mountain village during the height of the Cultural Revolution, so I'd been fascinated to hear her stories," Bern said. "A few months ago, while she was pulling a 50-pound box of soap off a high shelf, I asked what it was like to grow up under Chairman Mao and the Great Leap Forward. She just stopped and muttered something to herself in Chinese, then went back to work. I'm starting to think maybe I was a little too forward."
When he returned to pick up his clothes, Bern perceived a possible change in the quality of service he received.
"I brought Rei a pair of gabardine pants with a salsa stain on the left leg," Bern said. "But when I got the pants back, the stain was still kind of there. It was faint, but if you held it up to a bright light, you could see it. I wonder if maybe not getting rid of the stain was her way of telling a white, middle-class oppressor like myself to mind my own business."
Undeterred, Bern decided that the best way to get on Rei's good side would be to learn more about her culture.
"I got a few short phrases from an Internet site about Chinese to help break the ice," Bern said. "The next time I saw her, I said 'Hello' and 'Have a nice day' in her native Mandarin. But she didn't even look up from the stack of dresses she was steam-ironing. Maybe she didn't hear me. That machine is pretty loud."
To improve relations, Bern has refrained from complaining about his dry cleaning.
"There was this gray wool sweater I brought in a few weeks ago that I never got back," Bern said. "I didn't want Rei to think I was dissatisfied, so I never brought it up. Losing a sweater is a small price to pay compared to the struggles she must go through daily as a Chinese-American."
Even though Bern firmly supports Rei's right to befriend whomever she chooses, he admitted to being disappointed by her snubs.
"I know that, culturally speaking, the Chinese tend to be low-key and not overtly demonstrative, but it would mean a lot to me if she occasionally took a break from scurrying around the shop's backroom to give me the occasional smile," Bern said. "Is that too much to ask? Well, maybe it is. After all, how can I judge someone if I've never walked in her shoes?"
When asked her opinion of Bern, Rei was unable to recall who he was. She then shooed reporters out the door, saying, "I too busy, too busy."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28011
Dr Mabuse
10-10-09, 09:46 AM
:lol:
arminius
10-10-09, 09:59 AM
but it would mean a lot to me if she occasionally took a break from scurrying around the shop's backroom to give me the occasional smile," Bern said. "Is that too much to ask? Well, maybe it is. After all, how can I judge someone if I've never walked in her shoes?"
When asked her opinion of Bern, Rei was unable to recall who he was. She then shooed reporters out the door, saying, "I too busy, too busy."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28011
Scurrying, well he is right about one thing. He is a racist.
Sean O'Hara
10-10-09, 10:51 AM
Think nuclear disarmament.
Okay. I'm thinking about it. What has Obama done on the subject?
Are you sure you aren't confusing him with Christopher Reeve in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
Think engagement with Iran, North Korea and Cuba.
Be specific. What exactly has Obama done in this realm to advance the interests of peace.
You would think "America, fuck yeah!" would be a sentiment we could all get behind, but apparently, some prefer "America, fuck you!" if any glory for America might reflect on the Democratic Party. ;)
Once more JasonF displays his disgusting jingoism.
I'm all for America receiving accolades for being the best -- when we're the best. But I oppose bullshit like calling the Pittsburgh Steelers "world champions" or treating a politically motivated award as though it's in any way meaningful.
I'd much rather the award go to Chinese or Iranian dissidents. Hell, the Committee could've made a real political statement that's actually deserved by giving it to Gary Kasparov.
zombeaner
10-10-09, 10:54 AM
Sure. But "Peace" and still being in Iraq and being on the verge of escalating the Afghan war with 40,000 more troops doesn't do it for me.
I do agree with some that just leaving these places doesn't help them. I am about as anti-war a person as you'll find, but pull out now does nothing but harm both countries and will leave them with a mess they don't deserve. Honestly, I don't have a solution, the previous administration broke open Pandora's box and now it is up to everyone that follows to try putting everything back in and it is inevitable that some problems just can't be put away. I wish I had a solution, it is so much more complicated now than it was before, what with the insurgency in Iraq and the resurgence of the Taliban. I don't see any way out of this, I just hope that the people in charge are smarter about this than I am. Obama's reputation is collateral damage, there is nothing he can do to make everyone over there kiss and make up, and that seems to be the only thing that will appease those who are criticizing him for the lack of results. I have no doubt that he has the best of intentions and some good ideas, but I think he's a lot more hamstrung by politics than he thought he would be and a lot of those good ideas don't even make it to the public ear.
kvrdave
10-10-09, 11:08 AM
"Pull out now" was really only a viable solution during the Bush administration. Closing Gitmo was also a popular solution back then. Both of which have seemingly won Obama the NPP. And both are no different today than they were 2 years ago......well, except for the perception.
In 3 years when every one of those is the same as today, feel free to re-elect him and tell yourselves some new story about how he is different.
Ky-Fi
10-10-09, 11:30 AM
I do agree with some that just leaving these places doesn't help them. I am about as anti-war a person as you'll find, but pull out now does nothing but harm both countries and will leave them with a mess they don't deserve. Honestly, I don't have a solution, the previous administration broke open Pandora's box and now it is up to everyone that follows to try putting everything back in and it is inevitable that some problems just can't be put away. I wish I had a solution, it is so much more complicated now than it was before, what with the insurgency in Iraq and the resurgence of the Taliban. I don't see any way out of this, I just hope that the people in charge are smarter about this than I am.
I will at least give Bush a pass for invading Afghanistan, as they directly attacked us. But other than that, I agree with you completely---this is a mess, and I don't see any good solutions.
Brack
10-10-09, 11:52 AM
Okay. I'm thinking about it. What has Obama done on the subject?
Are you sure you aren't confusing him with Christopher Reeve in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
Be specific. What exactly has Obama done in this realm to advance the interests of peace.
I was being specific. Do you not read news anymore?
Sean O'Hara
10-10-09, 12:42 PM
I was being specific. Do you not read news anymore?
I do, and I've seen nothing about Obama doing anything to bring about nuclear disarmament. Obama's policy on North Korea is a continuation of the Clinton and Bush policies (the only deviation has been Clinton's independent mission to Korea to free those two nitwit reporters). He's done nothing with Cuba. We've made very minor overtures towards establishing relations with Iran.
Have I missed something?
Brack
10-10-09, 12:55 PM
Obama eases Cuba travel restrictions
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/13/cuba.travel/index.html
US Envoy Heads to Tokyo, Beijing to Discuss North Korea
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-07-voa59.cfm
I'd much rather the award go to Chinese or Iranian dissidents.
The Chinese and Iranian dissidents haven't done anything -- China and Iran are still ruled by autocratic oligarchs, despite the dissidents' efforts.
Hell, the Committee could've made a real political statement that's actually deserved by giving it to Gary Kasparov.
Kasparov hasn't done anything either: Putin is still running the show in Russia.
Bishop Desmond Tutu won the Nobel for his opposition to South African appartheid a decade before South African appartheid ended.
Kim Dae Jung won the Nobel for his efforts to reconcile North and South Korea even though they haven't reconciled yet.
Aung San Suu Kyi won the Nobel for her work in Burma, even though --twenty years later -- Burma is still ruled by the same military junta she opposes.
All of this, I suppose, will reinforce the right's insistence that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke, but I prefer to acknowledge that sometimes the prize is given not to reward past successes, but to bring attention to ongoing endeavors.
Sean O'Hara
10-10-09, 01:24 PM
Obama eases Cuba travel restrictions
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/13/cuba.travel/index.html
And this advances the cause of peace how?
US Envoy Heads to Tokyo, Beijing to Discuss North Korea
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-07-voa59.cfm
The envoy is heading to third-party countries to get them to help with Korea, not to Korea itself. And in doing so they are continuing the policy laid out by Clinton and continued by Bush.
Using his vaunted multilateralism to build support for the dissident movement would be nice. Using the carrot of normalizing relations to extract meaningful reforms from Iran could work too.
Let's put it this way -- Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War; Wilson for his role in the Treaty of Versailles, which though in hindsight is one of all-time great cockups, is one of the major events of the 20th Century. None of the things you mention is even in the same league.
Sean O'Hara
10-10-09, 01:29 PM
The Chinese and Iranian dissidents haven't done anything -- China and Iran are still ruled by autocratic oligarchs, despite the dissidents' efforts.
Kasparov hasn't done anything either: Putin is still running the show in Russia.
Haven't accomplished their goals -- that is not the same as doing nothing.
kvrdave
10-10-09, 01:35 PM
What exactly is he supposed to "do" with Iran?
Appease them?
JasonF
10-10-09, 01:49 PM
Haven't accomplished their goals -- that is not the same as doing nothing.
My advise to you: start your own prize and give it to whoever the hell you want. You can even have a big ceremony every year where you explain why Obama is not worthy of your prize.
kvrdave
10-10-09, 02:35 PM
You think an explanation will really be necessary?
sracer
10-10-09, 03:31 PM
Having faith in Obama is greater than the faith needed to believe in an invisible god. Awesome.
Brack
10-10-09, 03:38 PM
My advise to you: start your own prize and give it to whoever the hell you want. You can even have a big ceremony every year where you explain why Obama is not worthy of your prize.
:lol:
Brack
10-10-09, 03:39 PM
You think an explanation will really be necessary?
yes, because otherwise you're a racist, remember? ;)
Sean O'Hara
10-10-09, 03:39 PM
My advise to you: start your own prize and give it to whoever the hell you want. You can even have a big ceremony every year where you explain why Obama is not worthy of your prize.
And if I complain about Rocky winning an Oscar over All the President's Men, Taxi Driver, and Network, will you tell me to start my own prize and haev a big ceremony every year to explain why John G. Avildsen is not worthy of my prize?
mosquitobite
10-10-09, 03:58 PM
Having faith in Obama is greater than the faith needed to believe in an invisible god. Awesome.
This is so true! rotfl
(and CRM, I'm really quite impressed with you on this topic! :up: Not just for still being anti-war, but because it seems you understand he's not really deserving of this prize....at least not yet. All this time I've thought you were a blind partisan. ;) )
JasonF
10-10-09, 04:14 PM
And if I complain about Rocky winning an Oscar over All the President's Men, Taxi Driver, and Network, will you tell me to start my own prize and haev a big ceremony every year to explain why John G. Avildsen is not worthy of my prize?
It's one thing to say that you believe Network is more worthy of the Oscar than Rocky. It's quite another to argue that Rocky isn't a movie, which is what you seem to be doing in your "Obama doesn't advance the cause of peace" posts.
In any event, the members of the AMPAS disagree with you on Rocky and the members of the Noweigian Nobel Committee disagree with you on Obama. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but between your opinion and theirs, only one matters in terms of who wins the award.
kvrdave
10-10-09, 04:20 PM
It's one thing to say that you believe Network is more worthy of the Oscar than Rocky. It's quite another to argue that Rocky isn't a movie, which is what you seem to be doing in your "Obama doesn't advance the cause of peace" posts.
In any event, the members of the AMPAS disagree with you on Rocky and the members of the Noweigian Nobel Committee disagree with you on Obama. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but between your opinion and theirs, only one matters in terms of who wins the award.
Rocky is a bad example. A better one, given the amount of time Obama had been in office, would be giving the best picture nod to a 10 minute short over the other movies.
JasonF
10-10-09, 04:48 PM
Rocky is a bad example. A better one, given the amount of time Obama had been in office, would be giving the best picture nod to a 10 minute short over the other movies.
I wasn't aware that one could only work toward peace while in elected office. ;)
Cheato
10-10-09, 04:54 PM
A closer analogy might be the Academy members watching the first 10 minutes of a full movie, and thinking "Well, I like the director, and I can see where he wants to go with all this, so it will be a pretty good movie (I hope). And thank God (or praise Allah, or whatever) it's not Michael Bay. I don't need to see the rest of it. Best Director."
jfoobar
10-10-09, 04:56 PM
Rocky is a bad example. A better one, given the amount of time Obama had been in office, would be giving the best picture nod to a 10 minute short over the other movies.
Or a best supporting actress win for Judi Dench for an 8 minute performance.
WallyOPD
10-10-09, 05:14 PM
But I oppose bullshit like calling the Pittsburgh Steelers "world champions"
:lol: Sorry, I realize this is totally off-topic but this just seemed too random. Do you really think there's a non-NFL football team out in the world somewhere that could have beaten the Pittsburgh Steelers if only they'd had a shot at it?
crazyronin
10-10-09, 06:35 PM
My advise to you: start your own prize and give it to whoever the hell you want. You can even have a big ceremony every year where you explain why Obama is not worthy of your prize.
And this year's crazyronin "using 's' instead of 'c'" prize in literature goes to...
JasonF!
Plus, he's not Obama
Dr Mabuse
10-10-09, 06:42 PM
'Rocky' is a truly great film that deserved the Oscars it won.
You bastards lay off the 'Rocky' stuff and find an example that's applicable.
jfoobar
10-10-09, 06:44 PM
'Rocky' is a truly great film that deserved the Oscars it won.
You bastards lay off the 'Rocky' stuff and find an example that's applicable.
Studies show that Rocky fans tend to be emotionally and psychologically troubled people.
The Cow
10-10-09, 07:26 PM
Studies show that Rocky fans tend to be emotionally and psychologically troubled people.
:lol: well played.
Dr Mabuse
10-10-09, 07:30 PM
Dammit!
That was played pretty well there wasn't it?
JasonF
10-10-09, 08:04 PM
:sad: I like Rocky
But I think Network and Taxi Driver are better. Never seen Bound for Glory and All the President's Men is overrated.
Check this space in 33 years for my opinions on 2009's best films.
wm lopez
10-10-09, 08:36 PM
And if I complain about Rocky winning an Oscar over All the President's Men, Taxi Driver, and Network, will you tell me to start my own prize and haev a big ceremony every year to explain why John G. Avildsen is not worthy of my prize?
Did you see all these movies in between 1976 and 1978?
Because ROCKY had romance, great score and the a song that was played on the radio, it was a feel good movie. And a movie that show cased what can happen in America that a loser can have a shot at the big time.
And there is a reason that after ROCKY came out so many movies copied that formula. Obama's win was more like when the DIXIE CHICKS won the Grammy for album of the year. An award to just get back at the boycotters.
slop101
10-11-09, 12:36 AM
Did you see all these movies in between 1976 and 1978?
Because ROCKY had romance, great score and the a song that was played on the radio, it was a feel good movie. And a movie that show cased what can happen in America that a loser can have a shot at the big time.
And there is a reason that after ROCKY came out so many movies copied that formula. Obama's win was more like when the DIXIE CHICKS won the Grammy for album of the year. An award to just get back at the boycotters.I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hank Ringworm
10-11-09, 02:11 AM
My advise to you: start your own prize and give it to whoever the hell you want. You can even have a big ceremony every year where you explain why Obama is not worthy of your prize.
Translation:
I lost the argument.
JasonF
10-11-09, 02:29 AM
Translation:
I lost the argument.
The actual translation is much closer to "I have now spent far too much time discussing whether anonymous people on the internet agree with a bunch of Norweigians." But have fun knowing that you "won."
classicman2
10-11-09, 10:15 AM
Has Obama promised to put the $1.4 million he receives into the health care reform pot?
foggy
10-11-09, 10:32 AM
Has Obama promised to put the $1.4 million he receives into the health care reform pot?
He has promised to donate it to charity. I think that he should give it to Acorn in recognition of all the assistance they provided during his campaign.
X
10-11-09, 12:45 PM
He has promised to donate it to charity. I think that he should give it to Acorn in recognition of all the assistance they provided during his campaign.Too bad the tax plan the Democrats were trying to get through was shot down. Obama would have had to have paid taxes on the prize money he gave to charity so winning the prize and giving it all away would have actually cost him money.
Good plan, huh? :rolleyes:
I think he should donate the prize money to the Treasury for deficit reduction. I don't think there could be a more appropriate place for it to go.
kvrdave
10-11-09, 12:48 PM
I wasn't aware that one could only work toward peace while in elected office. ;)
Ah, the old "look at his whole body or work" argument. That will be a strong argument with Obama. -wink-
BKenn01
10-11-09, 04:45 PM
Okay. I'm thinking about it. What has Obama done on the subject?
Are you sure you aren't confusing him with Christopher Reeve in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
Be specific. What exactly has Obama done in this realm to advance the interests of peace.
Once more JasonF displays his disgusting jingoism.
I'm all for America receiving accolades for being the best -- when we're the best. But I oppose bullshit like calling the Pittsburgh Steelers "world champions" or treating a politically motivated award as though it's in any way meaningful.
I'd much rather the award go to Chinese or Iranian dissidents. Hell, the Committee could've made a real political statement that's actually deserved by giving it to Gary Kasparov.
WTF, now your getting personal. How in the hell do you compare a sports champion who wins by putting more points on the board than their opponent to an award that based on this winner is obviously a popularity contest.
Unless of course you are one of those whiners who claim the league makes sure the Steelers get all the calls.......
eXcentris
10-11-09, 07:04 PM
Here are the last thirty literary winners. Which of them have you read, and why do you think they don't represent the best of world literature? Who do you think should have won instead?
I'm really interested in hearing how Golding and Naipaul reflect Swedish politics.
I'll take a stab at this.
The litterary prize is almost as political and wrapped in political correctness as the peace prize. And that's because we're dealing with subjective areas, unlike medicine, physics and chemistry which are more quantifiable. Sure, Lessing, Pamuk, Le Clézio, Coetzee, Naipaul, ... were deserving but, for example, Muller and Jelinek are marginal authors (but they are women). Pinter, granted not undeserving, most likely won because of his anti-American, anti-war stance and American authors (where are Roth, Updike, Oates?) are rarely considered because, as Horace Engdahl, the president of the jury up until this year, stated:
"Europe remains the center of world litterature. The United States are too isolated, too insular, do not translate enough and do not participate in the grand dialogue about litterature".
Just look at the Americans who won the prize since Steinbeck. They are hardly Americans writing about slices of Americana.
Man, I never thought I'd be defending Americans. :)
Dr Mabuse
10-11-09, 07:08 PM
Obviously eX is on dope right now.
crazyronin
10-11-09, 07:20 PM
litterary
litterature
Man, I never thought I'd be defending Americans.
Into the Calvados a little early, eh?
wm lopez
10-11-09, 07:34 PM
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Just listen to Rush Limbaugh on radio and watch Bill Maher,FOXNEWS, THE VIEW and sometimes THE DAILY SHOW.
slop101
10-11-09, 08:09 PM
So you're saying that you like to contradict yourself?
Sean O'Hara
10-11-09, 10:44 PM
WTF, now your getting personal. How in the hell do you compare a sports champion who wins by putting more points on the board than their opponent to an award that based on this winner is obviously a popularity contest.
Unless of course you are one of those whiners who claim the league makes sure the Steelers get all the calls.......
No, I'm saying that the Steelers didn't compete against the entire world, and thus calling them "World Champions" is Amerocentric. At least MLB and NHL have Canadian teams, but the NFL doesn't compete with the CFL.
The Cow
10-11-09, 10:51 PM
No, I'm saying that the Steelers didn't compete against the entire world, and thus calling them "World Champions" is Amerocentric. At least MLB and NHL have Canadian teams, but the NFL doesn't compete with the CFL.
What other team in the world would have beat them last year?
Cheato
10-11-09, 11:02 PM
No, I'm saying that the Steelers didn't compete against the entire world, and thus calling them "World Champions" is Amerocentric. At least MLB and NHL have Canadian teams, but the NFL doesn't compete with the CFL.
Touche.
What other team in the world would have beat them last year?
Checkmate.
But at least the earlier point was clarified. It wasn't some strange jab at the Steelers; it was the idea of an entirely American organization crowning a "World" champion within its own ranks. I'm still not sure how that matches up with the current discussion, though.
Venusian
10-12-09, 09:28 AM
We got econ too. If we had picked up Lit it would have been a sweep!
FiveO
10-12-09, 10:23 AM
We got econ too. If we had picked up Lit it would have been a sweep!
Considering the joke that the prize has become...not sure anyone should be real proud of that... :lol:
Sean O'Hara
10-12-09, 10:37 AM
What other team in the world would have beat them last year?
We don't know, which is the point. Saying they're "world champions" is an assertion not fact.
But back on topic, East Meets West (http://www.subbrilliant.com/emw/?p=278) had a great discussion of this, though I'm sure some people here will have to reconsider their position now that they find they're agreeing with a French guy.
jfoobar
10-12-09, 10:39 AM
Considering the joke that the prize has become...not sure anyone should be real proud of that... :lol:
Any economist, Nobel Prize winning or otherwise, would probably consider having some Scandinavian hand you a check for more than a million dollars a good thing. Proud? Eh. Laughing all the way to the bank? Yupper.
kvrdave
10-12-09, 12:02 PM
No, I'm saying that the Steelers didn't compete against the entire world, and thus calling them "World Champions" is Amerocentric. At least MLB and NHL have Canadian teams, but the NFL doesn't compete with the CFL.
The Raiders could beat anyone in the CFL.
Bandoman
10-12-09, 12:58 PM
Considering the joke that the prize has become...not sure anyone should be real proud of that... :lol:
It's the peace prize that has become the joke - the scientific awards are, as far as I know, still considered legit.
FiveO
10-12-09, 08:08 PM
It's the peace prize that has become the joke - the scientific awards are, as far as I know, still considered legit.
Ok...makes sense. Just don't want the political agenda of the peace prize moving to other areas of the rewards.
X
10-12-09, 08:12 PM
Ok...makes sense. Just don't want the political agenda of the peace prize moving to other areas of the rewards.Evidently, it hasn't.
Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.
While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for economics.
The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.
From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.
Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure academics -- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson -- one noted for her work on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction costs.
Other surprise losers include celebrity noneconomist and filmmaker Michael Moore; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council.
It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.
Oh, those wacky cut-ups at the Wall Street Journal. They are a laugh riot!
kvrdave
10-12-09, 11:20 PM
:lol: I laughed. The Obama has done more wrt economics than peace. But maybe economics isn't based solely on intentions and dreams. Ooops, I maybe arguing against him, there.
OSLO – Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president.
Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.
Three of them rejected the notion that Obama hadn't accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn't answer calls seeking comment.
"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done."
Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe.
He said most world leaders were positive about the award and that most of the criticism was coming from the media and from Obama's political rivals.
"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will.
"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"
Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that the decision to award Obama was without merit.
"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said by phone from the western coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the peace prize decision. That's fine."
In Friday's announcement, the committee said giving Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.
The left-leaning committee whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
However, the decision stunned even the most seasoned Nobel watchers. They hadn't expected Obama, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.
The award drew heated derision from Obama's political opponents in the Republican party, and was even questioned by some members of Obama's own Democratic party, who wondered what the president had done to merit the $1.4 million honor.
Michael S. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said naming Obama showed "how meaningless a once honorable and respected award has become."
In a fundraising letter, Steele wrote that "the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way."
Columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times that Obama "has not done anything yet on the scale that would normally merit such an award."
Even in Europe, where Obama is hugely popular, many editorials and pundits questioned what he had done to deserve the award.
"Scrap the Nobel Peace Prize," foreign affairs commentator Bronwen Maddox wrote in The Times of London. "It's an embarrassment and even an impediment to peace. President Obama, in letting the committee award it to him, has made himself look vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique."
Yet Obama was humble in acknowledging the prize.
"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," Obama said Friday in the White House Rose Garden. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
Nobel Committee member Inger-Marie Ytterhorn noted that the president didn't greet the news with joy.
"I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told AP.
Some of the most celebrated peace prize laureates include Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. The award has occasionally honored more controversial figures, like the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Sometimes it raises the profile of peace workers or activists, such as Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala in 1992 or Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai in 2004.
"Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it," said Ytterhorn, a nine-year veteran of the award committee.
Asked whether there was a risk that the prize could backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and give ammunition to his critics, Ytterhorn said "it might hamper him," because it could distract from domestic issues such as health care reform.
Jagland said he didn't think the Nobel Peace Prize would hurt Obama domestically but added the committee did not take U.S. politics into consideration when making their decision.
"I'm not so familiar with American politics, and I don't want to interfere with it, because this is a totally independent committee," he said. "We should not look at internal politics."
Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member, said "we all expected that there would be a discussion" about awarding Obama. She declined further comment, deferring to the Nobel Peace Prize tradition of only having the committee chairman discuss prize selections publicly.
Valle, who left her seat in Parliament last week because of her Nobel panel appointment, said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by the prize.
"Of course I expected disagreement and debate on the prize, on giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."
Venusian
10-13-09, 12:24 PM
In a fundraising letter, Steele wrote that "the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way."
There is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics.
crazyronin
10-13-09, 09:16 PM
There is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics.
Since it is known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, you are technically correct. Since Sveriges gave the endowment to the Nobel Committee and the Nobel Committee awards it, you are also technically incorrect.
Hank Ringworm
10-14-09, 01:52 AM
Saying they're "world champions" is an assertion not fact.
Well, no shit. How exactly would one make such thing a fact?
dork
10-14-09, 01:57 AM
Well, no shit. How exactly would one make such thing a fact?
By putting this on:
The World Cup - Appropriate
The World Series - Not so much :lol:
Dr Mabuse
10-14-09, 11:20 AM
It's the peace prize that has become the joke - the scientific awards are, as far as I know, still considered legit.
Ask Meitner about that, she might disagree.
Decadance
10-15-09, 04:54 PM
Article Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the Emolument Clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
In my opinion, this is much more interesting than debating the merits of the reward.
Venusian
10-15-09, 05:06 PM
It doesn't come from a foreign State, although I'd guess the argument would be that the committee was chosen by the Norwegian parliament. Still the money isn't from a foreign state, right?
Venusian
10-15-09, 05:09 PM
This is more interesting:
Moreover, the money is not his to give away. It belongs to the United States: a federal statute provides that if the president accepts a "tangible or intangible present" for more than a minimal value from any foreign government, the gift "shall become the property of the United States."
Article Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the Emolument Clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
In my opinion, this is much more interesting than debating the merits of the reward.
-pray- Please let there by a roll-call vote on whether or not the President of the Untied States should be allowed to accept the Nobel Peace Prize so that all the whack-job Republicans can put themselves on record.
Majority of Nobel jury 'objected to Obama prize'
(AFP) – 1 day ago [October 15, 2009]
OSLO — Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.
"VG has spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to give the peace prize to Barack Obama," the newspaper said.
In a surprise move last Friday, the Nobel committee attributed the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama less than nine months after he had taken office.
The committee, appointed by the Norwegian parliament, honoured Obama for "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
"The committee was unanimous," its influential secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP on Friday.
But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said.
It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections.
The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.
The members of the committee represent their parties but do not sit in Norway's parliament.
"Each year, we start with many candidates and many different points of view and agree as the discussions move along. This year was no exception," Lundestad commented Thursday.
The newspaper quotes Ytterhorn and Five as saying they both supported the committee's final decision.
Obama himself said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the prize.
nemein
10-16-09, 07:49 AM
-ohbfrank-
mosquitobite
10-16-09, 09:57 AM
-pray- Please let there by a roll-call vote on whether or not the President of the Untied States should be allowed to accept the Nobel Peace Prize so that all the whack-job Republicans can put themselves on record.
Let the record show, whack-job mosquitobite believes the Constitution & federal law should be followed and therefore the prize should belong to the US Govt.
wishbone
10-16-09, 10:24 AM
Can the prize be frozen or held in a trust until after President Obama's presidency?
Buy: