Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize 1721
Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The BBC opines: "In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements. After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award. ... The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.' This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image." The Washington Post collects more reactions from around the world.
personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. But then again, Al Gore essentially won the Nobel Peace Prize for making a Powerpoint presentation. If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in, then power to them.
Between the troubles faced in the US domestic economy, the conflicts in the Middle East and Asia, health care reform, and setting a good example for his daughters, Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in
Your kidding me, right?
Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.
Which accomplishments would those be? Closing Gitmo? Nope, haven't done that yet. Health Care Reform? Nope, haven't done that yet, and it's not really "reform" anyway. Creating a transparent White House? Nope, we gave up on that one [cnet.com] pretty early on.
Re:personally (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, I just won a Nobel Peace Prize too! Says something about my "continued work to end the crisis in Sudan." Don't remember ever going to Sudan.
Then again, I didn't know they were packaging these things in cracker-jack boxes...
Re:personally (Score:5, Funny)
Hello! I am from the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE committee and am informing you that you have won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE! To collect your award and prize money, please reply with your name, address, phone number, social security number, date of birth, unladen swallow weight, mother's maiden name, bank account numbers, passwords to your online banking accounts, current bank balance, Slashdot account information, social networking username and passwords, and your e-mail addresses and passwords. We look forward to giving you what you deserve!
Re:personally (Score:5, Informative)
Which accomplishments would those be?
Probably it's for canceling the plans for the ABM (missiles/radar) in Europe, which he did last month. While it pissed off a lot of Poles, it sure made Russia feel safer.
So the Russians canceled their new short-range nuclear missile deployment in turn, which made a lot of 'Old' Europeans feel safer.
Now, since Obama got a Nobel Prize, he should have no problem applying for an O-1 visa, leading to a green card, and eventually, one day, a US citizenship. I keed, I keed...
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough. So what are his accomplishments on the international scene? He's given a few good speeches. Other than that, exactly what has he accomplished?
This award reeks of political calculation. He was in office for less than two weeks and got nominated? WTF? You can't even really say that they gave it to him because of his grand speeches before the World stage -- because I don't think he had given any of them yet.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
So he gets a peace prize because people around the world who don't understand how the US Government works are surprised when the US Government changes its approach? You know, like it does EVERY. FOUR. YEARS?
In any case, why is "the US President acted only in the interests of the US" a bad thing? At worst, it's a neutral thing.
All this shows is that the world community is entirely ignorant of how the US Office of the President works. No big surprise there. The real shame is that somebody who truly deserved this award didn't get it, because it was given to Obama instead. The second-to-last thing Obama needs is more inflation of his already-huge ego, and the last thing he needs is more excuses to shirk his job and appear on fucking TV.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Kissinger and Arafat got Peace Prizes.
I respect the Prize as little as I respect the United Nations, which is not at all.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Public broadcaster NRK reported that US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were among the nominees.
Well now I see the CALIBER of the people who win these prizes. French President Sarkozy. Wow. Actually Sarkozy probably would have been a better pick, since he mediated a peace settlement between Georgia and Russia last year. Obama... he uh... um... well he... gave good speak?
There were 203 other people up for the prize. Surely one of them would have been a better pick - like French-Colombian hostage Ingrid Betancourt and Chinese dissident Hu Jia. Or maybe the Cluster Munitions Coalition for getting nearly 100 countries to sign a treaty last year in Oslo banning cluster bombs.
Last year's winner was former Finnish president and career diplomat Martti Ahtisaari for his efforts on several continents, over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts. This year's winner... um... uh... not really sure.
A little premature? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot premature. Barack has accomplished very little in terms of peace. They could have just waited 10 years and then give him a prize if he really did anything good. They've been giving many of these prizes years after the actual achievements, so what's the rush?
After all, the USA could still start a war with Iran, and so much for world peace then. You can say they are making nukes for all they want, but there's no real evidence yet[1].
[1] http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200919.html [iaea.org]
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
The pace of missile strikes by US drones against Taleban targets in Afghanistan has picked up since January. There's a good chance that 40,000 to 60,000 more US troops will be deployed to Afghanistan. The military option against Iran's nuclear program is still not off the table. What exactly has been more peaceful? US troop withdrawal from cities in Iraq? That was negotiated under Bush, and would have been carried out whether it was Obama or McCain in the White House.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Last fucking thing this world needs is a homicidal jackass with his finger on the proverbial button.
You voted bush out, remember?
Did you find the WMD's in Iraq? No
The same people are telling you there are WMD's in Iran. You should know better than to blindly believe it.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
That's funny, that's part of why I like the guy too. We were pretty evil in the last decade.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
The appropriate response to terrorism isn't terrorism. You present a false dichotomy: it is indeed possible to be against war (especially unjustified as in the past decade) without being for "terrorism," the generic catch-all enemy du jour. In the past it was the Russians or the Communists, or something else. Always a nameless shapeless threat which is used as excuse for committing unspeakable acts. This is exactly how it works on the other side of the fence too, this is exactly the same sort of failure to reason which leads to actual terrorism.
Invoking terrorism as an excuse for absolutely any deplorable behavior furthers the problem rather than culling it.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Eye for an eye, eh? How's that working out for us so far in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have we caught Bin Laden yet?
And how is this approach working out for us so far? Half that number of civilians has died to the war just this year. Now there are 4,500 innocents dead instead of 3,000.
So you're saying that US policy in the 80's was based on a threat to a few slavic states in Europe? Wow, that is not how I remember it. We were told the Russians were going to nuke the crap out of us. Pragmatically speaking the cold war in America wasn't about any countries but the US and Russia. Besides, the point is that there's always a shapeless threat. Today it's "Terrorism," previously it was "Drugs," and "Russian Nukes," and "Communism." Just something for the plebes to get worked up about so political leaders can manufacture clout.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
No one has flown planes into any buildings in Europe that I know of.
Yeah, Europe has never suffered an incident [wikipedia.org] of terrorism [wikipedia.org]. It just doesn't happen. Everybody loves them.
I can't believe you got a +5 for this nonsense.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
and our citizens in a terrible situation with a government that does nothing. HALF of which is out to slay Obama politically because they're babies.... The republicans i'm speaking about.
At this point the Republicans are significantly less than half.
They do not control the executive at all, and they have no ability to block any legilsation in the Senate.
They are, in fact, nearly powerless. Any lack of progress is solely due to Democrats.
The road to hell is paved with what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll have to start a blog outlining all the things I want to do, like solving hunger, cleaning up all the pollution from the ocean, and bringing peace and love to all mankind.
If I get enough subscribers that I become famous, I can get the Nobel Peace Prize too! And I don't even have to leave my desk.
Re:The road to hell is paved with what now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you're not in a position to solve hunger, clean up pollution, and bring peace. Obama is.
Obama isn't in a position to "bring peace". Peace, like marriage, requires that both parties are willing to work towards it.
Re:personally (Score:5, Funny)
Einstein didn't even have Power Point, but that's essentially what he did too.
If we're going to start characterizing accomplishments dishonestly but with complete accuracy, Einstein won his Nobel for making little black ink marks on little pieces of white paper. I mean, really, my dog does that kind of shit.
Re:personally (Score:5, Informative)
(He used Keynote)
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps then the retards at the Nobel Peace Prize committee will stop handing out that thing like it's the Politically Correct Popularity Contest. Thousands of people work their asses off and often risk their lives trying to stop all the conflicts around the world and Obama gets it for...what, exactly?
"Efforts to strengthen international diplomacy?" In other words for holding a bunch of grandstanding speeches. It's not like his approach to international relations is that different to Clinton or many presidents before him, even Bush's later years were pretty mellow.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I always thought that it was traditional to have to accomplish some significant shit to win a Nobel Prize. Apparently not, though. All Obama has really done that tons of common citizens haven't is be elected president (which, yes, is an accomplishment, but not a Nobel-worthy accomplishment). Where the hell are the Nobel Prizes coming our way?
This degrades the award so much it's laughable.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
This degrades the award so much it's laughable.
You do realize who, and for what reason, the award was given to in 2007, don't you? This prize has been a joke, in my opinion, since 1994 [wikipedia.org].
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:5, Insightful)
The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:
Note the past tense.
President Obama has done nothing at all to reduce standing armies, and his work towards a fraternity between nations is in its infancy.
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm both a Democrat and an Obama supporter (Feel free to read my comment history if you think I'm bullshiting to make myself sound more sympathetic, it goes back years and is pretty firmly liberal throughout), and I agree. If it was 7 or 8 years from now and Obama was coming out of office having accomplished some of the many things he has promised to do, I would be behind this 100%, as it is I was fairly shocked. As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the man himself were shocked. I mean this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented. Give him a chance to get the results, then give him an award.
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an American. One who was more than pissed off with Bush. One who voted for Obama. One who is still proud of that choice.
I've seen a stark change in the world perception of the USA. I've seen opinions and hopes change within my family, friends, neighborhood, state, etc. Even Republicans I know, while still a bit jaded over Dem's winning is hopeful for the future under a Dem.
But what has _Obama_ the man done to win this prize?
I'm just an average citizen and all I've seen so far is an attitude shift in the country and world towards the changing of our President to a non-republican. And I'm not even sure the Republican change is even as important as the simple leaving of office that Bush graced us all with.
My point here is simple. Did Obama gaining leadership deserve him winning the Peace Prize, or was it awarded to the _office_? Did the real healing began _merely_ because Bush left?
Say _anyone_ else won the Presidency, not even necessarily a Democrat, but say anyone who was against War in general and came across as a "peacetime" president or at least, not a war mongering one. Would they have won as well?
I'd suggest that yes, yes they would have. At least if they were as personally likable and articulate as Obama is (regardless of who writes his speaches, he at least comes across as edumacatud).
My opinion is that the absence of Bush won the Prize, Obama just happened to be the person who filled that slot.
For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
The win was so meaningless and out-of-place that the CBS morning news anchors actually did a double-take and assumed it was someone playing a practical joke on their teleprompter when it ran across the first time.
CBS, who have their lips glued to Obama's butt when it comes to news "reporting."
You're right, the "win" was precisely a slam at Bush in particular. The reason? Unlike every sane part of the Nobel foundation, the "Peace Prize" committee is made up of 5 guys appointed by the Norwegian parliament, which is about as left-wing as they come and tilts the committee the same way. This is similar to when they handed it to Al Gore previously, a move widely recognized as having no basis in fact but being merely a slam at Bush because they were still pissed about the way the 2000 elections turned out.
Of course, they're also recognized as much for people they failed to award (such as Gandhi, whose death finally shocked them into saying "oops, no living person exists qualified for the award" for a year because according to the terms of Alfred Nobel's will they cannot award the Peace Prize posthumously) as their routine mistakes (such as Yasser Arafat, awarded a "Peace Prize" and then proceeding to go on to lead over 20 more years of terrorist attacks).
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be difficult, given your obvious alienation, to understand the award for what it is. Richard Lugar, who's also been an advocate for nuclear disarmament was also ignored.
But if building a bridge to the Muslim community across the world-- which numbers one in four inhabitants on this earth-- counts, then the combination of the two is somewhat extraordinary, given the prior administration's complete polarization of most of the world, three wars, and the possible nuclear proliferation of frightening proportions.
Ganhi might have been a good recipient. Posthumously, he can't get it. Bummer. I doubt he'd have accepted it anyway.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
The largest part of the Muslim world isn't the picture you painted. There are large ideological differences between Muslim and 'western' ideals. His first act, if you'll recall, was to let the Muslim world know that the US wasn't at war with them, rather the factions that support terrorism.
Your specific grievances with various Muslim factions can also be translated to various Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Jainist, and Buddhist factions. Orthodoxy sucks. Yet condemning an entire culture because of the warts within it does no one good.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
You condemn by anecdote. Can I tell you about Leviticus, or perhaps Jim Crow?
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
These are not very left-tilted politicians in Norway. One is a former chairman of the conservative party, and another a former representative from the rightmost party currently in the Storting [wikipedia.org].
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Henry Kissinger won in 1973. The committee was not nearly so left-wing back then (neither was the appointing body).
Mother Teresa rarely stepped into politics and her work was about charity towards the poor. What's your basis for calling her "about as far right as they come"? Especially since if you read the official Catholic Catechism (the teachings and stated opinions of the Catholic Church, which she held as her guide for morality) they actually come down left-of-center as well.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the source -- it's a British newspaper.
The BBC is not, has never been and can never be a newspaper. It is a publicly funded broadcast news outlet which has far less bias (read: practically none) than any US news network you can name, and is a trusted news source around the world.
Calling the BBC dubious is... dubious at best.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To a US viewer, the BBC is biased to the left (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To a US viewer, the BBC is biased to the left (Score:5, Interesting)
I get my news from a number of sources, from Al Jezeera and the India Times to the BBC, from CNN to Fox, from Freerepublic to the Daily Kos.
BBC has just as much bias as any other outlet - only their bias is in what stories are chosen, as opposed to the commentary upon them.
Any nerd should understand this - GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. You have to collect news from multiple sources and weigh the actual facts, not the commentary.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
Try again.
The point of the Nobel Prizes is to recognize people who do good for mankind. Three of them are for advancement in the sciences. One is for "in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency." One, a little more nebulous (and reputedly a form of attempted moral consolation after Nobel witnessed the horrors his invention of dynamite had caused), is for the advancement of "Peace" (exact wording: "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.")
Nobel's will specifies the following things:
- the prizes are to be awarded for something already accomplished.
- the prizes are to be awarded to someone living (it can't be awarded posthumously, which is why there was a "bye year" when Gandhi died and the committee realized they'd royally fucked up and missed their chance to recognize his work).
- One is to be awarded for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and "international peace."
In the sciences, the time lag is tremendous. This is partly a result of some early awards being given to "advances" or "discoveries" which were later discredited; the downside is that a number of possible recipients have been passed over because they died before the committee had fully vetted them. Literature's time lag has evolved as the committee shifted to covering a body of long work from an author, rather than a single book.
The "Peace Prize" is the most politically charged, and many propositions have come forth to alter it and prevent bad awards being made. Left-wingers go after the 1973 choice of Henry Kissinger (for negotiating the Vietnam peace accords) based on his involvement in other conflicts. As early as 1905, the choice to award it to President Roosevelt (for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War) was criticized because his administration was involved in a bloody revolt-suppression in the Phillipines at the same time. Right-wingers criticize the political handing of the award to Al Gore. The choice to give it to Yasser Arafat, given that he kept leading and encouraging terror attacks for years after (also, because it was awarded for the Oslo Accords but Arafat was recorded saying on Palestinian national radio the next week that signing the Accords was a sham on his part), is hit often, as is the award given to anti-semite Jimmy Carter in 2002. Rigoberta Menchu nearly had her 1992 prize revoked after it was revealed that much of her autobiography (which was part of the basis given in the committee's written statement on why she received the award) was a fabrication. Cordell Hull, given the award in 1945 for helping found the UN, had 5 years prior been the major decision-maker (Secretary of State) in FDR's administration when they sent a ship full of Jewish refugees back to Europe (most of those refugees then were killed in the Holocaust).
So yeah, there's ample tradition on many fronts to criticize the awarding of the Peace Prize. Given that the nomination process closed when Obama was only in office eleven days, I think anyone from any side is justified in saying that giving it to Obama is premature, since the requirements are that you have already done something worth giving you the award, not that you are "expected to" do certain things.
Lowering of standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:5, Funny)
I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it.
I feel the same about epic gear in WoW.
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, if I were him, I'd be pretty pissed about this. He really doesn't need this kind of controversy right now. They've essentially used him to make a political statement, and it's just going to cause problems at a time when he's got more than enough to deal with. It'll get the conservatives all bristly and the libs all full of themselves, and then it becomes even harder to get anything done. All for a prize that I'm sure he knows is bullshit, and will be completely hollow for him.
Thanks a lot assholes.
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Yasser Arafat won a nobel prize then anyone can.
I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far. He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect (even if the opposing country does not deserve it). I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.
But to get the Peace Prize for it?
Do you honestly think what he's done is on the level with Martin Luther King? Or Mother Theresa? Or Linus Pauling?
Please, this prize is getting cheaper by the year.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if that's true, how much of that was done by February, when the deadline for nominations was?
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be construed in another way. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, now Obama will have to think twice before going to any war from now on. Basically by increasing the load of expectations on him, I think the committee is trying to direct his hand to a carrot when both carrot and stick are viable alternatives.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Insightful)
I think my 9 year old son may possibly deserve the prize, but it's too early to say.
Seriously? 8 months in to an administration which has failed to do most of what it promised? With a supra-majority? After a senate "career" which to be GENEROUS would be to claim it was nearly worthless (how many "present" votes did he cast? How many did he miss?)
Obama will no more bring "peace" to the middle east than Nixon brought peace to Vietnam and Cambodia -- but I agree, if he DOES pull this particular hat out of a rabbit, then yes -- he would deserve it.
If the award was about intentions, why not award it to Lenin, Hoover or the Pope? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Insightful)
> he's only 8 months into his first term.
It's worse than that. The deadline to be nominated is Feb 1. Even assuming he was nominated right near the deadline, he had been in office barely _10 days_ when someone, impressed with all that he has accomplished, nominated him for this award. Jeez. Obviously, someone clearly thought the election of an Democrat/African-American with good oratorial skills was a major contribution to world peace in and of itself.
This is exactly the kind of condescension I as a person of color can live without.
Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.
Re:Joke (Score:4, Informative)
What the... how is abandoning a country desperately in need of aid and peacekeepers a *good* idea? Is the situation in Afghanistan messy as hell? Yes, absolutely. Is working to stabilize the country and drive out the Taliban and Al Qaeda the right thing to do? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Or are you one of those folks that thinks that military intervention into, say, the Sudan or East Timor, is the wrong thing to do because it involves soldiers and guns?
Re:Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Waitaminute. Didn't we just bomb (Score:5, Funny)
the moon? How is that peaceful? The Raelians are going to be pissed!
Oh well, on the bright side, I can now say that my President is a Man of Peace like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Teddy Roosevelt.
Isn't the cut off for nomination February 1st? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is one hell of a first 11 days.
(Or one hell of a consolation prize for not scoring the Olympics.)
(Or an ironic thing to give a man who declared war on the moon.)
(Or one hell of a band-aid for being satirized on SNL)
Re:Isn't the cut off for nomination February 1st? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, the cut off is Feb 1st.
Which means he was nominated while people were still in the international post-coital bliss of his inauguration.
As for the moon, I think the last thing we want to do it bomb them, they've been known to throw rocks back at us....
One needn't be president to start the meter (Score:5, Informative)
Obama began working for peace long before inauguration day. He fought to refine the death penalty in Illinois as a state senator to reduce chances of the innocent being put to death, and was largely responsible for brokering the deal that did just that. He worked for nuclear non-proliferation in the US Senate, working with Lugar (R-IN) for funding and policy to destroy assorted weapons. On the campaign trail, his words (yes, words!) spoke of a new American policy, one of peace.
Now, maybe you feel that those deeds are sufficient, maybe you don't. But, to suggest that his body of work under consideration can only begin once he was inaugurated president is sheer folly.
I'm an Obama supporter but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone said on TPM, this sounds more like a 'Congratulations for not picking McCain' award.
For what? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
For all his talk his biggest accomplishment so far is bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars - if anything that would be economic. I'm no W supporter, but what possible cause is there for this other than anti-W sentiment?
Re:For what? (Score:5, Funny)
> Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize?
He has delivered some very good speeches, you insensitive clod!
For happiness and rainbows, that's what (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
But...but...he's a really nice guy. And he gives great speeches. And when he's making a point, he uses this fantastic faraway gaze and extremely compelling hand gestures. You can't teach that.
You say Obama doesn't deserve the Prize after 8 months in office and no major accomplishments? Foo, I say! I have personally seen him give more kittens and rainbows to the needy than any world leader. When his talks with other world leaders break down, at least those leaders go away thinking 'Wow, that man has a fantastic handshake. That may be the best handshake I've ever experienced'. And you know, maybe years down the line, they'll be more likely to roll over for us thanks to that handshake.
Really, I think it's great that the Nobel committee is now awarding prizes for trying a little bit for a little while. Sort of reflects the reduced standards in our schools where kids get diplomas for sitting in a room and learning nothing for 12 years. This gives little Johnny hope that he doesn't really need to accomplish anything in life, but that if he at least tries a little for 8 months, he can achieve his dream of an increasingly watered-down prize.
Thank you, Nobel Committee. You give hope to the mediocre everywhere.
Re:For what? (Score:4, Interesting)
he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan
I took this news as a sign that the Nobel committee determined that the ongoing lengthy engagements with Iraq and Afghanistan are a bloody means to a peaceful end. I don't really share this opinion and I think a lot of people in the world would (similarly) support the removal of the Taliban but not whatever you want to call Iraq right now. The interesting thing is that they should have given Bush the Nobel Prize for Peace if they felt this way last year ... he started those wars after all. The only other explanation is that these wars were largely overlooked. I only draw dangerous discrediting conclusions if I look at the situation logically.
Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
I think every president discovers this. Obama's Responsible, Phased Withdrawal from Iraq [barackobama.com] (biggest of many reasons I voted for him) reads thusly:
The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
I honestly have heard no word of this. I guess he got into office and things got too real too fast for him? No word on that although I haven't been scouring his speeches. Now if that's why they gave him the Peace Prize, I'd agree with them. But that was a paragraph buried in his campaign promises (and not in progress yet), not something he's done.
I'd suspect this award was given out for the purposes of sparking controversy or to put the onus on Obama to become what they want him to become -- a peacemaker. I agree this was not a prudent decision although I don't see it as critically as most people. It is just an award after all.
A little Chinese wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." - Lin Yutang
Re:A little Chinese wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A little Chinese wisdom (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, when the sun is about to rise, it's dark. There are no shadows. It would be just after the sun rises that there would be big shadows. But that doesn't flow worth a damn. So... like the OP was saying, the sun is setting.
A Bold Move (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking," -Danny Danon, Israeli politician.
This is, I think, a general reaction from a lot of people, but it doesn't really line up with the history of the prize. In 1987, for example the prize was awarded to Óscar Arias, a Costa Rican president, for making some strong gestures that he would stop the Nicaraguan war that had been raging for a decade, fueled by the United States. This raised Arias' profile, and gave him the political capital to broker a peace deal in 1988.
In a lot of ways, I think that this is a better use of the prize; not to recognize achievements after the fact, but to encourage and foster new achievements that might not have happened without the award. Whether this will affect Obama's actions, who can say, but he'll certainly feel a little awkward now if he doesn't get anything done soon.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
strange (Score:5, Funny)
http://app.sgizmo.com/chart/189342-LC02FT150W995AC4HSAOQWU8WZACL1&crt=4&rspid=46741811 [sgizmo.com]
seem just a little odd? its from the washington post poll about Obama deserving the nobel prize.
Obama Ghandi? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama Ghandi? (Score:5, Informative)
It was a screwup done in the 1940s, or even earlier. Not awarding a price the year he died is as close as they can ever come after Nobel's instructions. So it happened and they'll probably still talk about it in another 100 years but the past can not be changed. It's not Obama vs Gandhi, it's Obama vs other candidates of 2009 vs not awarding one at all. There's a lot of lesser candidates that have gotten price because there wasn't any better, perhaps that is the problem?
Missed opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Mr. President, if you don't give it back at least find some balls and earn it. We have two war criminals that sacrificed the lives of over 4,000 troops on the Altar Of Lies. If America is to lead the world we must do so on a foundation of honor and justice. Restore America's honor.
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, this news was only announced within the past few hours and I don't hold the president to any obligation to speak on the subject at 4:00am. I would not be surprised if he wisely commented on it to some degree today or this week and dropped in a "I clearly have a lot to live up to" or something of that nature, since he and his advisers clearly are aware of the massive wave of "what the hell for?!" from the lunatic fringes, the supporters and the rest of us who simply don't care one way or the other.
It's a shame that the award couldn't be given to some people who had truly accomplished real quantifiable contributions to humanity through determination, leadership, and selflessness. CNN has a great award show every year where they showcase just a few such people and in my opinion, all of them are more deserving than any politician ever has or will be.
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet.
How has he already missed this opportunity? How do you know he won't do just that? The announcement was only made this morning, and he hasn't even issued an official statement yet.
I'm not saying that I think he will refuse the prize, but here we all are criticizing the Nobel committee for being premature, and now you're saying he's missed an opportunity to make a statement by refusing the prize when it's only been a few hours since he found out about it and we don't even know what his response is going to be.
Give the man a chance to eat his breakfast and put his tie on before you criticize him for what he didn't do.
Hillary? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, isn't the Secretary of State responsible for US foreign policy?
Hillary Clinton screwed again!
Re:Hillary? (Score:4, Funny)
bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Even my 8 year-old knows this is a sham! (Score:5, Insightful)
This really just happened.
As I read this thread, I said "Obama won the Noble Peace Prize" and he immediately shot back, "Why? He hasn't stopped the war or anything."
I am not taking about an indoctrinated child poised to defend (or attack) certain ideologies. Hell, I don't even think he knows what the Nobel is...but he sure can figure out that Peace Prize and "ongoing war" should not go together. Pretty perceptive.
Congratulations, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Next year Myth Buster get the nobel prize (Score:4, Funny)
Someone prep the Secret Service... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Who else was nominated? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious who the other nominees were that lost out to this bizarre result.. were they so unworthy?
Re:proletariat (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is looking at this and wondering what the hell your country is thinking.
I don't think he deserves the award this early, but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade. Some of his speeches in the middle east reflect a balanced and measured approach without historical alliances clouding the issues.
And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?
Re:proletariat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:proletariat (Score:4, Insightful)
Last time I checked the Constitution gave the Federal government the authority to blow billions of dollars on war and no authority to spend one red cent on health care (And yes I believe Medicare is unconstitutional too). The quantity of resources spent is an irrelevant metric to determine weather the Constitution permits something.
Re:proletariat (Score:4, Informative)
Have you actually looked at the Health Care Reforms that have been proposed in Congress? They're not going to make health care more affordable, they're not going to provide universal coverage. If they pass as written, the main thing they're going to do is increase the revenues of the current Health Insurance companies by about 10%.
Surely you remember those current Health Insurance companies? The ones largely blamed for the problems with American healthcare? Yah, those guys will make more money, the rest of us will spend more money, and Congress will call it good.
But thats the rub (Score:4, Insightful)
he isn't trying to make health care more affordable. None of them are. They are about consolidating the power of the Federal Government.
If they were trying to make health care more affordable they would have first...
1. Removed the blocks put in place so you cannot buy or take your private health insurance across state lines.
2. Medical malpractice and tort reform, because the amount of insurance needed to practice some medicines is beyond reasonable
3. Clean up the fraud in Medicare so more of the money is actually available for treatment
4. Expanded HSA so individuals can make their own health care decisions.
The real fault of the US's current health care is that severe medical hardships can strip a family of all their property - something that state medical systems already do (at least you can go bankrupt fighting a private insurer but states still take property)
Re:proletariat (Score:5, Insightful)
You need it to live, therefore providers can charge pretty much whatever they'd like.
No, providers can charge whatever they'd like because you have no idea what the service actually costs and people have no incentive to argue with them over the price because they aren't paying it to begin with. Do you really think hospitals would get away with charging $40 for dressings (the line item from my recent visit to the ER) if people actually saw that bill and had to pay it?
If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.
I know plenty about how the health care system works and it isn't anything remotely close to a free market. Go read this article [theatlantic.com] in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.
Re:proletariat (Score:5, Insightful)
France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife, with the walking dead, condemned by bureaucratic Death Panels, roaming the streets and hordes of atheists burning churches.
Thankfully the insurance industry is ready to pay billions to upstanding Congressmen and selfless community organizers so they can spread the truth.
Re:proletariat (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be a tad more disgusted that the glorified wasting of money to kill people across the world is considered "less annoying" than having the possibility of a slightly higher bill, or slightly higher taxes, or maybe, just maybe, it being a better choice.
Just remember, you said it. You prefer throwing billions at killing people than throwing billions at giving everyone health care.
Re:What a Croc OF Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course he can't get everything done and needs to make comprimises but he is the best thing since Kenedy. Period.
Let me guess... You get your information from Fox News?
Your spelling and Kennedy worship suggests to me that you get your information from MSNBC. See how easy it is to dismiss someone when you can just stereotype them rather then engage in an actual dialog with them?
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Informative)
The peace prize has really declined, hasn't it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've noticed for the past few years that the Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to definitely be moving in a direction not of honoring people for recognized achievements, but instead using the prize, seemingly, to try to promote an agenda. The parent's point is a good one - Obama hasn't really done that *much* yet, to promote peace - though I'm sure he has nobel, err, noble intentions, the actual results don't seem to be in yet.
Re:Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with any discussion of Democrat and Republican platforms is that neither party even remotely espouses the supposed platforms they stand for.
You have supposed liberals championing for government control, censorship, and the removal of rights. (Clinton, Biden, Reid)
You have supposed fiscal conservatives handing out bushels of money left and right. (McCain and Bush)
Both parties voted for war. Both parties voted for massive bailouts. Both parties keep putting money in their pocket. Both parties voted for domestic spy programs. Both parties keep creating new federal bureaucracy without doing anything to really make our lives better.
At the end of the day, we need a certain dose of the Libertarians, who want less government and more personal freedom, except they're naive in thinking if we ignore the rest of the world, they'll ignore us.
Re:Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Black female, here. I'd like to temporarily interrupt your rant to respond to this:
I didn't get this Black fund or this Woman fund that pays for college. The financial aid office didn't tell me "good news, you don't have to pay because you're Black and Female". I have about $40,000 in student loans from a bank.
I need you to imagine for a moment that you are a Black woman. You have to work with people. You have to apply for jobs. You sometimes need help from people. And all of these people are white men who have been told time and time again, they would have all the things they deserve and all the things they worked for, except that all of those things were given to people like you instead. This is in spite of the fact, they're making more money than you and they have the job you wish you had.
Better yet, imagine you finally have a chance to get a promotion that will put you over that $50,000 mark. And the person who has to decide whether to give it to you or the next guy has just finished reading some slashdot post about how the other guy deserves it and you don't. I'm just saying.