Nobel Peace Prize - Farce or Good for US

I hereby submit my application for $1.4M, along with my heartfelt commitment to do great things at some later unspecified time. Because it's good intentions that matter. Not results.

That said... The NPP has been a farce for at least a decade. A political posturing device whereby the committee advocates behavior they want to see, vs. an actual award for making a big difference in the world (ergo, Arafat). This was Obama's award for not being George W. Bush. And the committee's message that they want to see all the things he promised on the campaign trail come to pass.

If I went to Washington and wrote a check made out to Barack Obama for $1.4M and said it was advance payment for a list of things I expect him to do in the future, I would go to prison. Oh well.

Of course, he won't keep the money. It'll go to some charity or something. Should go to reduce the national debt, but I'm a dreamer.

Hey - maybe he'll use it to do another 4 hour round of Cash for Clunkers.

 

The Prize is already a farce. Traditionally, in all the different categories, it has been awarded for past deeds that have benefited the human kind. That is why you will see people get awarded for accomplishments that are sometimes decades old.

To award someone based purely on some well written and eloquently delivered speeches I think misses the point of this exercise.

 

The peace prize is very different from the rest.

This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, time that the Peace Prize will have been awarded symbolically. But really, why should what a group of northern Europeans do have any effect on US action or lack thereof?

In the case of Obama, it's not for what he's done, it's for what his election to President represents to others (although, I must admit when I heard the annoucement, I though he got the prize for just not being GW Bush!). And that's not a bad thing. Revitalizing co-operative engagment with the rest of the world, and also showing that a man of his background can become President are both good things for our nation.

Obama's little speach this moring had some good parts, like him saying that he didn't think that he deserved the award.... Obama didn't solicit the award, nor did he vote for winning it.

Congrats to him!

Matt

 

:mad2::mad2:

 

I think his Cairo speech was an olive branch to moderates....well overdue considering the farce that was WMD and Bush's folly.

Of course the award was political. Obama said as much....its to empower him to deliver on his promises. Whether he can, or, whether others will follow his vision has yet to be seen. What we've seen so far is that war is good for profits. This is true on ALL sides...

 

Now THAT'S funny, I don't care who you are...



Obama getting the NPP, that's even funnier. Unfreakinbelievable... honestly, what were they thinking??? FOR WHAT? Getting us further in debt? Giving away billions to unwatched companies that answer to no one? Costing the middle class billions of dollars?

WHAT EXACTLY has he given us?

Mark

 

Personally I like the Israeli take on this:

"What do you expect? These are the same people that gave the same prize to Yaser Arafat."

 

I think many of you miss the point..

it's not about what he's done. It's about what others think his ascendency to the Presidency and the US return to a more co-operative international stance represents. It would be nice if he lives up to the mantle, but even if he doesn't, how far he's come can still be a source of hope to many. Just like W getting to the presidency gave hope to C students and alcoholics everywhere!

Matt

 

That is hillarious! Great quote. NPP is a joke

 

Matt,

I have to disagree.... here's why.


Here's the legal definition:

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I don't see Obama having done anything worth a damn yet.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mark

 

Well hell, if it's about his ascendancy to the Presidency then shouldn't the prize go to someone more responsible for that succes in that context? Like... oh, I don't know.. who could we pick... wait... I know... how about ACORN? They sure have put some extra cough "effort" cough ....in. :lol:

And don't knock C students and alcoholics. I've seen what you do on top of Palace station parking lot at 3 a.m. :cornut:

 

While the Peace Prize is very different than the rest of the prizes

I looked at a list of all the past winners. It is far from a joke. But unlike the more traditional prizes, many of them were given to those who started something before it was completed, or who did something that represented the potential of the better side of humanity. That's not a bad thing, even though it's a very different philosophy than the traditional prizes.

It's easy to dismiss the prizes to the likes of Arafat based on his decay into corruption. It's also easy to dismiss the co-award of the prize to De Klerk and Mandela in 93 because De Klerk was the past champion of arpartide. But it is true that they both were involved in the changes in South Africa, and while De Klerk was a ruler of one of the most prejidiced modern "western" governments, he didn't just shoot everyone.

While some of the awards aren't that great in the view of a longer historical hindsight. I find the Peace Prize far from a farce or joke.

Matt

 

My quick unscientific tally comes to 5 of the last 9 being either farcical, political posturing, or starry-eyed hopeandchangeyness. And the other four I know nothing about, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

If you look back....

there are a lot of hope and changinesses in there, but this has been going since 1901. There are hope and changinesses that panned out (like getting the Irish to talk) and some that didn't, at least not yet (like getting the Isrealis and the Palestinians to talk).

Matt

 

Never content to let Matt have the last word,

here is some red meat on this topic.

Works and Days Nobelitics

 

Well, I read that

and boy, I've got writing skills and I don't think I could put more concepts into a two page write-up and hit puree like that author did.

I got the point that Norwegians should be blamed for thier geographic local and distribution of natural resources and that because of that, they should be pittied, a bit, for going off the rational path cause they just don't have a challenged life. and the correlary that because of this insulated life, the fact that thay go wacky on the Peace Prize should be more expected than surprising.

Even if one were to grant the postulates presented, it totally ignores the value of symbolic action. (That one I think many can have significant and real arguement about.) He could have taken the time to point out that better mileage could have been achieved by giving the prize to someone with a track record of accomplishment instead of a relative newbie, but he didn't choose to make that arguement, or any at all beyond the fact that Norwegians wacky actions should be understood in the context that thier privalaged life hasn't forced them to live in the "real world" where there are tough challenges that they have never faced.

Me, I don't know if I agree with the award this year or not, but I can at least appreciate the Peace Prize people who say that it was given for a couple of things that show good potential.

The rest of the puree of concept doesn't even deserve comment.

Matt

 

But do you admit the fact that the Norwegians are indeed couple of screws short of an Ikea kitchen?

 

Talk of the Nation

is having a show on this very subject right now. So far, the comments fall into these camps:

• He deserves it for what he represents
• Why blame him, the NPP comittee did it!
• Others deserved it more.
• Dilutes the whole NPP.

Matt

 

Well that explains your problem. You should be listening to Rush Limbaugh right now. NPR... no wonder you can't just shut up and agree with me.