43
   

Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 03:27 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
Brilliant


Good grief Queenie. It's been said millions of times.

A nice irony is that the anti-IDers on the evolution/religion threads have cited Nobel prize winners to give their case more credibility. And Set is an anti-IDer.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 03:57 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Brilliant


Good grief Queenie. It's been said millions of times.

A nice irony is that the anti-IDers on the evolution/religion threads have cited Nobel prize winners to give their case more credibility. And Set is an anti-IDer.


At least the science prizes are awarded based on accomplishments, actual, real world, accomplishments.

They aren't giving them out for poorly thought out hypothesis' are they?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 04:02 pm
@maporsche,
The term "Anti-IDer" is a Spurious-ism. I'm not opposed to "intelligent design"--fools are entitled to believe what they want to believe. I am opposed to people attempting to introduce into schools' science curricula theses which have no scientific basis, and this, of course, includes creationism and "intelligent design," which is simply dishonest creationism.

Your point is well taken about the basis for the award for science. Not that i think that will mean anything to those who have a stake in denying aspects of science which clash with their superstition of choice. In the case of Spurious, he is simply being a contrarian. It is enough for him to know that people here oppose the promotion of "intelligent design" as having a scientific basis for him to want to take up the cause.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 05:13 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
At least the science prizes are awarded based on accomplishments, actual, real world, accomplishments.

They aren't giving them out for poorly thought out hypothesis' are they?


I haven't a clue mate. Modern science is beyond me. If you think you have it within your compass congratulations but what you're doing on A2K in that case is also beyond me.

It was Set who sought to discredit the Nobel prize committee. Not me.

I think they are fine body of men doing their best in all the circumstances.

What surprised me was that an intelligent, talented and beautiful young lady such as Queenie obviously is should think Set's drivelling boring cliche was "brilliant". His corny remark applies to the Oscars, BAFTAs and lower down the scale to the handing out of degrees and diplomas.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 05:40 pm
@Setanta,
As Set continues to refer to me by a derogatory name which is not the one I chose myself for my cyber persona it is fair enough that I should respond in kind.

Settin' Aah-aah, an English term for drying out baby **** shortly before it sets solid wrote-

Quote:
It is enough for him to know that people here oppose the promotion of "intelligent design" as having a scientific basis for him to want to take up the cause.


I see intelligent design as the last trench in the resistance to atheism. I think the resistance to atheism is amply justified on the basis that anti-IDers will not even think about the consequences of them winning the argument.

It is all very well opposing religion but doing so requires an explanation of what happens when we have got rid of it. Truth is human, facts are not.

Not that I can't defend the idea of intelligent design scientifically. I can. It isn't my fault that anti-IDers shrink from that defence like young ladies shrink from spiders and wriggling snakes. But this is not a science thread so it would be out of place to repeat the defence I have mounted in the appropriate forum and which has not only not been answered but no attempt has been made to do so apart from pointless insults, ignorant and wildly fanciful invective and ridiculous assertions.

It is also not my fault that schools are an important mind conditioner despite Settin' Aah-aah thinking of them as he might think of any other abstract concept he can use and manipulate in the service of making idiots admire his intelligence and knowledge of the world.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 05:47 pm
Quote:
October 09, 2009, 1:00 a.m.

A Fitting Prize, in a Way
By the Editors


Well, that didn’t take long. But it was almost inevitable: the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama. As “the world” hated Pres. George W. Bush, “the world” loves President Obama.

What do we mean by “the world”? We mean the editors of Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and the Guardian. The faculty at Brown University. The secretariat of the United Nations. We mean Lord Malloch-Brown, not Václav Klaus. When President Bush visited Iraq for the last time, a foe of his threw a shoe at him. The shoe-thrower was taken to be “the world.” Hugo Chávez even made laughing reference to him recently at the U.N. Many Iraqis admire and appreciate President Bush. They do not count as “the world.”

Very much counting as “the world” is the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They practically define it. Every year since 1901, the peace prize has been given by a committee of five Norwegians. They are appointed by the Norwegian parliament, the Storting. The Nobel Peace Prize always reflects the consensus of Norwegian politics. And that consensus is, in a word " a word the Norwegians might well choose " “progressive.” Others might call it left-wing.

In any case, the Nobel Peace Prize almost never disappoints the editors of Le Monde, the faculty at Brown, etc.

The committee has 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. In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”

That is true (at least in part). The Nobel Committee appreciates Obama for his repudiation of all things Bush. The new president has frozen out America’s allies in Eastern Europe, causing great consternation among them. He has put “daylight” between America and its No. 1 Middle Eastern ally, Israel. He kept almost mum when Iranian democrats massed in the streets to demand a more decent life " the American focus is on negotiating with the regime. He gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, the U.N. official who presided over Durban, that hate-Israel jamboree.

He yukked it up with Chávez, giving him a soul-brother handshake and calling him “mi amigo.” He went along with an invitation to Cuba to rejoin the Organization of American States " this despite that fact that the OAS is supposed to be for democracies, not police states. He had America rejoin the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, under Bush, we bowed out of: because it was dominated by such lovely regimes as the ones in Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, Syria, and Sudan; because it existed almost solely to defame Israel.

All these moves of Obama, the Nobel Committee appreciates immensely. This is an American president in their own image, the kind of president they will cheer and honor. For them, Obama is a dream president, just as Bush was a nightmare president. He is the first “post-American president,” as John Bolton and others have said. For “the world,” that is a dream president.

Our Declaration of Independence speaks of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” A decent respect is not a need for approval. Besides, who is mankind? Merely the Nobel Committee and the shoe-thrower, or Bush-loving Iraqis, too? We might ask another question: Whose approval would President Obama rather have: that of the Nobel Committee or that of the Rotary Club in Butte?

In recent years, the Nobel Committee has done everything possible to express its abhorrence of Bush and his ways. In 2001, they gave the peace prize to Kofi Annan and the U.N. The message, in part, was: “America, you’d better not respond to 9/11 by yourselves, or too aggressively.” The next year, they gave the prize to Jimmy Carter, and, here, the chairman of the committee was refreshingly candid: saying that they were honoring Carter in order to give Bush “a kick in the leg,” or, in our own parlance, a black eye. A more honorable president might have refused that award, if given for the purpose of bashing the current president.

Another black eye came in 2005, when the committee gave the award to Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei has said explicitly that his goal " his only “brief,” as he has put it " is to prevent military action against Iran. Accordingly, he has repeatedly downplayed that country’s nuclear progress. And the IAEA has repeatedly looked foolish, and blind. In Beijing the other day, ElBaradei said that the number-one threat to peace in the Middle East is . . . Israel, and its nukes.

In 2007, the Nobel Committee went with Al Gore and the U.N.’s global-warming people. And now, in 2009, Obama.

This award will cause people " will cause “the world” " to say that America is back in the fold, back in the good graces of “the world.” After a season apart, under the cowboy Bush, America is a citizen of “the world” once again. In the Nobel Committee sense of “the world,” we are.

The committee would never have given the award to Ronald Reagan, much as he did for peace, and much as Mrs. Reagan may have wanted it for him. (The committee did award Gorbachev, however.) Years ago, National Review made the editorial quip that the Nobel Peace Prize, every year, should be given to the Defense Department: because the American military was the world’s foremost guarantor of peace.

A few days ago, there was a rumor that Harry Wu, the anti-Communist dissident from China, would win the peace prize. That was terribly unlikely. Would the committee ever honor Oscar Biscet, the Afro-Cuban political prisoner who is a symbol of hope, defiance, and decency in that country? A virtual impossibility.

President Bush gave a Medal of Freedom to Biscet (in absentia, of course); Obama gave one to Mary Robinson. That neatly illustrates the difference between those two presidents, and between types who win the Nobel prize and those who don’t.

Alfred Nobel, a great man, wanted his prize to go to “champions of peace,” men and women who genuinely contributed to peace in the world. He deplored the “absurd and futile efforts of windbags who are capable of thwarting the best of aims.” Can Barack Obama really make a contribution to peace, the way the Reagans of the world genuinely do? Reagan got no peace prize, but he made a huge positive difference, and the world, along with “the world,” should know that Oslo doesn’t always know best.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 07:32 pm
@engineer,
It is timely so as to counter the absolute control of American mass media by the Republicans who despite being a minority in Congress has the attitude of a pit bull. Those who disenfranchised the average worker have piled their loot from bonuses and created a slush fund to slag Obama and have been asking 'what has Obama done?' when in reality he has done a lot but the American media has either downplayed or ignored the difficulty of the work cut out for him by Bush or mis-characterizing his achievements.
saab
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 01:25 am
@talk72000,
It is not just a question of the American mass media by the Republicans. In Europe where people really are/were for Obama and against Bush the criticism has been enourmus.
Any of the Nobel Prizes should be given for what you have accomplished. Even tho Obama has done a lot he has not yet fulfilled any of the three points Nobel put into his will.
You don´t give the prize in litterature to someone who has written a lot of articles and promised to write a book.
Some people have critized the Nobel commity in Norway because Jagland is in the commite and also Secretary General of the Council of Europe which is dependent of Russia. Jagland should never have been in the commite.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 09:05 am
Just in case we haven't covered off the entire range of reactions ...

Reactions to Obama’s Peace Prize, on a Continuum of Dismissiveness

Quote:
The much more popular feeling seems to be that the award is, as Woody Allen memorably put it in Bananas, "a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham." Herewith, reactions from around the Internet, from the most forgiving to the most caustic.

• Steve Benen says it's "not unreasonable" to believe that award was "premature," but the decision is "nevertheless defensible." "The Nobel Peace Prize, as I understand it, is awarded to the person (or persons) who've shown great leadership in advancing the cause of international peace," he writes. "President Obama has invested consider[able] energy and political capital in doing just that." [Political Animal/Washington Monthly]


through

Quote:
• Gideon Rachman believes that "while it is OK to give school children prizes for 'effort' " my kids get them all the time " I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard." [Rachmanblog/FT]


to

Quote:
• Richard Cohen mocks even more mockingly: "In a stunning announcement, Millard Fillmore Senior High School chose Shawn Rabinowitz, an incoming junior, as next year’s valedictorian. The award was made, the valedictorian committee announced from Norway of all places, on the basis of 'Mr. Rabinowitz’s intention to ace every course and graduate number one in class.'" There are a lot more like that, too. [PostPartisan/WP]




wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 09:52 am
@ehBeth,
Going to blogs to snip out negative remarks? Don't let the Nobel committee annoy you so much! Is it a U.S. - Canada thing for you, ehbeth?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 09:54 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Going to blogs to snip out negative remarks? Don't let the Nobel committee annoy you so much! Is it a U.S. - Canada thing for you, ehbeth?


It's really amazing to me how pissy some people are getting over this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 09:58 am
@wandeljw,
errr, the top one I picked was the most positive one they found at NYMag

(then I picked one in the middle (since it was one we'd talked about here), and the one at the bottom )

My personal position has to do with how the committee devalued NPP's that have previously been awarded.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 10:13 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

My personal position has to do with how the committee devalued NPP's that have previously been awarded.
Oh really !!??

Here's a list of awardees since 1968. I don't think they have "cheapened" the award at all. They have instead behaved in a way that is entirely consistent with their particular political agenda - one is so clearly evident in the list.
2009 - Barack Obama
2008 - Martti Ahtisaari
2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
1979 - Mother Teresa
1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 - Amnesty International
1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
1975 - Andrei Sakharov
1974 - Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato
1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
1972 - The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
1971 - Willy Brandt
1970 - Norman Borlaug
1969 - International Labour Organization
1968 - René Cassin
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 10:22 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

My personal position has to do with how the committee devalued NPP's that have previously been awarded.
Oh really !!??


Really. That's why I say it is my personal position. Not yours.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 10:31 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
They have instead behaved in a way that is entirely consistent with their particular political agenda ...


The members of the (Norwegian) Nobel Peace Committee were predominantly centre-right/right (= most members are/have been from the Center Party, the Christian People's Party and the Conservatives) until the mid-90's.

The next two terms had a left/Labour predominance.

The actual committee serving now, is again predominantly centre/right.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 11:16 am
@Walter Hinteler,
What are you trying to say Walter? That their selections over the years don't demonstrate any political bias? That this is not so is quite evident from the list.

You appear to be suggesting that the fine distinctions of European politics, taken together, necessarily represent all possible perspectives, -- that the difference between "center left", "center" and "labor" in Scandanavian politics spans all human possibilities. While this self-centered attitude is entirely in keeping with the contemporary European view of the world, it simply isn't true. However, it is also evident that the Nobel Trustees represent it as well.

It is a fitting legacy for the fortune of Alfred Nobel, which was accumulated through his support of a decades long arms race which later culminated in WWI.
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 08:33 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Anyone else think this is way premature?


I don't. I think he's been awarded this for what he has already done to promote world peace. From my perspective, he's done more than anyone else. He has communicated support of peace, diplomacy and negotiation better than anyone this year (possibly ever).

It seems some would disqualify him on the basis that he has promised, (and has the potential to achieve) a great deal more than that.

Also, I think there is some deliberate purpose in giving the award to someone in a position of current and future power. For example, he now helps to broker peace in the middle east as one of The World's Nobel Peace Prize winners, not merely as the president of one western bully.

To put it another way, they are supporting Obama and his diplomatic agenda for peace.

I think a lot of Americans may have more trouble seeing this clearly without the cloud of domestic politics blurring their vision.
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 11:49 pm
A Nobel Peace Prize for Barak Obama; what the hell is that all about, what has he done for peace?
Young men and women are still dying in Afghanistan in a war that started with an illegal US invasion.
Innocent people are still locked up in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.
Palestinians are still being denied their birthright by the Israelis who are supported by the US to the tune of approximately $US 3 billion per annum; economic aid & military aid. What has Obama done for the Palestinians?
The only thing Obama’s Peace Prize will achieve is the devaluation of the prize; Alfred Nobel did not setup the Foundation to nurture flunkeyism, which we understand as ‘crawling’ in the hope of gaining some advantage, this has to be a joke?
He should return it immediately!
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2009 12:53 am
@anton,
anton wrote:


Young men and women are still dying in Afghanistan in a war that started with an illegal US invasion.
Innocent people are still locked up in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.
Palestinians are still being denied their birthright by the Israelis who are supported by the US to the tune of approximately $US 3 billion per annum; economic aid & military aid.



My mistake, I must have missed the name of the person who solved all these problems.... ? I think perhaps you have unrealistically high expectations.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2009 03:48 am
@anton,
Upon what basis do you allege that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal? The United States was attacked by a criminal organization which harbored in Afghanistan, and when the then constituted government--the Taliban--was given an ultimatum to surrender them to the United States, or fact the consequences, they refused. The consequence was the invasion. This is acceptable in international law. Of course, you might object to all wars--but it is not realistic to expect nations to lie down and submit to such situations.

Upon what basis do you allege that the people who remain in the prison camp in Guantanamo are innocent? They may well be, some of them--but how do you know that to be a fact? How do you propose that Mr. Obama resolve, overnight, a tragic situation in Palestine which has festered for more than 60 years?

It looks to me as though you are motivated by the disappointment of your expectations--expectations, i would add, which are not realistic. I consider your post to be irrational.
 

Related Topics

John O'Hara and the Nobel Prize - Question by Miller
I am looking for an ornament. - Discussion by peter jeffrey cobb
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2022 at 12:00:54