SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 9, 2009 10:21:39 GMT -5
That's the first thing I thought. Of course it is ridiculous. But I'm going to enjoy the explosion in some people's heads. Are you agreeing with the first part of the second part? The second part, fine. The first part seems like pretty flawed logic to me. Both, actually. Like I said in the other thread, having been overseas recently, anyone that doesn't think the rest of the world likes Obama more than Bush is crazy. That said, like I said in that other thread, that's not worth all that much.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,389
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 9, 2009 10:23:31 GMT -5
FWIW, an AP wire story re: myths surrounding the Nobel Peace Prize (now maybe this is an ex post facto justification but no present accomplishment is considered necessary according this guy):
"An award that generates as much interest as the Nobel Peace Prize is bound to be surrounded by myths. Geir Lundestad, secretary of the secretive committee that awards the prize, outlines for The Associated Press some of the most common misunderstandings:
-- Myth: The prize can be revoked if a laureate does not live up to the standards of the peace prize.
There are no provisions for revoking the prize.
-- Myth: The prize can be awarded posthumously.
The prize was award posthumously only once -- in 1961, to former U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammerskjold, after he was killed in a plane crash in Africa. The rules were amended in 1974 to prohibit posthumous prizes.
-- Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments."
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 9, 2009 10:29:18 GMT -5
Like everyone this seems very surprising. One would think there are other more deserving candidates out there. But maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone name someone one out there who clearly got snubbed by giving it to someone who by most estimates, hasn't earned it yet? They do have the option of just not giving it out don't they? I think that's the wrong approach. You can say it's a joke that Obama got it without having to say who should have won it. That being said, I think Greg Mortenson, who was referenced in a link above, would have been a fine choice.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 9, 2009 10:32:24 GMT -5
I chuckled when I read the headline this morning as much because the award is premature as because of the odd juxtaposition of certain critics with the statement from the Taliban. There undoubtedly will be other strange bedfellows. Also strange that recently Obama was criticized for being rejected by an international body, and, now, he is criticized for being commended by one.
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that we should bash the award - it remains the most prestigious of its kind - or use opinions of it to say that this is another sad chapter in the same breath as the valid Arafat critique.
What it does tell me is that there seems to be an appalling lack of good candidates for this recognition in global politics. Gorbachev, Aung San Sui Kyi, and Mandela - no question about those, but they've already received the award. There are no such deserving global political leaders, like Gorbachev (or Reagan), between the early 1990's and 2008, at least. Whether there is now, is an open question. In that sense, I see the award as reflecting a hope that Obama will be such a leader more than a recognition that there is one.
His transformational aspects have been most felt in the United States and certain areas of Africa. Application to other strategic issues, such as the emergence of China or the spread of terrorism, not so much one way or the other.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 9, 2009 10:32:36 GMT -5
Both, actually. Like I said in the other thread, having been overseas recently, anyone that doesn't think the rest of the world likes Obama more than Bush is crazy. I'd even go farther than that - it goes to the rest of the world having a positive opinion of the US vs. a negative one. If you are making the argument that this is undeserved and that Obama has done nothing, you're basically admitting this is an indictment of the previous 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 9, 2009 10:43:28 GMT -5
Chairman Steele does not disappoint with his initial reaction - www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33240807/ns/politics-capitol_hill/Orrin Hatch, for whom I have a great deal of respect, was far more restrained and deserves commendation for his statement, also quoted in part at the link. The DNC responds to Steele with a fairly hard-hitting statement that could have come out of Dick Cheney's office roughly 5 years ago. (http://tinyurl.com/yhuw87h)
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 9, 2009 10:46:53 GMT -5
How can you not love Michael Steele? He never disappoints!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 9, 2009 10:47:56 GMT -5
Both, actually. Like I said in the other thread, having been overseas recently, anyone that doesn't think the rest of the world likes Obama more than Bush is crazy. I'd even go farther than that - it goes to the rest of the world having a positive opinion of the US vs. a negative one. If you are making the argument that this is undeserved and that Obama has done nothing, you're basically admitting this is basically an indictment of the previous 8 years. What's your point? I don't think anyone will disagree that this award was based on an intense dislike of the previous administration.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 9, 2009 10:50:00 GMT -5
How can you not love Michael Steele? He never disappoints! I don't find anything wrong with Steele's comments. His two points: Obama hasn't accomplished anything to justify this award, and his "star power" played a huge role in getting this award. How do you argue with that?
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by mchoya on Oct 9, 2009 10:52:13 GMT -5
Like everyone this seems very surprising. One would think there are other more deserving candidates out there. But maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone name someone one out there who clearly got snubbed by giving it to someone who by most estimates, hasn't earned it yet? They do have the option of just not giving it out don't they? You could make the case for Bill Clinton much better than the case for Barack Obama.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 9, 2009 10:52:16 GMT -5
Kc - the corollary question is why that matters now when the previous administration and many of its supporters expressly disdained international institutions and a consensus-based internationalism for which the Nobel Committee appears to stand. In other words, why care now or attach importance to it when it was expressly denied as being important or worthwhile in the past?
That this could be interpreted as a response to Bush should neither be surprising nor viewed as undeserved from the point of view of rejecting Bush.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 9, 2009 10:56:17 GMT -5
Now let's see if the great peacemaker has the stones to do what's necessary and commit troops to the Afghan theater.
His record of achievement in matters of peacemaking is unparalleled. Of course, that is because he has no record of peacemaking.
I believe Carter won this once too, right?
Nuf said.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 9, 2009 11:02:31 GMT -5
I don't find anything wrong with Steele's comments. His two points: Obama hasn't accomplished anything to justify this award, and his "star power" played a huge role in getting this award. How do you argue with that? He's attacking the President for winning a Nobel Prize. Sometimes it's better to not say anything and let others do the work for you. I give it a week until he's praising the Nobel Prize committee in a radio interview.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 9, 2009 11:02:47 GMT -5
A couple of points:
Ambassador: My intent was not to compare Obama to Arafat. I was pointing out that the award had lost meaning for me since then. I don't think either Obama nor Arafat should have received this award, but trust me....for VASTLY different reasons.
TC and SF: Again, my claim is not to dispute that Obama is popular with the people of other nations.* I will dispute his popularity - or at least any effectiveness due to some sort of better likability - with governments.
My point was to say that his winning the Peace prize is evidence of his popularity is not logical at all. It makes zero sense.
I further completely fail to see any logic behind the claim that saying Obama does not deserve this means an indictment of the Bush administration. That is a pretty left field and very strange claim, to say the least. But maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
(* The only country I have been to in the last year is England, so I can only speak anecdotally about my experience there and nowhere else, but I think this popularity idea might be a little overstated as well. People I met in London -- and this includes many days/nights spent in artist communities like Camden and Suffolk, sure seemed pretty lukewarm about Obama, and that was last spring. Not only that, but several of us who were there wore Bush t-shirts a couple of times, just to see what happened. We didn't get any negative reaction and the few people who did approach us because of our shirts basically said that they felt Bush got a bad rap & they kind of liked him. Anecdotal, yes, and not worth much to be sure, but it makes me skeptical of people who say everyone hated Bush and everyone is falling on their knees for Obama -- then again, there is a pretty substantial conservative resurgence in England thanks to Gordon Brown).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 9, 2009 11:11:12 GMT -5
Boz - I did not mean to imply that the intent was there and was not reacting to your comments directly. Apologies for confusion.
The award admittedly has turned into something like a Time Person of the Year award because you always get the "well Hitler won it too" kinds of drive-by arguments. I do think a case could be made for Jimmy Carter on the basis of Camp David and other matters. The former was no small accomplishment. Sure, he hopped off the tracks later and took his well-reasoned approach to an extreme, but its foundation was sound as we now witness the other extreme (vast asymmetry) fail to bring about a durable peace.
|
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Oct 9, 2009 11:32:47 GMT -5
Like everyone this seems very surprising. One would think there are other more deserving candidates out there. But maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone name someone one out there who clearly got snubbed by giving it to someone who by most estimates, hasn't earned it yet? They do have the option of just not giving it out don't they? You could make the case for Bill Clinton much better than the case for Barack Obama. I hated Clinton but yes, he has much more claim for the prize. The Korea thing alone earned it.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 9, 2009 11:53:27 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 9, 2009 11:54:17 GMT -5
I hated Clinton but yes, he has much more claim for the prize. The Korea thing alone earned it. Maybe you and Kanye can crash the stage and put that suggestion out there.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 9, 2009 11:55:18 GMT -5
Another issue to take up is the idea that the Committee may have been impressed by domestic things, like the speeches on race and faith that Obama made during his campaign. He may even be deserving simply as the first African-American president. Nobody questions that achievement credibly to my knowledge. Certainly there are plenty of Nobel recipients whose impact is similarly felt at a domestic level.
Martin Luther King may be one such recipient. Ask some folks in Europe about him, and they'll ask whether he's related to Martin Luther.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 9, 2009 12:02:18 GMT -5
Here's another funny one Boz :
"I was nominated three years ago and I'm still waiting for the call." - John Bolton
|
|