Ok, yesterday I thought I had seen it all.
This morning I wake to find the Barack Hussein Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
Was the prize for his 2009 apology tour? Did they feel sorry for him that he lost the Olympics?
The odd thing that I find amazing is not that in less than nine months into his presidency he wins the prize, but the fact that two weeks after his presidency begun the nominee selection deadline was officially closed.
From the story:
The announcement Friday in Oslo, Norway, came as a surprise -- Obama had not been mentioned among front-runners -- and the roomful of reporters gasped when Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee, announced Obama's name.
Jagland said the decision was unanimous and came with ease.
He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.
Don't Miss
Jagland said he hoped the prize would help Obama resolve the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So the prize was awarded based on some future event that may or may not happen??
Story goes on to say:
Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, last year's laureate, said it was clear the Nobel committee wanted to encourage Obama on the issues he has been discussing on the world stage.
"I see this as an important encouragement," Ahtisaari said.
The committee wanted to be "far more daring" than in recent times and make an impact on global politics, said Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the International Peace Research Institute.
The committee has given out a prize based on encouraging a president to do something about peace rather than just talking about peace.
Sort of a carrot and stick deal...except they gave him the carrot first.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Wow. That's really, really stupid.
To be fair, nobody else leaps to mind when I think about potential Peace Prize winners in the last year so it might as well be someone who is in a position to do something about it; maybe this'll give him a nudge in the right direction....still, it's incredibly stupid and makes the whole Nobel committee look like a bunch of throne-sniffers.
Shame.
What a joke.
Didn't they also give the prize to the trouble maker (Jimmy Carter), and to the murderer (Yassir Arafat)?
Matt, you have been agreeing way too much with me lately ;)
I know, how come you've been talking so much sense recently?!
;)
Hey, things like this are just common sense, right? I think any reasonable person should able to recognize when people are leaping on a bandwagon.
*Sigh*
Bizarre, indeed. They've confirmed its utter uselessness and near meaninglessness for those who may have not been entirely convinced already.
If mere good intention is a measure of the worth of a candidate for this prize, virtually anyone should be a rather decent competitor for the award.
What an oddity that Bush was not a name that popped up (or did it) since he, like Obama, heartily continued our massively bloated overseas military empire's presence in the name of peace.
Gotta agree that I find this disappointing.
Having said that, I'm with Matt in that I can't really think of anyone off the top of my head who I think deserves it more... yet I gotta think that there's *someone* out there who does.
I know Europe likes Obama, but this? Might be going a bit too far for my tastes.
Of course, I'd rather have an ineffective Obama than any kind of Palin, but that's just me.
Oh, and regarding Joe's comment:
I in no way think that the Nobel Prize is useless or meaningless. The history of it (minus a few people) is just too important, in my opinion.
But this particular choice of a recipient? Lame.
I was thinking perhaps the opposition leader in Zimbabwe who has been risking life and limb to bring some kind of democracy/peace to the country in the face of Mugabe's madness (and Hitler mustache).
He's fought really hard (and incredibly bravely), but has actually brought more bloodshed to the nation due to Mugabe's brutal put-downs of his supporters and there's been no lasting success to speak of either.
Still, he gave it a go and, apparently, that's all you need!
I can't wait for 2059 when they reveal the details of the nomination/selection process.....
I would also put forth anyone who is fighting against all of the claims of "witches" with children in Africa.
You are absolutely right about Obama being given "the carrot" first. Good point. Bad move.
Obama could have been President for only 12 days at the time he was nominated for the prize.
The last day that nominations were accepted was Feb. 12, 2009.
You know, I have great aspirations for peace in the middle east. I should have been nominated as well.
Well, since a great deal of the world’s conflict and tensions can be traced back to American foreign policy, perhaps it was thought by giving Obama the Peace Prize it may spur him to make amends for many of the problems America has caused? A ‘Man reaps what he sows...’ (Gal 6:7).
e.g. the current problems in the Middle East can be seen as rooted in America turning a blind eye to a nation that wilfully ignores international law and forces the original citizens of Palestine to live as second class citizens, taking away their land and property and just giving it to Jews who are in the main European and American immigrants to the land. There have been many UN directives on this and yet Israel has just ignored them; nothing much has happened. Iraq does the same and it is taken as an invitation to invade – the fact that Iraq has some of the world’s largest oil reserves I am sure had nothing to do with Bush’s thinking on the matter... I think not. It is this kind of hypocrisy that has made America a hated nation in many parts of the world. Perhaps there is hope Obama will reverse this trend. One can only hope.
However, I agree, it is a little premature – it would be more fitting if his name was put forward in three years’ time, when we can judge his presidency for what it produces rather than what hope it offers.
Steve
Do you know ANYTHING about world history? Do you know how the nation of Israel was founded in 1948?
Given for several years I worked as a volunteer at a Jewish charity, working with Jewish people with mental health problems I am afraid I rather take exception to being called a 'Jew Hater'. Esp. given several of my friends are Jewish (one an Israeli) and I live in the Eruv of north London – I have even attended services at a synagogue – can you say you have done these things or have Jewish friends? – I suspect all you know of Jewish culture, history and the foundation of the modern state of Israel could be written on square of toilet tissue. Disapproving of some of Israel’s social and political policies is not ‘Jew Hating’ - indeed many Jews within and without Israel hold similar views to mine. I do not mind criticism, but to be branded a Jew Hater by someone who shows such a glaring ignorance of the issues of the Middle East is inexcusable and alas, says more about you, Steve, and your ‘hatreds’ than my own well considered, and without wishing to boast, well-informed point of view.
Steve, it must be painful to go through life with so much hatred and spite - and, I'm sorry to say, so much ignorance of the wider world outside of America. I would strongly recommend furthering your education and learning that things are not black and white - the problems of the Middle East are extremely complex and have their roots, alas, in European (esp. British & French) colonialism, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and post-WW2 American foreign policy.
If you had any idea of the history of Palestine you would not write such twaddle. Perhaps I can suggest two books that might help diminish your ignorance on the subject? ‘Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1798-1939’ by Albert Hourani is a good place to start and a very good read. ‘Israel: A history’ by Martin Gilbert is another handy tome.
Though of course ‘Ignorance is Bliss’ and those who prefer it often do so because it makes like simpler – but all too often their hatreds stronger... QED
Steve
All well and good - but two wrongs don't make a right. No one is saying Jews bad: Arabs good. There are massive faults on both sides and The West has often made things worse not better (as you note)– indeed what business is it of Britain or America or the UN to interfere in the politics of the Middle East? I am not going to get drawn into answering the above points - though I will note that the PLO has long been a weak force in Palestinian politics - it is a secular, Left Wing, nationalistic organisation and it is these organisations which are condemned by Fundamentalist Islamic groups. Many of the nationalistic Arab organisations founded on Leftwing political values in the 1940s & 50s have since come to be distrusted or maligned by Muslim Religious Groups. Hamas (Sunni Muslim) now holds power in Gaza and Hezbollah (a Shi’ite org. on the West Bank). This usurpation or assumption of Right Wing politics by religion is indeed something to condemn and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments on that one... Politics and religion are best kept apart!
However, in all your eloquence you have not said why I am a Jew Hater? – Which I confess is probably one of the most insulting things said to me in a long time... Since I have demonstrated that I am not – in the ‘getting your hands dirty’ kind of way (do you give up free time to help other people? People of another faith and culture?) I think the least you could do is apologise for your offensiveness. As I apologise for stating saying you have a lack of knowledge about Israeli history. Though I will add that the above supports my argument as well as yours...
Regards, brother!
I didn't read where Steve called Anonymous a Jew hater.
Steve said Jew hating was alive and well in respect to the Palestinians and their threat to eliminate the Jews.
I posted a piece on my blog in response to your comments here on Wayne's blog. , Anonymous.
It's by that rabid man of the Right (formerly a liberal - still a classic liberal) Dennis Prager.
It's quite good. I think.
Wayne is quite right (thank you, Wayne). I was referring to the fact that the unmitigated hatred for Israel is alive and well in the world. Many people in this world just seem to have a inborn dislike for the Jews.
For the life of me, I can't figure out what it is, other than the Jews were God's chosen people.
If you look at their contribution to the world, it seems that they are overachievers. They have produced an oasis in the desert where there ws nothing. They provide a much better life for all that will take part in what they have to offer.
They have weapons that could completely wipe out their enemies, yet they do not use them. I could hardly imagine their enemies doing the same.
If I had to live in a Middle East country, there wouldn't be one that I, as a Christian, would rather live in. If I were a Muslim, I would still rather live in Israel.
They treat women, gays, minorities, secular, people of other faiths far better than any Muslim country in the region, or the world for that matter.
I'd love to go there for a visit one day.
Steve
Point taken - yes, if some of the countries around Israel had a nuclear bomb, I strongly suspect they would use it. And yes, for its citizens it is a good, solid, and (in the main) secular democracy. Similarly, yes I agree with you that quality of life for its citizens is very good with a good record on human rights. That said Palestinians are treated very badly and Israel needs to address this issue by greater economic assistance to those it has marginalised.
As for Jew Hating: 'Jew hating is alive and well' was your response to my post - perhaps I missed something here, but to me it seems that I was being included underneath this catch-all of Jew Hater. Which I can assure you I am not.
Whatever it is rare in this world one side is wholly right and the other wholly wrong, as such let us agree to do disagree on this matter.
Regards!
Anonymous
Ah, I just learned two things from Steve:
1. Goodness does he enjoy that word "rabid". I see that it's just his favorite piece of hyperbole.
2. Muslims pray with their back to Jerusalem? Since when? Muslims pray facing Mecca. If that's also facing Jerusalem, they don't turn around. (That was point #8)
Post a Comment