Obama has won a Nobel

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Little32

To paraphrase a colleague, only in America could a Nobel Peace Prize inspire so much hate.

And only in present-day U.S. politics can it be said that "disagreement" equals "hate."

[Little32]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

And only in present-day U.S. politics can it be said that "disagreement" equals "hate."

Don't be disingenuous.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by Little32

As the Foundation is a private entity,

While the Nobel Foundation may be a private entity, the committee that selects the Peace Prize is made up of members elected by the Norwegian Parliament. . . .that being, the Peace Prize committee is rather political in nature. . .

[Little32]

Originally Posted by Beryana

While the Nobel Foundation may be a private entity, the committee that selects the Peace Prize is made up of members elected by the Swedish Parliament. . . .that being, the Peace Prize committee is rather political in nature. . .

And I have never said that it is not. Even if there weren't that association, the prize would still be political (most stuff is, right). It is not, however, only political in this particular case.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by Little32

First, to the bold: yes, it is and no one chided you on it, though you "struck the first blow."

Second, I don't blindly support anybody, but I do acknowledge that they and not I have been entrusted to make these decisions and award these prizes. As the Foundation is a private entity, I understand that any protest or objection that I might raise is generally pointless and perhaps presumptious; much in the same way that someone outside of your fraternity could not really make any protests about members that you admit to your fraternity, at least none that you would consider worthy of acknowledgement and, honestly, most of which you would probably deride.

The committee collectively decided that Obama deserved the honor and they are the ones that matter with regards to the prize, which is theirs to give. To me, that's the bottom line to the question of merit. To paraphrase a colleague, only in America could a Nobel Peace Prize inspire so much hate.

Edit to address your edit: The things that I run, I take care of. My whole point is that the decision of the committee of this private organization--in which the assertion of merit is implicit--should be respected. What does all of this second-guessing gain anyone? Why do people feel that their perspective has more merit or validity than those of the people that were chosen to sit on this committee? Why does anyone feel a need to talk about who does or does not deserve the prize? What is the point?

I agree with you Little32. The committee thought he deserved it so, clearly based on the standards that count he deserved it.

People who ask what has he achieved probably don't recognize how difficult it truly is to organize such a large number of extremly diverse supporters [a group of supporters that crosses boundaries of race, religion, region, language, etc.] around a message of hope, positivity, humanity and ultimately love. No one else has ever been able to do that. I know its a small achievement to some, but comparatively speaking it is quite large.

Now, he won the Prize because he can actually do what he has set out to do and is in the process of making it happen. Yes, its political, but I wouldn't say he is not at all deserving. Glad he won it!

"Why put off for tomorrow what you can accomplish today?" Guess the Prize committee took this one to heart! lol!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Little32

The committee collectively decided that Obama deserved the honor and they are the ones that matter with regards to the prize, which is theirs to give. To me, that's the bottom line to the question of merit. To paraphrase a colleague, only in America could a Nobel Peace Prize inspire so much hate.

I'm absolutely not "hating on" Obama for winning the award - I'm questioning whether he was the best recipient, sure, but that's fundamentally different. I can completely appreciate the net positives that may come out of this, but my first reaction was similar to some: what's he actually done to earn it?

I mean, it's kind of reductive to insinuate that he's earned it 'just' by being the first black President - while that's a tremendous accomplishment, it seems bad for racial lines in the US to simply use that, and actually works against goals of equality. I can appreciate the rhetoric that has softened foreign distaste for American politics, but it's just that - rhetoric, without corresponding action (yet). I hope we get there, but the Peace Prize seems like more of a lifetime achievement award, and less of a "look what great things you'll do!" thing (which is borderline children's novel, now that I read it).

Edit to address your edit: The things that I run, I take care of. My whole point is that the decision of the committee of this private organization--in which the assertion of merit is implicit--should be respected.

In no way is this an implicit truth - a private organization carries implicit merit? That's absolutely an untenable position.

What does all of this second-guessing gain anyone? Why do people feel that their perspective has more merit or validity than those of the people that were chosen to sit on this committee? Why does anyone feel a need to talk about who does or does not deserve the prize? What is the point?

The "point" is that the award carries tremendous cachet and public interest, and a great deal of implicit power - you can name an unbelievable number of those awarded right off the top of your head. Since the recipient carries newfound power in the public eye, it is certainly within the public purview to discuss whether this was justly awarded.

Again, I'm not arguing that the committee somehow violated its tenets or duties in any fashion - I'm merely stating that, by their stated goals and the history of the award, there's certainly reason and foundation to argue that the committee doesn't always get the right guy, whether by reason (such as politics, like some have asserted) or accident (which is completely reasonable, and indeed human nature). I completely understand your points and appreciate the thought-out responses, I just disagree that there is no utility or rationale behind discussing this - in fact, if there weren't, it would seriously devalue the award, in my mind.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm absolutely not "hating on" Obama for winning the award - I'm questioning whether he was the best recipient, sure, but that's fundamentally different.



In no way is this an implicit truth - a private organization carries implicit merit? That's absolutely an untenable position.



The "point" is that the award carries tremendous cachet and public interest, and a great deal of implicit power - you can name an unbelievable number of those awarded right off the top of your head. Since the recipient carries newfound power in the public eye, it is certainly within the public purview to discuss whether this was justly awarded.

Again, I'm not arguing that the committee somehow violated its tenets or duties in any fashion - I'm merely stating that, by their stated goals and the history of the award, there's certainly reason and foundation to argue that the committee doesn't always get the right guy, whether by reason (such as politics, like some have asserted) or accident (which is completely reasonable, and indeed human nature).

Still comes back to that one niggling short question though huh?

Who are we to say who is the right person?

Moreso, does not winning keeps those who didn't win, up at night or make them quit their efforts ?

I don't think Gandhi lost any sleep.

[DGTess]

The 1983 Laureate, Poland's Lech Walesa, was more blunt.
"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast - he hasn't had the time to do anything yet," Walesa told reporters in Warsaw.

Neither did key US newspaper The Wall Street Journal mince its words, describing the choice of Obama as "completely bizarre."
"It is unclear why. For making peace, of a kind, with Hillary Clinton? For giving up the missile shield and cheering up the Iranians? For preparing a surge of troops and weaponry in Afghanistan?" said the paper in an editorial.
"Of course, traditionally it has been standard procedure that winners of the prize do their peacemaking first... But this innovation sweeps aside such old-fashioned notions of reward following effort."

The new American way.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm absolutely not "hating on" Obama for winning the award - I'm questioning whether he was the best recipient, sure, but that's fundamentally different.... I completely understand your points and appreciate the thought-out responses, I just disagree that there is no utility or rationale behind discussing this - in fact, if there weren't, it would seriously devalue the award, in my mind.

I guess I am not sure how to respond to your post, since it demonstrates that you have misread just about everything that I have written. If you want to repost, demonstrating a careful rereading, I might be able to respond better.

Or, we can agree to disagree.

ETA: I will say this, I think there is a difference between arguing that Obama flat out does not deserve it and arguing that there are others who are equally or more deserving. Does that make sense?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Little32

ETA: I will say this, I think there is a difference between arguing that Obama flat out does not deserve it and arguing that there are others who are equally or more deserving. Does that make since?

So if your saying there is a difference, what about us who feel he flat out does not deserve it BECAUSE there are people that are more deserving (can't even say equally, because he shouldn't have been nominated in the first place)?


Should someone get a Nobel Prize, because they give speeches claiming they will find a cure for [insert incurable disease]? Of course not, they'll get it WHEN they find the cure. Actions speak louder than words.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by epchick

So if your saying there is a difference, what about us who feel he flat out does not deserve it BECAUSE there are people that are more deserving (can't even say equally, because he shouldn't have been nominated in the first place).


Should someone get a Nobel Prize, because they give speeches claiming they will find a cure for [insert incurable disease]? Of course not, they'll get it WHEN they find the cure. Actions speak louder than words.

Yes to the bolded. While it can be argued wither he deserves it based on what has happened since, what did he do to deserve it in the less then 2 weeks he was president. I honestly think a large part of his getting the award is simply because he was the first non white president.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Yes to the bolded. While it can be argued wither he deserves it based on what has happened since, what did he do to deserve it in the less then 2 weeks he was president. I honestly think a large part of his getting the award is simply because he was the first non white president.

You are kidding right?

One small thing kills your argument.

Mandela

...who just also happened to be the first non white of South Africa

[Little32]

Originally Posted by epchick

So if your saying there is a difference, what about us who feel he flat out does not deserve it BECAUSE there are people that are more deserving (can't even say equally, because he shouldn't have been nominated in the first place)?

I think that saying that he flat out does not deserve it is arrogant and presumptuous. It implies that everyone that has been a part of this process from the nomination to the final vote is some kind of moron because they came to a different conclusion and both nominated him and chose him to receive the prize. It is arrogant because these people are not arbitrarily chosen, nor are they so ill-informed as to make a fundamentally unsound choice. It is presumptuous because none of us are completely privy to the deliberation process, so we don't know why he was chosen where another was not. Why is it so impossible to grant the Nobel Foundation the same sort of privilege that most of us insist upon for our own organizations.

I think that what I have said stands. I don't know how to explain it any differently.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Little32

I think that saying that he flat out does not deserve it is arrogant and presumptuous. It implies that everyone that has been a part of this process from the nomination to the final vote is some kind of moron because they came to a different conclusion and both nominated him and chose him to receive the prize. It is arrogant because these people are not arbitrarily chosen, nor are they so ill-informed as to make a fundamentally unsound choice. It is presumptuous because none of us are completely privy to the deliberation process, so we don't know why he was chosen where another was not. Why is it so impossible to grant the Nobel Foundation the same sort of privilege that most of us insist upon for our own organizations.

I think that what I have said stands. I don't know how to explain it any differently.

Hi pot, meet kettle.

You don't think that you are the one being arrogant and presumptuous? Giving the Nobel Prize committee some kind of superior importance? Would it have mattered if Obama didn't receive the prize? No. Why? BECAUSE THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT DESERVED IT MORE. Where their nomination wasn't based on ideas or "platform talks" (because after all he had only been President for 2 weeks), but based on ACTION.

So if Obama never withdraws the troops in the 4 years he is president, or disarm all the nuclear weapons around the world, what will his Nobel Peace Prize mean? JACK SQUAT! If this award is sooo prestigious and given by such a "superior" committee (as you so imply) then they should have had the knowledge to not give into propaganda, and actually wait until he did something.

Several people have quoted why this committee claims they chose Obama, so you really can't say "we don't know why he was chosen."



ETA: And why can't you just realize that people have a different opinion than yours? What is the point of insulting us?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You are kidding right?

One small thing kills your argument.

Mandela

...who just also happened to be the first non white of South Africa

Actually no. The United States and the old South African Apartheid are too completely different things. Mandela was the first black president, in a country that was majority black, but ruled by a white minority. The structure changing to the point that a black man could win the highest office was a significant step towards unity.