Obama has won a Nobel

[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.

[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

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

too or two.

Hmmm...well being that the US is still suffering from the after effects of slavery and having to endure Civil Rights movement that only recently saw minorities making strides in posts ONLY held by majority White men, it's really not all that different.

Mandela simply was elected first as the first Black head of state of a White run country so I do not buy your argument that he won the award because of his color.

[SWTXBelle]

Alfred Nobel's will said it should recognize champions of peace, SPECFICALLY (and I quote) it should go "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." (bolding obviously mine)

SO - does he fit the criteria the founder of the award established? I don't think so - reading about the other nominees I think they did more or better. If we focus on this criteria it might be easier to discuss Obama's merit in terms less politically fraught. Or not.

[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?

[Little32]

Originally Posted by epchick

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?

It is their award. Why wouldn't they have the final say in who deserves it.

Everything that I have written is my opinion, no more no less. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

Originally Posted by agzg

Oh good lord.

For what it's worth, I still don't get it and I probably never will. Of course, I don't "get" most of the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I could use the money though.

Exactly. I don't understand why there is an investment in demonstrating that this particular awardee is somehow so much less deserving than any other random awardee that you might reference.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Little32

Exactly. I don't understand why there is an investment in demonstrating that this particularly awardee is somehow so much less deserving than any other random awardee that you might reference.

Again, you're reading WAY too much into this. No one is saying that President Obama is "so much less deserving" than other awardees. It's nice to have a winner from the U.S., and it's great that the sitting President is a Nobel Prize winner. People are just saying that they don't understand this particular selection based on how early he is into his term.

As you said, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it; people are just expressing their opinion.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Little32

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?

Do you want me to provide alternative candidates? Really?

I mean, I certainly can . . . but really?

Additionally, you're accusing me of not understanding you . . . but my whole point is that the Nobel Peace Prize has a history of questionable winners (Yassir Arafat, et al.). This is another in a long line - you can't argue both ways.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Do you want me to provide alternative candidates? Really?

I mean, I certainly can . . . but really?

Additionally, you're accusing me of not understanding you . . . but my whole point is that the Nobel Peace Prize has a history of questionable winners (Yassir Arafat, et al.). This is another in a long line - you can't argue both ways.

Questionable in whose mind? And who are you to provide "alternative candidates?" Really? Are you serious?

In fact, why do you always seem to think your solution or answer is the best?