When Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, I began to have doubts about the folks in charge of that award. While Gore was tireless in promoting his agenda and made significant sums of money (presumably he is now tired and rich enough to stay quiet), it was not clear to me that he had made any meaningful contributions to peace. After all, he was talking about global warming, which does not seem to fall under the heading of peace. To avoid any needlessly hateful commentary, I am worried about climate issues and I am generally for peace.
I found out this morning that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I was a bit surprised by this. After all, the nominations for the award closed about 12 days after he took office and he has only been in office a few months even now. While he has clearly changed how America handles diplomacy and he has obviously spoken about peace, he really does not have any meaningful achievements at this point. This is not to say that he has not made progress-it is just that I really cannot point to anything he has done and say “lo, this has brought peace.”
To use an analogy, awarding him this prize is like awarding someone the gold medal at mile six of the Olympic marathon. Sure, it is impressive that the person is there, leading the pack at the sixth mile. But, the race is far from over and there are still 20.2 miles to go. Likewise, Obama is off to a great start, but he is still working towards achievements rather than actually achieving them.
Some folks at CNN noted that the award might be because the folks in charge of the award expect him to do great things based on what he has done so far. Going back to the marathon analogy, you don’t get the gold medal because people think you will win. You get it when you win.
Interestingly, some folks on the right claim that “this will backfire on them for a while” and that it is “a gift to the right.” Naturally, I suspect this sort of claim is just wishful thinking on the part of the right. After all, winning the prize will almost certainly help his standing in the world. Also, this sort of comment is what I expected to hear. After seeing those folks cheer at Chicago losing the Olympics, I realized that there are conservatives who seem committed beyond reason to being against Obama in all things.
Of course, I am willing to consider that the claim might have some truth. After all, if people think the award is undeserved, then they will most likely think a bit less of Obama for accepting it. After all, if someone tried to hand me a first place trophy six miles into a marathon and I accepted it, my fellow runners would look at me with scorn (and rightfully so).
Folks on the right who are suspicious of foreigners and foreign influence will also see this award as a bad thing. They will probably take it as a sign that Obama is somehow “in” with those foreign folks and this will certainly not enhance their view of him. Of course, these folks are already against him, so I don’t see this as being much of a gift for the right, unless it somehow pushes some folks off the fence towards the right side.
Folks who are very pro-Obama will, of course, see this award as a great thing and no doubt take it as evidence that the world sees the greatness they see. Folks who are for him but lack such devotion will probably not be moved much either way.
My final thought is that while it is great that the President has won the Nobel Peace Prize, I really wish he had actually earned it. I do think that he will, eventually-but the race is not yet run. As any runner will tell you, the award ceremony is after the race, not during it.
As I’ve said before: Obama’s cult members are far more dangerous than Obama himself.
Looking at the deficit Obama looks pretty dangerous to me.
Chalk me up as one who thinks the award was shocking and premature. At first, I even thought it might be wise of Obama to decline the award–until I heard that Glenn Beck was suggesting that approach.
But also place me on the side of those who think Limbaugh’s (can’t help myself, Magus–he’s just such a *big* *big* target)
attack on Obama the Award and its likely effect and intent is ludicrous. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see Rush’s fundamental stance: Obama hasn’t been in office long enough to accomplish anything— yet somehow he’s responsible for all the problems with unemployment, the recession, the national debt. . .you name it. We can easily trace the skyrocket rise of the national debt during the Bush era, but, well, you know. We know that unemployment was increasing faster in the early part of this year, just after Bush left office, but, well, you know. We know the recession and TARP began in the Bush period, but, well, you know.
Suffice it to say. I doubt Limbaugh could ever be as gracious for receiving an award, earned or otherwise as Obama.
It’s also interesting to note the words of Rep. Alan Grayson in the House yesterday aft. (before anyone had a notion what the Nobel outcome would be):
“They [the public] understand if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for over-population.
“They [the public} understand that if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they’d [Republicans] blame him for destroying the defense industry.”
Except for Gov. Pawlenty , and Gov. Doyle, who may, for all I know, have their eyes on the Nobel prize sometime in the future (for what I can’t imagine) and Huckabee–in a backhanded– way, Grayson’s statement seems to hit the mark.
Me thinks you hinge your decisions too much on people that have absolutely effect on the outcome of such situations. Before you make your next opinion you should see what Glenn and Rush say.
Well, then, I guess I’ll listen to what Mike Murphy (GOP political consultant for John McCain, Jeb Bush and others) had to say about Limbaugh, Beck etal on Meet the Press last weekend (Oct4). Referring to the ability of these blowhards to actually deliver real votes, he and other members of the panel noted about four specific instances where they had pushed for votes to support or derail a candidate or issue and failed. His conclusion? “These guys can’t deliver a pizza let alone a nomination.”
Exactly. So why care what they say?
Did I say I “care about what they say”?
Don’t confuse *taking notes* with “car[ing]” about “what they say.”#*
I consider my occasional exposure to El Rushbo etal to be like the unpleasant task of taking the anal temperature of a dying patient (in this case the most conservative fringe of a nearly comatose party) who has been assigned to me but for whom I have no concern. I get my disposable nitrile gloves dirty , but on the whole the process is good for a few laughs.
#*Dr. LaBossiere and most anyone else who teaches can explain the differnce.
Ayup, as a teacher I can vouch that just because someone takes notes it does not follow that the person cares about what is being said. Unless, of course, you want to take “care” in a very broad sense. For example, a note taker in class might care about what I say in terms of passing the class, but I could be talking about St. Anselm, goat parasites or the price of tea in China and the concern would be the same.
Well, you have another reason for being in class though, like a degree. The taking notes part is secondary to a larger goal. What is the larger goal then?
People just do not randomly wander about lectures, sit down and take notes that there is no enjoyment in. I’m lost on the analogy.
People actually ditch (Is this term still used?) classes on purpose and pay other people to take notes for them. It’s not completely accurate to say those people are getting enjoyment out of the notes nor that they “care” about the note-taking process. For those individuals the notes themselves are, at best, a necessary evil.
I’ve even eliminated the need for those people-my students can download the notes from my class web sites. Interestingly, this has had no impact at all on class averages.
Hopefully, the note takers I put out of work are getting some stimulus money.
🙂
So, it is a job like nursing? Do you get paid to do it. Could you explain Michael?
Michael:
“After all, the nominations for the award closed about 12 days after he took office and he has only been in office a few months even now.” The following adds some interesting insight:
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
The nomination being only part of a process, his diplomatic efforts and worldwide reactions to same between February and October would be a significant part of their deliberations.
It does, however, seem to boil down this: Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize because he’s not Bush. Those of you out there with Bush-like tendencies who may have Nobel Peace Prize aspirations take note. You would likely benefit greatly from some serious long-term behavior modification therapy.
True, the nomination is just part of the process. But imagine a professor who is nominated for teacher of the year 12 days after she accepts a job as a professor. Sure, she did some teaching in grad school, but…
Are you sure you’re not just PO’d that you weren’t invited to submit a nomination? 🙂
from the nobelprize.org site:
“Each year the respective Nobel Committees send individual invitations to thousands of members of academies, UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, scientists from numerous countries, previous Nobel Laureates, members of parliamentary assemblies and others, asking them to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year. These nominators are chosen in such a way that as many countries and universities as possible are represented over time.”
Maybe next year. . .
Not at all. I don’t want to nominate, I want to win. 🙂
Howler of the day:
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize – an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party.
“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.
Ah. . .hyperpole. It’s not just for Republicans anymore.
Americans have to remind themselves every so often why they’re a center-right country, so they elect a leftist. Then the UN, Europe and the media do their little celebration dances and hand out prizes and everyone in Hollywood goes crazy and smiles a lot.
Then the poor Democrat doesn’t get elected to a second term.
He wonders why his agenda didn’t pass, the same old tired agenda they’ve had for 60-70 years: Glorious and immutable government run health care. They’ll blame it on Republicans. He’ll wonder why the Arabs and Palestinians didn’t play nice. Then they’ll be interviewed for decades to come about international affairs, especially Israel and the terrible tragedies a country the size of Maryland is visiting upon millions of Arabs and starving children in Palestine. Everything is really the fault of the Anglo-Saxon, because all we want to do is bomb and hate on brown skinned people–as if we’re not tired of spending money on bombs to get rid of extremist pests. He’ll try to make friends by blaming America, but he only encourages enemies to do more bad things, like telling the parents of a bully what a good boy he really is, even though he steals lunch money and punches 9 year old in the gut. Such a good, good boy.
He’ll (the dethroned Dem) mope around in an existential crisis, looking sad and making America feel sorry for him, like Carter and Clinton, trying to hang on to past glories that never were, wondering about his legacy. But he can always go back to his mantle, upon which sits the hollow trophies presented to him by doe-eyed followers.
The last year has been the most ineffective first year for a president I can remember. All in a bad time, which of course is made worse by the fumbling and bumbling I see with this president, who is in way over his head and whose staff is completely dumbfounded that the world is not jiving with the models they studied in college.
It was all supposed to be so easy.
Next president, please.
I considered writing up a similar scenario based on the Bush administration (detailing actual past events, not future speculation), but why bother.
Nothing has kept the peace like nukes. Maybe Obama deserves the anti-peace prize.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091011/us_time/08599192955300
I disagree with the perspective being taken on the analogy of a marathon. Would those who completed race be said to have achieved world peace? If so then the it could further be apologized that this is a race in which no one actually finished. I would speculate that in such an event that perhaps the judges might see fit to award the competitor who went the farthest toward that goal. In this case Obama’s 6 miles. Pitiful I know 🙂
My understanding is that Alfred Nobel’s intention for the Peace Prize is based on the will of Alfred Nobel which specifies that the award should be dedicated 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”– Afred Nobel **see http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html
This being the case, it would not be necessary to judge President Obama’s achievements as President, but rather as a person whose efforts can be characterized by the description outlined in Nobel’s will.
Furthermore, the time frame to be taken into context is specifically 2008 as note by Nobel’s will which also states that the award should be:
“…annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.”– Alfred Nobel **see http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html
This being the case, one need only look at the efforts put forth by President Obama during the year of 2008. If we were to reexamine President Obama’s efforts given these specific parameters it is possible that he might have actually done plenty to inspire is nomination and subsequent award of the Nobel Peace Prize. During the 2008, while still a presidential hopeful, Obama promoted the ideal of strength through diplomacy and some how convince what could arguably be the strongest trigger-happiest nation on earth that peace through diplomacy was a good idea. The crazy part: He actually won!
Granted, the potential for Obama’s future achievements as president is profound, however this should not discredit his work to promote diplomacy to the American people.
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC made an interesting argument in reference to Obama’s efforts being sufficient to qualify him for the Nobel Peace Prize:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=271d_lVwfrw&hl=en&fs=1&]
I have to agree that he has done more than most for peace. He might even have done the most for peace, but I still hold with my analogy-he might do great things for peace, but has yet to do them.
Of course, some folks are arguing that the prize is intended to inspire the US and Obama to actually do great things. While that is a noble intent, my sports bias leads me to still hold that awards are for accomplishments.
I did get a nice laugh from the “Obama derangement Syndrome.” I have been waiting for that to officially arrive.
We give awards for participation in sports now Michael. Blue Ribbons for All!
Not Pabst Blue Ribbons, I hope…
Perhaps we need to get our definitions of “care” in sync.
You introduced the word. I responded with “Did I say I ‘care about what they say’?”
Now I refer you to dictionary.com.
*None* of the definitions for “care” that you will find there, verb or noun, describe my reactions to El Rushbo, Becky, Sean, etal. “These guys can’t deliver a pizza let alone a nomination.” They’re a source of entertainment. And the followers they do have who trip over their own tongues to refer to themselves proudly as ditto-heads are part of the show. As a casual observer I can speculate on the possible ill effects that these demagogues may have on the odd “putty-head”.
I do know this: Rush has been on air since 1988. Since that time, government corruption and ineptitude has continued through 12 years of Republican executive rule and almost 8 1/2 years of Democratic executive rule and about 10 years each of Republican and Democratic legislative majorities. *If* the populace arises now, within the first two or three years of Obama’s tenure, it won’t be because of some guys on the radio wearing tinfoil hats.