So it’s official: the Nobel prize committee has decided it’s time to practice affirmative action, and award the Peace Prize to someone who hasn’t done anything yet, but might… maybe.
Here’s the list of former Nobel Laureates.
Generally, it seems to me that in order to get a Nobel Peace Prize, you must either do something good, or do something bad, or do something very loudly, even if it is neither good nor bad. As far as I can tell, President Obama is being awarded the Peace Prize for the signal achievement of not being George W. Bush. It’s a new category… a prize awarded for not being someone else.
He’s in good company… Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev… great luminaries all, full of grace and truth. Or maybe just gin and vermouth. All those cocktail parties are hard work.
I wonder if any scientist has ever gotten a Nobel Prize for hoping and wanting to do some new science.
It is the ultimate paean to hope and change… with emphasis on the hope, since it’s obvious the Leftist agenda behind the Nobel committee has not changed.
October 9th, 2009 11:55 am
the Nobel prize committee has decided it’s time to practice affirmative actionAren’t you one of those folks that bashes the left for bringing up race?
October 9th, 2009 3:10 pm
BTW… don’t get me wrong. I agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is undeserved, though believe that it does say a lot about the world’s perception of Obama. I am not even sure that the perception is valid, but I think it is fairly clear that the world’s perception of Obama (in comparison to the world’s perception of Bush) is a positive one. And I don’t think that is a bad thing.
But to imply that Obama received it because of his race is pretty disgusting, imo.
October 9th, 2009 3:17 pm
It was affirmative action because POTUS is a Marxist, Dave. Why DO YOU bring up race, sir? It certainly wasn’t awarded because POTUS has done anything worthy. In fact I’m trying to recall what he has done in a positive sense at all.
What a wonderful thing to be compared to the likes of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, and Mikhail Gorbachev. That’s a crowd I would want to have my name next to.
October 9th, 2009 3:30 pm
Dave, you need to read up on affirmative action. It applies to women. Simply different ethnicities. And, of course, race.
But in this case, can you name ANY white man who might have been elected to the presidency, from either party, who would have been selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize BEFORE actually doing something as president?
October 9th, 2009 3:37 pm
I understand that affirmative action applies to various things, but I am not sure what your point is…
The thing you mention that would apply to Obama is his … race. And then you admit that you DID mean that it was about his race.
October 9th, 2009 3:41 pm
Sorry… didn’t really finish that comment.
As for what other white man, etc. would have gotten it, I am not sure there are any, but I don’t htink it has anything to do with race. I think that there is a lot of truth to the “change” idea – i.e. that he is not Bush, and in turn the world perceives him in a much more positive light.
October 9th, 2009 3:53 pm
Meet the People Who Were Passed Over for Obama:
Sima Samar: Women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.
Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.
Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.
Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.
Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.
Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.
October 9th, 2009 6:42 pm
Dave, I was unclear. What I meant to say about Obama is that he could qualify for affirmative action purely by ethnicity, given that he is actually Kenyan-American with Indonesian overlay culturally speaking. He is not “African American” in the common sense. Which shows what a silly usage “African American” is, of course… but there it is.
Having said that, I still believe that a white man who was also the “unBush”, with Obama’s personality, positions and policies, particular skills in speaking, etc., who had been elected president, would not have been nominated for the NPP 12 days or so after being sworn in. It just wouldn’t happen.
And race is a factor in that. I don’t see anything “disgusting” about pointing that out.
Our “post racial” president (LOL) just got affirmative action from a bunch of northern European white guys in suits, rather in the manner of an organization hiring someone they hope will work out so they can make their quota.
October 10th, 2009 6:26 am
Looking at the others who were nominated for the ‘prize’ (which, without the substantial money attached would never make the news) one has to be convinced that the ‘prize’ is given more to keep the Nobel committees name in lights than for the original idea of the award. If they gave the award to someone whose name was not widely known throught the world they would soon loose all media coverage.
October 10th, 2009 8:34 am
finally! another person on the blog who speak in opposition to Mr. Harmonicminer and Mr. old cop!!
Thank you for coming in Mr. Dave, to counter Mr. Harmonminer’s hasty assumption. Just like Dave, I am skeptical even bewildered that Obama got his prize so soon, wiht lack of visible accomplishment, but as far as I can see there is no evidence that the decision was racially motivated or even based on anti-Bush prejudice.
It’s much more accurate to say Obama got his award based on his rhetoric, and promise. Apparently the Noble committee wants to encoruage him to continue in his quest for achieving his “hope”. Is this right criteria? I don’t think so, but that’s not affirmative action as far as I can see.
October 10th, 2009 8:41 am
And of course even Obama himself awknowledges he lacks accomplishment to merit such award.
In any case, as Sen. Mccain said, it’s still an honor that the US president received an award right? 🙂 Let’s congratulate him and ask him to not disappoint the people who were inspired by his promise/hope.
October 10th, 2009 8:43 am
Mr. Harmonicminer, I believe in this one situation youth and inexperience can give a more accurate perspective that I can let you in on. You have in this case been hindered by a lifetime of a reasonable respect and reverence for what the nobel peace prize stands for and represents. For most of your life it has gone to people who at least in part have done something to bring a measure of peace to this world. It is clear by now that that is such a distant memory it is better thought of as another prize entirely so you dont have to sully those who got it in the past. These days the “peace” prize is better thought of as “Hippie Hall of Fame”. Once you have reached a stage in life that has ascended you into another plane of liberalism you get the award. They do the same thing in sports, it serves its purpose. If you think of it like this it wont offend you anymore, its just a hippie hall of fame. Conservatives it seems are just as satisfied by hanging their childrens drawings on the fridge which is probably why we dont have a hall of fame, but there you have it.
October 10th, 2009 8:55 am
To overcome Mr. enharmonic’s skpeticism
I posted this link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_myths_2
It shows even unfamous people gets the prize, and people who are still in the process of trying to achieve soemthing may also get an award.
Does this mean Obama deserved the award? I don’t think so, but it shows his selection does have a rational explanation.
October 10th, 2009 10:40 am
Jong Eun, you might want to consider the source of the information in the article you linked. It is an “insider” on the Nobel committee… one whose role in the news story is clearly that of public relations.
Test: name a winner of the prize who has LESS accomplishment of some particular kind than Obama. Even someone like Gore, whose accomplishments are nil in my judgment, nevertheless is widely believed by the world to have DONE something, wrong though that assessment is. But no one thinks Obama has even done anything yet.
So… who has done LESS than Obama to “deserve” the prize? I looked at the list of recipients for the last 20 years… and I really can’t see anyone. All Obama has managed so far is to get elected, be a Lefty, and bash America publicly in Europe. I guess that counts as achievement to the prize committee.
In any case, read the rhetoric of the prize committee in previous years… you’ll see very little reference to “hoped for” achievement. That seems to be a new standard this year, made up especially for Obama…
Which is why it’s affirmative action.
October 10th, 2009 1:16 pm
What can I say Mr. harmonicminer? we disagree again in our perception.
Al Gore didn’t stop global warming. He got the award for “his effort” according to Nobel Prize Comittee. ‘so he strengthened the struggle against climate change” says them. And Obama “strengthened”(?) those who want US to reconcilaite with Europe and Muslim world and revive mulitlaterlism(a virtuous struggle if one is a liberal of course).
In 1957, Lester Pearson was awarded for his efforts in Middle East peace
in 1971, Will Brandt was awarded for his efforts to reonciliate with the Communist bloc, kown as Ostpolitics.
you best argument is that they and other award recipients may have been doing their works lot longer than Obama’s 9 month presidency, but the rationale hasn’t changed. Regardless of what they have accomplished as of date, if the Nobel prize comittee approves of their endeavour and think worthy of gloabal applaud, they will bestow the honor.
Now I don’t think this category is right, because I think only those with visible accomplishments should be awarded. But it is a policy of the Nobel Committe, and Obama happened to fit into the category,some one worthy of their “moral support” and carries “potential” for a remarkable global change so to speak.
Which is why it is not affirmative preferetial treatment for Obama and your analaysis in incorrect.
But in any case, do congrautlate your president for receiving the award and remind him to fulfill the high expectation that have been laid upon him.
Sincerely
October 10th, 2009 1:24 pm
Jong Eun, not 9 months. Just 12 days. Obama was nominated and accepted into consideration just 12 days after inauguration.
All of those “making efforts” you mention were well into a process, which had been going on for some time. Obama was not even well into choosing the Oval Office color scheme.
Properly, it is an embarrassment, to him for accepting it (if he didn’t have such a huge ego, he’d have turned it down so it went to someone deserving… imagine the PR reward for doing that? But it seems not to have occurred to him.) and the Nobel folks for offering it.
Which is, of course, the exact nature of affirmative action when it involves giving someone something they have not earned… it usually involves embarrassing results all around.
October 10th, 2009 1:25 pm
Oh… I don’t WANT him to fulfill the high expectations of the Nobel committee to “think internationally.”
I want him to do his job, and protect the US and its interests. Of course, that seems to be low on his agenda… judging from his rhetoric.
But maybe he really does intend to protect us, and just says all the America bashing stuff to fool our opponents. I can dream, right?
October 10th, 2009 2:16 pm
(Mr. Jong Eun Lee sighs….and sighs again)
Due to midterm weeek I will not be coming to your blog for a some tiem(how in the world do you manage to write so much and respond so quickly?) I will let Mr. Dave debate you for a change.
Obama was nominated in Feb. and was reviwed among the canddiates until the end of august. So they have observed Obama in his early months. Or put it another war, if Obama launched nuclear strike on Iran in July, he would very likley not have been sleected for the award.
The decision of the comitte is final and without appeal. If Obama boycotted the award, “that” would have been an even more embarrasment for the entire ceremony! He was right in “humbly” accepting the award HE DOES NOT merit, and promise to live up to the award’s expecation.
Affirmative action, you say. Well I see it more as a need-based scholarship for a rising aspriing champion of world peace(even though may God go with him to fulfill such…impossible task).
You really don’t like your president do you, Mr. Harmonicminer? Since we Dems didn’t like President Bush, I can’t condemn you. But perhaps since you beleive “I” have a good intention, may be you will believe Obama too has a “good intention”?
In fact, two of the recurring tone in all your posts are 1. Moral absolutism (if it is not completely right, it is not right at all, percetion) and 2. mistrust of your opposition(The Obama, Jong Eun and the Leftists are all, wrong, evil, or at least logically confused about their own philosophy).
Begging your pardon, Mr. Harmonicminer, but I find these two elements major obstacles reaching a “common ground” with you. And you described yourself as a “centre-right”? Doesn’t that means you should be a “mild, moderate, compassionate” conservatives??
Just Like I am a pragmatic, progressive evanglical and on the “center-left”.
October 10th, 2009 3:22 pm
Jong Eun, I am not a “progressive.” Since “progressive Republicans” are the ones who are “compassionate conservatives” (a point on which I disagreed strongly with Bush), I am not a “compassionate conservative.”
I am an old fashioned 19th century liberal. I subscribe to the views of the *most left* founders of our country, e.g., the federalists of that time.
And it’s laughable that Obama could not have refused the prize. You said:
Seriously, what would the committee do if Obama said “give it to someone else.” Put out a contract on his life? Have him arrested?
They are a bunch of overfunded leftists handing out awards to political fellow travelers. When they give the award to someone we don’t know, but who is doing great work for humanity, the Nobel group looks good. When they give purely political awards to make a political point, they deserve derision…. as do the people who accept them as if they mean something.
Jong Eun, it isn’t that I “don’t like” Obama. It is that he is a disaster for our nation, in my opinion. “Like” has nothing to do with it. I read history, economics, etc., and I make the judgment I make. You disagree. So be it.
So, Jong Eun, you really don’t like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, or Thomas Jefferson, do you? Since you believe them to have been wrong on nearly every point of what is the proper role of government….
October 12th, 2009 11:03 am
FWIW, this is pretty irrelevant.
First of all, myself, Jon Eun, and President Obama all admit that Obama doesn’t (yet) deserve this.
But second of all, to continue to trot out the “12 days” argument is a bit disingenuous. Yes, the nominations were due 12 days after the inauguration. But the decision was not made then, and the decision took into consideration what he had done up until the decision was made. And while I admit that this was/is still a very small time, to pretend that he got the award based on 12 days in office is imply not true.
And harmonic… speaking of “Center-right” – I am still curious to see a post on that.
October 12th, 2009 11:07 am
And harmonic… back to my original point. You have often complained about “liberals” who bring up race. Yet you are quick to jump on the “affirmative action” talking point claiming that Obama received this award because of his race.
Where is the consistency?
October 12th, 2009 2:26 pm
I think they are considering changing the name to the “IGNOBEL Peace Prize”. It seems that it is now the hot fodder for late night TV. I’m sure Letterman is grateful for that. One commentator reflected that once SNL and the Tonight Show start on a Pres. it marks the beginning of the end. Maybe the Nobel’s are using reverse psychology?
October 12th, 2009 4:26 pm
Dave, Obama would not be president if not for his race. And no “non-minority” president would have been nominated for the prize and considered for the prize by the Nobel committee, including one with the same or even more Left views and rhetoric, but with the same very thin resume.
You have misconstrued the “race argument” that we make on the right. It is that when race is clearly not a factor, it should be ignored in evaluating a situation… but when it clearly IS a factor, it is reasonable to draw attention to it.
We don’t jump on liberals who “bring up race.” We deny the validity of reference to it when it isn’t significantly involved.
It’s probably an “eye of the beholder” situation… but people who seem to “behold race issues” everywhere they look are the ones to complain about, not those who seldom see the connection.
October 12th, 2009 4:32 pm
For example: Obama’s race is not involved in his tendency to waste money, and I’d never make the connection. He’s a Lefty, pure and simple, who can outspend even the most profligate Republican by a factor of ten before knocking off for lunch.
But his instant response to the Prof. Gate/cop situation WAS clearly about his race. See the distinction?
October 13th, 2009 7:06 am
I had the same response when I heard about the Gates/cop situation. Did I respond that way because I was white?
By the way… according to Old Cops’s list (which I am not sure is accurate) each one of the finalists for the award were people of color. But Obama won it because of his race?
October 13th, 2009 12:37 pm
All that means, Dave, is that perhaps YOU are extra race conscious too… I don’t know. But Obama’s response to the Gates situation without actually knowing the facts first is like yours, perhaps… and if so, then Shelby Steele’s book White Guilt might be a good description of you.
None of the other contenders for the Nobel prize were *in the situation they were in to be considered* primarily because of their race. They were simply blooming where they were planted, if I read it right.
To really convince me, you’ll need to name a “possible president” we might have had (anyone from past, present or future, really) who would have been nominated and considered with such a thin resume.
I don’t think there is such a person.
October 13th, 2009 5:51 pm
My concern is perhaps that this award is more conspiratorial. It was given to pigeon hole our commander in chief into a position of non-military action. You are a Nobel Prize winner – what are you doing backing Israel in trying to destroy Irans nuclear reactors. You are the Nobel Prize winner, why are you pushing for more troups in (name your favorite world hot spot). I can see this influencing his ability to move in a direction he might have chosen had he not received this “encouragement for change”. I believe this wasn’t an Obama award as much as it was an anti-Bush policy incentive.
October 13th, 2009 9:15 pm
Yeah, in fact I have the impression the Nobel committee was pretty up front about that intent. And having said that…. if say, Hilary had been elected, having made similar statements… or even farther left, Dennis Kucinich, I think the award would have gone elsewhere, until much later in the administration, at least. Impossible to prove, of course…. But it is safe to say, I think, that no head of state of a major nation (or a minor one), has ever been given the award based on such a public statement of what the committee HOPES they will do, and on such a thin resume before entering office.