Posted October 9th, 2009 @ 10:43am by Erik J. Barzeski
Apparently, nowadays they just give these things out. I plan to apply next year.
What exactly had Obama done by February 1 to warrant nomination?
And cut the leftist hippie bull, John. Do you honestly believe that nobody else out there deserved it more on February 1, when nominations were due? Or even now? What exactly has Obama done to bring about peace?
This blog contains posts, all written by me, and comments, only some of which were written by me.
About Me
Disclaimer
The Sand Trap
… via Email
firstname@lastname.com
(Think about that one a little.)
… via IM
AIM: iacas
MobileMe: iacas
flickr: iacas
Yahoo: iacas
Twitter: iacas
MSN: iacas@hotmail.com
Xbox Live: erikjb
Google Talk: erikjb@gmail.com
ICQ: 8186546
Don't email me at any of the above IM addresses or I may never see the email. I use these accounts primarily for chat (IM) only.
… on Facebook
http://facebook.com/iacas
Donate Life: Because if you're not using your body parts, someone else can.
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 11:18am #
http://adam.gs/idiot.jpg
I had written "idiot of the month" about someone else here (accidentally'd a raid array), someone erased their name and substituted that.
I'm going to apply for the Nobel prize in medicine. That will make me a doctor, right?
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 11:31am #
[quote comment="55723"]I'm going to apply for the Nobel prize in medicine. That will make me a doctor, right?[/quote]
I think so!
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 12:18pm #
After fuming a bit about it myself, I read more about the prize. Apparently they've used the prize before to encourage the winner to continue with the message they've been trying for and even guilt them into working harder for it.
Not that I think he deserves it yet, but I don't write the rules for the prize sadly.
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 1:36pm #
Yeah, there are a bunch of common myths about the Nobel peace prize. One of them is that you actually need to have actively done something, but Alfred Nobel mentions encouragement to work for peace in his will.
And February was just the deadline for nominations, the actual decision was a work in progress until they announced the recipient.
But still, I agree: while Obama certainly has made promises to work for peace and nuclear disarmament etc, there's little to show so far. I think there are several nominates more deserving of the prize for actively having worked for peace. It feels like the prize was awarded more on account of not being George Bush than being Barack Obama. It certainly feels like a political decision.
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 2:22pm #
No, he's not the right person to receive it. But he's not the wrong person to be nominated either. Certainly, it's a step up from awarding Al Gore, given that he fit none of the criteria given in the will and that Obama actually has accomplished some things in that vein.
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 2:52pm #
I'd also like to point out that it's not really a left or right thing here. I am extremely liberal (and what's not liberal is libertarian) and I obviously think that this is stupid.
I know a lot of people who think it's a good thing that are pretty far-right for their own reasons.
I think some people are just sucked up in obama and this guy can do no wrong. I'm not that kind of person anymore, i'm more about results than promises (empty or otherwise). I guess thats a big part of why him getting this award with no demonstrated actions on his part make me think it's the wrong thing to do.
That said, i'm still very liberal and I have great hope for what obama MIGHT accomplish. I fully support real healthcare reform (not this insurance giveaway that is in the congress now), I have been against both wars since day one (people have NO idea how unpopular it was to be against the Afghanistan war).
Once this guy does something to end these wars, bring our military budget below TEN TIMES the next-nearest military. Then I think he will deserve some medals.
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 5:46pm #
[quote comment="55730"]I'd also like to point out that it's not really a left or right thing here. I am extremely liberal (and what's not liberal is libertarian) and I obviously think that this is stupid.[/quote]
I tend to lean in the Libertarian/Republican direction, but when Obama won I said "OK, he's the President, I'll support him as much as I can and give him a shot."
So my comments aren't biased in that sense. The way I see it, the guy's got three more years to actually DO something - why give it to him in his first year when even the left is saying he hasn't done much (yet)?
"Encouragement"? If that's the reason, why not just award it to every U.S. President in his first term, then? They're arguably the most capable (because of their power) people to bring about peace.
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 4:02pm #
Think how the previous eight years might have played out if Bush had been given this kind of encouragement! A different kind of pre-emptive strike, if you will...
Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 8:24pm #
I was very proud of our President. I think it gave the US a great boost in everyones eyes. I believe this President is a gifted man and he works daily for peace. After all he is a black man in America that became President. If he does nothing else he has changed the world.
Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 12:52am #
hi Erik,
Obama seems to work a bit towards world peace by visiting various countries which are encouraging nuclear programmes and also had the vision of bridging the aloof muslim world together with us. But my view is that its too early to judge him and give away the Nobel Peace Prize now. If they have decided to give him then why should they Nominate for a world record of 250 Nominees? Wont he accept the Nobel Prize if its given to him an year or two down the line?