anybody else think this is really lame?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
i like Obama and think he's doing a pretty good job considering the situation he was handed, but why does he deserve the Peace prize? He hasn't had time to finish anything yet. Why not wait and if everything pans out give it to him in 10 years? Would that be so wrong?
it's almost like they're giving him the award for the same reason many people voted for him: he's not George Bush. as far as i can tell, he's being honored because he has said that we will talk to our enemies and that war will be the last option. hm, almost the exact opposite of a certain someone.
but that hardly justifies a Peace prize. i had an open door policy of diplomacy with my junior high bullies, but i never got a Peace prize, what gives?
vorjack
Moderator
If I'm reading some of the quotes right, it's like he's receiving the award for things they expect him to do in the future. There are a couple of points where it looks like the committee is hoping that the award will give Obama extra clout in Afghan negotiations, or maybe push him towards a more peaceful solution there. I guess it would look really bad for Obama to accept this prize and them bomb the crap out of Afghanistan.
Either way, I'm not sure I like the was the Nobel Peace Prize is being made a political tool.
phrankygee
Member
Kore wa nan desu ka!?
Translation: WTF!?
I followed the (very un-smartphone-friendly) link, expecting to come back and reassure all of you that a Nobel nomination is fairly worthless, since there are tons of those every year, and the nomination process/criteria are kind of a joke.
Then I saw that he actually WON the damn thing.
I agree with the consensus of the members of this thread so far. This is pretty much uncool. I like Obama, I think he is the smartest president we have had in my lifetime, and I really like his communication style, and his enthusiastic advocacy for Science. I voted for him, knocked on doors for him, made calls for him, and donated money to his campaign at several points.
But a F*ing Nobel Peace Prize before he's served a year in office? To that I say simply: W.T.F!
Uncool, European prize-giver dudes. Un-freakin-cool.
phrankygee
Member
Hey! It turns out that Obama agrees with us on his recent award.
In the first minute of his acceptance speech, he made clear that he does not think that he actually deserves it, personally. He went on to talk about how the medal was sometimes used not to celebrate an individual's acheivements, per se, but rather to endorse a set of stated goals, and a positive direction.
It was a pretty good speech, but a little awkward when he brought up the two, y'know, wars that he was currently prosecuting in foreign countries. That being kinda' the opposite of peace, and all...
If they're giving out Nobel prizes for things that the recipient hasn't done yet, then I want one. I can think of thousands upon thousands of things I haven't done yet; I'm willing to bet that there are things I haven't done yet that Obama already did!
*bow*
I will graciously accept my prize now!
Elemenope
Moderator
The history of the award is such that many were given in this manner (as an inducement or encouragement for future efforts), as in what is perceived to be the more traditional manner (recognition of past achievements). And it is actually the second one that tends to be controversial; just look at Kissinger's or Teddy Roosevelt's. This was more in line with the '84 Desmond Tutu's "better get crackin' at ending apartheid" receipt. Or the two given for drafting the (ultimately fairly useless) Kellogg-Briand Pact. Or the "good job on creating the UN" prize in 1945 before we knew it would be any more successful than the (absolutely useless) League of Nations (which also caused two prizes to be awarded).
And it was how Obama took it, too.
No big whoop.
Daniel Florien
Administrator
@Nope, you're so damn level-headed. Thanks for the small history lesson, that was helpful. I didn't see it as a big deal either, though I was also a little confused about why they would what they did.
I understand (at least I think I do) the reasons behind the decision. I just don't think I particuarly like that aspect of the peace prize. I would rather it be a really cool lifetime achievement award, like the prizes in science are. Recognizing actions already taken seems inherently more dignified than making best-guess efforts to predict who deserves and can get use out of the Nobel before they've fully deserved it.
Elemenope
Moderator
Fair enough. The guy had some serious guilt about war (having owned and built munitions factories, not to mention inventing dynamite, among other things) and wanted to use is quite vast wealth from these enterprises to change the world in a more peaceful direction. I think, keeping in mind that Alfred Nobel created the prize in order to actively foster effort for peace, it doesn't make much sense for the award to be retrospective.
phrankygee
Member
"I think, keeping in mind that Alfred Nobel created the prize in order to actively foster effort for peace, it doesn't make much sense for the award to be retrospective"
I quibble, sir.
A reward which follows achievement makes plenty of sense as an incentive. Instead of giving Obama the "oh crap, I had better live up to this" incentive, they could choose to give every philanthropist on the planet an incentive to double down on their efforts. The "If I do real good, then maybe I'll win" incentive. I don't have a serious issue one way or the other, but a "prize", by its most common definition, is something awarded to someone who earned or won it.
Olympic Gold Medals "actively foster" athletic prowess, and they are given out after achievement has been demonstrated. A similarly granted Nobel would actively foster peace, I think.
Elemenope
Moderator
Perhaps. It can be used (and has been used) both ways, and I imagine some people are motivated by the prospect of the gold at the end of the journey. On the other hand, the Peace Nobel is (not necessarily) given out only once a year, and almost never to more than two people (And then only when what they are working on is related). The likelihood of even a person who moves proverbial mountains for peace actually winning is slim, so I would question somewhat the practical motivation behind the prize being a retrospective inducement. Nobody writes a treaty or forms an international organization in order to chase the prize; to do so would be foolhardy.
You must log in to post.
