As a science junkie, I think there is just about no greater honor one can achieve than winning a Nobel Prize. Furthermore, I do not think winning the Peace prize should be viewed as less of an accomplishment simply because its winners seldom have scientific expertise.
Also, I really, really like Barack Obama. I think he has tried to do what he genuinely feels is best for the country. I support his economic decisions although they do give me a queasy feeling in my guts. But that is because I don't know my hole from an ass on the ground when comes to monetary policy. Unfortunately, there I have to go on authority, and economists that I respect (like Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman) think his policies make sense. What I really like about Obama though is that he has made a sincere effort to restore science back into governmental policy-making. His appointment Nobel laureate, Steven Chu, as energy secretary speaks volumes for that commitment.
Now, having said all that. When it comes to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize ... IS THIS A JOKE???
Here is the announcement:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.
The deadline for nominations was Feb. 2nd. That was 11 days into Obama's presidency ... less than two weeks. I doubt if he had fully recovered from his inaugural hangover by that time. He certainly hadn't done anything to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In fact, I don't think there has been a single nuclear weapon eliminated since Obama has taken office.
Yes, Obama has steered the country toward a more responsible position on climate change. Yes, Obama has pushed for multilateral agreements where Bush's policy had been more of a "go-it-alone" approach. Yes, these are things that I think are great!! But let's get real. There has been no international agreement on climate policy to emerge from Obama's actions. There has been no dramatic results emerge from Obama's multilateral approach ... YET.
I think the operative phrase in the Nobel announcement is "hope for a better future". The Nobel Prize Committee is giving Obama the Peace Prize because he is reversing Bush's destructive policies. They are hoping that in the future positive things will emerge from it. I think that is a very good possibility. BUT the Nobel Prize should be given for tangible accomplishments, not for potential ones. Obama is getting this prize because he is the anti-Bush.
As much as I like Obama, he doesn't deserve the prize ... YET. He may deserve it in the future ... if so that would have been the time to give it to him. Now isn't. Giving him the prize at this point in time demeans all the other winners who DID make significant accomplishments.
I thought it seemed strange that he got that, especially when taking the nomination time into consideration (I even consider now to be too early, since he's been in office less than a year, but I don't really pay much attention to the Peace Prize, so I don't really have a good gauge as for what it would take to obtain it). I think they should have waited at least a year to nominate/award him, that way he'd have more time to produce tangible results (and therefore, be awarded on such results).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
not sure how i feel. i think giving a president a nobel peace prize is a very big deal on a global level. i agree with you, he hasnt earned it yet, however, IF people pay attention, this kind of symbolic recognition can have an immense domino effect that might spur other national leaders to take on similar issues. will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I think the operative phrase in the Nobel announcement is "hope for a better future". The Nobel Prize Committee is giving Obama the Peace Prize because he is reversing Bush's destructive policies. They are hoping that in the future positive things will emerge from it. I think that is a very good possibility. BUT the Nobel Prize should be given for tangible accomplishments, not for potential ones. Obama is getting this prize because he is the anti-Bush.
In one sense, I agree that this award seems (for lack of a better word)...premature. However, it is not true that the Nobel Peace Prize only goes to those who have acheived "tangible accomplishments" in their quests for peace.
According to Alfred Nobel's will, the Prize is supposed to go to...
To those of us who are constantly embroiled in the bitter partisanship that unfortunately continue to dominate the U.S. political lanscape, I can certainly see how this can be seen as an award "for not being George Bush." But I think that some of us fail to realize just how damaging Bush was to the image of the U.S. around the world, especially with his hawkish war policies. For a perspective into how at least a good portion of the rest of the world sees President Obama, take these comments from Mohamed Elbaradei, director-general of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (himself a former Nobel prize winner)...
The dramatic turn-around of the pro-war, anti-science, religiously divisive policies of the last 8 years IS a major accomplishment. Overcoming the racially charged politics of the U.S. and becoming our first African-American President IS a major accomplishment. Holding the first high-level nuclear disarmament talks between the U.S. and Iran in more than 30 years IS a major accomplishment.
And let's face it...sometimes the Prize goes more to promote peace than it does for actual accomplishments of peace. For example, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize went to Aung San Suu Kyi "for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights" in Myanmarr, where she is still in detention today. Having accomplished essentially nothing to better the conditions in Myanmarr, Aung San Suu Kyi was given the award basically for trying really hard. (And, I'm not knocking her. Her determination is beyond admirable.) But, she does serve as an example that the Prize is NOT always about "tangible accomplishments."
Just something to consider...
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
As always your post contains valid and pertinent information. Love you!
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard