Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize - Page 9 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

...

Page 9 of 27

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19

Last

Page 9 of 27

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19

Last

10-09-2009 , 11:54 AM

#201

gumpzilla

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,973

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

You're giving this forum a lot of credit. We already have a thread where the contributions of Borlaug are called into question and his character generally impugned. And some in this forum may genuinely think MLK is world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours and seduced underage girls and boys. You can search the RP newsletter threads if you doubt this.

I doubt there's any one Nobel winner who would get universal approval from this forum.

That's okay, we don't need universal approval. I pick Borlaug in particular because I figured the ACists would love him as a phenomenal example of increased productivity making stuff happen. (On that note, we should go back and change Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley's Nobel from Physics to Peace obviously.) I think the long-term consequences of Borlaug vis a vis peace are hard to read and could be an interesting debate but that's a different and apparently pre-existing thread; maybe I'll go look at it.

$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker

Join the action now

Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces

10-09-2009 , 11:55 AM

#202

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Some more historical perspective.

Quote:

The Nobel Peace Prize's aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize's very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, "The prize ... is not only for past achievement. ... The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] ... Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act."

Quote:

Between 1901 and 1945, 33 of the 43 prizes went to those who promoted interstate peace and disarmament. Only once did the committee seek to effect change in a state's internal politics -- in 1935, when it honored Carl von Ossietzky, the journalist who served as a symbol of opposition to the Nazi regime.

Since World War II, however, the committee has strayed far from its original mandate. Between 1946 and 2008, only one quarter of the prizes (17 of 69) went to those promoting interstate peace and disarmament. An increasing number of awards (16 of 48 since 1971) sought to encourage ongoing peace processes -- in line with a traditional understanding of peace -- but they often intervened in processes that had born little fruit to date or still had a long road ahead. At the same time, the awards increasingly equated peace with overall human well-being.

Quote:

Even more striking has been the peace prize's growing focus on domestic political arrangements, especially regimes' disregard of individual liberties and democratic institutions. Between 1946 and 1970, the prize was awarded twice (9.5 percent of the time) to domestic dissidents. Between 1971 and 2008, it was given 10 times (21 percent) for this purpose, and at a slightly higher rate since the end of the Cold War. Here the links to interstate conflict, and arguably to intrastate conflict too, are even more tenuous. Prize winners such as Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi might be admired for their courage, but their awards do not recognize substantial contributions to interstate or intrastate peace.

Quote:

Finally, the committee has increasingly given the peace prize to honor the awardees' causes, even when their aspirations are not matched by concrete accomplishments. The prize's advocates plausibly suggest that these awards can help set the international agenda, draw attention to marginalized causes, and kick-start stalled efforts. This was former Czech President Vaclav Havel's stated goal in nominating Aung San Suu Kyi.

Quote:

But the 27 aspirational prizes awarded since 1971 have accomplished far less than the peace prize's advocates would have us believe. In many of these cases, the media glare was already intense. One would be hard-pressed to argue that the prize had much of an effect on international media coverage of South Africa's transition from apartheid (1993), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1994), or the troubles in Northern Ireland (1998).

In cases in which the media was not already saturated, there have been some legitimate successes -- notably Aung San Suu Kyi, whose 1991 award seems to have drawn attention to the Burmese predicament. But a survey of headlines in LexisNexis's database of "major worldwide newspapers" reveals little evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize has typically boosted international media coverage beyond the short run. I found this to be true of the Dalai Lama and Tibet (1989), Rigoberta Menchú and the Guatemalan Civil War (1992), and Shirin Ebadi and reform in Iran (2003), among others. Although the award can boost the personal prominence of individuals with low global media profiles (such as Ebadi or 2004 winner Wangari Maathai), their causes nevertheless seem to continue to languish.

I'd continue to quote, but I think I'm risking running afoul of the rules here about quoting too extensively.

edit: Just want to encourage people to read the whole article. It is very interesting.

10-09-2009 , 11:56 AM

#203

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

lolll this is so hilarious.

bahahaha

10-09-2009 , 11:57 AM

#204

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumpzilla

Ehh, it's okay for a little bit, then somehow turns into a thread about abortion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...orlaug-583441/

10-09-2009 , 11:58 AM

#205

tubasteve

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 14,282

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumpzilla

I am mystified by people who talk about what a joke the Nobel Peace Prize is and yet seem to have their hackles up so strongly over a prize they perceive to be a joke. The only way this makes any sense is if you think that once upon a time the prize wasn't a joke and now an august institution is being ruined. But I don't see anybody making arguments here as to how it has changed with time.

Looking back on the list of inductees and the stated goals of the award I don't see a lot that most complainers in this thread are going to like. They don't seem very likely to approve the high UN functionaries given the prize basically for being high UN functionaries, which has been going on periodically since the 40s. And many of the prizes that people in this forum will say they look favorably upon (Borlaug, MLK and other internal civil rights types) have little to do with "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." On the stated criteria of the prize Obama probably is already ahead of a lot of those people even without having done anything other than replace Bush!

1) The problem is that the average person thinks the Nobel prize is a great thing b/c they are uninformed. That is the entire point of them giving them the award; to influence global politics. It gives the impression that Obama is some great humanitarian, when his policies have not differed significantly from his predecessor. We are taught from the time we are kids to look up to Nobel Prize winners as authority figures, so in terms of how it might affect history it matters very much.

2) You really think internal civil rights activism only benefits the country in which it takes place? Imagine what sub-Saharan Africa might look like today if the civil rights movement had been delayed 20 years.

10-09-2009 , 11:59 AM

#206

Loss Tee

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 684

i feel the most badly for the moon -

obama awarded the peace prize on the VERY day that the he launches an unprovoked attack on the moon.

what a joke - and there is no way it is a coincidence. the prize is just part of a massive campaign to divert attention from the unprovoked attack that just occurred - this aggression cannot stand

10-09-2009 , 12:02 PM

#207

T50_Omaha8

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,741

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

All I'm doing is trying to explain the motivation of the committee, not justify it. Personally, I think the award was premature.

Consider this article by Robert Naiman:

So, he may be right that the prize has been used on other occasions to effect change, rather than to reward for change accomplished. But while I cannot recall what was happening in 1984, the analogy to Desmond Tutu seems pretty silly. I'm pretty sure that, by 1984, Tutu had already spent years fighting apartheid, at great personal risk.

I was going to reply that this analogy seems pretty silly, but you beat me to it.

There may be some similarities, but to my knowlegde the Tutu award was given to someone who had spent his life advancing a particular movement. The fact that the movement had not succeeded as of the award date is not relevant; it is still quite possible a major accomplishment was made. Also, the award could directly have a major impact of bringing lots of attention and focus towards that particular issue, which would in turn be an excellent development for global peace.

Obama, however, led a domestic-focused campaign without many specifics on foreign policy and global peace. His performance in carrying those promises out has been a mixed bag. It is much more an idea and a philosophy that Obama has put some effort into advancing, and this idea only makes up a portion of his overall character.

Tutu invested a dozen years into tearing down apartheid by the time he got the award. Obama has made a much vaguer goal of international engagement and diplomacy his second priority in his eleven months in office.

This isn't an argument that Obama doesn't deserve the prize, just that the comparison is indeed silly.

Last edited by T50_Omaha8; 10-09-2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason: the bolded is obviously incorrect, and a result of my own stupidity

10-09-2009 , 12:02 PM

#208

daca

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichlemn

I don't think "leading a country that's still in a war" is such a negative as others do, but still, I think this is awfully premature. Why can't the Peace Prizes be anything close to the other Nobels, which are generally awarded after decades of work? It gives the impression of it being the work of a bunch of awestruck Euro fanboys more than anything. It's too bad, if it was given in a couple of years after Obama had actually made some substantive progress it could have really meant something.

The other prizes are given by sensible Swedes. The peace prize is for some reason given by Norwegians and all Norwegians are narcissistic egomaniacs hyped on religion and North sea oil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZTP8-8wIs

10-09-2009 , 12:04 PM

#209

spaceman Bryce

anything you guys want

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 21,294

wait...wait... I just woke up. There are quite a lot of responces in this thread. ...this isn't a joke???

10-09-2009 , 12:05 PM

#210

istewart

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 15,910

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

You're giving this forum a lot of credit. We already have a thread where the contributions of Borlaug are called into question and his character generally impugned. And some in this forum IIRC genuinely think MLK is world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours and seduced underage girls and boys. You can search the RP newsletter threads if you doubt this.

Just the other day I posted that the Dalai Lama is a feudal warlord.

I doubt there's any one Nobel winner who would get universal approval from this forum. If there's one thing I've learned reading this forum for 5 years, it's that everyone is evil and terrible.

Pretty much.

In 1964 UATreqwaz would have been posting "LOL has this always been this political? Would MLK have even been up for this award if he weren't black?"

10-09-2009 , 12:06 PM

#211

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

istewart, you think obama deserves the award?

10-09-2009 , 12:08 PM

#212

Bedreviter

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,502

Quote:

Originally Posted by daca

The other prizes are given by sensible Swedes. The peace prize is for some reason given by Norwegians and all Norwegians are narcissistic egomaniacs hyped on religion and North sea oil.

10-09-2009 , 12:09 PM

#213

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by daca

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedreviter

FYP

10-09-2009 , 12:10 PM

#214

mcsqr

grinder

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 461

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceman Bryce

wait...wait... I just woke up. There are quite a lot of responces in this thread. ...this isn't a joke???

April Fools,

we got you good

10-09-2009 , 12:12 PM

#215

istewart

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 15,910

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

istewart, you think obama deserves the award?

No.

10-09-2009 , 12:12 PM

#216

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

I wonder what Obama is going to do with the money?

10-09-2009 , 12:14 PM

#217

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by istewart

No.

kool

10-09-2009 , 12:14 PM

#218

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle

I wonder what Obama is going to do with the money?

Bribe the Heisman Committee to catch up to Al Gore.

10-09-2009 , 12:15 PM

#219

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

lmao at alandyer itt

the one poster who thinks obama actually deserves the nobel peace prize for leading two wars.

10-09-2009 , 12:17 PM

#220

mcsqr

grinder

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 461

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle

I wonder what Obama is going to do with the money?

He can't keep it. It would be considered a gift over the few hundred dollar limit allowed for gifts to incumbant US politicians.

It either goes to the govt, or perhaps he can divert it to some non-profit of some sort.

10-09-2009 , 12:24 PM

#221

istewart

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 15,910

lol, the briefing questions on this are so inane. Chip Reid is asking if this is going to widen the partisan divide because Gore, Carter, and now Obama got it but Reagan didn't. Obviously this is Obama's fault.

What awful media we have.

10-09-2009 , 12:27 PM

#222

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,499

Holy ****, how did this happen?

10-09-2009 , 12:28 PM

#223

Bedreviter

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,502

Quote:

Originally Posted by SL__72

Holy ****, how did this happen?

If you knew anything about the general competence of top Norwegian politicians, you would not ask that question

10-09-2009 , 12:29 PM

#224

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

You're giving this forum a lot of credit. We already have a thread where the contributions of Borlaug are called into question and his character generally impugned. And some in this forum IIRC genuinely think MLK is world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours and seduced underage girls and boys. You can search the RP newsletter threads if you doubt this.

Just the other day I posted that the Dalai Lama is a feudal warlord.

I doubt there's any one Nobel winner who would get universal approval from this forum. If there's one thing I've learned reading this forum for 5 years, it's that everyone is evil and terrible.

Humans are mostly all flawed. Deifying them is silly.