Gandhi died before he was awarded the Peace Prize, even though he was nominated five times. Obama gets it less than a year into his Presidency? I like Obama, but that's just wrong.
Kissinger, Begin, and Sadat all won it in the 70s. It's had zero credibility since then.
Which is a pity, because the clear purpose is to encourage rather than necessarily always to reward, and Obama's intentions definitely seem to be good.
I very much doubt global warming is a hoax. A majority of scientists in climatology and related fields seem to believe in global warming (though there is disagreement over many of the details, most significantly the degree and that one can vary widely.) Even if they have gotten it wrong, which is a real possibility, I very much doubt that anyone did it with intention to deceive or create a hoax.
Note that I am not making any statements one way or another about "An Inconvenient Truth" or Al Gore or his receipt of the nobel prize. What I am saying is that from my layman's perspective it seems that there is at least some truth to global warming and that even if it is indeed not true then that would be a scientific error, not a hoax.
In my personal opinion is devalued when they gave it to Al-Gore for making a scare-tactic film on global warming :) (Im not commenting on global warming at all BTW - that is another issue - but the film was pure scare tactic bullshit, which devalued the issue more than raising any awareness. Stuff like that shouldn't be awarded :()
I do agree; the only thing I can think is that Obama has achieved quite a bit so far (getting elected in the first place for example). But your right - at least wait till hes had his term(s) and then consider...
All the reports quote a Nobel guy saying they are doing it to support his ideas/ideals - so it looks like a political move.
By tainting the Nobel Peace Prize the others get devalued as well, it is one institution.
So, I really did mean the Nobel Prize as such and I'm really sorry they did that.
From the wikipedia article on the Nobel Prize:
"The interval between the accomplishment of the achievement being recognized and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for it varies from discipline to discipline. The prizes in Literature are typically awarded to recognize a cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. In this case the notion of "lag" does not directly apply. The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize. For instance, Kofi Annan was awarded the 2001 Peace Prize just four years after becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations."
So, maybe this is a case of prescience or something ?
I really think this was dreadfully misguided and that it devalues the whole of the Nobel Prize, of course there is absolutely no way they could ever do anything about it now but the Nobel Prize is now synonymous with 'has the potential to do great things, some day. We hope.'
"By tainting the Nobel Peace Prize the others get devalued as well, it is one institution."
That's just a part/whole fallacy. The badness of what some priests did to boys doesn't devalue what Mother Theresa did by virtue of them both being Catholic.
She has been praised by many individuals, governments and organizations; however, she has also faced a diverse range of criticism. These include objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work including a strong stance against abortion, a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty and alleged baptisms of the dying. Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was spent.
Nobody's perfect, and of people well-known in the West, she's at the top of the list. Those flaws certainly don't outweigh the good, and the flaws certainly aren't on the level of child molestation. So absent an alternative that avoids having to take ten minutes to explain who I'm talking about, I'll continue to use that ol' nun.
But it does devalue the institution of the Catholic Church as a whole. Just as this prize may devalue the Nobel Prize idea, but doesn't touch one bit what other individuals who received the prize did.
Sure, the institution may be devalued, but that's not the claim being made. The claim is, "the others get devalued as well." Feynman's work in QED is no less amazing today than it was the day before yesterday, and the Nobel no more or less an appropriate prize.
The Catholic Church doesn't control the actions of its priests and nuns. However, it does protect its priests and as an institution it devalues it. As Teresa was neither protected by the Church, nor acting under direct supervision of the church, it doesn't devalue her actions.
However the Nobel committee has complete oversight and control over where these prizes go, the prizes aren't capable of deciding where they go, so a devaluing of the committee devalues the prize.
If the Nobel committee brought out an award for mathematics everybody would think it's about damn time. However if they brought one out for creationist research, not a single scientist on the planet would ever want a Nobel Prize again.
Actually I think it does. When chatting with my new barber he mentioned that his brother is a priest - and then quickly had to add the disclaimer that "but he is ok."
It is a shame that being a priest in the Boston area is now linked with being a pedophile
That other people also think shoddily / fallaciously doesn't make it any more valid. Plus, that's not responsive to my point. If 50% of cops are corrupt, when meeting any given cop, there may be a 50% chance that they're corrupt. But if it turns out upon meeting this cop you find out she saved thousands of lives and is the model of virtue, the badness of other cops in no way diminishes her accomplishments. If anything, it highlights them because of their rarity for that population. Similarly, the Pope could be the Antichrist or whatever: it still doesn't diminish the achievements of one particular nun.
Einstein's Nobel has no tarnish on it because the Committee gave Obama one.
Especially since the Nobel Peace Price is awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament. All other comittees are Swedish. Alfred Nobel's intention with this was to improve Sweden-Norway relations.
Krugman, as an op-ed columnist, is a complete and total wanker.
Krugman, as an economist, did a great deal to further the field (although he has since forgotten these things, apparently). Economists who I respect feel that his prize was deserved.
They gave it to Arafat, Kissinger and quite a few other warmongers, so it didn't have that much value to lose.
Although it's a tad bit early and it would have been nicer as a reward for peace-making achievements, he also embodies the world's achievements in the struggle against racism and governance of old white men.
Yes, quote the guy who brought in caste-based reservation in India. Quote the guy who wanted a separate electorate for Dalits and other religious communities. Quote the guy who did not understand Gandhi !
Now there is 49.5% reservation now in educational institutions in India, yes 49.5% !!, because that's the highest allowed by the constitution, otherwise they would have gone higher. It's something similar to "affirmative action" in the US, but totally taken over by politicians to play electoral politics, to pump in the votes from the lower sections of society.
Gandhi had the vision to understand that caste-based reservations would lead to caste-based politics and further affirmation of casteism in India, Ambedkar never could fathom that, or maybe he could and ignored it!
Anyway, please don't quote someone who didn't understand the ideas or vision of Gandhi, please don't.
"Please, a more credible source and better context too. I have hard time believing Ambedkar actually said that."
Ok, Here goes.
"Abandoning all these sober considerations Mr. Gandhi came out as an, open enemy of the Untouchables. How can the Untouchables regard such a man as their friend and ally?"
"Thus ended the efforts by the Minorities Committee to bring about a solution of the communal problem. The discussion in the Committee threw Mr. Gandhi's attitude to the Untouchables in relief. Everybody felt that Mr. Gandhi was the most determined enemy of the Untouchables."
Not literally the same statement, but similar in sentiment. Google is your friend.
That Ambedkar regarded Gandhi is a pious fraud and hypocrite is well known to students of Indian History. That doesn't make Gandhi an "enemy of the untouchables" , but yes Ambedkar thought so at times, and said so at times.
As a citizen of a foreign country (not US) I think I can understand the logic that went into the Nobel Prize Committee's decision.
Prior to Obama, some people in the international community had grown disenfranchised, resentful, bitter and distant with the US. I'd like to say it was a great number or a majority of people, but I don't have a study or link to back this up. This is just from my experience.
The accomplishment that Obama did, which for US citizens might seem inconsequential, is that they made us (the international community) look at the US with fondness. Changing people's mind is a powerful accomplishment.
Obama's administration made people have faith in US leadership and that once again the international community's voice would be heard by the lone reigning super power in the world.
This isn't a "concrete" accomplishment like publishing a paper, stopping a war or ending an oppressive regime. But it is nonetheless a relevant and important event in the course of international politics. By positively changing the political climate Obama has achieved something that the US had failed to do for many years.
Honestly, I don't understand all of the hate. Peace itself is an ideal, a goal we should aim for but most likely will never achieve (at least not on a global scale), and Obama's intentions and steps in that direction have spoken louder than many others this year.
Obama seems to be a good man with good intent. Awarding him the Peace prize without a clear representation for a big problem he has helped solve does seem out of place. Al Gore didn't actually solve a problem either. Well, unless you count inventing the Internet ;).
The only interpretation I can offer is the Nobel committee wants to show its support for Obama. The 2010 elections are going to be the worst circus we've seen in a long time.
I don't know why people hold the Nobel Prizes in such esteem. It's like people complaining that Radiohead doesn't win enough at the Grammies, or that people let Slumdog Millionaire win the Best Picture Oscar. Prizes aren't some objective reflection of how good a person is. The Nobel Prize has long been controversial. Why do people still treat it like a prize where its failures are worth criticizing?
In this case, I understand the motivation behind the prize. Politically, with the Nobel Prize behind him Obama gains a lot of capital. People will be less willing to argue with him, bad press against him quiets down, and he's freer to do what he wants without the insane hostility he faces today. I'd like to think this prize will help lead to the eviction of the Republican Party even more quickly than it was already.
> People will be less willing to argue with him, bad press against him quiets down, and he's freer to do what he wants without the insane hostility he faces today.
So, basically you think the Nobel Peace Prize gives Obama the right to achieve his entire political agenda without any form of opposition? Right....
> I'd like to think this prize will help lead to the eviction of the Republican Party even more quickly than it was already.
> So, basically you think the Nobel Peace Prize gives Obama the right to achieve his entire political agenda without any form of opposition? Right....
No, but it gives him a certain authority. When the right is going batshit insane like it is now, I'd like anything to help counter that we can get.
> Oh, I understand now. Thanks for sharing.
If you don't think the Republican Party needs to dissolve and make way for a newer concept of conservatism, you haven't been paying attention to the last decade.
> No, but it gives him a certain authority. When the right is going batshit insane like it is now, I'd like anything to help counter that we can get.
Unfortunately, it only grants the premonition of authority, to be used as a tool by his supporters to push his agenda. Rightly so, but don't confuse this anything more than a political tool.
> If you don't think the Republican Party needs to dissolve and make way for a newer concept of conservatism, you haven't been paying attention to the last decade.
Are you the person behind those bumper stickers? The ones that say, "If you aren't completely appalled, yada yada"? Please don't assume that your level of disagreement with a particular party must be shared by everyone else.
> Rightly so, but don't confuse this anything more than a political tool.
That's what I was suggesting: They're doing this because of politics, because they think it will help. I don't hold faith in Nobel Prizes myself, but I agree with their decision if it works.
> Please don't assume that your level of disagreement with a particular party must be shared by everyone else.
The Republican party is wretched upon even a cursory glance. This is the party that attempted to make Palin, the corrupt book-burning governor, vice president of the country. The party that fought universal health care by claiming that Obama wanted death panels deciding who dies. The party whose leaders have said publicly that Obama might not be a U.S. citizen, that Obama is anti-American, that perhaps a military revolt every now and then is a good thing. The party that sided with Joe Wilson for shouting "You lie!" after Obama said something that was entirely true. The party that is against same-sex marriage because it will destroy the sanctity of marriage, that thinks the United States is a Christian nation, that preaches conservatism while throwing money into foreign wars.
I want a real conservative party and a real liberal party. As it stands, the Democrats are spineless and corrupt, and the Republicans are worse: They are disgusting liars protected only by the faulty media system we've got going.
The Republican Party hurts America, and the sooner they're gone the better.
Politically, with the Nobel Prize behind him Obama gains a lot of capital.
Not really. I just had a look on the BBC's comments page and the overwhelming reaction is ridicule. Similarly my Facebook newsfeed is full of people wondering WTF.
It's been less than a day since this was announced. You cannot judge the effectiveness of a certain political move that quickly. We'll see the repercussions of this award over weeks and months.
I think it just might be for the opposite reasons. Everyone in my circle likes Obama and voted for Obama but this is that moment in which everyone is "WTF".
This might be to make him lose credibility. Just my conspiracy theory.
He also gets it while USA are in two wars (wars which have very little to do with peace and most likely related to oil and revenge). Anyhow, I like Obama as well, but giving him a peace award is just too early.
Please provide factual information the wars most likely relate to oil and revenge.
To me the wars are more of a response to America's high state of emotion after 9/11, judging by the amount of people (even in political positions) who at the time agreed to them.
It might just be me, but starting a war as a response to a "high state of emotion" after being attacked is more or less the definition of "revenge". That said, I'm not commenting on the legitimacy or lack thereof of the wars, nor am I commenting on the "oil" part of the question.
Ah, I see the relation you made there. Makes sense given what was said, but every time I hear someone say: "the war was for oil and revenge!" it's always followed up with: "GWB Jr. is just finishing his daddy's work". That is the revenge I was referring to.
I'm also not saying it was a war based on emotion, but that the high tension and emotion levels obviously had a lot to do with it being acceptable at the time. I'd say it was the American peoples revenge though, not the revenge of GWB.
The war in Afghanistan was a reaction on 9/11, an act to get a small group of people called Al-Qaeda - - attacking a whole country because of a group of people is a revenge act. The war on Iraq was based on false premises (weapons of mass destruction), was not with the support from U.N. Iraq ranks as the third in the world in oil supplies - - Iraq's oil is one of the first things that invasive army protected and one of the only things that will be protected in the future as the invasive army moves out.
One can say the US wanted to protect the "people" and it's classy, but there are other places that need a lot more help (like Congo, where over 5.4 million people have died in/because of war since 1998).
"The war in Afghanistan was a reaction on 9/11, an act to get a small group of people called Al-Qaeda - " who were sheltered by the Taliban, then the ruling government in Afghanistan.
