I think that’s circular. They’re saying this choice of President is more conducive to peace. That’s not “political,” it’s just what meets that one narrow, specific goal.
Wow, really? I mean, that’s a pretty fucking out-there statement. Are you sure you want to stand by that?
(just kidding… I know that’s taken out of the context you meant it, but I was briefly puzzled and then found it funny)
Sure it is. They are putting their stamp of approval on a particular politician who has a certain set of policies that reflect a political position. He didn’t get it for what he did, but for what they think he will do, through the political process.
I’m going to be all mavericky and say, yes, I’ll stick by it!
In the same sense that convincing your children to clean up their rooms is political. If you talk to political scientists, you will find many who believe that virtually any human interaction is political.
I was, however, referring to the formal political process that is part of choosing and running our government. And again, politics is often equated with being “bad”, but I didn’t really mean it that way. The political process is what it is because we are what we are (as you are saying). It can be good or bad, depending on how it is used.
I recall my own father threatening to use the “nuclear option” if I continued to filibuster.
Yesterday, I too believed that this was a kind of bullshit choice. I mean, maybe if Glen Beck was the other candidate, it would make more sense…
But Rachel Maddow convenced me otherwise last night. She started by reminding me that the award has often been given for aspirations rather than accomplishments, and noted many previous winners who were basically protesters who were given the award before their protests had achieved any results.
Then she said what Obama HAS done:
Link to the video here.
Why not? He’s a part of your nuclear family, isn’t he?
The Dale Carnegie Program taught me that “Give them a fine reputation to live up to,” was an important way to “Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment.” Obama has been put on spot to live up to the fine reputation they described. I do not envy him that position, knowing all the pitfalls, but he had already placed himself on that road with his campaign rhetoric. The prize removes a lot of his wiggle room, and, more than ever, he needs to “walk it like he talks it.”
ETA: But yeah, this was a lubricant-free buttfuck of Dubya.
Fission was achieved a couple of decades ago, but that’s another subject for another thread, with a more maudlin variety of background music…
Must be the Messiah got nominated for nobel peace prize as soon as he was sworn in done nowt but still won it. What a disgracful display of kowtowing to America. To quote the great brirish comedian (ALI G )is it cause i is black. Would a white American President have got the same treatment? (doubtful.) And no i am not a racist never have been so for folks in the uk no nu labour slanders thanks. It is the question everybody should be asking.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck …
…and is as illiterate as a duck…
If it can float and read at the same time, its definitely a witch.
qauck!
Well, no one asked me, but I have sort of changed my mind. Posts in this thread have convinced me that it is not a mistake to give him the prize. Also, some talks I have had with a friend of mind kind of convinced me, too.
And, while it at first sounded petty to my ear, the more I mull it over, the more this makes sense; It really is their prize to give.
Those who say it cheapens their prize doesn’t seem to really grasp that it is their prize to give, and those that covet and respect it do so based on the choices that they have made as a committee thus far. It doesn’t make sense to think they can really cheapen their own prize; the prize represents their ideas.
And the idea that Obama ushers in a new era of hope…an era of hoping that we will no longer be seen by the world as a bunch of war mongering bullies but as rational, thinking reasoners…Well I can get behind giving a prize to that. Let it inspire him to make the right decisions for this nation.
At the same time, I don’t honestly believe Obama is going to change much of anything, so this is all just musings.
Bush wasn’t really so bad.
qauck, qauck!
In ten years we’ll all thanke him for his vision.
qauck, qauck, qauck!!
qauck? Is that what a dyslexic duck says?
This thread reveals, somewhat, exactly how “American-centric”, Americans really are.
And only in America would the population react in this fashion. Any other nation would be proud that their elected leader means so much to the rest of the world.
He was elected because he could waken hope for better government in his own country. He won this prize because he has awakened hope, around the world, for a better world leader. When the son of an African goat herder makes it into the white house the world begins to believe again that America can live up to it’s ideals and maybe, lead the world.
Wherever he speaks, he speaks of finding peaceful solutions to the problems that plague the world. You must realize that this reflects the large majority of what all the peoples of the world want, and always have, no matter their location or the nature of their issues. Since the beginning of time governments have pursued war while the people have longed for peace.
This may not mean much to Americans but it means something to the weak and disenfranchised nations of the world, I believe.
I think the Nobel committee was right on the money.
I get it now-the Nobel Prize Committeee is awatding prizes based upon FUTURE achievements! Obama’s award is for stuff he will do.
So, can I get my Olympic gold medal now? (I plan to win the 500 meter freestyle race (swimming), in Rio, in 2016!