That’s a good point - if you give a guy the Nobel prize for [list=a][li]not being Bush, and []winning the US Presidential election, and []well, not being Bush[/list] that kind of implies that Doctors without Borders or being imprisoned by the Burmese authorities for fighting for freedom is on a par with not being Bush. McCain wasn’t Bush either - can anyone seriously argue that he deserved a Nobel prize if he had won the election?[/li]
More of the “soft bigotry of low expectations”, ISTM. The point of winning an election is to do something after you’ve won. If the winner doesn’t achieve much after winning, it is more than a bit anti-climatic.
Well, since the citation itself didn’t make a lot of sense otherwise, we’re left with either Obama-as-postracial-metonym or an expression of such profound Bush hatred that he was elected merely by acceding to the office in Shrub’s wake and outlining a reasonably intelligent international agenda. I’ll opt for the former, and I’m honestly OK with that. They’ve certainly made worse choices. If you opt for the latter, that’s defensible, I guess. The alternative is to say that he won for basically one speech in Egypt.
Much as I loathe and despise the memory of Yasser Arafat, at least he signed a peace agreement. Sure, he may have signed it in bad faith, and he certainly reverted to his old ways soon enough, but at least he did something. Giving him the Prize was not neccessarily a mistake, giving what they knew at the time.
Which does point out the weakness of the Peace prize when compared to its scientific peers, which are usually given for work that has been reviewed to such an extent that the Prize won’t look silly in a few years. The only real clinker in the science fields, as Cecil has pointed out, was the 1949 award to Antonio Moniz. The Peace Prize is awarded, ostensibly, for the actions of the preceding year, and history clearly shows that one never really knows how these things are going to work out. At least they didn’t give it to Hitler in 1938 when it appeared, as Orson Welles famously said, that “the war scare was over”. Then again, they did give the 1938 Prize to an organization that dissolved almost immediately thereafter.
Hey hey, I like looking at the bright side of Arafat getting the prize. After he got it I realized, after a bit of logic, that I’ve also won the peace prize, a fact that I’m quite proud of:) (For those that care the logic is pretty simple. I’ve done nothing for peace. Arafat has done less than nothing for peace which is less than me. If person A does more and than B and B won a prize for his efforts person A must have won the prize too. Therefore the year Arafat won the peace prize I also won the peace prize. I’m not sure if my award got lost in the mail though or it’s just there’s several hundred million people ahead of me in the list of peace prize winners.
I admit to being distressed by the prospect of the Palin presidency, but at least it’ll be brief. Either because she’ll quit in 6 months or because she’ll inadvertently start a nuclear with with India that will spread to a general holocaust.
:: silly hat on ::
And Palin was not brewed in a hat. She was reruited to our side as an adult, thank you very much. The beauty of it is that she still thinks she’s on the side of the angels.
I look on Obama’s Nobel Price as sort of an “affirmative action” prize.
It was awrded to him despite no visible achievement in world peace.
It is sort like his other achievements (editor of the Harvard law School Review), or acting president.
If nothing else, it will be good for the biographers.
Seems like there’s a trope here, by a few posters, to say the Nobel Peace Prize doesnt mean anything anymore since it got awarded to Arafat. Since there’s usually nothing advanced to substantiate this, I’m curious. Why the hell would giving the Nobel to Arafat means it is now a meaningless prize? Why especially Arafat by the way, when Rabin and Peres got it as well?
Moreover, how come this claim even stand when the same prize got awarded to Begin and Sadat in 1978.
I cant see anything more than self righteous bias looking for company to justify its bias. Maybe I’m wrong. As no one making the claim here has deemed necessary to back it up, I have my doubts.
What, precisely, does anyone else have to do with it? Provided we buy into the argument that underserving winners imply the meaninglessness of the prize, all we require is one instance of an undeserving winner – by hypothesis Arafat – and anything else is a side issue.
About what are you asking for backup? Specifically that Arafat was undeserving? I don’t think most people would see that as an opinion requiring strong defense.
The focus on Arafat being the lowest possible point in Nobel Prizes is what constituted my question, though you seemed to have completely missed it.
So you’re saying that people not backing it up dont because they dont think they have to. Thanks for comforting me in my opinion that bias seeks its strength in numbers than in any quest for veracity. In truth that’s the only thing I can thank you for, since none of what makes up your answer actually answers anything I’v asked.
He’s low enough to call their judgement into question. It hardly matters if there’s someone even worse, unless you’re trying to construct an even stronger argument that the Nobel Peace Prize is empty of meaning.
He’s saying that they don’t think they have to because they feel it is self-evident that the leader of the PLO and founder of Fatah has done so much to attack the things the Nobel Peace Prize should be about protecting. It’s like asking for a cite when someone says “the sky is blue”.
There are two ways of looking at Obama’s peace prize. Did he deserve it based on the criteria implicit in previous prizes and I would say he didn’t. The other way of looking it at is to ask Obama objectively have a bigger impact on world peace than the average Nobel peace laureate and I would say the answer is overwhelmingly yes. The fact is that a politician who shifts the course of the world’s only superpower by 10% in a more peaceful direction has a vastly bigger impact than some dissident locked up in a Chinese jail no matter how heroic. It’s just that the kind of incremental change that Obama’s election and presidency represents is typically not awarded the peace prize even though it’s a lot more important than the work of most peace laureates.
Arguably true, but it’s not as though we’re any more peaceful under Obama than we were under Bush. We might have invaded someone new if we could afford it.
I think the chances of a President McCain bombing Iran and setting off a massive regional conflagaration was actually quite high. Just preventing that was a major achievement. I think people underestimate how big a deal the election was in terms of promoting a saner foreign policy. It’s true that the financial crisis reduced the importance of national security but it was still a pretty big issue, much more so than 92 or 96. And you had an inexperienced black Senator facing off against a war-hero. Despite this Obama more than held his own in the foreign policy debate and articulated a pragmatic and thoughtful alternative to McCain’s warmongering. You probably have to go back to 1964 for an election when there was such a big gap between levels of hawkishness between candidates and the less hawkish candidate won.
