Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

[Cathy]

Even I think this is incredibly inappropriate. I am one who very much wants Obama to succeed at home and abroad. It is way too early to suggest that he has actually turned any corner in regard to world peace. It cheapens the Nobel Prize (the image not the money). When giving the peace prize one would think they would want to see years of consistent progress and accountability.

[Jonathan]

One way to look at this is that the Nobel Committee has now given George W Bush 3 anti-Nobel peace prizes since it was pretty clear that the ones awarded to Carter, Gore were statements against the former president.

Another thought: wouldn't you like to be fly on the wall at the Clinton house this morning?

[Cathy]

It is hard to imagine anyone more deserving of a Peace Prize than Jimmy Carter. It was probably given more for his work after his one term in office, but his efforts during his one term will stand the test of time as well. IMNSHO

I do think this was a European Political Statement. I think Obama may someday deserve the prize. It is too bad they couldn't have waited for that day. If however the Republicans decide to try to round up more anti-Obama sentiment because this they will be making a mistake.

[JaneFordA]

Even I think this is incredibly inappropriate. I am one who very much wants Obama to succeed at home and abroad. It is way too early to suggest that he has actually turned any corner in regard to world peace. It cheapens the Nobel Prize (the image not the money). When giving the peace prize one would think they would want to see years of consistent progress and accountability.

It'll look good on his résumé after his one term in office.

[Jim]

The will of Alfred Nobel:

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: ... The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: ... and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

The prizes awarded in quantifiable fields such as chemistry, medicine, physics always seem sound enough since tangible proof can be determined. Prizes awarded in literature and peace are made on the purely subjective stances of the awarding committee. It needs to be understood that the U.S. will always fare well in the quantifiable areas since it has been a world leader in technology for many years. This was the case this year.

The U.S. is also that world entity in the sight of the Nobel Committee representing the axiom regarding “those who bite the hand that feeds them.” Sweden is today a nation with a Nobel Committee in large part because the U.S. saved its bacon in the 1940s, using a standing army to do so. Carter probably won the prize in 2002 not least because of his efforts to emasculate the military to the extent that he couldn’t even rescue 52 Americans in 1979-81 from Iran. In 2002, Gunnar Berge, the Nobel committee chairman, said this: “The award should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [U.S] administration has taken.” The U.S. had just invaded Afghanistan to dislodge Al Qaeda. Carter’s efforts with regard to Begin and Sadat had occurred 25 years before and, of course, had not brought peace to the Middle East. In fact, things only got worse.

Al Gore won the award in 2007, but no one knows why. If it was because of his Inconvenient Truth campaign, it should have been an award in the sciences, but, of course, he had no scientific bona fides of any kind. It was an anti-American award, pure and simple. Significantly, the UN IPCC, the claims of which concerning the climate are now being prolifically proven false, shared the award with Gore.

In the case of Obama, who has done nothing with regard to world peace, one can only wonder. It may be because he has spent a good deal of time and speaking in an effort to apologize to the whole world for the very existence of this country, which is viewed, obviously, by the Nobel folks as anathema. It’s a sort of great reward for the bad-mouthing of his own country. This is what Obama said in his recent UN speech: “I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.” This would be music to Gunnar Berge’s ear. Then, too, maybe the Nobel is the consolation prize for not winning the Olympics for Chicago.

Of course, times change. In 1953, not long after WWII and right at the end of the Korean Conflict, with the U.S. both effecting salvation for huge populations and securing a free South Korea by using a standing army, the Nobel folks gave the prize to former American General George Marshall, a former prominent member of a standing army and, of course, the originator and inculcator of the Marshall Plan, which literally delivered much if not most of Europe from worldly hell. He was State Secretary during the Berlin Airlift in the late 40s that saved Berlin to eventually be what it is today instead of a Russian Gulag.

Yeah...biting the hand that feeds. In this day of European Enlightenment (and decay), the peace prize is always an expression of anti-Americanism.

[Stephen Fox]

in her second entry.
I cannot improve on what she said.
If it were possible for Obama to have turned down the prize as a little premature without insulting this august committee, I think he mighta done so.
One of the more forboding comments I heard this morning has resonances of Shakespearian tragedy, hoping this prize does not turn out to be a "poison chalice."

I think Obama is a phenomenal human being, but this latest is a little too strong on hero worship at the expense of the responsibilities the likes of Richard Land and others who could tamp down the rhetoric of the likes of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity if only they would.

Ill timed well intentioned hope for humanity is what this prize may mean.

For what it is worth, Jonathan and others, I would have voted for the Tiannemen Square 10 on this 20th Anniversary year. I hear they were sad and disappointed they did not win, but congratulated his latest honor.
I appreciate their honesty.

[ET]

Great commentary on this from Dick Morris and Eileen McGann: The Nobel Prize to Obama: Europe's Bid to Re-Colonize America

Whether it was rewarding Jimmy Carter for criticizing the Iraq War or supporting Al Gore in his crusade against global warming, the Norwegian Parliament -- which chooses the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize -- has sought to use the award as a political tool to influence American politics. Its prestige and moral power make the prize a potent weapon with which to help steer the direction of the colossus beyond the seas that controls a quarter of the world's economy and most of its military power.

Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway -- or at least like Europe.

European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States. If the European Union has high taxes and the U.S. keeps its levies low, business and brains will flow to America. If the EU's labor standards require long vacations and high benefits and proscribe layoffs, and ours do not, employers will migrate across the ocean to do their business in the States. If the Old World curbs ambition by taxation, regulation and social opprobrium, the ambitious will flock to the New World, as they have done for four hundred years.

So, Vladimir Lenin was right. Socialism cannot exist in just one country -- or one continent. It must dominate worldwide, or wealth and power will flow to those who remain committed to the free market. Europe realizes this reality, and it makes Obama's election as president of the United States all the more welcome.

The Nobel Prize is really Obama's payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations.

For all the (overhyped) hoopla of this award, it's more often these days nothing more than a political propaganda piece of fluff. I watch a movie on Irena Sendler last spring. She helped smuggle 2500+ Jewish children out of Poland during WWII and was one of the nominees along with Algore a few years back. Algore won because he is one of the leaders of the threat-du-juor to the human race that is so popular with the statists at this time.

[Randy]

The Nobel Peace prize is a joke as is most of the people they select. Just another example of the media and socialist governments fawning over what we have for a President.

[Randy]

My grammatical error... It should have been "as are most of the people they select."

[Howard V]

Former V. P. Al Gore got one. Why shouldn't President Obama get one?

Howard

[David Mwangi]

Well he did manage to show that a president can ignore protocol with foreign dignitaries and still not start a war...that's something. I would think a president that wins the Nobel Peace Prize should care a little more about foreign policy...but then what do I know?

[Randy]

No, what is a sad joke is seeing people with brains not saying a thing as Obama leads us straight down the path to socialism. We'll see what you say when we get there--and you're footing the bill for most of it. The joke of his Nobel prize is just icing on the cake.

[William Thornton]

No, what is a sad joke is seeing people with brains not saying a thing as Obama leads us straight down the path to socialism. We'll see what you say when we get there--and you're footing the bill for most of it. The joke of his Nobel prize is just icing on the cake.

"People with no brains" ? Randy please avoid the insulting language if you want to keep posting on this forum. I know it will be hard for you to fathom. But just because someone disagrees with your view of the world doesn't mean that they don't have brains or aren't intelligent. Last I knew there was only one who was "all knowing" and you aren't Him.

I think Randy said "people WITH brains not saying a thing".

[Jim]

Egad...I’m still laughing. Take heart, dear brother. You’ve just been told by no less than the esteemed moderator that you’re hardly able to fathom his exquisite wisdom. You should feel right at home in this forum, where especially the moderator can successfully cast stones from a house made of glass.

[Jonathan]

William and Randy I indeed misread the quote. Warning removed Randy and my apologies for a casual misreading.

While we are at it though. Can anyone here use the word "socialist" in a way that doesn't mean "anyone who isn't a Republican that I want to demonize." The word socialist is used on this forum the way liberal is used. "liberal" = "anyone I disagree with that I want to demonize."

How about this: former President Bush's prescription drug plan and the TARP plan (both of which Obama supported, the later he actually voted for) were very progressivist/socialist.

As an aside, I'm continually amazed when I think of Timothy's comment last year about the primary reason he left the Republican party (that the GOP is no longer the party of individual freedom) and then watch as Timothy appears to support how the Dems want to clamp down on freedom with regard to tax policy, environmental policy, healthcare policy, etc...

[Jonathan]

As an aside, I'm continually amazed when I think of Timothy's comment last year about the primary reason he left the Republican party (that the GOP is no longer the party of individual freedom) and then watch as Timothy appears to support how the Dems want to clamp down on freedom with regard to tax policy, environmental policy, healthcare policy, etc...

Can you expend on that Jonathan? I'd be interested in the discussion. For example, what do you and I mean by individual freedom? I'm not sure we have the same definition. I generally think of individual freedom as the right to live my private life the way I want to. Can you tell me how giving me universal healthcare would interfere with that? I think that having universal health care would enhance my personal freedom and that for many Americans poor healthcare is infringing on their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Giving you "universal healthcare", under the Dem plans, requires the government to move in the direction of dramatically limiting the freedom of others. If the government were serious about reducing the cost of health insurance, why not do the type of things that have been proposed by conservatives (like eliminating the restrictions that keep folks from shopping for insurance across state lines, tort reform, changing the laws regarding healthcare savings accounts, giving individuals the same tax breaks that companies get thereby cutting the ties between insurance and employment, etc...)? The current Dem plans all do the type of things that reduce freedom and provide even more burdens on those who actually create jobs.

How is that an increase in freedom? I suppose that if the government were to take $10,000 from every other citizen and then give all of those funds to me, you could say that the government is increasing my freedom. So much for the freedom of others.

Or maybe I was never a good Republican Jonathan. After all I've not voted Republican since I was in my 20s. I certainly confess to not having been very knowledgeable about the party at that time in my life. If I misunderstood what the party was about then it is probably a good thing I switched.

So when you said that you switched because you thought that the GOP was less about individual freedom than the Dems, you just weren't well informed? At least you're being honest, Timothy.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of other party at the moment. I'm a conservative looking for a party (and some politicians and statesmen) that is committed to conservative principles.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Make no mistake, Jonathan's definition of freedom represents one perspective. There are multiple perspectives and multiple definitions. We're all free to throw around the word "freedom." But freedom obviously means something different to Jonathan than it does Timothy.

Pretty sure that Mullins meant something just a bit different than Calvin when he wrote about "freedom" in the The Axioms of Religion.

And Neuhaus meant something different than Rawls when he brought up freedom.

I'd surmise that Timothy's definition of freedom is not primarily self-centered (not using this pejoratively) nor overly individualistic. It likely takes into consideration other related principles such as fairness and justice and likely does not neglect the collective community.

[David Mwangi]

Every political discussion becomes about universal health care...no offense but y'uns is boring me here...aren't there any other issues? Like should a president (or anyone) that has been known to ignore or forget protocol when visiting with foreign dignitaries be awarded the "peace prize" since they are just rubbing the whole "most powerful person" thing in people's faces? Will having an "African-American" president help with race relations or hurt it? There have been some discussions started on these lines but then go back to healthcare. As a "African-Canadian-American" (my own minority group) let me state that free healthcare is great...but expensive. It has the potential to bankrupt the US, and put more people into the "system". Which is not the best for some areas where the system has sucked people dry and left them totally dependent on the government.

[Jonathan]

Make no mistake, Jonathan's definition of freedom represents one perspective. There are multiple perspectives and multiple definitions...

Among the main problems with postmodernism is that nuance tends to replace actual meaning. The etymology of nuance stems from shade of color, from nuer to make shades of color...and the current fad is to use nuance as a tool such that the actual meaning of a term can be shaded until it bears little resemblance to what once was clearly understood. The purpose of doing such damage to terms is political in nature and is usually justified because of the end one seeks to achieve. But if we look at the term freedom

1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2 a : a political right b : franchise, privilege

I'd surmise that Timothy's definition of freedom is not primarily self-centered (not using this pejoratively) nor overly individualistic. It likely takes into consideration other related principles such as fairness and justice and likely does not neglect the collective community.

Terms like "fairness" and "justice" also have definitions...and there is no need to bend the definition of "freedom" in their direction, unless, one has a particular agenda that one finds so important that integrity of language is to be considered expendable.

We're all free to throw around the word "freedom."

Yes, until the throwing around renders the term functionally meaningless such that if everyone's individualized definition of a term is valid, there remains no valid definition of the term. Again, the purpose of this is political in nature and quite short sighted.

But freedom obviously means something different to Jonathan than it does Timothy.

What is obvious is that, unless Timothy and I are using contradictory but formal definitions of the term, a bar has been cross which pretty much eliminates the possibility of reasoning together. Words having no real foundation become little more than vulgar weapons and the possibility of rational debate has been lost. This is precisely what has happened on the national political stage where temporary agendas among free peoples have trumped the real struggle over principle. History books can be rewritten, language can be screened, terms can have whatever meaning fit the agenda of the moment. But with More's admonition to his son-in-law in mind, once words have been so damaged, what remains?

Seriously, if we're now "post-meaning" then in what can we trust? Government promises...using words?

[KeithE]

Just returned from a cruise where Obama's Nobel Prize was a common discussion especially around the blackjack table. Th Europeans (3 - Ireland, Norway and UK) all thought that Obama deserved it for (one mentioned "opening up dialogue with Iran and Russia", another mentioned "attempts to resolve the Israeli-Arab war" and the other guy mentioned both of the previous points as well as "atempts at disarmanent".)

The Americans including myself felt that he had not done enough (or anything) to deserve the award.

At sit down lunch we met a couple of Palestinian sisters who live near San Francisco after having left Gaza some years ago. All their relatives have died since at the hands of the Israelis. They cannot understand why the US supports Israel - just shook their heads in disbelief.

Asked another guy from Ireland about what the Irish think about Americans - they used to admire Americans but not after 9/11 (he brought this up). We must be "dull headed" for not seeing 9/11 as an inside job. We of course got into a long discussion at that point.

Had a great cruise with 10 friends we went with and a coincidental set of 30 other Hunstvillians including the local Interfaith Faith Minister. And I was up $250 at Blackjack and up 6 lbs.

[KeithE]

"Freedom" is a very popular term that all want to call their own - From W's "they hate our freedoms" to Anthony Romeo (Executive Director of the ACLU) who declares this "a time when Consititutional freedoms are in peril" in the intro to his In Defense of America.

I would propose that any definition of freedom applied to all people not to segments like an industry or a particular nation or a gender or landowners. A right given to only some is really a brand of tyranny and not true freedom.

[Bruce Gourley]

A right given to only some is really a brand of tyranny and not true freedom.

Exactly! And a right which I'm given that takes a right away from you is worse than tyranny.

Well said, KeithE. It is for this reason that the early Baptists championed religious freedom for all persons, not just themselves.

[Jonathan]

A right given to only some is really a brand of tyranny and not true freedom.

Exactly! And a right which I'm given that takes a right away from you is worse than tyranny.

So, Timothy, do you support any of the current Dem healthcare reform proposals? If "yes", how do you square that support with this quote?

[Jonathan]

I would propose that any definition of freedom applied to all people not to segments like an industry or a particular nation or a gender or landowners. A right given to only some is really a brand of tyranny and not true freedom.

I'm interested in hearing more...

If my neighbor is a landowner, do both of us have the freedom to use his property? How about if you work (beginning with years of education and then years of hard work on the job) to earn a salary, do both of us have the freedom to benefit from your paycheck?

I ask because I know your views of estate taxes (you favor a 100% tax on all estates upon the death of the owner).

[Jonathan]

Interesting thoughts Jonathan. I won't try to do the quote within quotes thing.

You moved from a discussion of freedom to a discussion of the meaning of terminology. And you seem to be arguing that:

1. We have to agree on definitions of terms to have a discussion.
2. That words/terms have fixed definitions that don't change, have no shade of meaning, and no nuance

No. My points were, in essence:

1. There have to be clear definitions of terms if terms are going to be used in conversation...else, how the heck can anyone know what anyone else is saying?
2. Words/terms, especially in English, do not have fixed meanings, but they do have meanings that are fixed in a specific time. This is why, when reviewing the writings of individuals from an early era, it is very helpful to have a copy of a formal dictionary published or in common use from that era. Baring a dictionary, it is necessary to understand the context of the writing of the time. Without either of these, the words of the earlier writer will be continually redefined without regard to the writer's intent (as an aside, I highly recommend How to Read a Book by Adler and Validity in Interpretation).

Unless we find ways for all of us to have as equal a freedom as possible then we are instead creating freedom for the few, the wealthy, and the powerful. That leads me to the definition of despotism.

This quote provides me with a great deal of insight into how you think. Those who are wealthier than me will have a greater freedom to travel, a wider choice of housing arrangements, a wider choice of transportation arrangements, a wider choice of educational institutions, a greater number of healthcare options (include but not exclusive to being able to pay for more advanced medical procedures that may be required as a result of lifestyle choices (i.e. finding the best surgical staff in the world as opposed to the one that a particular insurance carrier allows)). Are you really suggesting that we should eliminate these additional freedoms that the wealthy have so that all citizens can claim to have the same number of options in every area of life?