Barack Obama does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. and I believe the Prize committee, deep down, would agree. Then why did they award it him?Before I address why I believe they chose BO, let me get this out of the way: Obama's record in "world peace" is not shallow - it's abysmal.
Guantanamo is not closed. Iraq is still a mess. More troops are being sent to Afghanistan, not less. US soldiers involved in torture are not being tried.
And don't get me started on his ridiculous, ridiculous attempt at half-assedly addressing the Middle East quagmire, which ended in the Israelis absolutely riding his ass.
Only last week, Saturday Night Live - which cannot be accused of being pro-Republican! - ran an opening skit on Obama's (lack of) achievement, concluding that he did have two accomplishments; they named, Jack, and Squat.
Of course, he's been getting the right amount of criticism and mockery. But never mind all that.
I'm ashamed for the Nobel Peace prize committee.
The small, 5-member committee of Norwegians has been obsessed with publicity, and since few around the world know of the leading figures in the medical or economic realms, and few care about breakthroughs in physics and chemistry - the Peace prize is where they can make headlines.
In the past 10 years, save for Wangari Maathai, their laureates have been high profile, famous personnalities and organisations. Yet they were generally worthy, though. After the utterly ridiculous choice of Al Gore in 07, last year's prize, which went to Martti Ahtisaari, seemed to reflect a return of the Nobel committee to their right mind: the man's work for peace, over four continents and for three decades, was rightfully rewarded.
In a NYTimes interview,the committee's chairman is quoted saying the following:
“It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic, but we cannot do that every year."
Yes, we can. (hihihihi). A major virtue of the Prize is that it rewards those who selflessly serve mankind, sometimes putting their own lives on the line.
Because if we're going to "go into the realm of realpolitik", by which he means 'select the rich and famous', then we should award the Nobel prize in Medicine to the hunky doctor on Oprah, and the Litterature prize for Dan Brown.
And if, as another member of the committee said, the "prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence", then I believe that a Nobel price in Economics for a PhD student who's blogging instead of researching. (hint, hint?)
10 comments:
He should have rejected the prize, in my opinion.
i agree with vertigo - then again that would have discredited the foundation.. he could have accepted it conditionally.. or donated the proceedings to the cause.. i dont know.. frankly they cocked up and there is little that can save this error except time..
"the "prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence", then I believe that a Nobel price in Economics for a PhD student who's blogging instead of researching. (hint, hint?)"
Khalas yakhi, I will give you a brize.. This whole thing reminds me of children's birthday parties in the early 80's khaleej, when all the guests got a free gift, mostly a compass and protractor set in a tin box with the map of the Arab world on it.. remember?
I'm digressing here, but I remember asking my mother why the (Coptic) birthday party I had went to featured pizzas laden with basela, her answer was:
Ya mama, men emta el massarweh bi3rfu yi3imlo bizza?
lol
I agree!
Vertigo, Lirun - same here. I am tempted to say that he should've refused it, or said that he'll only go accept it when the war in (insert conflict of choice) is over.
Then again, could he really?
Nizo
We are masters in the art of fateer(فطير). Somehow we assumed that pizza - sorry, 'betza' - was the same thing, with just the filling on top.
Now, and it breaks my heart to say it, the reference of a good pizza is Pizza Hut.
Maria
so do I! :)
Good comment, mr. Mo-ha-med.
You theory about the prize is about as good as any I've heard.
Kactuz
I am putting the "travellerwithin" on my list of blogs to read.
Kactuz
Neda Agha Soltan should have received the Prize posthumously as representative of the many people who were imprisoned, or tortured, or threatened, beaten and denied their right to assemble, to seek redress, simply because they wanted their votes to count. Shame on Norway---turning the Nobel Peace Prize into a mockery of political gamesmanship.
I don't fully agree...
Look, the Nobel prize for peace has always been a political prize, unlike the other prizes and it is naive to think otherwise (one man's peace is another man's subservience).
Also, this isn't the first time the prize has been given for a man's future work (unless you live in a alternative universe to mine, in which Arafat's, Rabin's and Peres's peace and new middle east prevails).
The Nobel prize wants to be prestigious and so it gives prizes to leading prestigious people in order to glorify the prize (good examples are Albert Einstein and Mother Teresa who were famous worldwide before the prize and were awarded for a small secondary part of their work)
Moreover, doesn't Obama's social work over the years deserve a prize (I honestly don't know).
And about giving up the prize or the prize money - a great doctor once said “Nobel invented dynamite. I won't accept his blood money.” (Dr. Gregory House ;)). It is a great saying, but as the great doctor is fictional, it is unreal. None of us would have given up the prize, even if we would have been given it without good justification so why act as hypocrites and demand that Obama will do so?
jonathan
Thank you for your fantastic posting
Bathmate
Post a Comment