Oct 20, 2009

The President deserves the Nobel Peace Prize


It must be terrible to cheer against your own country.

I’ll bet the right-wingers and the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus editorial board cheer for the Communist Chinese athletes during the Olympics. I’ll bet they cheered for the Russian Ice Hockey Team during the 1980 Winter Olympics “Miracle on Ice.” These same people are upset that President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Personally, I’m proud an American won it, and even more proud that the leader of the U.S. won the prize. We know the extremist rightwing tea baggers hate the President so much they are upset about this, but I was mildly surprised to see the Daily Press & Argus to come out with an editorial saying it cheapens the prize.

I have no idea why they would chose to run an editorial with the headline “Nobel Peace people cheapened their prize.” Even the political leading of the paper’s general manger can’t explain it.

I have two questions for the editorial board. What are the qualifications for winning a Nobel Peace Prize, and who is more deserving than President Obama?

Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said it best. "The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the world in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?"

So who has? His candidacy excited the world, and not just because the world was sick of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy. He inspired people, and for many Americans, his candidacy means people can achieve anything. It has nothing do with how long he was in office.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft, the Founding Chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Survivors, made a much better case than I could on why the President deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

10 comments:

Not Anonymous said...

Nominations were submitted and closed 12 days following Obama's inauguration. What did he do in twelve days?

I believe he announced he was going to close Gitmo in January of 2010. Of course, this is unlikely to happen although it's hard telling now that they are not allowing media access.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:

“ during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.[1]

So what did he do in the previous year to promote peace? He ran for President. He wasn't doing his job in the Senate, where he'd only spent 143 days leading up to the election.

Like Al Gores winning a Nobel Prize and Jimmy Carter and Yassar Arafat, Obama's selection was politically motivated. This was a prize for him not for this country.

The remark about cheering against the Americans in the Olympics is asinine. NObody was cheering for Obama to win the prize, and nobody was cheering for someone else to beat him out. In fact, the stories around the world were marked with everyone being stunned that he would win it.

Congrats to him for winning it. But all he won was a popularity contest with a group and I even doubt that now since news has come out that there were more against him than for him in those voting, which only makes me wonder how those votes are weighted.

Normally, I wouldn't think twice about this because I don't care about the Nobel prizes, but the comments made about cheering for Chinese or against the hockey team in the 80's is so beyond stupid that I just laughed my way through your writing.

Communications guru said...

I keep forgetting you have a reading comprehension problem, anonymous. I’ll ask again the same question the chair of the Nobel Committee asked: “who has done the most in the world in the previous year to enhance peace in the world? And who has done more than Barack Obama?"

I have no idea what the closing of the gulag in Gitmo has to do with this, but it will get done.

He wasn’t doing his job in the Senate? Bullshit. Here we go with the debunked 143 days talking point.

How is the prize being awarded to Al Gore, President Jimmy Carter and Yassar Arafat “politically motivated? The Nobel Prize Committee is independent.

How does it feel to cheer against your own country, anonymous?

Not Anonymous said...

Once again, Obama did nothing for peace. He ran for President. Nothing else (reading comprehension seems to be your problem).

This wasn't for the country. This was for him, which is fitting since his speeches are all about him and not about the country. He says "Me" and "I" more than anyone in history.

He's now nothing more than any other fascist.

Communications guru said...

Once again, President Obama, in the words of Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland “ who has done more than Barack Obama?" Reading comprehension really is a problem for you, anonymous.

Again, you should look up the word fascist because you obviously have no idea what it means. Better yet, have someone read you the definition.

Not Anonymous said...

Again, you still cannot say what Obama has done for peace other than be half black and run for President.

Communications guru said...

I certainly have, and I’m still waiting for you to answer the good Chairmen’s question. But the fact is your hatred will never let you see the truth.

Johnny C said...

Since when did the right wingers care about the qualifications for Nobel Peace Prize? To the average knuckle dragging conservative it's a worthless award anyway so why are the guys on the right shitting in their pants about days between nomination then the vote and why do you care what qualify a person for the award?

I find the right wing uproar funny cuz the right have no value for the award yet when President Obama wins one they become an authority on who deserves one or not and it's just another example how far the right will go just to attack this guy, the right cheered when the US lost a chance to host a Olympics and this..What's next right wingers protesting the Chicago White Sox if they win World Series?

straight talk said...

I was told that if I wanted to seen inane and irrational debate, I should come to this site. I am not disappointed.

You arguments and comparisons are infantile and nonsensical. Are you truly saying that people who question Obama's Peace Prize must also cheer against American sports teams, etc.? That is such an ignorant statement.

Do you then say that those who opposed the Chicago Olympics are un-American? Or that they root against America? Because many people in Chicago feared the Olympics...not because of partisanship, but because Olympics generally are not good for a community, particularly one like Chicago that already has worldwide stature. Chicago doesn't need tax money diverted to stadia for athletes; Chicago needs services, good schools and safe streets. Chicago, like much of America, is facing tax revenue shortages. Dwindling money should be spent on its residents. Or is that anti-American thinking?

But I digress. Your most illogical argument is your claim that one can't challenge the appropriateness of the Obama Peace Prize unless he can name other, more worthy recipients. That's foolish, but I'll still accept your challenge.

Here's a few:

Denis Mukwege
Sima Samar
Chazi bin Muhammed
Greg Mortenson
Picdad Cordoba
Wei Jingsheng
Morgan Tsvangirai
Thich Quang Do
Rebiya Kadeer
Bill Clinton
Gandhi
Any of the dissidents who stood up at Tiananmen Square 20 years ago.

As for qualifications? Let's go to the source. The chair of the committee that named Jimmy Carter later said the selection was made to repudiate George Bush. So, apparently, not being George Bush is a qualification.

President Barack Obama's election was a watershed moment for this nation. Still, it doesn't make one anti-American merely for questioning the wisdom of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who hasn't been president for even a year. He has talked about hope; it remains to be seen if his actions will fulfill his promise.

Johnny C said...

I'm saying you guys are so far gone with Obama hate it wouldn't shock me that you guys would openly root against any team from the city of Chicago even though you have no rooting interest in the other team.

The point I made was for years right wingers have dismissed and mocked the Nobel Peace Prize and now since President Obama has won one himself the conservative movement have all of the sudden care about the qualifications needed to earn a Nobel Prize.

And thanks bringing up another point I remember around 2004 or early 2005 the right wing was throwing around Bush's name for a Nobel Peace prize. And he only lied this country into a war and alienated half the world against the US.

Like Rep.Alan Grayson said if President Obama wanted a BLT the Republicans would ban bacon.

Communications guru said...

As for this alleged “inane and irrational debate” none of the rightwing tools have been able to debunked or knock down what I write. Funny, brett, your profile was just created. Did you get tired of those other names you use, brett? It’s far from straight talk we’re getting from you.

What I am saying is that the majority of those people questioning the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize would root against their own country. Most Americans are proud a U.S. citizen won such a prestigious international award.

Do I then say that those who opposed the Chicago Olympics are un-American? I don’t know what this has to do with the Nobel Peace Prize, but I say many right-wingers are so blinded by their irational hate of the President that they are rooting against their own country. The Olympics bring prestige, economic development and jobs. By the way, his hometown is not Chicago; it’s the United States, because that would be who hosts the games. Bush saw fit to travel to a Communist country to take in the Summer Olympics, but we don’t want to host them? That makes no sense to me.

It would be an illogical argument “ that one can't challenge the appropriateness of the ‘Obama Peace Prize’ unless he can name other, more worthy recipients,” so I’m glad I never made it. What I did was quote Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland who said "The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the world in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?"

The key is the words “last year.” An argument could be made for President Clinton, but since Gandhi has been dead since 1948, I don’t think he has done much in the past year, do you, “straight talk?”

“The chair of the committee that named Jimmy Carter later said the selection was made to repudiate George Bush?” Please excuse me if I’m skeptical. It seems to me that the qualification then is what the chair stated before, “who has done the most in the world in the previous year to enhance peace in the world.” That year it was President Carter, and the opposite of that was George Bush.

The Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with how long he has been president, it has to do with what he has done to enhance peace, and he clearly deserved the prize.