Friday, October 9, 2009

A Sham Prize



The biggest news of the day: Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. I would be happy for him except I think the meaning of this prize is so hollow that it simply boils down to ... money, really. On the one hand, I do not know anybody in the recent year who did more for easing up tensions in the world than Obama. Who else was a better candidate for the prize? Angelina Jolie? Mikheil Saakashvili? Sarah Palin? Give me a break! They had no better choice! So no, I do not begrudge the person who received the prize this year.

On the other hand, the company he finds himself in is questionable at best. Think about it: Al Gore was awarded the same prize 2 years ago for his invention of a man-made global warming. Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded this prize a number of years back even though his policies led to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union and the unprecedented number of military conflicts and deaths on the territory of the former Soviet Republics. Even Yasser Arafat got awarded that prize! And we all know how instrumental he was for the peace process in the Middle East.

Oh, and did you know that for a brief time Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939 by a member of the Swedish parliament?

So for all practical purposed, in my mind the Nobel Peace Prize is completely meaningless, if not a bit embarrassing.

3 comments:

  1. I think it is great that he received the Nobel Peace Prize, though I agree that it was simply a matter of money.

    I also believe that putting the United States in its place on the map and have it follow the world's decisions, not the world trail behind America's are courageous principles to state, Obama being an American himself.

    In addition, it was very interesting to know that Hitler was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Excuse me for the unrelated question, but is Andrew's "depression" getting better? Please do tell him my mom and I say "hello."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree. To give the prize to someone who has been in office for only 9 months, who has not really accomplished anything related to peace is simply silly. Yes, Obama has said some things that are courageous, but shouldn't the peace prize go to someone who has actually DONE something?

    The fact that you can't come up with a better recipient doesn't mean that Obama was the best recipient. Do you assume that you know everyone who might have been eligible?

    I would also say that the fact that Nobel prizes have gone to such "bright" stars as Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter, brings into doubt the reasoning capacity of the committee selecting the nominee.

    Overall, I am with Lech Walesa, the former Polish President, who won the Peace Prize in 1983, who said “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obama has accomplished astonishingly much in the world arena. Iran is talking with the West and allowing for the inspectors to go in and check their nuclear program. We have a far better relationship with the Middle Eastern countries. Europe started respecting us once again. South America is warming up to the US. Russia does not see the US as a clear cut enemy any more (he stopped the unbridled support for the small dogs trying to bite the weakened Russia – Poland, the Czech Republic, Georgia). There is a tremendous amount of good will towards America in the world now. This is WAY more than any of the presidents I have seen here could have said about their 8 years in the office.

    I realize you do not like him, but give the guy what is due to him.

    I do not pretend I know all the nominees (by the way, the list is not going to be available till 2059), but I sure as hell hope that I would have heard about somebody who managed to create more good will in the world in the past year. I simply have not heard of anybody even coming close.

    ReplyDelete