Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The BBC opines: "In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements. After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award. ... The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.' This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image." The Washington Post collects more reactions from around the world.
It seems a bit premature. but hey, whatever they want to do.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.
I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it. Now it seems you get it for not being like the guy before you.
I think he may possibly deserver the prize, but its too early to say. Shouldn't they have waited to see if he manages to sort out Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East or something like that? After all if he does manage it now there will be nothing to reward him with.
Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." - Lin Yutang
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
"This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking," -Danny Danon, Israeli politician.
This is, I think, a general reaction from a lot of people, but it doesn't really line up with the history of the prize. In 1987, for example the prize was awarded to Óscar Arias, a Costa Rican president, for making some strong gestures that he would stop the Nicaraguan war that had been raging for a decade, fueled by the United States. This raised Arias' profile, and gave him the political capital to broker a peace deal in 1988.
In a lot of ways, I think that this is a better use of the prize; not to recognize achievements after the fact, but to encourage and foster new achievements that might not have happened without the award. Whether this will affect Obama's actions, who can say, but he'll certainly feel a little awkward now if he doesn't get anything done soon.
Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.
Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is looking at this and wondering what the hell your country is thinking.
I don't think he deserves the award this early, but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade. Some of his speeches in the middle east reflect a balanced and measured approach without historical alliances clouding the issues.
And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?
.
France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife, with the walking dead, condemned by bureaucratic Death Panels, roaming the streets and hordes of atheists burning churches.
Thankfully the insurance industry is ready to pay billions to upstanding Congressmen and selfless community organizers so they can spread the truth.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
You should be a tad more disgusted that the glorified wasting of money to kill people across the world is considered "less annoying" than having the possibility of a slightly higher bill, or slightly higher taxes, or maybe, just maybe, it being a better choice.
Just remember, you said it. You prefer throwing billions at killing people than throwing billions at giving everyone health care.
I'll have to start a blog outlining all the things I want to do, like solving hunger, cleaning up all the pollution from the ocean, and bringing peace and love to all mankind.
If I get enough subscribers that I become famous, I can get the Nobel Peace Prize too! And I don't even have to leave my desk.
The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:
Note the past tense.
President Obama has done nothing at all to reduce standing armies, and his work towards a fraternity between nations is in its infancy.
The "peace" prize jumped the shark a long time ago. Wilson, Roosevelt, Kissinger, Arafat? Obama should decline the prize as an insult.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You need it to live, therefore providers can charge pretty much whatever they'd like.
No, providers can charge whatever they'd like because you have no idea what the service actually costs and people have no incentive to argue with them over the price because they aren't paying it to begin with. Do you really think hospitals would get away with charging $40 for dressings (the line item from my recent visit to the ER) if people actually saw that bill and had to pay it?
If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.
I know plenty about how the health care system works and it isn't anything remotely close to a free market. Go read this article in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The problem with any discussion of Democrat and Republican platforms is that neither party even remotely espouses the supposed platforms they stand for.
You have supposed liberals championing for government control, censorship, and the removal of rights. (Clinton, Biden, Reid)
You have supposed fiscal conservatives handing out bushels of money left and right. (McCain and Bush)
Both parties voted for war. Both parties voted for massive bailouts. Both parties keep putting money in their pocket. Both parties voted for domestic spy programs. Both parties keep creating new federal bureaucracy without doing anything to really make our lives better.
At the end of the day, we need a certain dose of the Libertarians, who want less government and more personal freedom, except they're naive in thinking if we ignore the rest of the world, they'll ignore us.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.