Obama Wins Life Time Achievement Award
President Obama has recieved a lifetime achievement award for the many accomplishments he's likely to make over a long career in public office. After being awarded the Noble prize for capturing, "the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said, "We felt it was time to reward him for the realization of that hope and that better future he's sure to create over his lifetime."
Appearing in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he was ''surprised and deeply humbled" by the committee's decision. "To be honest," the president said "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who've had to live to an old age and who actually accomplished the things they are honored for before getting the award."He said he would accept it as a, "self fulfilling prophecy."
Appearing in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he was ''surprised and deeply humbled" by the committee's decision. "To be honest," the president said "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who've had to live to an old age and who actually accomplished the things they are honored for before getting the award."He said he would accept it as a, "self fulfilling prophecy."
Advertisement
I think he said as an 'encouragement.' Which seems like a good idea given how much crrrrap he gets here. It is certainly worth something that he has done so much to restore our image the wider world. Frankly, I thought Bush destroyed the image of America for 100 years at least.
It's O.K. to be a proud American again.
It's scary, but really. It's O.K. Give in to feeling good. For one day, O.K.?
Thanks,
Bwak
October 9, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if there's no way I can wrap my mind around this and find it reasonable. My intention is not to mock Obama. He's done nothing to deserve it, both the prize or the gibes. Its the noble prize committee that's the joke.
October 9, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, historically it has also been used to motivate. I think it's pretty obvious that was the rationale, here.
As I've said elsewhere, it's a bit too easy--for my taste--to cut Obama down. Lazy, really. I could think of several issues in a nanosecond or so that would make it very easy to criticize. What isn't easy is putting myself in these foreigners shoes and asking, "why?" Kind of like putting myself in Hillary's shoes in the primaries and realizing she was further to the left than Obama. Not much, but certainly measurable. As an Edwards supporter, I wasn't terribly excited about either, but I am glad I voted for a man that has healed relations with Europe so quickly. I dunno if Hillary would have, or could have.
I find trying to think outside the 'American' myopic viewpoint a rather intellectually vigorous exercise, if I put aside the obvious answers. It also broadens my outlook, which in this day and age, is invaluable. The days of American exceptionalism are long gone.
I'd rather try and look at this through the eyes of Europe and the wider world, and I like what I see.
That is plenty for me to feel proud of, and it's a feeling that I haven't felt for a decade at least.
So, that is why I tried to communicate to you that it is OK to feel proud again. It is almost scary to, but after much thought, I am going to side with the wider world and say: "Yay!"
October 9, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Guardian reported that reaction to Obama's prize was a mixed bag all around the world, except in Iraq, where...
More of the same! Hurrah!
Harharharhar!!!
October 10, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did withdraw troops.
har.
No Prize, no peace.
har.
October 10, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And a lot of troops had already been withdrawn from cities in Iraq by George W. Bush.
But now some closet neocons who were too "chicken" to cheer for Bush can cheer for his clone and poodle Barack Obama!
"More of the same! Hurrah!" says Bwakfat.
Harharharhar!!!
October 10, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Har
No peace no prize, sez vege.
Go take it from Mandela, from Weisel, heck from all of 'em, sez vege.
Vege wants PEACE!
As if he is the one and only.
Har Har Har
Oh, and he know better than any European!
HAR!!
October 10, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and I am so kewl cuz I can criticize and not offer solutions if I am a vege.
Harharharharhar
Pity it isn't terribly impressive.
Kinda like the naked emperor.
I see one Obama criticism and raise ya a stupid right ring one.
HAR
It makes me feeeeeeel intelligent.
October 10, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bwakfat bothered to read links, instead of just blowing word-salad out her chicken-butt, she would already know that reaction to Obama's prize was about an equal mix of cynicism and surprise, and only a fraction of the approval that Bwakfat keeps claiming was almost universal.
All in all, her last comment makes just about as much sense as some of the slogans illiterate Obamabots posted over and over during the primaries...
She must be hopelessly insane.
October 10, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwakfat doesn't watch television, Hasn't for 15 years or so.
Harharharhar
Why? Because it rots brains. Ever seen brain waves on television? Har I guess not. For such a clever vege it's hard to believe you haven't figured that out yet. It's obvious from here.
Try not watching the Circus for a few years, and get back to me.
Harharhar
No intelligent person I know cites the MSM and demands credibility.
Intelligent people communicate in alternate ways. Try to find them. Even your own comment is laughable.
Equal numbers, eh?
So you choose the easy route. That of critic. Well, how precious iz dat? It's adorable, except I'm done with toilet training. Easy doesn't impress.
I thought you said repeatedly that I was stupid, vege, why bother with me? I'll be happy to never respond to you again.
Har
Although, I feel some loss, it's minimal. I can deal. I kind of thought I liked you.
October 10, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like Bwakfat, I find the fact that the reaction to Obama's selection for the prize is mixed to be an indication that at last we have some adults in the White House and a more responsible constituency supporting them.
Bush/Cheney could lie to us into an ill-considered and probably illegal war of choice that stretched our military and other resources past the breaking point. But that's ok, in fact should be applauded - because he was "our guy," sayeth the Repubs.
There is nothing - and I mean NOTHING - this criminal cabal could have undertaken that wouldn't have found its base solidly in support of doing for sole reason that Bush/Cheney were THEIR guys.
We've at last returned to a period where nuanced support is deemed appropriate. And I welcome the opportunity to remain skeptical of Obama; to retain my cynicism as I see fit; to hold hope wherever I think it is sustainable; and to applaud Obama whenever he brings credit to this country and/or is seen to be on a legitimate path toward progress on the many serious challenges that confront him and this country he serves.
Ultimately, I think the State Department expression that they gain more momentum when the world is throwing accolades rather than shoes to be not only a hilarious line, but an accurate read on the reality that Obama in place of Bush makes this a much safer world - worthy, even, of a Nobel Prize.
October 10, 2009 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Well said, jeezus.
October 10, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment, Jeezus...rec'd (love the accolades instead of shoes bit - hadn't heard that!)
October 10, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
My reading is that the eyes of Europe see this with as mixed a reaction as Americans do. I think there's an equal amount of surprise as well as support world wide.
As for pride, that springs from one's own values not the values of others. I feel no pride in receiving accolades from others for something I've done that I feel is undeserving. Similarly if I don't feel my country has done something deserving of praise I would not be proud of my country simply because others praise her.
October 10, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, how do you read this? From the MSM?
I dunno. The MSM has been wrong about everything else, whereas the folks from Oslo? They've been correct. As they said, it is by way of encouragement. I can't encourage this president enough in that he has done a 180 from Bush.
I agree with the Oslo folks that this vision is preferable. For me, this is a no brainer, but I understand for some it is hard to look a gift horse in the mouth. I can't say it's terribly wise.
You can read into it opinions that are slanted and, frankly, irrelevant.
The folks from Oslo tend to get it right, in my experience. Or I can run. But know, I'll be right beside you. I want to help, my fellow citizens, if not world peace....
Just sayin'
October 10, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen the reactions from now 12 .eu countries with my very own little eyes, and I can certainly confirm - as I have tried from the beginning - that this is not some great pan-European lovefest.
Frankly, the view espoused by some about "the world" is terribly naivistic, insulting even.
I suppose I am done with the topic, though. You all can continue to celebrate for all the wrong reasons.
October 10, 2009 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with you, Karl. Thanks for saying this.
October 10, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say that, because you have no idea how much the rest of the world despised America during the GW years. BO is a breath of fresh air if even for four years. The world breathed a collective sigh of relief when he was elected. The world also knows, that especially in foreign policy, America is just one rigged election away from having another George Bush foisted upon us, and judging from the lunacy of the wingers (Palin) there is a good chance it will happen. Americans don't even know a good thing when they see it (health care vs private insurance). Yes, he has accomplished more than you think.
October 10, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Thursday, June 28, 2007 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) today announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee accepted their request to provide funding to implement the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative. The Appropriations Committee expressed support for the initiative and provided $48 million for Lugar-Obama, $36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies. This is the culmination of an 18 month effort to authorize and fund the Lugar-Obama initiative. First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, the Lugar-Obama initiative enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world."
Remember Nunn-Lugar? It was de-funded during the Bush years and Obama was instrumental in restoring the funding. More money is needed and his administration is pursuing that effort. This allows us to secure properly nuclear "stuff" in the former Soviet Union nations and it prevents the "stuff" from falling into the oh-so-willing-to-use-it hands of terrorists. I think this does a lot for peace.
This was enough justification for me...remember the radiation sickness killing Iraqis because storage barrels weren't secured on our rush to Baghdad? This is exactly opposite of that mentality.
October 10, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Radiation sickness? I don't remember anything about that. Was nuclear material found? Do you have a citation?
October 10, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.blogonsmog.com/footprint-friday/ecological-footprint-impact-of-war.html
Paragraph begins, "A very serious impact...."
Nick
October 10, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. I had never heard of this. It certainly wasn't widely known - a strange bit of info to bury, no? But you're right; Obama - who isn't perfect - is like a breath of peaceful fresh air!
I'm glad he won, even if it sends the neo-cons' hate-o-meter up a few notches. The big green monster is shooting darts out of their very eyes!
October 10, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it is a joke at all. I was surprised, but in the context of how hated the U.S. has been for the past 8 years, and much hope the world has that we are finally trying to be good citizens of the world for a change, it makes sense.
Is there a little meddling in our affairs going on? Probably. BUT, we can use a little encouragement to continue what appears to be a new direction for our country from the rest of the world, don't you think?
October 9, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so, Still. It's an outrageous accomplishment. I thought America's rep was gone for at least my lifetime.
It amazes me, that this committee at least, doesn't think so.
October 9, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, chicken. Seems as though there are people outside the U.S. that have more faith in us than about 44-46% (or so) of us have in ourselves. I'm glad to see a portion of the world wants to see us succeed, since there are so many AMERICANS that don't.
October 9, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it! If this doesn't make people stop and think, nothing will.
Time to move on without them.
October 9, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it really doesn't make sense. How are we trying to be good citizens of the world? Where's the evidence of that impulse to be good citizens? We caused a global recession. We cause the death and displacement of people in Iraq and Afghanistan every single day. We hold prisoners indefinitely. What is peaceful about our actions in the world since Obama's election? I am truly at a loss, stilli. Maybe my definition of "peace" is different than yours?
October 9, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow, I think the key word is "trying." We have a long way to go, but I believe the "world community" thinks he is "trying." And that is a big change.
October 9, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the world community is holding its breath.
October 9, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath too long, you'll blow something.
October 9, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, clearthinker.
October 9, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You grokked that, eh?
October 10, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all are.
October 10, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he is trying any more than Clinton, Carter, or Kennedy did in their first 9 months in office. That he follows one of, if not the worst president in American history isn't a good reason for winning a Nobel Prize. That he's the cause of a world wide sigh of relief doesn't earn him that award.
Again I don't mean this as an attack on Obama. He's done things I agree with and disagree with, he has his successes and failures. He didn't seek the award and he's handling it with humility. I don't expect one who wins the Nobel Prize to have achieved world peace. Yet even as an aspirational choice he's done less then others who have won the award.
October 10, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, seems like it is their award, and they get to decide who does and who does not deserve it. Who are we to second guess them?
October 10, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the crux, Still.
Americans tend to think they are all there is. The truth is, we aren't even half of it, and it is far past time to understand we can be part of the earth, or outside of it.
Our President was recognized for thinking outside of our narrow, Ntional borders, and it's high time we joined him.
=D
It was a good day.
October 10, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a good day, chicken. Mostly :-)
October 10, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, and I think I can sleep now.
=D
October 10, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they get to decide, but it seems to me, almost all we do here is second guess actors on the political stage. Obama, Pelosi, Baucus, Beck, etc. act and we analyze those actions and second guess in agreement or disagreement. I have no difficulty agreeing or disagreeing with the actions of the Nobel Prize Committee just as I have no problem agreeing with some congress people and disagreeing with others on their health care stance.
October 10, 2009 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to be happy about this, Ocean kitty...so I'm going to be. I'm happy that our President has given hope to so many people outside of the U.S. especially because so many of our own people want to believe that he is a laughingstock, that he is an illegitimate President, and are delighting in his (and therefore OUR country's) small failures.
This guy has the weight of the world on his shoulders. I'm glad SOMEONE/MULTIPLE SOMEONES appreciate his efforts. This isn't something he asked for. It was given to him. Turning it down would have been REALLY tacky. And he would have been criticized for that. Seems like he spends EVERY flippin' day damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
October 10, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
KK, be happy. I'm not trying to make you unhappy. Its hard to see how one as insignificant as I could cause you unhappiness. You know, I spend a considerable amount of time defending Obama on another site not as liberal as this one, pushing back against the right wingers there. I can defend Obama and still not think he earned this award.
I never said he should refuse the award. He's been very gracious and humble and I like the things he's said in accepting the award.
October 10, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know...it's easier to hear Obama haters talk about how he doesn't deserve it than it is to hear people you respect say it. If he had gone out looking for this, I would have to agree it was premature. But he didn't. They came to him. So anyway, you aren't saying anything other than what lots of other people are saying...it's just harder to hear it from you. My problem, not yours!
October 10, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know stilli, I see your point. Even though there is no president that I think deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for the accomplishments of their first 9 months in office its hard not to see criticism of the Nobel Prize committee as criticism of Obama.
Even though I've tried to separate my criticism of the giver from the recipient its inevitable that criticism of one would be seen as criticism of the other.
In retrospect this post was perhaps so snarky that I inadvertently maligned Obama even though that wasn't my intention.
October 10, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the Committee Responds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-to-obama-defe_n_316098.html
And just an FYI The Nobel Peace Prize has been handed out 27 times since 1971 for aspirational reasons than for past accomplishments.
October 9, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I not surprised.
Thanks for the factual contribution.
October 9, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please identify one "deep change." Just one will do. Thanks.
October 9, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
International respect.
October 9, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace? Can anyone here define it? Anyone?
October 9, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The day after all life on earth becomes extinct- That would be the picture of peace you seem to be looking for.
Best of all, there would be no one left to quarrel over who deserves Peace Prizes.
October 10, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
October 10, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That deserves an award of some kind. Cynical, but visionary! :-}
October 10, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
from one of my comments on the open thread;
"Peace is not just the absence of war, it is the freedom from FEAR that war is imminent."
October 10, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
International respect is wot? Not worthy of your notice?
October 10, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
International respect is important, and I never said it wasn't. But to me, "international" should include the women in eastern Congo and civilians who are deliberately exterminated in the "hope" of killing some terrorists (both articles from 2009, since Obama's election).
To me, those are the people who should have a voice about the prize, not you, Bwak. Sorry.
To me, "international" should not mean self-important Norwegian statesmen and women who have the luxury of waxing philosophical and living safely disconnected from the harsh realities of the world.
According to Nobel's will, Obama is "the person who 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"?
The most?
The best?
Really?
If you want to bask in your vote for Obama, Bwak, be my guest.
But if you can't acknowledge there are legitimate arguments against giving the award to Obama for his "work" in 2008 (as the will stipulates), then you're just dishonest.
October 10, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't agree call me shocked. However let me attempt to read the Committee's mind. A) Obama's engagement policy. B) His very strong anti-nuclear arms stance. C) The signing of the latest anti-nuclear arms agreement at the UN and then -
3/18/8 – Obama caught world-wide attention for his moving speech on race relations
7/24/8 - Obama lays the foundation for a new era of international relations and began inspiring renewed hope in American leadership during his campaign speech in Berlin
11/6/8 – Obama’s victory was hailed as a promise of hope for the world.
12/1/8 – Obama began plans to restore U.N. ambassador to cabinet rank.
1/22/9 - Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace
1/22/9 – Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay (No it hasn't closed yet. ( Call your congress critter to give him the funding to do so)
1/22/9 – Ordered comprehensive review of detention policies
1/22/9 – Prohibited use of torture
1/22/9 - Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons
1/23/9 – Lifted “Global Gag Rule” on international health groups
1/26/9 – Began to address climate change by increasing fuel standards for automobiles
1/26/9 – Appointed Special Envoy for Climate Change
1/27/9 - Signs Lily Ledbetter “Fair Pay” Act
2/1/9 – Expanded healthcare for children by signing SCHIP
2/5/9 - Again addressed energy conservation by increasing standards for appliances.
2/24/9 – Directed almost $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve America’s health
2/25/9 - Initiated international efforts to reduce mercury emissions worldwide
2/27/9 – Committed to responsibly ending the war in Iraq
4/1/9 – Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. ( hopefully to be signed just before Oslo)
4/1/9 – Enhanced U.S. – China relations.
4/2/9 - Led global response to the economic crisis through the G20, obtaining commitments of $1.1 trillion to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable economies
4/4/9 - Renewed dialog with NATO and other key allies
4/5/9 – Announced new strategy to responsible address international nuclear proliferation
4/13/9 – Began easing tension with Cuba through new policy stance
4/17/9 - Secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster [Pakistan's] economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism"
4/22/9 - Developed the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents.
5/8/9 – Proposed International Affairs budget that included funds to create a civilian response corps -- teams of civilian experts in rule of law, policing, transitional governance, economics, engineering, and other areas critical to helping rebuild war-torn societies; Provide $40 million for a "stabilization bridge fund," which would provide rapid response funds for the State Department to help with an international crisis situation.
6/4/9 - Gave historic address to the Muslim World in Cairo - "American is not at war with Islam" Foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been remarkable. "He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region"
8/4/9 - Used DIPLOMACY to free 2 American journalists from a North Korea prison
9/18/9 - De-escalation of nuclear tension through repurposing of missile defense prompting Russia to withdraw its missile plan.
But most of all I think they gave him the award for what they believe to be promise that Obama represents and the definite change of tone. And as I said the award has been given 27 times before for aspirational reasons as opposed to a past accomplishment.
October 9, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Save this list. It will come in handy when people at TPM piss on Obama for health care, FISA, or any number of other topics that have come up to upset the progressives. :o)
October 9, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll piss on him. It's a democracy and we pay his salary. But today was his day and we can share in it. Or not.
October 9, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what about the word "peace" don't you understand, jsfox?
October 9, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it about the word aspirational you don't understand. You believe that he should actually have accomplished peace. The Nobel Committee ( a total of 27 previous times by the way), Shimon Peres, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, all previous winners, don't agree with you. Go figure.
In fact not many of the Peace Prize recipients have actually accomplished peace they just worked towards it. Or did things to help foster it.
October 10, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, if they did, wouldn't there be actual peace?
Good grief!
Let's revoke all the awards anyone ever got!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 10, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Might one think of peace as a degree of coexistance that depends upon mutual respect and void of provocation and antagonism? Can anyone find it reasonable to agree Obama has represented these attributes which are in direct opposition to the prior Regime, and that, by whatever magic he may have, he has accomplished this quickly, although I believe this achievement is due to the willingness of the American people to participate in that change. Was there another candidate that might have effected this major transformation?
October 10, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
No peace no prize. Revoke 'em all!
hum
maybe I haz that backward?
=D
October 10, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be a beautiful day when this award is retired.
October 10, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the Nobel Aspirational Prize, is it?
I'll answer for you because you might get it wrong. The answer is "No."
Nobel's will stipulates that the award be given for work done the previous year, jsfox. Apparently you don't know that since you made a tedious list from 2009. Do you know anything at all about the award?
After lopping off the 2009 dates, your list is a sorely lacking in achievements from 2008. Obama campaigned for president in 2008. Remember? World peace wasn't even part of the Democratic platform.
I can grant that you are happy about the award.
But you haven't made a legitimate argument to support your belief that the prize is warranted.
Therefore, I can't even begin to express what I myself believe, which I can guarantee, you are clueless about.
October 10, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps there are other laureates who were granted the Prize for 'aspirational' reasons:
1994: Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin.
That must have been awarded on the basis of what those three could have accomplished.
Henry Kissinger? Short term, perhaps, not so much long-term.
I haven't made up my mind about This Thing, but I can say I liked Obama's acceptance talk, though the word 'humbled' should be eradicated from our language. He did not smile in the part I saw, and I liked that. I think it may serve to jerk him a bit toward some even fresher thinking, especially in regard to Afghanistan and Gaza/Israel, and farther out, all Palestinians.
October 10, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think politicians should be awarded the prize. Nor should politicians determine who is a proper recipient. The argument for such a standard is that those you named accomplished nothing lasting except blood on their hands.
I think Obama is embarrassed. And that's an appropriate response. Choosing him is a travesty in that it serves to draw attention to the committee and to their sheltered elitism rather than to the massive suffering going on in the real world. I say that as a privileged American, who knows absolutely nothing of true hardship.
I can only hope that the award forces Obama to live up to it. Then I'll be thrilled. So like you, I hope that it does jerk him toward fresher thinking, including taking some risks.
October 10, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do they require a birth certificate?
October 10, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is a reference to wingnuttery, jonnie, but for future reference, I don't waste my time following right-wing bullshit like so many people here do. There are 3 reasons for that:
1. I have a life.
2. I had to deal with it growing up.
3. The Democrats are in power now. I am busy watching them.
October 10, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the "nutters"; don't listen to 'em, don't read about 'em and don't care about 'em. This was just an attempt at humour.
October 10, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree I do think Obama is embarrassed. However, your question was why the Committee did this is what I am trying to explain. What was their thinking. What were they looked at when they made their decision. In the end this isn't Obama's doing or fault. So rather than get bent out shape about I will look at it as possible precursor to good things. As opposed to some massive miscarriage as you seem to be doing.
October 10, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure where I ever said it was a "massive miscarriage" or anything close to such hyperbole, jsfox. Either you are misreading me or you are confusing me with others. This was my first comment in this thread. I said it doesn't "make sense," either for Obama or for Americans to be so honored. I wanted to know from stillidealistic what we as a country have done to deserve this recognition, especially when others are laboring thanklessly and risking their lives toward attainment of peace and good will somewhere in the world right now.
In other words, I don't think Americans should be so easily absolved of our documentable sins on a global scale. I can give examples of sins that aren't even hyperbolic: like causing a global recession and being at war, for starters. That's a whole lotta pain we Americans are causing in the world, not a whole lotta peace.
October 11, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he deserves this.
He has closed Gitmo, removed troops from Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan, dismantled the Taliban, passed a comprehensive carbon tax, abolished "don't ask, don't tell" and has convinced both China and Russia to impose sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program. With this list of accomplishments, why wouldn't he receive the award? I know he's done these things -- they are in his speeches.
October 10, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat,
I wouldn't bother to point this out, except lately you've tried badger me on all kinds of trivial things (because you "don't like me") -- even if you agree with my thoughts:
You spelled "received" incorrectly in the first line.
I guess it's not so easy to be perfect, is it?
October 9, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find most days it is.
Some days though, I have to admit - I need to work at it.
October 9, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are such an incredible ass. Nothing I've called you on has been trivial. I don't have time to waste. I have never pointed out a typo by anyone here, except once in what was an obvious joke, because I think that's too trivial to mention. Also because my typing skills are so poor that I make numerous mistakes myself.
But if you want to play that game, "tried badger me," should be tried *to* badger me. I'm always amused by how often I've seen people make spelling or grammar errors in comments attacking others for spelling or grammar errors.
I've never claimed to be perfect. In fact I think I'm a light weight blogger here in that I've never invested the time and energy to produce a deep, comprehensive, well researched blog. I may hit a point now and then with some well chosen rhetoric but I'm not up there with the big league players here. I don't think this little satire is worth 19 recs.
You're also light weight for the same reason. The difference is you spend your time calling the rest of us dullards and claiming for your self the title of leading intellectual at tpmcafe. I don't much like the constant insults directed at "people on tpmcafe," the patronizing way you address us, and the totally unearned pompous sense of superiority you exhibit here. That's why I don't much like you.
October 10, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT
I would like to make a request.
Recently a different blogger on TPM sought personal information about a blogger and even went so far to call him at his home uninvited.
Many of us agreed that this was inappropriate and should not have happened.
My request is this. That even if a person may have once shared something personal at some point and time... that you not share personal information about bloggers here blogging with the use of a pseudonym unless you have permission or are invited to use that information.
You once used my first name... which did not bother me so much. But some others may feel stalked and that their privacy is being invaded or abused in some way.
I would really ask all of us here at TPM to abide by this.
No matter how heated our interactions, disagreements, etc. may get... let's respect each other's privacy however limited it may be.
I would also suggest that when you make accusations about a blogger's past etc. that it is meaningless and appears petty without real evidence and good reason to establish it.
Someone once told me here 'politics ain't bean bag' so be it... but I don't feel we have to lower ourselves to the standards of policiticians and let's draw the line somewhere.
Thanks!
October 10, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This smug post is mean-spirited and childish. Apparently, you are in a snit that the award did not go to you, so you want to ruin the Laureate's day as well.
Your dog is photographed incompetently.
October 10, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
(laughs) Thanks for posting. This discussion was getting too serious and I'm always happy when someone with a sense of humor joins in.
October 10, 2009 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
But oceankat, the Nobel prizes, all of them, are not meant as lifetime achievement awards, nor have they ever been intended as a open and fair competition for "the best" whatever, like the Olympics.
The twist is, since their mission is advocacy or encouragement for those showing great talent or potential in certain fields, if people uneducated about what they do misread what they are about in that manner, it's usually not in their interest to clear up their misunderstanding. (Indeed, it often seems, the more cryptic, the better.)
See this sub-thread of comments on Reich's thread for more.
October 10, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know its not a life time achievement award but if I haven't made my satirical point clear enough to be understood there's no point in trying to explain. Kinda like trying to explain a joke, it never works.
It seems to me that just potential is not quite enough. There should be some at least small accomplishment to give substance to that potential. Even Kissinger, who many complain about, shared the prize with Tho for signing the Paris Peace Accords which theoretically ended hostilities between the warring parties. The prize could be seen as encouragement for the parties to live up to the terms and spirit of the peace agreement.
I'm thinking that giving them the prize 5 years earlier for simply talking about peace for 9 months would have been premature even if seen as encouragement for them to reach a peace agreement.
October 10, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were clear, oceankat.
October 11, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink