Saturday, October 10, 2009

Why did Nobel go this way?

Some possible reasons why Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize:

a) Voting was done last December or January, it was a popularity thing.
b) Nobel was hoping to hear their name in the news and the easiest way to do that was to attach Obama to themselves.
c) Nobel Inc. hope that this makes Obama do something, feel guilty about doing almost nothing about peace.

Of course, I don’t really know what I’m talking about here, but, come on. Really, the Nobel Peace Prize means something doesn’t it? What could be a greater honour? Why would they feel they need to cheapen their award to give to someone who is more popular than busy? A bigger splash could be made by giving it to someone no one has ever heard of. Suddenly the Peace Prize means almost nothing, unless there is some major unheralded peace agreement that Obama has arranged. And there isn’t. Diplomacy is not something to award a prize for.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons...”

Doesn’t diplomacy imply talk, not action- kind of like a blog, except with people actually listening? Mr. President has had the opportunity for lots of talk, where are the results? I don’t knock him, he’s a made for tv politician. Rhetoric and charm. I just figured that Nobel prizes were outside the bounds of public opinion and trying to win favour.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I disagree.
If anything, Obama receiving the award was merely a premature decision as he is only 11 months (to date) into his presidency. He may still be engaged in wars in the middle east but he has inspired populations around the globe with his ability to unite African-Americans as he continues to drive for a better world. "His appeal is not based solely on likability and speaking in platitudes. His appeal is based first and foremost on character followed by policy." The only policy that he has failed on thus far is the red tape surrounding gay marriage rights. So you may want to reconsider your rather cynical position on the head-of-state who has inherited one of the most powerful nations in the world at the worst possible time.
This is not to say that over the remainder of his term he won't foul up and do things to change my position just as his predecessor did, but it is hardly fair to say that at this point he is undeserving and that he has "done almost nothing about peace." It was simply a premature move by the committee who decides on the winners.

Anonymous said...

Another thing you should consider is if you have students who read this, you are propagating misinformed and highly cynical beliefs that most people do not share. Otherwise, he wouldn't be president. Consider where Canada would be is another Republican (ie: McCain/Palin) were to win the white house again... There would be no end in sight for the conflict in the middle east, and furthermore, there would be absolutely no hope in the world for Americans to have universal health care (or some type of health care reform). So please, get informed before you write stuff like this.

Inside Out said...

Dear Annonymous

I think you missed the point of my posting.

I agree it is slightly cynical. However, my point and your point are absolutely opposite. You say it is based on what could or may happen. Mine is that it should be for something that has happened. You used the word "premature" and that is a word I agree with. I think that next year it may indeed be the case. Now however, there is nothing you could really say to support that he has earned the Nobel Peace prize.
Please don't be annoymous.