Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize...

[Rapscallion]

Debt in a good cause isn't a problem - and good causes seems to be what Mr Nobl was trying to promote. Paying it back - that's another thread entirely.

Rapscallion

[Anthony K. S.]

quoting an associated press story with no references does not hold water

No references?

The Associated Press article was quoting Geir Lundestad, the secretary of the committee that awards the prize.


The relevant clause of Alfred Nobel's will that you cited does seem fairly clear in its intent . . . But it was written in 1895.

Who is to say that Alfred Nobel would not have viewed things a bit differently had he known what the current state of international politics was to be?

Things change and develop over time, and the committee now clearly feels that awarding the Prize as a form of encouragement to see things through is a worthwhile endeavor. They may very well believe that Alfred Nobel would have as well.

Honestly, I really don't know.

I do agree that it seems rather premature to be awarding President Obama the prize now, but in light of Mr. Lundestad's statement and the fact that I actually think he has a point about encouragement to see efforts through . . . I don't think it quite falls into the category of "sheer, utter nonsense" that so many people are portraying it as.


The one thing that really bothers me about all of this is that a lot of people (not necessarily on this website, although there is an element of it here) are using this as a reason or a justification to bash President Obama himself.

As far as I can tell, President Obama never asked for any of this to happen. It wasn't his idea for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to him.

And even if I agreed that his receiving the Prize was utterly nonsensical, I'd like to be fair about this. The people who are to be criticized are the committee members who made the selection.

None of this is President Obama's fault.

[Slytovhand]

I would like to suggest that this entire prize giving would be utter baloney... by giving it to Obama in 12 days, it basically says that it wouldn't have mattered which Democrat won the election, they'd still get themselves a Nobel - yes?? After all, they're not so much 'Obama's policies', as 'the ruling Democratic number crunchers policies' - yes??

Given the number of people who tirelessly work for peace, in one form or another, and who risk their lives day in and day out (I do believe someone here mentioned Gandhi as a NON-recipient), I think it's a slap in the face to them!

Hey, why not just give the prize to me? I haven't started any wars recently....

(and, lastly, you can bet your boots someone in Obama's office nominated him! And it wasn't without his knowledge!)

[BlaqueKatt]

Hey, why not just give the prize to me? I haven't started any wars recently....

hmmm do flame wars count

No references?

The Associated Press article was quoting Geir Lundestad, the secretary of the committee that awards the prize.

no he's not he's a trustee.....

The relevant clause of Alfred Nobel's will that you cited does seem fairly clear in its intent . . . But it was written in 1895.

Who is to say that Alfred Nobel would not have viewed things a bit differently had he known what the current state of international politics was to be?

so because well "it was written a long time ago, we can change it"-that's valid now-hey maybe if John D Rockefeller had met me he would've left me everything he owned.....should I try that argument.....(BTW that's the same argument used t try and repeal the second amendment....)

[Anthony K. S.]

The Associated Press article was quoting Geir Lundestad, the secretary of the committee that awards the prize.

no he's not he's a trustee.....

Actually, he's both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geir_Lundestad

Geir Lundestad (b. 1945) is a Norwegian author and educator best known for his association with the Norwegian Nobel Institute, for which he serves as Director, and the Norwegian Nobel Committee, for which he serves as a permanent Secretary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awards the Nobel Peace Prize each year.

The official website for the Nobel Foundation also lists Mr. Lundestad as the secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, as well as a Trustee.

http://nobelprize.org/

In any case, even if he was only a Trustee, I fail to see how that would justify your earlier statement that the Associated Press article had "no references." They did cite their source.

so because well "it was written a long time ago, we can change it"-that's valid now

Look, all I was doing was asking the question . . . How can we be sure that Alfred Nobel wouldn't have viewed things differently today?

We can't say for sure that he would have . . . But you can say, with certainty, that he wouldn't?

A lot of people (not just on this website, but elsewhere as well) are portraying the situation as black-and-white, as if we know for an absolute fact, based on the terms of his will, that Alfred Nobel would have been opposed to giving out the Nobel Peace Prize as a form of encouragement to see things through.

I don't agree.

We can't know. We can assess, intuit, judge, deduce, surmise, presume, and even guess . . . But we can't know.


All things considered, I actually do agree that the Nobel Foundation should abide by the statement made by Alfred Nobel's will. But that's an opinion, not an objective fact.

The Nobel Foundation clearly feels differently, and they feel that awarding the Prize as a form of encouragement to see things through is a worthwhile endeavor. And they may, indeed, believe that Alfred Nobel would have agreed with them.

Ultimately, they have to do what they feel is right . . . and I respect their opinion, even if I don't agree with it.

I don't believe that this situation is as black-and-white as so many people are portraying it to be.

BTW that's the same argument used t try and repeal the second amendment....

And your point is . . . ?

What if I said that I actually agree that the Second Amendment should be repealed on those grounds?

I'm not saying that I do, but just for argument's sake, suppose I did?

You present this as if it's an obvious absurdity, or that it supports your belief that the argument is invalid, but many people would say that it's a valid argument in either case.

you can bet your boots someone in Obama's office nominated him! And it wasn't without his knowledge!

. . . Did you just make that up?


http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html

The candidates eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize are those nominated by qualified individuals.

No one can nominate him- or herself.

September – Invitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate

You don't just dial up the Nobel Committee and say, "Hey, I think this guy deserves the Nobel Peace Prize" . . .

The Nobel Committee actually selects a group of "Qualified Nominators" and asks them to nominate candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize.

You can't nominate somebody unless the Committee invites you to do so.

And if you look at that list of "Qualified Nominators" . . . I'm pretty sure that a person who simply works in a President's office doesn't qualify. And even if they did, I'm also willing to bet that the Committee would interpret that as the President "nominating himself."

[BlaqueKatt]

You present this as if it's an obvious absurdity, or that it supports your belief that the argument is invalid, but many people would say that it's a valid argument in either case.

yes if they enjoy arguing a fallacy-Argumentum ad Ignorantiam-which does make it an obvious absurdity

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

[Slytovhand]

Perhaps you missed the bit further down:

September – Invitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate – members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law;

And, I'm guessing that the US government falls under the 'members of national assemblies, governments ' bit - yes? Let alone other options listed further within that list.

Thus, it looks very much like Obama's nomination was done ages before he even sat in the President's chair. And, thus, even before he was elected... So...where does that leave the claim that it was someone 'on the inside' that did a nomination?? I'd say it's looking pretty healthy So, I'm going to suggest that someone high up in the Democrats office decided to throw in a nomination on the off chance that Obama got in, or shortly after the election (if someone can find a link to say what date the actual nomination was sent in, that would be handy!)

[Anthony K. S.]

And, I'm guessing that the US government falls under the 'members of national assemblies, governments ' bit - yes? Let alone other options listed further within that list.

Thus, it looks very much like Obama's nomination was done ages before he even sat in the President's chair.

Wait, what?

Hold on, back up a page here.

Now, I agree that President Obama's nomination likely occurred before he took office, because of the fact that the deadline for nominations was only 12 days after he was inaugurated.

But I see no evidence that the nomination necessarily took place a long time before he took office, as you are indicating here. From what I can see, it is just as likely to have been completed the week before his inauguration as three months before.

I am genuinely perplexed by your reasoning here.

You said that U.S. government officials fall into the category of "Qualified Nominators."

Okay, fine.

And then you said that it looks, thus, like President Obama's nomination was completed a long time prior to January 20.



How do you go from that first piece of information to that conclusion? How do those two points logically connect?

And, thus, even before he was elected...

Before he was inaugurated, probably, as I've said.

Before he was elected . . . ?

That, I don't know about.

The invitations to the selected nominators went out in September. The deadline for nominations was in February.

That gave the nominators two months before the election and three months afterward to make their choices.

I can easily believe that a nominator might have taken a full four or five months to make his/her selections, especially if the nominator had a lot of other work to do, or other things going on in his/her life at the time.


Now, earlier, you stated that :

you can bet your boots someone in Obama's office nominated him! And it wasn't without his knowledge!

By "Obama's office," I presumed - perhaps incorrectly, you tell me - you meant somebody working for Obama, in his administration, in the White House, as opposed to any high-ranking person in the Democratic Party as a whole.

I was a bit skeptical of the idea that the Nobel Foundation would invite a person working for the President - even a high-ranking person, such as a Cabinet member - to be a nominator . . . If they were going to select a nominator from the U.S. government, why not the President himself, or a prominent member of Congress?

And if they did select one of the President's Cabinet members or other such official to be a nominator . . . I was further skeptical of the idea that the Nobel Committee would accept a person nominating his own employer as a potential recipient.

If I was on the Nobel Committee, that would look rather sketchy to me.

I could be wrong, of course.


Now, if you actually meant that a high-ranking member of the Democratic Party, not necessarily a member of the President's administration, had been invited to be a nominator, and he/she nominated Barack Obama . . . Well, that's certainly possible.

I would still wonder if the Nobel Committee would view that as rather self-serving, and might be reluctant to accept the nomination as a result . . . I don't know about that, really . . . <Shrug>

What I don't see, however, is any evidence that indicates that that must necessarily be the case, to the point where you would be justified in saying that you could "bet your boots" that that's what happened, or to draw the conclusion that Barack Obama necessarily knew about it.


I would point out that it isn't just the United States, but elected officials in many other countries might have been invited to be nominators. And they might have nominated Barack Obama.

Why would they? Well, any number of reasons . . .

George W. Bush was decidedly unpopular abroad. Elected officials in other countries might, as a result, have been predisposed to view Barack Obama with great favor, since he seemed to be so different from President Bush.

(They might, in fact, have been predisposed to view any President, even John McCain, with favor, just out of relief that George W. Bush was no longer in office.)

They likely saw the speeches that Barack Obama had made, such as the one he delivered in Berlin during his campaign, and perhaps became hopeful that he would build stronger friendships with other countries than President Bush had.

If the nominators knew that the Nobel Committee had made it a practice to award the Peace Prize as a form of encouragement to follow through on promises, then they might have seen that as a good reason to award it to President Obama upon his taking office. If so, they could have easily made that decision at any point in the three months between his election and the February deadline.

Any one of the nominators might have decided to just toss Barack Obama's name into the mix at the start of the year, and wait to see if his actions during the first several months of the year (between the end of the nomination process and the actual awarding of the Prize) would warrant the award.

I'm not saying that any of these were necessarily good reasons to nominate President Obama. Honestly, I don't think they were . . . As I said earlier, I do agree that awarding the Peace Prize to Barack Obama now is rather premature.

But the point is . . . It could have happened. Barack Obama could have been nominated by almost anybody, including not just elected officials of other countries, but any of the other possible nominators . . . And, honestly, I view those possibilities as being just as likely as the possibility that he was nominated by one of his political allies right here in the U.S.


By the way . . . Honestly, I don't even know why I'm still on this thread. I don't even care about this issue all that much.

I am very much hoping that this will be my last post on the subject, because right now, I just want to be shot of this whole issue. <Sigh>

[KabeRinnaul]

This is why.

[Tanasi]

So I was eating a box of Cracker Jacks today and guess what I've also won the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Fryk]

Is the Peace Prize now a temporary tattoo? Because, if so, I won it, too!

[ArenaBoy]

Late to the party but look up Willie Brandt.

And there are a few recipients who won it that truly don't deserve it.