Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

[CPort]

When I heard that Obama won this morning at about 0545 I thought "for what?". My next thought was "the SOWAL thread is going to be epic!".

same here

 

[CPort]

It has nothing to do with it, but why did he win? Was it his stump speech that he gave for the year and a half leading up to the award? He was great at saying he would bring the country together, but in reality, he has divided the country.

According to www.nobelprize.org: "On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "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".

I was a terrible student of English grammar. Maybe someone else can explain the the verb tense "shall have done." Is that past tense? Barack thinks it has something to do with the future, according to his acceptance speech.

Peace -- that is a tough one because you don't get peace without struggle. Perhaps Obama won the peace prize for his actions of increasing troop levels in our war with Afghanistan. HELLO, we are still at war! How can the top brass in our war win a peace prize? That confuses the hell out of me, especially since part of the specific language in Alfred Nobel's last will and testament calls for the abolition or reduction of standing armies.

This is the 2009 prize, so how do they select their candidates in Feb? That doesn't give any person much time to do anything. Shouldn't it be the 2008 prize if they are going to pick their peeps in Feb?

There are some valid winners of the prize such as Martin Luther King, Jr, Mother Teresa, the 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso). Then, there are a few questionable winners, too like Yasser Arafat who spent most of his life fighting against Israel an was once labeled the world's number one terrorist for his attacks on civilians, and Al Gore, who never really did much except invest heavily in carbon buy out programs and make a good movie to scare everyone into buying carbon credits from his companies (though it did also bring some self awareness to us). Stalin and Hitler were nominated for the prize and then you have one of the greatest leaders of peace and freedom, Ghandi (who inspired Martin Luther King), who never won. So, real winners of peace easily shine through for all to see, and the prize no longer has anything to do with the wishes of the man who created the prize. Is all of this really worthy of a news story? Maybe a very short one. Congratulations Obama, I guess.

great post! I totally agree.

 

[Teresa]

Was Oslo Loony to Award Obama? Maybe Not -- Politics Daily
as one of my dearest mentors told me, perhaps the esteemed Norwegian Nobel Committee in Oslo was awarding a leadership trait that stands apart from epithets, threats and generally self-centered, Wild-Wild-West diplomacy. While many of us strain to hear the chords of peace, perhaps Oslo has picked up on its faint sounds. Peace, as my mentor reminded me, starts with the person who attempts to diffuse the tension and backs away from the inflammatory rhetoric. Peace-making amid rage is a peculiar strength and does not mean the process of peace is done. But because we often link might with war, our perceptions of strength and peace are skewed. Verbal muscle is determined by skirmishes of raw words. Peace, like the 100-pound weakling we love to taunt, is shoved into the corner with fists.

Although not its first controversial selection, as Newsweek.com points out, the Nobel Committee risked its prestige to acknowledge the leadership of a sitting president shifting the tone of a global dialog, even when his administration has hardly begun. The award may embarrass Obama, who accepted it humbly, but my guess is that the Nobel Committee understands that prophets of any generation can be without honor among their own, especially when their voices are first emerging.

Musing even further, I wonder if by awarding Obama, was the Nobel Committee inviting the world to celebrate a leadership style that tries to resist the rant factor? Dr. Ellen Weber, president of the MITA International Brain Based Center, tapped into this on Twitter when she shared her blog post, "Obama Leads Peace with Brain in Mind." She cited Obama's leadership approach as "valuing differences," "emulating teachability," "taking risks," and "caring for people more than cold programs or rigid policies." And President Shimon Peres of Israel said in a letter to Obama on Friday: "Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth."

Apparently, Obama's eligibility for the prize did not hinge on launching a movement to ensure workers' rights to organize, as did Lech Walsea; or challenging the racial barriers of the South, as did Martin Luther King, Jr.; or ministering to the poor in Calcutta, as did Mother Teresa. Maybe Obama was given the prize simply because so far he has sought the words of peace, not because he has single-handedly implemented a full manifestation of its presence.

How we do achieve peace on earth is up to all of us.

thanks for sharing this GW. it is a wonderful piece... putting into perspective Obama and his influence worldwide as a peacemaker with "intelligent determination".

President Obama is doing what he should do as a world leader - taking his role seriously and understanding that his words and actions (any US president's words) have significant influence worldwide. for years he has used words of peace, unity and hope. Being elected President of the US brought hope to the entire world. Obama has always conducted himself as a peace maker - not a new role for him. In his role as President, he can make a difference in achieving real world peace. This is the primary reason he was elected, imo.

We all have the ability to be peace makers in our homes and communities. It truly is up to all of us.

be a peacemaker. choose option 3 - its so liberating.

 

[Smiling JOe]

when you search "peacemaker" in images of Google, it is very interesting to see what comes up.

 

[30ashopper]

There are some valid winners of the prize such as Martin Luther King, Jr, Mother Teresa, the 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso). Then, there are a few questionable winners, too like Yasser Arafat who spent most of his life fighting against Israel an was once labeled the world's number one terrorist for his attacks on civilians, and Al Gore, who never really did much except invest heavily in carbon buy out programs and make a good movie to scare everyone into buying carbon credits from his companies (though it did also bring some self awareness to us). Stalin and Hitler were nominated for the prize and then you have one of the greatest leaders of peace and freedom, Ghandi (who inspired Martin Luther King), who never won. So, real winners of peace easily shine through for all to see, and the prize no longer has anything to do with the wishes of the man who created the prize. Is all of this really worthy of a news story? Maybe a very short one. Congratulations Obama, I guess.

Lets hope he actually earns this in the next three years - that's something I would think everyone can agree on. Who knows, maybe the added pressure of living up to this award pushes him toward getting something tangible done during his presidency.

 

[Kayak Fish]

I voted for Obama but this is just LOL ridiculous. The only explanation for awarding the Nobel Piece Prize to the leader of a nation currently occupying two countries is that the committee hopes that it puts pressure on Obama to end our country's endless war making.

If that is their goal good for them. But considering some previous winners, it might just be a silly kool-aid induced gesture.

 

[LuciferSam]

It has nothing to do with it, but why did he win? Was it his stump speech that he gave for the year and a half leading up to the award? He was great at saying he would bring the country together, but in reality, he has divided the country.

According to www.nobelprize.org: "On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "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".

I was a terrible student of English grammar. Maybe someone else can explain the the verb tense "shall have done." Is that past tense? Barack thinks it has something to do with the future, according to his acceptance speech.

Peace -- that is a tough one because you don't get peace without struggle. Perhaps Obama won the peace prize for his actions of increasing troop levels in our war with Afghanistan. HELLO, we are still at war! How can the top brass in our war win a peace prize? That confuses the hell out of me, especially since part of the specific language in Alfred Nobel's last will and testament calls for the abolition or reduction of standing armies.

This is the 2009 prize, so how do they select their candidates in Feb? That doesn't give any person much time to do anything. Shouldn't it be the 2008 prize if they are going to pick their peeps in Feb?

There are some valid winners of the prize such as Martin Luther King, Jr, Mother Teresa, the 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso). Then, there are a few questionable winners, too like Yasser Arafat who spent most of his life fighting against Israel an was once labeled the world's number one terrorist for his attacks on civilians, and Al Gore, who never really did much except invest heavily in carbon buy out programs and make a good movie to scare everyone into buying carbon credits from his companies (though it did also bring some self awareness to us). Stalin and Hitler were nominated for the prize and then you have one of the greatest leaders of peace and freedom, Ghandi (who inspired Martin Luther King), who never won. So, real winners of peace easily shine through for all to see, and the prize no longer has anything to do with the wishes of the man who created the prize. Is all of this really worthy of a news story? Maybe a very short one. Congratulations Obama, I guess.

The Nobel prize I repeat is not meant to be about what Obama has done for America. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying whether I think he truly deserved it or not, but I am glad that somebody from our country received it. If it's a gift horse, I refuse to look it in the mouth.

 

[Here4Good]

I liked Luckovich's cartoon:

 

[Bobby J]

Whether you like him or not it sure has made traveling abroad feel a little safer. Someone posted that other countries were jealous of us and that is why they act the way they do. It was not jealousy... They thought we were BULLIES. No one likes a bully.

 

[LuciferSam]

Whether you like him or not it sure has made traveling abroad feel a little safer. Someone posted that other countries were jealous of us and that is why they act the way they do. It was not jealousy... They thought we were BULLIES. No one likes a bully.

There is no doubt that the tone has changed since this administration took office. It's important to separate this out from the state of our nation and whatever positive, negative or neutral effect Obama has had on it. This award is about the World, not just us. The world perceives us more positively. This doesn't solve our very serious problems by any means, but it is a good thing.