Friday, October 9, 2009

Obama's Nobel Prize? Pros & Cons

Well, I hope no one expects me to treat this too seriously, I find it amusing! This is good fun!

I don't know what peace Mr O has accomplished so far, but I know he bombed the moon today!

So it turns out that the Nobel committee is again trying to "bias" the world politics, rather than reacting to it. Because, for God's sake, how can Obama in all his eloquence have deserved this prize? One might argue that other contenders were not sensational enough and their peace efforts were of less global concern than that of Mr Obama's. Okey, may be! But, can anything good come out of this? You judge!

a) Mahmud Ahmaghinejad will have another opportunity to send a "I kiss your peace-loving behind Master Hossain Barak" message to the white house.

b) Mahmoud will go on an interview with CNN, PBS, NBC, CBS and even BBC to say something like this:
Look if we violated the human rights in Iran, then why did your Nobel peace-prize winning president cancel funding to the Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, and prevented the congress from sanctioning our great elected!! government?
c) Barak Hossein Obama will perhaps be shamed to deploy more troops across the world or try America's new generation of bunker-busters to "keep the peace"!

d) If C happens, then Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad move up the list of Nobel committee to be nominated for next years prize to prevent them from further bloodshed!

Anyways, I like Obama; but if I were him, I will not be proud to have received this award. He has not "earned it". He is roped in the ambitions of a committee who want to leave their mark on the world's FUTURE peace. I think I agree with their vision; let's hope they have been right in their judgement.

Post Script: I am watching Obama's statement. This man is brilliant and I like him! "Nobel prize is also awarded to give momentum ... this is a call to action" Great! Now I like to predict that at the end of his speech he will give up his award to a cause! 11:20 am :)


Here's an interesting reaction from Iran

13 comments:

Pedestrian said...

Naj, I don't like Obama at all. And I think he's dangerous, b/c he's so eloquent.

I'm with John Pilger and Chris Hedges on this one. Obama is a perfect brand and has an ocean of buyers right now.

He scares me precisely because he's so good at selling himself.

Naj said...

good at selling himself?

I wonder what it is in his actions, objectives and slogans that you dislike?

I like him because he sells something that is logical, and relatively fair. But he too (like your beloved Khatami was) is caught in a web of conservative white trashes who are doing ALL they can to thwart his efforts.

Naj said...

I listened to John Pilger; and all that it tells me is that Obama is a "compromising" pragmatist who is not as radical as people expect/believe him to be.

John pilger launches the typical leftist complaints and Obama acts like a typical pragamtist--i thought your generation loves this kind of dola-dola shotor savari ;)

Pedestrian said...

LOL ...
Naj, what I don't like is that Obama SOUNDS like an idealist - but then ACTS like a center-to-right leaning pragmatist.

And too many kids my age are worked up with his talk-and-no-walk syndrome. Here's an American friend just half an hour ago: "the committee is appreciating his persistence, faithfulness to his own dreams which brought a powerfull message of hope in the entire world in november 2008!....we all know that we entered a new era after his victory! Don't we?A shift to whole-systems thinking and “global consciousness”"

so I ask: what is this new era? what have you done for it? what has he?

she didn't write back.

Naj said...

I updated the post with a picture to make my post more clear :)

Naj said...

What has he done? Nothing; but breaking some taboos in people's heads is NOT an insignificant deed!

I am not one to be dazzled by the race politics and etc; but i think his idealistic blabbers and the "blind" and childish followers it produces will lead to a better ideological landscape in the future than one propagated by the "survival of the fittest" mantra.

He has not accomplished much, true. But, the least he did, thanks to his multi-national corporate training, was to take the "panic" out of the economy; to build bridges to Russia and get them on board with Iran, to get Netanyahu mad by insisting on stoppage of settlements, and to wash his hands off of revenging-bush and focusing on the tasks at hand.

What I like him for is this: that he is very honest, brutally honest, when he says: thanks for teh nobel prize, but my priority or the American people and their economic realities.

The economic reality of American life demands him to increase the military budget; to give grants to R&D programs that employ people in weapons development; to take the health care reforms slowly, to not pull out of Afghanistan when he sees the Taliban and ALquaeda are pushing their arms into Pakistan and challenge the world. I cannot fault leaders for not "acting" ideologically--and when they express and stress their "actual/factual" priorities, I can but take of my hat!

Pedestrian said...

I'm not going to argue your points about the merits of his policies for Americans - because even if if is that way, the Nobel peace price is not supposed to be given towards these aims.

Never mind that it has been cheapened many times before, but it's supposed to go to people who have taken concrete actions towards peace - in the world. And for the likes of me I can't figure out what Obama has actually done. I can think of so many people who actually place themselves in danger and do things.

What Obama can get Netanyahu to do is important - and he will continue with the settlement expansion as far as we know.

Naj, I know I rave about pragmatism and baby steps in Iran - but just like we could learn a thing or two about pragmatism and not acting based on some ideology from Obama - he could learn a thing or two about taking wild, uncounted steps from us!

"to give grants to R&D programs that employ people in weapons development; to take the health care reforms slowly, etc" may be PRAGMATIC but for the life of me I can't ever convince myself that it's RIGHT or JUST for the long-term interests of Americans and the rest of the world.

That's why I'd suck at being a politician though :-/

Pedestrian said...

In all honesty, I think you've actually done more for peace in the world than Obama. So if he got it this year, it should go to you next year.

Naj said...

Ped if you saw him give his speech, he really played it as a "yah, whatever were you thinkin'"

Now I suggest you and I share the peace prize next year. I am going to invest my share in some tobacco or gun manufacturer lol!

For the life of me, weapon's development sucks--BUT it is thanks to these arms R&Ds that we have
1) internet
2) wi-fi
3) cell phones
4) ability to bomb the moon for the hekcufvot!

:)

Parvati said...

Re Obama's Nobel - I hope it makes him feel he now has to PROVE he deserves it! ;-)

Let's also remember that as a PEACE prize its original purpose was this:

"According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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.
(...)
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace."

The one really useful thing he has done so far - for which I as eurocritter am duly grateful - is put an end to that crazy scheme to insert "missile shield" bases in Poland and the Czech republic: whole thread on the subject here
The really sinister aspect of the scheme was that it could potentially ... some day ... have given the US "first strike" capability to attack Russia without getting hyper-nuked itself in return. Plus spy-base. This was causing big tensions between the US and Russia with the big continental European states as piggy-in-the-middle trying to convince the US to abolish this extremely provocative scheme.

New Cold War, anyone? Having already survived the first one as potential shooting-range for a US/Russian nuclear pissin'-match, answer is NO THANKS! So I repeat: I'm duly grateful. Now let's see if he can "work a miracle" elsewhere too.

Jan said...

It's a good decision to give Obama the price. Of course you both are right that they're many people in the world who have done more so far for freedom and peace and deserve it more. But the nobelprice is not so much for having achieved something. That would mean that peace is achieved and nothing would be left to do. When Shirin Ebadi got it, it doesn't say: "You have done enough, Shirin, now sit down, relax and have a coup of tea". It is for supporting those who seek peace. Giving Ebadi the price was to encourage her, to signal the world that her direction is right and her opponents are wrong and to protect her work. It's nearly the same. When he is now promoting a world without atomic weapons i.e. than he does it no longer as a mere politician, as the President of the USA, he is also doing at as a Nobelprice winner as a living moral integrity. The nobel comitee did the same thing when they gave the price to Arafat and Rabin.

Naj said...

Jan:
The nobel comitee did the same thing when they gave the price to Arafat and Rabin.

oh then this is not very reassuring :)

luxury Toronto homes said...

I think the committee really didn't do a very good service for Mr. Obama, because awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, which many people quite fairly call undeserved, is just going to make more enemies of his and to establish an opinion of most people to be not so much in his favour. Although it's not Obama's fault. I'm really considering an idea that it was all a well-thought strategy. Elli