On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan <che...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Manar Hussain <ma...@ivision.co.uk> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM, ss <cybers...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday 09 Oct 2009 4:28:59 pm Eugen Leitl wrote: >>>> The Peace Nobel is effectively a joke. Just not a very funny one. >>> >>> And this joke appears to me to be like a political act. >> >> It's bizarre isn't it. That said, I'm not sure I'm prepared to so >> rapidly discount the prima facie rationale: >> >> (Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said:) >> "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". >> "It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done" > > The Nobel Prize is a political tool, it always has been - not a > totally bad thing since they generally seem to forward the cause of > peace. > > That said, Obama has been the most globally liked politician in recent > times. He was a breath of fresh air when he first came on the scene in > an atmosphere of gloom. He extended the rhetoric of hope in an > environment of gloom, and gave the rest of the world cause to believe > in the US once again. These are not small achievements, I don't know > if they deserve a Nobel on their own, but they aren't ignorable deeds.
I agree with the base sentiment but think there's no lack of clarity in the last bit: his not small achievements to date are not work the Nobel Peace Prize on their own. As far as I can tell, he agrees and so does the committee. > This combined with the desire of the Nobel committee to support > Obama's policies makes it not a terrible idea, though they should have > done a better job of selling the idea. At the risk of being divisive, not with this para but with some others' comments, I think simply saying the prize should be for good deeds already done, it's a sham, political etc. risks being dogmatic and perhaps naive. . First, it's always been politcal. That's the point. Politics exists, I see the goal of the prize as being to apply gentle consistent pressure over the ages to give incentive to those with political power to support the causes of Peace as the Nobel committee perceive it. A reasonable goal I think they've done well enough at that I'm glad it exists even if presumably nobody claims they have the power to do much more than play a small part. Second, if the basic premise of the whole organisation is to foster the cause of Peace as they see it, I think it's highly unusual and risky but not a nonsense to give Obama the Peace Prize if they genuinely believe (a) he wants to further Peace, (b) him receiving the Prize now will boost his ability to do so - be it through heightened resolve or greater political capital, and (c) he represents a once in a century opportunity to further their Peace mission. Ironically the fact that his future great deeds that may justify the award are in the balance is precisely what encourages thought they it may be worth giving him the award (which is distinct from him being worthy of it already). The alternative: rules are rules (though: what are their rules are vs established convention), and bending them (a lot) even just once a century simply can't be justified for the mere potential to achieve as much as everyone else put together that century. They may have a different take, or they may have a take like that but be ill advised in making that assessment... but to reject the notion out of hands seems churlish, and maybe even fundamentalist or at the very least more cynical than I'd like to be about such a cause. > Cheeni m
