Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.He had been president for a mere 11 days when he got nominated. So clearly he was nominated for his political campaign. For his speeches. And these weren't speeches that risked anything like some of the past winners who stood up to tyranny. Instead he catered to adoring crowds.
Look at the list of others who were apparently in the running and lost out to The One.
Until seconds before the award, speculation had focused on a wide variety of candidates besides Obama: Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator, a Chinese dissident and an Afghan woman's rights activist, among others.Ah, those would be people who actually risked something to fight for what they believed in. Clearly the Nobel committee is no longer interested in substance.
This correspondent to NRO has a good idea.
Any chance we can get Kanye West to attend the ceremony for the Nobel Peace Prize. Talk about a time for him to step up.Will Michelle find it a sacrifice to travel to Stockholm as she thought it was to go to Copenhagen?
UPDATE: A commenter gives us this link to Greg Mankiw's take on Obama's Nobel.
Pfuffnick's Nobel Economics Prize triumph hailed by manyThat's quite good. And apt.
LONDON — The surprise choice of first-year grad student Quintus Pfuffnick for the Nobel Prize in Economics drew praise from much of the world Friday even as many pointed out the youthful economist has not yet published anything in scholarly journals.
The new PhD candidate was hailed for his willingness to tackle difficult problems, his commitment to improving the economic system, and his goal of bringing efficiency and equality into harmony.
Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton, who won the prize in 2008, said Pfuffnick's award shows great things are expected from him in the coming years.
"In a way, it's an award coming near the beginning of the first year in grad school of a relatively young economist that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our economy a better place for all," he said. "It is an award that speaks to the promise of Mr Pfuffnick's message of hope."
He said the prize is a "wonderful recognition of Pfuffnick's essay in his grad school application."
This will be a source of humor for a good long while to come. The Onion couldn't have designed a better satire. The only way to avoid that would have been for Obama to follow Mickey Kaus's excellent advice for Obama to respectfully decline in deference to all those who are truly sacrificing for peace. But it doesn't sound like he's going to make that graceful move. He's already making plans to travel to Oslo. An award for speeches will be the perfect opportunity for...another speech.
Even White House aides thought it was a joke at first.
Two key White House aides were both convinced they were being punked when they heard the news, reported ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.One group that doesn't see the humor is the DNC. A spokesman responded to Michael Steele's ridicule of the choice.
"It's not April 1, is it?" one said.
Upon being called by ABC News at 5:45 ET this morning, a White House aide said, "This better be good."
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.Yup, ridiculing a guy getting the award for having given speeches to cheering crowds without having ever accomplished anything that truly advanced peace in the world is "throwing in" with the terrorists. Perspective, people, perspective.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, peruse this list put together by Mary Katharine Ham of people passed over so that The One could be rewarded for his rhetoric.
28 comments:
Greg Mankiw has the best response over at his blog. Hillarious http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-year-grad-student-wins-nobel.html
I'm pleased at this announcement. Each time they "push the envelope" on these awards they more fully expose just how meaningless they are.
My ridicule is 90% directed at the Nobel committee, 5% at Obama and his administration, and 5% at those who are cheering this decision.
What an absolute farce. The credibility loss that started with Arafat and accelerated with Carter is now complete.
actual nobel committee announcement
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.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
It took Reagan eight years, with the help of Gorby, and numerous under the radar blood shed to pull down the Evil Empire.
It took Obama a couple of months to de-horn the Great Satan and make it into a third world banana republic whose currency worths less than the paper it prints on, whose every move approved by the communist Chinese, who will be taken down a couple of pegs for snatching defeat from the Talebans. Yes Obama deserves the Peace Prize for eviserating the Great Satan in record time.
Answwers the question of why he denies McChrystal the needed troops to Afghanistan, and prepares to welcome the Talebans to share power, doesn't it?
Seemingly insane actions usually have an explanattion. Here's mine: Naivete.
Nominations closed 11 days after he took office, and voting was probably months ago.
The committee voted for Obama based on his campaign promises to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. They thought they would be awarding him at this time for having pulled troops out months before. They obviously were snookered by actually believing his campaign rhetoric.
MJ
As an American, why should I take pride in him receiving this award when the reason he received it is because he sees me, and people like me, as the enemy?
Another factually challenged bit from TV. "The Norwegian Nobel Committee..." also admitted that politics was their primary reason for this year's award.
"In those cases(Gore, Elbaradei or Carter though, the committee denied that its intentions were political. Now Jagland doesn't mince words. "We have to get the world on the right track again," the New York Times quoted him as saying. "Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions." And it wouldn't be any coincidence that the Norwegian Parliament chooses the Norwegian Prize Committee and is currently ruled by a left coalition.
Tacitus Voltaire,
Please tell us what part of that announcement you agree with...and please provide an example for each area of accomplishment.
It looks to me like the award was a pretty overt effort to stroke an ego today for desired political outcomes in the future. More than just meddling in our foreign affairs, the Nobel Committee has sent the message that they believe our President is very pliable, if not egocentric.
Well, Molehill Boy, I suggest that when you are reveling in opposing the president and the majority of Americans, you ARE the enemy.
Stand up for your country, why don't you?
Whether it's mocking Obama for not bringing the olympics to Chicago, or winning the Nobel, repubs show once again their ODS. Any success for Obama (and I'm just as baffled by the Peace Prize as anyone) is a stark reminder of the failure of Bush. While I understand you don't like a lot of what he has done, the repeated claims that Obama has done nothing just demonstrate ignorance.
In his first nine months, Obama has possibly staved off a depression, started an overhaul of healthcare, and won a nobel prize. Bush in his first nine months; signed a major tax cut for the wealthy, ignored warnings that the country was about to be attacked, and cleared a lot of brush.
And I'm not even that hot on Obama (I'd grade him a C so far). Obama only looks so much better because the last guy was so inept. Bush's is finished, and he was a failure. Just like Bush helped dems forget the failure of Carter, repubs want Obama to fail to take the burden off of W.
And he seems born to the task!
Bill B. said...
Well, Molehill Boy, I suggest that when you are reveling in opposing the president and the majority of Americans, you ARE the enemy.
Stand up for your country, why don't you?
-------------------o0o----------------------------
Yeah, MountainMan…..you’re an ENEMY to your country just like everyone who opposed PRESIDENT Bush and the MAJORITY of the American people (and a MAJORITY of congress) when we invaded Iraq. Yes, I distinctly recall how Bill B. harshly criticized all those Code Pink ENEMIES of the state. And after all, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is FAR more important than something as trifling as wining a war. I mean, ANYONE can see that!
/Sarcasm Mode Off/
Bill, do you ever think through the implications of your positions?
Tacitus Voltaire,
Please tell us what part of that announcement you agree with
the universal right wing tactic of assuming that they know what other people think
i merely read the actual announcement into the record here so that, for a change, your opinions might have some foundation in real events
and now for something completely different:
"this process started locally [in england] with the so-called 'municipal socialism' of the last quarter of the 19th century, which took gas and water supply into public ownership and provided publicly owned city transport. the public provision of housing began with the 1890 law that gave councils the power to build houses.
the taking of telephone companies into public ownership began in 1892. then, in the 20th century, electricity generation, broadcasting, civil aviation, the railways, coal mining, and many other industries too numerous to list here were created or taken over by the state.
much of this 'nationalization' was motivated not by socialst beliefs in the merits of public ownership, but by nationalist concerns with the public ownership of key servies and the inefficiency of fragmented or backward industries, which had failed to modernize themselves."
'capitalism, a very short introduction', james fulcher, oxford univeristy press, 2004
That's an interestng take on Municipal Socialism, from a short survey of capitalism, sometimes derisively referred to as Sewer Socialsim as the socialists of that time including socialist in America. One of the outcomes was the creation of a middle-class that owed its existence to government jobs and who were then and now in a position to lobby for their own benefit and not the people they supposedly were serving.
And the cost of these services through direct fees and subsidies are usually, using electricity as an example, 40% higher than what is paid in the US.
BTW, using Fulcher's book is somewhat problematic, one because his take on municipal socialism is not taken seriously among historians in England and his book extolled capitalism vs the other isms because it made available to all classes of people goods, services and oddly enough he argued legal rights. This book is not a defense of socialism at all Fulcher even talks about municipal socialism being an outgrowth of feudalism. While socialism, communisim, fascism and other 3rd Way scenarios were failures and still are failures because they never can adjust to change.
Specifically not mentioned is that you can't really compare the systems when considering that, for example, in Great Britain, water rights are held by the property owner and those down stream had no legal recourse to use. But in some communities, because of royal or feudal charter water use rights were held in common by the inhabitants. While in the US, in a break from European tradition, water rights were held by all those affected. These rights were secured not by collectivization but by precedent.
TV,
So you cannot be bothered to support anything in the announcement - a wise move on your part since it's unsupportable fluff.
I think you confirm that quite effectively by following up with your plunge into Sewer Socialism.
This book is not a defense of socialism at all Fulcher even talks about
in his usual befuddlement, pat suspects that a 126 page 'short history of capitalism' must somehow be a socialist plot.
the excerpt is merely a very brief recounting of facts, interesting only because it is somewhat startling to americans since we are unfamiliar to the extent to which utilities have been nationalised in western european countries since the late 19th century
when we were in england a couple of weeks ago, we got some very real feedback on the results of 'thatcherisation' from the head of research at a british university where my wife delivered a paper at a professional conference. of course, a conservative point of view such as his would appear, as you know, utterly radical and 'socialist' in the united states...
>Tacitus Voltaire,
Please tell us what part of that announcement you agree with
the universal right wing tactic of assuming that they know what other people think
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Asking for you to state your point of view is "assuming to know what you think?"
TV FAIL
Anyway, I will admit that I am officially "anti-Obama". He's earned it - I had an open mind before he began his campaign in 2007.
It's fascinating to witness how so many can ignore his many lies (I mean literally lying about things, not the twisted definition of "lie" the left uses about GWB) and how his agenda routinely have the effect of weakening the US and its interests.
I will continue to mock and criticize my President (and his devoted flock) freely and as he deserves. My purpose is to get those independents who've not been paying attention to WAKE THE HECK UP.
interestingly, the higher electricity prices that pat cites (without documentation) for the uk stem from thatcherite privitization of the electric utilities, rather than the previous nationalized utilities that had been in place for 70 years or more:
The model on which U.S. electric industry deregulation was based is, after 10 years, a failure. The system, established in Great Britain in 1991, was designed and created through a nondemocratic process—without public participation or transparent information about the cost data underlying prices.
Although world oil and natural gas prices plummeted, and electricity employment was reduced by 50 percent, generating prices in the United Kingdom remained so far above the cost of production that the power companies literally did not know what to do with all their profits. In a single year, one of the two private power-generating companies that were created—National Power—paid dividends to stockholders that exceeded the entire value of the company’s stock at privatization.
.
.
Indeed, after nearly a decade of market pricing, electricity prices for residential customers in England in 2000 were 44 percent higher than in the United States, and they had risen considerably since 1989 when privatization was enacted.
this is in line with what we experience first hand while in england a few weeks ago - a train ticket from london to canterbury cost well over a $100/us apiece, and we were told that the privatization of british rail had been a signal failure, resulting in the high prices, and that the goverment had been trying to re-nationalize railways since the 1990s...
Facts don't matter to the "ignorant elite" regressives here, TV.
We can lay them out, as we have been doing for years. They put their hands over their eyes and ears, and shrilly pronounce "Iraq was a great victory, Bush was a successful president, ACORN caused the Great Recession."
If education is expensive, consider the cost of their ignorance and futile self-defeating ideology.
Socialist plot? That makes about as much sense as TV's insistence that he visited a DMV in Berkeley. If the socialists of England at the time called Municipal Socialism socialism then I would assume they might actually know what they were talking about.
As an intro, and the book is described as short, Fulcher's book is quite good in defending capitalism but quite useless in the one part TV probably found on another web site.
But here's the chart for the US.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
While the cost in the UK varies from 10.6 KwH to 13.6 KwH Pound Sterling which translates into 17.0 Kwh and 21.8 KwH US Dollars. That's on average of course as everything cost more the closer you are to London just as living in certain states cost more.
As to traveling by British railroad the first time I went in 1978, I can't remember the cost, but the trip from Cardiff to London of 132 miles, which via auto would have taken three to four hours took eight hours and the cars were filthy. Many of the current problems, self inflicted sometimes, comes from the fact that the tracks and right of ways are still owned by the government and have not been maintained properly for years. Most of the rail network was built by private companies in the middle of the 19th Century and then taken because we all know that the government can do everything better than it citizens. Right!
equitus said...
>Tacitus Voltaire,
Please tell us what part of that announcement you agree with
the universal right wing tactic of assuming that they know what other people think
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Asking for you to state your point of view is "assuming to know what you think?"
TV FAIL
asking which part i agree with is assuming that i agree with any of it. this is just simple english comprehension, after all
so, equitus - which part of the announcement do you agree with?
As an intro, and the book is described as short, Fulcher's book is quite good in defending capitalism but quite useless in the one part TV probably found on another web site
the quote is from pp 44-45 of the book. pat appears to simultaneously want to claim that he has read the book and reveal that he has never seen it - i don't know why...
what i quoted from fulcher's book is merely a factual recapitulation of what happened in england. i find it startling since we know so little about the mix of socialism and capitalism in other countries. the book goes on to give a similar introduction to the same issues in sweden, the U.S., and japan.
and pat here does not appear to have quite got the point of the article i cited, which clearly states that it was the privatization of the power companies in england that led to the markedly increased power prices.
Are you claiming that utility prices were lower when under government control before PM Thatcher? Gasoline cost twice as much in 1978 UK as it did in the US so claiming that higher prices were solely the result of some privitization after this point ignores that these were already almost twice as high and remarkable under Thatcher, even though still too high, managed to slow the rate of increase. We can't all be ex-coal miners sitting around in redundancy and moaning about what it was like before Thatcher became PM. Why that sounds positively reactionary!
TV,
Still unwilling to shore up the undeserved accolades of 5 Norwegians...good for you.
I lived in the UK for three years; the cost of living was steep at my locale in Cambridgeshire. From my associations with Brits, I would caution you about your assumptions regarding energy and the economy unless you are prepared to discuss the impact on the coal mining industry and the UK's use of nuclear power. Unions and environmentalists are fragile eggs in the United States.
Actually, it is wrong to say that Mr. Obama did nothing to earn this Nobel Award. He once blew his nose in public. And 10,000+ Democrats cheered him for doing that. Doubtless, the Nobel Prize Committee gave him that award in that very same spirit. And who among us can doubt that when Bill B., Tacticis Voltaire, and Mark all come forward to defend the likes of Mr. Obama they do so in the very same spirit as well? Such is the intellectual prowess of anybody who still supports Mr. Obama! ^_~
Well, to be fair mark did not defend the award on this or any other thread.
Post a Comment