Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Let me spell out in a bit more detail why I don't think Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. It isn't just that he hasn't done much to deserve it to this point. It's also that much of what he has done stands in stark contrast to the traditional focus of the Nobel Peace Prize on those who promote and foster a respect for human rights around the world.
On that score, not only has Obama not achieved anything, he has taken direct, positive steps that have prevented justice and accountability for the victims of torture, indefinite detention and gross violations of the rights of untold numbers of people. And here I speak of the many court cases in which the Obama administration continues to protect Bush-era atrocities and civil rights violations from all legal scrutiny.
For instance, look at the case of Mohamed v Jeppesen Dataplan, currently in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel, Ahmed Agiza, Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, and Bisher al-Rawi were all captured by our government or by other governments and then transferred to American custody. All five were then sent to secret prisons abroad, in Morocco, Egypt and Afghanistan, where they were tortured for months on end.
The ACLU filed suit on their behalf and the Bush administration intervened in the suit and argued that these men who were tortured because of our own government's actions cannot be allowed to have their day in court -- can't even be allowed to state their case and show the evidence -- because to do so might reveal "state secrets" that the government does not want revealed. You know, like the fact that they had these men tortured.
The Obama administration has continued to take that exact same position. And even after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the government on a 3-0 decision that the case could go forward, they are now appealing that ruling to the full appeals court bench in an en banc rehearing. The Obama administration has actively worked to prevent victims of torture from seeking justice in a court of law.
The same is true in the Moussaui case and the Arar case. The same is true in Jewel v NSA and Hepting v AT&T. In every single one of the many cases in which the victims of torture, indefinite detention and illegal surveillance have sought to challenge the illegal activities of the government, the Obama administration, just like the Bush administration, has continually argued against the cause of justice and in favor of the government's power to perpetrate those crimes with absolute impunity and immunity.
Let me make this completely clear, without any exaggeration whatsoever: If the position taken by the Obama administration wins in court, there will be no constraints whatsoever on the government's ability to not only violate our constitutional rights but to maim, torture and kill anyone they want in the name of national security with absolutely no right to challenge that authority. The situation is that serious.
Obama, like his predecessor, is advocating a completely unchecked executive branch, a government that can do anything it wants to anyone it wants in the name of national security and to kill all legal challenges to that authority by the mere invocation of the phrase "state secrets." If that argument wins, our entire constitutional system of government dies, along with any notion of inalienable human rights that the government may not justly violate.
Contrast this with the brave example of Bishop Tutu, who risked his life to fight against a government that claimed similar authority against its own people, also in the name of national security. The South African government likewise disappeared people into secret prisons, torturing and killing them. And they also presented a whole range of technical legal justifications for doing so and used the courts to prevent justice for the victims of their actions.
Contrast this with Martin Luther King, who was himself the victim of exactly the same kind of illegal surveillance and blackmail that Obama would insulate from all legal challenge. Contrast it with Andrei Sakharov, who was arrested and imprisoned for his advocacy of human rights.
No, Obama does not deserve this. Despite lots of very nice rhetoric, his actions have not backed up those words. The Nobel Peace Prize has historically been given to those who have fought for justice and human rights, nor for those who actively work to prevent justice for the victims of torture and government abuse of authority.
Politics
Comments
You can explain again and again and again and it is a moot point to people who educate their self as to the intent of Mr. Noble.
Fact is that President Obama DOES meet his requirement and as for the requirement YOU seem to have made up in your mind? He fails. Fact is your requirements mean naught unless your prepared to donate over a million bucks to back up your opinion.
Other side of the coin? You begin to sound like someone who really just likes to stir the shit after a while. President Obama is our President and as such deserves our support. People in other countries think this county has gone nuts and after watching all the attention whores this past 5 days, I would have to agree.
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | October 12, 2009 9:52 AM
The Nobel committee seems to be playing a subtler game. Giving Obama the peace prize may have prevented war with Iran.
Posted by: Jay | October 12, 2009 9:55 AM
Ed,
I agree with what you said. I am a registered democrat in Nevada. Harry Reid is up for election next year, and his reelection is not, by any means, assured. Would you mind if I sent this post to him / his office, giving you full credit?
Posted by: Shawn Smith | October 12, 2009 9:57 AM
A Democrat from Nevada? LOLOL Really and you think a Republican would be a better fit than Reid? Go troll someplace else.
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | October 12, 2009 9:59 AM
One is not required to deserve the award.
One is not required to achieve anything to receive the award.
The award is awarded by the Nobel committee who's responsibility it is to pick the candidate and that's that.
The same argument could be made for the Queen's honors granted annually. Who's to say, other than the Queen, that Joe Bloggs is more or less deserving of an OBE for "contributions to the pet food industry" than Henry Mullens?
Posted by: Doc Bill | October 12, 2009 10:02 AM
Actually there are some requirements but ALL of them say the recipient should be working towards the goal of peace....which Obama has done if anyone bothers to read anything other than Fox News, where the News Lies.
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | October 12, 2009 10:05 AM
Lynn McDaniel wrote:
And as usual, you didn't bother to actually respond to the substance of what I said. The longstanding tradition is to give the award to those who have fought for human rights and justice at great personal risk. I would hope you would agree that this is a good thing. Nor did you bother to respond to the undeniable facts I listed to establish that Obama has been actively working against justice and human rights for the victims of torture and illegal abuse of government power. Can you name any other winner of this award with a similar track record other than, perhaps, Henry Kissinger and Yassir Arafat (who are not exactly paragons of virtue)?
This is an utterly idiotic argument, offered only because you can't refute my argument. One does not have to establish a similar award in order to criticize the giving of this one anymore than one has to start a major war in order to criticize a government's decision to go to war.
Do you have anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument here?
Bullshit. You certainly would not have said that of Bush if he'd received that award (and if you had, you'd be out of your fucking mind).
I couldn't possibly care any less what the hypothetical people in other countries that exist in your imagination think. I have offered my opinion and reasoned arguments to support it. You have replied with no substance whatsoever. I think you're in way out of your depth here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 10:07 AM
No response that is intelligent is any better than what Albert Nobel stated as HIS requirements:
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.".
Who in the past year has done more for the world to meet the above standards?
Again your opinion is just taking up space and working against the President of this country.
You surprise me though, I would never have taken you for someone who even felt they should have an opinion on something of this nature. Really.
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | October 12, 2009 10:10 AM
Remember a long, long time ago when my response to entrenched sides was a frustrating, "whatever ..." ... ?
Whatever. ;)
Posted by: Andrea | October 12, 2009 10:14 AM
If the Prize can be awarded to Mother Teresa (who let poor people suffer cruelly while she hob-nobbed with world leaders and took their money to build more convents or homes of torture), or to Arafat (head of the terrorist organization PLO), or to Kissinger (possibly guilty of war crimes in Vietnam and Latin America if he was ever taken to court).....................
Then I have no major issues with Obama getting the Prize.
Posted by: healthphysicist | October 12, 2009 10:14 AM
Ed:
You have offered many reasons for thinking Mr. Obama doesn't deserve the award. But saying that it's usually gone to people under this criterion:
"The longstanding tradition is to give the award to those who have fought for human rights and justice at great personal risk."
is not, I think, borne out by a look at the list of recipients: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/.
As I said in a comment on an earlier thread. How can this award be, simultaneously, not worth having while being too good for the likes of Mr. Obama? That seems to be a premise that is shared across the blogs I've looked at, by a number of commenters. Either the Award is, essentially, meaningless--due to "grade inflation" and political machinations OR it's a sacred symbol which has now become sullied and cheapened by its being awarded to Mr. Obama. You may, of course, choose to have it both ways. That is, I think, an aspect of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2009 10:18 AM
My first knee jerk reaction to Obama winning the Nobel was WTF! But when you look at the history of the peace prize it seems that, unlike the science prizes, they sometimes give it to someone who has the greatest chance of making a difference going forward. You would have to admit that the US does hold the majority of the cards when it comes to world peace and how they play those cards over the next 3 years is going to be critical. The reason they gave the prize to Obama is to quote from the official press release.
You can say what you want about other aspects of his administration but that is not why the prize was given to him, the reasons are given above. I had to listen to 97.1 on my way in this morning talk about an undeserving Obama because he hadn't done anything yet to deserve the prize. It was obvious that they have not looked at either the history of the peace prize or the reasons why Obama was given it this year. There were a few callers that tried to point that out but no amount of evidence to the contrary was going to change their minds.Sure the award is political, It would be naive to think that isn't, as political leaders obviously have the greatest effect on world peace.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 10:19 AM
Lynn McDaniel wrote:
Nobel's criteria went out the window a long time ago. Count the number of winners of the award that meet that standard and the number will be pretty low. As I said, and as you cannot deny, the award has also traditionally gone to those who promote human rights and justice, issues on which Obama's record is abysmal. Again, can you name a single other NPP winner with a similar record on insulating torture from accountability? Or with a similar record on protecting the government's ability to abuse their own authority? The tradition of the award cuts strongly the other way.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 10:20 AM
Lynn McDaniel: Your argument is wonderfully circular, of course: Obama is a worthy recipient of the NPP because he is the person the Committee chose to honor this year. It's the same argument made last winter when Jim Rice was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame: Of course he is a Hall of Famer, if he weren't, he wouldn't have been elected. That Mr. Rice is comfortably in the bottom quintile of players selected for the honor is ignored. Is Mr. Obama among the top or bottom NPP recipients?
Even among US Presidents, Obama hasn't had the impact of Jimmy Carter (Camp David Accords created lasting peace betwen Egypt and Israel, Panama Canal Treaties strengthened ties to Latin America) or Teddy Roosevelt (Peace of Portsmouth). He isn't even on a par with the vile Woodrow Wilson, who at least tried to create an international peace organization.
Obama inherited two wars, and we are still bogged down in both. He has created a third war in Pakistan in which we are increasingly becoming involved: There are already over two million refugees. Then we are already at war with Iran, but covertly. We spent at least 600 million to destabilize the country before this summers' election, then we attempted to foment a civil war in Azheri parts of the country.
But the man talks a mean game, so that is all that matters, right? Um, except when he goes on live television and lies about the government of Iran and its (legal) nuclear energy program. I think we need a new definition of the word, "Peace," because that's the only way you can win this argument.
I understand, it's a symbolic thing. There are probably better symbols available.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 12, 2009 10:28 AM
Ed, that's all true, but it is not what they gave him the peace prize for.
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 12, 2009 10:29 AM
Ed, you don't really need to debate Lynn, as it's clear she doesn't approach discussion with the same logical format as most of the other posters here.
But, will you at least admit that you were wrong when you said that President Obama should turn it down? It would earn you a lot of respect to admit defeat when the readers here have made a solid case.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 12, 2009 10:30 AM
Jordan-
No, I still think he should have turned it down, for the same reasons I offered yesterday. I disagree that any solid case was made against that position.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 10:34 AM
That the Peace Prize has sometimes gone to people who promoted human rights and justice at great personal risk is undeniable. That there is a "tradition" of doing so fails to be born out by the available evidence.
Posted by: Dave W. | October 12, 2009 10:36 AM
will you at least admit that you were wrong when you said that President Obama should turn it down? It would earn you a lot of respect to admit defeat when the readers here have made a solid case.
That would be interesting. Jordan, I don't think a blog is what you think it is.
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 12, 2009 10:39 AM
Also. To the point of today's blog. You are saying that because he has continued the Bush policies on privacy, torture, and state secrets, they should not have given him the award.
But... as has been used against the Nobel Committee's choice, there is an argument that could be used to dispute this. The award was supposed to consider actions up to the Feb. 1st deadline. And most of the "state secrets" cases that you mention are after that deadline. So if they did in fact make the decision on Feb. 1st, your argument is after-the-fact.
(and as a side note, Rachel Maddow opened her show on Friday with a very good segment about why, even if the Nobel Committee made the decision on Feb 1st, before many of his positive actions of the last several months, President Obama was still a fine choice)
Posted by: Jordan G | October 12, 2009 10:40 AM
Ed's absolutely right: the unresolved issue of torture has a huge impact on how the rest of the world sees America, and the fact that Obama refuses to deal with it has practical as well as moral consequences. This is exactly the sort of hypocrisy that fosters resentment, anti-American sentiments, and violent retaliation.
It's a celebration of moderation and lukewarm conciliation at a time where a positive and courageous effort to resolve this issue is needed. But then I suppose ostriches are very peace-loving creatures, aren't they?
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | October 12, 2009 10:42 AM
I'm not sure politically which way Obama should have gone. I thought that his comments regarding the prize were sufficient and were in accordance with the nature of reasoning used to bestow it upon him. What would he have gained by not accepting the prize? I think that in terms of perception from the rest of the world's POV he did the prudent thing.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 10:43 AM
Lynn, you're beginning to sound like the left-wing equivalent of 'support or gtfo!' idiots. It's the other side of the unhealthily nationalist coin. Now I am more leftist than most Democrats; I support complete social freedom and hold positions in line with a position halfway between socialism and capitalism. I still think the awarding of this prize was premature.
I voted for President Obama, and I don't regret it. He's better than the alternative. At the same time, the truth of the matter still stands:
1) He's done nothing about the last administration and hasn't done much about either what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) As Ed says, he hasn't done much to reduce the power of the executive branch.
3) He hasn't done anything significantly different, I think, from others who have done similar things to what he's done that apparently didn't merit that prize.
If they'd waited, perhaps, until the end of his presidency to award it to him, that would be better.
Posted by: Katharine | October 12, 2009 10:51 AM
Ed - while I stand by my original position that has me believing Obama should not have won, I think your argument here isn't applicable, at least technically. It's a fine argument if the Committee considered his record since he took office, but supposedly they considered only those actions since the date the nominations were solidified - which was sometime in Feb. Therefore the award seems more predicated upon Obama challenging America to reject Bush/conservatism and Cheney/neoconservatism for our traditional ideals regarding universally defended human and civil rights. I.e., his campaign to right the ship was validated by the election.
I'd argue you should have at least considered and rejected their supposed format if you believe the committee ignored their own rules and took into consideration some of the President's acts since Feb.
In addition, while this forum and a few others, like Glenn Greenwald's, are cognizant of Obama's failures on civil rights since taking office; I'd bet the Committee is not well-versed on the pattern we've encountered to date that is contra to his campaign and if they did let some of Obama's record since Feb. slip into their decision-making (such as his Egypt speech), it wouldn't fairly assess the negatives you continually and correctly raise. That would speak ill of them if this time period was in play or covertly was in play, but again, it supposedly was not in play in their deliberations.
After considering the arguments pro/against/ and especially the rationalization for how some win, I think the Nobel Committee and their sponsors' whole process is a goat-fuck. My evidence lies with the results of who wins. If they were a car manufacturer far too many of their cars wouldn't start.
Maybe some bloggers and other media types like you should do your own awards, Greenwald, Sullivan, and some foreign policy experts (Peter Beinart, Thomas Ricks, George Packer, Fareed Zakaria).
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 12, 2009 10:55 AM
Jordan G wrote:
Come on, you don't really believe this is a serious argument, do you? I say he doesn't deserve the award because he has actively been working against the cause of justice and human rights and you say "Well sure, but he didn't start doing that until after Feb. 1st, so he does deserve the award for what he did the previous ten days in office"? Seriously?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 11:05 AM
If the argument now collapses down to "he deserves it for his campaign rather than what he has done as president" then the argument against my position is even weaker than I imagined. Pretty words, few of which he has actually lived up to, do not warrant any award, much less one of this prestige. George Bush campaigned in 2000 on a platform of accountability, ethics and ending America's foreign military campaigns. Campaigns mean nothing; actions mean everything.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 11:08 AM
Do I think it is a great argument? Yes and no. It's a technical argument, which usually aren't my favorite. But if the Nobel Committee pointed to it as justification, they would be technically right. On the other hand, I think the criteria itself is flawed, being so much earlier than when the award is given (there has to be a deadline, but it could be later in the year).
What I'm saying though is there is a lack of consistency. Many of the people stating that President Obama didn't deserve the award point to that deadline as evidence (I don't remember if it was something you mentioned in previous posts, so I'm not accusing you of inconsistency). But if one side gets to use that argument, then the other can as well.
And the fact that Michael Heath concurred with me is a source of pride. And I think it adds legitimacy to the argument.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 12, 2009 11:15 AM
@Katherine
While your points are valid these are NOT contradictory to the reasons why he won the NPP. You have to understand the motives, from the point of view of the committee that bestowed the award on him in the first place.
It is undeniable that the person who can do the most for peace over the next few years is indeed the President of the United States of America. It is also undeniable that the rest of the world views the appointment of Obama as a great milestone of civilization. The eyes of the world are definitely on him. So I understand the decision to give him the award, there is a lot of
potential there for peace, and he has the world's ear. I think ultimately the prize is an attaboy, we think you are heading in the right direction, diplomatically speaking.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 11:20 AM
Jordan G -
One needn't constrain themselves to that Feb deadline to find Obama unworthy. And honestly, I wouldn't find his receiving the award so very objectionable, if he had done absolutely nothing and it was based on his rhetoric. But the fact is that he hasn't done nothing, he has actively fostered policies that are the antithesis of what any reasonable peace award should be about.
So he has talked about nuke deproliferation. So he has talked about getting the U.S. to get serious about the environment. Who gives a shit, when he has also actively fought for Bush era policies that would ultimately allow for torture to happen again? Who cares, when his administration is fighting for indefinite detention? Who cares when he has shown no interest in ending either of the conflicts our country in embroiled in?
Bottom line - we are looking at positive rhetoric, versus a record of warmongering, defending torture and defending indefinite detentions.
If the Nobel peace prize meant a fucking thing before, it is nothing but a sick fucking joke now.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 12, 2009 11:24 AM
Jordan G wrote:
But this has nothing to do with my argument. This isn't about "both sides" because I'm not part of any side. I am making the arguments I make; responding to arguments someone else makes does not engage my argument at all. I'm not making a technical argument, I'm making a blunt moral one: Anyone who actively works against justice and human rights does not deserve the award. Period.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 11:34 AM
I really think the issue here is what was the Nobel selection committee smoking when they made this choice. I truly believe that Obama was genuinely surprised as everyone else. NPR's announcement of Obama as the peace prize was followed by a story on increasing troops in Afghanistan. I think that the Nobel committee has reduced the significance of this award with this selection.
Posted by: DobyGS | October 12, 2009 11:46 AM
At least Kissinger & Arafat - to name two of the least popular recipients - received their awards after conducting negotiations to reduce their respective conflicts.
Non-rhetorical question: has anyone else ever received a Nobel Peace Prize while pro-actively escalating a war?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 12, 2009 12:00 PM
@Katherine
No, as Ed says he has actively worked towards increasing the power of the executive branch. He's gone further than Bush when it comes to executive privilege. I wouldn't bother correcting this, but I see the mistake all over the place. It's something we need to face, preferably sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Paul | October 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Ed, being a blogger, you must be used to the feeling of your points just not "taking" in others, but if it is at all consolatory, you are making complete sense to me. Those disputing you are not.
The surprise many felt upon hearing that a president who has not effected any major peace accords, endings of wars, brokering of harmony, founding of international peace-promoting bodies, reversing of human rights violating policies, and who has only been in office 10 months, and who was nominated after two weeks in office...was the appropriate reaction. The second feeling some had, the rationalization of this after the fact, is the wrong one.
Ed's points about the continuation of Bush administration policies is very valuable and enlightening but not even necessary to recognize this as a weak choice for the award.
Posted by: cm | October 12, 2009 12:13 PM
Alright Ed, I'll concede. And I can understand the argument that "Anyone who actively works against justice and human rights does not deserve the award. Period."
And that could mean that just like Arafat, the future (and present) may say President Obama shouldn't have gotten the NPP. But, your argument is the same as if next year, President Obama commits genocide, and people then say the Nobel Committee shouldn't have given him the award. Yes, his actions after that the decision was made can lead to regret for the Nobel Committee.
Your argument isn't saying that on Feb 1st, they made the wrong choice. Your argument is saying that they should regret giving it to him.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 12, 2009 12:21 PM
I think Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, if for no other reason than to piss-off so many on the right. But beyond that, I don't think he's accomplished anything worthy of the prize.
Posted by: Owen | October 12, 2009 12:28 PM
It seems to me that most objections boil down to Obama not reversing some of the Bush era policies or that he talks a good game but hasn't done anything about it. Whilst this is a serious issue I think it pales in comparison with the potential for Obama to make good on his promises and what, if he can achieve them, this will mean to world peace. The argument that he hasn't done anything can be used both ways.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 12:31 PM
If the objective of the Nobel Committee was to piss off the hardly-ever-right wingnuts, they should've given the Prize to Michael Moore and Code Pink, &/or France.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 12, 2009 12:34 PM
Ed, thanks for so well articulating some of the reasons why Obama should not be getting the prize. I think people who are defending this decision are focusing too much on the letter of the requirements at the expense of their spirit. We all know what kind of activity the Nobel Prize is supposed to commend, and the things that Obama has done so far do not qualify.
Posted by: Jerry Vinokurov | October 12, 2009 12:42 PM
A good account of how Obama continues Bush's heinous policies (with many links backing this up): http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22527 You will have to enter this URL twice to get beyond the fundraiser page.
Posted by: Ingo | October 12, 2009 12:45 PM
Some of this argument would be simplified if people would actually check how the process works:
NOMINATIONS for the Nobel Prize are solicited starting the previous year, they are due in Feb.
Nominees are researched over the next six months, and a dossier produced arguing the pros and cons; voting is in September, with a final vote as late as the morning of the announcement if needed (is my understanding).
Technically the Prizes are for work over the previous year, not lifetime achievement (often honoured in the breach);
the Peace Prize in particular is for "trying" - it is intended for people who try diplomacy to reduce armies and establish peace. It is also often used to encourage a process, not reward an outcome.
Posted by: Steinn Sigurdsson | October 12, 2009 12:58 PM
Once again, the complaint isn't that he hasn't yet reversed hated Bush policies. The complaint is that he's gone further and claimed further privileges for the executive than Bush did. It's not a complaint about inaction, it's a complaint about actively taking abhorrent actions. This has been happening for months, and it's sickening that people still bury their heads in the sand about it and pretend it's not happening.
Posted by: Paul | October 12, 2009 1:36 PM
This is weird. I presume that most of the nontrolls here accept and agree that Obama hasn't (or hasn't yet) fulfilled some of the possibilities for peacy-feeling stuff like restoring full civil liberties, closing Guantanamo, and convicting Dick Cheney of having a stone in the place of his heart.
However.
The list of Nobel winners is heavy with people just like Obama, in this situation, in a position to encourage or improve peace but not practically accomplished in making actual peace.
The exact words of Alfred Nobel on the prize (not quoted fully above, by the way) include the criterion "in the previous year." That undercuts the "long noble history of peacemaking and umpiring and refereeing and peacing out" or whatever the newly released Brayton Criterion say.
I get that you are disappointed because Obama hasn't done what you think should be done to win the prize; I suggest that you undertake to earn Norwegian citizenship and then lobby the Norwegian parliament for an appointment to the committee. Any other opining is three degrees removed from actual 'argument' about the prize.
This argument, borryed from above, about sums it up:
"We all know what kind of activity the Nobel Prize is supposed to commend, and the things that Obama has done so far do not qualify."
1. You (quite evidently) do not know what kind of activity the prize is supposed to commend. You (Ed et alii) keep saying you do, then you say what it is, and it isn't what the other folks have done. I repeat: it isn't. The list is replete with folks who "held conferences" and "outlined rules" and "urged changes" and "mediated peace". Teddy Roosevelt! Yasir Arafat! God's sake, read!
2. What is that activity that you know is so obviously supposed to be commended by the prize, by the way? Everybody keeps on not saying.
3. We? Imperial much?
4. What things has Obama done that do not qualify? (?)
5. What things has Obama not done that disqualify? (?)
6. Arafat!
7-21. Also, I think it's oddly futile, and dangerously supportive of nitwit wingnuts, to engage in a debate over how much of the antichrist Obama is because he got the Nobel prize. If you want him to do something, urge him as a nobel winner--seems to be more leverage, not less.
22. Arafat! Also!
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | October 12, 2009 1:36 PM
You conveniently ignored the solid case that the Nobel committee CANNOT give the award to anyone else. All Obama can do is refuse to accept the money and little doo-dad, and refuse to give the speech. How does that help Obama, or the nation, or anyone?
Posted by: Shygetz | October 12, 2009 1:48 PM
I don't quite get this "It's worth pissing off the right" argument. Conservatives despise world opinion and they take pride it not being loved by those pansy Europeans. They're not going to be embarrassed at the rebuke: giving the NPP to Obama merely proves (as if more proof were needed) that he's a communist, fascist, totalitarian, cheese-eating-appeaser-surrender monkey. Who's getting a prize for trying to kill grandma.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 12, 2009 1:50 PM
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 1:50 PM
In the interest of clarity of my motives since I only post very sparsely here, I don't care one way or another about who gets the Nobel. Based on past history of the award, it has turned more into a political tool, and I don't see that he's done something that should outright disqualify him. But it does offer a chance to reflect on Obama's past actions, and I thought it was worth reminding the optimists that Obama has done much more than just be inactive on the civil liberty front. He's been an aggressor, no matter what his stated goals have been.
Posted by: Paul | October 12, 2009 1:53 PM
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 2:06 PM
Doug,
I don't have sources on hand (not at home computer, sorry), but really, all you need to do is go through Ed's archives. He's been fair in his treatment of Obama, pointing out where he extends or surpasses the positions of the Bush Administration when it comes to civil liberties.
Posted by: Paul | October 12, 2009 2:10 PM
Why is the text after the blockquote always in the incorrect position? seems like I'm doing something wrong as no one else
seems to suffer the same formatting issue.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 2:10 PM
Meh.
Obama did exactly what was necessary to get the story off the front page quickly, which was to accept the award graciously and move on.
Posted by: socle | October 12, 2009 2:30 PM
ice9 wrote:
This is a remarkably silly claim. We are, in fact, debating two different positions. It it, thus, an actual argument. Whether it changes anything is irrelevant. Do you tell anyone who argues over a given policy that unless they run for office, they're three degrees removed from actual argument about the policy? This is an opinion blog. You're here to give your opinion just as I am. That's an argument.
As for your other arguments, you are still stuck in this "what the Nobel committee might have been thinking" as if that matters to my argument. I'm making a should argument, saying that the award should not go to anyone who has actively worked to retard the advance of justice and human rights. Whether the Nobel committee has violated that criteria in the past has no bearing on whether my argument is valid. You continue to fail to engage my argument on its own merits. I don't give a shit how the Nobel committee justifies itself; I think they're wrong and I am stating so with the reasons why.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 2:45 PM
Doug Little wrote:
As I've documented here many times, in the Al Haramain case the Obama administration took two steps that went way beyond even what the Bush administration ever did in this regard. The first was to invent a whole new argument for why the executive branch could never, ever be challenged in court for any violations of the laws on wiretapping or the 4th amendment - because they have "sovereign immunity" from such suits. This is a uniquely stupid and vile argument given that the FISA law explicitly empowers the filing of civil suits for violations of the law.
The second was to issue a thinly veiled threat to send the FBI or U.S. Marshals into the judge's chambers to remove evidence that they had already mistakenly turned over in the case that allowed the plaintiffs to establish standing.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 2:50 PM
ice9: You need to address my earlier post: It is a very poor argument to say that this Prize is correct because the Committee has honored Arafat with the award in the past. That is a lowest common denominator argument.
Take my example of the Baseball Hall of Fame: Is the only standard for entry to be that the player had a better career than the worst guy already selected for the position? That any outfielder who had a better career than, say, Ross Youngs, deserves to be in? That would imply hundreds of new "Hall of Famers," all because of a prior mistake by the Veteran's Committee (among other things, Youngs didn't even meet the 10-years in the majors rule).
To borrow an argument from Bill James, is Obama's Prize in the middle of prior awards, or is it more of an outlier, like Arafat? To me, it is clearly an outlier among US Presidents or other heads of state who have won the award. Rather, it fits in well with many of the organizations that have won, in that it is affirmational, but this ignores that most of those NGOs did not themselves have the power to change events. Obama does have that power and has failed to use it. He needs to stop campaigning and start governing. And it would help if he would end a war rather than starting more.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 12, 2009 2:56 PM
Yeah, I went ahead and had a look at some of your old posts on the Al Haramain case, I'm not sure why the Obama administration would want to protect the previous administration from suits over warrant-less wiretapping. I hope there is a better reason other than we reserve the right to do the same thing if we want to. I wonder if it has anything to do with not looking soft on terrorism? Anyway that aside I still don't see how this disqualifies him from receiving the peace prize. I think the argument is more about the prize and the criteria for selection rather than the fact that Obama received it.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 3:40 PM
@1, Lynn wrote:
Support is one thing, but unconditional support is quite another. Americans can support the President and hold him accountable to his promises at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Dan | October 12, 2009 3:41 PM
This is a completely random side note, but what is it with dumbass commenters and abuse of the term "LOL?" This is something I've observed here as well as elsewhere on the 'Net. In my opinion, anyone over age fourteen who uses the term "LOL" in any online setting apart from social networking is asking to look like a fool.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | October 12, 2009 4:10 PM
Sadie: Perhaps the comment is being posed by a Lolcat. I believe they have a use exception.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 12, 2009 4:16 PM
Sadie,
It's just a way to express some emotion when commenting, you might as well lump in all the other descriptive and pictorial representations of emotion that are used, like the use of smiley faces or fake html tags :-).
Posted by: Doug Little | October 12, 2009 4:32 PM
I'm remarkable! Whoo hoo!
I guess I can yield to the argument that Obama should not have gotten the prize. It just seems unmoored from specifics (and Wikipedia, of course.) There's some lawyerly/philosophicalizer nugget here that I don't get. I'm trying, honest I am.
Just shoulding about it still seems like an an airy imagination of a Narnian future in which taciturn squareheads suddenly jump up and dance like Michael Flatley. So you're not claiming that Obama is wildly different than the run of the Peace Prize mill? You're just saying he shouldn't have won it because he's not peaceful enough for you? (don't get me wrong--I want him to kick ass for peace among the Bush Administration and their rules and deeds just as much as you.)
Does this "shoulding" apply to the entire Nobel Peace process and all future decisions? I mean, is this a commercial for a different set of Peace Prize criteria? Or an academic exercise in which we measure the president's deeds against something other than his promises? That's an honest question.
I can't help comparing this should to other, perhaps more practical 'shoulds' for the cause. William Safire should be more dead. Orly Taitz should break her nose in an elevator accident and have to wear one of those nose splints with the tape holding it in place. Mosquitoes should stop spreading malaria and spread joy and happiness.
Here, let me try: Obama should win the Nobel Peace Prize. The award might serve to confine him to his promises, and perhaps shame him into moving faster and more authoritatively to condemn the grotesque, damaging excesses of the Bush Administration. Obama's moderation, sobriety, and dignity in the face of grotesque slanders and attacks perhaps constitute enough of a life's work in peace to justify the award, especially to those who believe that the award should be given only to people who have somehow magically succeeded in politics despite taking precipitous, politically destructive choices in big, simultaneous bunches. Though thin evidence of a valid life's work when compared to such peaceful folk as Elihu Root, secretary of War and founder of the War College, that life should be enough to squeak him by, especially when you consider (as you should) that Yasir Arafat got the prize once for slowing down the rate of terrorism he engaged in and encouraged for a while, and for not shooting anybody with his pearl-handled six guns for like a whole year. Much of the rest of the impetus for this choice should come from the Committee's (and Alfred Nobel's) oft voiced interest in using the prize to push for future work. The Committee should not pass up this chance to saddle Obama with the curious stigma of accepting a prize which he hasn't yet seemed to earn; this stigma will be especially tart among the American right, who will likely void violently through all apertures the moment they hear the announcement, thus stimulating a tangy colloquy among American political thinkers. After all, the committee has often made odd and surprising choices, which they should continue to do, though maybe after Obama is named they should begin to include in their deliberations a bunch of nuanced and (I hope) temporary parochial American political considerations.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | October 12, 2009 4:59 PM
Ed Brayton wrote:
Now it all makes perfect sense. You're not making the argument that any actual living Nobel Committee was wrong, you're making an argument about what the Nobel Committee would have done if the Nobel Committee consisted of Ed Brayton. You could have made that clearer in the posts themselves, just by saying, "if I had my druthers," or something silimar.
Posted by: Dave W. | October 12, 2009 5:03 PM
Boy, this "argument" seems to be comprised mostly of, "I luvs me some Obama, he dezervez the prize" and "I hatez me some Obama, he dezervez a lump of coal.".
There are a lot of comment indicating that Obama has not lived up to his campaign rhetoric/promises. There's also a lot of comment indicating that he didn't do anything to deserve the award because the qualifications were only considered up until sometime in February. In some cases both sorts of comments are being made by the same people. It kinda makes my head spin.
I've asked before--this makes request #3--why many folks say the NPP is a devalued symbol and yet are very upset that Mr. Obama is getting such a signal honor? I'm curious what their rationale is. I'm also wondering if the question is so stupid that it doesn't deserve an answer.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2009 5:08 PM
I can understand and appreciate both Ed's viewpoint, and that of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.[*]
The Committee certainly saw that Obama was such a turn for the better (with pushing non-proliferation of nuclear weapons rather than rearmament, negotiations with Iran,..), so they thought they should encourage the trend.
Ed is, of course, right to say that the Obama administration perpetuates (and worsens) abuses of the Bush regime, and shields them from prosecution...
Well, now that Obama has gotten the price, it is time to move on, and whenever the opportunity arises, congratulate him, and include in your congratulations words like, "...how does it feel being a Nobel Peace Prize winner and perpetuate policies, which allowed despicable regimes to legally [spy on/prosecute/imprison/disappear] their dissidents, among them Nobel Prize winners like [Sakharov, .....]. Don't you think you, and the U.S., can do better?"
The election of Obama is not the end; all those who like to keep the Constitution alive need to continue to push on the issues listed by Ed. The proper use of the Peace Prize is to use it as an occasion to highlight these problems. (But I am not optimistic that it will help, with the Congress apparently responsive only to moneyed interests, not voters; and voters ill-informed by the corporate media. But we all should try.[At least, donate to the ALCU]).
[*]"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." [Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance, as per bartleby.com]
Posted by: A | October 12, 2009 5:52 PM
When I first saw the headlines state that Obama won the Peace Prize, my initial reaction was, "WTF? What has he accomplished to deserve that? This makes no sense whatsoever."
Then as I read more, I realized that he didn't win the Chiroptera Peace Prize. He won that other Peace Prize, with a different committee, with different criteria for selecting the winner.
My bad.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 12, 2009 5:54 PM
democommie,
Does the fact that the Grammys had well established themselves as a joke by the early 90s make the decision to award best rock song in 1992 to an acoustic rework of Layla instead of Smells Like Teen Spirit any less galling?
Posted by: MattXIV | October 12, 2009 6:24 PM
That would be amazing - talk about a silver lining in all of this commotion. In fact, I daresay that I'd be willing to donate to a charity of one's choosing for any individual who has the fortitude to pose a question like that to Obama in a public forum.
Posted by: Mr. B | October 12, 2009 6:34 PM
Honestly, Ed, I agree with everything here except the headline. This isn't "again," because your first post wasn't an argument; it was emotive bellyaching (which I called you on). Your second post quoted Balko's argument, but added little to it.
This argument, however - your own clear moral argument as to why Obama is unworthy of what the Nobel Peace Prize ought to be awarded for - is very sound. I still think Greg Ladin is right that the overwhelming majority of the criticisms being made of the Nobel committee are completely off-base, entirely ignoring what the committee's criteria actually are and the history of the prize. But your argument, ultimately, is that the prize committee's criteria ought to be different - or at least that the committee didn't consider Obama's whole record carefully enough with respect to the criteria they supposedly use, because they appear to have ignored Obama's many and serious failures with respect to carrying on rather than correcting the prior administration's human rights abuses.
Oh sure, the actual torture has stopped. But Obama has dismantled none of the institutional and legal arrangements the Bush administration used to institute the indefinite, secret detainment and abuse of prisoners without trial or defense - and has actually defended those arrangements (and in one case attempted to expand on them). I've explained my suspicions before about why the Obama administration is actually doing these things - because giving up the legal defenses of secrecy means coming clean about what was actually done by the Bushies, which means cleaning house after them, which means prosecuting war criminals and torturers from Bush & Cheney on down, which bears a higher political price than Obama is willing to pay. But I don't think that explanation, even if true, actually justifies his actions in the slightest. And I agree that those failures make Obama unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize - although, I must add, not nearly as unworthy as some prior recipients (Arafat, Kissinger, & Mother Theresa being the most deplorable examples).
Posted by: G Felis | October 12, 2009 6:41 PM
Doug Little @ # 55: I'm not sure why the Obama administration would want to protect the previous administration from suits over warrant-less wiretapping. I hope there is a better reason other than we reserve the right to do the same thing if we want to.
Rinse & repeat regarding -
kidnapping;
torture;
bombing civilians;
treaty abrogation;
misuse of public funds;
torture;
general-purpose misfeasance & malfeasance, + cover-ups thereof;
various Constitutional violations;
did I mention torture?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 12, 2009 6:41 PM
Greg Laden @15 wrote,
Let's try this scenario:
Announcer: "The award for service to the community goes to Mr. Walter Humpinstuff, for his work in providing shelter to homeless youth."
Protester: "But he was taking them home and raping them!
Announcer: "That's not what we're giving him the prize for!"
Posted by: James Hanley | October 12, 2009 6:44 PM
Psst, Sadie, I've seen Ed use lol. Do you think he looks like a fool?
***
Ed, this was a much more cogent post than your last one and I understand your point better now.
That said, the criteria (whatever it is) is not that a nominee not have cons, even big ones. I would not have chosen Obama, were it up to me. I wouldn't even have nominated him. But I can understand why they did and I don't think it's necessarily a travesty of justice. In all likelihood it will be an albatross around his neck, so perhaps that will give you some cold comfort.
I think my biggest disappointment with their choice is that heads of state in general, especially those of very wealthy nations, do not need money in the way that charities and activists do. I completely agree with Gretchen's point about financial need in the other thread. It should be weighted in part toward those who need it most and who can presumably do the "most" good with it. I can see why you think the bar for them should be higher, rather than lower.
But this small, nagging voice tells me that is probably an unrealistic expectation, particularly with regard to a nominee who is also a head of state. I'm not saying that to excuse wrongs, but I can also see the value of rewarding rights even the presence of wrongs. If that makes sense.
Posted by: Leni | October 12, 2009 7:22 PM
James Hanley, your analogy would be apt if Obama were given the Peace Prize for working towards improved human rights and justice. And so:
Announcer: "The award for service to the community goes to Mr. Walter Humpinstuff, for his work in providing shelter to homeless youth."
Protester: "But he was wearing fur and eating meat while doing so!"
Announcer: "That's not what we're giving him the prize for!"
Posted by: Dave W. | October 12, 2009 7:22 PM
Well, I think the student protesters in Iran should have received it. Maybe President Obama can receive it in their name? (Especially since three were recently sentenced to death.) Or defer it to them? I would like to see that.
Posted by: Kristine | October 12, 2009 7:28 PM
Dammit. I effed up criteria and verb agreement. (Thank you, btw, to whoever pointed that out, it's very good to know! Even if it was in the other thread. I don't know. I don't remember.)
Posted by: Leni | October 12, 2009 7:30 PM
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what most of us think the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be-- or should be.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 12, 2009 7:40 PM
How could he not have won after he got the girls such a cute doggie?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 12, 2009 7:52 PM
say no MORE.
http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/10/sweet-flesh-prize.html
plus the Grammy thing was so funny I laughed out loud.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 12, 2009 9:24 PM
People who suggest that the Nobel has been politicized miss the point. The Nobel Peace Prize is political by definition. It is and always was awarded more to achieve a result rather than honor accomplishments. It was used to focus attention on apartheid in south Africa, human rights abuses in Russia and many other places in order to force change. The outed countries always complained about the political nature of the prize. They were correct about that political nature. Get over it.
The U.S. is the last superpower with by far the largest military. Our economic policy drives the world. When we go ape shit crazy like we did in the last decade it really scares the shit out of the rest of the world. The Peace Prize should be seen by Americans as a slap in the face. We Americans should have the grace to stand up and say "Yes we deserved that."
Thats what the Peace prize is for. Get over it.
Did Obama do anything to deserve the Prize? Probably not. In fact there is good reason to be disappointed in Obama. Will he do anything to deserve it? Again probably not. But we Americans deserved the slap in the face. And the chances that Obama will do something to deserve it is now slightly better. Thats what the Peace Prize is for.
As for turning down the Prize? I cannot imagine anything more destructive. We should accept it for the criticism that it is. And then we need to pressure Obama to live up to the prize.
Posted by: ppnl | October 12, 2009 9:31 PM
Oh, and
http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/
Posted by: ice9 | October 12, 2009 9:34 PM
This is what the "loyal opposition" is like:
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/21245741/detail.html
Do we really want to help these folks?
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2009 10:02 PM
democommie-
Come on, that's an absurd argument and you know it. Yes, there are crazy, vile people who think Obama doesn't deserve the prize. There are also perfectly reasonable people who think that. That does not mean that by expressing our views we are helping those people. Yes, there are racists who criticize Obama. So therefore no one else should criticize him lest they "help" those racists? You're too intelligent to use that kind of argument.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 10:15 PM
Ed:
I'm not so sure that I am too intelligent to use that kind of argument.
I've been listening to, and reading, unrelenting criticism of Obama and his policies and administration since before he even took office. I feel that the sort of thing I linked to is, as you say, vile and I also feel that if something of equivalent vileness were publicly displayed about our last president, especially if it was done by a black person, it would result in 24/7 news coverage and, almost certainly, vigilante style violence. The fact that it hasn't been all over the news (and it's been going on for some time, now) is a testament to the fact that people in the media just think it's not a big deal
I don't agree with your take on the NPP and Obama, but I'm not lumping you or other people here (except the trolls) in with that p.o.s. who put up the sign, or his fellow travelers. What I'm saying is that those folks take any criticism as a cue to ratchet up the insanity. That's all. I really don't want to argue about this, it's totally pointless, for me, to do so.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2009 10:31 PM
Gretchen wrote:
I think the word "peace" is the problem. It sets up expectations which the written intent of the Prize doesn't follow-up on, very much. Nor do expectations like yours show up in a majority of the past winners (especially not when "at great personal risk" is appended, as with Mr. Brayton).
It's one thing to say that the Nobel Committee should modify its criteria for handing out the Prize. It's quite another to say that a recipient of the Prize doesn't deserve it because he doesn't meet the criteria that a person wants the Committee to use (but clearly doesn't).
Imagine if Mr. Brayton wrote a post claiming that one of his poker opponents didn't deserve to win because Mr. Brayton thought that the rules of the game should be different.
Posted by: Dave W. | October 12, 2009 10:37 PM
I'm with you, Ed. I love Obama (which does not mean I never criticize him), but I want to list a few people:
Eleanor Roosevelt
Cesar Chavez
Vaclav Havel
Corazon Aquino
the Tibetan monks protesting the 2008 Olympics
None of these people ever won. And don't get me started on the Nobel Prize for Literature. Many, many great writers never won that, either. (Nabokov, Tolstoy, Waugh, Joyce, Proust...)
Posted by: Kristine | October 12, 2009 11:32 PM
democommie wrote:
Then what on earth was the point of asking if we want to "help" those people, who are obviously vile racists, in the context of this thread? The only possible meaning is that you are claiming that criticizing Obama, even legitimately, somehow helps those people. That's not just wrong, it's ridiculous and offensive.
Posted by: Ed Braytons | October 12, 2009 11:38 PM
Dave W. wrote:
Yet another really, really bad argument. Poker is a game with a specific set of rules agreed to in advance; it is thus not analogous to the giving of such an award. But the fact is that the NPP has long been given to people not because they've fostered multinational diplomacy or worked for world peace but because they stood as stark examples of bravery in the fight against injustice and oppression. That's true of Martin Luther King, Andrei Sakharov, Bishop Tutu and many others. At other times it's been given for different reasons. There is no single set of rules for qualification, the standards are whatever the Nobel committee decides they are each year. As such, they are obviously open to debate and it should hardly come as a shock that people debate them. It's reasonable to attempt to engage my argument on its own terms and attempt to argue that Obama does deserve it; it's pointless to argue that criticizing the decision in and of itself is wrong.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 12, 2009 11:47 PM
With respect (and with apologies for a long post), I disagree. I understand the arguments against the award, an my first reaction was, great, he won for being Not-Bush, and yes, it was a political choice. On reconsideration, I think he has fully earned it and was an excellent choice.
First, peace is a political goal, pursued through political means, and the peace prize is an explicitly political award, often given to tip the scales toward peace in a process that is not yet concluded (e.g. prizes to Kissinger, Arafat, and Martin Luther King). Being appropriately inspirational is one of the aspects of getting the job done. Undoubtedly this award will raise the bar for Obama and he will be conscious of it through the rest of his presidency, and if it motivates him to do the right thing a little more frequently or urgently or forcefully, so much the better - that would be political capital well spent by the Norwegian committee.
Second, Obama has accomplished a lot. I would have given him the award simply for getting elected, starting to turn America around, and significantly limiting hurt to the world’s poorer countries by minimizing the recession (to which he contributed significantly even before getting elected). His election, as a biracial guy carrying all of the baggage of a black man in America, was a gigantic historic milestone of great future social and symbolic significance, on par with the ending of apartheid. However, the committee didn’t cite that.
He has got North Korea back into negotiations and made progress with Iran (in part via involving China and Russia in positive ways). He gave a great and respectful speech to the Islamic world. He has started consulting with other nations, gave a great speech to the UN, and has re-engaged the US with international efforts on climate change, nuclear weapons, and human rights. His ratcheting down of the Bush era craziness, turning America away from being a bullying, torturing nation that disregards treaties and the rule of law when they are inconvenient allowed the world to breathe a huge sigh of relief. From http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...iew/index.html [quote] The prize for peace [is] to 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 of peace congresses." [/quote] So he’s done a huge amount for fraternity between nations.
However, above and beyond all else he scores highly for nuclear disarmanent (“reduction of standing armies”). In the senate he worked to fund the securing of Russian nukes. Since then, he has made really impressive progress toward reducing US and Russian nuclear arsenals. From last July 5th at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...05-obama_N.htm
[quote] MOSCOW — President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev struck a preliminary deal Monday to reduce their nations' stockpiles of nuclear warheads to as few as 1,500 each, aiming toward the lowest levels of any U.S.-Russia arms control agreement. The document signed by the two leaders at a Moscow summit, Obama's first in Russia, is meant to guide negotiators as the nations work toward a replacement pact for the START arms control agreement, which expires in December. The joint understanding, signed after about three hours of talks at the Kremlin, also commits the new treaty to lower each nation's longer-range missiles for delivering nuclear bombs to between 500 and 1,100. Under current treaties, each country is allowed a maximum of 2,200 warheads and 1,600 launch vehicles. A White House statement said the new treaty "will include effective verification measures." ............
The leaders also announced several other deals meant to show progress toward resetting badly damaged U.S.-Russian relations. ....... They outlined other ways to work together to help stabilize Afghanistan, including increasing assistance to the Afghan army and police and training counternarcotics personnel. A joint statement said the United States and Russia welcomed increased international support for upcoming Afghan elections and they were prepared to help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the "common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking."
Other side agreements include reviving a joint commission to try to account for missing service members of both countries dating back to World War II and new cooperation on public health issues. "The United States and Russia have more in common than they have differences," Obama said as he and Medvedev first sat down in an ornate Kremlin room. His host launched the high-stakes summit with similar good will. ......... Obama arrived in Moscow for a two-day visit in an effort to "reset" relations with Russia after years of tension. Besides revising the START, Obama also wants Russia's help to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. "The main thing that I want to communicate to Russian leadership and the Russian people is America's respect for Russia," Obama told Russian television this weekend. "We want to deal as equals."[/quote]
Yes, it's all words so far, but they are extremely encouraging ones for the rest of the world, particularly after years of unproductive and ignorant "bring it on" republican belligerence and arrogance.
I agree that Obama hasn't made enough progress on these fronts yet, but he's started on what will be a long and difficult process, and the Peace Prize should encourage him, stiffen his resolve, and lend moral encouragement to the effort (as it is often intended to do). However, what he has already done is already much to his credit because it was his inspirational story and his inspirational rhetoric that made all of that possible, because three or four years ago the future looked like republican hell as far as the mind could imagine. Turning around the world's largest superpower, or even just starting to, is one heck of an accomplishment. (And if he actually gets the job done, they can always give him a second prize afterward.) Yes, most of that stuff would have been done by Gore or Kerry, but Bush was such a disaster that even if the prize was entirely for being Not-Bush, I'd be fine with that. The degree to which being Not-Bush becomes something to reward indicates just exactly how much more we lost with Bush in office than just eight wasted years.
Posted by: N.Wells | October 13, 2009 12:33 AM
And I didn't even mention world gratitude over his removing Cheney, Bolton, Feith, and the other republicans/neocons from the world stage, and preventing a McCain-Palin administration.
Posted by: N.Wells | October 13, 2009 12:40 AM
See, this is probably why you excel at the game. You know very well that even though poker has rules, every game is a new and exciting adventure in bullshit and randomness. I don't even play the game and I know that.
That's why it's a game and not a law of nature.
Yes, at other times it is given for different reasons. Like the ones given in the press release for the Obama nomination.
Posted by: Leni | October 13, 2009 2:00 AM
I wonder. If this child or this one belonged to any of the people here defending Obama, would they still feel the same way? Could it be that liberal Democrats share the same view of foreign civilians that conservative Republicans do? Are foreign civilians truly less valuable than American ones? If Obama authorized frivolous military actions in the U.S. which blew apart and burned alive scores of innocent men, women, and children, would you still be saying, "Well, he's doing his best!" Or does it depend on which political party the Commander-in-Chief of the the military belongs to?
It seems incredible to me that thinking people can actually believe that the man who authorized the actions which lead to those pictures, along with many other, worse things (imagine those children and/or their parents blown to pieces and burned alive), deserves any kind of "peace" prize.
It is no different from thinking Reagan valued freedom and smaller government. It's an act of pure faith (religious in its intensity), absolutely divorced from objective reality.
Posted by: LJM | October 13, 2009 2:21 AM
Ed Brayton wrote:
It was a poor analogy, you're right, but only because I placed you in the wrong spot. It should have been about you saying that the winner of a poker championship in which you had no involvement was undeserving of the title because the rules should have been different.
You keep on harping on this fact, but present only three examples out of a field of 99 Laureates. Here are six counter-examples: the International Red Cross, Linus Pauling, Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, the UN and Teddy Roosevelt.
I asked you earlier for evidence that the "tradition" you referred to was, indeed, so. At what percentage should we set the standard for "tradition?" 10%? 15%?
Nevermind. This is but a quibble.
No, what's wrong is saying that the recipient of a prize for which you don't know the criteria is "undeserving." The evidence that Obama deserves the Prize is obvious: 1) he won it, 2) nobody has yet put forth any reason to believe that whatever the Committee's standard practice is, it was somehow circumvented such that Obama doesn't meet those unknown criteria, but they called him the winner, anyway.
The fact that instead of putting forth such a case, you were required to invent criteria by which Obama would fail shows that your own argument is tissue-thin and unsupported. This is true even if the unknown criteria by which the winner is picked every year involves a blindfold, paper slips and a hat. Just because we're in a knowledge vacuum regarding the "rules" of this contest doesn't mean that your made-up rules are either correct or sufficient to determine that the announced winner should not have won. Until you can show evidence of cheating the process, the idea that he doesn't deserve it is just wrong.
You are, of course, free to debate whatever criteria you'd like for what you think should constitute the standards by which this award (or any others) should be given out. Have fun with that. But to slap down a moral judgment about an actual winner based on your fictional standards is itself a moral failure.
As an Obama voter, I'm fairly appalled at some of the stuff he's done and not done. The hopes he generated for me have pretty much all been dashed, we seem to be back to business-as-usual, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a solidly Republican legislature voted in next year given the backlash I suspect is coming and the easy campaigning the Right will have, fueled as it will be by broken promises and unrealistic expectations. So Obama's NPP lifts me up about as much as a mouse's flatulence can make an elephant soar. And I don't pretend to understand why, exactly, Obama won the NPP (neither, apparently, does he), but win it he did, and until someone can come up with evidence that the actual process of picking the winner was corrupted, I have to assume that he was picked fairly, and so yes, he deserved to win it.
Posted by: Dave W. | October 13, 2009 2:24 AM
Ed:
Be offended if that's what you want to be. It is not even close to what my comment said.
What I said is:
"What I'm saying is that those folks take any criticism as a cue to ratchet up the insanity. That's all."
Did you read that? Is it not clear that I'm saying that people who are being crazed and idiotic take ANY criticism from any quarter as justification to be even crazier and more idiotic?
And my saying it's totally pointless for ME to argue about this situation is just the truth. I am not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine. Your posts are all opinion based in this matter, as are everyone's comments. We do not and probably never will know the true reasons for the NPP's committee choice. While it may be perfectly true that we can somehow influence their decision making process by dint of arguing about it here, it's another thing we probably can't KNOW.
I appreciate your diligence and scholarship on this blog. I appreciate that you allow for lively, even nasty conversations between commenters. I respect your decision on this, I simply disagree with it. After reading dozens of post and hundreds of comments over the last three or four days I've come to the conclusion that most of the folks commenting, here and elsewhere are not likely to waver.
Excepting those whose arguments are made in bad faith, I accept that their views are based on an honest appraisal of the facts available for consideration. The reasons for differences in opinion, as far as I can determine, have far more to do with the ideologies and viewpoints of the commenters than they do with people arguing about different sets of facts.
That's why I said it's pointless for me to argue about this situation--and yet here I am, doing it again!:) but not for long, It's 2:35 and I'm going back to bed.
Posted by: democommie | October 13, 2009 2:36 AM
Could it really be that "liberal Democrats" and "conservative Republicans" just all happen to share an opinion which you conveniently happen to be right in the middle of? *Gasp*
How utterly shocking.
How even more shocking that both of these extremes want babies to die.
Do you really think that military action against a nation that not only knowingly harbored terrorists but actively sought human rights abuses far worse that that which you complain about is "frivolous"? They harbored a cult whose greatest wish is to watch someone like you or me choke on her own blood.
I mean, I am hardly a hawk but come the fuck on, lady. Should we post some videos of how nice it was when the Taliban in charge? Of what they did to people? And not just *any* people, but their own friends, neighbors and family members? Their daughters, sisters, mothers, brothers, sons and fathers?
Would you like to see some videos of little girls getting burned with acid because their parents dared to partially educate them? Would you like to see videos of women getting beaten in the streets? Would you like to see some widows getting their brains blown out in a soccer field? Well, at least as much as their burkas will allow, anyway...
I'm sorry, but in what universe would this perversity of justice be acceptable?
A) I don't think anyone thinks he's doing his best- that's the problem and B) nice false dichotomy.
Posted by: Leni | October 13, 2009 3:26 AM
Dave W @71,
I knew my analogy wasn't perfect, but yours is simply appalling. Comparing "wearing fur and eating meat" to denying people the right to a trial and claiming unlimited executive authority to lock people up for the rest of their lives without due process of trial?
Really? Really?
How about this one?
Oh, wait, that's not really a good analogy either--it's just the plain fucking truth.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 13, 2009 7:40 AM
Collective punishment is a war crime. What "nation" is the current military action against? The one that's lead by Karzai?
Posted by: windy | October 13, 2009 8:32 AM
Dave W said:
Wow, you actually believe that winning an award without corruption in the award process necessarily implies deserving that award? That's astounding. I don't think I have encountered such a bizarre view of "deservingness" before.
Posted by: cm | October 13, 2009 10:42 AM
democommie said:
Uh, yeah, other than the crucial part that you left out here: "Do we really want to help those folks?". It is not up to Ed or anyone to do the mental work to make that comment seem like anything other than what it seems like: that you think criticizing Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace prize somehow helps these people, and that therefore we shouldn't make such criticisms. Which is, as Ed said, a ridiculous point.
Posted by: cm | October 13, 2009 10:50 AM
democommie wrote:
Then you are saying exactly what I said you said, or at least very clearly implying it: that we should not criticize Obama because doing so "helps" those racist nutjobs. And quite frankly, that is about as ridiculous an argument as has ever been made here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 13, 2009 10:54 AM
cm:
Thank you for telling me what I think. Would you like an abject apology or a shit sandwich (here's a hint, I'm all out of abject apologies).
Posted by: democommie | October 13, 2009 10:54 AM
Demo:
If you have that nice chewy rye, then I'm in.
ice
PS I propose that we cap this thread at 100 and move on.
9
Posted by: ice9 | October 13, 2009 11:42 AM
democommie -
How can this award be, simultaneously, not worth having while being too good for the likes of Mr. Obama?
My last comment up there was going to be my last about this topic and I am going to stick to that, while trying to answer your question.
I look at it a lot like I look at the occasional theological argument I get into. I am no longer a Christian, yet I am willing to engage in such discussions from the presumption that Christianity is valid. It doesn't change my underlying assumption that Christianity is not valid - it just means that I am accepting a certain paradigm for the sake of discussion.
That is very much the perspective I have discussed this from, with the addition that I think this just further invalidates the relevance of the Nobel peace prize.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 13, 2009 1:43 PM
How even more shocking that both of these extremes want babies to die.
Misrepresenting an argument is a terrible way to argue, and yet fairly common among ideologues and partisan loyalists. I never said that anyone wanted babies to die, only that they don't care so much when our military kills foreign civilians.
Do you really think that military action against a nation that not only knowingly harbored terrorists but actively sought human rights abuses far worse that that which you complain about is "frivolous"? They harbored a cult whose greatest wish is to watch someone like you or me choke on her own blood.
Windy responded best to this in #94, simply and effectively illustrating how weak and irrational this argument is.
I mean, I am hardly a hawk but come the fuck on, lady. Should we post some videos of how nice it was when the Taliban in charge? Of what they did to people? And not just *any* people, but their own friends, neighbors and family members? Their daughters, sisters, mothers, brothers, sons and fathers?
I'm not a lady, actually, and if you think it's necessary to occasionally blow up and burn alive innocent men, women, and children because they live in a place with bad people everywhere, then, yes, you are a hawk. You're especially a hawk because you can't seem to accept that these people are dying in exchange for no progress against the enemy. And every argument you make is the same argument hawks made 40 years ago when we were in Viet Nam.
The rest of your post is the same point repeated over and over. You're basically saying we have to continue to occasionally sacrifice innocent people in order to make no progress against an evil group of people intent on taking over a country where most of the civilians we're occasionally killing don't want our protection.
Afghanistan is hardly the only nation where great atrocities occur (ones not committed by the U.S., even) and terrorists train. Where shall we begin to accidentally kill civilians? North Korea? Somalia? Sudan? Iran? Pakistan?
It's a failed policy not just because of the pictures I posted above, but because it has been demonstrated to not work.
You should either reassess your position on a demonstrably failed policy which needlessly kills innocent people, or accept that you are, indeed, a hawk.
Posted by: LJM | October 13, 2009 1:43 PM
James Hadley wrote:
I see, you're going to place value judgements on the example value judgements being made in the analogy, thus ignoring the point.
I seriously hope not, but it's up to you.
Posted by: Dave W. | October 13, 2009 3:13 PM
cm wrote:
In the absence of knowledge of the criteria for winning, what other standard for "deservingness" could exist? If Obama was nominated fairly, received no more or less consideration than any other nominee with his resume, was measured justly against whatever the judging criteria were and came out on the top of the pile, how could he not deserve to win it?
Perhaps you could give me an example of an uncorrupted but undeserving win of some prize where the criteria are open and known? I can't think of any. I can think of plenty of ways for undeserving people to win things, but they all involve some sort of injustice on someone's part.
Posted by: Dave W. | October 13, 2009 3:34 PM
Dave W. wrote:
I think the disparity in our views of "deserving" comes about due to our disparate views of the idea of "judging criteria".
In any award procedure, if judging criteria are entirely quantifiable and objective, that is, if they truly are measures (an example of such a thing in the real world might be college grade point averages), then I can understand how the word "deserves" reduces trivially to "is found to be the winner". In fact, in such cases, a computer could be used to select the winner unambiguously.
However, in many award procedures, including the Nobel Peace Prize, judging criteria are not like this. Instead, there are general guidelines or directives that are open to the interpretation of judges expressing subjective judgments about the candidate's fit to those criteria. As soon as we fall away from objective and quantifiable criteria, one is free to disagree with the judgments of the award judges. For example, many disagreed that the best Heavy Metal band of 1989 ought to have gone to Jethro Tull--as it did--when Metallica was one of the other nominees. This is to say, Jethro Tull did not deserve to win, because the judges made a poor judgment, a poor interpretation of the criteria. Of course, the criteria here were wide open: the band merely had to be a heavy metal band, and the "best" one, whatever that means. Few view Tull as heavy metal at all, and so the comic inappropriateness of the decision.
The Nobel Peace Prize does have stated criteria, but if we look at them, they are still wide open to interpretation. And in addition to the stated criteria, willed to Oslo by Alfred Nobel, many people carry around a reasonable notion of what any Peace Prize worth its salt ought to use as criteria, namely, the advancement of peace. Therefore, when one disagrees with the choice of award, stating Obama didn't deserve it, one means that either of the following are true: the judges failed to judge the merits of the winner properly given their criteria, and/or the judges failed to judge the merits of the winner according to a reasonable person's criteria for any peace prize.
Uhhh, the 2004 Oscar nominations. "Million Dollar Baby" won, but I don't think that is a better film than "Ray" or "Sideways".
Posted by: cm | October 13, 2009 4:05 PM
cm, we can reduce many subjective aspects into measures, the most popular of which might be "rate thing X on a scale of 1 to 10." It happens all the time, and honest ratings tend to follow more some sort of bell curve, and less the flat line of a truly random result.
But I'm not saying that the Nobel Committee has created a slew of such measures and fed all the results into a comparator and out popped Obama's name, but a reasonable notion might be that the judges take their jobs seriously and so would try to minimize their personal feelings towards the candidates so as to make a less subjective choice. That they measured him justly against whatever criteria they used, instead of allowing bias and favoritism to rule.
You wrote:
The former is the corruption of the process for which we have no evidence. The latter depends upon a common-sense notion of what the prize is for, and like with the speed of light or quantum mechanics, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has its own quirky behavior which doesn't lend itself to common sense analysis. And so it's not reasonable to apply the "reasonable notion" standard and judge deservedness based on it, no more than it's reasonable to say that the photons leaving the headlights on my car are going 186,000 miles per second plus 60 MPH. This is the heart of my reply to Mr. Brayton.
(Actually, I was under the impression that the Oscars are just about always fraught with troubles related to unfair judging, including voting for films without watching them or voting for an actor because it's "his year." So the Oscars are about as far from uncorrupted as I think one can get without outright graft, assuming the best. And Tull? Metal? How was that nomination even accepted?)
Posted by: Dave W. | October 13, 2009 5:42 PM
Dave W:
So? Such mappings of ratings onto a scale are convenient, but do nothing to remove the subjective nature of the ratings. On a scale of 1-10, I give King Crimson a 10; my wife probably would give them a 3. We cannot appeal to some objective arbiter to tell us that King Crimson "really" is a 9.7 (though, as it turns out, that actually is objectively true, but I don't have time to prove that here). We can only get people's subjective ratings.
So what should we do with subjective ratings?
This brings me to your point about the distribution of ratings following a bell curve. You're right: in some cases, some ratings are more frequent than others, and that means there is a sizable faction in agreement. We can use that to at very least inform our evaluation of any individual judgment. E.g. if someone says that Franklin Roosevelt was a passive and inert president, we should at least hesitate in taking their rating as informed or astute, since it differs so much from the overwhelming peak rating of FDR as rather active (and we could then appeal to his record to help corroborate).
My condemnation of the NPP committee's pick is a case of refusing to defer to this "individual" (well, small group of people) judgment in the "well, I guess they know better than I do" way because their pick strikes me as odd or inconsistent enough with common notions of peace prize-meriting actions to trigger my (and many people's) incredulity.
That is a fairly reasonable, if charitable, assumption, but it cannot be allowed to stand without any challenge if the decisions of the judges strike one as odd or inconsistent with one's own judgment or one's notion of what most would consider reasonable. This is because people are not guaranteed to be good judges. Very often, people exercise poor judgment--even if they are in positions of prestige or ought to display acumen. The phrase "He should have known better" is well-established in our usage because it is, sadly, all too often applicable.
You are asserting that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is above the rules of common and reasonable notions of what a peace prize ought to be given out for. As soon as you assert that, yes, of course, no one can legitimately take issue with their decision, because they have driven off the rails of reason. But of course they ought to be bound by reasonable notions, ones that are not inscrutable to intelligent persons like Ed Brayton, yourself, myself, and others. This is not some arcane discipline like orchid horticulture in which variations of sepal length given stamen turgidity can win the blue ribbon--this is about peace, the major goal of all of civilization. Unlike relativistic effects, we should be able to understand their rationale without straining.
That is very likely to be right; good point.
Now that I think about it, the category was "Hard Rock/Heavy Metal", so it's not quite as bad, but it is still a joke considering the hard rock album was "Crest of a Knave".
Posted by: cm | October 13, 2009 6:59 PM
Well, now that the NPP Committee has spoken:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/Tacoma/24hour/front/story/914540.html
we can start all over again.
DuWayne:
Yeah, I thought it might be an explanation of that sort from some folks, certainly not from everyone. FWIW, I respect your decision, although I disagree.
Posted by: democommie | October 13, 2009 8:08 PM
The point that is lost on nearly everyone is Obama's sense of personal responsibility. It isn't so much whether the Nobel committee thought Obama deserved it but whether Obama thought he deserved it. And if he thinks it is morally(I know - a quaint notion) permissible to accept an award he believes he doesn't deserve - regardless of the political consequences? I cannot imagine accepting such a prestigious award in the full glare of the global spotlight without feeling that the award is merited. All other considerations must be relegated to this question: Do I deserve this prize... this recognition? If the honest answer from your conscience comes back - "no" - then you have to politely decline the award. Anything less reveals something amiss. Is the award really worth the humiliation of being skewered on SNL?.... the butt of private jokes worldwide? Does anyone not blinded by partisan bias really think this award was not premature and misguided however well intentioned?
Posted by: Manny Alvarez | October 13, 2009 8:12 PM
Manny Alvarez, 108: Do I deserve this prize... this recognition? If the honest answer from your conscience comes back - "no" - then you have to politely decline the award.
Are you making a claim about a general ethical principal about what I should do in that situation? Why should I do what you think is right in this case? Maybe I have different opinion on what I should do if I were in this situation.
--
Does anyone not blinded by partisan bias...
Hmm. Sudden accusations of partisan bias makes me suspicious of your partisan bias. I mean, why can't it be a simple disagreement based on different principles or a different point of view?
--
...really think this award was not premature and misguided however well intentioned?
I dunno. I probably wouldn't have awarded Obama the Nobel myself, but I wouldn't call the decision of the committee "premature" or "misguided." Me, I just say that the committee has made a judgement based on criteria that I wouldn't have used and say it is a difference of opinion.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 13, 2009 8:30 PM
Call me nutz, but I don't see where Obama had the luxury of time. This all happened very quickly. He could have, of course, said, "Really, I WON the Nobel Peace Prize, tres cool. Now, what's on at 8:30?".
There is what, 80 something days between now and the award date. Plenty of time for him to digest the whole thing and think about reasons for accepting or declining the prize. It's not like he has anything else on his schedule.
Posted by: democommie | October 13, 2009 9:31 PM
cm wrote:
Actually, "inscrutable" is a very good descriptor. The Committee is far from open about its deliberations, we outsiders have very few data points and the political context against which the decisions are made changes constantly. If we look at the process as a block box into which the state of the world is entered along with a list of nominees, and out the other end pops a name or two, once a year, then yes, I think that just 99 winners and their announcements is a very tiny set of data from which to think one can generalize enough to conclude who's deserving and who's not.
But on a year-by-year basis, it's not about peace, the over-arching concept, but about ending some individual conflicts, or reducing tensions which might lead to war, or reducing poverty, or putting the brakes on nuclear craziness, or a bunch of other justifications the Committee has offered over 100+ years. But no person or group won for ending World War I or II, which are probably the biggest "peace events" in the last century. The idea that the Prize is awarded for some general notion of peace seems simplistic in that light.
As I said before, I think the word "peace" in the name of the prize is misleading. Looking at the current and some previous winners, it seems more like the Nobel We'll-Give-It-To-Whoever-We-Feel-Like Prize (which it is, no matter what they call it), in which case it really is impossible to say that Obama's not deserving.
Posted by: Dave W. | October 13, 2009 10:50 PM
Dave W, I do think I understand your view, though I don't share it. Thanks for the discussion.
Posted by: cm | October 13, 2009 11:44 PM
I don't have a cite for this, but it's a list of reptiliKKKan "talking points" about why the NPP/Obama thing is happening.
"As Ron Chusid quotes quote former Carter administration speechwriter Jerome Doolittle:
1. What do you expect from a bunch of socialists?
2. Not that I’m a racist, but I know affirmative action when I see it.
3. Carter, Gore, Obama? Do we see a pattern here?
4. A clumsy attempt by Europe to save a failing presidency.
5. The Norwegians are just using Obama to slap George W. Bush in the face.
6. Besides, who cares what a bunch of geeks in Oslo think? The International Olympic Committee speaks for the whole world.
7. No thinking person has taken the Nobel Peace Prize seriously since Reagan didn’t win one for ending the Cold War.
8. We elect a president to keep America safe, not to win prizes.
9. True leadership is not an international popularity contest.
10. Peace is no big deal anyway. No, wait a minute. Strike that last one."
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2009 8:21 AM
Chiroptera 109, "Are you making a claim about a general ethical principal about what I should do in that situation?" uh...yes I am. a general ethical principle is true for me and you and everyone else. That isn't to say that it is an absolute principle. But i think it is safe to say that if you grant that it is "wrong" to accept an undeserved award in general, the particular circumstances of this award to Obama do not present significant ethical conflicts that would make it unethical for him to decline it.
"Sudden accusations of partisan bias makes me suspicious of your partisan bias." I'm trying to figure out what could cause normally intelligent people to be so impervious to reason. The most likely suspect is partisan bias.
"I probably wouldn't have awarded Obama the Nobel myself, but I wouldn't call the decision of the committee "premature" or "misguided."
Why not call it what it is? It is premature because Obama may in fact deserve this award some day but clearly doesn't today. And they are misguided if they think this will affect his decision making at all. In fact it makes it harder for him to pursue the policies they intend to encourage by complicating the political fallout of Obama's decisions.
Just because you can see that this award is a joke doesn't mean that you hate Obama. And hating Obama doesn't make this award any less foolish. By any objective measure, personal motivations aside, this award to Obama was a bad idea cooked up by an imprudent Norwegian committee and he should have graciously passed.
Posted by: Manny Alvarez | October 14, 2009 8:16 PM
Manny Alvarez:
I don't where Chrioptera is at the moment, I'm not answering for him.
That's a reasonable analysis and opinion. It is an opinion which I disagree with. As I stated earlier, Mr. Obama did not have the luxury of time to sit and think about how to respond to this award by the Nobel folks. He had to respond in real time to something by which he was apparently blindsided.
I can't say whether he deserves the NPP. I don't know enough about either Mr. Obama or the Oslo committee's criteria for making the selection nor, I suspect, do you.
Considering the ambivalence with which many commenters on this blog have viewed Mr. Obama since his assuming office it is not surprising to me that many people are angry about what they perceive to be an undeserved award to a man they feel is not only not doing what he should but who is doing many things he should not. They are entitled to their views, as I am entitled to my view that there's a lot of stuff going on and it's not unreasonable to think that the awarding of the NPP is not the single most important item on Mr. Obama's agenda.
I'm sure if he gets back over Chiroptera will reply to your comment in his own way.
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2009 10:16 PM
Manny Alvarez, #114: But i think it is safe to say that if you grant that it is "wrong" to accept an undeserved award in general....
This may be where we disagree. I don't feel that it is wrong to accept an undeserved award in general. It may be wrong in some circumstances, and it may be alright in others. And which circumstances are wrong and which are alright may be a subjective opinion of the person chosen for the award.
In Obama's case, he admitted that he didn't deserve the award. I see no reason as yet to believe that he isn't sincere. He also seems to have decided that there isn't an ethical barrier to his accepting the award anyway. Me, I don't feel that I'm in a position to second guess his decision.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 14, 2009 10:44 PM
LJM wrote:
Sorry about that! My mistake and I shouldn't have assumed.
(It was the babies thing.)
I didn't say it was necessary. I said it wasn't for frivolous reasons.
Posted by: Leni | October 14, 2009 11:44 PM