We were talking about this in my American Politics class the other day. My Professor said it (he wasn't the first I had heard it from, though).

Also, just think about it. There is no doubt at all that Obama's mother is American. Why are they making a big deal about him being born in Hawaii or not? If all he needed was to not have to apply for voting rights, there would be no debate at all. He never would have had to produce evidence he was born here or put up a website trying to discredit his opponents. No, he would have just said it didn't matter if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or Mars. His mom is American, so he can run. But that's not what happened. He had to prove that he was born in Hawaii.

They ok'd a bill that would give $829 billion in health care to approximately 29 million more Americans than was already covered, mostly those who are too poor to afford their own health care. Even insinuating that this is for him and not the people is ludicrous. He's trying to give health care to anyone who needs it. This will, in all likelihood, go down as the best thing a President has done since FDR and will save thousands of people a year. (Yes, I am a VERY strong supporter of universal/socialized health care. It was one of the few things that the Dems wanted to do that I agreed with this past election)

I don't follow what Obama does very closely, 'cause I don't live in the States, but I think the Peace Prize this time, gave Obama the award for what he is going to do, not for what he had done.

He based his campaign around improving welfare, improving US relations with everyone else, as well as education (I might be wrong, but I distinctively remember reading about them. I followed the US elections closely because it affects the world in general).

These are potentially world-changing policies. Improving education, helping more Americans, improving US's public relations, all these would go a long way. Of course, that's coming from a non-American.

So I think whether he deserves the award or not remains to be seen, but the committee's decision to give it to him, is a smart decision to remind him that the world's watching.

I disagree. It should not be about what he's going to do, but about what he's done. If everything he said he was going to do was Peace Prize worthy, then keep him in mind, but don't just give it to him. Lots of people say they're going to do lots of things, but that doesn't mean they're automatically going to do them. He hasn't earned it yet.

I know what you're saying but they, the "lots of people", aren't the President of the United States of America.

You would realise being the POTUS has its benefits, including at least half the world looking carefully and dissecting every single word you say.


Last Edit: Oct 14, 2009 18:59:06 GMT by Kai

Yes, but I don't think that makes him any more or less likely to follow through with what he said. It's easy to say a lot of things. Execution isn't so easy, even if that person has every intent of trying.

I disagree with that. It's not easy to say a lot of things if you're holding such power and under such public scrutinising.

Think of it as a "A" your teacher would give you in school to encourage you, even if you really don't deserve it.

They gave the award to the one who happens to have the power to literally change the world, as an encouragement and as a reminder. If you're talking about actual achievements then of course, he doesn't "deserve it". But I'm pretty sure the committee aren't just taking into consideration what he has done, but what he can achieve.

Given his direction so far, I think what he will do, will eventually make him "deserve" the award. If he doesn't then well, the power is in your hands the next election, isn't it?


Last Edit: Oct 14, 2009 19:26:30 GMT by Kai

I am. This is the one thing from his campaign (and Clinton's, for that matter) that I really liked. Other than their health care stances, I supported neither. As for when you get it, I have no idea. Pretty sure it still needs to go through the House first.

---

.XeroCint and Luci: This is easier than quoting a single post. As Mitch Albom put it, why not give Russel Crowe's 5 year old son an Oscar today? Russel Crowe has done great things in the world of acting, I'm sure his son will deserve that award someday. You wouldn't do that, would you? Or hand the Super Bowl championship to the Vikings today because they are undefeated and, arguably, the best team in the NFL sporting two of the best players in the league at the moment.

The same goes for Obama; the office of the President has done amazing things in the past and he shows promise to do great things as well. However, he has not done these things yet. He may never do these things; we do not know.

Give it to someone who deserves it, say Tsutomu Yamaguchi for his lifetime pursuit of nuclear disarmament (And who wouldn't, had they survived two atomic bombs?). Tsutomu Yamaguchi has actually done something with his life and without power. From articles I have read, he was a key proponent for the Three Non-Nuclear Principles which has kept the world's most technologically advanced nation, Japan, without nuclear weapons for the entirety of their history.

The point is... why give it someone who has done nothing but talk over someone who has done something remarkable with their life, other than for the publicity? Going back to what Albom said, controversy brings press to oneself.

I haven't really read all 5 pages of this topic, so I will just kinda join in......

There is only one reason why Obama got it - he replaced Bush. Al Gore, Bush's opponent got it last time. Seriously, the people who decided this stuff give it to anyone who "takes Bush out"

Gore was the figurehead of something big, though. That documentary is one of the more important ones in recent memory (I don't feel like debating this. Just take it with a grain of salt). With one movie, he became the head of the green movement for the world. And bringing peace to the environment (an odd take on the whole Nobel Peace Prize thing but it can be contrived as a war between man and nature) is just as, if not, more important than bringing human peace is.

I do think the cause for which Tsutomu Yamaguchi is fighting for, is good. I believe in his cause.

But back to the peace prize:

The will of Nobel: "one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Recognition time lag: "Nobel's will provides for prizes to be awarded in recognition for discoveries made "during the preceding year", and for the first years of the awards, the discoveries recognized were recent"

[Source: Wikipedia]

I think based on this, Obama fits the bill much more than Yamaguchi does. Yes he may not have done much in the preceding year. But that one year recognition lag would put a time frame to what he has to do in order to be "recognised". I still believe that the award, for this time round, is given as a reminder and encouragement, more than an actual affirmation of past actions and contribution. Certainly controversial, but I think the committee's decisions is certainly not without reason.


Last Edit: Oct 14, 2009 20:03:38 GMT by Kai

Okay, give me a peace price. Maybe it'll encourage me to do something peaceful.

I don't care if he's the president or a fuckin' baby. No one deserves a peace prize until they have done SOMETHING. Obama has done nothing to earn it. He's only made plans. I don't care if there's a 99% chance he'll go through with those plans because there's still 1% chance he won't, and if the chances are so great, then wait for him to do it, then give it to him. If they believe so much in what he can do, they shouldn't need to "encourage" him. Especially since his plans are hardly peace prize worthy. You win a peace price when you do something monumental. Pushing for more diplomatic solutions to conflict is peaceful, but not monumental. Know how many fights I've avoided in my life because I was more willing to talk or turn the other cheek? Again, where's my prize?

Also, you brought up the argument that it's hard for someone like the president to say one thing and do another. Um...clearly you haven't paid attention to any president the US has ever had. Presidents say all kinds of things that they don't follow through with, either because they were lying, didn't have time to complete it, or didn't have the means of doing it. It's not always as malicious as lying, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. I'm trying to lose weight before I go to the Navy. I'm doing my damnedest. I'm working out, running, eating better, all that shit. DOESN'T MEAN I'M GONNA DROP 10 POUNDS IN A MONTH. Just because I want to, say I will, and try to doesn't mean it's just going to "happen".

bush?

hmm. lets see. 2 wars, billions of dollars of debt, and a recession.

you tell me.