I woke up a bit late this morning, in part due to the dark gloomy weather. In my mad dash to get to work, my wife said she heard that the President just won the Nobel Peace Prize. I told her she must of heard the story wrong, maybe he was honoring the person that won the prize. Throughout the day at work, I was too busy to read the news; and did not give her comment a second thought. That was until after 5:00 when I did check several online new sites; and what do you know- She was right.
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize today. The best explanation for the justification seems to be connected to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms. His overtures to the Muslim world, and his willingness to stress cooperation over the past administrations "With us or Against us" concept. Clearly the prize is, as is often the case, a tool for the Nobel committee to advance an agenda that they view as serving the cause of peace. Where as an Academy Award is given for achievement, this prize, seems to be about rewarding the president for the "Path and Tone" he had decided to take. This award is in part to help give the president the political capital to continue down a course they view as being consistent with creating a safer world.
I have always take pride in the fact that Americans have won more of these prizes than any other country. I love to read about each fellow US citizen that wins a prize in Chemistry, physics, literature and yes the Peace prize. I cheer them them on the same way I do each member of the US Olympic team. I have to believe it is natural, and yes patriotic to be happy that one of our-own won; that said, I'm not surprised that Conservatives must be up-set by the news.
True to my expectations; the comments from the "Right" have been swift and harsh.
There are comments that fall into the category best summed up by Michael Steele.
"What has President Obama actually accomplished?" said Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Then there are the "Over the top" and Yes Racist comments such as: Erick Erickson, writing on the conservative RedState.com, suggested Obama won in part because he is black.
"I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news," Erickson wrote. "There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period."
Rush Limbaugh called it a "greater embarrassment" than losing the Olympics. "This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama," Limbaugh told POLITICO.
Fox news seemed prepared to devote the majority of their space to explaining why the president, OUR PRESIDENT, should not be honored around the world.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chastised the GOP's Steele for his remarks, and noted that conservative activists had cheered when Obama failed last week to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago.
"I find it very very disappointing for the chairman of the Republican Party — after the cheers that went out when America lost the Olympics — to now be attacking our president, everyone's president in our country, at a time when he is being recognized on the world stage," Stabenow said.
Look, I'm not sure that I can point to a list of concrete things that OBama has done to justify wining the Nobel Prize, that said, I'm glad that I find my-self again living in a country that the majority of the world seems to believe is on the right path .
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friday, October 12, 2007
Does Al Gore deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
The Nobel Committee awarded Al Gore with it’s most prestigious prize. The Peace Prize. 
In explaining, what is clearly a controversial decision, the Nobel Committee said that Al Gore was the,
In explaining, what is clearly a controversial decision, the Nobel Committee said that Al Gore was the, "[S]ingle individual" responsible for convincing world government's that climate change was real, caused by human activity, and posed a threat to society”.
This choice by the committee is going to be a lightning rod stuck right in the heart of the committee, for the following reasons.
Al Gore is a leading voice in the Democratic Party.
Conservatives for years have been raising the valid question of why President Ronald Reagan, or at least Pope John Paul II, did not receive an award for their work towards ending the cold war and bringing greater freedom throughout Eastern Europe.
Is Global Warming really the threat Al Gore, The Panel on Climate Change
and most scientists say it is?
Would it have been more appropriate to award Gore, let’s say an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize.”
My answers to the above questions are:
1. Every decision has a large “Value” component. Last time I checked the noble Committee is in Sweden, definitely not a “Red State.” I do think that the more objective and evenhanded the decisions are, the more powerful they become.
2. There is no question that all of that “Evil Empire” rhetoric, I sure did little to help his chance at the “Peace Prize” The case for Pope John Paul II is much stronger.
3. I have to assume that the most direr of the predictions regarding global warming, fall into the category of “Hysteria”. While I do believe most of the basic science and data, the earth is such a complex system that it becomes extremely difficult to extrapolate out very far with dependable results. There is also the question that even if you believe that Global Warming is a real threat, that still leaves the questions, is it caused by man, and is there anything Man can do to change the Global Temperature?
I find it difficult to go against the overwhelming tide of scientists that seem convinced that Global Warming is a genuine problem. Some times I feel my position can best be described as “Better safe than sorry”. If even half of the predictions turn out to be valid, there is reason for concern. I can’t think of any other time that this large a percentage of scientists have gathered this much evidence and been completely wrong. (True there was a time the vast % of people believed the world to be flat, but that was not science speaking) .
4. Truth be told, I find “Why not an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize,” To be the most difficult question to answer. I assume the explanation would go something like:
If global warming causes floods and or draughts, or land get swallowed up by the sea, there will be mass displacement of population and that will result in great unrest and additional wars.
Was the committee sending a message, yes? Maybe they felt bad about not giving Gore an award for “Investing the Internet.”
Al Gore is a leading voice in the Democratic Party.
Conservatives for years have been raising the valid question of why President Ronald Reagan, or at least Pope John Paul II, did not receive an award for their work towards ending the cold war and bringing greater freedom throughout Eastern Europe.
Is Global Warming really the threat Al Gore, The Panel on Climate Change
and most scientists say it is?
Would it have been more appropriate to award Gore, let’s say an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize.”
My answers to the above questions are:
1. Every decision has a large “Value” component. Last time I checked the noble Committee is in Sweden, definitely not a “Red State.” I do think that the more objective and evenhanded the decisions are, the more powerful they become.
2. There is no question that all of that “Evil Empire” rhetoric, I sure did little to help his chance at the “Peace Prize” The case for Pope John Paul II is much stronger.
3. I have to assume that the most direr of the predictions regarding global warming, fall into the category of “Hysteria”. While I do believe most of the basic science and data, the earth is such a complex system that it becomes extremely difficult to extrapolate out very far with dependable results. There is also the question that even if you believe that Global Warming is a real threat, that still leaves the questions, is it caused by man, and is there anything Man can do to change the Global Temperature?
I find it difficult to go against the overwhelming tide of scientists that seem convinced that Global Warming is a genuine problem. Some times I feel my position can best be described as “Better safe than sorry”. If even half of the predictions turn out to be valid, there is reason for concern. I can’t think of any other time that this large a percentage of scientists have gathered this much evidence and been completely wrong. (True there was a time the vast % of people believed the world to be flat, but that was not science speaking) .
4. Truth be told, I find “Why not an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize,” To be the most difficult question to answer. I assume the explanation would go something like:
If global warming causes floods and or draughts, or land get swallowed up by the sea, there will be mass displacement of population and that will result in great unrest and additional wars.
Was the committee sending a message, yes? Maybe they felt bad about not giving Gore an award for “Investing the Internet.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
