Nobel Hope Prize: First Futures Prize in Diplomacy
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity.
~Wall Street Journal editorial
21 Comments:
WSJ: "Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy ..."
Are there only losers left at the WSJ? The Nobel Prize is awarded by the Royal Science Academy in STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN. It has nothing to do with Norway. That's the same embarrassing quality of journalism you get with Fox News.
Actually, The "peace" prize is awarded by by five lawmakers selected from the Norwegian Storting, or parliament.
Here's a pic of the current president of that committee.
How do you like your crow, loser?
Alfred Nobel's will stated that the prize should be awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament. The Norwegian Parliament appoints the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects the laureate for the Peace Prize.
Just as the Nobel committee gave the award to Obama based on past performance and hope, so also I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
Looks like first anonymous was right and WSJ is wrong.
Here is the link to the compostion of the Nobel Committee and how it is chosen.
http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2009/10/09/who-chooses-the-norwegian-nobel-committee/
I always like it when a person calls another a "loser" and is proven wrong. Good behaviour and manners are always rewarded.
Are there any thinkers left among liberals? The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE appointed by the NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENT. It has nothing to do with Sweden.
That's the same embarrassing quality of Flavor Aid guzzling ignorance you get from people who listen to NPR and criticize Fox News.
With the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Prizes are awarded by Swedish. Only the Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegians in accordance with Alfred Nobel's will.
Isn't it fair to say that this is a pretty easy mistake to make?
I'm going to laugh my ass off when Rush Limbaugh nominates Obama to win the Miss America Pageant.
It doesn't matter who awarded the prize. The joke it has become will endure.
However, Obama could redeem himself by declining; or accepting the prize in honor of the true peacemakers: The American Military. He'll screw it up and make it about him though. Sad really.
I'll laugh when Limbaugh gets the Edward R. Murrow Award.
It's fair to say, dear QT, that people who launch acerbic attacks - particularly those referring to others as losers, low quality, embarrassing, etc - ought to at least be correct about what they're saying.
Isn't it fair to say such people should at least apologize and humbly admit error in both fact and attitude? I suspect they're too busy not watching Fox News right now. The embarrassment of the error will be gone in a few hours.
Aunt Ann,
I agree that denegrating others says more about the poster than the intended object of scorn. There is a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable.
It is easy to lose your temper in life. Words spoken in anger seldom win friends or influence people. That is a lesson that we all learn sooner or later.
Norway, Sweden, and Nobel prizes are mere incidentals.
At the time of Nobel's death, Sweden and Norway existed as a joined country. When they split, Norway awarded the peace prize and Sweden the others. Please note this since the same stupid argument comes up every year.
The first Anonymous doesn't seem at all typical of the mature, thoughtful people that frequent this blog. It makes me wonder if some partisan group is employing web bots to monitor blogs for any reference to Obama and do a bit of astroturfing in the comments section of those where he is mentioned.
Thanks for the history lesson Michael, but they are not the same country now. And it is quite beside the poin that the first anonymous hurled scathing insults in complete ignorance.
Yes, QT, it pays to be kind in life. In response to the uncivil, though, a dose of their own medicine tends to make them slightly more careful next time. It's healthy yo make the cocksure less so.
As Oprah (or was it Maya Angelou) said, people will forget what you said and did, but they will never forget how you made them feel.
I'm sure it's not in the spirit of what she meant, but I hope anonymous thinks twice (or once) before insulting others again. Some people require humility to be beaten into them.
Pokey,
Considering the hundreds of thousands of blogs, wouldn't that be incredibly difficult? I agree that there may well be some monitoring to see just what people think. If the comment was an attempt to shift opinion, it didn't fair very well.
Anon. 2:30 may also reflect the highly polarized nature of U.S. politics or their age group...I'm sure most of us can recall saying inflammatory things in our youth. Another element at play is the temptation to vent given the impunity of anonymity...blogs in general tend to be a little unvarnished. Occassionally, one does read something that just makes one see red and that emotion bubbles through...it does seem angry.
There seems to be general agreement that posts which denegrate others or contain offensive language cross the line of acceptability.
Aunt Ann,
I agree that sometimes people do deserve a taste of their own medicine or at least some pushback and that being nice to the point of overlooking unacceptable behavior is ill advised.
The reference to how one "remembers how others made you feel" and "beating humility" into someone suggest going out of one's way to make someone feel inferior which is a very dangerous game. It is very easy for a blog to become the stage for scorched earth games of tit for tat to the detriment civil & reasoned discourse.
I wish I was there...
"Looks like first anonymous was right and WSJ is wrong"...
Hmmm, anon @ 10/11/2009 3:59 PM but you failed to mention on which planet and in which galaxy...
From the first anon: "Are there only losers left at the WSJ?"...
Well now old son consider this bit from Tim Bemis of Market Watch which is part of the WSJ: Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics
Commentary: Michael Moore, Timothy Geithner also passed over
Got any more stealth Swedes you want to throw into the mix?
QT: "Considering the hundreds of thousands of blogs, wouldn't that be incredibly difficult?"
Not at all. While there is indeed a vast number of blogs, only a small fraction get any real traffic.
There are many ways such an astroturfing project could be carried out. One method would be to take the RSS feed of the top, say, 1000 blogs, excluding ideological friendlies, and filter for keywords like "Obama" or "health care," etc. There might be as few as several hundred posts per day containing the keywords. Each responding comment would only take a few minutes. Do the math. A modest number of volunteers could easily generate the required comments. The only real difficulty would be getting high quality volunteers.
Pokey,
The main block of volunteers in the Democratic Party is organized labour so I guess you're right that it's do-able. Given the # of liberal loons already blogging, I don't believe that spiking blogs is necessary.
juandos,
nice to see you back. Razor sharp as ever. Have a few scars myself.
Post a Comment
<< Home