"What's particularly bothersome about yesterday's attacks is the premise that it's improper, unpatriotic and even Terrorist-mimicking to do anything but cheer -- have a "national celebration" -- when Obama is awarded the Nobel Prize. Whether Obama is actually pursuing policies of peace happens to be an extremely legitimate topic of debate. The same is true for whether he's done anything meaningful yet to merit the award. Numerous liberals in good standing objected to Obama's award -- from Ezra Klein ("It is undeserved. It is a bit ridiculous") to The Nation's Richard Kim ("I woke up, read the New York Times website and thought I had come to the Onion instead . . . Obama doesn't deserve the prize, yet") to Naomi Klein ("disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize"). While there are arguments to make in his favor -- I even made some myself yesterday in the first two paragraphs of what I wrote -- there is something unquestionably bizarre about awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a leader who did not merely "inherit," but is advocating, actively prosecuting and escalating, a major war that is killing large numbers of civilians with no plans to stop, while at the same time building prisons to house people who will have no due process."
More here
I think this basically summarizes the problem I'm having with this. "We're not there, yet". And it doesn't seem clearly established enough that we are wanting to move 'there' on the basis of the policies the Obama administration is pursuing. Yet.
Asylum Isn't As Crazy as Trump Claims
1 hour ago
Posts
3 comments:
Agree totally. Yes, Obama has done a few (very few) good things in his short reign. But I just don't think he deserves it. Yet.
Hear, hear.
The other attempt I've gotten was to say "well, it's their award". That's true. But lots of awards are idiotic and questioned by people (Oscars, MVPs). People can reasonably question the logic behind the selections quite often versus either the collective wisdom or an expert wisdom and thus incite debates.
The Nobel Peace award is, or was, something that is sort of above that fray. Generally you can disagree with what someone who was nominated does or thinks ideologically, their politics, or perhaps the outcome of their attempt to do something, but at least it was always clear that they did something and were trying to do something (Gore and the IPCC for example). You don't then also get into debates over who should have won it instead because the candidate is always capable of being seen as "deserving" and thus it is a respectful award. This, for all the potential there, was not. The typical reaction I've seen seems to be "huh what?". In sports, it would be like giving the MVP award to a guy who you just drafted before he's actually been on the field and with your team having ended up in either in the middle of the pack or at the bottom of the league. LeBron wasn't THAT good his first couple years either.
Get us out of some of these wars of aggression and we'll talk.
Post a Comment