CE Week #6: “Peace prize is biased, hollow” Oct. 13th
by Cal Thomas
“War will continue until the end …” (Daniel 9:26)
Like the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, along with the Oscar and Emmy for film and television, the Nobel Peace Prize is an inside job in which liberal, wishful-thinking humanists give awards to each other.
For all I care, the Nobel Committee could have given their useless (except for the money) prize to Homer Simpson. Like President Barack Obama, Homer has done nothing to earn it, though he may be the only character who has been on TV more than the president.
According to the Web site www.globalsecurity.org, there are currently “42 active conflicts and/or wars in the world today.” Not all are shooting wars at the moment and there are several civil wars and conflicts between Israel and various terrorist groups, but 42 wars is a lot of war.
Peace generally occurs when aggressive evil is defeated, which is why Germany and Japan no longer war with the United States. The Nobel Committee apparently believes that by diplomatically singing “All we are saying is give peace a chance,” evil people will study war no more and be so impressed by our intentions they will lay down their arms.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could win the Nobel Peace Prize in an instant if he announced his god had told him not to eradicate Israel, or usher in Armageddon. But Ahmadinejad won’t, because he is evil and must be defeated. Neither will he respond to negotiations or sanctions. Same with Osama bin Laden. The United Nations would welcome him as a speaker and the Nobel Committee would award him their top prize if he would announce he no longer believes in terrorism and has become a follower of the Dalai Lama or some other “acceptable” pseudo-deity. He also will do no such thing because he is evil and must be defeated.
The Nobel Committee believes George W. Bush is evil, but apparently not bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. It cringes at leaders who wish to overcome evil by force rather than have the forces of evil overcome them. The Nobel Committee hates Israel, too. And this is because its members, and like-minded male wimps around the world, idolize Michael J. Fox instead of John Wayne and find their role models in the liberal ladies of “The View,” not in muscular characters like Jack Bauer (and Chloe, who gets it) on “24.”
The peace prize concept is flawed because the problem of war does not lie with those who would make peace, but with those who would make war. If the Nobel Committee were realistic, it would stop handing out peace prizes and start issuing awards for those who have confronted evil and produced peace in nations that have only known oppression. Candidates for such prizes would include Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, who conspired to liberate Europe from the totalitarian hand of Soviet communism.
Bill Clinton would also be a legitimate candidate for his efforts that stabilized Bosnia. He could take some small credit for the peace in Northern Ireland, which, though worked on for decades, was finally brokered on his watch. President Obama was right when he acknowledged that he doesn’t deserve the prize. Neither did Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho or Al Gore.
The question should be: Why, despite man’s best efforts, including the League of Nations and United Nations, have we been unsuccessful in eradicating war? The answer lies in this ancient wisdom: “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.” (James 4:1-3)
That’s why a peace prize is meaningless.
Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.
A. I didn’t realize how many, no offense, but pointless people have won the Nobel Peace prize. I also wasn’t aware of how many biased people were on the Nobel Peace Committee. It’s kind of sad that Obama received the award for pretty much not being George W. Bush.
B. I kind of feel bad for Obama. Kind of, but not really. Only for the reason that he now has to live up to the award given him. He has only been president for about nine months. His presidency is just beginning, and he has to beat that now. However, I do think giving the prize to Homer Simpson wouldn’t have been my favorite. He’s right below Obama on my list. This isn’t saying much, but hey it’s something, especially for someone who isn’t a big fan of Obama. Another thing I feel I must say, why do people think so low of Bush. He faced the war on terror. I think anyone would agree that in that circumstance, anyone would have done what they believed was necessary to protect our country. Sure he made some mistakes, but so did lots of presidents. Take Kennedy, for example. The Bay of Pigs incident was a huge fiasco. Yet even today Kennedy is looked back at with honor and respect. Is this because he was assassinated? Would we all treat Bush the same way if he were killed while in office? Just something I feel I needed to get out.
C. Linking this to class – We talked about Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize last week and I think we kind of came to the conclusion that Obama had won the prize for not being Bush.
D. Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s god?
A.Most of the article was common knowledge but I was interested in the small fact that Pope John Paul II conspired to liberate Europe from the Soviet Union. I’ve never paid much attention to the pope and his role in politics so this fact was interesting to me.
B.Wow! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and agree with a lot of what the journalist is saying. I hadn’t even heard about Obama being awarded the prize until Mr. Kautzman mentioned it in class. My first thought was “Why???” Though Obama has made some pretty great achievements in his lifetime, what has he done to promote world peace? I agree with Cal Thomas that our peace prize concept is flawed. We are not giving this award to the most deserving people. Thomas mentioned how Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to inform the country about Climate Change. Somehow I don’t see how this promotes peace among our warring countries. So far Obama has not ended the War on Terrorism. He has not made peace with Iraq or Afghanistan. On what grounds is he winning this award? If Obama could come up with a way to bring about peace in the Middle East, well then maybe I would consider him worthy of this honor.
C.I was curious about Bill Clinton’s “efforts that stabilized Bosnia”. What is that all about?
Connection: After watching Charlie Wilson’s War this past week and discussing the War on Terrorism in class I feel that I have a better understanding of the war. Obama has yet to make some tough decisions about whether we should pull troops out of Afghanistan. If he does decide to do this, will we be making the same mistake that we did after the Cold War? I wonder how his decision about Afghanistan would figure into him winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
CE Week #6: “Peace prize is biased, hollow” Oct. 13th
I did not know that the Noble Prize committee was so strong about what the qualifications had to be. The committee believes that a candidate has to stop an evil and make peace with it or from it. I never realized that this committee had favorites and also people that they didn’t like. They do not like Bush because they see him as evil, because he didn’t make peace, he created war. The Nobel committee also hates Israel. I did not know that Obama came out and said that he doesn’t deserve the award given to him, but it is true. Also, I didn’t realize that there have been some before Obama who have received The Nobel Peace Prize, who never really deserved it as well.
I believe that Obama does not deserve the award, because he did not do anything at all. The only things he has done to deal with peace, is take small steps towards the idea, and that’s as far as he has gotten. He has not made peace with anyone or group, and he has not put an end to an evil. Obama gets a lot more praise then he deserves for what he does. He hasn’t done anything, and people see him as a hero and give him one of the biggest honors
What were the jobs of the others listed (besides Al Gore), that the author believed didn’t deserve The Nobel Peace Prize?
If everyone believes Obama didn’t deserve the award, why was he nominated in the first place?
Why exactly does the committee see Bush as Evil?
Extensions: Barrack Obama was nominated for his steps toward stopping countries from getting and using nuclear weapons. He banned extreme interrogation techniques for terrorists. He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. His administration is talking to U.S. foes, like Iran, North Korea and Cuba. He pledged to take the lead against climate change. The committee sees Bush as a huge contributor to the wars in the Middle East.
A: What I learned
Ever since I heard about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize I asked myself the same thing the author did, why? I didn’t really pay much attention to it, because there are bigger things to worry about, but I didn’t know that Obama said he didn’t deserve to win it. To me, that kind of sounds like the Nobel Peace Prize committee should be embarrassed that its winner denounced the award. I also did not know that people like Yasser Arafat and Al Gore had won the prize before.
B: What I think
I don’t really have much of a stance on this issue except for the fact that I think if the whole reason for giving a Nobel Peace Prize was to award peacefulness…why would they give it to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces who is currently in a war right now? It seems kind of ironic to me. Maybe the committee just got caught up in the Obama craze that has seemed to sweep the nation. Who knows? I also think that Cal Thomas is a little bit eccentric when it comes to facing and “defeating” evil. I agree that Obama might not have been as qualified for this award as the committee thought, but I don’t really think that to win, you have to win a war.
C: What I want to know
How does the committee choose who wins the Nobel Peace Prize every year? And who is on the committee?
D: Connection
I had heard everyone saying that this was a joke, that Obama didn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. And after using Wikipedia, I saw that the definition was that the winner “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”
I think he has potential to do such things, but hasn’t achieved them yet.
A. This was one of my favorite articles so far in all of the blogs I have read. This really put a new perspective on the Nobel Peace Prize. I have never given much thought to the winners of this “prize,” but now it makes me curious who all has won it. It is so true that the so called
peace prize” is generally given to those who haven’t actually been actively solving a peace related issue by force. I thought that the prize would usually be given to someone who tries to help our country; not to some random Palestinian leader! Connection: A guy from Finland who looks like a frog also won in 2008 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2008/index.html), and [since the article refers to the Dalai Lama] in 1989, the 14th Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize.
B. Personally, I think that some new committee should form and take over the Nobel Peace Prize and change it into the “Actually Trying to Actively Help the US” prize, and call it ATAHUS prize. Then give it to those who are deserving of a prize and money for helping cause peace. I absolutely agree that Obama should not have got that and instead give it to someone who is commendable, or – if no one fits that description – save the prize and the money for another person later on. On another note, I liked how Cal Thomas quoted The Beatles and said pseudo-deity in his article.
C. How long has the Nobel Peace Prize been given out, and who decides who gets it?
NO CREDIT: Missing Extension/Connection
In Response to Megan Sikes:
Your post was insightful, but I think that you missed a few key issues. For starters, the nominations were completed only two weeks after his inauguration. This may not seem like a big deal, but in his first two weeks I can easily sum up Obama’s accomplishments: promises. That’s it. He made several very eloquently worded speeches about what he wanted to do, but he hadn’t really DONE anything. In addition to the peace prize, why didn’t we give him a Heisman for watching college football? I was very proud of Obama (conservative though I am) for his genuine humility in this award. He said he didn’t deserve this award, something that should have shocked the comittee. I also found it interesting that the nominators attempted to compare him to Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. In my opinion, this is no different thatn comparing him to a terrorist. Obama is no more a wrold-saving genius than he is a neo-nazi muslim member of the Yakuza.
A neo-nazi muslim member of the Yakuza? Really? My mind is trying to get a hold on what that would look like exactly – interesting. Kautzman
Please post this comment instead of the first one I wrote.
In Response to Alison Nicol:
The Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded President Obama the Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I know you think he doesn’t deserve this award, but this is what the White House has said Obama had done to improve foreign policy. I found all of this at http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy
• “Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture.
• Appointed Special Envoys for Climate Change, Southwest Asia, the Middle East, Sudan, and a Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
• Announced a plan to responsibly end the War in Iraq.
• Announced a new strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan.
• Announced a strategy to address the international nuclear threat.
• Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.
• Established a new “U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue”.
• Announced new policy steps towards Cuba.
Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Following an intensive 60-day interagency review, on March 27, 2009, the President announced a new strategy with a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. The strategy is comprehensive and flexible and will need to be fully resourced. In addition to the new troops the President has chosen to deploy, the strategy calls for significantly more resources to the civilian effort and frequent evaluations of our progress.
Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
On February 27, 2009, President Obama announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq.
By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end and Iraqi Security Forces will have full responsibility for major combat missions. After August 31, 2010, the mission of United States forces in Iraq will fundamentally change. Our forces will have three tasks: train, equip, and advise the Iraqi Security Forces; conduct targeted counterterrorism operations; and provide force protection for military and civilian personnel. The President intends to keep our commitment under the Status of Forces Agreement to remove all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists
On April 5, 2009 in Prague, President Obama presented an ambitious strategy to address the international nuclear threat. He proposed measures to: reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, including negotiations on further nuclear reductions with Russia, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and completion of a verified Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials.
We have pledged to work with our partners to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea through the Six-Party process. And we will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, including its right to peaceful nuclear energy, or continue to refuse to meet its international obligations and fail to seize the opportunity of a positive future.
Promoting Peace and Security in Israel and the Middle East
The President believes that we cannot afford to wait to work for peace in the region, so he appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace on his second day in office. In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. The President has committed himself and his Administration to actively pursuing this goal.
Re-energizing America’s Alliances
The United States seeks to engage in dialogue that is honest and grounded in mutual respect, as the best way to resolve disagreements and work towards shared interests. We are committed to strengthening existing partnerships and building new ones to confront the challenges of the 21st century.
• On his first trip overseas, the President visited Europe to begin this process, with the G-20 Summit, the 60th Anniversary NATO Summit, and the U.S-E.U. Summit.
• The President made clear in his speech to the Turkish Parliament that America’s relationship with the Muslim world will be based on more than our shared opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
• The United States seeks to strengthen our historic alliances in Asia while developing deeper bonds with all nations of the region, so that we might work together to confront the challenges of the 21st Century, including proliferation, climate change, pandemics and economic instability.
Maintaining Core American Values
Every challenge is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This is why the President ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture, and set up a Special Task Force to thoroughly review detainee policy.
Sudan
Ending the crisis in Darfur and ensuring Sudan’s long-term stability through the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is a top priority for the Obama Administration. The humanitarian crisis there makes our task all the more urgent. The President has appointed a Special Envoy for Sudan as a strong signal of his commitment to support the people of Sudan. We are committed to working with the international community to end the suffering, seek a lasting settlement to the violence, and ensure a stable and secure future for the region.
Restoring American Leadership in Latin America
The future of the United States is inextricably bound to the future of the people of the Americas. We are committed to a new era of partnership with countries throughout the hemisphere, working on key shared challenges of economic growth and equality, our energy and climate futures, and regional and citizen security. We are committed to shaping that future through engagement that is strong, sustained, meaningful, and based on mutual respect.
Ensuring Energy Security and Fighting Climate Change
The President has committed to put America on a path to a clean energy economy that improves our energy security, reduces our use of fossil fuels, and drives a new era of American innovation. The United States recognizes the need to break from old ways that threaten our economy and our planet and the President has committed to investing $150 billion in clean energy research and development over ten years. The United States will be a leader in addressing global climate change both by making contributions of our own and engaging other countries to do the same.”
In Response to Sarah Fullmer:
I have to disagree with you about Bush. It is his fault that we are in such a mess today. If it wasn’t for him, then we wouldn’t have so many troops over in the Middle East dying for the U.S. Bush set out to defeat Al Qaeda, but failed, which left many troops over in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush’s plan to sell conservatism as “mean” and needing his brand of fiscal “compassion” largely flopped. His efforts such as “No child left behind” and extensive reaching out to Congressional Democrats only resulted in more and more spending and no political capital gained with his opponents. President Bush favors near-open borders and assertions to the contrary are denying the reality on the ground. Thousands of illegal aliens stream across our border with Mexico every day and next to nothing is done about it. The President pays lip service to securing the border, but his claims of success are laughable. Drugs, human smuggling operators, weapons and possibly even terrorists are entering the country on a daily basis and Bush’s response is to simply legalize the flood by making them “guest workers.”
To your question: From what I have read he believes in the Abrahamic faith. He believes in Jesus Christ and also the Christian God.
In response to Kesslan Hall:
Here is your answer to your question about the Nobel Peace prize:The Nobel Peace Prize was named after Alfred Nobel who invented dynamite. Nobel was known for experimenting with dangerous chemicals and other things. He died December 10, 1896 from a cerebral hemorrhage. “Nobel’s last will left 94 percent of his worth to the establishment of five prizes (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace) to “those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit of mankind.”’ Nobel’s wish in his will was made reality and the first set of prizes was awarded on December 10, 1901 on the fifth anniversary of his death. I received my information from http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/nobelhistory.htm
In response to Alex Price, in response to Megan Sikes:
I’m glad someone brought this up, because I’ve heard a lot of people making this whole “Obama was only in office for two weeks by the nomination due date” non-issue into an issue. Alfred Nobel said in his will that the Peace Prize should be awarded to a 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.” It doesn’t say that the person needs to be a president, or have any significant political position at all for that matter. The award goes to a person, not an officeholder (although obviously that person could be holding an office.) The official statement from the Nobel Peace Prize Committee says, “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened…Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.” Obama didn’t necessarily need to be president to accomplish these goals, and he obviously captured the world’s attention long before he was actually elected. I agree that he doesn’t deserve the award. And I think the reasons the committee cited for awarding it to him based on his presidential merit are ridiculous. However, the fact that he had been president for two weeks when the nominations were due really isn’t an issue because every person that nominated him could have done it to Obama as a person, not a president.
TELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TOPIC ADRESSED: my knowledge on this subject extends only as far as that I know Obama got a peace prize; people did not think he deserved the peace prize and fox news has been having a hay-day with the story.
TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE ARTICLE: Once again I managed to find an article that impressed me, not by its astoundingly accurate information and thoughtful opinion, but by the authors close mindedness and passion about an utterly bias standing. No, I do not think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, I do like Obama. I would agree with this author on his main point, that Obama did not deserve the prize, if it were not for that fact that if I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with someone as close minded as this I might have to start banging my head against a wall. All in all I found this article about as informative as watching Fox News, and if you have ever read my comments before you probably know, I find Fox News about as informative as the video of the fat guy screaming for his Chicken McNuggets in Wal-Mart.
WHAT DO I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUBJECT: Really the only thing I want to know is where I can find a list of Nobel Peace Prize winners?
CONNECTION: I was reminded of the extra credit lecture at Witworth by the former ambassador, and how he said that Obama had, thus far, adopted Bush’s previous foreign policy plans for Afghanistan.