Barack OBama Just Won the Nobel Peace Prize.

[shadowkat]

Feeling a tad better this morning. Going out in a bit, to get a new bag, gift for my aunt, and whatever else is needed before taking off bright and early to catch the ferry to Jersey, then off to the Poconos. I will be damned if these allergies get in my way. Assuming of course they are allergies. If it talks like an allery (itchy throat), walks like an allery (conjested), and sees like an allergy (watery eyes) - methinks it is an allergy. Taking antihistestimines which are sort of working. I can't take anything really strong like Benadryle (it has an ingredient that interacts really badly with my tremor meds as well as the fact that it has gluten as additive) or psuedphedrine (a metaphetamine which gives me anxiety attacks and also interacts badly with my tremor meds).

Momster called to tell me who won the Nobel Peace Prize.


Momster: Barack OBama just won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Me: Uh. Why?
Momster: Because of his ability to reach out and make peace with both muslim and non-muslim countries around the world.
ME (thinking); Well actually he did have a hard sell. He came after Bush, who managed within six months of taking office to piss off every country in the world including the one's that consider the US an allie. (with the possible exception of Great Britain). Then after 9/11 did it again, with his whole arrogant jingoistic you're either with us or against us spiel. I mean the people from other countries on my live journal correspondence list literally wrote: Thank you, America - when we elected OBama and were shocked. They didn't believe we'd do it. And still remained skeptical after the fact. OBama's ability to attain some accord and get many countries to talk with us again in the space of less than a year is actually notable.
Momster: yes, the commentary is that awarding OBama the prize is in some respects a way of kicking the Bush Administration.
Me: So who awards this prize?
Momster: Sweden. [ETA - according to the comments, Momster was wrong. It is Norway. I'm assuming she got her info from CNN or the newspaper, so they were probably wrong too. Stupid journalists. We live in the info age, but...it's mostly unreliable information.]
Me: Sweden? Okay, I guess that makes sense.
Momster: Interestingly enough only two other "sitting" US presidents have received it - they are Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.[ETC: sitting president means presidents who got it while in the office of US president or while they were actually president, not after they left the office.] Regan didn't get it for all his nuclear arms treaties, Carter was the only one of the three leaders during famous middle east camp david talks who didn't. The conversatives are already claiming Sweden gave it to him because he's a socialist and so are they. [Considering it was Norway - this may not work or it may. Are the Norwegians socialist too?]
Me: sigh. You know if Barack Obama is a socialist, so I am. Go socialism. Captialism is so overrated. So is libertarianism for that matter.

[ETA:I apparently kept putting O'Bama instead of Obama, I have no idea why. My guess is that in my head I'm thinking O-Bama, or Oh Bama. And am spelling it accordingly. This is why the whole phonetical or hooked on phonics learning to read method just about killed me in school.]

Comments

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Actually, the Norwegians hand out the Peace prize... ;-)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I think CNN must have got it wrong, because my mother probably got it from them. OR she confused the two.

Out of curiousity - is Norway - socialist? I'm guessing it is?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Well, it's complicated; the Nobel prize itself is Swedish (private, but founded by a Swedish citizen) but the Peace prize is handed out by Norwegians since Nobel's wife was Norwegian.

Whether Norway (or Sweden) are socialist are a matter of definition, I guess. Norway currently has a Labour government, Sweden a conservative one. Norway is in NATO, though, so it's not like they're commies. :-)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarification.

Funny story, okay maybe not so funny...but talked on the phone with my mother this evening, and told her
that it was actually Norway.

She said, that oddly enough she wrote a report on Alfred Noble back in school, so should have known.
The news did say Norway. But if Noble was originally Swedish, it sort of makes sense that she'd think it was Sweden. Apparently he was also a munitions manufacturer and this was his way of redeeming himself.

So Norway is socialist and Sweden isn't?

Yeah, quite a few Americans have a tendency to group all non-capitalistic/free-market systems into communism. And they think communism = the Soviet Union and Cuba or dictatorship. Uh, no. But there's no arguing with them on this point. It's the same issue a lot of people have with free-market enterprise and Capitalism - they think it's either great (no, taken too far and we end up with the chaotic environment of September 2008), or
it's evil (no, it can be workable in moderation).

Personally, I like the systems that combine the two, socialism and capitialism, which is actually most of Europe. I think the US has gone too far with Capitalism and needs to backtrack a bit.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

So Norway is socialist and Sweden isn't?

That's a very complicated question that could take pages to answer; is the US a liberal Democrat nation right now? ;-) But yeah, the Norwegian government is social democrat and the Swedish one is a coalition of various liberal and conservative parties. "Conservative" by the standards of a country that's been run by social democrats for most of the 20th century, that is.

As for Nobel, four of the five prizes (literature, chemistry, physics and medicine) are handed out in Sweden, the fifth (peace) in Norway. As far as I know, only the peace prize is awarded by any sort of democratically elected organisation, the others are decided by specialists.

And agreed on the rest.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I was very surprised by this too... but then I realized that they have given it to inspirational figures before: people who hadn't necessarily accomplished a lot, but who had inspired hope for the future. It is a huge compliment, and the President seems to appreciate it as such....

Reagan's drugs for Arms pretty much prevented him ever being considered..... Just because Republicans admired him doesn't mean he inspired squat.

But I agree w/you: I want the socialism!!

[hazel75.livejournal.com]

Actually, a lot of my liberal friends are upset by this as well and feel that it would have been better handed out to someone who had actually dedicated his/her life to the cause of peace. Not someone who had been in office for 11 days at the time of his nomination.

::shrugs::

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I was more bewildered..until I learned that the other two who won that were US sitting presidents - were, "Theodore Roosevelt" and "Woodrow Wilson" - Wilson's claim to fame was his attempts, failed attempts, to get a League of Nations started. Not sure what Roosevelt did to deserve it.

I'm not sure what the criteria is.

[hazel75.livejournal.com]

Roosevelt was awarded the prize for his efforts in brokering the Treaty of Portsmouth which ended the Russo-Japanese War. Wilson did contribute mightily to the peace treaty at the end of WWI, including his work in establishing the League of Nations.

Both had been president for more than 11 days when they were nominated...

The committee can award it to whomever they please. I just think it's a more meaningful prize when it's awarded to people who have made more significant strides to the cause of peace or other humanitarian efforts, a la Mother Theresa or Ghandi (which are perhaps unfair persons to offer up since their contributions may go unmatched forever).

[reginaspina.livejournal.com]

Actually, Gandhi never won the Nobel Peace Prize.

And the Norwegian Parliament has in the past given it to Henry Kissinger and to Yassir Arafat so I guess dedicating your life to the cause of peace or humanitarian efforts - as opposed to negotiating one or two things - is not always the sine qua non of the prize.

It's just a strange sort of decision, because good intentions are surely not the same as actually having achieved something. (And I am a really big supporter of Obama - so I just find this puzzling more than anything else!)

[hazel75.livejournal.com]

Actually, Gandhi never won the Nobel Peace Prize.

And there I go assuming...thanks for clearing that up :)

I guess I'm just having a hard time figuring out what the prize stands for -- what winning it is supposed to signify.

[hazel75.livejournal.com]

And I hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic. This is all a matter of opinion, in this case the Nobel committee's opinion. I'm sure that Obama will figure out a worthy use for the prize money.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Not at all. Appreciate the information.

Al Gore won it last year - for his work regarding the Environment.

I truly have no idea why they gave it to O'Bama this year. It took me by surprise and from his speech, just now, that I heard on the news, it apparently took O'Bama by surprise.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I think he won it for making it ok to like stuff from the US again. I'm going to go out on a limb but I think a lot of Americans underestimate how much the rest of the world hated Bush/Cheney. Obama seems like the guy who rode in and rescued you from fascism.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing...or rather what I've been privey to in private discussions with other Americans of various political views, family and otherwise:

1. category one American: The Americans who hated Bush/Cheney and agreed with the world on this point, did not underestimate it and to a degree applauded the Peace Prize. (my mother is in that category as am I, and we agree with you.) These Americans feared Bush, feared how the world viewed Bush, and saw Bush as fascist.

2. (subset of category one, who hated Bush/Cheney but don't understand why Obama got the prize) - Several Americans don't understand why someone would give a sitting President a Peace Prize - when there are two wars still in progress, two wars they don't agree with and think should have ended yesterday. Since Obama has not ended any of these wars - how has he furthered peace? Shouldn't we give it to someone who has done something major in this regard? (In response to their criticism - which is admittedly valid, this is my aunts critique and I had troubles answering it - the Norwegians stated they'd given it to Mikhal Gorbechev (sp?) prior to his peace initiatives in Soviet Union because he was in the process of doing something. My aunts retort - okay, so isn't that like giving an Oscar to someone just because you think they will create a great movie?)

3. the Americans who think the world is nuts, and loved Bush/Cheney. Yes, there are quite a few. And who think Obama is the anti-christ or worse. They are terrified of Obama. They believe we are in even more danger now. And they loved Palin and McCain. I know a couple. I work with them. And there are a few in my own family. Heck, my mother lives near many of them and has learned to keep her mouth shut at dinner parties. (The group is outraged about the Obama selection.)

We are quarrelsome and contrary bunch, aren't we? Amazing that we get anything done. ;-)

[liliaeth]

uhm, just wondering, but is there any reason you keep typing O'bama instead of Obama?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No reason I'm aware of. Just my tendency to misspell names by how they sound in my head and the fact that a guy's name at work is O'Hagan and I kept making the mistake of forgetting to put the apostrophe in there. So now I'm doing the opposite.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Carter got it, just not at the time but only a few years ago, check it out.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh I know. That's why I said "sitting" president. The only two who got it "while in the office" (ie. sitting) as President are apparently Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
(at least that was what I was told this morning). Carter got it years after he was out of office. Bill Clinton desperately wants it...but can't get it.

[annegables.livejournal.com]

Okay- I wish to mouth off about this with people who will not tar and feather me. I wish to state at the outright that I have lived in the United States for a period of time. But, as a Canadian, it seems like America has spent the last decade trying to convince the world that the majority of Americans are well...not to put too fine a point on it...idiots! Seriously. Now, Obama gets elected and there is still a portion of America that wants to tear itself apart. Heathcare is bad even though it works everywhere else. And today, Obama shouldn't have got the Nobel. I'm sorry, but wouldn't normal citizens of a country just be over the moon that their president got the Prize? And that it has been nearly a hundred years since the last sitting president received one should mean Americans would be throwing ticker tape parades across the country. But, no....we have to complain and insult and generally act like...idiots!! Okay, end of rant. And, for the record, I liked living in the States. Please, get it together over there and stop trying to convince the rest of the world you have lost your minds. Thank you and good night.