Home of the Militant Middle, Another Opinion ("A/O") is an Independent oriented "OpEd" blog for those looking for unbiased facts free of partisan drama and who are willing to question the Status Quo.
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Saturday, February 03, 2018
Karma: It Can Be A Bitch You Know (Especially in Politics)
You know, they say that Karma is bitch, which I have often seen proven true. There's also a saying by the great Chinese military and political strategist, Sun Tzu, which say that "if you wait by a river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by". Perhaps is this no better applied than in the world of politics. Not long ago, many pundits were predicting about the decline and fall of the Republican Party. The Reagan Revolution had come and gone. George H.W. Bush had liberated Exxon and BP...uh...I mean Kuwait.. from the evil clutches of our regional Iranian counterweight...I mean that ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein.
Meanwhile our national economy was sputtering, and right on queue came an unknown governor from Hope Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, better known to all simply as "Bill" and his "barely concealed" Machiavellian wife, Hillary. Well, those eight years proved to be a lot of fun didn't they? The economy bounced backed; there were some pretty positive initiatives passed, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act and Megan's Law, along with a few goofs like NAFTA and expanding NATO into Eastern Europe.
We got ourselves involved in a few civil wars, such as Mogadishu and in former Yugoslavia, and his failure to kill and/or capture Osama bin Laden at Kandahar when he had the chance. Of course, we can't forget the impeachment hearings and his lying to Congress (which apparently hinged on what the definition of "is" is). However, most people simply didn't care. They felt that was between Bill, Hillary, and his "victim-of-the-month". After all, the economy was doing great and that was all that mattered. By the time Clinton left office, the Democratic Party was doing pretty well, while the GOP was busy trying to redefine itself and remain relevant after their 1994 "Contract With America" turned out to be more of a "Contract On America" and blew up in the collective faces.
So, then came George "Dubya" Bush, aka "Shrub". I think what most people liked about Shrub...err...George was his laidback easygoing attitude. It seems everyone had an uncle like George locked away somewhere. He proved that anyone with a "D+" grade point average; who was unsuccessful as a businessman, a poor military record, a recovering alcoholic, but had lots of family money and connections could still become president, thus proving the "American Dream" was still alive.
Then again, it could be that voters just couldn't stand elitist Al Gore. Here was a man who just couldn't connect with the American People. He was "insider royalty". He was so elitist that his attempts to fit in with ordinary American's was comical. Then came the presidential debates and Gore's attempts to bully or intimidate Bush (which Bush just laughed off, along with the rest of America on national television).
Now, here was a guy born in the Heart of America, Washington DC (if you're the Tin Man); the son of wealthy and powerful Senator, Albert "Al" Gore Sr, who represented the flyover state of Tennessee. The future VP attended Harvard and Vanderbilt, and volunteered to go to Vietnam as an ordinary private, where he served with the 20th Engineer Brigade as a journalist. He would go on to serve in Congress from 1977 to 1993, when he was selected to run as Clinton's choice of VP. Regardless, Gore just couldn't connect with the American People.
Much to the surprise of the Democrats, who were still riding the Clinton high, "Dubya" won the election. As first, he seen as something of a joke: the proverbial class clown who somehow managed to steal the prom queen from the school jock. Even many Republicans started to shake their heads in embarrassed wonderment. Thankfully, there was some old hands of his dad (and the Establishment) to steer his Ship of State along the dangerous narrows; individuals like VP Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, AG John Ashcroft, Reich Secur...uh...I mean...Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. There Elaine Chao, the wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, who headed up the Department of Labor, as well as two excellent Secretaries of State, Former General Colin Powell and later, Condoleezza "Condi" Rice.
Nevertheless, it was one event which sealed Bush's presidential legacy more than any other, and that was September 11, 2001; better known simply as "9/11". It was the one event which has come to symbolize the early 21st Century. It was the day where America was deliberately attacked by an enemy most Americans didn't even know existed, from a country that some would have trouble finding on a map, and by a group the majority of Americans had never heard of...Al Qaeda.
However, there were some who had heard of its leader....Osama bin Laden; the same bin Laden whom Bill Clinton's Administration failed to kill years earlier (and the same individual whom the CIA picked out as potential leader decades before), after Russia invaded Afghanistan during the final months of the Carter Administrations and the beginning of Reagan's (under "Operation Cyclone", the CIA provided military aid, intelligence reports, training, and logistics to Afghani rebels known as the "Mujahideen", of which bin Laden was one).
This cowardly attack has often compared to the Japanese sneak attack on December 7, 1941 on Pearl Harbor, of course led to US and some allied troops to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and indirectly, led to the US and some Coalition troops to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein; apparently his usefulness had run out, and then again, maybe he knew too many secrets. The excuse this time was "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMDs", which we were repeatedly assured not only existed, but that Saddam was about to unleash on the world! Of course, as we were to learn later, they didn't exist. However, for Saddam and his cronies, he didn't matter. Only the perception that he did mattered. The outcome was a foregone conclusion...he and most of his ministers were executed.
Since then, efforts to rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq have proved to be much more difficult than originally predicted and has led to a quagmire which we're still dealing with today. Meanwhile, "Dubya" exited the stage with the public's opinion of his administration pretty low (he has the unique distinction of having both the highest and lowest approval ratings, 51% and 25% respectively). At this juncture, the Democrats were feeling a bit more confident about the prospects for the upcoming presidential and Congressional elections. What nobody expected was a political "nobody" coming to the forefront...Barack Hussein Obama.
Barack Obama was unique in several ways. First, he was bi-racial---black on his father's side and white on his mother's. Second, there wasn't much know about his formative years for sure. There were (and remain) many questions over his place of birth; his education in Indonesia and apparently Muslim upbringing; his education in Hawaii, as well as family and personal friends with far Left or Communist sympathies, including former 60's radical and member of the Weathermen, Bill Ayers. Barack Obama was pretty much an unknown at college, despite his claims to contrary. While he claimed to be a law professor, he was in fact actually an adjunct instructor who taught just a handful of courses. In terms of having any real political experience, he was a neighborhood organizer for ACORN. He ultimately managed to fill an empty seat in the Illinois Senate and amassed no memorable record (voting mostly "here" or "present"). He was later, in 2005, that he was elected to fill an empty US Senate seat. It was as "Junior" Senator, with no national or even regional name recognition, that he decided to run for president (a highly unusual and risky political move).
What made the move that much more risky was that he would face the odds on favorite, Senator Hillary Clinton (she had changed her residency to New York to run for Bobby Kennedy's old seat, thus creating a link between the Clinton's and the Kennedy's (Bill Clinton met JFK as young man and has remained a lifelong admirer). Ultimately, Clinton lost in a highly contested campaign to the Junior Senator. Obama would go on to face Senior Senator John McCain, a disabled Vietnam War veteran, former POW, and a highly distinguished Naval pilot who came from a long line of Naval officers.
John McCain, who first rose to national prominence while he was a prisoner of war, held in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton". He later became a US Senator in 1987, after having served as member of the House of Representatives. McCain quickly earned a reputation for being outspoken and frequently disagreed with GOP party bosses. He was seen by many as a moderate or a more "traditional" conservative. Given McCain's reputation and name recognition, it was presumed that he would easily beat the Illinois upstart. However, that wasn't to be the case.
Barack Obama used his youth, bi-racial status, and charismatic speaking ability to attract the emerging Millennials, who are the largest voting demographic, while McCain's appealed mainly to the aging Babyboomers. There was also a notable difference between the two campaigns. McCain's campaign conformed primarily to the more tradition format (with the novelty of selecting an unknown for VP, non-conformist Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to attract the more conservative elements of the GOP. Ironically, Palin would prove to be more popular among Tea Parties and some other conservatives than McCain). Obama's campaign was based more on the use of social media, including his use of the internet to raise money. In the end, McCain was outspent 4 to 1, and Obama won with 53% of the vote compared to McCain's 46%. Obama's first term, however, did light a spark under the Democrats, though the numbers were pretty much average with his accomplishments (except golf outings. There Obama wins hands down with 113). Immediately after becoming president, Obama was also roundly booed by public opinion for being "awarded" the "Nobel Peace Prize", an honor he didn't earn, and as a result, tarnished the award for all future recipients. However, it would be his second term which would become most noteworthy. First though, he had to defeat the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts.
Rome had its Crassus. The Democratic Party has its Al Gore. The Republicans have Mitt Romney. Romney, like Al Gore, comes from a prominent political family. Both of his parents, George and Lenore were very active in politics (his mother even ran for office), while his father went to work for the Nixon Administration as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and then, later, as Governor of Michigan. In addition to coming from a established political family, they were also Mormon. Mitt also made a fortune while working for Bain Capital (and ultimately as CEO) through leveraged buyouts. His net worth is estimated to be $250 million (his wife, the daughter of heavy construction equipment co-founder Jared Industries, Edward and Lois Davies, is worth some $50 million).
Like McCain, Mitt Romney just didn't connect with ordinary Americans. He had no real understanding of their issues, and certainly didn't share their working class values. He came across as arrogant and pandering. When the dust settled, Obama had won his second term with just over 51% compared to Romney's 47.21%. What hurt Obama in this election was the lower return of Millennials, who, while strongly disapproving of Romney, were disappointed in Obama's first term performance.
Obama's second term proved to be controversial, from de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants (and a questionable lawsuit against Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws), to the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, the "Obamacare" healthcare law (which was unconstitutionally altered by the Supreme Court. In addition, prior promises by Obama, such as keeping healthcare providers, existing insurance, all turned out to be false). Perhaps worse of all, was the lies surrounding the Benghazi attack and the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three former special forces/CIA operatives amid illegal arms shipments to Syria and the same terrorists were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (except in Syria, where we suddenly called them "freedom fighters", since they opposed Russia's longtime regional ally). But, what difference did that matter?
The situation in the Middle East failed to improve as did his attempts at expanding gun control to ban "assault" weapons. IRS official Lois Lerner testified that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been targeted by the IRS. Obama also pressed for a land invasion of Syria which was met with absolute rejection by the American People. Obama's Secretary of the Veteran Affairs, Eric Shenski, was forced to resign over charges of mistreatment, misreporting, and prolonged delays resulting in appointment backlogs and preventable veteran deaths. On the plus, Navy SEALs did find and kill Osama Bin Laden, despite delay's by the Obama Administration.
Obama, like Clinton's NAFTA, signed TransPacific Partnership, again selling out unions. We also had "Citizens United" upheld, which gave corporations the same rights as humans, except when it came to political contributions, where they were permitted near unlimited "free speech" (as donations were euphemistically called), while it remained limited for ordinary flesh and blood types. Without question, Obama's second term didn't live up to expectations, by Obama, his administration, or the American People. His approval rating for his second term only averaged 47.9% while the public's confidence in government slumped to a mere 30%.
So, there you have it. All the "static" about Trump's success or failures so soon into his first term is just that...static. Each political party has its ups and down. The big difference in Trump's case, is the open season by the corporate managed media. Trump was the "unexpected" candidate; he was the anti-establishment candidate that didn't come with strings attached. The media and political establishment----both corporate owned parties, the "K" Street lobbyists, the "princesses and snowflakes", and all those with dirty hands---already had Hillary crowned and enthroned. They were wrong. The public knew her record and they rejected it. Perhaps...just perhaps...Americans have finally had enough. We can only hope.
Obama's first term: By the number
Republicans for Obama
Obama's second term: A timeline
Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of Government
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Obama Picks Up Peace Prize
On December 10, 2009, Obama flew to Oslo Norway to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize. In his acceptance speech, Obama acknowledged that his contributions were “slight” compared to all those who came before him, and he went on to reference such great individuals as Gandhi, George C. Marshall, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. Let’s be honest. Barak Obama doesn’t even have “slight” accomplishments. He has none. Zip. Zilch. Nada, Nichts. Obama was nominated for the now once prestigious award based on speeches about peace he made while campaigning for President. That’s right—speeches. Other recipients have spent their entire lives trying to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. So what gives here?
The requirements for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize state the award was to be given on accomplishments one year prior to the nomination (see reference at the bottom of this article). That would mean that Obama was nominated for what then? Being an unknown Chicago community activist? How about being an unknown Illinois State Senator with mediocre voting record? No? Would you believe an unknown junior US Senator with virtually no voting record and certainly no foreign policy experience? How does compare to, let’s say, Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1906 mediated the end of the war between Japan and Russia.
Well, all that’s left then are his campaign speeches (mostly written by unknown staffers) talking about peace. Yet ironically, Obama has just signed in effect an executive order committing thousands of additional US troops to the war in Afghanistan before picking up his “peace prize” (and the rather substantial check---1.4 million dollars---which goes with it I should add). He added in his acceptance speech that war was sometimes necessary (“To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history”) and why, in his opinion, war was sometimes justified. Ok, everyone can acknowledge that wars happen. Its part of our darker nature. But isn’t this a contradiction to what he was given his “Peace Prize” for? I mean, come on, a speech is a speech right? The first was to end war (gets an award and big check) and now this one is about fighting “justifiable” war (so does he have to give it back?).
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no problem with Obama per se. I think it would be great if he or any other American received the award for doing something like resolving the Middle East issues or put together a plan to control climate change. You know, actually did something? At least to Obama’s credit, he admitted in his speech that there were others “far more deserving”. Frankly I think Nobel Peace Selection Committee has tarnished the not just its reputation, but devalued all that the Nobel Peace Prize stands---excuse me---stood for. I am, however, thankful that the reputations of all those great men and women who have come before are beyond the reproach of the petty political pandering of a few.
Suggested article:
http://hosse.blogspot.com/2009/10/nobel-committee-blunders.ht
Poll results
Our last poll asked you if you thought that the terrorist currently being held on Gitmo, should be brought to New York City, near the sight of 9/11, for trial. 10% of you said “no way” and thought they should be tried elsewhere. 40% of you thought they should be tired before a military tribunal at some other location. The rest of you seem to have either a strong sense of irony or a real mean streak in you (that’s why I really love my readers) and think NYC is the place to be.
Personally, I think it would be too hard on the widows and others to bring these murders to New York, I can see a certain justice to being the criminal back to the scene of the crime to face his victims. However, I would not try them in civilian court. There’s just too much that could go wrong. Plus, I wouldn’t want to see this turned into a circus. A military tribunal would be much more fitting because of the broader rules of evidence; tighter control; and there would be no doubt of a swift and fitting execution for these punks.
Lastly, Happy Chanukah to all my Jewish readers!
Shopping for the Holidays?
I know if you're like me, you're so busy you don't have time to shop. May I make a suggestion that will help you and help this blog site? Check out my book recommendation to the right. You can also browse through not just the great books Amazon offers, but also the many great products offered by Amazon, and by shopping Amazon through AO, you help this blog keep going!
The requirements for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize state the award was to be given on accomplishments one year prior to the nomination (see reference at the bottom of this article). That would mean that Obama was nominated for what then? Being an unknown Chicago community activist? How about being an unknown Illinois State Senator with mediocre voting record? No? Would you believe an unknown junior US Senator with virtually no voting record and certainly no foreign policy experience? How does compare to, let’s say, Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1906 mediated the end of the war between Japan and Russia.
Well, all that’s left then are his campaign speeches (mostly written by unknown staffers) talking about peace. Yet ironically, Obama has just signed in effect an executive order committing thousands of additional US troops to the war in Afghanistan before picking up his “peace prize” (and the rather substantial check---1.4 million dollars---which goes with it I should add). He added in his acceptance speech that war was sometimes necessary (“To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history”) and why, in his opinion, war was sometimes justified. Ok, everyone can acknowledge that wars happen. Its part of our darker nature. But isn’t this a contradiction to what he was given his “Peace Prize” for? I mean, come on, a speech is a speech right? The first was to end war (gets an award and big check) and now this one is about fighting “justifiable” war (so does he have to give it back?).
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no problem with Obama per se. I think it would be great if he or any other American received the award for doing something like resolving the Middle East issues or put together a plan to control climate change. You know, actually did something? At least to Obama’s credit, he admitted in his speech that there were others “far more deserving”. Frankly I think Nobel Peace Selection Committee has tarnished the not just its reputation, but devalued all that the Nobel Peace Prize stands---excuse me---stood for. I am, however, thankful that the reputations of all those great men and women who have come before are beyond the reproach of the petty political pandering of a few.
Suggested article:
http://hosse.blogspot.com/2009/10/nobel-committee-blunders.ht
Poll results
Our last poll asked you if you thought that the terrorist currently being held on Gitmo, should be brought to New York City, near the sight of 9/11, for trial. 10% of you said “no way” and thought they should be tried elsewhere. 40% of you thought they should be tired before a military tribunal at some other location. The rest of you seem to have either a strong sense of irony or a real mean streak in you (that’s why I really love my readers) and think NYC is the place to be.
Personally, I think it would be too hard on the widows and others to bring these murders to New York, I can see a certain justice to being the criminal back to the scene of the crime to face his victims. However, I would not try them in civilian court. There’s just too much that could go wrong. Plus, I wouldn’t want to see this turned into a circus. A military tribunal would be much more fitting because of the broader rules of evidence; tighter control; and there would be no doubt of a swift and fitting execution for these punks.
Lastly, Happy Chanukah to all my Jewish readers!
Shopping for the Holidays?
I know if you're like me, you're so busy you don't have time to shop. May I make a suggestion that will help you and help this blog site? Check out my book recommendation to the right. You can also browse through not just the great books Amazon offers, but also the many great products offered by Amazon, and by shopping Amazon through AO, you help this blog keep going!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Nobel Committee Blunders
Now, I’m the first guy who likes to see Americans get the Nobel Peace Prize, but don’t you actually have to do something to earn it? So, what exactly did Obama do during the ten days between the time he was sworn in a President and the cut off date for nominations for the Nobel Award? I don’t know about you, but given the size of the White House, my greatest accomplishment in ten days would be to find the kitchen and all the restrooms! Heck, during the first few weeks after his inauguration, Obama was still picking staff and unpacking. So then, perhaps the best place to start is by looking at what Obama did prior to becoming America’s first bi-racial President. Maybe that would give us a clue as to why he was nominated by the Nobel Committee.
As far as I can tell in reading his bio, he was a junior US Senator from Illinois who really didn’t accomplish anything particularly important. He sponsored no world altering legislation. He wasn’t part of any investigative committee examining current financial practices or overseeing military intelligence reports, or even our healthcare system. Ok, how about as Illinois State Senator? Nope, I found nothing there either. He was kinda popular, but didn’t really ever take the lead on much legislation; certainly nothing of a national or international nature. Well then, what does the Nobel Committee look at in making their selections and what about past American Presidents (I’ll give you a hint—there were three)?
The Nobel Peace Prize was established by Alfred Nobel upon his death in 1896 and the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901. Nobel requested that the Norwegian Government, through its Parliament, appoint a committee of five individuals to select individuals for their work in peace related work using the following criteria:
“…during the preceding year [...] 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.”
All nominations have to be submitted by February 1, and based therefore, on the nominee’s work for the previous year. The Committee generally has a list of approximately 200 nominees which is then whittled down to a much shorter (and workable) list. This list is then reviewed by the permanent advisers to the Nobel Institute, consisting of the Institute's Director and the Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. The advisers will usually have a few months to complete their reviews, which are then considered by the Committee to select the winner. The Committee seeks to achieve a unanimous decision, which is not always possible.
The current Nobel Committee members are:
Thorbjørn Jagland (the Committee chairman and former Member of Parliament. He is the former Prime Minister for the Labour Party and current Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Kaci Kullmann Five (a deputy chairman and former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister for the Conservative Party.
Sissel Rønbeck (a deputy director and former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister for the Labour Party
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (a former member of Parliament for the Progress Party.
Ågot Valle (a former member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party
So, who were the three US Presidents and what did they do to earn their nomination?
The first was Theodore “Teedy” Roosevelt (my personal favorite). “TR” as he was often called, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his successful mediation to end the war between Russia and Japan, thus saving tens of thousands of lives. The next American President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize was Woodrow Wilson in 1919. President Wilson received the honor for his work in brokering an end to World War I and for his efforts in establishing the League of Nations, which was the precursor to the United Nations. The central idea behind the League of Nations was to create a forum whereby nations could resolve their disputes peacefully and to foster international cooperation. The third American President was Jimmy Carter, who was given the award in 2002 for his work, while President, in brokering peace between Egypt and Israel (also known as the Camp David Accords) during the 1970’s.
So, where does that leave us? Pretty much right where we started. The Nobel Committee defended their decision to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize (and its $1.5 million dollar award) based on his speeches and call for international cooperation and peace (since the rules state that the nomination has to be for work one year previous, we have to assume the award was therefore given for his campaign speeches, and we all know about campaign promises). Thus the award would have been based on Obama’s “promises” of change while running for office. If that was the case, every candidate who ever ran for office should have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama accepted the award “on behalf of the American People”, which I assuming means that we will get a piece of that $1.5 million dollars (or at the very least, his speech writers should get some of the action).
All and all, the Nobel Committee blundered badly in eyes of the world and greatly diminished the value of this great award. It said to the global community that promises mattered more than deeds. The Nobel Foundation and Institute are going to have to work hard to regain the integrity it has lost. Until then, there is no reason not to expect a Noble Peace Prize at the bottom of every box of Cracker Jacks. I promise.
Poll Results
In our last poll, we asked if you would support “ObamaCare” if it dropped the so-called “public option” for illegal immigrants. 30% of you said you would. 10% of you said might support it, while an overwhelming 60% said no way. I have to agree. America’s healthcare system is in shambles. We can and should do better but socializing our healthcare system isn’t the answer, and especially if that includes providing healthcare coverage at taxpayer expense to individuals who have come to this country illegally. If they want healthcare coverage, then either take steps to be here legally or feel free to return home.
As far as I can tell in reading his bio, he was a junior US Senator from Illinois who really didn’t accomplish anything particularly important. He sponsored no world altering legislation. He wasn’t part of any investigative committee examining current financial practices or overseeing military intelligence reports, or even our healthcare system. Ok, how about as Illinois State Senator? Nope, I found nothing there either. He was kinda popular, but didn’t really ever take the lead on much legislation; certainly nothing of a national or international nature. Well then, what does the Nobel Committee look at in making their selections and what about past American Presidents (I’ll give you a hint—there were three)?
The Nobel Peace Prize was established by Alfred Nobel upon his death in 1896 and the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901. Nobel requested that the Norwegian Government, through its Parliament, appoint a committee of five individuals to select individuals for their work in peace related work using the following criteria:
“…during the preceding year [...] 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.”
All nominations have to be submitted by February 1, and based therefore, on the nominee’s work for the previous year. The Committee generally has a list of approximately 200 nominees which is then whittled down to a much shorter (and workable) list. This list is then reviewed by the permanent advisers to the Nobel Institute, consisting of the Institute's Director and the Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. The advisers will usually have a few months to complete their reviews, which are then considered by the Committee to select the winner. The Committee seeks to achieve a unanimous decision, which is not always possible.
The current Nobel Committee members are:
Thorbjørn Jagland (the Committee chairman and former Member of Parliament. He is the former Prime Minister for the Labour Party and current Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Kaci Kullmann Five (a deputy chairman and former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister for the Conservative Party.
Sissel Rønbeck (a deputy director and former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister for the Labour Party
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (a former member of Parliament for the Progress Party.
Ågot Valle (a former member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party
So, who were the three US Presidents and what did they do to earn their nomination?
The first was Theodore “Teedy” Roosevelt (my personal favorite). “TR” as he was often called, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his successful mediation to end the war between Russia and Japan, thus saving tens of thousands of lives. The next American President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize was Woodrow Wilson in 1919. President Wilson received the honor for his work in brokering an end to World War I and for his efforts in establishing the League of Nations, which was the precursor to the United Nations. The central idea behind the League of Nations was to create a forum whereby nations could resolve their disputes peacefully and to foster international cooperation. The third American President was Jimmy Carter, who was given the award in 2002 for his work, while President, in brokering peace between Egypt and Israel (also known as the Camp David Accords) during the 1970’s.
So, where does that leave us? Pretty much right where we started. The Nobel Committee defended their decision to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize (and its $1.5 million dollar award) based on his speeches and call for international cooperation and peace (since the rules state that the nomination has to be for work one year previous, we have to assume the award was therefore given for his campaign speeches, and we all know about campaign promises). Thus the award would have been based on Obama’s “promises” of change while running for office. If that was the case, every candidate who ever ran for office should have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama accepted the award “on behalf of the American People”, which I assuming means that we will get a piece of that $1.5 million dollars (or at the very least, his speech writers should get some of the action).
All and all, the Nobel Committee blundered badly in eyes of the world and greatly diminished the value of this great award. It said to the global community that promises mattered more than deeds. The Nobel Foundation and Institute are going to have to work hard to regain the integrity it has lost. Until then, there is no reason not to expect a Noble Peace Prize at the bottom of every box of Cracker Jacks. I promise.
Poll Results
In our last poll, we asked if you would support “ObamaCare” if it dropped the so-called “public option” for illegal immigrants. 30% of you said you would. 10% of you said might support it, while an overwhelming 60% said no way. I have to agree. America’s healthcare system is in shambles. We can and should do better but socializing our healthcare system isn’t the answer, and especially if that includes providing healthcare coverage at taxpayer expense to individuals who have come to this country illegally. If they want healthcare coverage, then either take steps to be here legally or feel free to return home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)










