And then, Watson and Crick got a nobel prize for the structure of DNA, while most of their work was practically "stolen" from Rosealin (sp?) Franklin by her lab assistant (he also got the prize), who fired X-ray beams at it while the other two people were messing around with scientific lego blocks and guess work.
To be fair to the Nobel Committee, Franklin was dead when that prize was awarded to her work. Her assistants and colleagues accepted on her behalf with full credit to her.
For that matter, there's a pit in my stomach that makes me think at least a few people on the Committee voted for Obama out of fear they wouldn't have another chance, for abundantly obvious reasons. Ghandi was nominated twelve times, and lost because the Committee of the day didn't want to look too political. Ever since he was missed, sometimes they've been rather quick to reward high profile but unaccomplished figures, like Gorbachev.
As long as it's being discussed, let's think about that. If you don't believe Barack Obama deserved the Peace Prize (and even he doesn't), name one person who in the past year has done more to promote world peace. I'm honestly asking, I'm sure there are specific names and I'm eager to hear. Now onto the ugly business.
Well at least I'm not the only one confused out of my noggin. I do find this a convenient place to vent, especially as I apparently have at least one ignorante "liberal"* to sling mud back at. My "fears" (a lovely term, fast becoming cliche, which is constantly flung around by "liberals") are actually simply a logical argument that Obama stands to do more harm than good.
Do you really want to do this? First, "fear" is not pejorative, there's plenty of things in the world to be justifiably afraid of. So let's start off easy and make that as logical a belief as you insist it is. Identify a policy proposal that Obama has espoused that you believe will be disastrous for the nation, and then explain how and why. Actual, concrete policies please, not notions or impressions, and you will have to back up your interpretation with cause and effect, not principles. I have no doubt that you can this, it's the cornerstone of logical argument, I just want to see some effort. And I'd love to hear your reactions to his acceptance speech.
Before this goes any further, take a step back and look at how you approached this. Barack Obama was awarded a prize (whatever the other context) for promoting world peace. You used this a platform to vent non-specific concerns about his irrelevant economic philosophy, which you also have not described. I asked you, snidely sure but still honestly, to elaborate. From that question, you've immediately assumed that I'm an illiterate socialist demagogue who affords you no sense of observation or human decency.
You've started a discussion with a giant chip on your shoulder and a fixation with labels. I have no doubt that neither of us will convince each other of anything for however long this runs (such is the Internet), but you can at least grant me the courtesy of waiting for me to make an argument before assuming you know what I have to say.
God, of all the subjects I'd love to flamewar over, why did it have to be today? I'll be honest, I owe better.
Author
Topic: Why did President Barack Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize? (Read 7428 times)