Mitch Albom on Obama Nobel Peace Prize

[Imoutgoodbye]

I love Mitch Albom. I've never read his books, but I thoroughly enjoy his editorial pieces and his sports writing. Here's his take on Obama's nobel peace prize:

Did you get yours? I didn't get mine. Not yet, anyhow. My Nobel Peace Prize. I hope it's in the mail.

I know it's coming. And I have just the place for it. Above the fireplace, next to the photo of my parents. They'll be so proud.

Of course, they get one, too.

And so do you. So does every American. Oh sure, it was President Barack Obama who was officially announced the winner Friday. But come on. The nomination deadline was Feb. 1, less than two weeks after his inauguration. What had Obama done by Feb. 1?

Nothing. Except get elected.

And who did that? We did.

So. Did you get yours yet?

Anybody-but-Bush award?

I'm serious. Did you hear what Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, told the news media after Obama was announced? He said: "The question we have to ask is, 'Who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world?' And who has done more than Barack Obama?"

Hmm. I'd say a lot of people.

Or that was a helluva 12 days.

After all, Obama, in his first two weeks, didn't stop any wars. He didn't dismantle any nuclear plants. He still hasn't. Afghanistan is a mess. Iran is saber rattling. Near as I can tell, Obama now has an award that Mahatma Gandhi never won mostly because he is not George W. Bush.

In fact, the five Norwegian committee members must have viewed Bush as such a warmongering, divisive force, that Obama got 100 points just for moving in when Bush moved out.

And, not to pat our own backs, but who was responsible for that? We were. The American people. OK, so not everyone voted for Obama, but we're all in this together. Majority rules, everyone shares. Anyhow, who's going to admit they voted against Obama today, when it means a nice little Nobel Prize to put in the basement, next to the signed Barry Sanders jersey?

Congratulations, fellow planet-savers.

Hoping for a bright future

"We want to embrace the message that he stands for," Jagland declared. Right. So did we. Of course, until this past week, we didn't know you could get a Nobel Prize for that, or we might have voted earlier.

But I guess the qualifications have shifted. How else can you explain a prize that has gone to monks, martyrs, surgeons, long-suffering civil rights activists, scientists who labor for peace, Nazi hunters, Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa -- Mother Teresa! -- now going to a man who spent most of last year campaigning for president, and most of this year trying to get a health care plan off the ground.

Hey, I like Obama. But if that gets you a Nobel Peace Prize, there's a lot of people this morning yelling, "Gyp!"

Even Obama seemed embarrassed.

"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures who've been honored by this prize," he said.

At least he's honest. And humble. Which is more than you can say about the communications director of the Democratic National Committee, Brad Woodhouse, who lashed out at Republicans who criticized the award as having "thrown in ... with the terrorists."

That's a little harsh, don't you think? I don't believe Brad should get his award. We can give two to someone else.

All of this controversy only proves what we have long suspected, that nobody really knows what a Nobel Prize is. It takes a controversy to get it noticed -- kind of like Kanye West's stealing the mike from Taylor Swift.

Jagland readily admitted the whole thing was a gamble on the future, kind of like giving an Oscar to Russell Crowe's 5-year-old son, figuring he'll probably earn it one day.

One Nobel official declared to the New York Times: "We are very optimistic that this will turn out to be a success," which is usually what you say when you give a loan, not a prize.

But hey. The committee feels like Obama is a winner, and that makes us winners for electing him, and I am proud, and you should be proud, and we all should clear some space on the bookshelf, because suddenly, this long-time Scandinavian award has got red, white and blue all over it.

After all, when Jagland was asked by a reporter whether the committee feared being labeled naive, he shrugged and said, "Well, so?"

If that's not an American answer, what is?

[f0xx]

Can we put some kind of spam restriction on Valek? Something like 1 thread per hour...

[H&R]

wtf?

[TheNewGuy]

The whole nobel peace prize thing is a joke. It's not a part of the original nobel prize. And the winners have been questionable many times.

[Pali]

And the winners have been questionable many times.

Agreed.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Mitch Albom RULES! Spam that, baby.

[mya]

Obama is a good choice.

Why ? Because his political speech has a global impact. His words carry hope through the world. He does not speaks of evil, he does not speaks of racism, he speaks of cooperation.

This is very important, cooperation is the building block of peace. When countries stop talking to each other, war tends to settle in. (Physical,economical,ideological)

Even if he had not taken a direct action towards peace, he has motivates Millions towards that goal.

At a time of economic hardship, he does not speak of closing borders/markets. He speaks of cooperation, hope of a better future.

He is like a manager, inspiring his staff into greater things.

For example, giving the nobel peace prize to a "Nazi hunters", is for me, a very incorrect action. You are rewarding hate, not promoting peace and cooperation. Grudges do not bring peace, only further violence.

Peace nobel prize is a tool for peace promotion.

Giving this award to Obama, is a very effective way to promote peace, by creating the idea that if you cooperate you will have international recognition.

Just think of the missile shield roll back. What impact it had on peace, just by cooperating, NATO and RUSSIA reached a compromise.

[Imoutgoodbye]

The missile shield roll back was done to cut expenses and those long range missile interceptors are only about 64% accurate.

And I want TWO nobel peace prizes, one for my FL sermons and one for voting for Obama.

[TheNewGuy]

Mya;

Obama had just been elected when the nominations were due. He hadn't done **** back then. Of course he could deserve a peace prize in the future, but not yet. Far from. He got the prize because that the majority of the jury is left-wing, and Obama is the closest to a socialist president the US has ever had. Of course they want to give him recognition.

Valek;

You get a nobel prize for your sermons, but it is taken back, because you voted for Obama...

[EyeSeeU]

Canada should get a Nobel Peace Prize!

[Imoutgoodbye]

Canada should get a Nobel Peace Prize!

WHAT?! I've seen the way you people wield hockey sticks! No way!

[Cephirus]

While I do agree, awarding the Nobel prize to Obama so early does seem a bit... well, misplaced. It is one thing to want him to earn it, but keep in mind, many disinformationist are going to use that against him. They won't care if they are also sullying the name of the Nobel prize, which the committee by making that choice seems very odd, it is ammunition for them all the same. Is it revolutionary that we have a black president given this countries history, yes! Has it been a long time coming, yes! Does everything he does and does not do face incredible scrutiny that even Nixon's watergate scandal and any other presidents faults will pale in comparison to, YES! That is only because he is black, and president. The racial steorotype will remain prevelant for years to come, until we change within society. Until then, all african-americans will be judged on what he does, what he accomplishes, what he fails at (hopefully he does not fail at anything, but he is human). I hope for the best for him, he means everything to so many people of our country that we should do every damn thing we can to make sure what he wants to do works. Now to some that is blind faith they cannot agree with, however, he is the president that we elected, and you should have the faith in him to follow his lead wherever it leads. If it leads me off a cliff, I will trust in his judgment that at the bottom there will be a nice soft landing. If we do not do so, then we will only further segregate our country. We will only further segregate those that are in power from those that simply want to enjoy life and not have to worry about if they have a job, if they have a place to live. Obama represents a turning point, and we are with him in it one way or another. So I say buck up even if you did not vote for him. It is our job to give him our best and everything he needs to be successful. Because if he does not succeed, then we all fail.

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

While I do agree' date=' awarding the Nobel prize to Obama so early does seem a bit... well, misplaced. It is one thing to want him to earn it, but keep in mind, many disinformationist are going to use that against him. They won't care if they are also sullying the name of the Nobel prize, which the committee by making that choice seems very odd, it is ammunition for them all the same. Is it revolutionary that we have a black president given this countries history, yes! Has it been a long time coming, yes! Does everything he does and does not do face incredible scrutiny that even Nixon's watergate scandal and any other presidents faults will pale in comparison to, YES! That is only because he is black, and president. The racial steorotype will remain prevelant for years to come, until we change within society. Until then, all african-americans will be judged on what he does, what he accomplishes, what he fails at (hopefully he does not fail at anything, but he is human). I hope for the best for him, he means everything to so many people of our country that we should do every damn thing we can to make sure what he wants to do works. Now to some that is blind faith they cannot agree with, however, he is the president that we elected, and you should have the faith in him to follow his lead wherever it leads. If it leads me off a cliff, I will trust in his judgment that at the bottom there will be a nice soft landing. If we do not do so, then we will only further segregate our country. We will only further segregate those that are in power from those that simply want to enjoy life and not have to worry about if they have a job, if they have a place to live. Obama represents a turning point, and we are with him in it one way or another. So I say buck up even if you did not vote for him. It is our job to give him our best and everything he needs to be successful. Because if he does not succeed, then we all fail.[/quote']

I thought he was white? No? Oh, my bad. You mean, black dad + white mom = black. Got it. Thanks.

[jibber]

Obama? Nobel Peace Prize? WTF for?

:-/

Oh wait, you mean there's an explanation in that long winded post about what Obama has not done? Heheh.

[Mali]

You mean, black dad + white mom = black. Got it. Thanks.

The concept of race as a biological indicator means nothing. There is greater genetic variation within these so called racial categories than in between them. That means an individual that would be called "white" by society today likely has more in common on a genetic level with an individual that would be called "black" than with his or her "white" peers.

The race categories that appear on government forms, standard applications, and most other documents are survey items that are ultimately self-reported. Therefore race is considered by the federal government to be more of a marker for social identification than an actual biological measurement.

Consider this statement on race from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists:

3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

Racial categorization is however constantly used as a means of discrimination and bias based only on externally visible human traits.

I challenge all of you to think about what this means and rise to a higher level of understanding.

http://physanth.org/association/position-statements/biological-aspects-of-race

[Iconz]

What that guy said above me is totally right... biologically speaking theres no such thing as race... we just like to seperate ourselves into groups b/c "hey... f** that other guy... he aint one of us". Yeah... Obama aint done crap yet to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize... it really just speaks volumes about how much the rest of the world hated Bush.

__________________

Iconz - If we lived in a colorblind society... how would i know when to stop for red lights?

[Pali]

Yeah... Obama aint done crap yet to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize... it really just speaks volumes about how much the rest of the world hated Bush.

While this is not incorrect, it is not entirely correct either. Symbols are incredibly important things to people, and as president Bush did a lot of damage to the basic idea of America around the globe. Obama's election did a lot to repair the damage done to that idea, as have the speeches he's made. Yes, there is a difference between words and deeds, and I do agree that giving him the Nobel was premature... but I don't think a lot of Americans truly appreciate the way the rest of the world views us, or how important it is to the rest of the world for the leader of the world's most powerful country to be talking about things the way Obama does.

Do not get me wrong here - I am disappointed by Obama in many aspects of his presidency thus far as well. But he's also done quite a few things that I'm damned proud of, and I give him credit for them too.

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

The concept of race as a biological indicator means nothing. There is greater genetic variation within these so called racial categories than in between them. That means an individual that would be called "white" by society today likely has more in common on a genetic level with an individual that would be called "black" than with his or her "white" peers.

The race categories that appear on government forms, standard applications, and most other documents are survey items that are ultimately self-reported. Therefore race is considered by the federal government to be more of a marker for social identification than an actual biological measurement.

Consider this statement on race from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists:

Racial categorization is however constantly used as a means of discrimination and bias based only on externally visible human traits.

I challenge all of you to think about what this means and rise to a higher level of understanding.

http://physanth.org/association/position-statements/biological-aspects-of-race

Oh I know. Its all a matter of melanin levels and the amounts of fat around the eyes, etc for the differences in mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid. There is but one human race.

But as you say, the government likes to categorize. How else would we self-segregate/reverse discriminate if we didn't know what everyone likes to call themselves?

[Mali]

But as you say, the government likes to categorize. How else would we self-segregate/reverse discriminate if we didn't know what everyone likes to call themselves?

I think a more pertinent question is why as a society do we choose to continue to use racial categorization when there is no scientific merit behind the idea?

The answer is that we are still peering through the lens of history and incorporating outdated ideas into our worldview.

Some would argue that if the concept of no races were to make its way into the way we run things, then there would be a lack of demographic information with which to target specific groups that have health issues or that are in need of aid due to past racial discrimination.

My counterpoint to the above argument is that it is entirely possible to honor one's own ancestry and heritage while dispelling the idea that they are as a group able to be genetically categorized.

In fact, the term "ancestry" can tell us alot more about an individual's characteristics than any grouping based on external characteristics. Although some folks have trouble with this term and think it is a politically correct synonym for race, which it definitely is not. I am not sold on this idea but it is one suggestion that has been made in recent years concerning classification and data collection.

The subject is at the forefront of debates on bioethics especially as we move into a new age where these so called "race wars" are likely to continue due to overpopulation, lack of resources, and a widening gap between those who have and those who have not.

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

I think a more pertinent question is why as a society do we choose to continue to use racial categorization when there is no scientific merit behind the idea?

a system of control

The answer is that we are still peering through the lens of history and incorporating outdated ideas into our worldview.

no. the answer is people like to be in control and need to reinforce this notion to stay in control.

Some would argue that if the concept of no races were to make its way into the way we run things' date=' then there would be a lack of demographic information with which to target specific groups that have health issues or that are in need of aid due to past racial discrimination.[/quote']

The system of control is already taking my hard earned dollar for this. My hard earned dollar. And giving it to white and black people, very few of whom actually deserve it. As an aside to deflect anger at my post I will submit that the majority of my dollar, and yours, goes to fill the pockets of the greedy piece of **** politicians, their extravagant lifestyle and the money grubbers they pander to. Past racial discrimination? Please.

My counterpoint to the above argument is that it is entirely possible to honor one's own ancestry and heritage while dispelling the idea that they are as a group able to be genetically categorized.

Yeah, insert Italian/Irish/Scot/etc American here. Already been done, some need to catch the eff up.

In fact' date=' the term "ancestry" can tell us alot more about an individual's characteristics than any grouping based on external characteristics. Although some folks have trouble with this term and think it is a politically correct synonym for race, which it definitely is not. I am not sold on this idea but it is one suggestion that has been made in recent years concerning classification and data collection.[/quote']

Sounds good, but being a Christian I believe we all got off the same boat a few years back.

The subject is at the forefront of debates on bioethics especially as we move into a new age where these so called "race wars" are likely to continue due to overpopulation' date=' lack of resources, and a widening gap between those who have and those who have not.[/quote']

Let me fix that for you... "widening gap between those who work and those who do not work."

[Mali]

Let me fix that for you... "widening gap between those who work and those who do not work."

I think my statement was more applicable on a global scale. Take for example the issue of access to clean water and sanitary living conditions. As more people enter the world and water restrictions become tighter and tighter, I predict that those who have money, connections, or belong to a certain "human racial group" will make a move against those who have no money, connections, or those who belong to a different "human racial group". This situation will likely replay itself in several different places across the globe, and some would argue it has already. It has nothing to do with people working or not working.

Unless we can conserve water resources, lower the birthrates in developing countries, work against racial identification, and use what skills we have to help people help themselves... then all bets are off for what horrors the future may hold.

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

It has nothing to do with people working or not working.

Whether it happened 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, or 2500 years ago or more. Yes, in the end it had a lot to do with people working. Nobody just up and stumbled into clean water systems, indoor plumbing, and sanitary conditions.

I predict that those who have money' date=' connections, or belong to a certain "human racial group" will make a move against those who have no money, connections, or those who belong to a different "human racial group".[/quote']

Nothing that hasn't been done countless times before. Not saying that makes it right, but who's going to change history. The cycle is about to repeat.

[Imoutgoodbye]

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I think race, I think culture, and by culture, I mean stereotype.

And, trust me, where I live, the stereotype is the norm for the culture. Everyone separates THEMSELVES when they continue to cling to something that makes them "different". Everyone wants their individuality, but everyone wants to feel like they belong to something.

Race is just another category made up by people, not just opponents of "people".

[Mali]

"It is hard to accept the fact that any perceived feature - be it string, clump, constellation, corridor, curved chain, lacuna - is a totally meaningless accident, having as its only cause the avidity for pattern of my eye and brain! Yet that is perfectly true in this case."

-Ed Purcell, discussing star patterns.

Ed's statement can be applied to fields other than astronomy. By placing labels on people and objects and by allowing ourselves to compartmentalize everything we see, we risk losing our understanding of context and meaning.

[jibber]

I'm concerned, now.

How did this turn into a 'racial' discussion?

This is about a man getting the Nobel Peace Price who has done absolutely nothing, except nail Americans to the Cross overseas. Did everyone hear about his speech in Europe? "I'm sorry that American's are so arrogant?"

He's our President. And he's talking against us, so that America can what, flourish because now we're seen as one of the worst countries, and at that, the one with one of the 'best' Presidents since he does not think much of his own Fellow Americans.

I don't care what color he is. He's a bloody socialistic, speech monger who hasn't done a god blessed thing to help in the situation we're currently in. He deserves no Nobel peace prize, and he definitely doesn't deserve any sort of prize on top of that. Bleh?