Politics, Politics.
Oct. 9th, 2009 08:25 pmGoing off on a political tangent, now, because I feel I need to. Feel free to ignore.
I was surprised by the choice of Obama as winner of The Nobel Peace Prize, but I think I see the reasoning. Or parts of it, at least my thoughts seem to concur with Jagland's (committee leader). It is not so much a reward for what he has done, but an incentive to keep going. A pat on the back, a looming presence to make sure he does not have second thoughts. The Committee is thrilled to see him taking the UN seriously, promising dialogue and
More of a responsibility to make a change, than a reward.
At least it's anything but Al Gore all over again.
Oh, fun fact, because I can't resist: Jagland, current Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, is also Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. A position the Norwegian Labour Party supported his candidacy for only because they were desperate to get rid of him. They figured getting him out of their hair was worth a few million. He cannot get his foot out of his mouth. Incompetent fool, really.
I was surprised by the choice of Obama as winner of The Nobel Peace Prize, but I think I see the reasoning. Or parts of it, at least my thoughts seem to concur with Jagland's (committee leader). It is not so much a reward for what he has done, but an incentive to keep going. A pat on the back, a looming presence to make sure he does not have second thoughts. The Committee is thrilled to see him taking the UN seriously, promising dialogue and
More of a responsibility to make a change, than a reward.
At least it's anything but Al Gore all over again.
Oh, fun fact, because I can't resist: Jagland, current Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, is also Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. A position the Norwegian Labour Party supported his candidacy for only because they were desperate to get rid of him. They figured getting him out of their hair was worth a few million. He cannot get his foot out of his mouth. Incompetent fool, really.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 09:20 am (UTC)And I feel that the reasoning behind it is in keeping with Nobel's testament, roughly paraphrased: the prize should be awarded someone working for peace. Not necessarily someone who can point at his incredible results.
It is in part for doing his job a lot better than Bush, I think. He would never have been elected if not for Bush's poor job.
There, late and badly phrased answer. About to dive back into political science, my lecturer would've given this post an F XD