Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Nobel Peace Prize
Nirvana
aka BUBBA ` ` South Carolina, USA Veteran
OK. So the Nobel committee awarded its prestigious Peace Prize and you are stumped! Whoa, who isn't?
I must say that I am shocked and saddened by the tenor of the outrage from certain corners, though. It's just an award. Just a dumb award. Have we put aside all restraint as a people? Are good manners and wishing well to our compatriots no longer civic requirements?
Our civilization is doomed if we are free to express our most inhospitable sentiments at any time and have them broadcast and reacted to by "respectable people," who we follow in one way or another. Dare we let ourselves think that way? We teach our children how to behave and yet behave so savagely ourselves.
I think I'm gonna just turn off the news for a couple of months, and plug my ears at work when the news is on.
Why can't people just accept other people, notwithstanding their many good points and irresistible charms, and let some love into their darkened hearts? Where this mystery of iniquity comes from eludes me. Methinks an enemy lurks within the human heart, though.
I must say that I am shocked and saddened by the tenor of the outrage from certain corners, though. It's just an award. Just a dumb award. Have we put aside all restraint as a people? Are good manners and wishing well to our compatriots no longer civic requirements?
Our civilization is doomed if we are free to express our most inhospitable sentiments at any time and have them broadcast and reacted to by "respectable people," who we follow in one way or another. Dare we let ourselves think that way? We teach our children how to behave and yet behave so savagely ourselves.
I think I'm gonna just turn off the news for a couple of months, and plug my ears at work when the news is on.
Why can't people just accept other people, notwithstanding their many good points and irresistible charms, and let some love into their darkened hearts? Where this mystery of iniquity comes from eludes me. Methinks an enemy lurks within the human heart, though.
0
Comments
I don't know if we've "put aside all restraint as a people," but here's what I wrote about the news Friday morning:
http://leavesintheforest.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-wins-2009-nobel-peace-prize.html
Nobel himself stipulated that the prize should go to "the person who 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." But according to the Chicago Sun-Times, "More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments," and that seems to be the case here.
Plus, they gave one to Kissinger of all people, so you know the prize is pretty much bullshit at this point.
Thanks, Jason. I am happy to be reminded of Nobel's words. Seems to me that Mr. Obama deserved the prize on those grounds alone. Even if my spellchecker tries to throw his name into the trash, I can think of no other single person this year who fits the bill better than our beloved President.
We are lucky to have the man as our president. I'm ashamed to say that he and his beautiful wife are not likely to be visiting South Carolina very soon, as their safety would be in more than usual jeopardy. That seems to be the understanding in Washington.
Enlarging the size of the armed forces against a combatant that refuses to distinguish between military and civilian personnel to my mind is not building up the kind of standing armies Alfred Lord Noble had in mind. Standing armies stand against each other in the field and can be counted, more or less. Guerilla warfare, I believe, was something Nobel was not keenly aware of, if at all.
I think Mr. Obama is constantly appealing to fraternity and peace among the nations.
Are you kidding? What about Greg Mortenson? Or Sima Samar?
Do you also think the heavy civilian casualties from U.S. drone attacks in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are what Nobel had in mind?
It's been a fraud ever since Yasser Arafat won it.
I understand. It wasn't a criticism of Obama, it was a criticism of the Nobel Committee and their decision.
If anything it's been a sham since Henry Kissinger won it.
I am waiting for a Nobel Peace laureate to refuse the prize but I fear that it is so frlattering that even HHDL accepted.
Well, I'm personally disappointed in the choice because it puts so much pressure on Obama.
It was basically awarded to "hold him to his word" I suppose you could say. It was voted on when he'd only been in Office for 11 days. It was awarded more-so for what they hope and expect him to do, rather than what he's done. Obama inspired many people but even he knows he's not accepting the award for that, or for anything else he's done so far.
In accepting the award at this point, he's only hurting himself, only putting even more pressure on himself (have you noticed how much he's aged physically since the Campaign?). I'm worried that this will lead to a lot of inacation on his part as he tries to keep the peace and appease both sides.
The Presidency does that to everyone though. Look at Clinton, I swear he aged 20 years in 8. Bush II as well. Not quite as bad as Clinton, but still probably more than he would have otherwise. That's got to be the most stressful job in the world.
Yes, I know. The point was that he already has so much pressure on him. He's only making it worse for himself in accepting the award right now.
Obama may have truly had intentions of changing the military’s DADT policy or of ending the two wars, but I’m sure that reality set in very quickly for the new President once he was in office. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was taken into a back room and literally beaten into submission. You’re right that he is an empty suit, but I do not believe that it is a new thing. He has never been my choice for President. He made promises that were well out of his scope of influence and continues to spend government money on out of control déjà-vu projects. I don’t think one ounce of him deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Sure, he has great ideas, but there are far more people out there that have made significant, measurable impacts across the globe that deserve the award more than he does. He was given the prize because of the hope that he could change things and for his ideas. I have some similar ideas about how to bring about world peace, but where is my award? Where are the Nobel Peace Prizes for the many people on this forum that show incredible loving kindness for others and advocate the dismantling of nuclear and biological weapon systems? The whole hero worship thing makes me sick and I can’t wait until he’s gone.
~nomad
I never claimed to be impartial.
I love Barack! The man can do no harm. Perhaps the tiger he rides upon is unruly and will no doubt hurt many. But who better to control the Tiger? Who would best mitigate the harm?
It is the nature of fire to burn and of great powers to assert their will and crush others beneath them. However, having power in the hands of a living, breathing, real human being —rather than in the whims of a machine— makes a difference. Humanity has someone on its side in Barack.
I am so proud to have a smart man in the White House whose heart is just as big as his head!
Metta on him!
Nirvy
There's a lot of evidence that the man can, in fact, do harm. The hero worship is neither objective nor helpful.
I am just loyal to people who either are friends or would be friends.
I trust friends and don't stand in judgment of each decision they have to make.
It's blatant.
He's not your friend, he's a politician. He's the president, not a King, and we as citizens should judge his decisions.
You didn't get the memo? Big brother loves you.
~nomad
You're blatant and being unpleasant.
You don't know me.
Don't judge me.
Palzang
Being better than McCain does not make him a good President. Not even close.
Since when should we give the President a break because he's a nice guy? He's running up the tab for future generations, killing lots of people and allowing gays to be discriminated against. He's not a champion for peace, economic freedom, or civil rights. He's just like his predecessor in many terrible ways. He won't end the wars, he's owned by Wall Street and he won't stand up for civil liberties (see his vote about the telecom companies) or civil rights (see his memo comparing homosexuals to pedophiles).
What I don't understand is that people are taking it personally when others bring up the bad things that a politician has done. Do you guys really want a dictator or a King? That's what you get when citizens are not allowed to speak honestly about their leaders.
Gotta agree with Lyssa. Obama may be better than McCain but he isn't perfect. It's your responsibility as a citizen to be critical of him and his decisions. It's nothing personal. If the Buddha himself were in that position, you should do the same thing.
Also please remember that he was handed the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the economic mess, etc, from the totally incompetent and completely dangerous Bush administration. Who could be expected to walk in and straighten out that mess? Nobody. It's going to take a long time and probably never will be straightened out completely. Bush and crew did the US irreperable harm imho. That's not to say that his predecessors were perfect either. Far from it! Presidents are sentient beings and, worse, politicians, so one can only ever have limited expectations of them and hope that their excesses can be somehow contained or neutralized.
Palzang
I remember someone posting, a week after he became president-elect (emphasis: elect), something along the lines of "See? All that change he talked about? You've all been duped! Nothing has changed since Obama won the election."
I gotta be honest..
We're all politicians to one degree or another. It is only the person with no responsibilities or any property worth preserving who is not foisted into "dealings" at one time or another. (Dealings usually happen "in the city" —polis.)
However, a person who stands for public office, whether elected or appointed, is a rather more significant and challenged human being than the rest of us "politicians." We non-political office-holders only have to balance the rights and responsibilities of ourselves and our families, but the public servant must often act against his or her private interests in stewardship of the greater good. Sometimes the greater good entails very unpopular decisions. All of this can make for a very big headache, and I'm glad that there exists people who are willing to take on the job. Furthermore, I'm elated when competent, honest, and charismatic people take it on!
I can understand people having ambition to run for public office, except for one thing: Giving up privacy. That is one thing I'm not willing to do, as I like to keep my own counsel about a great many things and am not interested in a lot of details about other people. The public office-holder, however, needs to know a lot about a lot of people. O, if only they were able to turn away all those they should!
Public office holders have to give up a lot of privacy and are held to higher standards than the rest of us. It should, then, be no surprise that certain raw, unattractive facts come out against them from time to time. It must be hard always having to be on your best behavior, even in private.
I hope you're not referring to me. I simply found it insulting that you accused me of hero-worshipping Barack. I have always been interested in presidential politics and know a gem when I see one. And don't hold every little word so dern literally.
What I don't understand is what the **** is wrong with a little bit of love. HOW can love of a person ever be wrong if no evil deeds result from that love?
Love and only love can make peace possible. It is the only ground from which forbearance and devotion to the duty to abide by one's commitments can spring and be nourished.
By his words and deeds, Mr. Obama is making this world a more peace-prospective place than those who would harbor resentment towards others.
The Nobel Peace Prize, though prestigious, is just an award. It's not giving anyone a free ride or a free lunch. It's just a silly award! Get over It!
Do you think it was noble of Bush to run for office? I suspect this characterization is reserved for Obama.
My problem with some of Obama's decisions are that they were not unpopular owing to his commitment to the greater good, but because of his commitment to those who contributed to his campaign and political expediency. I doubt victims of illegal wiretaps or drone attacks care how charismatic he is.
I was referring to you. You said the man can do no wrong and refer to him as your friend. You also call him Barack. If that's not hero worship, I don't know what is.
Enabling a leader at the expense of your fellow citizens and innocent people in other countries is evil. Leaders should be held accountable, and if admiration precludes good judgment, terrible things can happen. Thinking that someone can do no wrong is not love, it's delusion.
Through his deeds, innocent people die every day. Through his deeds, corporations prosper while citizens suffer. Through his deeds, discrimination and bigotry have been enabled. Through his deeds, generational theft is being committed. Forgive me if I don't care about his words.
Blindly supporting a leader - any leader - in everything s/he does is dangerous.
The man can do no harm means, where I come from, that the man can do no (great [scilicet]) harm. I thought I had addressed that point already in so many words about your taking every word so literally.
Are you against peace in principle or just in practice?
Why do you, on a Buddhist board, INSIST on angering others by calling them names? And then, re-insult them? The point of these boards is to engage in productive discussions in a climate of tolerance. If that's not your style, then I suggest that I can no longer respond to you. If it's all gotta be one-way for you, good! I don't wanna play your unpleasant game, any-which-way.
My post was about President Obama, not you. I am not trying to hurt your feelings (I don't even know you), but I disagree with you. Do you always insist that everyone agree with everything you say?
Neither. What, specifically, did I say that would suggest to you that I'm anti-peace?
I was called mean-spirited (by you), what name were you called?
You seem intolerant of the fact that others do not share your view of President Obama. Accusing those who disagree with you of intolerance is itself an act of intolerance. Why are you getting so bent out of shape over this? We disagree. Is that really so hurtful to you?
You responded, And you continue. Again and again.
There's a HUGE difference, on the one hand, between loving someone and wishing him or her all the best and —on the other hand— being an Idol-worshipper, which I have on several occasions stated I am not. Your continuing to insist that i am a blind follower is insulting.
Why do you, on a Buddhist board, INSIST on angering others by calling them names? And then, re-insult them? Simple good manners dictate not to call people by names they don't like. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
If that's not mean-spirited I don't know what is. Is that your contribution to world peace? You're way off-topic, have dragged me off topic, and..
I REPEAT If that's your style, then I suggest that I can no longer respond to you. If it's all gotta be one-way for you, good! I don't wanna play your unpleasant little game, any-which-way. As we've been over this same material several times already, there should be nothing more to say. It's really getting tedious.
I have said nothing in this post that I haven't already said in posts above. I'm just insisting on sticking up for myself against false accusations. Speaking up for oneself when misunderstood is something I believe all people should do to boost human dignity awareness. I think that your insistence on calling me a mindless Hero-Worshipper was inappropriate the first time and indefensible every time you used it after I objected. I certainly make a point to apologize when I step on people's toes, but then where I live friendliness and good manners are held in high regard.
Therefore, this is my last word to you in this thread, so if you respond it's not to me but to your imagined enemy, who I suspect is not what you suspect him to be.
______________
FOOTNOTE: ad hominem arguments, whether they're used against the president* or just some lousy worshipper of Idols are RARELY valid. It's the ideas that matter. People may disagree about ideas, that's natural. But painting a picture of your opponent just the way you want to paint it and then insisting that your rendition is the correct one is very, very self-serving, even if it's not for personal gain but for some psychological high.
*Obligations to Campaign contributors were mentioned, among other things.
What red-herring was that?
I have been offered awards in my life I felt I did not deserve. To refuse them, though, would not have been the right thing, primarily because I would have insulted the people who were trying to recognize me.
Now I know the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize is in a totally different ballpark, but nonetheless their choice was their choice. Not that I am saying that Mr. Obama (Barack!) would have hurt those Swedish feelings, mind you!!! by refusing. No. It's just that I respect his style. He'll just go and do the gracious thing and accept the silly prize and give a nice speech. It's just a silly prize. 120 years from now we'll all be gone and forgotten and (dern it!) that silly prize will probably still be remembered.
Ah, there's the rub. We all lust for something of the immortal and some really resent a rising star.
So this little thread lies ruined? Good! That hardly ruins anything else. I'd say that makes the world a better place —the death of a worthless, artless, heartless thing!
Has it turned into a thread about prejudice? —NOT racial prejudice. I am by no means suggesting that —just the everyday prejudice we see in our fellow human beings in their dislikes of other people, often very petty and exacting of every little fault (some even invented).
We cannot know the thing in itself. We know things only as they interface with us. Until you get there and really love people, you'll never know what you're missing. The trick to loving people is not to judge them but to accept them and be grateful that you do not have to live in complete solitude void of the joys of human interaction. PEOPLE RULE!
I found it loathsome that something I felt in my heart was being characterized as mindless and misguided. The love and hope and faith I have in my heart are important to me, and I will not have holy things maligned. That which is holy is holy. Ungrasping love is holy.
Yet — my hopes and faith and love are not pinned on any human being, prince, president, bishop, Dalai Lama, Pope, or retirement account. However, if my heart offers refreshment and takes joy in knowing that certain people are in the world, does that cloud my judgment or strip me of critical thinking ability?
Nonetheless, I absolutely refuse to let anyone tell me I am wrong to believe in Barack. I am not giving him my allegiance and swearing any duties by him, though. I am giving him my prayers and good wishes and perhaps an occasional checque (from this dyed-in-the-wool Democrat). From childhood, I was taught to pray for the president every day and I have done so —but with Barack it's different, it's on a higher level. I'll even admit that my prayers for him include dreams of his ushering in a better day, since I believe he can do this. Hope, though not holy as love is, can save us from evil; so there is some good issue from this state of affairs. But let us remember that hope has two poles on its opposite end, both despair and presumption. I say I put some hope in Barack, but I do not presume my hopes will come to pass. The only presumption that fits Hope is a lot of humility.
I’m sorry I’ve been so anal in this thread. Most readers probably think I’ve taken complete leave of my senses. However, I did find it singularly ironic that, in a thread dealing with a Peace prize (and therefore hopefully dealing with peace) —that someone could be so in-your-face confrontational in insisting that you were something that you on several occasions begged not to be called. It was a mischaracterization that impugned the very integrity of my being. As a spiritual being, my anger was analagous to the anger I'd feel towards that bank refusing to give me even a penny's credit for assets worth thousands of dollars.
To call love and enthusiasm hero-worship is a sacrilege, since these things are holy. (Of course, if an excessive amount of love and enthusiasm is aimed at one entity or person, it becomes clear that hero-worship is at work. However, there is no evidence of that here, indeed plenty of evidence that there is much directed elsewhere,)
Death, though a very good thing, is not real. Only love is real.
Death to this thread!
Love or WhatEVER,
Nirvy
__________
—Sri Sarada Devi (Holy Mother)
I don't think anyone called you misguided, I don't think any of us think you are wrong for believing in anyone. I do think that all the playful banter has distracted us from the topic at hand.
I guess the conversation in its most basic form can be broken down to 'Does potential deserve recognition"
If it serves to further inspire one to fulfill that potential, yes.
Well I believe we all have the potential so where can we pick up our awards?
If it takes an outside catalyst to reach the potential was it ever yours to begin with?
If it wasn't your potential why would you receive an award for it?
I do not believe that future effort should weigh more then deeds done when it comes to recognition. Maybe it is just me, but I wouldn't give Tom Hanks The Oscar for a movie that hasn't come out yet.
I must admit I do have a bias against Obama. I hold all of our publicly elected officials to high standards and I expect the very best out of each of them regardless of party, so please don't accuse me of being too difficult.
Well the Oscars are based on an actual product. The Nobel Peace Prize, by its very guidelines, do not require a result, but rather are based on efforts. And it can be argued that Obama has done more than any other world leader this year to promote peace and ease international tensions.
But can it be based on efforts that haven't happened yet?
There is no sense arguing what has already been said.
Palzang
His thoughts:
"Well, he did do that little noticed thing of, you know, eliminating a substantial portion of the U.S. and Russia's nuclear stockpiles. Also, remember Teddy Roosevelt, the President who led America in bloody conflicts against Spain in Cuba and Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to end the Sino-Russian War. So, you don't have to be an all-around peace dove to receive it. Rather, one act can grant you it."
By that logic George Bush entering into SORT treaty with Russia and subsequently cutting U.S Nuclear stockpiles by 50%(a substantial amount) by 2007 should almost deserve the award.
His reply:
"And I commend President Bush for having the willpower to abide by the treaty while Russia did not. However, he should have made sure that the treaty was not filled with the loop-holes it was so the treaty would be 100% complete today, rather than 50%. However, I can understand - coming up with ludicrous reasons to invade Iraq must of took up most of his time during his first-term."
I find it very funny how to some people it is all about who and how it is said. Liberals disapprove of "the surge." Until Obama wants do the surge... how fickle
The recent escalation of the war efforts in Afghanistan and the U.S. refusal to sign a treaty not to use landmines makes me feel this award has been given to the wrong person.
The peace promoting, conciliatory pre-election candidate has come to the realization that the true power lies with the military-industrial complex that has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. His position as President is predicated on him towing the company line. If he chooses to resist he places himself in potential peril.