Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Josh Witten | October 12th 2009 11:42 AM | 11 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Rugbyologist articles

All

About Josh Witten

100% of this the rugbyologist's revenue is donated to Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres). A click on one of my articles is a click that helps bring high quality medical care to the... Full Bio

No, this is not going to be reasonable or a crazy critique of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for giving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, even if he is the head of state of the most at war nation (outside its own borders) in the world at the moment. After all, that wasn't his fault. Yes, it was given for potential, to apply political pressure, and for non-George W. Bush-ness. Read Greg Mankiw if you want a funnier satire than we can compose:
The surprise choice of first-year graduate student Quintus Pfuffnick
for the Nobel Prize in Economics drew praise from much of the world
Friday even as many pointed out the youthful economist has not yet
published anything in scholarly journals.

Although we have given Festival memberships away for moments of idiocy, this one is more lifetime achievement. The failure to give the award to the world's best known, effective pacifist* (i.e., Gandhi) is probably enough to qualify. Gandhi was beaten out for the prize in 1937 (The Viscount Cecil of Chelwood), 1938 (Nansen International Office for Refugees), 1939 (no award), 1947 (Friends SErvice Council and American Friends Service Committee), and 1948 (by no award). The prize in 1948 was not awarded due to "there was no suitable living candidate" that year.

The Nobel Peace Prize also puts one in some interesting company - we are judged by the company we keep- which is why the rugbyologist's brief memorial to Norman Borlaug shied away from his Nobel Peace Prize (1970) for the Green Revolution, but mostly for preventing India and Pakistan from going to
war by feeding everyone.

Here is an incomplete and annotated list of notable Nobel laureates:
Theodore Roosevelt (1906) - Negotiated a peace treaty and brutally suppressing Filipinos.
George Marshall (1953) - Bombed the living hell out of German civilians, but then rebuilt their houses.
Dag Hammarskjold (1961) - See, Gandhi, you can get this thing after you die, if you work for the UN.
Henry Kissinger (1973) - Got his country out of a war he helped escalate. Among other activities.
Anwar Sadat (1978) - Made a treaty after getting Egypt's butt kicked in war.
UN Peace Keepers (1988) - Ok, this was before they watched genocides and sexually exploited refugees.
Dalai Lama (1989) - No army, so pretty please make me the theorcratic dictator of Tibet again.
Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) - Tried really hard to do anything to keep the USSR together, and failed.
Arafat, Rabin, and Peres (1994) - Let's stop fighting for 20 minutes or so, ok? Cool.
United Nations (2001) - Kind of a slow year for peace, what with 9-11. Here, UN, for being you.
Jimmy Carter (2002) - He's a really nice guy.
IAEA (2005) - Did a great job of stopping nuclear proliferation in countries not named India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

The Festival of Idiots actually has a lot in common with the Nobel Peace Prize. The Festival inconsistently honors lifetime achievement (e.g., Dag Hammarskjold), recent activities, regardless of previous actions (e.g., George Marshall), ignoring the most deserving candidates (Kevin Trudeau is our Gandhi), and recognizing potential alone. We are happy to welcome our soulmate, Nobel Peace Prize Committee, to The Festival of Idiots. Here's hoping for another 100+ years of WTF moments.

HONORABLE MENTION: The Nobel Literature Prize Committee.

2010 EARLY PREDICTION: Irish National Liberation Army

GOOD IDEA: DA Henderson and Frank Fenner for the WHO Smallpox Eradication Program.

INTERESTING IDEA: Twitter - for dramatically demonstrating the role for social media in unifying the world at times of turmoil (i.e., the recent Iranian elections).

*While Gandhi's commitment to peace and non-violence is unquestioned, his sexual morality has, although this does not appear to be part of his exclusion from the Peace Prize.

**Hat tips to Mike White for letting me know that the Obama win was not an Onion gag and insisting on the Honorable Mention for literature, Chris Lawson for being the first, as far as I am aware, to suggest Henderson and Fenner, and econgirl for linking to Greg Mankiw.


Comments

Andrea Kuszewski's picture
To be honest, at first I thought the Obama Peace Prize awarding was an Onion gag also. Heh.

Danna Staaf's picture
Here's hoping for another 100+ years of WTF moments.

I'm not sure I'm "hoping" exactly, but thanks a lot for making me laugh! Hee!



Hank's picture
At least Stalin was only under consideration and did not actually get one.   Because that would have just been silly.

After seeing this Nobel thing, I also predicted Obama would win the President's Cup.   Because, I mean, he is the President.   But instead it was won by actual golfers.  So the PGA apparently does not hate Bush all that much.

Great article Josh. However I do want to comment on the bracketing of India with Iran, NK and Pak as proliferators of Nuclear arms. There is no evidence that this is the case and India has as much right to own Nuclear weapons as its 'holier than thou' western counterparts. While India hasnt signed the NPT, it supports global nuclear disarmament.

jtwitten's picture
Fair enough. My own views on nuclear proliferation are far too complex and boring for a lighthearted piece like this. That line was merely to point out countries that have made significant steps toward nuclear capability under the IAEA regime, not to pass judgment on the country itself or indicate that they have participated in proliferation to other countries.

The peril of pithy one-liners is that one simplifies away the details that matter.  For example, simply characterizing Marshall as just the bomber of cities is, while not false, completely unfair to a very interesting individual. But the line is great, if I do say so myself.

Hank's picture
Then why include Pakistan if India is excluded?  India did more for eastern instability and nuclear proliferation than anyone until the 1990s by playing off the USSR and the US against each other.   There was always a hidden subtext to the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR and that was because India wanted Pakistan unstable.

Firstly, I did not comment on the inclusion or exclusion of Pakistan. That said, Pakistan's proliferation credentials are out in the open for everybody to form an opinion on. The comment was purely about proliferation credentials or lack of thereof. I am not an expert on what India did or didn't do in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Josh: I agree

Stellare's picture
I'm with the Nobel prize committee in this case. Does that make me an idiot here on The Rugbyologist then? ;-) I am already a festive girl....

Or maybe you would want to bomb me with some nukes?

Choosing Obama is bold but smart. America is a superpower (still, until China pump up some more of those economic muscles) and hence your President, the ruler of the modern times empire, could actually have some influence also other than setting the scene for the discussions. I'm just mentioning...

Peace!

The Crown Idiot ;-)

jtwitten's picture
There are good arguments on both sides. A lot of the positive arguments for Obama depend on the Nobel Peace Prize conveying some gravitas and political clout. The committee essentially said they were trying to make a political statement and affect the world, as Alfred Nobel intended. My main point is that the history of the Nobel Peace Prize is so spotty that it does not deserve the ability to have an impact. Frankly, the Peace prize mooches credibility off Physics, Chemistry, Phys/Med, and Economics.

Potential does not a Nobel make...were it the case, they should, indiscriminately, of course, drop one per selected individual (infant) in maternity wards across the globe.

There are lots of people more deserving of this prize. My father was with the military for 30 years and never missed a day of work. What has Obama done for our country. His wife just recently became proud of her country. I am an American Indian and our people have been oppressed for years. Life is what we make it. I have always been proud of my country and always looked forward going with my dad to his unit to watch him and others train to defend our country. Thanks to all our TROOPS who really do work to bring peace.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.