I'm disappointed, again.
The committee had been warned against giving it to Wael Ghonim on the grounds that it might piss off the egyptians. If anything that is a sure sign that the comittee is a bunch of pussies and the arab spring is dead.
But still..
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is the only sitting african leader that might be eligible for the Mo Mowlam Prize. It's almost like Barack Obama, she's the only reasonably uncorrupt leader in africa. She meets the bare minimum standard for an elected official, in africa that is apparently a great achievement. But the other two, who the fuck are they?
While Madame Sirleaf should be a good candidate after retirement or replacement through elections, doing it now doesn't seem right. Unfortunately it is a case of giving it in hopes that it causes better behaviour. That didn't work for Obama since he barely missed a beat after getting the prize and bombed the moon and pakistan.
The Nobel prize is still living on past glories and I don't think that any of the laureates this year edify the prize.
They just weren't ballsy enough to give it to Assange.
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on October 07, 2011, 08:20:43 AM
I'm disappointed, again.
The committee had been warned against giving it to Wael Ghonim on the grounds that it might piss off the egyptians. If anything that is a sure sign that the comittee is a bunch of pussies and the arab spring is dead.
The Arab Spring's not dead and I think giving it Ghonim would be continuing the Western obsession with the revolutions as being about social media which I find tedious, inaccurate and a bit insulting. Not that I can criticise Ghonim who's a bit of a hero.
I'd heard of the Yemeni woman and I think she's very admirable. Sirleaf-Johnson seems impressive. While I think you're kind of right about sitting the truth is that she's done pretty good work in democratically governing a country that's emerging from a civil war - which I'd argue deserves recognition as much as a leader in office signing a peace accord with their neighbour. I don't know the Liberian campaigner at all.
I think these are pretty good picks. Way above the silly ones like the UN or Obama. Also I quite like these prizes when they don't seem to be trying to make a grand, self-important statement (Al Gore) but are instead focusing on a particular issue. In this case I think women's rights, women's role in ending conflicts and the fact that in the conflicts we've had in recent years (especially in Africa) women bear an enormous amount of suffering in the world.
Sheilbh, interesting additional info. And I do agree with you on women's rights around the world. In too many places women are second or third class persons, subject to some nasty treatment, stuff that we'd cringe at in our societies, whether you're male or female.
Quote from: KRonn on October 07, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
Sheilbh, interesting additional info. And I do agree with you on women's rights around the world. In too many places women are second or third class persons, subject to some nasty treatment, stuff that we'd cringe at in our societies, whether you're male or female.
I think specifically in the context of conflict there are issues specifically to do with women. After all these are three women who've come from countries where military forces have used rape as a weapon.
The Peace Prize has been a joke for years. Norwegians are morons.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
They just weren't ballsy enough to give it to Assange.
Also he didn't do anything useful.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:16:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
They just weren't ballsy enough to give it to Assange.
Also he didn't do anything useful.
They gave it to Obama right after his election.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
They just weren't ballsy enough to give it to Assange.
Like what he did or not, it's a difficult to claim that it contributed to peace. <_<
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 02:16:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
They just weren't ballsy enough to give it to Assange.
Also he didn't do anything useful.
They gave it to Obama right after his election.
He didn't do anything useful either.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 03:32:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
They just weren't ballsy enough to give it to Assange.
Like what he did or not, it's a difficult to claim that it contributed to peace. <_<
It did increase strain on International relations and made countries less like likely to be open with one another. That's like contributing to peace. Or rather the opposite of promoting peace.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
They gave it to Obama right after his election.
Obama did defeat McCain. That was already a giant contribution to world peace.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 03:32:26 PM
Like what he did or not, it's a difficult to claim that it contributed to peace. <_<
He deserves it as much as any of the social networks or Arab bloggers people have suggested.
Quote from: Nobel's willto 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.
Clearly this is these three womens.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 07, 2011, 03:51:48 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 03:32:26 PM
Like what he did or not, it's a difficult to claim that it contributed to peace. <_<
He deserves it as much as any of the social networks or Arab bloggers people have suggested.
What dictatorship did Assange help overthrow?
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
They gave it to Obama right after his election.
Obama did defeat McCain. That was already a giant contribution to world peace.
Keeping Palin away from potential power. I suppose that is worth something.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 03:53:08 PMWhat dictatorship did Assange help overthrow?
At the time wikileaks was cited a lot in relatin to Tunisia and Egypt :mellow:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
They gave it to Obama right after his election.
Obama did defeat McCain. That was already a giant contribution to world peace.
Keeping Palin away from potential power. I suppose that is worth something.
I don't know about that. I can see Palin's presidency leading to eternal peace on earth.
Instead of the first President who was a black man, we'd have the first President who shagged one.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 07, 2011, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2011, 03:53:08 PMWhat dictatorship did Assange help overthrow?
At the time wikileaks was cited a lot in relatin to Tunisia and Egypt :mellow:
Without much justification, I might add. Tunisia's spark was the self-immolation of the young man.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on October 07, 2011, 04:05:37 PMWithout much justification, I might add. Tunisia's spark was the self-immolation of the young man.
Agreed. As I say as justified as getting excited about Zeinobia's blog, as interesting as it is, or Twitter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 07, 2011, 08:48:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 07, 2011, 08:20:43 AM
I'm disappointed, again.
The committee had been warned against giving it to Wael Ghonim on the grounds that it might piss off the egyptians. If anything that is a sure sign that the comittee is a bunch of pussies and the arab spring is dead.
The Arab Spring's not dead and I think giving it Ghonim would be continuing the Western obsession with the revolutions as being about social media which I find tedious, inaccurate and a bit insulting.
+1
Also I think it would be premature as we really aren't far enough from the events to how Arab Spring and its aftermath will pan out.
That statement, of course, is made under the same rubric that would not have granted Obama a peace prize when it did --- and as things have panned out, still would not have. :(
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2011, 08:30:27 AM
They just weren't ballsy enough to give it to Assange.
Shopping the secrets of a NATO ally doesn't sit well with the President of the Council of Europe (who is head of the Nobel Comittee).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2011, 04:04:23 PM
Instead of the first President who was a black man, we'd have the first President who shagged one.
James Buchanan got around.
I was really expecting it to go to someone more Arab Spring related. As was all the press. I recall reading a few days ago that the buzz was that this time the winner was to be quite a big deal.
But nope.