Nobel Peace Prize

It definitely makes more sense to give the Nobel Peace Prize to Greta Thunberg than to Obama. Like him, she’s done nothing for peace but unlike him she hasn’t bombed out any countries or started wars that led to genocide.

Let’s conduct an experiment: who deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more, Obama or Trump?

How about Trump or Bush 2?

“Neither” doesn’t work because it’s total chickening out not to notice a difference between a guy who bombed out whole countries and a guy who didn’t.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Nobel Peace Prize”

  1. Hey, lady, not fair!! After almost falling asleep listening to two hours of illegally uploaded but untraceable YouTube “Golden Oldies” hits, I clicked on your website to take one final look before turning in for my Arizona bedtime — and you had to ask your readers THIS!

    First answer, which you didn’t ask: It’s ABSOLUTE child abuse to promote children like Greta Thunberg as token spokespersons for adult problems that only ADULTS in positions of power have any chance at all of influencing and correcting! This kind of exploitative misuse of children is utterly, absolutely shameful!

    As for giving the Nobel “Peace” Prize to Bush 2 or Obama or Trump, the obvious answer is Donald Trump!

    Decades ago, that prize was given to world leaders who actually achieved at least the transient appearance of ending a conflict honorably: In 1973 the prize was divided evenly between Henry Kissinger, who had negotiated an apparently honorable end to the Vietnam War, and the Vietcong’s Le Duc Tho, who had no intention of honoring the agreement. In 1994, the prize was also divided between Yassar Arafat and two Israeli leaders, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for finally achieving the “Oslo Peace Accords” in the Middle East.
    A couple of years later, Arafat showed his dedication to a permanent “peace” by starting the second intifada, during which he bravely proclaimed himself to the world as a “martyr, martyr, MARTYR!!” while hiding in his bunker and ordering schoolchildren to the streets to throw rocks at Army tanks.

    Trump deserves the current Nobel Peace Prize for being a realistic coward! Winnable wars are possible today only by blowing the enemy into absolute defeat, slaughtering hordes of people, and destroying vast stretches of territory. That technique worked successfully in World War II, but is no longer politically viable — So today’s only options are either to fight endless, unwinnable mini-wars (like Bush 2 and Obama), or to get the hell out of the supposedly-not-that-important-to-America’s-national-interest-region like Trump is proposing, and then just declare victory and to hell with it, so that no more Americans die for lost causes.

    Trump is the most peaceful U.S. President in decades. He definitely deserves the Peace Peace Prize!

    Like

    1. Hey, the poor exploited Greta will get the Nobel, will get rich selling her brand, and buy a big mansion in the US she so much hates.

      It’s not like she had a better future awaiting her if she stayed at home and went to school.

      Like

      1. “buy a big mansion in the US she so much hates”

        Meh, I don’t see that. Moving to the US is just not that big a draw in Europe anymore… Polish applications for US visas have dwindled so much that eliminating the visa requirements seems like a possibility. Maybe the US is still a big draw in the former USSR but anywhere else, not so much, it’s more like a niche interest.

        I could totally see her making a big deal of sailing between her summer home in Sweden and a winter home somewhere around the Mediterranean basin… (while crews on her boat fly back and forth to facilitate her zero carbon forays).

        Like

          1. “Why did she come here of all places in her stunt, though?”

            It was my understanding that she came to address the UN…. although it’s my understanding that the UN doesn’t actually have the power to do anything.
            The problem with her angry, righteous child shtick is that there is progress being made in the West, but nothing that western countries can do can offset increased emissions from China and the Chinese government has no incentive to change what they’re doing because that would mean the end of economic progress.
            China’s not the only problem, but without getting them on board…. westerners eating bugs and plant slurry and not flying anywhere is meaningless (beyond fulfilling the financial elite’s long term dream of turning everyone who isn’t them into medieval peasants….)

            Like

    2. Obviously Dreidel has read this compellingeditorial:
      President Trump’s offers to be a peacemaker in the troubled parts of the world speak for themselves. Indeed, this letter was inspired by Trump’s multiple offers to mediate the Kashmir crisis between India and Pakistan, despite India’s repeated rejection of that offer. According to the Times of India, “absent New Delhi accepting his role, [Trump] suggested the two countries come together themselves and ‘do something that’s really smart.’” That is perfect, beautiful advice — a true peacemaker delegates the peacemaking to the combatants! In this age of participation trophies, isn’t the fact that Trump wants to negotiate a peace deal worthy of its own award? He hates war almost as much as he hates hurricanes, and those strong feelings cannot be denied….

      Trump has made a more personal investment in securing peace on the Korean Peninsula, and I think the results speak for themselves. The president has brilliantly leveraged his real estate acumen to cajole Kim Jong Un into giving up his nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs in return for developing beach resorts. Okay, so none of that has happened yet, but Kim Jong Un has written Trump so many beautiful letters — far more than that phony Barack Obama ever received. If you can award the 44th president the Nobel Peace Prize just for being elected, surely you can do the same for the 45th president!
      President Trump should be awarded the Nobel not just for the areas where he has made almost-any-minute-now peace, but places where peace will need to be made. The problems in Venezuela are very serious because President Nicolás Maduro has been so tough and strong in the face of crippling economic sanctions. The tensions in the Persian Gulf are near an all-time high: the ongoing war in Yemen, the Gulf Cooperation Council embargo of Qatar and the suspected Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields have put the region on edge. If you award the Nobel to Trump, you will send a powerful signal to other actors in these regions that they have reacted badly to the president’s heavy moves….

      Like

  2. I think more interesting questions are : Who do you actually think is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? What does furthering peace mean to you?
    Also: There were several years in which no Nobel Peace Prize was awarded. I wonder if this year will be one of them.

    Knowing Cliff’s hobby horses I’m surprised he hasn’t puffed up in indignation over the many times the UN or a subcommittee has shared in the prize or the 2012 recipient.

    Like

    1. Absolutely one hundred percent Petro Poroshenko. He prevented enormous loss of life in Ukraine. And he engineered a peaceful, transparent, honest transfer of power in a volatile region.

      Thank you for asking, I was dying to let it out.

      Like

      1. \ Absolutely one hundred percent Petro Poroshenko. He prevented enormous loss of life in Ukraine.

        I read on pro-Poroshenko blogs that he:

        a) organized the defense of Ukraine well
        b) (you said this?) was right not to pursue more aggressive tactics in Donbass since it would’ve led to many dead citizens

        Regarding a) , is the Nobel peace prize given for trying to defend (partly formerly, in Donbass and Crimea cases) one’s own territory?

        As for b) , I think Ukrainian weakness relative to Russia rather than worrying about Donbass’s residents (they aren’t citizens of anything now) was the main reason for not taking the region back in the beginning. Right now, Ukrainian bloggers talk about not wanting to take Donbass back and invest lots of money (that Ukraine doesn’t have) because the people remaining there aren’t patriots of Ukraine.

        The above is not a criticism of Poroshenko. I trust your expertise that he has done a lot for his country. Just a Nobel peace prize brings to mind signing peace agreements, not choosing the best way to fight in a bad situation.

        Like

        1. It’s not like Greta signed any peace agreements either.

          Thanks to Poroshenko, Kharkiv and Odessa are not smoldering ruins like Donetsk is. And if you need signing of agreements, he signed the Minsk Accords.

          Like

    1. Which attacks? The kid is being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. What would you have everybody do? Appoint her the president of the universe? It’s impossible to be more lionized than she is.

      As for Rachel Carson, you must be very young if you don’t know what kind of really horrific stuff this “pioneer” is responsible for.

      Maybe it’s time to get off Twitter and go read some books?

      Like

      1. There are parallels between Greta and Carson, though. Both are well-meaning, clueless white ladies whose weeping and gnashing of teeth are used for colonialist purposes. Carson’s well-intentioned wailings are responsible for the deaths of thousands of black people. It’s curious that she’s still rolled out as a role model.

        Like

          1. Tucker Carlson, by the way, is a great fan. He’s really into birds.

            Curiously, Greta doesn’t seem to have much interest in nature. At least, Carson genuinely cared about birds.

            Like

            1. I’m inclined to side with Tucker on this, though I don’t feel educated enough to have a firm view. “DDT would’ve saved millions from death, Carson has blood on her hands” sounds like propaganda from the pesticide industry, and I found the LA Times’ rebuttal of the anti-Carson argument to be pretty convincing. I’m naturally inclined to be skeptical of people saying “if you criticize this product/technological development, you’re evil for standing in the way of progress.” I hear it from the tech people, I hear it from the vaping people, I hear it from the surrogacy people. I hear modified versions of this from liberals who want to abolish social norms and traditions which I hold dear. They claim to have a moral high ground but all they’re doing is pushing their product.

              Of course, propaganda pushed by bad actors can be true sometimes, but the evidence hasn’t convinced me on this. I’d have to read more from scientists to reach a firm conclusion.

              Like

              1. Even caution is treated this way, not just opposition. This has often led to tragedy in the medical field. People naturally rush when they think a medical innovation can greatly help people or even prevent death. If they’re asked to proceed cautiously, the response is “Why are these small-minded idiots making us wait to help people?” But so often the worrywarts end up being right. Ten years ago I would’ve scoffed at the vaping skeptics; now I see their trepidation was justified.

                Like

        1. How is Greta used for colonialist purposes? She gives talks to EU and travels to America, hardly mentioning second and third world countries that pollute the most.

          I think environmentalists are often the only agents to go against corporate interests and to warn of unsustainability of the model of endlessly increasing consumption.

          Like

          1. “How is Greta used for colonialist purposes? ”

            She’s the personification of the self-righteous clueless western progressives who want places like India and China to remain desperately poor. Taking her seriously is condemning billions of people to horrific, grinding poverty.
            It’s like the David Rockefeller praising the Cultural Revolution in communist China (a real thing that happened).

            Like

            1. Exactly. This is the central question of climate change: how do you prevent China, India and Africa, with its explosive population growth, from industrializing? Bernie Sanders sincerely says, “let’s help them stop breeding already.” But we all understand that’s not going to happen.

              Yelling at the denizens of the post-industrial world is a total waste of time when there are several billion people only just now starting their industrialization. Preventing them from enjoying all the luxuries we do is cruel and quite horrible. So the climate enthusiasts pretend that the US and a tiny sliver of Europe is all the world. And it’s ridiculous.

              If the US decided to ban fracking, like Warren proposes, what would happen? Russia would immediately increase its production of oil by the exact amount the US would fail to provide. This would devastate the US economy but it would do absolutely nothing for climate.

              And it’s all like that. Why doesn’t Greta go yell at Putin or Modi? Because they have no motivation to think she’s cute.

              Like

  3. Regarding Trump, if this blogger is right, Democrats’ demand for transcripts Of Trump’s Putin conversations may endanger US Presidents’ ability to conduct foreign policy and solve future crises, f.e. with China, since both sides would know the info isn’t secret:

    Прецедент
    https://el-murid.livejournal.com/4243866.html

    Do you like Евгений Головаха? Reading his latest interview:

    https://trim-c.livejournal.com/3206534.html

    Like

    1. This is a dismantling of any form of state power. Trump is an excuse. He’s a fabricated state of emergency used to ensure that international relations don’t happen through heads of state but only through heads of companies.

      Like

  4. A bit on topic (climate change protests)

    There’s apparently traffic chaos in the Netherlands as thousands (I’ve seen figures as high as 10,000 though it’s probably closer to 3000) of farmers driving their tractors to the Hague in protest of proposed climate change (emission reduction) regulations that would slash food production (….what?)
    In some places roadblocks were placed by people who didn’t realize that tractors don’t need roads…
    #boerenprotest will show some of the videos though they’re low on context…

    My favorite of the vids show them driving on the beach:

    Like

    1. // farmers driving their tractors to the Hague in protest of proposed climate change (emission reduction) regulations that would slash food production (….what?)

      Tried to learn more about the situation and found a really good article with beautiful photos about the country in National Geographic. Turns out it is “the globe’s number two exporter of food as measured by value, second only to the United States, which has 270 times its landmass.” (!) Seems strange to slash food production there when global warming is a great reason to increase it in order to produce food for millions in the most effective, nature-friendly way.

      THIS TINY COUNTRY FEEDS THE WORLD
      The Netherlands has become an agricultural giant by showing what the future of farming could look like.

      https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/

      QUOTE :

      The global average yield of potatoes per acre is about nine tons. Van den Borne’s fields reliably produce more than 20.

      That copious output is made all the more remarkable by the other side of the balance sheet: inputs. Almost two decades ago, the Dutch made a national commitment to sustainable agriculture under the rallying cry “Twice as much food using half as many resources.” Since 2000, van den Borne and many of his fellow farmers have reduced dependence on water for key crops by as much as 90 percent.

      Put in bluntly apocalyptic terms, he [Ernst van den Ende – a scholar, a college dean and a world authority on plant pathology] says, the planet must produce “more food in the next four decades than all farmers in history have harvested over the past 8,000 years.”

      That’s because by 2050, the Earth will be home to as many as 10 billion people, up from today’s 7.5 billion. If massive increases in agricultural yield are not achieved, matched by massive decreases in the use of water and fossil fuels, a billion or more people may face starvation. Hunger could be the 21st century’s most urgent problem, and the visionaries working in Food Valley believe they have found innovative solutions. The wherewithal to stave off catastrophic famine is within reach, van den Ende insists. His optimism rests on feedback from more than a thousand WUR projects in more than 140 countries and on its formal pacts with governments and universities on six continents to share advances and implement them.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.