Peace Prize for Putin?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

This is awesome.

Totally levels that guy's karma for inventing dynamite.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it about time for another NotBush Peace Prize? Giving the award to an American Politician for them being someone other than President Bush.


Trolling the Nobel committee is probably nothing new, considering that roughly everyone can put forth a nominee.

Also, I thought Snowden's nomination was a bit more than a rumour, since the guys who nominated him outright said as much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Isn't it about time for another NotBush Peace Prize? Giving the award to an American Politician for them being someone other than President Bush.

Not being Bush is praiseworthy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The peace prize is a seriously bad joke. It has been for a long time. From the Pakistani judge who got it for being female yet had a massive list of executions on her record, to Gore, to Obama, to "the population of the EU". Putin would hardly be a break of form. Further back, there are other even stranger winners. My suggestion is they give that particular prize up for dead. At least before Kanye West gets it. Or, they could make it matter again, by doing something like giving it to Snowden, Assange, Manning, or any of the people who have actually had to pay a severe price for standing up for something important that they thought was right. Which isn't going to happen, because the norwegian politicians who decide are wet noodles and would never ruffle the feathers of the US eagle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Do have to admit the title is catchy. Like Springtime for Hitler. We should make a children's book by that name.


Peace Prize for Putin, the musical!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Snowden one would be controversial, but given he's actually sparked major debate and some moves toward reform in the US it's fair to say his disclosures were made due to real concerns and what he saw as the public interest. If there are reasonable laws passed to limit the scope of the security services based primarily on the information he provided *to lawmakers* then it's even less controversial.

The strangest thing is that many other countries have responded differently. The UK, who have even more intrusive surveillence and less accountability, has been silent. William Hague, the UK secretary of State actually used the terms "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", a quote frequently attributed to that famous advocate of freedom Joseph Goebbels (irony, don't misinterpret it). There has been little popular dissent and nothing has been discussed in any depth in Parliament. The UK government has actively used "D-notices" to prevent reporting of the disclosures in the press.

Not every Nobel Peace Prize is correctly awarded, granted. Barack Obama should have returned his a long time ago with an apology note.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

This is awesome.

Totally levels that guy's karma for inventing dynamite.

To be fair, he invented dynamite to blast away mountains and build railroads without people getting blown apart by nitroglycerine. (what he manufactured it for though...)


Yeah right, someone who applaud gay-abuse and supports criminals is truly a good winner...


In fairness to Nobel, armaments manufacture was the family business started by his father. He designed Dynamite and Gelignite as more stable explosives after his younger brother was killed in an accidental nytroglycerin explosion. There is something rather contradictory about a pacifist who owns munitions factories, granted.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Well, he'd be in great company with Yasser Arafat.


Lloyd Jackson wrote:
Do have to admit the title is catchy. Like Springtime for Hitler. We should make a children's book by that name.

I was proud of it actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is Shakira. She was left with these disfigurements after her village was drone attacked by Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.

I don't see why Sexy Putin shouldn't get it.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't see why Sexy Putin shouldn't get it.

Only if he puts on a song and dance routine.


"Hello my baby, hello my darling, hello my ragtime gaaaaaaaaal!"

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Peace Prize, for Putin, in Crimea.
Turchnyov can cry into his beer!
Crimea river, Mister Kiev-er,
Let's put the show on, right heeeeere!

<JAZZ HANDS>


Why not just a peace prize for people who hate Obama? We'd hear nothing but glowing reviews of the award then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is not the point. The point is that it is a prize that lost any pretense of being apolitical by being handed to a new american president that really hadn't done anything in particular that would make him worth it. It is not criticism of Obama so much as of the prize.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."--Tom Lehrer, '73


Sissyl wrote:
That is not the point. The point is that it is a prize that lost any pretense of being apolitical by being handed to a new american president that really hadn't done anything in particular that would make him worth it. It is not criticism of Obama so much as of the prize.

if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.


Well, I believe it was my rationale. Seriously though, the same criticism will be forthcoming when Palin gets it for becoming the POTUS.


Sissyl wrote:
Well, I believe it was my rationale. Seriously though, the same criticism will be forthcoming when Palin gets it for becoming the POTUS.

As I understand it, the speculation at the time was that it was given for his opposition to Bush's war policies, as a repudiation of them and as a prod to encourage him to live up to the prize.

Arguably, that last didn't work.

As for Palin: that's not happening.


You think? Let's just wait and see. :)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Michael Palin?

He seems genial enough. Could forge a bipartisan platform.
And he's well-travelled, which could build bridges overseas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Peace Prize ceased being apolitical in 1906 when Teddy Roosevelt won it.

I'd vote for Michael Palin, perhaps the the Department of Silly Walks could finally get the funding it deserves.

Shadow Lodge

Sissyl wrote:
That is not the point. The point is that it is a prize that lost any pretense of being apolitical by being handed to a new american president that really hadn't done anything in particular that would make him worth it. It is not criticism of Obama so much as of the prize.

Given the award date, it was obviously for his campaigning.


It's a bit sad that a not overtly political figure like Michael Palin would have more public support than an actual politician could ever wish for. Is this why we're now experiencing celebuticians like Sarah Palin and Boris Johnson?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvino wrote:
It's a bit sad that a not overtly political figure like Michael Palin would have more public support than an actual politician could ever wish for.

No it's not. Not at all.


I just want the Department of Silly Walks to get the funding it deserves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvino wrote:
It's a bit sad that a not overtly political figure like Michael Palin would have more public support than an actual politician could ever wish for. Is this why we're now experiencing celebuticians like Sarah Palin and Boris Johnson?

Palin -- either one, really -- has never actually been called upon to make any real decisions and hence no one has any reason not to support them. Michael Palin, in particular, is a really personable and funny guy who goes out of his way to be nice to people without offending anyone.

It's rather like how the most popular guy on any professional football team is usually the backup quarterback. "He is the most popular guy in town, beloved and flawless, a magic pill who could solve everything if only the coach would just come to his senses." Because he's never made any mistakes that the fans could revile him for.

"And then the No. 2 quarterback enters a game and takes a sack or throws a pick or fires a pass over an open receiver's head and he's a bum, just like the guy he replaced in the lineup."

And it's one reason that incumbents usually fare worse in polls against 'a hypothetical Republican' (or Democrat) than they do against any specific person. While I might not be a fan of Clinton, I happen to be even less of a fan of Christie, of Jindal, of Ryan, of Paul, and so forth. I know Ryan's flaws, but I can imagine the 'hypothetical Republican' as a combination of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Aragorn, and Captain Kirk, and of course I'd vote for him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Politics aside, they should just stop giving the Nobel Peace Prize to world leaders and politicians in general.


To anyone. It's a useless prize and has outlived every iota of its credibility. It did so ages ago. If this was done, a new prize that meant something could be instated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
To anyone. It's a useless prize and has outlived every iota of its credibility. It did so ages ago. If this was done, a new prize that meant something could be instated.

Here is my question. Why do you think it has to have credibility? Or mean anything? Why should your, my, or anyone but the 5 member councils opinion matter? They award money from the Nobel fund on someone, chosen by them, that they believe fits the criteria. They have no responsibility to you or anyone else.

If you want a prize that means something to you, go start one. There is no reason for the Nobel Prize committee to stop giving out prizes because you think they lost their meaning, there can be more than one Peace Prize.

Its like saying I should stop buying people dinner so that a different guy can choose deserving people for free dinner.


Atticus, I am glad you asked.

Thing is, the peace prize is a status prize. It is meant to be awarded to people who have done something truly spectacular for the world and for peace. Your reasoning would be true if the point of the prize was the sum of money involved, but it's not and it never was. The point is recognition, exclusivity and fame. Like the laurels awarded to the winners of the ancient Olympics, the winner of the peace prize becomes an important person.

The peace prize is not the only such institution. Many other such prizes exist. And they all have to deal with the same problem: A laureate that is shown not to be deserving cheapens the value of the prize. There have been a few such incidents in the history of the Nobel prizes. Still, those are understandable. The committee can't know everything, and never will, and people can recognize that. What's worse is if the prize is awarded due to poor judgement by the awarding committee. That has the potential to taint the entire process. I'd argue that has already happened quite some time ago with the peace prize. The end result is that the worthy candidates will refuse a prize, since they still get the recognition of being offered it, and the money is not necessarily a problem to everyone. The ones who will accept it are the money-hungry and the unworthy. At that point, it will end up a prize that's seen as a joke. Sound familiar?


Sissyl wrote:

Atticus, I am glad you asked.

Thing is, the peace prize is a status prize. It is meant to be awarded to people who have done something truly spectacular for the world and for peace. Your reasoning would be true if the point of the prize was the sum of money involved, but it's not and it never was. The point is recognition, exclusivity and fame. Like the laurels awarded to the winners of the ancient Olympics, the winner of the peace prize becomes an important person.

The peace prize is not the only such institution. Many other such prizes exist. And they all have to deal with the same problem: A laureate that is shown not to be deserving cheapens the value of the prize. There have been a few such incidents in the history of the Nobel prizes. Still, those are understandable. The committee can't know everything, and never will, and people can recognize that. What's worse is if the prize is awarded due to poor judgement by the awarding committee. That has the potential to taint the entire process. I'd argue that has already happened quite some time ago with the peace prize. The end result is that the worthy candidates will refuse a prize, since they still get the recognition of being offered it, and the money is not necessarily a problem to everyone. The ones who will accept it are the money-hungry and the unworthy. At that point, it will end up a prize that's seen as a joke. Sound familiar?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point.

My point is that it is not the duty of the committee to live up to the expectations put on them by others. They are the only authority that matters when awarding their award. They could start choosing war-hungry conquerors, or choose a name out of a hat, but it is their prize to award. You see what I mean?


And the worthiness of the winners follows from their picks. Once upon a time in the fair kingdom of Sweden, we had a prize called Årets svensk, Swede of the year. It was awarded for something like four years, until it became obvious to every thinking person that things always went to s+@& for the laureates. It was heckled in humour shows, people realized they would be very loath to accept it if offered. At that point, the journalists giving it had picked too many wrong winners, and the status was gone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And the worthiness of the winners follows from their picks. Once upon a time in the fair kingdom of Sweden, we had a prize called Årets svensk, Swede of the year. It was awarded for something like four years, until it became obvious to every thinking person that things always went to s++@ for the laureates. It was heckled in humour shows, people realized they would be very loath to accept it if offered. At that point, the politicians giving it had picked too many wrong winners, and the status was gone.

I don't...Think you understand my point. It doesn't matter how useless, pointless, or meaningless the award actually is. It is their right to give it, and saying that it should be disbanded because you do not approve is like saying a movie should be banned because you don't like the plot.

They have every right to give that award to whoever they want to forever, it is your choice whether you allow the award to hold any water in your opinion of the awarded. And it does not need to be ended for an award that means something to replace it.


Certainly, it is their right to keep handing it out to whoever. Just as it is my right to think it should be abandoned.


I can think of a lot of movies that should be banned because I didn't like the plot.


You know... I even got one of the buggers, seeing as I live in the EU, and I still don't think it is a good idea.


Sissyl wrote:
You know... I even got one of the buggers, seeing as I live in the EU, and I still don't think it is a good idea.

What did you do with your share of the prize money?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I can think of a lot of movies that should be banned because I didn't like the plot.

Mrs Gersen thinks that any movie that has a plot should be banned.

She likes musicals, "romantic comedies," and Bollywood.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
You know... I even got one of the buggers, seeing as I live in the EU, and I still don't think it is a good idea.
What did you do with your share of the prize money?

I got the honour of getting to pay some extra taxes. I dunno. Divided by 500 million people, I guess it came out to a few cents or something.

The Exchange

Can't believe this isn't a YellowDingo thread, after seeing the title (although I wouldn't be shocked at all to find that he had something to do with the nomination itself...).

However, I also have a serious thought about the subject: they should give the award to the new pope. I don't care about religion and I have no idea if he is a good pope in the eyes of the church, but I know that his liberal views and friendly, cooperative disposition is doing good all across the world. If the very pope is saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and that gay people should be allowed to get married... that carries some weight. His attitude is similar on a plethora of other such subjects. He is uniting believers the world over in their shared faith. It's impressive.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I can think of a lot of movies that should be banned because I didn't like the plot.

Mrs Gersen thinks that any movie that has a plot should be banned.

She likes musicals, "romantic comedies," and Bollywood.

I like a good Bollywood romp.

The only musicals I've ever liked have been send-ups of musicals as a genre, like Cannibal: The Musical, South Park, with the possible exception of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

I can think of one movie that is (loosely) described as a romantic comedy that I like: High Fidelity.


Lord Snow wrote:
However, I also have a serious thought about the subject: they should give the award to the new pope. I don't care about religion and I have no idea if he is a good pope in the eyes of the church, but I know that his liberal views and friendly, cooperative disposition is doing good all across the world. If the very pope is saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay...

It's all just talk, as near as I can tell. "Oh, there's nothing wrong with being gay -- but you're still going to Hell and we still won't marry you" isn't much better than just saying "it's still not OK with us."

Likewise, he pulled the "atheists can be good people, too! (But are still going to Hell anyway, and deserve it!)" thing.

And he's still backing the "condoms cause AIDS" propoganda in Africa, not to mention encouraging belief in witchcraft.

And training more exorcists than his predecessors.

The guy is wacko benighted superstitious, but at least knows how to talk like a nice person.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
However, I also have a serious thought about the subject: they should give the award to the new pope. I don't care about religion and I have no idea if he is a good pope in the eyes of the church, but I know that his liberal views and friendly, cooperative disposition is doing good all across the world. If the very pope is saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay...

It's all just talk, as near as I can tell. "Oh, there's nothing wrong with being gay -- but you're still going to Hell and we still won't marry you" isn't much better than just saying "it's still not OK with us."

Likewise, he pulled the "atheists can be good people, too! (But are still going to Hell anyway, and deserve it!)" thing.

And he's still backing the "condoms cause AIDS" propoganda in Africa, not to mention encouraging belief in witchcraft.

And training more exorcists than his predecessors.

The guy is wacko benighted superstitious, but at least knows how to talk like a nice person.

And that's still an improvement. I'd rather have a pope talking about how poverty and war are bad than one talking about how homosexuality and condoms are bad, even if the doctrine doesn't change. The change in PR and focus matters.

If he's actually still pushing the "condoms cause AIDS" thing, that's lousy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
And that's still an improvement.

(Shrug.) At the risk of Godwinning a perfectly viable thread, Hitler shaving his mustache would have been an improvement -- just not a particularly meaningful one, IYSWIM.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Peace Prize for Putin? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.