Comments on: More Nobel Prize Controversy http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/ Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:35:10 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: artyom http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-48021 artyom Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:47:32 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-48021 I am just all too tired of that word alleged, when it comes to something as horrible as the Armenian Genocide, which my grandparents survived and a student of which I am. My frustrations stem from the fact that a lot of people take advantage of how insignificant a country Armenia is, just iamgine using the word alleged vis-a-vis the Jewish experience, all sheol will break loose and you may even end up defending yourself in a court with the dictionary in hand. I did indeed get emotional for which I do apologize. I am just all too tired of that word alleged, when it comes to something as horrible as the Armenian Genocide, which my grandparents survived and a student of which I am. My frustrations stem from the fact that a lot of people take advantage of how insignificant a country Armenia is, just iamgine using the word alleged vis-a-vis the Jewish experience, all sheol will break loose and you may even end up defending yourself in a court with the dictionary in hand. I did indeed get emotional for which I do apologize.

]]> By: snow http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-48001 snow Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:06:06 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-48001 Chill out Artyom. I think you will find that most of the posters to this site are certainly sympathetic to Armenians. 'Alleged' was mentioned only once, in the lead article, and it would be better to simply ask Chirol why he used this word, rather than shooting your mouth off and insulting people. Cool your emotions and ask for clarification and then respectfully (or at least reasonably, disagree). That way readers will listen to and respect your opinions if you show some modicum of respect. Chill out Artyom. I think you will find that most of the posters to this site are certainly sympathetic to Armenians. ‘Alleged’ was mentioned only once, in the lead article, and it would be better to simply ask Chirol why he used this word, rather than shooting your mouth off and insulting people. Cool your emotions and ask for clarification and then respectfully (or at least reasonably, disagree). That way readers will listen to and respect your opinions if you show some modicum of respect.

]]> By: Artyom http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-47875 Artyom Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:55:01 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-47875 The Armenian Genocide is anything but alleged. How many scholars and have to write about the veracity of the Armenian Genocide so it is not alleged anymore, you people? Don't you freaking have your own brains and just check out a couple of books from the local library and educate your ignoramious selves. The Armenian Genocide is anything but alleged. How many scholars and have to write about the veracity of the Armenian Genocide so it is not alleged anymore, you people? Don’t you freaking have your own brains and just check out a couple of books from the local library and educate your ignoramious selves.

]]> By: profbones http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-43421 profbones Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:31:21 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-43421 when carter got his prize, the committee said it was because g w bush was so pro war. yet, later when north korea admitted that it never stopped developing nuclear reactors, carters's prize was never revoked or recalled. what gives with that? when carter got his prize, the committee said it was because g w bush was so pro war. yet, later when north korea admitted that it never stopped developing nuclear reactors, carters’s prize was never revoked or recalled. what gives with that?

]]> By: Curzon http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-32804 Curzon Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:27:04 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-32804 Yeah, it's not a perfect record, but let's not forget the many laudable figures they've awarded for genuine achievements. Just look at this list (even removing Kissinger, who well deserved it, IMO) of people who actually contributed to peace in this world 1993 Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev 1986 Elie Wiesel 1984 Desmond Tutu 1983 Lech Walesa 1978 Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin 1968 René Cassin 1964 Martin Luther King 1957 "Lester Bowles Pearson":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_B._Person 1953 George C. Marshall I actually have a theory as to why it's gone downhill since the 1994 award went to Arafat. The selection was so controversial that a number of committee members resigned, saying he was a terrorist. With conservatives, realists, and even moderates gone, the committee has becoming increasingly focused on selecting obscure people following highly suspect causes. That woman from Kenya in 2004 who got the award for "democracy and sustainable development" but who thinks AIDS is a conspiracy by white people to wipe out blacks is the biggest case in point. Finally, the selection of Aung San Suu Kyi might have been wishful thinking, but it was based on present-day, realist thinking about who was making a contribution to peace. It was not retrospective (Carter) or imaginary hope (Kim Daejung), or meant to send a message to western leaders (lots, particularly this year's IAEA). Who would have been better candidates for this year? How about the leaders of the DR Congo who brought that war to an end, or Mussharaf for normalizing relations with Israel, or the South Asian leaders for the reduction of tensions in Kashmir, the leaders of Iraq, or anyone else who made a real contribution to peace? On the bright side, at least the award didn't go to Bono. Yeah, it’s not a perfect record, but let’s not forget the many laudable figures they’ve awarded for genuine achievements. Just look at this list (even removing Kissinger, who well deserved it, IMO) of people who actually contributed to peace in this world

1993 Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1990 Mikhail Gorbachev
1986 Elie Wiesel
1984 Desmond Tutu
1983 Lech Walesa
1978 Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1968 René Cassin
1964 Martin Luther King
1957 Lester Bowles Pearson
1953 George C. Marshall

I actually have a theory as to why it’s gone downhill since the 1994 award went to Arafat. The selection was so controversial that a number of committee members resigned, saying he was a terrorist. With conservatives, realists, and even moderates gone, the committee has becoming increasingly focused on selecting obscure people following highly suspect causes. That woman from Kenya in 2004 who got the award for “democracy and sustainable development” but who thinks AIDS is a conspiracy by white people to wipe out blacks is the biggest case in point.

Finally, the selection of Aung San Suu Kyi might have been wishful thinking, but it was based on present-day, realist thinking about who was making a contribution to peace. It was not retrospective (Carter) or imaginary hope (Kim Daejung), or meant to send a message to western leaders (lots, particularly this year’s IAEA).

Who would have been better candidates for this year? How about the leaders of the DR Congo who brought that war to an end, or Mussharaf for normalizing relations with Israel, or the South Asian leaders for the reduction of tensions in Kashmir, the leaders of Iraq, or anyone else who made a real contribution to peace? On the bright side, at least the award didn’t go to Bono.

]]> By: Alfred Russel Wallace http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-32801 Alfred Russel Wallace Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:53:48 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-32801 Come on Curzon - its not clear that there is any significant record of the Nobel Peace prize Committee actually picking the best contributor to peace.... even at best it seems to be wishful thinking 1976 Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan for Northern Ireland 1991 Aung San Suu Kyi for Burma 2000 Kim Dae-jung At least Le Duc Tho declined the prize given to Kissinger in 1973 - I guess he knew what was coming (Surely Kissinger did too.....) http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/index.html Come on Curzon – its not clear that there is any significant record of the Nobel Peace prize Committee actually picking the best contributor to peace…. even at best it seems to be wishful thinking
1976 Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan for Northern Ireland
1991 Aung San Suu Kyi for Burma
2000 Kim Dae-jung

At least Le Duc Tho declined the prize given to Kissinger in 1973 – I guess he knew what was coming (Surely Kissinger did too…..)

http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/index.html

]]> By: Curzon http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-32788 Curzon Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:21:29 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-32788 The Nobel Prize Committee is really pissing me off. Gone is the goal of awarding the best contribution in whatever field they're honoring -- if a political point can be made, do it! Just look at the peace prize. Carter in 2002 and Mohamed Elbaradei in 2005 were picked to thumb their nose at Bush. (And what was up with 2002 and 2003? Picking Wangari Maathai and Shirin Ebadi for their contribution to "democracy." Give me a break.) There was a time when the Nobel Committee actually picked the best contributor to peace, but they've abandoned that after the Cold War. I'm appalled that this bizarre mission is now overflowing into literature. Maybe Orhan Pamuk is a good writer, but why do I have the feeling that half the people giving this award have never read him. My feelings here were confirmed when I look to Google News and found this: <blockquote>"EU enlargement chief meets with Orhan Pamuk":http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/09/64761.html The European Union enlargement chief met with Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk at his home in Istanbul, where the two discussed freedom of expression ahead of Pamuk's December trial for allegedly insulting the Turkish identity.</blockquote> The Nobel Prize Committee is really pissing me off. Gone is the goal of awarding the best contribution in whatever field they’re honoring — if a political point can be made, do it!

Just look at the peace prize. Carter in 2002 and Mohamed Elbaradei in 2005 were picked to thumb their nose at Bush. (And what was up with 2002 and 2003? Picking Wangari Maathai and Shirin Ebadi for their contribution to “democracy.” Give me a break.) There was a time when the Nobel Committee actually picked the best contributor to peace, but they’ve abandoned that after the Cold War. I’m appalled that this bizarre mission is now overflowing into literature.

Maybe Orhan Pamuk is a good writer, but why do I have the feeling that half the people giving this award have never read him. My feelings here were confirmed when I look to Google News and found this:

EU enlargement chief meets with Orhan Pamuk The European Union enlargement chief met with Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk at his home in Istanbul, where the two discussed freedom of expression ahead of Pamuk’s December trial for allegedly insulting the Turkish identity.
]]> By: Chirol http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-32785 Chirol Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:31:48 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-32785 It's hard to give an answer to a broad question like that as it's directed at an entire continent. However, I do believe that the spectrum of people who are against Turkey's joining the EU is indeed broad and crosses party lines. There's a wide range of reasons people disapprove of Turkey. You have the more conservative Christian groups within Europe that are against Turkey's membership for more religious, cultural and moral reasons as well as left wing groups who concentrate more on human rights and democracy issues. Thus, I don't think it's correct to paint only one side of the political spectrum as opposing Turkey's eventual membership. Perhaps I should have made that clear in the post. Excellent question! It’s hard to give an answer to a broad question like that as it’s directed at an entire continent. However, I do believe that the spectrum of people who are against Turkey’s joining the EU is indeed broad and crosses party lines. There’s a wide range of reasons people disapprove of Turkey.

You have the more conservative Christian groups within Europe that are against Turkey’s membership for more religious, cultural and moral reasons as well as left wing groups who concentrate more on human rights and democracy issues. Thus, I don’t think it’s correct to paint only one side of the political spectrum as opposing Turkey’s eventual membership. Perhaps I should have made that clear in the post. Excellent question!

]]> By: snow http://cominganarchy.com/2005/10/10/more-nobel-prize-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-32783 snow Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:24:02 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=1189#comment-32783 Is it just the right wing that is against Turkey joining the EU? What do the leftists think? Is it just the right wing that is against Turkey joining the EU? What do the leftists think?

]]>