He Wears the Rose/Of Youth Upon Him

In the top photo, I see the idea, but the composition is so bad it ends up being horridly cliche. In the bottom photo, I can’t help but get past the Middle-Eastern imagery of the ironwork.

Great quote

The acceptance statement was humble. But the acceptance of the prize, in light of the statement, was not. It would have been a great act of grace to turn it down. Especially since it involves the receipt of a great deal of money. He definitely should not pocket that — no, not while in office. I await his contribution of that money to a worthy cause.

Yesterday, a WH spokesman said the President will give the prize money to a charity.

To those who say he should have turned down the prize, does that not reflect a denial of the commitment to peace and to continually working towards this end for which the committee awarded this prize? I say he has, once again, grasped the thorn. I’m proud and expectant that we will someday match the world’s hopes that our country will rise to the occasion. And, I feel confident that we have the leader who will take us there. It is our job to help turn this ship around. His job to lead and hold to the vision. Perhaps those on other shores can see this more clearly.

I’d rather see a Nobel Peace Prize, than a shoe thrown at us.
We should all take pride that the rest of the world appreciates what our president has done, and is trying to do. Why are some Americans so ready to trash our president for all the world to see and read? Would we rather a ’shoe’ be thrown at us? Why do some in the media and politics question positive news about our president? And who gave these people the right to speake for all of us? And how did they get such sway and power? What did these pundits do, accomplish to gain such power? We need to ask these questions about the talking heads that seem to qualify as the voices of America. I take great pride that the rest of the world sees America as a hopeful place, sees America again as a force for good and peace, and returning to the community of nations. When other nations fear us less, peace is more attainable, problems that affect us all are more apt to be honestly addressed. President Obama may not have accomplish ‘concrete’ deeds, but he has accomplished one important thing…he has given our morals and values a stronger platform from which to engage the world, the community we belong to, not dominate it. The era of “might makes right” is over. A bully may succeed for a time, but when the victim is pushed to the max, the bully always receives what it deserves. President Obama has and continues to work toward eliminating the ‘bully’ from our foreign policy, and replaced fear with solutions, and yes…HOPE for everyone’s future.

Blah blah shoe blah blah. The prize should be given for accomplishment, not as backing for what might happen in the future. I know a couple of brilliant highschool physics students. I’m sure in the future they will make contributions. How about they get the physics prize? Imagine the admiration that would have gone to him if he had said that he was honored and flattered to receive the prize, but it should go to someone or more than one who have laid their lives on the line, who have truly had “skin in the game” (in the odious phrase of Rahm Emanuel). He could have had the honor of receiving it, but the nobility of turning it over to the more deserving. Who would that be? How about the students of Tehran? How about the brave Chinese dissidents? How about the doctor running that fabulous clinic and rehabilitation center for brutalized women in the Congo? All those were passed over. All have real accomplishments to their credit. All have changed the world.

According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “to 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.” (from http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html)
This award to our President was a powerful, international message. Barack got the peace dialogue going, and didn’t waste a moment doing it. Unlike SOME people in America who are dying to see him fail, much of the rest of the world is living with the hope he’ll continue to succeed.

“Done the most…” That takes time. He was nominated after two weeks in office. As Ruth Marcus points out (and she is a supporter of his) the other two sitting presidents who got it had worked to establish the League of Nations, and in the instance of TR, forged the peace bet. the Russians and the Japanese. Neither of them got a “dialogue going”. They started and FINISHED A TASK. Don’t forget, “the person who shall have done THE MOST..” Not started things, fer cryin’ out loud.

The prize has been given before without an “accomplishment.” Kissinger’s is one example; the Vietnam war didn’t end for another 2 (or was it 3?) years. Mandela’s was about 10 YEARS before the end of apartheid. There are more, I know, that I can’t think of off the top of my head right now.
The award is not meant to be a reward for finished projects, it’s whole reason for being is to be an ENCOURAGEMENT to action toward international peace and justice.
If you do not like this, learn to speak Norwegian and take it up with the Nobel Committee. Obama has done nothing wrong in being honored this way, and will be doing nothing wrong when he accepts it.
NOTHING.
So, if I may be so bold: shettup, yuze.

Mandela got the prize in 1993. 1994 is the date apartheid is said to have ended, although South Africa is a work in progress still. Mandela’s struggle, documented in his book, took place for decades, of which several were spent in prison! He was long the leader of the ANC. Come on, the comparison is just absurd. Obviously, in history nothing is truly final. The Romans destroyed Carthage, but now we have a thriving Tunisia. Kissinger likewise worked for YEARS before getting the prize. It is not stated to be an award for someone who ENCOURAGES. It says, has done the most. By that standard, its award is a mistake. Whether it is meant as a slap at Bush, or an encouragement to withdraw from Afghanistan, I don’t know. I can’t read their minds. But Obama himself said he feels unworthy to be in the company of the transformative figures who won it. He was right in saying that. The next, and gracious step, would be to decline it.

My mistake about the Mandela dates. Thank you for the correction. I think I was thinking of someone else, but danged if I can remember who.
The next, and gracious step, would be to decline it.
What are you talking about??? That would not be “gracious,” that would be a slap in the face to the Nobel committee!
THEY decided this — on whatever terms they chose to decide — and it was given as they wanted to give it.
It is not up to Obama to second guess them. That would be INSULTING.

It is remarkable the number of Americans that see fit to excoriate the Norwegian Nobel Committee for their choice. It’s embarrassing and arrogant.
This isn’t the Johanna’s Well-Deserved Accomplishment of a Lifetime Gold Star Award. The Nobel Committee saw fit that our President has “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” in the past year. It happens that Obama has made some very important foreign policy decisions to Europeans (and remember, this is a EUROPEAN Peace Award) . One of those is the canceling of the long-range missile shield program. Another is the engagement with Iran. Another was the Cairo speech. Another is the development of a regional strategy for Afghanistan that includes India. Another is articulating a vision of world peace without nuclear weapons. The idea was to stand behind that vision.
How dare you second-guess Nobel Committee? It is the epitome of the Ugly American and a veritable insult to the international community as well, that Americans can be so profoundly ignorant and provincial. It isn’t all about you.

LOL! Well said, James!

“Lotus-like shape“, eh?
You missed the significance of the photo, and the opportunity to cry “raaaaacist!”, as is your wont.
Sorry if you can’t handle the truth.

The photo of the ironwork fence appears to me to be a stylized fleur-de-lis. Very common architectural detail on similar works.

Every rose has its thorn

You have very vehement opinions for someone who has demonstrated such a modest knowledge of recent history. You thought apartheid ended in 2004, evidently?