They haven't gotten it right in the past, either.

In light of Friday's events, I've done a bit of research in regards to the Nobel Peace Prize. Stalin and Hitler were nominated, as was Gandhi. Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela have received the prize, as has Yasser Arafat. So maybe the seemingly haphazard decision to award Obama shouldn't be such a surprise.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both nominated for the award. (Although the nomination for Hitler was later withdrawn.) Gandhi--one of the most poignant symbols of peace in the 20th century--was nominated five times, and was never awarded the prize. And

in 1948, the Nobel committee decided not to give an award because there was "no suitable living candidate." This year, there were 205 nominees for the award--a record in the history of the prize. And while, we don't know officially who those nominated were (the names of the nominees will not be released for another 50 year, in compliance with Nobel policy), the rumored list is quite impressive, ranging from Afghan women's rights activists to American philanthropies to Chinese revolutionaries. So clearly, this isn't the first time well-deserving individuals have been passed up. (See previous post)

However, it would've been noble to see President Obama join a much smaller number within the Nobel Peace world--the number of people to decline the prize. The only person to ever decline was Vietnamese politician Le Doc Tho was was awarded the prize in 1973 along with US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. They were both awarded the prize for their negotiation of the Vietnam peace accord. However, Le Doc Tho did not accept because he felt that because of the current situation in Vietnam, he was not yet deserving of such a prize. A very honorable gesture. And one that would've likely been very politically favorable for President Obama, had he done the same.

And while it is still quite disturbing that he was nominated for such a prize just eleven or so days into the job, my research has revealed that the committee of given Norwegian elected officials haven't always got it right in the last 109 years. So, it's yet another mishap in this crazy world.

And I'll end with another interesting research tidbit: a poll on the Nobel Peace Prize website that asks "Did you know about Barack Obama's efforts for a nuclear weapon free world? 54% answered no.

Huh?

This morning, I was running late as always. I set the alarm, locked the front door, then the security gate, and I was off. With my purse & heels in one hand, dry cleaning & breakfast in the other, I sprinted the two blocks to the bus stop--all while trying to wrestle my coat over both arms. I spent the rest of my commute trying to jam my shoes and dry cleaning in my purse, and thus, forwent my morning paper.

When I arrived at my desk, the first headline in my morning news search caught me off guard. In a panic, I browsed the other headlines. Clearly, I had missed something in the between the end of yesterday's 13 hour work today and this morning's sprint to work. I looked to CNN for some sort of answer: Did we wipe out Al Qaeda? Did we find a way to provide clean water to millions in Africa & Asia? Did our 10% unemployment rate drop to 4%? Are American 3rd graders now reading?

There was no answer to be found. And I as logged into Twitter, I was relieved. I was not the only one confused as to why our president, Barack Obama, was the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In an attempt to make sense of this all, like any good journalist, I wanted to check out the other nominees. Unfortunately, a quick perusal of the rumored nominees left me with only more questions. Here's a sample of those nominated for the prestigious international aware:

Morgan Tsvangirai is an influential opposition leader in Zimbabwe. Last year he ran for president against Zimbabwe's president since 1980, Robert Mugabe. In the midst of the campaign, Tsvangirai was imprisoned and beaten by Mugabe's government. Since then, as the first elected prime minister he has successfully transitioned Zimbabwe from a violent dictatorship via democratic reform.

Several Chinese activists were also over looked, including Hu Jia, who was imprisoned for campaigning for human rights in the PRC, and Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system.

American mountain climber Greg Mortenson is the founder of the Central Asia Institute has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years. (I highly recommend his book, Three Cups of Tea)

Also passed up was Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a philosophy professor in Jordan who risks his life by advocating interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims.

Afghan human rights activist Sima Samar currently leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and serves as the U.N. special envoy to Darfur. Again, deserving, but no luck.

So what does it take to win a Nobel? I'm not quite sure. Yes, our president has become a symbol of hope to many Americans and to those around the world. But does being an icon warrant such an honor? I'm not sure it does.

In his last will and testament, Alfred Nobel created the award, which was to be given 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".

As violence continues to rise in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as Secretary Clinton continues a schoolgirl exchange of unpleasantries with North Korea and as Jews and Muslims continue to assault each other, I find myself lacking any examples of increased peace in the last nine month.

To quote the lyrics of Gary Jules, "It's a very, very mad world."

Deja vu?

Recent political slander has been awfully redundant. It seems as if political pundits--and the average American mudslinger--have forgotten parallel events in our recent political history. We're so quick to anger over events that we've defended in the past.

Last week, parents, politicians, activists, and scholars were up in arms over President Obama's plan to address our nation's schoolchildren on Tuesday. (I found some validity to the frustrations, but for reasons beyond the simple address. See last week's post)

This week, Representative Joe Wilson's disrespectful outburst during President Obama's health care address has raised quite a stink--and over a million dollars, too--among liberals of all walks, and moderate or level-headed conservatives.



Likewise, when President George H. W. Bush gave a similar speech to school children in 1991, Democratic lawmakers ordered an investigation and The Washington Post wrote, "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props."

In other similar bout of deja vu, President George W. Bush was booed by Democrats during his State of the Union speech in 2005.



Today, mud slinging is the name of the game--even in prime time media. I certainly don't seek to silence the dissension, that is what makes America so great. And, I happen to agree that our elected officials should respect each other in all arenas, and that any president's address to young and impressionable should be carefully scrutinized. However, let us of be mindful of double standards and think twice before we respond in fury. When we scold a Republican for lashing out against our Democrat president, let's remember that just a few years ago Democrats were booing our Republican president. When we protest our liberal president's address to our children, let's remember we saw a conservative president do the same thing a decade ago.

I think Thomas Paine said it best, "Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice."

a new hope

Whether you voted red or blue, tonight is a proud moment in U.S. history. As I watched President-elect Barack Obama give his acceptance speech, I knew this was a night to remember. For decades to come, this speech will be replayed in classrooms across the world.

I spent part of the night discussing the victory with my politically invested friends. But the best part of the night was spent with those friends, who would, for the first time, have a president that looked like them. And I realized the election of Barack Obama wasn’t as much about the change in policies in America but rather about the change in spirit of America.

Hope is a powerful thing. It’s stronger than any welfare system. It’s more productive than any assembly-line worker. It’s far more trustworthy than any politician. And once lost, it’s a hard thing to get back. But tonight, I saw hope restored. And with a new hope, I see America restored to its people.

"the post-american world"

Recently, there’s much some controversy over a book Obama was photographed holding in his hand. Conservatives have raised concern over Obama’s reading of The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria. I’ve received several email forwards with captions below this photo reading “Revealing! Obama is reading The Post-American World, written by an Muslim” or “Post-America? This photo exposes Obama’s radical ideas and intent for this country!”

A handful of emotions come up when reading such emails. For one, America isn’t reading enough these days. If Americans were well read, this book would be on the top of the list as it is of key intellectual value to our society. And if Americans had read this book, they’d realize in no way is the book “anti-American.” Also, American conservatives should note that Zakaria is the editor for Newsweek International, a magazine often favored over Time by conservatives.

Second, claims that this book was written by a Muslim only shows ignorance and intolerance. While it’s a bit unclear as to whether or not the Indian-born author is a practicing Muslim, it’s important to note the extreme Islam that is manifested in terrorist behavior is not the norm. If the longtime American-resident is indeed a practicing Muslim, I doubt he is calling jihad upon his neighbors. This assumption that all Muslims equal terrorists only proves ignorance.

But what I want to give is a brief-synopsis of the book, in a hopeful effort to clear up misunderstandings. The Post-American World is about a new era, which is no longer dominated by America. However, it’s not the decline of America, but rather the “Rise of the Rest.” Because money makes the world go ‘round, economics is the root of this new trend. Now, other countries are able to compete at the same economic level as the U.S. These countries include Japan, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, South Africa and others. While the U.S. still remains the military superpower, the global spread of capital, labor, innovation, ideas and information are beginning to limit the American influence world-wide. While some may see this “rise of the rest” as a threat to America, Zakaria praises the success of global capitalism (a cornerstone in the conservative ideology) and suggests that the superpowers in the UN embrace this shift. He suggests inviting these countries to participate in G8 summits, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

For America, the “rise of the rest” means that America will need to work a little harder. He argues that the U.S. has passed up some key opportunities in recent years. "[It] has had an extraordinary hand to play in global politics—the best of any country in history. Yet by almost any measure—problems solved, success achieved, institutions built, reputation enhanced—Washington has played this hand badly." His lenses are certainly tainted by the Bush doctrine and subsequent mess in Iraq. But he doesn’t pass all the blame on the recent administration’s poor decisions. Instead, he argues that since the collapsed of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington has become “careless, arrogant and lazy.”

However, he notes that this rise of the rest is not to America’s detriment, if played right. Because countries are becoming more democratic, open and market-friendly, this shift could be beneficial. But the U.S. first must come to understand they will need to cooperate and even compromise with the rest of the world. It is not longer the global boss. He praises the America’s success in globalizing the world, but warns America to not forget to globalize itself.

While the title may raise alarm, it’s good read and one that represents a lot of current thinking coming out of today’s top think tanks and publishing houses. So, pay attention, America and start reading!

live thoughts from the debate.

6:00 PM PST Watching CNN debate coverage of town hall-style presidential debate in APU’s Student Union

6:10 PM McCain is asked for suggestions as to who would take over for Treasury Secretary Paulson. He suggests Meg Whitman, who is the former CEO of EBay. Point for McCain—he knows of EBay! Take that, critics who think he's "out of the loop!"

6:13 PM McCain addresses the issue of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. He accuses Obama and "his cronies" (minus a point for McCain—his choice in vocab dates him) for allowing Americans to purchase homes way beyond their means. Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in history. McCain cites his vocal opposition to Fannie & Freddie. It's about time McCain brings up that point. Throughout the years, he has consistently spoken against Fannie & Freddie.

6:16 PM Obama claims he alerted Paulson that we were in a sub-prime lending crisis a year ago. So who had the insight? And why didn't Obama address McCain's accusation of benefiting from Fannie & Freddie? Sounds fishy to me.

6:19 PM McCain says, "We can fix our economy. Americans are the best workers in the world. We've got to give them a chance. They are the innocent bystanders in the biggest financial crisis in our time."

It’s interesting that both candidates blame each other. The Democrats resisted tighter regulation. The Republicans pushed for too much financial deregulation. But what about all those greedy Americans who insisted on spending beyond their means? We’ve got to take some individual responsibility for this mess. I don’t think we’re as innocent as we want to be.

6:20 PM "How can we trust either of you when both of your parties got us into this global economic mess?" A brilliant question, that won’t receive an honest answer.

Obama of course goes back to George W. (I'm amazed at how much he focuses on George. We all know he messed up. Move on. Stop capitalizing on someone's mistakes & come up with some creative ideas.) "I'm cutting more than I'm spending… Are our priorities working for you? We've got to put an end to lobbyists & special interests dictating public policy.” I find it hard to believe he’ll put an end to that.

6:29 PM McCain states we need to eliminate some government programs. We have to look at what programs aren't working. For example, defense spending (AMEN to that!). He recommends a spending freeze except for vital programs like defense, veteran's defense & others. Which others, I wonder? But I agree. It’s time to cut back on government & give that power to nongovernmental organizations.

6:35 PM Obama proposes doubling the Peace Corps, which is a bad idea. During his administration, Clinton introduced an initiative to send out 10,000 Peace Corps volunteers by 2000. And in 2002 Bush asked for the current Peace Corps to be doubled. Congress passed a\ budget increase at $325 million in 2004. Both presidents pat themselves on the back because they sent Americans out to help the less fortunate. However, this did nothing to solve the problem. As an accepted and potential Peace Corps volunteer, I’ve been informed that countries were receiving too many volunteers for their infrastructure to support and in turn, American Peace Corps volunteers were becoming bored & actually causing mischief--and thus harming the American reputation.

6:39 PM Obama says he wants to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans. If you make less that $250000, you won't lose a dime. And if you make less than $200,000 you will receive a tax cut. Economic experts have said once retirees and those without children are factored in, only 81% of American will truly benefit from Obama's tax cuts. And my other question is, won’t that discourage productivity for those at an income level of $250,000? Why make $251,000 if you can avoid the extra tax and just make $250,000?

6:50 PM McCain voted against a Bush-Cheney bill currently on the floor with all kinds of "goodies for the oil company." But Obama voted for the bill. I’d be interested to see why.

6:54 PM McCain gets a few of the facts to his healthcare plan wrong. "The government will do this and the government will do that. I propose a $5,000 refundable tax credit for each American family to buy their healthcare," says McCain. Some things to note about his plan: It’s actually $2,500 per individual. Workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, which would offset some of that credit. Experts have said a tax credit plan like this could cause companies to reduce health benefits for their employees.

7:02 PM McCain: "We don't have time for on the job training." --maybe one of the better sound bites of the night.

7:09 PM "Should America respect Pakistan?"

Obama: We have this situation in Pakistan because we went into Iraq before the job was finished in Afghanistan. It's important to end the War in Iraq & finish the job in Afghanistan. We have to change our policies in Pakistan. We can't coddle their dictator. He needs to expand our non-military aid so that they have more invested. If we have Osama bin Laden in our sight & Pakistan is unable or refuses to take him out, then we will go in. We will kill Osama and we will crush Al Qaeda. I agree with Obama on all of the above. However, it’s important that we don’t simply end Iraq, but that we finish what we started, no matter how corrupt it started. Unfortunately, our current president has put us in harm’s way and now we’ve got to clean up after him.

McCain: Teddy Roosevelt said, "Talk softly, but carry a big stick." Obama wants to talk loudly and carry a small stick. I can’t say which one is better. I feel safer with Roosevelt’s plan. But am wondering what’s morally right.
7:20 PM McCain reminds us that when he looked into Putin’s eyes, he “saw a K, a G, and a B.” Maybe it's time to drop that line…

7:26 PM "If Iran attacks Israel, will you wait for the UN Security Council or will you act on your own?"

McCain: We will obviously not wait for the UN Security Council. Russia & China would provide obstacles. Iran is not only a threat to Israel but the entire Middle East. Definitely a military answer.

Obama: We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. We will never take military action off the table. And we cannot provide veto power to the UN. If we can diplomatically blah blah blah... which doesn't answer the question. But I will agree with Obama, that we should have direct talks with not only our friends but also our enemies.

7:31 PM What don't you know? And how will you learn it?

Points for anyone who answers this correctly.

Obama: Ask Michelle.
McCain: The future.

Guess that’s a tie. And pretty indicative of the entire night.