Snowden nominated for Nobel Prize

The NPP is meant to be a shining symbol of tireless and sacrificial work towards human societal progress. Even Obama supporters (like me at the time) were scratching our heads a bit when it was offered to him after he won the election. If my memory serves me correctly, I don't think he had been in office for even two weeks at the time. And while I have defended Snowden's recklessness, I find myself once again scratching my head. Snowden? Really?
Obama was a symbol of a nation finally emerging from the possible final vestiges of an apartheid, slave legacy state, with a huge history of racial bias and discrimination and racial human rights abuses. They chose Obama as the symbol of this emergence, and as a singular person who had the ability to accomplish this political feat in the face of such a legacy. I got it.
By that logic, they could have awarded it to the American public that voted him in, but Norwegians hate Americans. :lol: But really, he got it because he's half black, that's all. Was Jimmy Carter half black? How about Mikhail Gorbachev?Well, Carter is descended from poor southern whites....so the "one drop rule" may apply to that bloodline. :) Seriously though, Carter and Gorbachev were awarded because they actually did some nice stuff on a worldwide scale; or maybe they fooled people into thinking they did, IDK.
Well, Carter is descended from poor southern whites….so the “one drop rule" may apply to that bloodline. Seriously though, Carter and Gorbachev were awarded because they actually did some nice stuff on a worldwide scale; or maybe they fooled people into thinking they did, IDK.
And while you're mentioning US presidents who were awarded the prize you left out Woodrow Wilson who was awarded the prize for ending the First World War. He was a Southerner like Carter, white but unlike Carter was openly racist. You don't hand out peace awards based on the race of the receipent. BTW Obama was as shocked as anyone else that he received it and openly expressed that he didn't deserve it. He gave all of the money to various charities including a fund for American Indian education. You need to look at the criteria the committee used to award the prize for starters. if he's guilty of anything it's not turning down the prize. Cap't Jack
Cloak-No, but he's likely one of the people who may have nominated the guy. You and me don't have the capability of doing something like that. Apparently, he is allowed to submit nominations, with the guarantee that those nominations will actually be looked at by the committee. That, in the very least, indicates that his opinion on these issues is respected by the committee itself. I'm not saying that he has authority here, but his opinion obviously holds some kind of weight, so he doesn't have to be the actual committee to speak apologetically on their behalf.
Ok, so the Swedish professor regretted Obama winning the prize. Noted.
I'm not sure if you intended this, but all this seems to come down to is that Obama got the nomination simply for being a black man who won the presidency? Look, many people were amazed by what this actually meant, including me. It made us all smile to finally see this day. But, heck, I didn't need anymore symbols. The very fact that I could already walk outside and kiss my white wife in front of my white neighbors and then wave at them, without having to worry about being kidnapped and lynched was enough "symbol" for me. I was more interested in seeing what he would do. Isn't that what matters with the NPP? Perhaps my understanding of the meaning of the NPP, and what it takes to actually get it, is limited. If so, I'm willing to grant that.
Well your expressing alot of personal experience and opinion here. To me, a white person, and many millions of other folks around the world and in the US, the election was a symbol of progress. It still is. The NPP award was further confirmation for me. I'm well aware of your intense Obama "shock" or "disappointment". Does it have to bleed over into your personal assessment of the Nobel Peace Prize? Is it bleeding over into everything for you?
I don't know if they've "lost their relevancy" yet, but they sure have a lot of people confused now. What I'm saying is that there is a potential for losing this relevancy, because if you develop a reputation for giving it away to people for doing virtually nothing, then they could run the risk of being ignored into obscurity. I'm not saying that I know for sure if that's really the case, but I can say that the meaning of the prize is a bit lost on me now, since it's now able to be expanded to just being a black man in a powerful position.
I think I covered this in the previous post, plus right above. I doubt the prestige of the NPP is going to be hurt because some folks think Obama didn't deserve the prize. He didn't win the prize for being a black man in a powerful position. Do you understand that now? You think that is what the committee did? Or are you just vicariously spouting out your rancor for Obama through this new vehicle? Really?
I'm not sure what the NPP Body depends on, but I do believe that the prestige of the award is dependent on public recognition. Is that idea unreasonable?
It's kind of unreasonable. It depends on what you call the public. The millions of authors, scientists, humanitarians, politicians, artists, explorers etc etc probably love the idea of the NPP and think it is prestigious. They see their peers climbing to new levels of achievement and discovery. The award undoubtedly inspires this class of the public who aspires and contributes positively to the world. Which is what the prize is awarded for. Now if you mean "Joe Public", with it's fickle, slackjaw, uninformed opinions on every matter....no, I'm quite certain the prestige of the prize is not dependent on this public's recognition.
Ok, so the Swedish professor regretted Obama winning the prize. Noted.
When did we start debating that? Anyways, I was simply pointing out that his opinion on the issue is not as irrelevant as you are trying to make it. It actually holds more weight than yours, according to the NPP body.
Well your expressing alot of personal experience and opinion here. To me, a white person, and many millions of other folks around the world and in the US, the election was a symbol of progress. It still is. The NPP award was further confirmation for me. I’m well aware of your intense Obama “shock" or “disappointment". Does it have to bleed over into your personal assessment of the Nobel Peace Prize? Is it bleeding over into everything for you?
Great, so it’s not okay for me to express my “opinion" on this issue, but then you, right after that, express yours (along with that of “millions of other folks"), as if it automatically overrides the value of mine. So let’s see here: my opinion is irrelevant, as well as that of the professor’s (you know, the guy whose opinion actually matters to the NPP committee), but yours, as well as the opinions of the “millions" of folks you are apparently representing is relevant to this issue. Aren't you seeing this? And apparently, you are still a little irked by the fact that I’m not an Obama supporter, so much that you forget that I have already said, just a couple of posts back, that at that time, I was an Obama supporter. I liked Obama, but was still confused about the NPP nomination, because he hadn’t even done anything yet. Either you are not reading my posts carefully (which could be the case), or your interpretation of my comments is polluted by your confirmation bias that everything I say about Obama must be motivated/fueled by my dislike of him (e.g.: “my intense shock and disappointment bleeding over into EVERY assessment I make concerning Obama. Every negative assessment is just me, again, using this opportunity as a vehicle to vicariously spout my rancor for him"…..really?).
I think I covered this in the previous post, plus right above. I doubt the prestige of the NPP is going to be hurt because some folks think Obama didn’t deserve the prize. He didn’t win the prize for being a black man in a powerful position. Do you understand that now?
Understand what? You didn't cover anything. You basically said, in so many words, that he got it because he was a black man who had obtained a very powerful position. I asked for clarification on that, and you only responded by saying that “you already covered it" in a “previous post? What post was that? No, I don’t understand what you are talking about.
Cloak-When did we start debating that?
A little bit before this comment right here:
Cloak-No, but he’s likely one of the people who may have nominated the guy. You and me don’t have the capability of doing something like that. Apparently, he is allowed to submit nominations, with the guarantee that those nominations will actually be looked at by the committee. That, in the very least, indicates that his opinion on these issues is respected by the committee itself. I’m not saying that he has authority here, but his opinion obviously holds some kind of weight, so he doesn’t have to be the actual committee to speak apologetically on their behalf.
Anyways, I was simply pointing out that his opinion on the issue is not as irrelevant as you are trying to make it. It actually holds more weight than yours, according to the NPP body.
His opinion that Obama didn't deserve the NPP prize? I would say that is irrelevant. Obama already got the prize. I don't consider someones opinion relevant when it's based on sour grapes. Including yours.
Cloak-Great, so it’s not okay for me to express my “opinion" on this issue, but then you, right after that, express yours (along with that of “millions of other folks"), as if it automatically overrides the value of mine. So let’s see here: my opinion is irrelevant, as well as that of the professor’s (you know, the guy whose opinion actually matters to the NPP committee), but yours, as well as the opinions of the “millions" of folks you are apparently representing is relevant to this issue. Aren't you seeing this?
I didn't cite my feelings in regards to Obama and the prize and the election and the subsequent disappointment felt thereafter. I stated historical facts and the general reasons why Obama got the prize. I then stated that millions of people are happy with his being awarded the prize. Where have I stated opinion? There's no opinion in my statements.
Cloak-But, heck, I didn’t need anymore symbols. The very fact that I could already walk outside and kiss my white wife in front of my white neighbors and then wave at them, without having to worry about being kidnapped and lynched was enough “symbol" for me. I was more interested in seeing what he would do.
This is your personal statement regarding your personal life. Somehow this is relevant to whether Obama deserved the prize or not? Humans depend greatly on symbols. Awards are symbols.
Cloak-And apparently, you are still a little irked by the fact that I’m not an Obama supporter.
I don't care who you support...just because you don't support someone doesn't mean they are ineligible for a prize. Great, you have a dis-enchanted Swedish professor on your side too. Maybe. You two don't know each other. I just read a 3 line sound bite from him. That doesn't make me an expert on what his feelings are.
Cloak-Understand what? You didn't cover anything. You basically said, in so many words, that he got it because he was a black man who had obtained a very powerful position. I asked for clarification on that, and you only responded by saying that “you already covered it" in a “previous post? What post was that? No, I don’t understand what you are talking about.
Vyazma-Obama was a symbol of a nation finally emerging from the possible final vestiges of an apartheid, slave legacy state, with a huge history of racial bias and discrimination and racial human rights abuses. They chose Obama as the symbol of this emergence, and as a singular person who had the ability to accomplish this political feat in the face of such a legacy. I got it.
I guess even though you responded to this, you didn't understand it. I don't see where I am saying Obama got the prize because he was a black man put in a position of power. Let me check again...nope not there! Does that clarify things for you?
Cloak-I think it’s time to admit that the Nobel Peace Prize has basically lost any real significant meaning by now….
Cloak-I don't know if they've "lost their relevancy" yet, but they sure have a lot of people confused now. What I'm saying is that there is a potential for losing this relevancy, because if you develop a reputation for giving it away to people for doing virtually nothing, then they could run the risk of being ignored into obscurity. I'm not saying that I know for sure if that's really the case, but I can say that the meaning of the prize is a bit lost on me now, since it's now able to be expanded to just being a black man in a powerful position.
This makes discussion tedious at best. People don't read others posts and they forget what they themselves have written. I think people just like to get on here and take an arbitrary position(any old position!) and just banter and refute-banter and refute. 2 great things here... 1. I am amazed at the number of folks on here who have had such an outstanding and long running concern for the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize. I can see you all now, running to and fro..."Oh great heavens, have you heard the news? The Nobel peace Prize is losing it's prestige and relevancy!!" It's sooo great to know there are real NPP Boosters out there!! :lol: 2. I for one am glad to learn from Cloak's post here above that people can be awarded the NPP for just being a black man in a position of power. Wow! That's really changing things up. What a great sign!

Yeah, this is obviously a waste of time. I’ve got a lot to do anyways. Take care.

Yeah, this is obviously a waste of time. I've got a lot to do anyways. Take care.
Right, Adios.
Yes. Roosevelt, “the Great American Sissy" as Gore Vidal called him, was certainly a warmonger.
I wonder what Roosevelt's reaction to THAT comment would have been as he said pubically that President Wilson had "the backbone of a chocolate eclair" for not joining the allies in World War I. He wanted to lead another charge before he died. Undoubtedly Roosevelt would have considered Snowden an egregious coward and traitor. Cap't Jack
Vidal was an accomplished essayist, though he declined badly in the end, and his essay on TR is a good one. "Give a sissy a gun, and he'll kill everything in sight" is another of his comments in that essay; and TR did what he could to kill what animals he could on his own, and men when he could persuade others--though it seems he never killed one himself, he was always urging the U.S. to do so. He was eager for the country to get into WWI, as you say, but his enthusiasm diminished somewhat when his son Kermit was killed in France. That sort of thing happens in a real war, not in a cake-walk land-grab like the one in which TR played soldier with the preposterous "Rough Riders."
Vidal was an accomplished essayist, though he declined badly in the end, and his essay on TR is a good one. “Give a sissy a gun, and he’ll kill everything in sight" is another of his comments in that essay; and TR did what he could to kill what animals he could on his own, and men when he could persuade others—though it seems he never killed one himself, he was always urging the U.S. to do so. He was eager for the country to get into WWI, as you say, but his enthusiasm diminished somewhat when his son Kermit was killed in France. That sort of thing happens in a real war, not in a cake-walk land-grab like the one in which TR played soldier with the preposterous “Rough Riders."
Yeah, on his African safari he blasted over two hundred animals, a rhinoceros literally killed at ten paces. Ironic though as he saved the buffalo from extinction and created the first national park to put them on! But yeah, he probably killed people in his attack up San Juan Hill. At least he fired in their direction. And he was definitely no coward, leading his regiment on horseback he was wounded in the wrist by shrapnel. President Clinton awarded him the MOH in the 80's. And yes, after Kermit died (he was killed flying a Nieuport 28 fighter, just came back from the Wright Pat museum where they have on display the cross that the Germans used to mark his grave) it took the heart out of him and he blamed himself. That plus the bullet wound he received at the 1912 Bull Moose convention! Roosevelt IMO was one of the most energetic presidents I've ever studied and a man of many contradictions with an explosive temper, plus he wrote 26 books. He also accurately predicted World War I and thought the Kaiser was a pompous ass. Cap't Jack
Vidal was an accomplished essayist, though he declined badly in the end, and his essay on TR is a good one. “Give a sissy a gun, and he’ll kill everything in sight" is another of his comments in that essay; and TR did what he could to kill what animals he could on his own, and men when he could persuade others—though it seems he never killed one himself, he was always urging the U.S. to do so. He was eager for the country to get into WWI, as you say, but his enthusiasm diminished somewhat when his son Kermit was killed in France. That sort of thing happens in a real war, not in a cake-walk land-grab like the one in which TR played soldier with the preposterous “Rough Riders."
Yeah, on his African safari he blasted over two hundred animals, a rhinoceros literally killed at ten paces. Ironic though as he saved the buffalo from extinction and created the first national park to put them on! But yeah, he probably killed people in his attack up San Juan Hill. At least he fired in their direction. And he was definitely no coward, leading his regiment on horseback he was wounded in the wrist by shrapnel. President Clinton awarded him the MOH in the 80's. And yes, after Kermit died (he was killed flying a Nieuport 28 fighter, just came back from the Wright Pat museum where they have on display the cross that the Germans used to mark his grave) it took the heart out of him and he blamed himself. That plus the bullet wound he received at the 1912 Bull Moose convention! Roosevelt IMO was one of the most energetic presidents I've ever studied and a man of many contradictions with an explosive temper, plus he wrote 26 books. He also accurately predicted World War I and thought the Kaiser was a pompous ass. Cap't Jack
I don't think he was a coward, and he did some good things undoubtedly. But he was peculiar in some ways, even for his time, and much too fond of war and life "in the arena." And yet it seems he carried Marcus Aurelius' Meditations with him. But I prefer his daughter Alice as a person, as she had a sense of humor, and wish he was nicer to her than he was.
But I prefer his daughter Alice as a person, as she had a sense of humor, and wish he was nicer to her than he was.
Now there's a study in contrasts! I think she out did her own father in living a "bully" life. I remember when she died and how the Washington elite praised her. Man, I which the old Republican progressives were back. Now that statement's an oxymoron. Really I think Teddi blamed Alice for her mother's death in a way and he never recovered from his mother and wife dying on Valentine's Day. Bummer. Cap't Jack

Speaking of Edward Snowden, there’s and interesting story at the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/24/edward-snowden-i-already-won

He continued: “I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself. “All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed."
If his suggestion had been implemented Snowden would not have been able to copy all the files he took. An NSA spokeswoman also denied those conversations had taken place. “I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA," Snowden said. “I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don’t realise it."
He named the chairs of the Senate and house intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers, as people who had “elected" him to his whistleblower position by not doing their jobs properly in ensuring the oversight of the NSA.
But the main feature is at the Washington Post - National Security section - December 23, 2013 "Edward Snowden, after months of NSA revelations, says his mission’s accomplished" http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-after-months-of-nsa-revelations-says-his-missions-accomplished/2013/12/23/49fc36de-6c1c-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html Food for thought

Snowdon has a lot of heavy competition for the Peace Prize. I doubt he will win.
His quotes in the Guardian are great.
Lois

Snowdon has a lot of heavy competition for the Peace Prize. I doubt he will win. His quotes in the Guardian are great. Lois
Yeah I like the part where he ran off to China and then Russia with Terabytes of classified information. That was good.
Snowdon has a lot of heavy competition for the Peace Prize. I doubt he will win. His quotes in the Guardian are great. Lois
Yeah I like the part where he ran off to China and then Russia with Terabytes of classified information. That was good. And your point is? (keeping it in context) Got any suggestions for what his other options were?
VYAZMA - 28 December 2013 05:47 PM Lois - 27 December 2013 01:13 PM Snowdon has a lot of heavy competition for the Peace Prize. I doubt he will win. His quotes in the Guardian are great. Lois Yeah I like the part where he ran off to China and then Russia with Terabytes of classified information. That was good. And your point is? (keeping it in context) Got any suggestions for what his other options were?
Here's a suggestion, and I've made it before, he could have turned himself in, come back to the U.S. and face charges of treason. The media storm would have turned him into a martyr for the cause and protector of the fourth amendment instead of skulking around with former enemies who are willing to pay any price for our military secrets. I'm not implying that Snowden did it for the money. His motivation may have been altruistic but it would certainly lend credence to his cause by publically facing down the NSA and who knows, he might have been awarded that prize after all? Personal sacrifice in the defense of freedom is no vice. Cap't Jack
Snowdon has a lot of heavy competition for the Peace Prize. I doubt he will win. His quotes in the Guardian are great. Lois
Yeah I like the part where he ran off to China and then Russia with Terabytes of classified information. That was good. And your point is? (keeping it in context) Got any suggestions for what his other options were? Just like VA said. He could have given everything to the Times or Post, or Examiner or Tribune etc...Stayed in the US and faced the consequences. Then I for one would agree he was a whistle blower. I would have viewed his actions as much more sensible. I cannot believe the state of the opinions in this country over this matter. This shows just how dysfunctional this nation has become. Regardless of what you think the spying is and the NSA is doing(even if it is bad...which is debatable. A Federal Judge just ruled it constitutional) Snowden stole sensitive classified information and then fled with it seeking asylum in another country. Via China and Russia. 2 nations which are not friendly with us and are in direct competition with us in global influence. Nothing Snowden ultimately revealed was news to me or lots of people!!! I remember the newspapers reporting about phone tapping and meta-data, etc 10 years ago!!! Where were you? This Snowden material wasn't news!!! Hell I remember being a kid in the 80s and hearing that the gov't had technology to filter phones for words like "bomb" or "attack" etc.. Whether it was true or not who knows? The point is what did Snowden tell you that you didn't already know? That we spy on other countries? That we look for terrorists in our own nation with just about any means possible? Through phones and e-mail? That's news to you???

I don’t feel Snowden has anywhere near the ethics of a Daniel Ellsberg, seeing the way he’s handled the problem. He certainly doesn’t deserve even being nominated for a Nobel.
However, we have to realize all nations are now gathering information limited only by their level of technology. They are getting it from each other and from their own citizens. Privacy is a thing of the past. I don’t like it, but I have to recogize that it’s the way things are. Publicizing it won’t make it stop; only make the gatherers work to be even more stealthy.
Solutions? I don’t think we can stop it or even slow it down. Rather, it’s not going to be too long before every citizen with a computer or maybe just a smart phone will be able to access everyone’s most private data, including that of all government agencies. Possibly when everyone is outed unethical or illegal behavior will fade away.
Boy, I’m sure starting the new year on a crazily optimistic note. :lol:
Occam

The way we communicate is what’s at risk. Who has control of a person’s lifetime communications, relationships, financial and health records?
In an idea situation the government should have control.
But what if the government is not honest?
What if the government lies to the people?
At this point, screw the data, the public wants to know what and who has been using the data for what reasons.
Questions like, has this data been used to change the outcome of elections?
The last American to have this type of government inside information that I can think of was Harry D. White.
And he died of a heart attack when he was in perfect health a day before he was to testify.
I saw Mr. White as an American Hero. The government claimed he was a trader and a spy. The most successful spy ever against the United States of America.
That was until two years ago and books are now being written about Mr. White and the government is now beginning to change its story. Mr. White is no longer a big FBI, CIA success story and may not have even been a spy.
Mr. Snowden did the right thing by going to Russia. I do not think he will live long in the hands of the US Government.
If all the secrets about the government dealings were known by the people that have been monetary affected by the actions of the government. I think the lawsuits would be larger than the national debt.
NOTE;
The internet may just become the new Gnostic God of our time. Snowden may be its first disciple.
Com’on now, think about it.
Happy New Year to everyone.