Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel peace prize
Yes…it appears to be true (again). A few reports starting to pop up on Google News and through my NewzCrawler.
The Snopes story on this from the last time the rumour made the rounds hasn’t been updated, but there’s no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Reuters story that appears to be the primary source.
My honest first reaction on receiving this piece of news was, as you might expect, a fair helping of disgust and outrage. My deep-seated lefty instincts automatically spewed up the “what the hell kind of world are we living in?!” response.
But then you stop to think for a second and dig into how such a thing could happen. What kind of world are we living in? How the heck did they get nominated?
Rather than go from the gut, this is one of those moments where a little intelligent Googling goes a long, long way.
First, as noted in the Reuters piece, the difference between nomination and actually being awarded the Nobel is enormous.
There are more than a hundred nominees every year and tens of thousands of people around the world have the right to submit nominations.
The list of approved nominators for the Peace prize, according to the info on the Nobel Foundation's site, includes all members of every national government in the world, plus members of international courts, university rectors, professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology, directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes, past prize recipients, active and former members of the Nobel committee, Phil Lewer, Jan Brewer, Harry Hawkins, Hugh Davy, Philly Whitpot, George Pausley, Dick Wilson, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all...
The Reuters piece quotes one Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, commenting that: "...many people wrongly believed being a "Nobel prize nominee" was itself a kind of honour...."
So the first thing to take way from this should probably be: getting nominated don't mean dick.
It's also worth pointing out that none of the news articles so far is able to quote anyone from the Nobel Foundation either confirming or denying the nominees.
The Reuters story quotes Lundestand several times, but without getting him to either confirm that Bush and/or Blair are on his little list. (I know they're on my little list -- and they surely won't be missed -- but that's another story).
In fact, to officially confirm these nominations would be a breach of the Statutes of the Foundation, which state: "information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize."
Not all qualified nominators abide by this particular rule, however. Hence the Reuters reporter is able to source "...a right-wing independent member of Norway's parliament..." as one of the people admitting to have nominated Bush and Blair.
The member in question is Jan Simonsen who already, according to this archived MetaFilter thread, raved about nominating the B Boys last year.
This is the same Jan Simonsen who, in the September 1999 Norwegian local elections, campaigned on an anti-immigration platform. "Simonsen suggested that asylum-seekers should only be allowed into shops in the company of a Norwegian, a suggestion that apparently was offered in the interests of crime prevention."
Simonsen certainly has an...um..."colourful" past. In 2001 he was expelled from his own party's Justice Committee for a scandal involving... well...go read the story yourself.
Armed with this information, then, the second thing I take away from the story is that it's manifestly a goad piece.
It's the sort of story that's almost purpose-built to work it's way around the 'Net, fueled by people like me clicking the "righteous indignation" option in their email.
Great big headline, but little of real substance - just some minor Norwegian right-wingnut (who’s willing to dispense with the niceties of confidentiality agreements) popping up to stir the fires of liberal rage and anguish.
And, hey – it worked. I was ready to blow chunks across the keyboard the moment I saw that headline.
As the story is very, very unlikely to have come from the Nobel Foundation themselves, what's the betting it was Jan Simonsen's own PR people who made the call?
The last point of note in the story, is that:
“Nobel watchers say Bush or Blair's chances of winning are close to nil. The 2002 prize went to ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who argued against war. The head of the Nobel committee called the choice a "kick in the legs" to Bush on Iraq.”
This is an opinion first noted in a much earlier Reuters story (from 2002) quoted at the Snopes site:
"Neither Bush nor Blair is likely to win. Bishop Gunnar Staalsett, a member of the secretive five-member Nobel committee which elects the winner, has spoken out against the U.S.-led and British-backed strikes on Afghanistan."
So.
1. The fact that they've been nominated is really no biggie.
2. The Norwegian politician who threw their names into the hat this year was out of order to blab about it, and, btw, appears to be a nutbar.
3. They're very unlikely to win.
I find all this Googling very soothing to the nerves, don't you...?
The Snopes story on this from the last time the rumour made the rounds hasn’t been updated, but there’s no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Reuters story that appears to be the primary source.
My honest first reaction on receiving this piece of news was, as you might expect, a fair helping of disgust and outrage. My deep-seated lefty instincts automatically spewed up the “what the hell kind of world are we living in?!” response.
But then you stop to think for a second and dig into how such a thing could happen. What kind of world are we living in? How the heck did they get nominated?
Rather than go from the gut, this is one of those moments where a little intelligent Googling goes a long, long way.
First, as noted in the Reuters piece, the difference between nomination and actually being awarded the Nobel is enormous.
There are more than a hundred nominees every year and tens of thousands of people around the world have the right to submit nominations.
The list of approved nominators for the Peace prize, according to the info on the Nobel Foundation's site, includes all members of every national government in the world, plus members of international courts, university rectors, professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology, directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes, past prize recipients, active and former members of the Nobel committee, Phil Lewer, Jan Brewer, Harry Hawkins, Hugh Davy, Philly Whitpot, George Pausley, Dick Wilson, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all...
The Reuters piece quotes one Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, commenting that: "...many people wrongly believed being a "Nobel prize nominee" was itself a kind of honour...."
So the first thing to take way from this should probably be: getting nominated don't mean dick.
It's also worth pointing out that none of the news articles so far is able to quote anyone from the Nobel Foundation either confirming or denying the nominees.
The Reuters story quotes Lundestand several times, but without getting him to either confirm that Bush and/or Blair are on his little list. (I know they're on my little list -- and they surely won't be missed -- but that's another story).
In fact, to officially confirm these nominations would be a breach of the Statutes of the Foundation, which state: "information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize."
Not all qualified nominators abide by this particular rule, however. Hence the Reuters reporter is able to source "...a right-wing independent member of Norway's parliament..." as one of the people admitting to have nominated Bush and Blair.
The member in question is Jan Simonsen who already, according to this archived MetaFilter thread, raved about nominating the B Boys last year.
This is the same Jan Simonsen who, in the September 1999 Norwegian local elections, campaigned on an anti-immigration platform. "Simonsen suggested that asylum-seekers should only be allowed into shops in the company of a Norwegian, a suggestion that apparently was offered in the interests of crime prevention."
Simonsen certainly has an...um..."colourful" past. In 2001 he was expelled from his own party's Justice Committee for a scandal involving... well...go read the story yourself.
Armed with this information, then, the second thing I take away from the story is that it's manifestly a goad piece.
It's the sort of story that's almost purpose-built to work it's way around the 'Net, fueled by people like me clicking the "righteous indignation" option in their email.
Great big headline, but little of real substance - just some minor Norwegian right-wingnut (who’s willing to dispense with the niceties of confidentiality agreements) popping up to stir the fires of liberal rage and anguish.
And, hey – it worked. I was ready to blow chunks across the keyboard the moment I saw that headline.
As the story is very, very unlikely to have come from the Nobel Foundation themselves, what's the betting it was Jan Simonsen's own PR people who made the call?
The last point of note in the story, is that:
“Nobel watchers say Bush or Blair's chances of winning are close to nil. The 2002 prize went to ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who argued against war. The head of the Nobel committee called the choice a "kick in the legs" to Bush on Iraq.”
This is an opinion first noted in a much earlier Reuters story (from 2002) quoted at the Snopes site:
"Neither Bush nor Blair is likely to win. Bishop Gunnar Staalsett, a member of the secretive five-member Nobel committee which elects the winner, has spoken out against the U.S.-led and British-backed strikes on Afghanistan."
So.
1. The fact that they've been nominated is really no biggie.
2. The Norwegian politician who threw their names into the hat this year was out of order to blab about it, and, btw, appears to be a nutbar.
3. They're very unlikely to win.
I find all this Googling very soothing to the nerves, don't you...?
