2009 Nobel Laureates Include a Record Five Women This Year

Good for them!! Thanks for sharing this, and for the pictures to go with the names.

Planet earth is expressed as MOTHER EARTH - Accommodating, grooming, feeding and nurturing of all beings on the planet.

Women, right from the role of mother and responsible social care takers are the essential components of the healthy society and life.

It is a prime pride and respect for the women community that 5 great women had been awarded the NOBEL PRIZE 2009- invariably all areas connected to essential care, life and social sciences.

The inspiration is great input for other responsible human beings [irrespective of genders] that we must make our life productive , responsible , contributive and strive for excellence.

SALUTATIONS TO ALL NOBLE LAURETTES, YOU ALL ARE SIMPLY GREAT AND INSPIRING.

Good for them,

Your comment;

The Nobel Prize is one of the most prestigious awards one can receive. Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace.

The only reservations I have that I feel are questionable has to do with the peace prize.

It's too bad that the reasons they receive it aren't release until till I believe 50 years after the award.

Some of the recipients in my opinion had either a hidden motive/agenda (not shown to the Nobel committee ) such as Arafat, or is questionable on the actual merits such as Obama.

And in my opinion stains the award.

p911

Just a few points regarding the Peace Prize since it has become fashionable to bash it recently.

First and most importantly, before we judge whether or not a prize should be awarded, we first should know the criteria, right? Rather than applying our own assumed criteria? The criteria to be eligible to win the Nobel peace prize reads as follows:

during the preceding year [...] 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.

Yassar Arafat SHARED the peace prize in 1994 with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of Israel at the time). This was a direct result of the Oslo Accords in 1993, a significant event certainly worthy of the peace prize.

As for Obama, for some of us in this country, he represents everything we grew up loving about America that we felt we had lost. The dignity, the integrity, and the honesty. I understand and respect that you disagree with his politics and object to his having won the Peace Prize. That's fine, this is America. I understand and respect that you probably disagree with my characterization of Obama, that's fine too, again, its America, we can speak out against our leaders and if enough people feel a certain way, vote them out. Personally, I thought his reversal of the US policy on torture alone was worthy of the peace prize, his calls for diplomacy, even with enemies, and his insistence on the US respecting the UN also helped.

Also, given our past clashes, I'm going to assume your not mentioning Al Gore or the IPCC was simply an oversight on your part.

As I said, Its my opinion.

As far as Al Gore, No oversight, As you stated, I've already said it, it's regurgitated enough from the both of us.

And the Criteria and your reasoning;

during the preceding year [...] 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.

and

I thought his reversal of the US policy on torture alone was worthy of the peace prize, his calls for diplomacy, even with enemies, and his insistence on the US respecting the UN also helped.

But, what did he do the presiding year except run for office? Did he accomplish anything else we don't know about? What I am getting at, shouldn't the Nobel committee wait till someone actually accomplish something like the other areas. Then there will be substance instead of make people feel good, a type of window dressings. As for as torture, now that he's in office, and is privy to information he wasn't prior, it seems he is backing off.

Yes, I like to know what that was for Obama. He was in office what less than (2) months and he was eligible to be put on a list. (actually I think it was weeks.)

I tried to look to see what he did prior, but could not find what would justify it. Thats why I posted that its too bad that the reason's from the Nobel committee are with held for a period of time.

Your comment;

As for Obama, for some of us in this country, he represents everything we grew up loving about America that we felt we had lost. The dignity, the integrity, and the honesty.

Thats nothing but fluff, ok what did he do to merit this? Or is he just a form of a poster child?

If you could help me out on this I would appreciate it.

As far as Arafat, would you say he's consistent on his strive for peace. Or when it only suits him.

p911

You Wrote:"What I am getting at, shouldn't the Nobel committee wait till someone actually accomplish something like the other areas."

Of course you don't understand, because you don't consider "talking" doing something. Many of the peace prizes in history have been awarded for talking. Talking about getting rid of nukes(linus pauling), talking about civil rights (martin luther king).

The whole point of the peace prize is to emphasize TALKING as opposed to action.

You Wrote:"As for as torture, now that he's in office, and is privy to information he wasn't prior, it seems he is backing off."

You can believe that if you want, but it isn't true. He shut down CIA detention centers on foreign soil, banned the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. The only thing he refuses to do is turn over Americans for war crimes (which we committed by torturing). A decision many liberals oppose but I support, we are Americans first and foremost and I'm against turning over our people to any outside court unless we all agree to it (Dems and Republicans).

You Wrote:"Yes, I like to know what that was for Obama. He was in office what less than (2) months and he was eligible to be put on a list. (actually I think it was weeks.)"

He didn't win it for anything he did as president. He won it for promoting a message of integrity and human rights, which he did the year before. Your point of view says he only said those things because he wanted to get elected. My point of view is he said what was in his heart and it got him elected. Of course from your point of view he doesn't deserve the peace prize. From mine he does.

You Wrote:"Thats nothing but fluff, ok what did he do to merit this? Or is he just a form of a poster child?"

In your opinion. Of course you don't understand how I feel. How could you understand the anger I felt the past 8 years as I watched everything I believed made America great taken away in the name of fear and weakness. He said what was in many of our hearts. He offers a United States that is strong and good, like what Lincoln or Reagan offered. We don't torture because we don't compromise our principles because we are scared. We don't turn our back on science, we embrace it. We don't act through intimidation, we walk softly and carry a big stick.

You and I will never agree on this, and you know what, that's fine. That's America. There are far worse opinions than you and I in this country.

You Wrote:"As far as Arafat, would you say he's consistent on his strive for peace. Or when it only suits him."

No, I didn't say that at all. I don't like Arafat. I said he won because he was half of the Oslo Accords and those accords are exactly the sort of thing that you win a Peace Prize for. No where did I voice support for that murderous backsliding deceptive terrorist.

No, I didn't say that at all. I don't like Arafat.

No, I didn't say you liked him or you supported him, I asked for your input.

Arafat did nothing but talk, I'll give you a "what if"....... Drop Arafat's name and substitute it with Hitler.

Hitler talked too....was that low blow. No..... you see Hitler made promises also..... And broke them, but yes he talked. That would be hard even for you to defend that. And you would be a fool if you did.

And this is the point I am getting at that you will not understand. Talk is all there is to it. There is no meaning are sincerity to it.

Very few people like smoke blown up their arse. But some people like it.

Did I like the past 8 years, or the past 16 for that matter? Hell no, It was nothing more than free for all party.

As far as your comment;

He said what was in many of our hearts. He offers a United States that is strong and good, like what Lincoln or Reagan offered.

I doubt if you were even there to understand. But Reagan had people that not only ridiculed him, but called him a war monger (not the common person in the US, only politicians and leaders of other countries). And those same people are now comparing Obama to him.

And on your weak spin defence, one can take it that Ronald Reagan deserves the Nobel peace prize. At least his work not only reflected his talk, it actually accomplished what he talked about.

Ronald Reagan was widely credited for causing the peaceful elimination of short term nuclear weapons in Europe, Bring down the Berlin Wall, end of communism in Eastern Europe. He stood for freedom at every opportunity.

But him winning the prize, that would never happen.

Like I said earlier, it just window dressing, and this being America that's your choice.

And as an analogy between talk and substance so you would understand......

Given a choice between eating a nice meal (substance), or looking at a picture of someone eating a nice meal (window dressing). I would pick eating a nice meal.

But that's my choice.

And my opinion., the peace prize should not be given for talking about peace for the people that will listen to him, but to actually, creating peace with no benefits to oneself (as in telling people what they want to hear, self promotion, hidden agenda such getting elected). And by doing so, actually jeopordizse his own well being for doing so. Now that also takes courage.

p911

I agree to disagree. Not much point in talking at each other about this.

Roger,

My time run out. I wanted to add from your comment.

I thought his reversal of the US policy on torture alone was worthy of the peace prize, his calls for diplomacy, even with enemies, and his insistence on the US respecting the UN also helped.

As far as diplomacy with the enemy. I do not know what you mean by that, I compare it back to WWII with our relations with Japan and how that was handle.

Japan was a warring country that we never experienced, even though some think the US is warring also. but not like the conventions Japan was or Nations that support terrorists. (which the definition can be interpreted differently)

As far as the UN is concerned. That is a matter that is more complicated.

The UN is becoming as effective as the League of Nations.

p911

You Wrote:"The UN is becoming as effective as the League of Nations."

No, the UN was becoming as effective as the League of Nations, now it is growing strong again as we, the most powerful nation on the planet, have stopped alienating and attacking it and have begun to empower it again (heck, we even started paying our dues again).

Some people in this country don't like the UN because it doesn't do what we want when we want it to. I hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what the UN is supposed to do. It's supposed to moderate between nations, not just do what we say.

As for your Japan analogy, what about the Soviet Union? Following your logic we should have invaded Eastern Europe to liberate it from the Soviets. But through diplomacy, and taking the moral high road (Reagan), we were able to undermine their authority by presenting a united front.

The point is if your gonna walk softly and carry a big stick, you can't go thumping everyone you don't like simply because you can, because your friends won't want to hang out with you for fear of getting thumped. Strength and restraint is what has made this country great.

By the way, here's a Reagan quote "I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life."

the most powerful nation on the planet, have stopped alienating and attacking it and have begun to empower it again (heck, we even started paying our dues again).

If it wasn't for the US, not the UN, Sadam would have annex Kuwait. It was only after the US would have gone without the UN that the UN came onboard.\

Maybe that was before your time.

Again, I agree to disagree.

the most powerful nation on the planet, have stopped alienating and attacking it and have begun to empower it again (heck, we even started paying our dues again).

We have always alienated the UN.

As for your Japan analogy, what about the Soviet Union? Following your logic we should have invaded Eastern Europe to liberate it from the Soviets. But through diplomacy, and taking the moral high road (Reagan), we were able to undermine their authority by presenting a united front.

We should have, Patton wanted to, but,,,,,,,,the war against Japan was not over and as we approached Japan the fighting got brutal. We may have needed the Russians.

You pick the fights at the time that has the greatest threat. And we have Eisenhower to thank for that.......

The point is if your gonna walk softly and carry a big stick, you can't go thumping everyone you don't like simply because you can, because your friends won't want to hang out with you for fear of getting thumped. Strength and restraint is what has made this country great.

agree

By the way, here's a Reagan quote "I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life."

I like that, he had a number of them

You Wrote "I like that, he had a number of them"

Good, lets end this on this good note. If you have a burning desire to continue the debate, contact me privately, otherwise I feel like we're hijaking this thread, you know? Please note I said "we're" not "you're".