X2.

the blunt realistic views of yahudidevriyesi was too much for some.



are you a runaway intellect as well gotos?

Your corrections were fair, but I maintain the spirit of my point. It's annoying to me that Pamuk gets handed out a prize because "The West" is in search of "nice Turks" (A hunt for "nice Greeks", and "nice Bulgarians" is suspiciously absent. Even though the death toll for Russia is higher than Turkey, the hunt for "nice Russians" is less frantic than the hunt for "nice Turks") and handed out their ridiculous Swedish prize to him because he says "We killed some Armenians and I'm the only one who dares to say it." (No one else ever in the Republic of Turkey, right Orhan?)

It annoys me that he gets prizes and a room with a view in New York while Hrant Dink stayed in Turkey and got a bullet in the head. It makes me feel like while some people are constantly speaking out for what's right, others write novels, make overblown self-glorifying statements, and turn themselves into heroes.

I don't hate him because what he says is wrong. I hate him because he's Bono for Turkey.

And I already hate the real Bono enough. The world doesn't need more.

I'm honestly sick and TIRED of people blowing Obama's dick. Nobel peace prize? YOU JUST MADE A MOCKERY OUT OF THE CEREMONY!!! Now I won't give a shit about who wins the peace prize in the future because racially motivated DICKRYDERZ seem to defile integrity and honour at every turn. Obama this and Obama that. You know what? FUCK Obama, if he has ONE decent bone in his body, he would not accept the prize.

Word.

and lay off obama westy .

let the men get started first.

like every president he has to answer to certain people and can't act out of free will.

that is not how it works.

the things he aims to do(pull out of iraq, encourage dialogue, free health care) are encouraging enough.

things don't happen overnight.

x2



Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke anyway, but they could at least wait until this guy actually does something.

First of all that's not exactly what he said. The translation could be understood like that, but he definitely didn't make the arrogant claim that "he's the only one talking about this".

For his Nobel, the politics might have played a part, but I don't think his Nobel was any less deserved than the rest of the authors who got the same prize. He IS a great author, and he didn't even care to make any political statements whatsoever until this one single time, for which he got persecuted under 301 and made become the poster child for free speech.

... which brings me to this final point: He definitely didn't choose to be such a poster child, and he wouldn't be one if we all tolerated his word and let him be. So, man, seriously, you just compared him to Bono? Really? Bono? Fuck that shit yo'.



P.S.: I don't even know what to say about this comment on Dink. This makes me think that you in fact would "like" Pamuk if he took a bullet instead of leaving the country. So, whatever you mean by this comparison, I'm not getting it.

Says a guy who probably didn't read more than 10 books in turkish.

Pamuk didn't play the game fairly, but in the end he was targeted by the killers of Hrant Dink. Of course he had to leave the country. I prefer seeing him in new york and call him a coward instead of seeing on the ground like Hrant. I wish Hrant did the same.

Oh G-d no. I was just pointing out life isn't fair.

And agreed that Pamuk actually is a good author. He wrote that İstanbul book. That shit was a good read. (Worked with translation, will procure Turkish copy next summer.)

I wish Turkey had spent less time trying to see an enemy in Hrant and more time listening to him.

That was the ideal option for sure.

This is what I think too. I'm sure there are many great authors or poets, who for various reasons never got or never will get a Nobel, but that doesn't mean that Pamuk is a bad author. I read two of his books and I liked them. I don't know which criteria are used for giving literature prizes, but I think politics play a role anyway. If you look the other people who won Literature Nobel in the last years, Elfriede Jelinek and Harold Pinter were also some kind of dissidents in their countries. So if the Nobel was given to Pamuk considering also his comments on the Armenian genocide, it's not really something new. It seems that they like rewarding especially authors who were dissident in some way.

Obama wins Nobel, but for what?
Font Size: Larger|Smaller
Friday, October 9, 2009
WASHINTON - From wire dispatches
Obama wins Nobel, but for what?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=o...what-2009-10-09


Obama wins Nobel, but for what?

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to President Barack Obama landed with a shock on darkened, still-asleep Washington. He won! For what? For one of America's youngest presidents, in office less than nine months – and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February – it was an enormous honor.

The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. Work on the president's ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the Nobel jury said in making the stunning announcement. The committee attached “special importance to Obama's vision and work for a world without nuclear weapons” and said he had created “a new climate in international politics.”

But what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world – in Iraq and Afghanistan – and can't get a climate change bill through his own Congress. His scorecard for the year is largely an "incomplete," if he's being graded. In Afghanistan, Taliban militia spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid condemned the prize. “We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.”

He banned torture and other extreme interrogation techniques for terrorists. But he also promised to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a source of much distaste for the United States around the world, a difficult task that now seems headed to miss his own January 2010 deadline.

He said he would end the Iraq war. But he has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012, and that's only if both the United States and Iraq stick to their current agreement about American troop withdrawals. He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, but he's received little cooperation from the two sides.

He said he wants a nuclear-free world. But it's one thing to telegraph the desire, in a speech in Prague in April, and quite another to unite other nations and U.S. lawmakers behind the web of treaties and agreements needed to make that reality.

He has said battling climate change is a priority. But the United States seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with legislation still stalled in Congress.

Poland's anti-communist leader Lech Walesa, who won the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, said it was too early to reward Obama. “Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast – he hasn't had the time to do anything yet,” Walesa told reporters in Warsaw.

Global prestige:

And what about Obama's global prestige? It seemed to take a big hit last week when he jetted across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympics – and was rejected with a last-place finish. Perhaps for the Nobel committee, merely altering the tone out of Washington toward the rest of the world is enough. Obama got much attention for his speech from Cairo reaching out a U.S. hand to the world's Muslims. His remarks at the U.N. General Assembly last month set down new markers for the way the U.S. works with the world. But still...?

The award could be as much about issuing a slap at Obama's predecessor, former President George W. Bush, as about lauding Obama. Bush was reviled by the world for his cowboy diplomacy, Iraq war and snubbing of European priorities like global warming. Remember that the Nobel prize has a long history of being awarded more for the committee's aspirations than for others' accomplishments – for Mideast peace or a better South Africa, for instance.

In those cases, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments. Obama likely understands that his challenges are too steep to resolve – much less honor – after just a few months. "It's not going to be easy," the president often says of the tasks ahead for the United States and the world. The Nobel committee, it seems, had the audacity to hope that he'll eventually produce a record worthy of its prize.

Most of the world leaders said the distinction should be seen as an encouragement for Obama. Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize 1984, said Obama's award shows great things are expected of him in the coming years.

“We do not yet have a peace in the Middle East ... this time it was very clear that they wanted to encourage Obama to move on these issues,” the 2008 Peace Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari, former Finnish president and veteran troubleshooter in international conflicts, told CNN television. U.N.'s nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei, another past Peace Prize winner, said Obama was the most deserving winner.

Until seconds before the award, speculation had focused on a wide variety of candidates besides Obama: Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator, a Chinese dissident and an Afghan woman's rights activist, among others. The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize, though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.