Look at this lady - Let us never forget

[Maxel]

From the official Nobel website, not from a outside source, not from specualtion.

"the nominations are kept secret for 50 years"

It makes no difference if people push for her to be nominated, put up websites promoting her, etc, whether she was actually a nominee or not will not be known for 50 years.

Are you arguing that the Nobel Committee is in the habit of turning down nominations from approved sources?

"Members of national assemblies and governments of states" are officially recognized as qualified nominators. As I have shown, two heads of state- the Israeli Prime Minister and the Polish President- backed her nomination. PRIO listed her nomination as officially confirmed, meaning the nominator had made the nomination public. There's plenty of evidence to believe that she was, in fact, nominated.

Once again, my point was not whether she was worthy, but whether her name and deeds should be used for dirty politics.

I fail to see the "dirty politics" you're talking about. I feel the case I've made over my last few posts and the evidence I have provided is sufficient enough to suggest that Irena Sendler was in fact nominated, and did in fact lose to Al Gore and the IPCC. Even if I'm mistaken, the evidence is there, and anyone else could have arrived at the same conclusion- that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to climate activists over a real humanitarian who endured the very real threat of death and torture for the sake of saving the lives of innocents. There's nothing 'dirty' about discussing what we perceive to be the truth, or said truth's implications.

The reason I'm still pressing this uncomfortable topic in what is otherwise a heartwarming thread is that you apparantely refuse to even peruse the sources I'm providing, instead clinging to the claim that "it's not PROVEN, so even BELIEVING it's true and comparing her against the recipient is DIRTY POLITICS". Such a claim of dirty politics is, I believe, unwarranted in the face of the evidence. While I'll agree that it's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that she was a nominee, your original claim that this was cooked up by a "conservative talk-show host" and is solely a political ploy is wholly unwarranted- as have been your repeated assertion that this is still just a political gambit.

[Guest]

From the official Nobel website, not from a outside source, not from specualtion.

"the nominations are kept secret for 50 years"

It makes no difference if people push for her to be nominated, put up websites promoting her, etc, whether she was actually a nominee or not will not be known for 50 years.

Once again, my point was not whether she was worthy, but whether her name and deeds should be used for dirty politics.

I beg to differ. For example, it is FACT that Nicholas Sarkozy is a nominee for the last Nobel Peace Prize - the one that Obama won. It's not 50 years yet. How do we know this as fact?

Because, although the names of nominees are kept secret by the institute for 50 years, those who are entitled to nominate are allowed to reveal the name of the person or organization they have proposed, if they wish to do so.

So, Sarkozy being nominated for his involvement in the Russia-Georgia conflict is not a secret just like the following nominations for the Peace Prize with Obama:

Macedonian humanitarian and artist Zivko Popovski-Cvetin was nominated by the Macedonian government, Austrian children's charity SOS-Kinderdorf International was put forward by the Austrian government, American Greg Mortenson was nominated by six members of the U.S. Congress for his Asian school building charity, Vietnamese religious leader Thich Quang Do was put forward when a campaign recruited lawmakers to nominate him, and American musician Pete Seeger also was nominated after a campaign.

Now, being of Asian descent, I would have preferred Mortenson to win the prize... but then, (gasp!), I might be labelled a rabid conservative by some anonymous poster on lds.net for preferring Mortensen over Obama!

[pam]

There is a lady named Jane Addams that was nominated 91 times before she finally received the nobel peace prize. Hopefully Irena will receive it on her second nomination. There is still that chance. She certainly deserves it for rescuing those children and risking her life at the same time.

Thanks for making her story known to us.

Doesn't the person have to be living? I thought I read that somewhere.

[NeuroTypical]

I don't know why people resist calling the Nobel committee what it is: politically motivated people who use their positions on the committee to advance their agenda.

Irena should have won the prize. She didn't. If the committee had awarded it to the first Pres Bush instead of Gore, then the partisans on the left would be screaming bloody murder and partisans on the right would be accusing them of dirty politics. Either way, the nobel committee is a waste of space. Irrelevant. A puppet for political agendas.

LM

[mnn727]

I just wish you would stop dishonoring this lady with your dirty political games, she also didn't win 62 other years since 1945 but it wasn't until a conservative talk show host wanted to score points with his audience and disrespect a liberal (former) vice president that this fine lady was even mentioned.

But I see that people would rather hear what they want to hear --So be it, have at it, I've gotten my point out.

[NeuroTypical]

Ok. It's just sour grapes and dirty politics that Irena didn't win the prize. We're just whiny that all 4 US Presidents who have, have been democrats.

It's also just conservative whining that the terrorist Yassir Arafat won it. Or that Ghandi, Václav Havel, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Sari Nusseibeh, Corazon Aquino, or Liu Xiaobo never did. We're just upset that the people who ended the cold war (Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul) didn't get it.

Yep - no partisan politics on the part of the nobel committee. Nothing to see here. Only whining from the right who wish to dishonor people with dirty political games.

Phooey.

[DigitalShadow]

From wikipedia:

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:

"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."

First, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for contemporary work, and second, while what she did was certainly brave and admirable, I don't see how it promotes fraternity between nations. I'm also not sure how Al Gore's work is any more qualified for a "peace" prize, but I think bringing this particular story up is an irrelevant smear.

[Maxel]

First, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for contemporary work, and second, while what she did was certainly brave and admirable, I don't see how it promotes fraternity between nations. I'm also not sure how Al Gore's work is any more qualified for a "peace" prize, but I think bringing this particular story up is an irrelevant smear.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, DigitalShadow.

This would definitely disqualify Mrs. Sendler because of the time lapse between the 1940's and 2007.

[Maxel]

I just wish you would stop dishonoring this lady with your dirty political games, she also didn't win 62 other years since 1945 but it wasn't until a conservative talk show host wanted to score points with his audience and disrespect a liberal (former) vice president that this fine lady was even mentioned.

I'm not playing a "dirty political game". Please cite who this conservative talk show host is, and links would be great. I have no idea who you're talking about. Furthermore, there's no evidence that she was nominated for the Peace Prize before 2007- apparantely, her story went largely unnoticed until 1999, when the play Life in a Jar was written by 4 high school students.

I now understand that the Nobel Peace Prize is not given out for achievements more than 2 years prior. I misunderstood that, and I was mistaken in my statements that Irena should have won instead of Gore. However, I've found another official source that lists Mrs. Sendler's nomination- IrenaSendler.org. So she was, in fact, nominated- she merely didn't meet the basic criteria to receive the prize.

I've tried to be courteous and have been honest in this discussion, and I frankly admit I don't like being accused of playing "dirty political games", or that I'm dishonoring Mrs. Sendler's name.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Maxel

[Maxel]

I don't know why people resist calling the Nobel committee what it is: politically motivated people who use their positions on the committee to advance their agenda.

... If the committee had awarded it to the first Pres Bush instead of Gore, then the partisans on the left would be screaming bloody murder and partisans on the right would be accusing them of dirty politics. Either way, the nobel committee is a waste of space. Irrelevant. A puppet for political agendas.

LM

I have to disagree, LM. Look who the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was- a man who's brought global dialogue to a whole new level (literally, with bows)! Who could be more deserving than that?

*Takes tongue back out of cheek.*

[/triple post]

[Wingnut]

From wikipedia:

First, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for contemporary work, and second, while what she did was certainly brave and admirable, I don't see how it promotes fraternity between nations. I'm also not sure how Al Gore's work is any more qualified for a "peace" prize, but I think bringing this particular story up is an irrelevant smear.

Good points. Thanks for the info from Wiki. It sheds a little more light on the situation.

[omega0401]

Doesn't the person have to be living? I thought I read that somewhere.

You're right Pam you do need to be living. I just read way too fast to catch that.

When I was doing my reading I thought Jane had been nominated 91 times meaning one nomination per year but that was between 1916 and 1931. I guess you can be nominated several times in a year.

The more I think about it, Irena didn't really do anything to be considered a peace prize winner. Rescuing people is not what I would think of as promoting peace. But what she did do was courageous.

[NeuroTypical]

Just wanted to resurrect this thread for a moment, to post a few quotes from of Pres. Obama's acceptance speech. He says a boatload of stuff I disagree with of course, but I was surprised to see many of these gems:

...I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight.

And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

...we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds...

I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable.

[we must work to] prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them.

...peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.

For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.

[Maxel]

[From Obama's speech]

I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.

Really? So his definition of not "stand[ing] idle" is taking 100 days to make a vital wartime decision, then sending in only 3/4 of the minimum troop recommendation made by the man he appointed to oversee the war- while publicly announcing a timeline for withdrawal?

Obama talks a good game, but his actions show his real intentions.

[northern_dad]

Irena won my Noble person who did something so selfless that she makes the rest of humanity look like pond scum peace prize. Take that Mr. Gore.