Malala Yousafzai didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize & now people are really mad

FFN_NYC_Yousafzai_Malala_101013_51230497

Here are some photos of Malala Yousafzai and her father Ziauddin Yousafzai last night in NYC. They were taking part in a discussion about education and women’s rights hosted by Christiane Amanpour. As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Malala did not win the Nobel Peace Prize this year. She was widely considered to be the strongest contender, and if this was the People’s Choice Peace Prize, Malala definitely would have won. But the Nobel went to chemical weapons inspectors instead. Damn it, Nobel committee!

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – and not, as had been widely believed, Malala Yousafzai, the 16-year-old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban last October for advocating education for girls – won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for working to eliminate the scourge that has haunted generations from World War I to the battlefields of Syria.

The OPCW had not figured prominently in this year’s Nobel speculation. As for Yousafzai, “She is an outstanding woman and I think she has a bright future and she will probably be a nominee next year or the year after that,” Jagland, the committee chairman, told the Associated Press.

He declined to comment on whether she had been considered for this year’s award.

The OPCW was formed in 1997 to enforce the Chemical Weapons Convention, the first international treaty to outlaw an entire class of weapons. Based in The Hague, Netherlands, it has largely worked out of the limelight until this year, when the United Nations called on its expertise to help investigate alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

“The conventions and the work of the OPCW have defined the use of chemical weapons as a taboo under international law,” the Nobel committee said. “Recent events in Syria, where chemical weapons have again been put to use, have underlined the need to enhance the efforts to do away with such weapons.”

Friday’s award comes just days before Syria officially joins as the group’s 190th member state. OPCW inspectors are already on a highly risky U.N.-backed disarmament mission based in Damascus to verify and destroy Syrian President Bashar Assad’s arsenal of poison gas and nerve agents amid a raging civil war. The OPCW’s director-general, Ahmet Uzumcu, said the award was a recognition of the group’s work for global peace in the past 16 years.

“But [it's] also an acknowledgement of our staff’s efforts, who are now deployed in Syria, who have been, in fact, making a very brave effort there to fulfill their mandate,” he told the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK.

There was no immediate report on what the organization would do with the $1.2 million prize.

[From People]

What will the weapons inspectors do with the prize money? Probably blow it all on lap dances. Just my guess. It always surprises me how often the Nobel committee gets it wrong, especially with timing. If Malala continues her good work – and I have no reason to think that she won’t – she will probably be a Nobel contender in the years to come. But this was the year they should have recognized her. This was the year where the Nobel committee should have said, “Yeah, we need to recognize the fact that it’s NOT COOL to shoot little girls in the head because they want an education.”

Go ahead and check out Twitter – the reaction has been swift and most of the condemnation is aimed at the Nobel committee.

FFN_NYC_Yousafzai_Malala_101013_51230482

FFN_NYC_Yousafzai_Malala_101013_51230492

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

120 Responses to “Malala Yousafzai didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize & now people are really mad”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GiGi says:

    I always wonder how this happens – is it a round table discussion? Private ballot? Because how is no one at the table all, “Um, hey – we totally need to give this to Malala, right? We’re all on the same page here… Malala… not weapons inspectors…”

    I have no doubt she’ll win in the future, though – she is just awe inspiring!

    • Mel says:

      Unfortunately, you cannot nominate a person for the same merits a year or years later. So, she will only win this prize if she does something else that is considered Nobel-worthy.

      Mind you, NOT winning it has been fast becoming quite a badge of honour for the past few years.

      • Lucrezia says:

        There’s no rule that you can only be nominated once. Where’d you get that idea?

        The record holder is Jane Addams, who was nominated 91 times between 1916 and 1931 when she was finally won.

      • bluhare says:

        You can get nominated more than once, but she cant be nominated next year for what she did this year.

      • Rachel says:

        @Lucrezia, no one said you could only be nominated once. Mel said you can’t be nominated for the same act or merits.

        I am one of the those people who is extremely pissed about this. But I think the people who are angry over this also realize that the Nobel prizes no longer represent what they were intended to, and now simply pander to egos and politics.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Can someone give a link to something (official) proving you can’t be nominated multiple times for the same thing?

        Because Jane Addams, Gandhi and many other multiple nominees were repeatedly nominated for the same thing. (That’s what I originally meant, but I didn’t express it clearly.)

        Look, the Nobel Prize has a nomination database. You can look up someone’s nominations and check for yourself. http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/database.html

        Ghandi and Addams’s nominations are for the same thing in different years. It’s almost word-for-word identical.

        The “must be for actions in the previous year” idea is a bit of a fallacy. That WAS the original idea in Nobel’s will, but there was some controversy when they awarded the science prizes (Chemistry, Physics, Medicine) to people whose work was later discredited. So a time lag is really common these days. (If you cure cancer this year, you won’t get the Nobel next year … they’ll wait a while to make sure your claims are true.) The non-sciency awards, (Literature prize or Peace prize) are often awarded for a body of work rather than one specific act, so they commonly ignore the “previous year” rule too.

  2. Jacqueline says:

    Yeah, and Obama before the inspectors. Maybe the Nobel committee is accidentally awarding the prize to massive failures instead. They are obviously pretty f**cked-up if they’re even considering allowing Syria to join.

    • HH says:

      While I agree that Obama did not deserve the award, it was not due to any “failures.” Instead, the award was premature. He had not done anything worthy to win the award. As far as this year’s choice, Malala should have won. The weapons inspectors have done a lot of brave work, but a little girl stood up to the Taliban. She fought death and still has chosen not to cower to fear. The inspiration and hope she has given her country is immeasurable and much needed.

    • Leen says:

      I don’t understand what you mean? You mean that they are doing a bad job by letting Syria sign on the Chemical Weapons Convention (meaning they will be liable of breaking the treaty, and liable to enforce and ratify it, which is exactly what the organization is doing at the moment).

      I know I am going to get crucified for this, although it would have been nice if Malala got the Nobel Peace Prize, still it would be the same as Obama getting one. She has not achieved enough in her life to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize, plus it’s not like the Taliban are going to give a crap if the Nobel committee says ‘it’s not okay to shoot girls in the head because they want an education’. She has a bright future ahead of her though.

      • bluhare says:

        You won’t get crucified by me. I think Malala is three times the person I am, but I was surprised she was nominated for it in the first place.

        That being said, she’s an inspiration to us all and if this last year is any indication, she is a force to be reckoned with.

      • Maureen says:

        FWIW, I agree. It’s not her time right now. In several years when she’s consistently kept at her goals and objectives. Then. In the meantime, I think she’s an amazing person and I hope for her continued endurance. She has so much to offer.

      • Leen says:

        I agree. She is an inspiration and I really applaud her to continue her work even though she was shot in the face. But there are many Malalas whose voices we don’t hear and in the same boat, but they are not going to get a Nobel Peace Prize either.
        That being said, she does have a very bright future ahead of her, and I am sure she would do great work.

    • Rin says:

      I agree. Obama has been the biggest disappointment. If I had known he was going to butcher the Constitution and be Drone King I would have never spent the $200 to host a house party. What a disappointment. Gary Johnson for me last time so I can live with myself.

  3. A says:

    It’s a prize backed by a private fortune, it doesn’t have to be “fair” (though it would be nice if it was). Plus this still isn’t nearly as bad as SOME previous nobels….. The whole thing lost credibility ages ago.

  4. lower-case deb says:

    i was thinking if not Malala, then Dr Mukwenge (i hope i got his name right). especially after the recognition of rape as a war crime. but these weapons inspectors are left field for me.

  5. blue marie says:

    As I said yesterday she is a strong, courageous young woman and doesn’t need a medal for affirmation. She seems like a peaceful girl, and might find the reaction a bit silly. The medal does not/will not define her and she will continue to do great things.

  6. anna says:

    Are you serious??

    She almost FREKEN died just so she could go to school!!!!

    I saw her interview on the daily show. She is just an amazing person.

  7. Sixer says:

    Hum. I dunno. I would have liked to see Malala win for contributions to female education. But I’m not outraged at this choice.

    There is an urgent need to get those unstable countries who aren’t already signatories to the chemical weapons convention to sign – AND for those who have signed but not ratified to ratify, AND to get the stockpiles decommissioned.

    This award is a powerful piece of pressure to that end.

    I think the outrage is because people in the west are aware of Malala and also aware of female education because it’s been one of the justifications for interventions abroad. The chemical weapons issue is relatively new in public consciousness.

    This is certainly a better award than the recent choices of Obama and the EU.

  8. T.fanty says:

    The Guardian had a shortlist online. I’ve no idea how official it was, but there were some amazing candidates who had dedicated their lives to their causes. Malala is extraordinary, but if the prize shines the spotlight on another cause, I’m not entirely against it. It doesn’t diminish her achievement or the power of her voice.

  9. Karen says:

    Since when are Twitter users considered voices of reason, I for one am glad she didn’t win. You have to earn the prize and not be given it because omg she’s so young so its more impressive and she got shot and we need to send a message it’s not okay to shoot little girls.

    You weigh the contributions they’ve done and decide based on that. Her short time does not match up at all to any of the other contenders.

    In the future she could win and I would applaud it, but for now, thank god she didnt win. It would be like Obama having won a few years back…..far too soon and not enough solid accomplishments yet.

    • Lindy says:

      You’re right about Twitter not being the voice of reason! Wasn’t it just last month it was full of hateful comments about the new Indian-American Miss America?

    • endoplasmic_ridiculum says:

      Agreed. If she continues her work she will hopefully eventually get it. However, we shouldn’t disregard the work of those who get less publicity. Sometimes the very nature of the work involves staying out of the limelight. Dedicating one’s life to keeping tabs on chemical weapons is extraordinary and amazing and shouldn’t be diminished just because we don’t hear about it on a regular basis.

    • Vesta says:

      @Karen, I agree. No shade on Malala, of course not, but in my opinion the criteria for this particular prize should run parallel to the Nobel science prizes. Those are given to people who have behind them a lifetime of dedication and achievement in their chosen field and on top of that have in most cases managed to make distinguishable breakthroughs in science. I don’t mind the winner, it’s very timely, but still I think I’m not too keen on giving this prize to organisations or institutions.

      • LAK says:

        You can’t compare science awards to peace awards. Scientific discoveries/theories are discredited frequently, including people who’ve won awards in the past. Giving a science awards as a lifetime achievement award of sorts is due to their discovery/theory standing the test of time and other testing methods.usually.

      • Vesta says:

        @LAK, I repeat the point I was trying to make – I just think they should give more emphasis to lifetime dedication – like they do on the science side. I believe it would lessen the risk of the Nobel Peace Prize being a too politicized award and it would be more coherent with the original spirit of Albert Nobel’s wishes. That’s just my opinion and sort of a wish.

        I don’t quite understand what you mean by “you can’t compare a science award and a peace award”. Why can one not compare those two? They are only awards. And I also didn’t understand what you were after when you said that scientific theories are discredited frequently – well, in one way that is kind of one the essences of science, so I’m afraid I’m not getting your point.

      • LAK says:

        Vesta – The 2 concepts are different, requiring different means testing, if at all applicable. And science that’s supposedly iron clad one moment can be disproved with time as new information/testing methods become available. That’s what I mean by science being in danger of being discredited.this has happened for as long as we’ve had scientific theory.

        Also when a science theorem is thought to point to a truth, it should stand the test of time ie new information or testing methods shouldn’t put holes in the theory. That’s why science awards can’t be given at the beginning of a career or at the very least should not be simply because the theory might be hokum in another 50yrs if said award winner lives that long.

        Peace on the other hand can be achieved at any moment. Age isn’t a factor. If as an example Malala never does or achieves anything else in her life, does that make her a failure as a peace advocate. What if she never achieves anything of what hopes for, does that make her a failure as a peace advocate? How does one measure peace anyways?

        It’s not something that can be measured in a scientific way or awarded in the same way.

      • Vesta says:

        EDIT (my comment above)

        Oh god, I meant to write ALFRED Nobel, not Albert *hitting my head to the wall*. I seriously should stop doing too many things at the same time.

        And @LAK, ignore my answer anyway. There are more than one interpretations for the word ‘compare’ and it might be that we are thinking about different things. And I suspect that I was, as a non-native speaker, just plain incapable of expressing my original thoughts in that meaning I was hoping. So just ignore the whole mess.

        ETA: we were apparently commenting at the same time. Thank you for you answer, it confirmed that I think we are not quite talking about the same thing here, and I can’t express correctly what I mean, so better just ignore this. Sorry!

  10. Elodie says:

    Well I was rooting for both Malala and Denis Mukwege (the work he does in favour of women in RDC is astounding, and I’m very proud as an African) and other fine nominees who have shown personal courage and campaigned effectively in spite of the risks involved…

    As for the Nobel Peace Prize Winners, I say only people traumatized and damaged by chemical weapons can fully know the horrors of it. The Nobel Peace Prize can only highlight their efforts, making their works better known throughout the world.

    All fair.

  11. Nono says:

    I’m not surprised she didn’t win. Lovely girl, but has she really effected much change? The Nobel Committee rewards results, not intentions.

    • A says:

      Then why did Obama get one when he had barely just been elected?

      • Nono says:

        He shouldn’t have. He was a fluke. The propaganda surrounding him swept up and fooled a lot of people.

        ( Not me. ;) )

      • LAK says:

        Do you remember the anti-USA feeling in the rest of the world during the George W years?

        Rightly or wrongly, Obama was seen as the anti-Bush.

        His election and campaign seemed to point to an America that was renewed and inspired. From the outside looking in, his election was iconic for peaceful reasons to the rest of the world.

        The fact that he hasn’t lived up to all those hopes is a different discussion altogether.

        Without knowing who else was up for nomination that year, I’d say that he deserved it on the basis that it was an award for potential and hope especially when you think that he is one of very few people in the world who CAN make real change as opposed to rhetoric or by simply being inspiring.

      • Nicolette says:

        @A @ Nono, I completely agree with you both.

      • Angelic 21 says:

        I strongly disagree, Obama was deserving because h he was good for America’s image and PR or because he had the power to make changes but didn’t make any at the time? I absolutely disagree with this, noble prize shouldn’t be given to people who might make changes or who is good for a certain country’s image or who shows potential (which can be very subjective from person to prison). He did nothing till now to deserve that prize, plus at the time of his campaign everybody was sick of bush and republicans. He started a campaign that he thought will give him power,I am sure every single politician was against was during that time. I would’ve found him inspiring if he had run right after 9/11 and told people at that time (when mostly were in favour of war and bush) that wars are immoral etc. Being antiwar in 2008 was common sense not heroic IMO. Anyway noble should not be given to those who haven’t changed or done much like Obama just because there is a hope that they might. The awards really lost their credibility with Obama and EU but this year they made the right decision for once

      • LAK says:

        Angelic21 – i’m not advocating for awards to be handed out for hope, but in Obama’s case, it absolutely was.

        George W was voted in twice by the Americans to the disgust of the rest of the world.

        Obama represented so much that in hindsight shouldn’t have been pinned to him. We absolutely should have looked at his record in all areas, but the world was too busy fangirling. Besides, the other option was Sarah Palin (yes i’m aware that it was John McCain’s ticket, but a heartbeat away…..).

        When have you ever seen street parties in foreign countries because of the new american president? There was all this rhetoric about a new era, blah,blah,blah and yes, as someone said upthread, some of it was because he wasn’t George W. He was supposed to change all sorts of things, not just for the Americans, but worldwide.

        It’s easy to forget all that now we know him better and we are disappointed with his actions, but 2008….he meant something very, very good and inspiring.

      • Shannon725 says:

        @nono….whether Obama has lived up to his promises or ideals has little to do with him, and this is something many Americans don’t take into consideration. Congress is where the “yay” or “nay”s come from. Obama can have all the wonderful ideas he wants but he can’t force everyone else to play nice in the sandbox (as we’ve all seen). Yes, the president should be a unifier, a leader, all that good stuff but essentially he’s up against way too many people who have been there way too long and don’t give a s*it about the people who elect them. We have no idea what Obama is capable of; the culture that exists within the government, the damage that was done before him, these are all things NO ONE can break at this point. The reason things are so bad is there are two opposing parties that need the other to get stuff done, its like butting up against a brick wall. Now, if we had a republican president with a republican majority (God help us all) or vice versa with democrats, watch how fast things would happen.

        Voting for the president is important, yes, but I watch everyone else too. Few people know or care who else is up for election, and that’s a huge problem. The blame should not be on Obama solely, it should be on every representative for acting like a bunch of spoiled children who are so far removed from the people they are representing its disgusting.

  12. minime says:

    Unfortunately not at all surprised. It’s not like the Nobel Committee has made a lot of great choices in the previous years. I for one think Malala provoked changes in the world. She brought awareness to many important topics and she fought with her own life for something she believed to be right. In the end, to all the hate that she receives from the Taliban she answers only with reason and a heart full of peace. These are the kind of things that provoke changes in the world by changing everyone that is touched by her message. That seems pretty big to me.

  13. Mia4S says:

    Wow Twitter users overreacting, group thinking, and commenting on things most of them have no real understanding of…must be a day ending in “day”.

    It’s a private group and really not apropo of much of anything these days. Also she is still a child; how about the world worry that she is getting the education she almost died for? How about twitter users direct their outrage to seeing that her work is implemented and supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon? It takes no effort to tweet, her work will take YEARS of effort. Internet outrage just makes me roll my eyes.

  14. Feebee says:

    Twitter users are outraged probably because Malala is the only person they’ve heard of.

    I’m unsure about chemical weapons inspectors though. Surely that is a job. They are doing their job. Like nuclear weapons inspectors. I obviously don’t know enough about it.

    However Malala’s impact on the world and attitude towards her assailants is nothing short of remarkable. Nobel recognized or not, she has made and will continue to have a lasting impression and I believe really make a difference.

  15. BeckyR says:

    While I had hoped that Malala would be given the prize, I would say the shine has rubbed off the brass. After it was awarded to Al Gore, I stopped being interested in it.

  16. Kate says:

    “Yeah, we need to recognize the fact that it’s NOT COOL to shoot little girls in the head because they want an education.”

    This is exactly why she didn’t win. The Nobel Committee rewards the work, not symbols. Think about being like the prize for medicine. Do you give it to someone who brought attention to a disease by having it, or the person who found a way to treat/cure the disease?

    Obama’s win was an aberration, not the norm. If she continues to use her profile, she may win it one day, but OPCW are the better choice by far right now. Besides which, it’s privately funded so they can hand out prizes to whomever they like.

  17. Sam says:

    Personally, I dislike the idea of giving it to organizations. The organizations overall might be really important and valuable, but the Prize, to me, should be given to individuals who display exceptional courage and comittment. Malala is young – maybe they want her to build up a longer body of activism and recognize that. Personally, I did not think she would win, but thought Dennis Mukwege was going to win (look him up sometime – he’s a doctor in the Congo who’s devoted his life to repairing women who have been tortured and raped and keeps doing it despite attacks on his life).

    The Nobel comittee mistepped again, but that’s because I always believe that individuals should receive it.

  18. Jen says:

    How ironic that people are getting MAD over the Nobel PEACE Prize. Losers.

    • glaughy says:

      Haha, agreed.

      Twitter brings out the worst, most ignorant people. Also youtube comments.

    • Littlewood says:

      Agreed, the hatred being thrown around online because they rewarded an organisation that reduced the world’s chemical weapons by 80% is astonishing. People are saying they only get it now because of Syria, but wouldn’t the same thing apply to Malala? Her getting it now would only mean she gets it because of the media attention she’s receiving, not because she contributed to world peace. Give it to her in 15 years time when things have changed for the better in her home country, not before anything has been done (looking at you Obama).

    • Shannon1972 says:

      I don’t know why it shocks me, but it does. Anger over a peace prize? Ironic doesn’t quite cover it…

  19. DawnOfDagon says:

    One cannot expect much integrity from the same committee who awards a warmonger (I’m talking about you, Obama!), or even considers Putin. At the end of the day, the Nobel Prize committee is a group of people / families / organisations with vested interests in multiple affairs and impartiality has nothing to do with it.

  20. OhDear says:

    I’m sure she’ll likely win it in the future.

  21. Littlewood says:

    It is a shame that people just want Malala to win because she’s in the spotlight at the moment. She’s an extraodinary girl who can change a lot of things in her country if she gets the chance to (and doesn’t get killed first). But she hasn’t changed anything yet, Pakistan isn’t any safer for young girls at the moment, her being shot made no difference. But now that she’s well known and supported this will change. I hope to see her getting a Nobel price in 15 years time so we can see how she has changed things for the better in her country. The OPCW has done a lot of things throughout the years and this prize is not just because of Syria, since their founding 81.71%, of the world’s declared stockpile of 71,196 metric tonnes of chemical agent and 57.32%, of the 8.67 million chemical munitions and containers covered by the CWC have been verifiably destroyed. And that deserves some recognition.

  22. Angelic 21 says:

    As much as I love this girl,I am not at all surprised or angered by this decision. She is a very brave and inspiring girl and will definitely bring changes in the lives of many girls in the coming years but right now she has not achieved much or changed much IMO. I am sure there are many girls like her who are very brave and still go to schools despite being threatened to kill eg other girls in her class, but right now she captured the imagination of west. If we look at facts, she is inspiring but how many lives she truly changed? The chemical weapons organisation saved millions of lives and is very well deserved IMO.

  23. Adrien says:

    Maybe the winner is really deserving? I feel bad for the winner now. Malala does not need that award, she’s beyond that but she’ll need the money for her advocacy. Sigh!

  24. Megan says:

    well that is wrong, but I have no doubt this young girl will not only win a nobel peace prize but she will change the world.

  25. BooBooLaRue says:

    Miley meet Malala — now that is something that would be interesting.

  26. lady mary. says:

    nvr been a huge fan of the “nobel peace awards”,personally i dont think u can judge on something like “alright lets see who spread the most peace this year and narrow it down to 5 and select one man “it aint a deed that should be judged in the first place iam sure all the contenders went through hell to bring abt a change and each scenario and condition were not the same ,Malala ‘s greatness comes frm purity of her heart which is not motivated by any prize money or fame ,i doubt her loss or the other contenders who lost are even gonna care abt it ,but iam glad it gave her recognition ,we need more ppl like her in this world ,iam sure she has greater things in store for her in future

  27. emmie_a says:

    Awww – I’m all teary-eyed that she didn’t win the prize. But the good thing is, unlike OPCW, I know her name and I know who she is and what she has done and I have no doubt she is going on to do even greater things. (Not knocking OPCW but I’m just learning about them now)

  28. Maggie says:

    I’m not American but I think Obama is getting unfairly slammed on here. He’s had to put up with his own government working against him almost every step of the way. The shit that’s been going on in the states recently is ridiculous. He had the potential to make change.

    • Dommy Dearest says:

      Uh, he’s been supporting other countries continuously while leaving us Americans on the back burner. He wants and has done so much for other countries and we’re just sitting here. Obama deserves every amount of crap thrown his way.

      • bluhare says:

        Then call your rep, Dommy. Put the blame where it’s due.

      • GG says:

        Obama was reelected, that means the majority of Americans want him as their president.

      • Dommy Dearest says:

        @bluhare: oh for sure.

        Eh, to think that our vote actually counts versus Wall Street and all those others in positions of power would allow someone in office that did right by it’s people is severely, severely doubtful. It was a close race between Obama and Mr. Fantastic and he is a symbol of change- one that the American people feel they need, like it means something now.

      • Leila in Wunderland says:

        Mitt Romney was “Mr. Fantastic” for one group of people and one group only: middle-to-upper-class heterosexual white men- and maybe their wives. Everyone else was screwed.

        That can pretty much be said for most republican/conservative candidates.

      • Leila in Wunderland says:

        I meant to add that I specifically voted for Obama last year because I was fed up with all of the misogyny and homophobia from conservatives in 2012. And this year they’re being racist as well. Until they change those three behaviors, I will keep voting democrat as long as I live.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        What do you mean he has done so much for other countries? I am confused by that remark.

        If you want more done in the US, like investment in infrastructure, education, etc….you will have to look to congress for that. A President can’t sign a bill that hasn’t been passed by both houses of congress.

      • Dommy Dearest says:

        @Leila: It was a reference to Mr. Fantastic from the Fantastic 4 due to the coloring of his hair. I don’t like either of them.

        @Tiffany: He continues to send weapons to ‘Syrian Rebels’ as well as aid and money to other countries while we’re already in such a large debt. He continues to meddle in the affairs of other countries though warnings from countries such as Russia and China has warned him to back off. There have been several attempts by Republicans and Democrats to get the shutdown over with however Obama has killed those bills all due to his pouting that the Affordable Healthcare Act continues to not be passed. A bill that will fine people that do not want it, allows ‘officials’ to enter your home when they chose to observe and decide if it’s a ‘safe’ environment for a child to live in, is more expensive than existing healthcare- how can you say he has done well for the people (and note it’s not me attacking, I’m rather fond of your comments Tiffany!)? I’m well aware of the fact that it’s not all the President, I took AP Us and European history in high school as well as going on to minor in it. What’s worse is that most of Congress has been paid off by the same banks and corporations that continue to endorse their puppet for presidency.

  29. Dommy Dearest says:

    Chemical weapons inspector?
    Haaaaaaaaa.
    It’s hilarious the amount of jobs that aren’t ever used but gets attention because the government wants you to know they are doing things that are beneficial to the people. God knows education isn’t important. Even though school funding has been being cut for years now. Why give an award to someone who is a hero but to someone with a job that’s just there. Cause god knows they don’t actually ‘have’ chemical weapons (that’s sarcasm) until suddenly masses of people are dead due to chemical weapons that the country never had originally.

    • Kim says:

      A job that keeps your butt and millions worldwide safe. Gee i wonder how many lives you save with your job?

      • Dommy Dearest says:

        Tons. Oh the perks of being a nurse. Would you like to hear about one patient that nearly died due to a doctor not paying attention? Or how a little girl that had been shot and stopped breathing and I did what I did to save her. I’ve got horror stories if you’d really like a point to be proven.

        Rude. There are jobs out there that save lives that don’t involve sitting behind a fancy chair. But you assumed and decided to try a snide remark. How many lives have you saved?

  30. Lisa says:

    Based on what she’s said, I think tweeters care more than she does. She’s not in this for accolades. Her greatest reward would be to see girls educated and, as much as I hate the word, empowered.

  31. RJ says:

    Is that Christiane Amanpour next to her in the photo? I’ve always liked & respected her as a journalist, but does she look seriously tweaked to anyone else? She always had this grittiness to her that I found appealing.

  32. Maggie says:

    I watched her on the news the other night. She’s so articulate considering english isnt her first language. She will do great things with her life. She doesn’t need a Nobel Peace Prize. She already has the attention of the people.

  33. Leila in Wunderland says:

    What a shame. I was sure that she would win- she should have. I think her work is far more important and inspirational than weapon inspecting.

  34. Elodie says:

    Hindsight now, I’m glad she didn’t win tbh. Not that she didn’t deserve it, but it might have angered even more the talibans and it might have pushed them to retaliate against what they would have understood as a provocation. Plus winning a Nobel prize so young might have been an enormous burden for such a young girl.

  35. gg says:

    What – Al Gore didn’t get it for fathering Malala?

  36. flan says:

    Giving it to an organization like that seems too much like the old boys network patting each other’s back.
    happening too often would make them uncomfortable.

    That has happened too much in recent years already.

  37. Tiffany :) says:

    I love Christiane Amanpour and I am so glad she and Malala got a chance to talk!

  38. sarah says:

    why did obama win again?
    lol
    the nobel prize is a joke

  39. Kat says:

    I love Malala Yousafzai. She’s just someone who radiates love and you can’t help but instantly feel it back towards her. I seriously doubt she cares whether she won or not. I’m sure she’d have been honored, but I don’t think it matters to her and I don’t think this intelligent, peace-advocating girl would want anyone to be angry about it.

  40. Loralei says:

    I think that the Nobel Prize committee was afraid to piss off the Taliban and that is why they didn’t choose her. I do think that the Taliban would react to them. The committee doesn’t have the bravery that a young girl possesses. That is pathetic. Today there is an article in the news about how the Taliban is praising the Nobel committee for not choosing her. They won that one.

    • EmmaV1 says:

      Malala didn’t deserve the prize. And apart from regular people who’ve never heard about the other contenders because they only see mainstream media featuring Malala, everyone else agrees she doesn’t deserve it. This is no shade on Malala, just facts. Twenty years from now if she continues her work, yes she will deserve it, but hell no in 2013.

      • Ravensdaughter says:

        Based on what? A 16 year old who is so determined to carry her message that education for all is a vehicle for peace that she risked life and limb to be heard-and who clearly abides by Gandhi’s teachings of nonviolent resistance-doesn’t deserve the Peace Prize because she hasn’t been doing her work long enough?
        So I guess time is the ultimate judge-”too bad she’s sixteen and only has been doing her work since she was twelve, otherwise we might have given her the Prize!”.
        I think I stand with the majority when I say your assertion clearly lacks credibility.
        On the other hand, there is the Nobel panel’s fear of the Taliban. That theory, sadly, has credibility.

  41. nicegirl says:

    I absolutely love that Malala herself is not upset about this in the slightest – only her mission to educate matters.

    She is a wonder. GO MALALA!

  42. Deedee says:

    I have no doubt that Mala will one day win the noble peace prize. I believe she will dedicate her whole life for education, especially for women, in her country and still be a pacifist despite the fact that the Taliban tried to kill her. Love you Malala!

  43. Ravensdaughter says:

    Well, that’s just boring. An organization (which, of course, does excellent work) rather than an awesome REAL person like Malala? Saw her on Jon Stewart and it was her dad who really cultivated her passion for education and helped her keep going when the Taliban started to show their true colors in her valley.
    Well, at least Barack Obama wasn’t a nominee- I voted for him both times as president, but I knew at the time he received his Peace Prize that it was definitely a “here’s hoping” award. I bet the nominees that year were really pissed!
    Hey, why don’t they create a Junior Nobel Peace Prize just for Malala?-that seems fair and everyone would be (kind of) happy…