MONARCHIES, by Anonymous

Monarchs may not have the power over their countries like they used to, they seem to have become sort of culture icons now more than a serious power.

 British people say that they like to keep the royal family around for tradition. With having no real power you think that they would have just done away with them years ago.  They are not the only ones who have kept their monarchs around for the tradition other places like Netherlands, Thailand, and Norway still have the royal blood lines running strong.  Since our country was founded on the point of getting rid of the Monarchs and having a free democratic system it may be hard for many Americans to understand why keeping the Royals around would be such a big deal to everyone. Since wasn’t the point of our revolution to get away from the British Monarchs?
British Royal Blood Line

Why is this so important to the people of those countries to keep their royal blood lines? A lot of people from these countries with such strong blood lines think that it brings them together as a country, that it shows unity and a strong sense of Nationalism. Nationalism in the United Kingdom has been around and has been really strong since close to the beginning of the U.K..  As far as other countries like Norway and Thailand, their sense of Nationalism developed later on throughout the course of the country’s history, so it’s understandable why they would want to keep the blood lines going to make the country’s national identity stay strong.

Maybe Monarchs are the best thing for these types of countries. If the country can have a strong functioning government and keep a strong form of national identity with their Monarchs, more power to them.

  

  

On 2012 Nobel Peace Prize & the EU, by Jameson Goetz

On October 12th, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the European Union was the winner of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. The committee explained its decision, stating:

"The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU's most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe." 

Nobel Peace Prize Medallion superposed on the EU Flag.

Many in the public have been quick to criticize the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award organization's peace prize to the European Union. The announcement was met with controversy for a variety of reasons, and much of the controversy surrounding the decision involved perennial criticisms of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Many have criticized the committee for its perceived Eurocentrism, as well as its perceived political and ideological bias.  

I recently read an opinion piece written by Fiamma Nirenstein, Vice President of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Nirenstein criticized the decision as "unbearably politically correct." Before reading her piece on the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision, I had never heard of Nirenstein. After some investigating via Google, I found out that Nirenstein also serves as a columnist for il Giornale, an Italian newspaper that has generally been characterized as promoting a right-wing ideology. The majority of Nirenstein's criticism of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision revolves around her disagreement with some of the European Union's policies. Still, Nirenstein does not address any of the reasons the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. Rather than reject the idea of the European Union having unified the continent, she argues that the European Union's policies have significantly harmed the economy, as well as that those policies do not appropriately address the threat posed by radical Islam. 

Even small businesses have addressed the controversy.

I also recently read an opinion piece written by Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent Canadian journalist, that I found much more agreeable. Dyer's opinion piece primarily tries to make the point that much of the controversy surrounding the Norwegian Nobel Committee results from Nobel Peace Prize's somewhat unsuitable title. According to Dyer, the prize "should actually be the Nobel Democracy and Human Rights Prize". Dyer cites many of the European Union's accomplishments concerning the promotion democracy and the recognition of human rights. Still, Dyer does recognize some of the downfalls of the European Union. In his article, Dyer criticizes the European Union for its "democratic deficit" at the bureaucratic level. He also gives more credit to the United Nations for the promotion of democracy and the advancement of human rights. Still, states his belief that the European Union deserves of the award.

No one (or nothing) is perfect. I think as long as the Norwegian Nobel Committee continues calling it the Nobel Peace Prize, the announcement of every recipient of the award will be met with controversy. Can anyone, or anything, live up to an award celebrated as a Peace Prize?

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, 1979 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.