a Nobel? really?

[cellio]

I'm neither an Obama fan nor an Obama detractor -- not an extremist on either side. From some things I've heard today, it seems important to state that.

I'm mystified by his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. It's possible that he could earn that someday, but now? He'd been in office for ten days when nominations closed, and since then he really hasn't done anything on the peace front yet. I don't understand what's going on in the heads of the folks on the Nobel committee.

Al Gore's prize doesn't seem to have anything to do with peace either, so this isn't the first time they've done something to prompt "WTF?"s. Have they changed the charter of the Peace Prize? It would be sad if it became meaningless.

Comments

[anastasiav.livejournal.com]

He'd been in office for ten days when nominations closed

Nominations closed back in February, but the vote wasn't until October.

and since then he really hasn't done anything on the peace front yet.

There has been a long, intelligent discussion about this on Metafilter (http://www.metafilter.com/85692/Obama-wins-Nobel-Prize-Peace-2009) today. Thorbjoern Jagland, the chairman of the Peace Prize committee has been quoted (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html?_r=1&ref=us) in a number of places today with specific references to Obama's stand on the Nuclear Arsenal -- in particular, his statement that if the US is going to tell other nations they shouldn't have nuclear weapons then we shouldn't have them either (I believe this was in the Cairo speech, but feel free to fact check me on that).

Which is not to say that I don't also think its a weird choice, but I do believe they had very specific reasons (aside from the whole "he brings us hope" thing) in voting as they did.

Al Gore's prize doesn't seem to have anything to do with peace either

I tend to think that the after-effects of Global Climate change -- in particular, drought and the effect of weather on already marginal food supplies in certain parts of the world -- will do more than any political viewpoint to cause war, suffering, and strife. Fighting for food is the most basic of instincts, and if Global Climate change accelerates I think we'll see more and more conflicts based around the struggle to gain control of scarce resources. But, of course, I'm not on the committee.

[cellio]

Thanks for the information. That does help fill it in a little. (Still feels weird to me, though.)

As for Gore, that same argument would apply to work in public health, agriculture, and probably other things. It just seems like there are other Nobels that cover that.