Pharyngula

Posted by: Mark G. | October 9, 2009 8:52 AM

This looks like an affirmative action award. And btw, he has continued to send in drones to blow things up, so no credit on that one.

Posted by: JD | October 9, 2009 8:52 AM

Ephemeral fence riding goes a long way.

Posted by: Travis | October 9, 2009 8:55 AM

I agree, unless he has done a ton of things I have never heard about this just seems unjustified. I would have thought they would give him a few years to see what he might end up doing and to see the impact of what he does.

Posted by: Zeno | October 9, 2009 9:02 AM

This is certainly peculiar. I have to see it as an award for not being Bush. While I agree that it's a great thing that President Obama is not George W. Bush (probably the worst president in history [sorry, James Buchanan]), it would have been more appropriate to wait till our new president demonstrates accomplishments as well as good intentions.

Here's hoping that the Nobel Peace Prize inspires Obama to live up to its premature presentation.

Posted by: tony | October 9, 2009 9:04 AM

My wife just shouted this news through to me. My response was WTF! What exactly has he done to deserve the Peace prize?

We still have rendition, Guantanamo, torture, Iraq, Afghanistan, FISA, Posturing with Israel, and on and on and on.

Maybe I should be in the running for next year. I *did not* beat my wife, or chastise my children, nor have I been violent towards my clients.

I am a paragon of virtue!

-----------
Disclosure: I am very much a progressive liberal, and (despite being unable to vote) was a supporter of Obama's presidential bid.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 9, 2009 9:11 AM

Perhaps, this is may only be projection and wishful thinking on my part, but someone somewhere may have come to the conclusion that a man who has already won a Nobel Peace prize might be more willing to consider waging peace and not war.
Who knows maybe the honor might make it easier for Obama to wear the mantle of global peace maker? Not holding my breath though.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 9, 2009 9:15 AM

dammit... Fred the Hun beat me to my point by one lousy post, and actually spelled Obama's name right (rolls eyes at self)...

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 9, 2009 9:20 AM

This is easy to explain: he's not George W. Bus.

Posted by: latsot | October 9, 2009 9:23 AM

It still seems more deserved than the prizes for Kissinger, H and Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (otherwise inappropriately known as Teresa, M.) Or the Lama, D. At least Obama hasn't obviously done anything yet to actively disrupt peace. Maybe that's all it takes these days.

When this news was announced, a friend pointed out that Tony Blair must be pissed off. He's been angling for this award since he was more or less ousted from office. Nevermind Tony, there's always the Templeton....

Posted by: Matt Heath | October 9, 2009 9:25 AM

It just makes the committee seem like a bunch of excitable fanboys/girls.

Meanwhile seriously brave, nonviolent activists that could really use the coverage are forgotten. A nice godless, lefty, pro-science example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zackie_Achmat

Posted by: rock-biologist | October 9, 2009 9:27 AM

Yo Barack, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but Norman Borlaug was one of the best Nobel Peace Prize laureates of all time. One of the best Nobel Peace Prize laureates of all time!

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | October 9, 2009 9:29 AM

Like wow, PZ. First time I've agreed with you.

Posted by: Robin Friedrich | October 9, 2009 9:35 AM

Once again we are reminded what a joke the Nobel Peace Prize is. It's a sham(e) because it casts a bad light on the wonderful prizes the Swedes award.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 9:36 AM

Once the Nobel committee allowed the Sveriges Riksbank to attach a fake economics prize in 1968, you had to know that it was all about politics.

Posted by: Michelle R | October 9, 2009 9:38 AM

I'm pretty sure he just got it because he's the dude that got the republicans out of office. :P

Posted by: Alverant | October 9, 2009 9:42 AM

I wouldn't be so quick to say he's done nothing to deserve it. He did spend most of the year attempting to make peace with a violent, anti-American force ... the GOP.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 9, 2009 9:44 AM

Well, they jumped the shark long ago with Kissinger, so what do you expect. But Alfred Nobel is spinning rapidly in his grave over the award to the head of an actively belligerent state.

Posted by: Spiv | October 9, 2009 9:45 AM

"Michelle R...

I'm pretty sure he just got it because he's the dude that got the republicans out of office. :P"

I'm pretty sure Dubya was the one who got the republicans out of office. Maybe we should give him a nobel?

Posted by: Michelle R | October 9, 2009 9:47 AM

@Spiv: Hey! Why the heck not?

Let's see the bright side of it. At least it's not Bono.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 9:48 AM

Well, what Obama has done is set an example for returning political campaigning to a mythical past in which we (pretend to) recognize that our opponents have decent and laudable intentions (even when they do not). It's a nice idea for reducing tensions, I guess.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 9:50 AM

Or, what Alverant said.

Posted by: Matt Heath | October 9, 2009 9:52 AM

Somite @34

What could be better deserving of a Nobel peace prize than a POTUS that is for world nuclear weapon elimination and wants to end wars.

The other answer to your question is "people who advance their causes by solely peaceful means", which would exclude basically all statesmen.

Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | October 9, 2009 9:54 AM

Look at it this way: Who prevented John McCain and Sarah Palin from bomb, bomb, bomb-ing Iran?

Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 9, 2009 9:54 AM

@22: Cue "Obama is the Antichrist!!!!" loons in 4...3...2...1...

Funny, that was my first thought, too[1]. Of course, I've been reading through Slacktivist's LB series, so my head is already in that space.

[1] Tied with: "He's not a bad guy, but I haven't noticed him doing anything *that* impressive yet".

Posted by: AtlantaHeathen | October 9, 2009 9:55 AM

I,too, think this award was premature on the part of the Nobel Committee. It may well come to pass that Obama is deserving of the Peace Prize, but I don't think he's earned it just yet. I agree that he should graciously decline the prize. It would be an excellent example of humility and fair-mindedness.

Posted by: Jeremy O'Wheel | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

I'm going to go ahead and assume that all the comments above are Americans. Am I right?

Obama winning was awesome, and I hope it sends a message to our politicians (in Australia) and around the world. Here are the main reasons he deserved to win.

1. As cited in most news, he supported a bill in the UN Security Council calling for nuclear weapon disarmament. This is an amazing step forward. For the people who do actually follow/study international relations (obviously not PZ or any of the people to comment so far), you'll know that the main reason there are still literally thousands of nukes in the world that are less than an hour away from being launched towards assured mutual destruction is that neither of the two major nuclear powers - the USA and Russia have been prepared to take the next step in nuclear disarmament. In fact the main reason the earlier SALTs and STARTs had any impact (and essentially both failed) was because it was too expensive to keep churning out new nukes and having 5000+ was deemed sufficient to destroy the "enemy" anyway. The world has never seen any kind of serious attempt at nuclear disarmament. Not only that, but the rest of the world really doesn't trust either the US or Russia. Sometimes there are leaders of either country that we do trust, but we're all well aware of the significant risk of some crazy lunatic being elected President of the US and then reacting badly to some kind of threat. We're also well aware that the US is the only country to ever drop nukes on civilians and that they did it largely just to send a political message to Russia.

The fact of the matter is that if the US and Russia got rid of all their nukes, many other countries would do the same thing. The only reason that Iran or North Korea are trying to build nuclear weapons is because they feel threatened. Remove the threats (such as Israel's nukes) and the world is a much safer place.

In his 9 months in office, Obama has done more towards nuclear disarmament than any other US president ever, and the world is excited and optimistic about this. He hasn't reduced the US' nuclear weapon stockpile yet, but ultimately neither did Reagan or George H Bush, despite being the other two presidents to really appear to make an effort at this. Deconstructing nuclear missiles in such a manner that they can either be reconstructed and fired within 30 minutes, or are old and probably won't work anyway isn't really a sign of good intents.

2. Climate change. Obama is the first US President to take climate change seriously, and in many other developed countries around the world the position of the US has been an excuse not to do anything (as well as the fact that the US has, by literally an order of magnitude, contributed more to the problem than any other country). In Australia our target, which was set around the time Obama was elected is 5% to 25%, depending on whether "other" countries set significant targets or not. We say "other" but we really just mean the US. Obama's position on climate change has significantly changed the position of many other nations around the world. At the last international climate change talks the EU almost walked out because of the US' ridiculous and stupid refusals to negotiate. Rumour has it that it was only a closed doors speech by Al Gore that prevented them from leaving. Climate change is by far the biggest threat we're facing, or have ever faced now. To put things in perspective, if global emissions reach 450ppm CO2e then it's been estimated that we'll have a 48% chance of avoiding runaway climate change due to various positive feedback loops and global temperatures by the end of the century in excess of 5 degrees. To have a serious chance of avoiding that, we need to reduce emissions by nearly 50% in the next decade. That's still unlikely to happen, but had you asked the world about it prior to his election we would have said that there was absolutely no chance. Climate change is very much an issue of peace. With rising temperatures we can expect more food shortages, more immigration (so called "climate refugees," although legally there is no such thing) and serious water shortages. One example of a predicted water shortage we'll probably see fairly soon (even if we manage to avoid runaway climate change) is in the subcontinent - India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. As I hope most people are aware, India and Pakistan have essentially been at various stages of war with each other for decades. Both are nuclear countries. The Northern boarder between India and Pakistan is actually a major river that flows from the glaciers in the Himalayas and is one of the major sources of water for both countries especially in that region. Can you imagine what lengths either country will go to if literally millions of people in their countries are starving due to water shortages, and the likelihood of a dispute surrounding water between those countries?

On these two issues - Nuclear disarmament and climate change Obama has significantly changed the political geography in a manner that is clearly for the benefit of peace, and he has already done more in both cases than any other President has ever done. It really doesn't even matter what people within the US think about these issues, this isn't an award for them, and I don't think it's even an award aimed at encouraging Obama. It's an award reflecting the feeling of the rest of the world due to his actions, which is relief and optimism. Don't compare him to George W Bush and say that it makes anybody look like Ghandi. Nuclear weapons have existed since the 1940s. The idea of anthropogenic climate change has existed since the 1890s and was first essentially proved to be occurring in the late 1960s. By the 1980s scientists were starting to issue severe warnings (there is a paper worth looking up by James Hansen in Science from 1981 where he predicts significant rising temperatures in the 1990s and beyond, and also that it will be very difficult to convince politicians and the public that anything is happening - correct on both counts). So compare Obama's actions on either of these issues with any US President within those times. Compare him to Clinton or Regan or Carter. He still wins.

Like it or not, the US is still the most powerful nation on Earth, and what your leaders do has a massive impact on the rest of the world.

Obama was clearly the best choice for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted by: Matt Heath | October 9, 2009 10:02 AM

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 9, 2009 10:04 AM

Not for nothing, this plays perfectly into the "liberals think Obama's a god!" meme.

Which can be politely corrected by pointing people who say that to this very thread...

Posted by: aratina cage | October 9, 2009 10:11 AM

Jeremy O'Wheel, I think any Democratic president would have done nearly the same on those two issues at this time. That is more of a party platform.

I agree that he should graciously decline the prize. -AtlantaHeathen

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 9, 2009 10:14 AM

Rorschach and I are non-Americans also. Probably there are others among those saying it's premature.

Incidentally, Obama's stance in the climate negotiations thus far is seriously disappointing.

Posted by: Jeremy O'Wheel | October 9, 2009 10:17 AM

Here was the response from one of my other favourite blogs; Joseph Romm's Climate Progress. Regarded by many people as the best blog about climate change on the internet;

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/09/president-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-climate-change-copenhagen/

He highlights this comment from the Nobel Committee that I also think sums it up well (for those too lazy to follow the link).

"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 9, 2009 10:21 AM

It's true that now he has the nobel peace prize... Maybe we have extra assurance he won't start another retarded war.

Or maybe he will to reassure "moderates" that he's no peacenik.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 9, 2009 10:26 AM

Steve LaBonne, we should know more on that in about five minutes.

Posted by: shonny | October 9, 2009 10:29 AM

Seems like a lot of people are quite unaware that the nobel peace prize itself is a sick joke, given by a bastard who facilitated more misery than most.
But who's gonna knock back a bit over one million dollars?

Obama is not such an awfully bad choice, like giving it to ANY israelis, to certain arabs, or to a lot of others who can be best described as terrorists, except for the sad fact that they were in power.
Of course, if Obama had the guts to get gwb, cheney, and their fellow war criminals hanged, then the peace prize would be fully deserved (uh, and all the godfucking evangelists made meeting 'their maker' as well).
One can but hope, but not holding breath.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | October 9, 2009 10:30 AM

When I woke up to the news on NPR this morning the first thing I thought of was Tom Lehrer. He is a satirist who retired from comedy in the 70s (his day job is a math professor at MIT). Although he intended to quit writing and performing satirical songs anyway, he couldn't help but take at least one last swipe. He told a journalist his reason for retiring from comedy was that Henry Kissinger receiving the Nobel Peace Prize meant that real-life had eclipsed satire.

How do you satirize something like this? I'm at a loss.

Posted by: Julian | October 9, 2009 10:30 AM

I think this is, more than anything, an expression by an international body of how nice it is to have a U.S. president who 1) acts like an adult, 2) rejects the validity of imperial conquest on its face, 3) doesn't haggle over established facts, and 4) doesn't treat every international conference as an excuse to insult the rest of the planet. Imagine if you had a gigantic, gun-loving, foul tempered neighbor who the police were too afraid of to try and stop. Imagine if he suddenly became a buddhist. I think then we might start to understand how relived some parts of the world were that Mr. Obama was elected and has acted the way he has, even if his accomplishments have been, admittedly, subtle and unheralded.

Remember though; Obama got the Russians to sign on to sanctions for Iran. Who was the last pres to get the Russians to agree to ANYTHING? In my mind, that's pretty damn impressive.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 9, 2009 10:32 AM

Russia lacks the funds to properly take care of its massive nuclear arsenal. Who knows what could come of this? It is possibly the single most deadly threat to civilization. Anti-ballistic missiles compound the problem drastically. Obama has done very well in my opinion by shelving the Polish missile shield. For this alone he perhaps deserves the Nobel. I'm worried though that his administration might get complacent and assume they've already done enough (when in reality they have barely got started).

Posted by: ezzie83 | October 9, 2009 10:33 AM

I would like more concrete results, but I don't think PZ has followed foreign policy much.

PZ gets Iran, for instance, completely backwards.

Obama did not rattle his sabre at Iran. Quite the opposite - the US has taken the least aggressive interpretation of the Qom facility out of any of the countries that had the intelligence (UK, Germany, France, Israel).

What he did was create an opportunity for peaceful resolution. He removed the unnecessarily provocative missile setup in Poland, which created a rapprochement with Russia. Russia was grateful and, unlike under Bush, willing to pressure Tehran. With pressure from four of the five security council members, Iran decided to allow continuous inspections of the facility.

This managed to (1) help reduce nuclear proliferation (2) peacefully.

PZ also has a weird interpretation of Iraq. Obama has begun a drawdown of troops. The end is in sight (or at least, the effective end, where we're there only to train Iraqi troops and police).

Afghanistan - well, to the international community it is a just war, with multinational support in response to a war crime against civilians, and so that continuing is not a blemish to most people. PZ of course is entitled to his own opinion on this point.

In the pure "intent" area: we've got actually wooing the Muslim world and climate change, which we'll see if it passes the Senate.

Keep in mind the huge relief that Obama has caused to the rest of the world by espousing (and practicing) multilateralism. Its less a big deal here, where we've focused on death panels for the last six months. But to the places that we could quickly crush under our feet, there is a substantial leavening and relaxing with Obama.

Posted by: Ellie | October 9, 2009 10:34 AM

Damn. HTML tag fail. Oh well, you get the picture!

Posted by: Julian | October 9, 2009 10:37 AM

shonny: An act of penance and a sick joke are two different things. If you knew a damn thing about Nobel's life, you'd know that he developed nitro and dynamite to be medicines and excavation and mining tool; not to render humans into a fine powder. Nobel dedicated all his wealth, wealth he earned through the perversion of his invention, to rewarding innovation, the advancement of knowledge, and the ending of conflict precisely because of the pain and horror seeing his discoveries used for such vile purposes engendered in him. To bad-mouth a man of such sentiment, one capable of such sacrifice, in so off-handed and puerile a way as you have done merely shows your own ignorance and naivete.

Posted by: Dan52 | October 9, 2009 10:40 AM

They probably awarded Obama the peace prize to give Faux News another bullshit talking point. Oh, wait - they can just copy the responses in this comment thread.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 9, 2009 10:45 AM

I didn't know that Norwegians could fellate from across the ocean.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Phein | October 9, 2009 10:46 AM

From Josh Marshall

But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the [U.S.] became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration.

Take this award for what it is: Notice that the U.S. was so feared and despised under the Bush regime that merely returning to the rule of law is cause for celebration world-wide. "Not Nazi's" coming to power in 1939 Germany would have looked like heroes, too.

And take this as encouragement for the American electorate, which, at long last, had the decency to repudiate Bush and conservatism.

Posted by: ezzie83 | October 9, 2009 10:52 AM

I should also point out that Obama and Medvedev have agreed to cut nuclear stockpiles in both countries by 1/3. (I believe the details on how to lock down loose nukes are still under fast track lower-level negotiations).

Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 9, 2009 10:55 AM

WTF?

I'm a liberal and even I think this is silly. There definitely are more worthy recipients. The only good that can come from this is that it encourages Obama to take more peaceful policies. Oh, and it's going to be fun to watch Glenn Beck weep (literally) over this.

Posted by: Matt Heath | October 9, 2009 10:57 AM

shonny:

Seems like a lot of people are quite unaware that the nobel peace prize itself is a sick joke, given by a bastard who facilitated more misery than most.

Posted by: Bobber | October 9, 2009 11:00 AM

I suppose there are worse reasons to give Obama the prize other than the fact that he is not George W.

Did the rest of the world really breathe a huge sigh of relief as Bush and Cheney left the White House for the last time? I know I did...

Posted by: aratina cage | October 9, 2009 11:04 AM

Just heard this in the background on the MSNBC video feed: "The Taliban says Obama wins prize for escalating violence against citizens."

Posted by: Matt Heath | October 9, 2009 11:06 AM

One quibble with PZ, it makes no sense to talk about the peace prize being politicized. Peace is a political aim. How to achieve it is a political question. It's like complaining that the physics prize has become sciencized.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | October 9, 2009 11:14 AM

Latest from CNN:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/09/dnc-says-republican-critics-aligning-with-terrorists/

(CNN) — A Democratic National Committee spokesman said Friday the GOP has "thrown in its lot with the terrorists" in criticizing the president's Nobel Peace Prize award.

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.

...

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 9, 2009 11:14 AM

Jeremy O'Wheel,
Your #68 addresses aratina cage's #57, not my #59.

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | October 9, 2009 11:16 AM

Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Glenn Beck's head explodes.
Rush Limbaugh's head explodes.
Ann Coulter's head explodes.
And so on.

Maybe this is an anticipatory Nobel Peace Prize?

Posted by: NickG | October 9, 2009 11:20 AM

Dear Conservative Shouting Heads, Racist CongressCritters, and Paranoid Teabaggers,

Happy Early Christmas!

Love,
The Nobel Committee

P.S. XOXOXO

Posted by: tmaxPA | October 9, 2009 11:24 AM

"I know this award is heavily politicized,"

Actually, this award is entirely political. It is the reaction that is politicized. Nobody ever contended that giving out prizes for the promotion of world peace is not a lefty/socialist endeavor. There isn't anything non-political about peace in these modern times.

And as commenters from Mark G. to shonny and beyond have pointed out, there isn't anything non-controversial about this award. Nelson Mendella's "accomplishments" at the time he was honored was, I believe, to have been in jail.

All those who want to scoff that Obama had been nominated after only two weeks in office are conveniently ignoring the longest political campaign in global history, just ended, during which the future President provided an outstanding, even astounding, example of poise, integrity, and statesmanship. We may have been unaware that the impact of the candidate's historical Speech on Race was not limited to a domestic audience, but it is beyond doubt that his inauguration as the first person of African descent to be elected President of the United States of America was something the entire world paid a great deal of attention to.

Having done more in his three months as President Elect than any other President Elect has, both in the immediacy of his attention to international diplomacy and the enthusiastic reserve with which he handled the kind of conflicts which that approach can cause, his being President isn't even essential for him to deserve this honor.

Is it unexpected? Sure. Is it an anti-Bush award? Sure. Is it too premature to satisfy the concern trolls? Undoubtedly. Is it undeserved? Hell no.

If you agree, please visit this WaPo poll ( http://tinyurl.com/yhed73p ). If you disagree, please don't, as that would defeat the purpose of pharyngulating the poll. ;-)

Posted by: ChimaeraLaurie | October 9, 2009 11:28 AM

My husband said the same thing. It is at least partially due to the stark contrast with the previous administration.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 9, 2009 11:38 AM

Nelson Mendella's "accomplishments" at the time he was honored was, I believe, to have been in jail. - tmaxPA

You believe wrong. AFAIK, Nelson Mendella has never been awarded the prize. Nelson Mandela was awarded it, along with F.W. de Klerk, in 1993, at a point where it was clear the negotiations they led would succeed.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 9, 2009 11:45 AM

AA, is this your new line of concern trolling after worrying that our being against the display of religious symbols on public property would harm us?

Posted by: Phein | October 9, 2009 11:50 AM

#92,

And exactly why should you or anyone with an IQ over 90 care what Rush Limbaugh thinks or says? Is there some Limbaughian logic or worldview you find of value? Let him rant and rave, it only marginalizes him more.

And with that in mind, people, quit quoting Republic talking points as if they were based in reality. Far better to assume that anything coming out of Fox/Rove/et al. is either a direct lie or a twisted version of the truth, and reject it by default.

Posted by: Tulse | October 9, 2009 12:00 PM

U.S. was so feared and despised under the Bush regime that merely returning to the rule of law is cause for celebration world-wide.

"Returning to the rule of law" in what way? Isn't Gitmo still open? Didn't Obama explicitly support extraordinary renditions? Didn't he support extension of the Patriot Act? Isn't the US still in Iraq?

While it is undeniable that the tone of the US has changed under Obama, I don't see much difference in terms of "rule of law". We have much more elegant and elevating rhetoric, but what of substance has actually changed?

Posted by: Matt Heath | October 9, 2009 12:04 PM

Sometimes a Nobel Peace prize is awarded to a group of people. Why not a shared prize for all US politicians who aren't Bush?

Posted by: Phein | October 9, 2009 12:15 PM

#117, Tulse:

As you point out, sir, even the appearance of desiring to conform with international law is a huge departure from the policies of the Bush regine.

However, there are concrete examples of the Obama Administration pursuing a foreign policy course based on adherence to treaties (which are laws) and the tenets of diplomacy, which are also law-based rather than force-based; see #51 above for starters.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 9, 2009 12:20 PM

Not burning, laughing.

Posted by: David McIntosh | October 9, 2009 12:57 PM

However legitimate the Nobel Prize may have USED to be, this award stands as strong evidence that it is now just another screw-you in the hype machine.

Nukes are bad, yes, but now obsolete. The global death industry has retooled. We're now well into the bipartisan, Clinton/PNAC/Bush age of "full spectrum dominance" by the multinational "coalition of the willing." The $2 trillion reported by Rumsfeld as missing from US national coffers on Sept 10, 2001 has been paying for the new "normal": transnational false-flag terror (blamed on CIA creations like Taliban and Al Qaeda), mainstream media gatekeeping (re 9/11 and the Holocaust against Semites in Iraq and Palestine), chemtrailing of every large city with lord knows what, and the soon-to-be mandatory bioweapon flu vaccine. The people at Nobel don't know this? Hardly credible.

Conservative vs Liberal, Democrat vs Republican... It's just a sham act featuring the left- and right-hand sock puppets of the imperious industrialist-colonialists, who seed, then reap from every war and "liberation" contrived in the name of "freedom and democracy." The domestic vitriol over this Nobel Prize is simply part of their planned bipolarization and de-democratization of America--just like Germany under the Austrian Hitler, another bankster front man and Nobel Peace Prize candidate.

Don't forget that Obamessiah is the product of American military and banking families that colonized Hawaii and a Black sahib family that lorded over Kenya for the British. If his pa and grandpa were in the US 200 years ago, they would have been among the "free" black slavemasters cracking the whip for a higher wage. Today he signs $800 "bailouts" of banksters who scammed America's workers, and shifts American military forces from colonized Iraq to the next colony, Afghanistan. All good reason for any white racist employed in the weapons industry to cheer--if they haven't lost a son in WWII or 'Nam or Iraq.

Peace Prize my ass. "Hope" is Obama's dope, truth his poison.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 1:04 PM

David McIntosh, you are a loon.

Posted by: llane1@unl.edu | October 9, 2009 1:07 PM

Almost anyone (Alfred E Newman comes to mind) who followed George W Bush was an obvious Nobel Peace Prize candidate. The following nicely captures the basic principle:

http://z.hubpages.com/u/1299024_f260.jpg

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 1:12 PM

Uh, something doesn't smell right about this.

Why don't you watch the video.

Posted by: Walton | October 9, 2009 1:13 PM

For once, I am in complete agreement with strange gods and Knockgoats. David McIntosh has thoroughly timecubed this thread. The only other poster recently who displayed a comparable level of batshit insanity, while being capable of holding a vaguely coherent conversation, was "DarkStar888" (who knows, maybe they're the same person). I suggest we ignore Mr McIntosh, and/or advise him to seek psychiatric help for his paranoid delusions.

====

Returning to the real topic of the thread: I agree with Professor Myers and the general consensus here. While I mostly agree with Obama's foreign policy decisions thus far - he's been taking a moderate and sensible line, and recognises that America needs to stay the course in Afghanistan while avoiding getting embroiled in any new conflicts which it doesn't have the capacity to fight - I certainly don't think he's achieved enough yet in office to merit this award.

Posted by: Anri | October 9, 2009 1:28 PM

Speaking for myself, one of the major difficulties that I have with this award is that President Obama might *not* live up to the high ideals expressed (in theory) by the Prize.
Don't get me wrong - I believe he has the capacity to do a great deal of good, certainly more good than he has done so far. It remains to be seen if he has the political will to follow through.

One of my concerns is that if he does not act positively, he has been given the de facto endorsement of a prestegious international prize. This award can give him political cover either way - to be more progressive ("What else can I do? I've been given a mandate in the form of a Nobel!") or to be less so ("Why are you arguing with me about human rights? I have won a Nobel, you know!").

I'm hoping he acts on this, and in the correct (certainly not right) direction.

Posted by: Steven Mading | October 9, 2009 1:31 PM

Does this make the price committee look bad? Yes.
Is this the worst they've ever done? No.
As stupid as this prize award is, giving it to Obama who hasn't done much yet (and maybe he ever will) for peace is not as bad as giving it to someone who actively opposes peace, like Arafat or Kissinger or Mother Theresa

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 9, 2009 1:36 PM

David McIntosh I'm getting you one of these

Posted by: shonny | October 9, 2009 1:56 PM

Seems like a lot of people are quite unaware that the nobel peace prize itself is a sick joke, given by a bastard who facilitated more misery than most.
But who's gonna knock back a bit over one million dollars?

Obama is not such an awfully bad choice, like giving it to ANY israelis, to certain arabs, or to a lot of others who can be best described as terrorists, except for the sad fact that they were in power.
Of course, if Obama had the guts to get gwb, cheney, and their fellow war criminals hanged, then the peace prize would be fully deserved (uh, and all the godfucking evangelists made meeting 'their maker' as well).
One can but hope, but not holding breath.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 9, 2009 2:03 PM

like giving it to ANY israelis

any Israelis huh?

Posted by: shonny | October 9, 2009 2:06 PM

Bloody thing keeps double posting in a very funny manner.
Not sorry 'bout it, just annoyed.

Posted by: davem | October 9, 2009 2:10 PM

All rather odd, as others have said. But worth some mirth, now we get to read what the denizens of RaptardsReady.com have to say, now that the Antichrist has the Nobel Prize...

Posted by: DagoRed | October 9, 2009 2:16 PM

#29 Michelle R:
The Nobel committee apparently made this choice only 12 days after Obama came into office at the beginning of February. I think that clearly indicates it was a kind of "Thanks for wrenching American control out of the grips of the Republican control" award, rather than based on anything Obama may have accomplished in office.

Posted by: windy | October 9, 2009 2:22 PM

sgbm:

The Nobel committee agrees with you 100%. The award was explicitly granted for work during the preceding year, when he was not yet in office.

But the written announcement says "Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics."

Why don't you watch the video.

The Geir Lundestad video? Well I almost puked. Dismissing two wars/occupations with "a superpower is bound to be involved in all kinds of complex situations"? What a fuck. Norrbaggar...

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 9, 2009 2:27 PM

kopd,
You're right! Apologies, Steven Mading.

Posted by: Kraid | October 9, 2009 3:19 PM

Amy D. @ 124:

the prize is often awarded not only for accomplishment, but also as encouragement to see the process through - so in that light, seems very appropriate.

Bingo. To quote Francis Sejersted, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel committee in the 90s:

The prize ... is not only for past achievement. ... The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] ... Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act."

Posted by: windy | October 9, 2009 3:30 PM

Your argument doesn't make much sense. Obama said Iran has an obligation. The article responded that Iran has no legal obligation. Since not all obligations are legal obligations, Obama's statement isn't wrong, even assuming that article's interpretation of the NNPT is correct.

Iran has an obligation to what? Obama was talking about the nuclear facility. Is there a global obligation not to enrich uranium that all nations must follow?

To make this clearer: The government of Sudan renounces all its treaty obligations and starts systematically murdering its black population, not even bothering to claim otherwise.

So, enriching uranium is equivalent to genocide. Propagandist much?

Posted by: Tulse | October 9, 2009 4:49 PM

Yeah, Greg wrote a letter, and I responded by asking him what the rush was to give Obama the prize now for all the aspiration he has expressed, rather than waiting a few years until some of those aspirations actually materialize. It's not Obama is going away any time soon -- he'll still be around if it turns out he successfully negotiates significant nuclear disarmament, and/or is a major player in producing a meaningful worldwide treaty on climate change, and/or materially changes things in the Middle East, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, and/or succeeds in bringing Russia closer to Europe, and/or positively engages the Chinese. Why not wait until at least one of those things actually happens?

Posted by: Kamaka | October 9, 2009 5:01 PM

The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account

Perhaps the Committee has taken Obama's acceptance speech into account. It does give him a worldwide stage to call upon nations to address global warming, nuclear disarmament and end regional conflict.

They are aware he is a highly skilled orator.

Posted by: llewelly | October 9, 2009 5:10 PM

Hell yeah! But then the rest of the world thinks Jimmy Carter was one of the best US presidents of modern times and still can't understand why you didn't re-elect him.

Posted by: ezzie83 | October 9, 2009 6:10 PM

(6) I forgot to add that AQ Khan has admitted to selling information relating to building nuclear weapons to Iran.

Posted by: Copyleft | October 9, 2009 7:01 PM

Here we can see Bush's legacy at work... could the bar be set any lower?

All Obama has to do is not drool on himself or order the nuking of Romulus, and he'll be hailed as a freakin' SAINT in comparison with the clueless cluck who just left office.

Take it easy, Barack. You barely have to show up for work at this point! Bush did you and all future presidents a HUGE favor by failing so blatantly and memorably.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 7:24 PM

Don't make us come and get them

Please do. We're governed by ethically challenged cowards who won't do a fucking thing.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | October 9, 2009 10:03 PM

Jimmy Carter was one of the best people ever to be elected POTUS

Myeh... except for the fundamentalism and the ties to the Family.

Posted by: MaxH | October 9, 2009 11:33 PM

@Jeremy O'Wheel

This is absolutely going to destroy me, and I might lose a bit of my lunch, but I'm throwing this out there: George W. Bush reduced the US' nuclear weapons stockpile by 50% after signing the Treaty of Moscow with Russia.

"W" actually has done more for disarmament than Obama has.

/queasy

Posted by: Dent | October 10, 2009 1:37 AM

The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. ~ Thomas Henry Huxley

I would think that coming from a science blog that everybody would try to read about the Noble Peace Prize and its history, before making ignorant comments about it.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 10, 2009 4:55 AM

To some extent I've rethought my initial feeling that the award was obviously premature. A commenter called NitpickyElf on the Greg Laden post SGBM links to@158, while expressing dissent from Laden's support for the award, notes that the Peace Prize is supposed to go to the person who:

"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"

Admittedly, many previous choices have not really fitted this criterion, but can anyone name a candidate who meets it better than Obama over the past year?

Posted by: Tumara Baap | October 10, 2009 6:12 AM

It's interesting to see that even posters at this site (mostly progressives I'm assuming) find the prize undeserving. I certainly see your point. However, I feel Obama should be given more merit than is being accorded him.

His words about a nuclear weapon free world are some of the most stirring I've heard. His stand was visionary, compelling and surely one to grace the history books. Some may have glossed over this with all the noise on 24 hour news cycles, in which case I encourage you to revisit that speech.

He has reversed the previous administrations course on torture. Granted, bureaucratic and logistical hurdles stand in his way.

He has been critical of the Iraq war, singling it out as an unnecessary war of choice. We continue to be ever more deeply embroiled in Afghanistan but it's a legitimate fight that was handed down to this administration.

He has acknowledged the importance of the UN in world affairs, restoring comity amongst nations and simultaneously extending the reach of our soft power. So whereas he doesn't have formal treaties under his belt, the change in hearts on the streets of Cairo, to Paris to Delhi are undeniably real and seismic.

I am glad this is being recognized.

Posted by: casey | October 10, 2009 1:20 PM

"Obama lied about Iran ("Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow")"

Lied? Surely you appreciate the difference between lying and being "technically and legally wrong." If so you are being disingenuous: "lied" is pretty strong (and misleading) language and you are using it to your rhetorical advantage. If you wish for your arguments to be taken seriously then can the sophistry. In other words, stop lying.

Posted by: ezzie83 | October 10, 2009 7:08 PM

Windy,

You're a pretty funny joke. Are you a neocon who wants to make anti-war people look retarded, or just a standard conservative? But I'll keep feeding the troll because its kind of funny.

Yup, we went to war with Iraq in 2003. Since this discussion is about your charge that Obama lied, would you like to explain his involvement in that? After all, it'd be wholly irrelevant if he, say, was publicly opposing the war in 2003 and started withdrawal after he became President . . .

Also, your argument that Obama wasn't referring to the 2003 evidence is silly. Why wouldn't he (or any rational person) consider that Iran was caught violating the NPT six years ago and has refused to comply with UNSC mandates since? Its an obvious part of the context.

Also, nice non-sequitur on the enforcing UNSC decrees. Remember, you asked what norms countries have to follow Iran violated, I pointed out that Iran failed to comply with security council resolutions. Please explain how the fact that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force said it was enforcing a UNSC decree is related to that argument at all.