No Bull Peace Prize / 10-9-09

Depending on how much you hate Barack Hussein Obama, you were either stunned, pleased, or disappointed that he won the Nobel Peace prize this morning.

Well, that's not entirely fair. Even though I am an unabashed - or at most minimally abashed - fan of the man, I found myself admitting this morning that he's not the most deserving laureate ever. Then I did some research. (Allah forbid!) I unearthed some interesting finds. Found me some interesting unearthings.

But first, let's hear some hate. Every one of the following comments I culled from my facebook friends and their friends. All statements were posted today. None of them is made up; there's no need to manufacture this kind of contempt for the President. It just naturally bubbles up when given the chance. And it often gets the chance. A lot of people really dislike him a lot.

"I'd like to humbly accept my award for winning "The Biggest Loser" for all of the weight I intend to lose some day."
"I think the prize was awarded just to see if Obama would take it. He knows he hasn't done anything, we know he hasn't done anything, the world knows he hasn't done anything. Some where behind the scenes there's some blond haired Norwegians laughing and poking each other: 'See! I told you Obama and his big ego would accept the award, now pay up!' "
"SOME skepticism? Honestly, wtf did he do to deserve that?"
"it's officall, the world has lost it's mind. How does this guy compare to mother Theressa or Nelson Mandella?"
"At least now I know I have a shot at winning it because I don't do carp either. What has the world come to?"

Now, an assortment of facts, buttressed by opinion. You know, the way reason is supposed to work. And I promise to not do any carp at all. Either.

First, BHO actually meets the criteria the Nobel committee is supposed to follow. The NPP is to be conferred on, and I quote: "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."

There's an argument that Obama has moved swiftly in these areas, already, although you wouldn't know it from media coverage. Please, whatever you think of the man, acknowledge that Obama is presently using the power of his office to ease tensions in a variety of places around the globe. He's actually aiming to restore peace in actual real-world situations. Right now. I found this buried in the main story at CNN.com:

"The award comes at a crucial time for Obama, who has multiple administration officials dispatched on global peace missions. Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, has returned to the region to advocate for peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Mitchell met Thursday with Israeli President Shimon Peres. He plans to meet Friday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before talking with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was starting a six-day trip to Russia and Europe on Friday. On the trip, the secretary will discuss the next steps on Iran and North Korea, and international efforts to have the two countries end their nuclear programs.The centerpiece of the trip will be her visit to Moscow, where she will work toward an agreement to take the place of the Start II arms control pact, which expires December 5."

Granted, it's not immaterial whether Obama meets the criteria the American public has laid out in its collective mind. Clearly he would be viewed more legitimately, and the award would carry more weight, if it were universally agreed that his efforts to bring about peace had already borne some fruit. For example, Jimmy Carter scored himself an NPP in 2002, 21 years after leaving office, for in large part his work in mediating the Israel-Egypt peace talks, and those two nations have now enjoyed cordial, war-free diplomatic relations for 30 years, and everyone pretty much agrees Carter earned that puppy.

And then, we have the little matter of precedent. The Nobel committee has actually conferred a Peace Prize on heads of state for efforts, as of then unfulfilled, to change the world. Mikhail Gorbachev won it in 1990. As it says: for his "role" in the "process." Not for his results, at the time, as of yet unachieved.

Not sure how this fits into my narrative, but I found it at nytimes.com, which quotes John McCain as saying: "Oh, I’m sure that the president is very honored to receive this award. And Nobel Committee, I can’t divine all their intentions, but I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.” Take it for what it's worth.

And finally, consider that an American President is surely one of the very most powerful people on earth... ah, who are we kidding, surely one of the most powerful men on earth, and most certainly one of the three people with the most power to wreak destruction and annihilation on a worldwide or local level. Who, besides the head of the Communist Party in China and the Russian Prime Minister, has the capacity to kill as many people as our top exec? Ruin as many lives? Snuff out as many nations for political gain?

Therefore, my parting thot is: The fact that we now have a President who uses the office to try and solve conflicts, rather than a careless warmonger who places little value on human life, is cause for celebration. Not ridicule.