Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

I was surprised by the news as well.

I wasn’t upset by it, of course, I was merely shocked that a domestically controversial figure was selected.  Initially, I was concerned.  I envisioned outraged comments decrying the honor and dismissing the award as a meaningless pat on the back from the inconsequential worldwide community who doesn’t understand what it’s like to be a salt of the earth working man who does real good for his family (or something).

I found a lot of compelling articles from both sides of the spectrum criticizing the prematureness of the award.  It’s true that well Obama has made a lot of refreshing promises, he hasn’t had enough time to follow through.  These ideas take time to materialize.  The relationships between countries in conflict are terribly complicated, and they can’t be resolved in mere months.

At the same time, I understand the desire of some (and obviously members of the Norwegian committee) to encourage progress.  Obama has a lot of roadblocks to contend with – both abroad and at home.  He’s a leader who’s both loved, hated, doubted and supported by his country.  Some call him a genius, others deny he’s a real person.  He has a tough line to toe, and I can appreciate influential people wanting to give ideologically positive policies a leg up.

I can understand both arguments, and I always love a good discussion.

With news like this, however, comes the deluge of asinine comments.  Fox News linked to an article that chronicled Obama’s first 12 days in office (the list of nominees for the prize was finalized by February 1, which was 12 days after Obama took office).  It said, among other things, that he partied and skipped church. The article ended with something like this:

“There you have it.  You want the Nobel Prize? Just skip church!”

I’d say skipping church is usually better than advocating war and torture – but that’s coming from someone outside the moral majority, so perhaps I’m mistaken.

Concerned Women for America (I always refer back to them) said that the decision is appalling considering Obama is at the helm of two wars.  This is true, but these weren’t wars he started (and one of which he voted against as a senator).  I also suspect that should Bush have been awarded the prize (to liberal disdain, of course), CWFA would have argued that he was waging a just and righteous war to protect Western freedom and democracy.  When Obama received the award whilst still entangled in wars that predated his presidency, his position was suddenly abhorrent and a black mark on the prestigious prize.

I have to say what amused me most was an article posted on CNN.com that quoted top Taliban officials.  The Taliban was, of course, appalled.  They said the prize was a joke given Obama’s promise to send more troops to Afghanistan.  One couldn’t expect them to say otherwise, but the most amusing detail was that the article said that the Taliban called from a private number in an undisclosed location?

Who, upon hearing this morning’s news, decided to call the Taliban?

Seriously?

What did CNN think they were going to say?

Who had their number?

If the Taliban contacted them, why?  Why would they call CNN to express their horror?  Wouldn’t it have been easier to just make a video and post it online? It’s odd that the inherent non-violence of a casual phone call is only ever used when warring leaders wish to call each other stupid via major news outlets.  Perhaps people should reach for their secret phones to talk about real concessions and solutions.

In ironic news, the Taliban and the Republicans are officially in agreement on something other than the necessity of widely imposed religious orthodoxy.  Someone needs to rewrite their argument.

I suggest opponents of Obama’s award go the “the Nobel Prize is stupid!” route.