The Nobel Prize is named for Alfred Nobel, who invented dynamite.
That seems pretty important to keep in mind. The prize—one of the highest honors in the world—is named for a guy who created something that causes destruction and has often been used as a weapon. By that standard, awarding it to a politician seems perfectly logical to me.
Just in case you’re lost…yesterday, President Barack Hussein (I’m taking it back) Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize. Mostly, he was awarded based on the concept that he’s (already) gotten a lot of other countries to communicate with America more openly, and that he has plans to raise America’s profile in the eyes of other nations. Essentially, he’s being awarded because he has the potential to change things for the better, and the Nobel committee believes in him. Sounds nice…but awarding someone for his potential is a lot like awarding someone for attempted brain surgery…or handing out the Nobel “Best Trier” Prize.
I’ve made it no secret that I support my President. He’s the first President within my lifetime that I’ve felt like has wanted to REALLY change things for the better (and yes, I’m even counting Clinton in that). He actually DID give me hope—and that’s the most important thing in the world. But he doesn’t deserve a Nobel Prize…yet.
It hasn’t even been a year. In Bush’s first year in office, he’d not quite screwed up the country yet. He hadn’t had enough time to do so. Same with Obama. He hasn’t been in there long enough to fix the mess he was left with yet. The guy still needs to prove himself. I believe that he WILL. I think he’s already made MASSIVE strides in that direction. But he’s not there yet. He shouldn’t have been awarded the Nobel Prize based on what he’ll probably do. They just should’ve waited until he’s done it.
…but on the other hand, unlike the Nobel namesake, he hasn’t really blown anything up yet, either. So I guess that kind of works, too…
- Wilco (the album)