I'm not entirely sure, but I feel it is deserved if premature. He has been such an inspirational figurehead for not only his country, but for the entire World - he has really been an unstoppable force that, while maybe being less effective in practical terms than was expected, has acted for a positive change in the Zeitgeist.
Al Gore got it for his work on environmental issues and it was shared with UN's climate panel.
Obama's gone done nuffin yet, I'll go with premature as well.
Movitz on
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Frankly, premature as shit..he may have been historic and gamechanging and stunning so far, but he has a long way to go
The committee emphasized his work for nuclear disarmament, but also talks about his work for the environment, democracy and a more transparent government.
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
The committee emphasized his work for nuclear disarmament, but also talks about his work for the environment, democracy and a more transparent government.
Well yes. But have anything actually changed yet? I think results should be the biggest factor in deciding who get's it. Otherwise anyone with a soapbox and an opinion could get it on the basis that they're committed to their cause.
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Elaborate, please.
When the IOC kicked Chicago out of the running for the 2016 Games in the first round, Drudge and the other morons claimed that it was a sign that the world was rejecting Obama.
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Elaborate, please.
When the IOC kicked Chicago out of the running for the 2016 Games in the first round, Drudge and the other morons claimed that it was a sign that the world was rejecting Obama.
That's stupid.
They chose the best candidate.
Which wasn't Chicago.
Chicago sucks
:P
edit: And I will echo the cries of "what? already?"
I'd be interested in seeing more of the justification behind this - information is a little sketchy right now. The Peace prize is pretty consistently given rapidly, in contrast to the others. I can certainly see the inspirational angle, and there are a few other impacts that are worth noticing (I remember a few mutterings around nuclear weapons).
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Elaborate, please.
When the IOC kicked Chicago out of the running for the 2016 Games in the first round, Drudge and the other morons claimed that it was a sign that the world was rejecting Obama.
Ooooh! Right right, I forgot the IOC was in Copenhagen.
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Elaborate, please.
When the IOC kicked Chicago out of the running for the 2016 Games in the first round, Drudge and the other morons claimed that it was a sign that the world was rejecting Obama.
Eeer. No, no I don't think the Norwegian Nobel Committee took into account that some random American dude said something about sports last week
Nthing the "too soon" sentiments. Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee is assuming he'll be so bogged down in American politics* he won't be able to do anything in the future... which is a definite possibility.
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Elaborate, please.
When the IOC kicked Chicago out of the running for the 2016 Games in the first round, Drudge and the other morons claimed that it was a sign that the world was rejecting Obama.
Eeer. No, no I don't think the Norwegian Nobel Committee took into account that some random dude said something about sports.
Yeah this was not in response to Matt Drudge, seriously. It was however magnificently stupid, he hasn't even gone a quarter/an eigth of his presidency and this give him the damn peace prize? There are other people out there who do a lot of good for peace, how about recognizing one of the little dudes that don't get enough credit rather than suck up to the guy who is already in the news every damn day? Geugh
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
People actually care about SNL's criticism? They only did it because there isn't anything they can easily imitate to support their horrible writing.
I mean this is a bit soon but it's out of Obama's control, so there's nothing he could really do about it. Any country can give you an award for something at any time, and you just kinda have to deal with it.
Definitely too soon. I like Obama, but he hasn't really done anything yet. His global popularity has more to do with him symbolically than it has to do with his actual actions.
Also, Arafat got a peace prize, so they are kind of incredibly meaningless.
I don't think Bill Maher has an opinion that anyone should care about either
It's all of those people's jobs to criticize the leaders of the country
Dude's only been in office for 9 months, you might want to wait for him to actually be around long enough to notice what he's doing after all of Bush's stuff works it's way through the system
This just saddens me, despite all the great efforts of people around the world we give the thing to the guy currently running two wars, thinking about a third (Oh Iran when will you learn), chewing out the guy running one of them for pointing out that unmanned aerial drones are not going to do jack when your enemy lives in caves, and who has generally spent the last 9 months getting a lot of not much done.
Is there not some Nobel prize you could give him for being a black president? How about the Nobel Adequacy Prize, or the Nobel Not Sucking More Than Expected Prize?
How about we let him actually do something before we start throwing prizes at him. Although if we end up invading Iran I am going to laugh. How many Nobel Peace Prize winners have started a war within a year of winning?
Definitely too soon. I like Obama, but he hasn't really done anything yet. His global popularity has more to do with him symbolically than it has to do with his actual actions.
Also, Arafat got a peace prize, so they are kind of incredibly meaningless.
And Kissinger. That said, it has gone to definitely deserving people many times over.
Ebz123 on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Definitely too soon. I like Obama, but he hasn't really done anything yet. His global popularity has more to do with him symbolically than it has to do with his actual actions.
Also, Arafat got a peace prize, so they are kind of incredibly meaningless.
Then again you are not the most objective person when it comes to Arafat, or palestinians in general.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
SNL was prominent enough to be noted on CNN, among other news networks, the article was titled "The end of Obama's Honeymoon" It's a cultural change, not important to some people, but the impact is still there.
Saiga on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited October 2009
Now I'm curious about Gorbachev, he did some rad stuff. But didn't he also gas-bomb Groznyj a time or two?
Posts
Either way, he hasn't really quite done anything yet, so I'll go with premature.
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel it is deserved if premature. He has been such an inspirational figurehead for not only his country, but for the entire World - he has really been an unstoppable force that, while maybe being less effective in practical terms than was expected, has acted for a positive change in the Zeitgeist.
Obama's gone done nuffin yet, I'll go with premature as well.
but you know, still...WOOO SUCK IT SARKOZY
NNID: Hakkekage
(*i.e. conservative pundits advocating violent revolution and such)
Well yes. But have anything actually changed yet? I think results should be the biggest factor in deciding who get's it. Otherwise anyone with a soapbox and an opinion could get it on the basis that they're committed to their cause.
It could be a reaction to the whole "the world rejected Obama in Copenhagen" bullshit too.
Elaborate, please.
When the IOC kicked Chicago out of the running for the 2016 Games in the first round, Drudge and the other morons claimed that it was a sign that the world was rejecting Obama.
Obama might be an inspirational figure and his election changed american/gobal society for good, but this is too fucking soon.
As a Norwegian I appologise for the suck ups in the Nobel Commitee.
That's stupid.
They chose the best candidate.
Which wasn't Chicago.
edit: And I will echo the cries of "what? already?"
Ooooh! Right right, I forgot the IOC was in Copenhagen.
Eeer. No, no I don't think the Norwegian Nobel Committee took into account that some random American dude said something about sports last week
Matt Drudge != "some random dude".
So it doesn't bug me too much.
Also, isn't the Peace award kind of the popularity one?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
We don't even know if he's going to be good in the future.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I do want to see how Beck and Rush respond to this, though.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Anyone betting against?
This.
He's done more internationally in my book, but that's not the point.
Holy god that is awful.
Fortunately the Nobel Prize is never awarded posthumously. You can stop worrying
I mean this is a bit soon but it's out of Obama's control, so there's nothing he could really do about it. Any country can give you an award for something at any time, and you just kinda have to deal with it.
Also, Arafat got a peace prize, so they are kind of incredibly meaningless.
I don't care about SnL, I care about the facts that skit brought up though.
If you don't like the SnL reference, I refer you to Bill Maher's criticism of Obama.
It's all of those people's jobs to criticize the leaders of the country
Dude's only been in office for 9 months, you might want to wait for him to actually be around long enough to notice what he's doing after all of Bush's stuff works it's way through the system
Is there not some Nobel prize you could give him for being a black president? How about the Nobel Adequacy Prize, or the Nobel Not Sucking More Than Expected Prize?
How about we let him actually do something before we start throwing prizes at him. Although if we end up invading Iran I am going to laugh. How many Nobel Peace Prize winners have started a war within a year of winning?
No. Seriously, if you don't know who Matt Drudge is, you've been living under a rock.
And Kissinger. That said, it has gone to definitely deserving people many times over.
It's like the irrelevance olympics.
Then again you are not the most objective person when it comes to Arafat, or palestinians in general.
He is a hack yellow journalist.
Or not American.
Basically the only time we have heard of him over here was when he blew Prince Harrys cover.
Who is able to drive news cycles.