Home > Politics > On Obama’s Prize

On Obama’s Prize

October 9, 2009

So they gave Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace. PZ hits the nail on the head: “I guess all you have to do is follow after Bush and not blow anything up for a year, and presto, you look like Gandhi.” Indeed. Then again, the Peace Prize lost all credibility when they awarded it to Henry Kissinger. This is bound to get the crazies on the Right foaming at the mouth.

Oh, and take a look at this … it’s like an alternate reality.

  1. Ashe
    October 9, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Ok, I skimmed through the link. I am speechless. Is that for real?? Alternate reality more like alternate nightmare.

  2. October 9, 2009 at 10:45 am

    It’s a “Conservative” project to offer an alternative to Wikipedia which, they say, has a liberal bias.

  3. Seamus
    October 9, 2009 at 11:10 am

    I love conservapedia…it’s The Onion minus irony.

    As for the Peace Prize..it continues to totally devalue the rest of the Nobel awards.

    But the ‘Nobels’ do provide an interesting insight.

    Science is achievement based.
    Peace is all about transient intentions…
    maybe explains why we have so little of it!!

  4. October 9, 2009 at 11:48 am

    I’m not exactly convinced that *any* of the Nobel Prizes are of much value frankly.

  5. October 9, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Over at Cosmic Variance, Daniel Holz has the following to say:

    A major criticism of the Physics Prize is that it has a relatively minor impact on the field of physics. It’s almost always given decades after the fact, to researchers that are already well known and well established. For the vast majority of recipients, their work is not suddenly transformed by the Prize. If anything, they become significantly less productive, as they’re now busy traveling the world and giving talks and (justifiably) enjoying the prominence only a Nobel can confer. …

    [G]iving the Peace Prize to Obama is an inspired choice. They are hoping to give him more stature and leverage to help him achieve his goals; they want to help make the world a better place. It affirms the importance of American leadership on the world stage, and endorses our President’s vision of a world at peace. All Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should celebrate this.

  6. October 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    I am most amused by the bit in the Conservapedia entry that implies that accepting the theory of evolution is a BAD thing. Ha!


  7. joel hunter
    October 12, 2009 at 9:36 am

    Considering many of the other Peace prize nominees this year, I would have to say that giving it to Obama was the uninspired choice in excelsis. Why should my “celebration” of the award be based on realpolitik ploys and nationality? A truly inspired choice would have been one of the six mentioned in the Independent article, for rather than “hoping to give him more stature and leverage” and “affirm[ing] the importance of American leadership on the world stage,” it might have shamed the lofty, the proud and the powerful (and by no means am I singling out Obama here) with a choice that recognized and honored the great personal risk and cost of the way of peace.

  8. DLC
    October 14, 2009 at 10:09 am

    The Peace Prize is sometimes issued as a political tool. The hope of the Nobel committee being that a man who has won their peace prize would not start a war, or would at least bring the current one to a conclusion.

    For Ashe : Yes, Conservapedia is real. It’s not a poe or godwin or whichever category of spoof it might otherwise fit into.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: