Blogs > In The Mix

Reporter Shaun Byron and Video Editor Andrew DuPont sound-off on whatever is on their minds, from politics to pop-culture, from movies to the main stream media. Local, national, world-wide? If it's in the media mix, these two are sure to have an opinion on it.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Obama's Nobel Prize seems, at best, premature

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting this. President Obama was awarded a Noble Peace Prize in a move that was "designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism."

While I support these initiatives, I've always thought prizes were awarded for accomplishments, not to encourage these accomplishments. If this trend catches on, will we be giving the Detroit Lions a Super Bowl trophy to encourage them to be a better team?

Back when Arizona State refused to give Obama an honorary degree because he hasn't accomplished anything yet, I felt they were being overdramatic about the whole thing. It is, after all, Arizona State, and an honorary degree at that. Did they think he was going to abuse it to beef up his resume?

This time, however, it seems like a fair criticism. After all, Obama has only pledged to do these things. While he has shown to be following up on those pledges, there is a loooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go towards nuclear arms reductions and easing tensions with the Muslim world before he can say "mission accomplished." When there is tanginable evidence that he is following up on these initiatives, I would fully support such an award. Now it just seems like a premature gesture given for good intentions.



Blogger Ian said...

It seems pretty clear to me that Obama was given this prize for being Not Bush. Which, of course, is pretty silly, but let's face it -- Henry Kissinger and Yasser Freaking Arafat have Nobel Peace Prizes, so the honor's been losing significance for quite a while.

October 9, 2009 at 4:42 PM 
Blogger Monkey said...

If we learned anything from our last president it's that you don't actually have to accomplish your mission to say, "mission accomplished." But I agree that this "pre-emptive Nobel" is a little... well, early.

I look forward to the Onion headline: "Obama Sweeps 2010 Nobels".

October 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM 
Blogger Andrew DuPont said...

Well, it seems like the general concensus is that Obama didn't deserve this award, at least not right now. Even Obama himself seemed reluctant to take credit for it. This is one of those issues that I thought most people were going to be in agreement on regardless of political leanings, but then Glenn Beck had to chime and say that the Tea Party protesters deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. I find it unlikely that even the protesters themselves would think such an award would be appropriate. For what exactly? Protesting large government and taxes? I've yet to here from a Tea Party protester who was against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I've seen several protesters who are seem to be encouraging violence, so a Peace Prize is not high on the list of things I think they deserve. Even the anti-war protesters during the Bush years were known to suggest violence to further their cause.

While I'm sure Beck is now in the business of saying things just to get attention, this one doesn't even pretend to be rational. Want to give the Peace Prize to a group of protesters? Might I suggest the Iranian opposition protesters instead. They risked their lives to take a stand for what they believed in. The 9/12 protesters didn't even take a day off of work.

October 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM 
Blogger Bruce Fealk said...

It's ironic, too, that just after getting the Nobel PEACE prize, President Obama looks like he's sending MORE troops to Afghanistan, a losing cause if I ever saw one.

October 15, 2009 at 1:41 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home