Nobel (Un)Worthy

This morning I rushed to work, though no one is ever here to scold me for being late, and obviously, I ripped open my newspaper. OK, that last part may be a lie brought on by four years of pretending I'd read the paper before my journalism classes. Seriously, I would bring in three newspapers into class with me every day and maybe read two stories in each. I guess that should have told me something about the declining state of journalism as not even up-and-coming journalists such as myself at the time could get through a full paper even once a week.

I did today, however, look at my google hot trends and found these words glaring at me: Obama Nobel Peace Prize. I'd like to make this clear: I root for our Presidents. I root for the one that everyone thinks is failing and I root for the ones I like and the ones I don't like. I root for them because I don't think talking negatively about a President does anything constructive, and I root for them because most people do better when they have some form of positive support. Deductive reasoning: I rooted for Bush to do what was right, and now I'm rooting for Obama to do what's right. I have not said by any means that either of them have in the past or will in the future do what was/is right. I just am saying that I root for them to do such.

OK. With that all out there, I do want to say that I do not think President Obama's efforts over the past nine months warrant a Nobel Peace Prize. P.O. won the award not for his actual delivery on change, but his rhetoric about change. Those are in no way the same thing. This Washington Post article makes a quality point, effectively undercutting committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland's decision to choose P.O.:

"In response to questions from reporters in Oslo, who noted that Obama so far has made little concrete progress in achieving his lofty agenda, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said he hoped the prize would add momentum to Obama's efforts. At the same time, Jagland said, 'We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do.'"

But the best is yet to come, when pushed further Jagland sites not those concrete progress points, no, he sites:

"Obama's speech about Islam in Cairo last spring, as well as efforts to address nuclear proliferation and climate change and use established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue his goals."

And to bring the point home that this award now means less than it did previously:

"'Think about it, it's so post-modern: a leader can now win the peace prize for saying that he hopes to bring about peace at some point in the future,' sniped Wall Street Journal deputy editor Iain Martin in an online post. 'He doesn't actually have to do it, he just has to have aspirations. Brilliant.'"

And doesn't he have a point? We might as well be giving it away to Beauty Queens saying that they wish for world peace.

Again, I root for our Presidents because they are our Presidents. I have respect for the Office of the President of the United States, but I don't think that necessitates my support for awarding something that actually has little to back up the trophy — or I suppose prize in this case. The committee's decision to award P.O. preemptively, in my express opinion, is meaningless and now hereafter the Nobel Peace Prize will be nothing more than another novelty award that doesn't actually say or represent anything. We should call it a Grammy or a Kids Choice Award.