Barack Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize and the news has taken everyone by surprise. Even the President was unaware that he was nominated, according to his advisors.
So far I see several kinds of reactions to the news.
1. There are those who are unequivocally happy for him and feel he is deserving.
2. There are those who support him but are puzzled by the timing.
3. Then there are those who support him but feel dismayed that he won.
4. And finally, there are those who don’t support him and I actually don’t care what they think. If he’s a Nazi commie for trying to give every American affordable health care, then I’m sure he’ll be viewed as the Anti-Christ for winning the Nobel Peace Price.
I decided to look at the reasons why people are puzzled or dismayed by his selection and to see if they are legitimate critiques. I also looked at the list of previous laureates to see if there are precedents that justify his selection.
Here is a list of what seems to be the most common critiques.
• The Peace Prize should not be awarded to a leader presiding over two wars.
• Obama hasn’t done anything yet. He needs to accomplish something first.
• He’s just a symbol.
• The award was given for promises as yet unfulfilled.
• He’s just a celebrity and got it on name recognition alone.
Who chooses the winner?
Just to put things into perspective, the Nobel Prizes are not awarded by some public international body. Continue reading