"Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize"

Link to an article from The Associated Press outlining a rare explanation of the Nobel Prize Committee's decision process.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irLyPrFK_rtRwMOsfjRBFjGDVZCgD9BAFHMO0

Of note:

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.

So while I may disagree on whether his efforts actually deserved a Nobel Prize, I am pleased to hear that the Committee based their decision on his efforts rather than his politics. I can't say that I would've awarded him a Nobel Prize for those efforts, but then I'm not on the committee:)

Sincerest apologies to the Nobel Prize Committee if they found my email disrespectful or condescending. (And they may have...) My thanks for making an effort to clear up the confusion. We've entered the realm of "Agree to Disagree", and it isn't my decision to make.

Peace.

Hillary was RIGHT!?

Stumbled across a very interesting Wall Street Journal article today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574469203986653982.html

Perhaps the most memorable part for me was the deliberately drawn parallel between the words of the Nobel Prize Committee's Chairman and one of Hillary's Clinton'08 ads:

"It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military--someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world."--Hillary Clinton campaign ad, February 2008

"Traditionally, Nobel laureates are notified in advance but Thorbjoern Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister who chaired the five-strong committee, decided against it. 'Waking up a president in the middle of the night, this isn't really something you do,' he said."--Times (London), Oct. 9, 2009

I kinda hope Hillary's reading this...

Wait...a Nobel Peace Prize?

Everyone who has the slightest interest in politics--and that probably includes you since you're here:P--knows by now that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today.

But why?

No one seems able to answer this question. The committee chairman, former Norwegian prime minister Thorbjorn Jagland, claimed that the award was not for future actions, but for "what he has done in the previous year." Here at the blog we are attempting to get details on exactly what accomplishments Mr. Jagland was referring to, and if and when I receive a response to my email I will try to clear that up.

Of course conservative critics were quick to accuse the Nobel Prize committee of rewarding Obama for being more in line with their own political and idealogical leanings. And unfortunately, until I hear more specifics from the committee themselves I'm forced to agree. Has the Nobel Prize really been reduced to nothing more than a seal of political approval?

Details if/when I get them.