Now see here Mr. Nobel, lets review the situation.

Yesterday Morning:

Reporter: Barack Obama is this years winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. With it, he became only the third U.S. president to win the award. Mr. Obama said he was "surprised and humbled." The Nobel Committee's official reason is "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Back to you John.

Thanks Michelle. And in other news, Taliban militants detenated a bomb that killed 48 people in Pakistan. And later, (this news actually from today) militants attacked and killed 10 security personal and are holding up to 15 hostages. These attacks have shown that the militants retain the ability to strike at the very heart of Pakistan's security apparatus despite recent military operations against their forces and the killing of Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in a CIA attack in August.

Later in the day:

Reporter: President Obama has given his public reaction to today's Nobel decision. In a short speech, Obama said "I accept this award as a call to action." And also said this award is for "everyone who strives for justice and dignity," and that "America will continue to lead." Back to you John.

Thanks Michelle. And in other news, two hours following his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama will have a meeting in the secret War Room to discuss whether or not the U.S. should commit another forty thousand troops to Afghanistan along with other anti-terror strategies such as killing people with missiles using unmanned drones . . .


Such is logic in the land of War is Peace.

For me, this is a point of amusement rather than "flipping out", as some are no doubt doing. A quick historical look should put the whole thing in a same old same old perspective, at least for U.S. presidents.

Teddy Roosevelt got the nod back in the day for something about Japan and Russia. Mmmhmph. We could just brush aside the fact that he presided over the war in the Philippines, when the U.S. military destroyed indigenous villages, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, including women and children, all because they refused to be subdued. Not to mention his infamous "speak softly but carry a big stick" policy in Latin America; the countless "interventions" on behalf of U.S. business "interests", of course under the guise of the Monroe Doctrine, make the whole peace thing a definite eye-brow furrow.







Wilson might have a little more clout in the award. He did have the whole "14 points" thing going for him following "The War to end all Wars," which was most likely a concerted effort at prevention. However one can't help but to see the cause and effect created by the conclusion of said war (the treaty of versailles) and recognize how this whole peace venture was a direct cause (or the fuel at least) for World War II, the most bloody war in human history.

In regards to President Obama, it is obvious to see why the Nobel Committee would make this choice in terms of pushing him in certain directions. After all, he is, arguably, in the most powerful position in the world. Was this a "call to action"? Maybe. More than likely, it has more to do with the about face from the previous administration of unilateralism. A message for a simple change in rhetoric might be indicative of the power (and possibilities) the position holds.

Of course, rhetoric is all we have at this point. And while having peaceful/democratic rhetoric is better than belligerent rhetoric, a spade still looks like a spade. In other words, Obama's award, whatever the justifications regarding the "renewed global climate", carries some amusement towards ironies that are all too obvious to mention. It might even justify an eye-brow furrow.