This speaks not to the significance of the award, but to the shallowness of the screamers.

But if the award is significant, OG, and I believe it is, is it not appropriate for the public to comment about it? The award is taken seriously by its recipients, and they include many great people, including the three Jess named. Joining that company elevates the recipient, and the award is socially significant across the world.

Since now you seem to be of the opinion that the award is of significance, is it your position that we, the public, should not comment upon it? Or that we should only praise the choice, whether we agree with it or not? Must we defer to the five Norwegian dwarves, who I’ll remind you are not the same five dwarves who chose Sakharov or Elie Wiesel?

Is all dissent shallow in your view?

I’m not sure what the geopolitical implications of declining the prize might be

War with Norway?

That’s not something to undertake lightly; after all, they invented dynamite.

What, as VP?

The prize committee was jealous of the IOC, so they used the only lure they had to get Obama to Oslo. It would have been slightly more ridiculous to give him the Prize in Economics. The Nobel Prize has jumped the shark.

For the other point. Noone is becomes automatically popular, especially on a global scale. You’ve need certain traits (such as patience and humility), and to be whatever the global equivilent of ‘street savvy’ is. You at the very least show some awareness of other cultures. If you are coming from a country with a history of being extremely dominant, aggressive, adversarial even; then the level you need to achieve to smash this goes right up. Popularity or being liked, paves the way for negotiation and with it reconciliation.

Even the US – where there’s a bit of kiss my butt going on – popularity is not automatically granted. Look no further than Bush for that; and if Palin was in office, international relations would possibly be below the gutter.

I think Obama deserves recognition for his charisma, the patience, reaching out, and changing the tone. That is a skill in itself, and it looks easier said than done; especially in a world that has been carved out from so much mistrust in the last decade. In a dog eat dog world, where I must be better than you – they are traits that are highly undervalued. One hopes these are excellent foundations for the future.

And yes, there’s plenty of other people out there doing excellent work. Long may they continue, and they too get the recognition they deserve.

Its Friday night over here, so I’m off out. Its been nice debating with you all.

On the other hand, Obama is celebrated for using US power and influence to control the course of “international diplomacy.”

What the heck is imperialism today? It used to be so easy, it was controlling the fate of other sovereign nations, and among other things, controlling their “international diplomacy” and internal politics. Is that not what Obama means to do? He certainly is not letting those other nations do as they please. Every time he turns around, he is cajoling and demanding action from other sovereign nations. If he gets what he wants out of them, is that not the current definition of imperialism? Iran do this, North Korea do that.

to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind

The preceding year is 2008. What did Obama do in 2008 to bring about world peace? Furthermore, the Committee doesn’t use those critera. Jimmy Carter didn’t win the prize for his efforts in 2001, nor did the Dalai Lama for his efforts in 1988, nor Elie Wiesel for his work in 1985.

You believe that Obama should get a medal for his popularity. Fine. But past recipients have generally gotten the award for actual achievements.