Barack Obama Gets The Nobel Peace Prize For 2009

[Max Mosley 2]

Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. The committee said they wanted 'to support what he is trying to achieve [...] It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done'.

In my view, this is nonsense. Allowing the Peace prize to be politicised in this way devalues its credibility enormously. It's perfectly possible for decent, reasonable people to object to many of Obama's aims, even the ones the Nobel committee cited in his support, so he's far too controversial a candidate for an award that imho should celebrate genuine human altruism or courage in the hardest of circumstances. Perhaps I misunderstand what the Peace prize is about but if political agendas are good reasons for awarding them, sadly I think it demeans all the other Nobel prizes too. Is it any wonder Americans don't trust international organisations when they meddle in American politics like this?

[Schumikonen 2]

Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. The committee said they wanted 'to support what he is trying to achieve [...] It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done'.

In my view, this is nonsense. Allowing the Peace prize to be politicised in this way devalues its credibility enormously. It's perfectly possible for decent, reasonable people to object to many of Obama's aims, even the ones the Nobel committee cited in his support, so he's far too controversial a candidate for an award that imho should celebrate genuine human altruism or courage in the hardest of circumstances. Perhaps I misunderstand what the Peace prize is about but if political agendas are good reasons for awarding them, sadly I think it demeans all the other Nobel prizes too. Is it any wonder Americans don't trust international organisations when they meddle in American politics like this?

you are not alone, I think the same too, Obama is leading two wars right now and he is getting ready for an Iranian Attack, USA setp up the production of the new MOP (Massive Ordnance Penertrator) a 30,000 pounds bunker buster bomb which will be idea to pulverize Nuclear Iranian Instalation and he gets the Nobel prize, maybe they are seeing him like that famous B-36 bomber "PEacemaker" which at its time it was so powerful that only peace was left after this bomber attack.

[Autumnpuma 0]

So, Barack Obama is continuing all the policies and military actions that George W. Bush started. Does this qualify Bush for a Nobel Peace prize as well?

The Nobel Peace prize has always been nothing more than a liberal circle jerk anyway. It's a tool used to lend credibility to a liberal cause or to heighten the reputation of a liberal. If a conservative has ever been awarded this, I'm sure it was a fluke. The problem is that most people around the world perceive the peace prize as a legitimate award.

[cavallino 2]

Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. The committee said they wanted 'to support what he is trying to achieve [...] It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done'.

In my view, this is nonsense. Allowing the Peace prize to be politicised in this way devalues its credibility enormously. It's perfectly possible for decent, reasonable people to object to many of Obama's aims, even the ones the Nobel committee cited in his support, so he's far too controversial a candidate for an award that imho should celebrate genuine human altruism or courage in the hardest of circumstances. Perhaps I misunderstand what the Peace prize is about but if political agendas are good reasons for awarding them, sadly I think it demeans all the other Nobel prizes too. Is it any wonder Americans don't trust international organisations when they meddle in American politics like this?

Politicized? I don't understand someone who can promote peace at that level without being political in some way. What does not agreeing with all of his aims have to do with it? The point is he has made a credible difference - people in his kind of position will always be controversial. What is genuine human altruism?? Can you give me an example? Meddling in American politics?? I still don't understand, I thought Americans resented the deep criticism Bush faced, taking it somewhat personally, and hated the negative coverage the US received in general, so I presume they should be happy to hear something positive for once?

I have huge respect for Obama's views, and policies, they are quite incredible for someone coming from his position. And you really fail to have any understanding of the history of the prize, remember the one to Gorbachev for example, very bold, daring man who still managed to get to the top and actually make a difference, unlike the innumerable noisy characters, who shout away, without really getting anywhere.

So, Barack Obama is continuing all the policies and military actions that George W. Bush started. Does this qualify Bush for a Nobel Peace prize as well?

Are you really that naive Mike? You think you have a point because Obama can't reverse overnight what Bush did over years? The signs are there - the urgency of the call for a pullout from Iraq, new pressure on Pakistan (has anyone noticed how the Pak Taliban has gone from being less than 100km from their capital to being completely routed, American pressure has played a huge role there - big change from propping up a useless dictator). A change in rhetoric over Israel - Palestine, although Obama has to walk a fine line there. Remember, he didn't walk into a vacuum, he didn't create 60 years of problems there, the question isn't whether he can reverse perceived ijjustices of 60 years, but what he can do now.

I could also never imagine an American president talking of nuclear disarmament.

Did anyone else notice how he quietly pulled out of the provocative, unnecessary missile shield in Europe that Bush refused to budge on?

There isn't just that, there is the complete and utter change in the lexicon used, which makes an incalculable difference.

I cannot think of a smarter, cannier leader today, not one standing with such vast opportunities before him. One can only ask if the award is premature, it is anything but undeserved, for a lot of courage, conviction, boldness and determination, along with survival skills.

The Nobel Peace prize has always been nothing more than a liberal circle jerk anyway. It's a tool used to lend credibility to a liberal cause or to heighten the reputation of a liberal. If a conservative has ever been awarded this, I'm sure it was a fluke. The problem is that most people around the world perceive the peace prize as a legitimate award.

I odn't know what publications you subscribe to, but Liberal isn't automatically a slur here. I don't understand the problem with 'liberals' being given the prize. In any case, you obviously are utterly ignorant of who has received the prize in recent memory, for the simple reason that they don't readily fit your liberal - conservative pigoeon holes. Please do your research, this post hardly befits your intelligence.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. The committee said they wanted 'to support what he is trying to achieve [...] It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done'.

In my view, this is nonsense. Allowing the Peace prize to be politicised in this way devalues its credibility enormously. It's perfectly possible for decent, reasonable people to object to many of Obama's aims, even the ones the Nobel committee cited in his support, so he's far too controversial a candidate for an award that imho should celebrate genuine human altruism or courage in the hardest of circumstances. Perhaps I misunderstand what the Peace prize is about but if political agendas are good reasons for awarding them, sadly I think it demeans all the other Nobel prizes too. Is it any wonder Americans don't trust international organisations when they meddle in American politics like this?

I agree

you are not alone, I think the same too, Obama is leading two wars right now and he is getting ready for an Iranian Attack, USA setp up the production of the new MOP (Massive Ordnance Penertrator) a 30,000 pounds bunker buster bomb which will be idea to pulverize Nuclear Iranian Instalation and he gets the Nobel prize, maybe they are seeing him like that famous B-36 bomber "PEacemaker" which at its time it was so powerful that only peace was left after this bomber attack.

I agree.

So, Barack Obama is continuing all the policies and military actions that George W. Bush started. Does this qualify Bush for a Nobel Peace prize as well?

The Nobel Peace prize has always been nothing more than a liberal circle jerk anyway. It's a tool used to lend credibility to a liberal cause or to heighten the reputation of a liberal. If a conservative has ever been awarded this, I'm sure it was a fluke. The problem is that most people around the world perceive the peace prize as a legitimate award.

I agree

[Jean Todt 4]

Politicized? I don't understand someone who can promote peace at that level without being political in some way. What does not agreeing with all of his aims have to do with it? The point is he has made a credible difference - people in his kind of position will always be controversial. What is genuine human altruism?? Can you give me an example? Meddling in American politics?? I still don't understand, I thought Americans resented the deep criticism Bush faced, taking it somewhat personally, and hated the negative coverage the US received in general, so I presume they should be happy to hear something positive for once?

I have huge respect for Obama's views, and policies, they are quite incredible for someone coming from his position. And you really fail to have any understanding of the history of the prize, remember the one to Gorbachev for example, very bold, daring man who still managed to get to the top and actually make a difference, unlike the innumerable noisy characters, who shout away, without really getting anywhere.

Are you really that naive Mike? You think you have a point because Obama can't reverse overnight what Bush did over years? The signs are there - the urgency of the call for a pullout from Iraq, new pressure on Pakistan (has anyone noticed how the Pak Taliban has gone from being less than 100km from their capital to being completely routed, American pressure has played a huge role there - big change from propping up a useless dictator). A change in rhetoric over Israel - Palestine, although Obama has to walk a fine line there. Remember, he didn't walk into a vacuum, he didn't create 60 years of problems there, the question isn't whether he can reverse perceived ijjustices of 60 years, but what he can do now.

I could also never imagine an American president talking of nuclear disarmament.

Did anyone else notice how he quietly pulled out of the provocative, unnecessary missile shield in Europe that Bush refused to budge on?

There isn't just that, there is the complete and utter change in the lexicon used, which makes an incalculable difference.

I cannot think of a smarter, cannier leader today, not one standing with such vast opportunities before him. One can only ask if the award is premature, it is anything but undeserved, for a lot of courage, conviction, boldness and determination, along with survival skills.

I odn't know what publications you subscribe to, but Liberal isn't automatically a slur here. I don't understand the problem with 'liberals' being given the prize. In any case, you obviously are utterly ignorant of who has received the prize in recent memory, for the simple reason that they don't readily fit your liberal - conservative pigoeon holes. Please do your research, this post hardly befits your intelligence.

I agree..

Rest..

[Max Mosley 2]

Politicized? I don't understand someone who can promote peace at that level without being political in some way. What does not agreeing with all of his aims have to do with it? The point is he has made a credible difference - people in his kind of position will always be controversial. What is genuine human altruism?? Can you give me an example? Meddling in American politics?? I still don't understand, I thought Americans resented the deep criticism Bush faced, taking it somewhat personally, and hated the negative coverage the US received in general, so I presume they should be happy to hear something positive for once?

I have huge respect for Obama's views, and policies, they are quite incredible for someone coming from his position. And you really fail to have any understanding of the history of the prize, remember the one to Gorbachev for example, very bold, daring man who still managed to get to the top and actually make a difference, unlike the innumerable noisy characters, who shout away, without really getting anywhere.

I always associated the Nobel Peace Prize with people who epitomised the best side of human nature, who demonstrated altruism and courage in terrible situations. People who demonstrably made the world a better place. Most (but not all, I agree) winners have promoted basic human rights or related humanitarian goals that every right minded person can see are inherently good. You of course see Barack Obama in the same mould but many decent and reasonable people disagree because we don't all share your (and his) particular political views. This is a big problem if you want the the comments and judgement of the Nobel committee to have credibility with a wide range of people.

Now, as I said in my first post, perhaps the award has always been intended to promote one particular political ideology rather than the best parts of human nature as I had always assumed. In this case, I and the many other people who have been labouring under a misunderstanding all these years naturally need to reassess how much weight we give to the comments and judgements the Nobel Peace Prize committee make.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Are you really that naive Mike? You think you have a point because Obama can't reverse overnight what Bush did over years? The signs are there - the urgency of the call for a pullout from Iraq, new pressure on Pakistan (has anyone noticed how the Pak Taliban has gone from being less than 100km from their capital to being completely routed, American pressure has played a huge role there - big change from propping up a useless dictator). A change in rhetoric over Israel - Palestine, although Obama has to walk a fine line there. Remember, he didn't walk into a vacuum, he didn't create 60 years of problems there, the question isn't whether he can reverse perceived ijjustices of 60 years, but what he can do now.

A change in rhetoric over Israel? Really? Do you know that, on the campaign trail, Obama expressed his assurances that he would continue to provide Israel with 100% support. That isn't change, that's status quo.

He is the commander in chief of the American armed forces. With a stroke of a pen he can recall all of our troops. Indeed, he promised to do so on the campaign trail and hasn't done it so far. Every person that has been killed in conflict with American troops since Obama's first day in office can be lain right at his feet.

It's interesting to see you mention 'what he can do now'. I would ask, "what has he done up to now?". He's done nothing so far to even begin to reverse past policies. He has the power, but not the will. He certainly doesn't deserve a prize for 'peace' under these circumstances.

I could also never imagine an American president talking of nuclear disarmament.

All the presidents since Eisenhower have been constantly talking about disarmament. A few have actually done more than talk.

Did anyone else notice how he quietly pulled out of the provocative, unnecessary missile shield in Europe that Bush refused to budge on?

One might argue that removing this shield will lead to future Soviet aggression, in fact creating conflict rather than promoting peace. Time will tell.

There isn't just that, there is the complete and utter change in the lexicon used, which makes an incalculable difference.

I cannot think of a smarter, cannier leader today, not one standing with such vast opportunities before him. One can only ask if the award is premature, it is anything but undeserved, for a lot of courage, conviction, boldness and determination, along with survival skills.

Obama makes pretty speeches, I'll give him that.

I odn't know what publications you subscribe to, but Liberal isn't automatically a slur here. I don't understand the problem with 'liberals' being given the prize. In any case, you obviously are utterly ignorant of who has received the prize in recent memory, for the simple reason that they don't readily fit your liberal - conservative pigoeon holes. Please do your research, this post hardly befits your intelligence.

Nice twist. I never said I had a problem with liberals getting the peace prize. Nor did I use 'liberal' as a slur. If you look over the list of recipients of the prize, you'll find an overwhelming amount of liberals have received it. But for the sake of simplicity, I'll retract that particular statement of mine. I'll say, simply, that Barack Obama doesn't deserve the prize right now. Awarding him this right now smacks of politics and the pushing of a political agenda.

One past recipient of the prize, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is a personal hero of mine. Knowing that, you can, possibly, see why I don't think Obama is deserving of it. But, seriously, how much credibility does the Nobel Peace prize have when it has been awarded to Henry Kissenger? Think on that.

[Oli 1]

It's a pathetic choice which utterly undermines any shred of credibility the selection committee may once have had (which wasn't much).

[Quiet One 15]

A change in rhetoric over Israel? Really? Do you know that, on the campaign trail, Obama expressed his assurances that he would continue to provide Israel with 100% support. That isn't change, that's status quo.

He is the commander in chief of the American armed forces. With a stroke of a pen he can recall all of our troops. Indeed, he promised to do so on the campaign trail and hasn't done it so far. Every person that has been killed in conflict with American troops since Obama's first day in office can be lain right at his feet.

It's interesting to see you mention 'what he can do now'. I would ask, "what has he done up to now?". He's done nothing so far to even begin to reverse past policies. He has the power, but not the will. He certainly doesn't deserve a prize for 'peace' under these circumstances.

All the presidents since Eisenhower have been constantly talking about disarmament. A few have actually done more than talk.

One might argue that removing this shield will lead to future Soviet aggression, in fact creating conflict rather than promoting peace. Time will tell.

Obama makes pretty speeches, I'll give him that.

Nice twist. I never said I had a problem with liberals getting the peace prize. Nor did I use 'liberal' as a slur. If you look over the list of recipients of the prize, you'll find an overwhelming amount of liberals have received it. But for the sake of simplicity, I'll retract that particular statement of mine. I'll say, simply, that Barack Obama doesn't deserve the prize right now. Awarding him this right now smacks of politics and the pushing of a political agenda.

One past recipient of the prize, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is a personal hero of mine. Knowing that, you can, possibly, see why I don't think Obama is deserving of it. But, seriously, how much credibility does the Nobel Peace prize have when it has been awarded to Henry Kissenger? Think on that.

Feels weird to agree with you on these matters but I do. Amen, Mike.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Don't feel too weird, Andres. I'm actually pretty moderate. Like Cav stated, there are people that can't be pidgeon-holed and I suppose we all are like that to a certain degree, including myself. It doesn't help me to show that when I only respond from my conservative point-of-view.

On Obama: I am more proud of my nation than I can express for electing a black man (a race that in very close memory was legally bound into slavery by us) to the office of president. It's the ultimate national expression of Rev. King's 'dream'. At the same time, I'm also disappointed that I don't happen to agree with a lot of Obama's politics.

On the Nobel prize: There have been a few really deserving recipients of it and those few epitomize what the award should be about. Those few almost give the prize credibility. On the other hand, the amount of time the recipients have been chosen due to political motivations devalues the prize and effectively kills the credibility it sometimes has had. Of course, my opinions here are only true for me. Someone who agrees with the politics being promoted and the people being nominated will have the direct opposite view to mine.

I admire Cav for pinning a lot of hopes on Obama, and I'd like to do that as well, but I'm far to cynical about American politics to ever do that again. In the end, as I see it, Obama will get a few minor things changed but the larger issues will continue. Bush didn't decide these policies on his own and those decisions were made by bigger folks than a mere president. This one time, however, I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

[cavallino 2]

People who demonstrably made the world a better place.

Wait, is this really in dispute for Mr. BO?

Most (but not all, I agree) winners have promoted basic human rights or related humanitarian goals that every right minded person can see are inherently good. You of course see Barack Obama in the same mould but many decent and reasonable people disagree because we don't all share your (and his) particular political views. This is a big problem if you want the the comments and judgement of the Nobel committee to have credibility with a wide range of people.

You've nailed the problem there. It is hard to dispute that he has made things better. Reaching the 'inherently good' qualification, with popular approval is much harder, and if you cannot acknowledge that someone in his position has to be a pragmatist. You can criticizer him from absolute positions, but the point is someone with more extreme views wouldn't get where he is. He isn't a despot, he is someone who has to juggle a million things, satisfy so many different factions and at the same time guide things down a better path. I think BO does that tremendously well.

Now, as I said in my first post, perhaps the award has always been intended to promote one particular political ideology rather than the best parts of human nature as I had always assumed.

It is inherently political. There is far more to object in the award being given to people like The Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa, people with very dubious ideologies - I would rather have Obama than Ms. 'abortion is the greatest threat to peace' or Mr. 'anal sex is wrong'.

In this case, I and the many other people who have been labouring under a misunderstanding all these years naturally need to reassess how much weight we give to the comments and judgements the Nobel Peace Prize committee make.

I think it simply means that this time their choice gets more attention - I don't think this is their most debatable choice. Take the '94 prize for example.

A change in rhetoric over Israel? Really? Do you know that, on the campaign trail, Obama expressed his assurances that he would continue to provide Israel with 100% support. That isn't change, that's status quo.

It is really tiresome to discuss this with someone who is so out of touch. Look up his statements regarding freezing settlements for example, contrast that with the Bush era. I really can't be bothered, it is sufficient to say for the first time in ages there is someone wiling to admit there are two sides to the story.

He is the commander in chief of the American armed forces. With a stroke of a pen he can recall all of our troops.

No he can't. That's the kind of things people who don't understand politics do if they somehow get power, or people who are all noise promise to do - since they know well they will never be in a position to actually carry out their rhetoric, they can make all the noise they want. People like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul.

Indeed, he promised to do so on the campaign trail and hasn't done it so far.

Well seems I am way better informed about American politics than you are. When did BO ever promise to recall all American troops stationed abroad right away? Or at all?

Every person that has been killed in conflict with American troops since Obama's first day in office can be lain right at his feet.

Save that for a speech..

One might argue that removing this shield will lead to future Soviet aggression, in fact creating conflict rather than promoting peace. Time will tell.

One might argue that the use of the term Soviet shows that you are still indoctrinated with cold war propaganda, making any discussion on the issue pointless. If you still go to bed scared of the commies, really..

One past recipient of the prize, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is a personal hero of mine. Knowing that, you can, possibly, see why I don't think Obama is deserving of it. But, seriously, how much credibility does the Nobel Peace prize have when it has been awarded to Henry Kissenger? Think on that.

Credibility? I don't know. There have been many dubious awardees. Some, in retrospect were more people who turned out to be let downs than inherently bad decisions. That's the way the peace prize is. It isn't like the Science prizes, which are awarded sometimes half a lifetime after the discovery, after the discovery has been tested, verified, and found to have had a huge impact. The peace prize is more current - and that always carries the risk of people changing, or not living up to their initial impressions. It's not perfect, but has more credibility than any prize of this nature..

I sitll don't get the complaints about the prize beingr political. People who are avowedly apolitical can never have the same level of impact, so in fact excluding them would undermine the credibility of the prize.

[Insider 0]

Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because the committee wanted him to have it - unanimously. They made it clear it was an 'incentive' just as Mikhail Gorbachev's award was in 1990. Obama said he did not deserve it but would accept in the manner it was given. That's good enough for Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu and old Mikhail himself. Most nations have joined in the congratulations, seeing the award as a clear endorsement of Obama the man and his vision for the future of the world. Even the Israelis applauded the Nobel Institute's decision, though the Palestinians thought it a little premature. So, what else is new! As specific examples of the work that led to the award, the Committee highlighted efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation (particularly in Iran) and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world. I see little wrong with that, nor do I have a problem with it. Those that do are entitled to their opinion. After all, that's the kind of world he's trying to make - isn't it?

[LabradoRacer 2]

Obama himself has said he doesn't consider it an award but a 'call to action'. In other words, the award is the gentlest form of arm-twisting to ensure USA doesn't do another Iraq. Cynical? Maybe, maybe not.

And by the way, I'm puzzled as to why none of the Nobel Peace Prize winners have thanked terrorists/hawks/aggro/testosterone guys. Without the latter, they wouldn't have won anything in the first place. Shouldn't the 'evil' guys get a share of the prize? I mean as a runner-up sort of thing?

[Insider 0]

Obama himself has said he doesn't consider it an award but a 'call to action'. In other words, the award is the gentlest form of arm-twisting to ensure USA doesn't do another Iraq. Cynical? Maybe, maybe not.

And by the way, I'm puzzled as to why none of the Nobel Peace Prize winners have thanked terrorists/hawks/aggro/testosterone guys. Without the latter, they wouldn't have won anything in the first place. Shouldn't the 'evil' guys get a share of the prize? I mean as a runner-up sort of thing?

Whatever you're on - change your dealer, man.

[Jean Todt 4]

Whatever you're on - change your dealer, man.

[Schumikonen 2]

Obama himself has said he doesn't consider it an award but a 'call to action'. In other words, the award is the gentlest form of arm-twisting to ensure USA doesn't do another Iraq. Cynical? Maybe, maybe not.

I know this is what they did giving him the prize, now it would be just fine (applying the same thinking) if FIA give this year's WDC title to Kimi in order to motivate him to stay in F1 next year so we all can have a great 2010 season, now I wonder what would we think about this?

Kimi can't be given the prize without winning it nor Obama was supose to get this one for the same reason.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

Does Barry even need incentive? He shouldn't. He should want to do things because he thinks they're what's best for this nation, and the other nations our nation impacts, not because someone told him they'd give him a cookie if he did them.

[Jean Todt 4]

I know this is what they did giving him the prize, now it would be just fine (applying the same thinking) if FIA give this year's WDC title to Kimi in order to motivate him to stay in F1 next year so we all can have a great 2010 season, now I wonder what would we think about this?

Kimi can't be given the prize without winning it nor Obama was supose to get this one for the same reason.

Yessss....Your dealer is worse than Jay's....

[Schumikonen 2]

Yessss....Your dealer is worse than Jay's....

I won't deny that but we should know that a Prize is something that you WIN and a gift if something that someone gives you just because they want to, in this case that was a GIFT not a PRIZE.

[Schumikonen 2]

Does Barry even need incentive? He shouldn't. He should want to do things because he thinks they're what's best for this nation, and the other nations our nation impacts, not because someone told him they'd give him a cookie if he did them.

That's what I think. maybe they saw something we didn't, maybe they are realizing that he is very distant from his campain's speech and they are trying to show him the way but not even this justify this "prize"

[dribbler 6]

I can't believe he's got the prize for seemingly doing bugger all. Oh well, the only shred of hope is that if you pinned a dog collar on a man, he may just feel obliged to start reading the bible.

[maure 1]

Obama's award made me laugh long and hard. Better than Gore's by a good stretch... and that one was just on account of a peyote-meet-Agatha-Christie docu-gullible-mentary (is the level of the "sea" 20 meters higher already?). Obama has won for simply being himself _potentially_, which is,... hilarious.

Anyway, this is all that is left of the Nobel prize anyway... after all, raise your hand if you know what contribution to medicine or physics was so remarkable in, say, 2007 or 2008 to deserve the award. Ask around. I have. You'll get a good laugh.

It's all a big joke and I salute the comedians working for the various Swedish academies for their outstanding histrionic material. Every new season brings more improbable and dumbfounding twists. Take THAT Supernatural (said my neighbour's kid, goofy lad).

I can see Obama now setting his sights on the Miss Universe contest...

[cavallino 2]

maure - The Nobel Prizes aren't a 'best of the year' award, the science prizes, or the economics one for instance don't go to the biggest dscovery of the last year. They are given based on the importance and the impact of discoveries as well as theories that are reviewed and tested thoroughly. It's not as oscar. I can only presume that the people you are talking to are as ignorant, the only alternative is you are talking out of your a## - one I sadly can't discount.

Facts have never been your strong point..

[JHS 1]

Good for him.

(To be honest, couldn't give a flying ****)