Ig Nobels

[David Morris]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020349.php

For all the recognition of George W. Bush's unpopularity, it's easy to
overlook the ways in which the international community was truly
mortified by the U.S. leadership during the Bush era. The
irreplaceable leading nation could no longer be trusted to do the
right thing -- on use of force, torture, rule of law, international
cooperation, democratic norms, even climate change. We'd reached a
point at which much of the world was poised to simply give up on
America's role as a global leader.

And, love him or hate him, President Obama changed this. I doubt
anyone on the Nobel committee would admit it, but the Peace Prize is,
to a certain extent, an implicit "thank you" to the United States for
reclaiming its rightful place on the global stage.

It's indicative of a degree of relief. Much of the world has wanted
America to take the lead again, and they're rightly encouraged to see
the U.S. president stepping up in the ways they hoped he would. It's
hard to overstate the significance, for example, of seeing a U.S.
president chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council and
making strides a nuclear deal.

This is not to say Obama was honored simply because he's not Bush. The
president really has committed himself to promoting
counter-proliferation, reversing policies on torture, embracing a new
approach to international engagement, and recommitting the U.S. to the
Middle East peace process. But charting a new course for American
leadership, breaking with the recent past, no doubt played a role.


On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> obama getting the nobel is pretty stupid in my opinion