# Clueless Idiots: The Nobel Committee **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 9, 2009, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175 "2009-10-09T10:53:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/261 "2009-10-19T20:59:35Z")
> [@intention](#): > > **Shot From Guns** , the problem is there’s no way to answer your question, even in theory. [snip] How do you propose to tell the difference? There is an insurmountable difficulty. Life has no “control group” that would enable us to compare outcomes in a “what if” sense. Bullshit. You’re correct that we can’t tell what might have been, but we can look at general trajectories. They go on to kick puppies and rape babies: not so good. They go on to create a unified world government of universal tolerance and freedom: halfway decent. The question is not, “What was averted,” but rather, “What happened next?” If you prefer something concrete, here’s my same question, framed a different way: Would you consider their post-award activities to also be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? ETA: Thanks, **Shodan**. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/262 "2009-10-19T21:04:39Z")
“This is ridiculous–embarrassing even.” Ruth Marcus, _Washington Post_. “… this is ridiculous. I mean, I’m all in favor of making wingnut heads explode, but the guy’s been in office for slightly less than nine months. That’s barely enough time to make a baby, let alone bring world peace. Shouldn’t the luminaries in Oslo have waited until he had done something more significant than making nice with his former primary opponent before declaring him a man for the ages?.” Kevin Drum, _Mother Jones_ "Folks across the spectrum are asking, ‘what has he done?’ " Tom Bevan, _Real Clear Politics_ “This is so far out of nowhere that it could be almost embarrassing.” Michael Tomasky, the _Guardian_. “While it is OK to give school children prizes for ‘effort’ .  .  . statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.” Gideon Rachman, _Financial Times_ “It might have been wiser to hold judgment.” the _Economist_. “… the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronizing in its intentions, and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office. .  .  . Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent.” Michael Binyon, _Times of London_ “I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce … Let’s hope the Nobel Committee’s decision meets with such a deafening chorus of chortles and jeers that it never does something this stupid again.” said Peter Beinart, Tina Brown’s _Daily Beast_. So yes, **elucidator** , there is widespread condemnation of the Prize, both inside the US and outside the US. If you think that this Prize is without a host of controversy, opposition, and laughter from both liberals and conservatives, you should get out more often. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/263 "2009-10-19T21:11:54Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Bullshit. You’re correct that we can’t tell what might have been, but we can look at general trajectories. They go on to kick puppies and rape babies: not so good. They go on to create a unified world government of universal tolerance and freedom: halfway decent. > > The question is not, “What was averted,” but rather, “What happened next?” If you prefer something concrete, here’s my same question, framed a different way: Would you consider their post-award activities to also be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? > > ETA: Thanks, **Shodan**. While “what happened next” is not a bad metric if you have loads of data, the sample size is far, far too small to tell anything in this case. Before you call “bullshit”, you might want to consider taking a course in elementary statistics. Without a control group, you need a much larger sample to draw any conclusions. So while Shodan’s information is good and to the point, it doesn’t allow us to draw any general conclusions. In answer to your question framed differently above, I didn’t think their pre-award activities were worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. As a result, what they did afterwards tells me nothing about whether the Prize made a difference. They were war-mongers both before and after the award. That tells me more about the foolishness of the Committee than the effect of the award. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/264 "2009-10-19T21:20:45Z")
> [@intention](#): > > While “what happened next” is not a bad metric if you have loads of data, the sample size is far, far too small to tell anything in this case. We \*\*can \*\*draw conclusions–they just won’t be **statistically significant**. However, you’re moving the goalposts: your first argument was about control groups, \*\*then \*\*you switched to sample size once I disagreed with you. In any case, the question was never about statistical significance; it was a response to the argument that this is all okay 'cause the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for similar reasons before. I wanted to know if, in those previous instances, the award had had the desired effect of encouraging the recipients to conduct themselves in a manner befitting someone who’d been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. > [@](#): > > In answer to your question framed differently above, I didn’t think their pre-award activities were worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. As a result, what they did afterwards tells me nothing about whether the Prize made a difference. They were war-mongers both before and after the award. That tells me more about the foolishness of the Committee than the effect of the award. If the prize was intended to encourage them towards peaceful activities, and their actions after the award were not peaceful, I think it’s pretty safe to call it a failure. We have an objective standard here: the award is intended for those who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” So if, after having been awarded the prize in order to encourage this behavior, the recipient fails to exemplify that standard… it clearly didn’t work as intended. The rephrased question was not “about whether the Prize made a difference”–I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/265 "2009-10-19T21:33:34Z")
Well, I should think that sums it up - Obama hasn’t done anything to deserve the Prize in the past, he isn’t doing anything now, and there is no reason to conclude he will do anything in the future either. Apart from that, it is well deserved. 😃 Maybe every new President will be given the Prize to encourage good behavior from now on. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/266 "2009-10-19T21:46:25Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > We \*\*can \*\*draw conclusions–they just won’t be **statistically significant**. However, you’re moving the goalposts: your first argument was about control groups, \*\*then \*\*you switched to sample size once I disagreed with you. … If you don’t understand how the presence or absence of a control group is intimately related to the needed sample size, it just underlines your ignorance of basic statistics. I have not “moved the goalposts”, sample size and control groups cannot be separated as you naively claim. And yes, you are right, you can draw conclusions even from a sample size of one. For example, you can flip a coin once and conclude “this coin comes up heads every time”. Please read up about statistical significance, you are embarrassing yourself unnecessarily. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/267 "2009-10-19T22:05:35Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I have not “moved the goalposts”, sample size and control groups cannot be separated as you naively claim. Uh, yes they can. They’re two different things: one has to do with analyzing a large enough population that you minimize the effects of chance, and the other has to do with comparing a group that has had some change introduced to a group that hasn’t. They’re both about determining whether or not some effect is happening randomly, but they’re two completely different, albeit complementary, methods of doing so. By your argument, we could never ever study some kinds of natural phenomena, because we have no way to create control groups for them. Sorry, meteorology, you’re not a science any more. > [@](#): > > And yes, you are right, you can draw conclusions even from a sample size of one. For example, you can flip a coin once and conclude “this coin comes up heads every time”. You have once again missed the question completely. It’s not “do we think it’s going to work this time,” but rather, “how has it worked out in the past.” I didn’t say, “if it didn’t work in the past, it won’t work now”–I just wanted to know if it had ever had the desired effect. For somebody who’s making petty personal attacks about my understanding of statistics, you sure are pretty oblivious to the actual discussion at hand. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/268 "2009-10-19T22:09:01Z")
> [@intention](#): > > …So yes, **elucidator** , there is widespread condemnation of the Prize, both inside the US and outside the US. If you think that this Prize is without a host of controversy, opposition, and laughter from both liberals and conservatives, you should get out more often. Don’t talk down to me, slick, you ain’t that smart. There are people here who are that smart, but you’re not one of them. You give me eight examples of people who think this is a silly thing, and then tell me this proves “widespread condemnation”. If I give you nine examples of people who approve, does that prove widespread approval, and I win? Of course not. There is no action Obama could take that you couldn’t find eight people who disapprove. It proves nothing of any consequence. And then, in almost the next breath, you go on about sample sizes being too small to prove a point you don’t like, and sneer about knowledge of statistics, having committed the same fallacy yourself only moments before! In a word, dishonest. But at least you’ve stopped telling us how all of this insults Lech Walesa. Small blessings. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/269 "2009-10-19T22:52:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t talk down to me, slick, you ain’t that smart. There are people here who are that smart, but you’re not one of them. BWAHAHAHAHA! You ain’t that smart, dawg. You’re pretty clever with the turn of a phrase and coughing up obscure quotes but that’s about it, and on this issue you’re about as dumb as a brick! And besides, his examples show condemnation across a broad spectrum of political commentators. I’m sure he could come up with thousands of examples if he wanted to spend the time, but the eight he posted were clearly sufficient to make his point and refute yours. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/270 "2009-10-19T23:19:32Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Uh, yes they can. They’re two different things: one has to do with analyzing a large enough population that you minimize the effects of chance, and the other has to do with comparing a group that has had some change introduced to a group that hasn’t. They’re both about determining whether or not some effect is happening randomly, but they’re two completely different, albeit complementary, methods of doing so. > > By your argument, we could never ever study some kinds of natural phenomena, because we have no way to create control groups for them. Sorry, meteorology, you’re not a science any more. Read what I wrote. If we don’t have a control group, we need a larger sample size. In meteorology, this is a recurring problem with short records (typically less than about ten years of monthly records, or N = 120). But it does not mean that meteorology is not a science. [QUOTE=Shot From Guns] You have once again missed the question completely. It’s not “do we think it’s going to work this time,” but rather, “how has it worked out in the past.” I didn’t say, “if it didn’t work in the past, it won’t work now”–I just wanted to know if it had ever had the desired effect. For somebody who’s making petty personal attacks about my understanding of statistics, you sure are pretty oblivious to the actual discussion at hand. [/QUOTE] With a sample size of 3 (Kissinger, Gorbachov, Arafat) we can’t say “how it has worked out in the past” in any significant way. Suppose we weight coins to make them come up tails more often. Yes, if we flip three coins we can say “they all came up heads”. But that is meaningless in determining whether our weighting “had the desired effect”. Why not? Because without a control group, the sample size is too small. We can’t conclude that it had or didn’t have “the desired effect” because we don’t have enough information. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/271 "2009-10-19T23:40:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t talk down to me, slick, you ain’t that smart. There are people here who are that smart, but you’re not one of them. > > You give me eight examples of people who think this is a silly thing, and then tell me this proves “widespread condemnation”. If I give you nine examples of people who approve, does that prove widespread approval, and I win? Of course not. There is no action Obama could take that you couldn’t find eight people who disapprove. It proves nothing of any consequence. > > And then, in almost the next breath, you go on about sample sizes being too small to prove a point you don’t like, and sneer about knowledge of statistics, having committed the same fallacy yourself only moments before! > > In a word, dishonest. But at least you’ve stopped telling us how all of this insults Lech Walesa. Small blessings. You must be reading someone else’s posts and mistaking them for mine. I have said many times that there is both widespread condemnation and widespread approval of the awarding of the Prize. I could give you dozens and dozens of people condemning it, and dozens and dozens of people approving of it. You’re the one that keeps saying that there is no widespread condemnation of it, when most every headline about the question makes the point that they are both prevalent. I condescend to you because it appears that either you do not know how to use Google, or you choose not to use it. Yes, I know that Sarkozy and many others think it is wonderful. What you don’t seem to understand is that Walesa and many others are shaking their heads and going “Say what?” Lots of people have written to say that they thought it was an Onion headline … here’s Glen Greenwald, who is very liberal, on the subject: > [@](#): > > \*\*Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize > \*\* > When I saw this morning’s top New York Times headline – “Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize” – I had the same immediate reaction which I’m certain many others had: this was some kind of bizarre Onion gag that got accidentally transposed onto the wrong website, that it was just some sort of strange joke someone was playing. Upon further reflection, that isn’t all that far from the reaction I still have. And there are plenty more like that. So yes, there’s lots of liberal, independent, and conservative commentators out there who don’t approve or understand, just as there are lots who do. Which is, um, well, exactly what I’ve been saying. But to call me “dishonest” just because you don’t understand or disagree with what I am saying, or because you want to hold on to your fantasy that the world loves Obama and approves of everything he does, is … well … despite this being the Pit, let me just say that it is childish, untrue, and uncalled for, and it makes you look like a sore loser . Since I have no evidence about your motives either way, I choose to think you honestly believe what you are saying. I would ask you to accord me the same courtesy. ETA - What **Starving Artist** said … ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/272 "2009-10-19T23:56:14Z")
> [@intention](#): > > But to call me “dishonest” just because you don’t understand or disagree with what I am saying, or because you want to hold on to your fantasy that the world loves Obama and approves of everything he does, is … well … despite this being the Pit, let me just say that it is childish, untrue, and uncalled for, and it makes you look like a sore loser . Since I have no evidence about your motives either way, I choose to think you honestly believe what you are saying. I would ask you to accord me the same courtesy. You [accused](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11673921&postcount=203) me of [lacking courage](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11674714&postcount=205) because you didn’t believe it was possible to have no strong feelings about it. Care to explain what makes one different from the other? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/273 "2009-10-20T00:34:55Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > You [accused](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11673921&postcount=203) me of [lacking courage](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11674714&postcount=205) because you didn’t believe it was possible to have no strong feelings about it. Care to explain what makes one different from the other? Nope. If you don’t understand the difference between not having an opinion on whether Obama deserves the Nobel Prize and not having an opinion on what elucidator’s motives are, I’m afraid you are beyond any help I can give you. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/274 "2009-10-20T00:52:08Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Nope. If you don’t understand the difference between not having an opinion on whether Obama deserves the Nobel Prize and not having an opinion on what elucidator’s motives are, I’m afraid you are beyond any help I can give you. You miss the point. You impugn my motives, choosing _not_ to think I honestly believe what I’m saying, then attempt to place a halo on your head when others do the same to you. Why is it “childish, untrue, and uncalled for” when **elucidator** does it and perfectly fine when you do it? Apologies if I was unclear. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/275 "2009-10-20T00:57:49Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > BWAHAHAHAHA! > > You ain’t that smart, dawg. You’re pretty clever with the turn of a phrase and coughing up obscure quotes but that’s about it, and on this issue you’re about as dumb as a brick! > > And besides, his examples show condemnation across a broad spectrum of political commentators. I’m sure he could come up with thousands of examples if he wanted to spend the time, but the eight he posted were clearly sufficient to make his point and refute yours. Sure thing. You want to get to the substance ,collect opinions. What could be better proof ? But I suppose I can come up with more than 8 that say he deserved it. That would mean I won the debate. It has just become so easy. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/276 "2009-10-20T01:44:40Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > You miss the point. You impugn my motives, choosing _not_ to think I honestly believe what I’m saying, then attempt to place a halo on your head when others do the same to you. Why is it “childish, untrue, and uncalled for” when **elucidator** does it and perfectly fine when you do it? > > Apologies if I was unclear. I told you either I would shitcan all your posts or not. Sorry if I was unclear. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/277 "2009-10-20T02:00:24Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I told you either I would shitcan all your posts or not. Sorry if I was unclear. Fair enough. > [@intention](#): > > I can point you to the cartoons if you are unable to google. I assure you that a) the majority of them are not flattering, b) they are in newspapers from around the world, and c) there are lots of them. A google search of “Obama peace prize cartoon” brings up over a million hits, and even discounting it to 10% of that, it’s a lot … This has to be the dumbest fucking argument I’ve ever seen. Google “Obama Cow Hat” and you’ll kick up 715,000 hits. Assuming your 10% and you get a fair amount of really confused people. > [@](#): > > and I find only a few cartoons yet that approve of him getting the prize. I googled that and found quite a few that had nothing to do with the peace prize. Do you really think you’re being at all intelligent with this line of thought? > [@](#): > > Even the cartoon in the Guardian, a dedicatedly left-wing British paper, is **laughing at him**. Bolding mine. I’ll return to this. > [@](#): > > There’s cartoons on the subject from around the world [here](http://www.theworld.org/2009/10/09/global-cartoonists-and-obamas-peace-prize/), read’m and weep. Again, your proof is decidedly mixed and shows a mere eleven cartoons. Funny those small sample sizes. > [@](#): > > I could go on and on, but I’m tired of doing your googling for you. Probably for the best as you’re doing a shit job of it. > [@](#): > > There are lots and \*\*lots of people around the world who are laughing \*\*about and/or outraged about Obama getting the Prize. Bolding again mine. I’m going somewhere with this. > [@](#): > > Headlines in papers both in the US and outside of it overwhelmingly report a “mixed reaction”, saying some people approve and some people don’t, and (just as on this board) there is a lot of disagreement about the award. Voice of America is typical of the lot, it says _“Obama Peace Prize Award Elicits Praise, Criticism”_. I don’t see that as a good thing, even if Sarkozy thinks it is tres magnifique. I think a peace prize should unite people … but YMMV. You’re so right. People disagreeing totally invalidates the prize.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **Is the whole world laughing? No, of course not, that’s your fantasy** , I didn’t say that. Just as it is your fantasy that there is some kind of worldwide approbation for the award … but while you are congratulating yourself, **the laughter is occurring around the world** , as is the outrage. Bolding mine. If you’re smart enough, connect the fucking dots. Never mind. I’m pretty sure you’re not. You two have a shared fantasy. Guess you’re soulmates. > [@](#): > > Finally, am I the only one talking about Nobel’s will? I don’t know, nor do I care in the least. **Unlike you, I don’t form my opinion based on what “anybody else” is saying. I look at the situation and judge for myself**. [How true](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11675424&postcount=208). ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/278 "2009-10-20T03:21:43Z")
Next … ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/279 "2009-10-20T06:34:12Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Sure thing. You want to get to the substance ,collect opinions. What could be better proof ? > But I suppose I can come up with more than 8 that say he deserved it. That would mean I won the debate. It has just become so easy. **Gonzomax** , the question under discussion is not whether more people say he deserved it. It is whether, in addition to the lots and lots of people who say he deserved it, there are also lots and lots of people who say he didn’t deserve it. I say there are, **elucidator** thinks not. I said there was “widespread condemnation” of the award, which seems like a no-brainer to me, but **elucidator** disagreed. You can’t win that debate by showing that lots of people think he deserved it, we already agree on that issue. So I invite you to go wander around the web and see what people are saying in Europe and Asia and Africa and the Middle East and Central and South America. From what I found when I did that, there are lots of people around the planet who say he should not have gotten the award, including both liberals and conservatives. I’ve provided a number of quotes and citations, but to get the true feeling, you should go look yourself. Here’s some more results: The Facebook Poll, which as all internet polls depends on the readership, has it 82% saying no, he doesn’t deserve the award. As do 50% of those who voted at the Dayton News, and 55% of those who voted at the Washington Post, and 59% of those who voted at the LA Times, and 80% of those who voted at the UK Daily Mail, and 65% of those who voted at the Baltimore Sun, and 70% of those who voted at BusinessWeek, and 52% of those surveyed in San Diego, and 52% of those who voted at the NY Daily News, and 44% of those who voted at the Contra Costa Times, and 53% of those who voted at Time Magazine, and 56% of those who voted at Japan Today, and 45% of those who voted at the Washington Times, and 56% of those who voted at the Boston Herald, and 61% of those who voted at VoteGlobal, and 71% of those who voted at the Redding Record-Searchlight, where I used to work, and 55% of those who voted at the Denver Post, and 66% of those who voted at SignOnSanDiego, and 78% of those who voted at the New Statesman (UK), and 89% of those who voted at Al Jazeera, and 40% of those who voted at the Huffington Post, and 61% of those who voted at YouPolls, and 57% of those who voted at the CNN International Desk, and 73% of those who voted at IndiaToday, and 65% of those who voted at [Pollster.com](http://Pollster.com), and 64% of those who voted at La Huella Digital (Spanish), and 62% of those who voted at AftenPosten (Norway) … All of those folks said that he doesn’t deserve the Peace Prize. I left out Fox News and the Freepers, but otherwise I reported all of the online polls I found. No one site, or even a dozen sites, is conclusive, and all but one of these are online polls … but until someone shows me otherwise, I will continue to say that there is widespread opposition to the award. The results went from a low of 40% opposition at the Huffington Post to 89% at Al Jazeera. Hardly a resounding vote of confidence for Obama’s being awarded the Prize … ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/280 "2009-10-20T09:24:22Z")
As a non American, I don’t get why there should be anger or derision directed at Obama over the award. If there is any discontent whatsoever it should be directed at the committee. I also don’t beleive any comments should have been directed at Obama over the Olympics thingy, but the comments on that issue were more deserved than the Noble prize. He didn’t ask for it, didn’t lobby for it and in no way said that he wanted to receive it. Whatever has happened has no more to do with him than blaming him if for hate crimes directed at blacks because he got elected president. If you must laugh at and deride the Nobel committee - at least that would be deserved. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175.md?page=15)