You people need to wake up before its to late.
I mean that WITH ALL MY HEART.............

Pithy and right on target, Mary. As usual.

And what have we influenced to allow you to say that?

Re: Although many right-wing Americans are outraged, they might take some comfort that the international standing and influence of the US has probably not been this high since President Kennedy.
I wonder what the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza, Iran and so on would make of the international standing and influence of the US???????????????????????

Not only the Vatican but the US Bishops are out of step with Jimmy (bg)!
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), issued the following statement, congratulating President Barack Obama on being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize:
“In the name of the Catholic Bishops of the United States, I would like to offer congratulations to President Barack Obama on his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. As he has graciously said, much of the work of realizing a more peaceful and just world for all persons and nations remains to be done; but the prize was given because as President of the United States he has already changed the international conversation.

“In our own country, the remarkable and historic achievement of his election has changed the relationships between men and women of all races. The rich diversity of United States society is now more surely anchored in a national unity that is better able to foster the peace we all are challenged to pursue. Our prayer is that almighty God will bless the President and his family.”

(my italics)
Although President Obama was nominated shortly after taking office, the Nobel Committee Members deliberated on the matter until just before the announcement selection process.
According to Nobel's will the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person
"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" source
The Nobel Committee has often awarded the prize as an encouragement to future work rather than as a reward for past achievement - something Cardinal George seem to understand. The danger of such encouragement is the huge burden of possibly unrealistic expectations it can create.
Although many right-wing Americans are outraged, they might take some comfort that the international standing and influence of the US has probably not been this high since President Kennedy.

Can someone who reads Italian and has access to the original statement help us out?

As reported, the corresponding Italian is: "l’attribuzione del Nobel per la pace al Presidente Obama è salutata con apprezzamento in Vaticano alla luce dell’impegno dimostrato dal Presidente per la promozione della pace nel campo internazionale, e in particolare anche recentemente in favore del disarmo nucleare."
As such, the Italian corresponding to "greeted with appreciation" is "salutata con apprezzamento". Among countless possible translations, another translation might be "warmly welcomed" or the obvious "saluted (or hailed) with appreciation". Coincidentally or not, one of the many definitions for "congratulate" is "to salute". And indeed, one meaning of "salute" is "to praise".
In addition to "appreciation", other translations of "apprezzamento" include, without limitation, "esteem", "recognition", "notice" and "admiration".
Speaking of "praise", the word "praise" can also mean "to commend" which can mean "to present, mention, or praise as worthy of confidence or notice, kindness, etc." Indeed, the fact that a statement is made by the Vatican press director might be indicative of something "presented or mentioned as worthy of notice, kindness, etc." -- thus fulfilling yet another definition of "praise".
In addition, Wikipedia reports, "In its common usage, praise is the act of making positive statements about a person, object or idea, either in public or privately." Thus, the ZENIT statement that "The Vatican has praised the surprise win" would be said to mean that "The Vatican made a positive statement about the surprise win." Indeed, I suspect many people would view the Vatican press director's words, e.g. "greeted with appreciation", "commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace [and] nuclear disarmament", "hoped", "this very important recognition will further encourage that commitment... fundamental for the future of humanity", as positive statements about the win, and thus "praise" in the Wikipedia "common usage" sense.
Wikipedia goes on to say, "Praise is typically, but not exclusively, earned relative to achievement and accomplishment." The Church teaches that "Praise... lauds God for his own sake and gives him glory, quite beyond what he does, but simply because HE IS." In regard to the commitment and actions of men, the pope has said many times that he "praises" commitment and efforts toward peace even when it apparently remains an unachieved objective. Likewise, per the presented OED definition, congratulation need not always be "earned relative to achievement and accomplishment" but rather a "happy event" or "occasion considered fortunate" (by someone) is sufficient grounds. Nonetheless, if the Nobel committee reported acts by Obama warranted the prize, or as the Vatican press director reported, "the awarding... is greeted with appreciation... in light of the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena", I have no conflict with that and congratulation just as I have no conflict with "rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances". Or, perhaps one might say, "congratulate always, in all circumstances". Congratulate... from com- "together" + gratulari "give thanks, show joy".
So, congratulations!
And bone jour to brian!

Talk about picking bones. Did the vatican congratulat Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize or did they not?
YES or NO?????????????????????????????????
Did the bishops congratulat Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize or did they not?
YES or NO???????????????????????????????????????
US Bishops Congratulate Obama. http://www.zenit.org/article-27162?l=english
The simple truth, Yes or no.

Pachyderminator,
Your semantic criticisms are somewhat off.

Your interpretation of anything I write is always your own.
he did state a direct falsehood that he could have recognized as such (assuming he has basic literacy skills)

Perhaps he did according to your interpretation of his words, but that doesn't mean his statement is false according to his or others' interpretation of his words, or according to the truth. "Basic literary skills" grant that different people may have different interpretations. "Basic literary skills" do not recognize dictionaries as authorities.
Suffice to say that "deserve" does not mean... It means something more like "have a just claim to because of qualities or actions".

Suffice it to say that "deserve" means whatever anyone means it to mean. In the sense of having a "just" claim to the prize, again, I ask you the question: By what rules are "we" to go by in deciding who is or isn't deserving of the Nobel Prize if not the Nobel Prize rules? Do you fancy your personal opinion supreme over the Nobel committee's? That might work for the Pachyderminator prize but the Nobel rules say that the Nobel prize is awarded according to the personal opinions of the Nobel committee.
"Congratulate", according to the OED, 1989 edition, means: "To address (a person) with expressions of joy or satisfaction on an occasion considered fortunate; ‘to compliment upon any happy event’ (J.); to felicitate." The statement cannot have done this, because it never addressed Obama at all.

That's your strawman. The statement said, "The Vatican press office was quick to release a note of congratulation". It did not name Obama as the person congratulated or name the Vatican as the congratulator or identify the "note". By the OED definition, a note of congratulation merely has to contain an expression of joy or satisfaction on an occasion considered fortunate. (A person) is not required to be explicity addressed by name. Indeed, in the instance of the Vatican press statement, if it did not name Obama as the congratulated, then (a person) congratulated might be Obama or the person to whom the press statement is addressed: i.e. the reader, or at least those who share in the joy. Likewise, the OED definition does not restrict to whom the occasion is "considered fortunate". That could be anyone. It needn't be anyone at all in the Vatican. And if it did not name the Vatican as the congratulator, then perhaps the writer of the note is the congratulator or the relayer of congratulation from the Nobel committee or whoever.
The translation you provided plainly says that the awarding was "greeted with appreciation in the Vatican". Who is to say that "greeted with appreciation" is not an expression of joy? Will you resort to the OED to define "appreciation" and "joy" for us? Who is to say that the awarding (or the date October 9, 2009 or whatever the occasion) was not "an occasion considered fortunate"? St. Paul said to rejoice always and to give thanks in all circumstances. Would it be wrong for the Vatican to express joy on the occasion of the awarding? Even when there are shadows, there is light.
How is praising the "win" different from praising the decision?

Is that like asking how the end is different from the means?
If the Vatican statement had used the words "approval", "approbation", or something like that instead of "appreciation", that would have been praise.

My dictionary says "praise" can mean "to express approval or admiration of", and it says that to "admire" can mean "to regard with wonder or surprise". Thus, if the win was regarded with wonder or surprise, it was praised.
this is a fine distinction, which depends on assuming that a corresponding word is used in the Italian.

Charity does not depend on the word used in Italian, or on the OED or any dictionary, and it is with charity that I read the statement by the press office, whether it's written in English, Italian or in the variant language of the writer. After all, what of your premise which said, "assuming that this translation is complete and accurate"? How complete can it be without charity? How complete is "appreciation" if it's not filled with wonder and surprise, and praise?
The section dealing with nuclear disarmament, beginning with the words "and in particular", constitutes the majority of the statement

"Nuclear disarmament" constituted two words in a tucked and trailing position. Add the filler "in particular also recently in favor of" and you have nine words in a tucked and trailing position. Preceding it were 18 words: "in light of the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena". Your nine words are an "in particular also" to that. Preceding those 18 and your nine words (plus the word "and") were yet another 18 words: "The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Obama is greeted with appreciation in the Vatican". Nuclear disarmament is not the majority of the statement, except perhaps in your personal opinion.
It went on to say, "It's hoped that this very important recognition will further encourage that commitment, which is difficult but fundamental for the future of humanity, so that the desired results will be obtained." Perhaps you think "this very important recognition" refers to the Vatican's tucked mention of nuclear disarmament and not to the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Obama which apparently occasioned the Vatican's words. Perhaps you think "that commitment" to be encouraged refers to nuclear disarmament and not to "the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena" of which nuclear disarmament was only "also" mentioned as "recently". Or perhaps you think "that commitment" to be encouraged refers mostly to nuclear disarmament despite the fact that the mention of nuclear disarmament was in particular only brief and "also" and "recently". Personal opinion comes in many flavors.
It's supposed, theoretically, to be a substantial honor and privilege that is based on merit, though that identity may indeed be fading.

The Nobel rules expressly say it's supposed to be based on the opinions of three to five Norwegians as to the nominee who, in the majority opinion of the committee, did "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." That might well suggest that in the view of those three to five people, it's supposed to be "a substantial honor and privilege based on merit" as decided by a tiny group of opinionated people. But who says I'm supposed to imagine it to be more than that? Isn't it sufficiently puffed up as it is?

Some RSM (right stream media) say that this is Europe praising Obama for his attempts to make the US a 2nd rate country. I think it is just the opposite. Let's agree on this, the United States is the one nation that every other nation is affected by, and every nation knows it! They also know that bloodless revolutions happen in the US every 4 to 8 years and these revolutions affect them, and they have not one vote. When, in the middle of a campaign, Barack Obama went to Europe to give a speech in Germany, Europeans understood that this guy realizes that when the US sneezes, the rest of the world gets a cold. Europeans like the fact that he listens to them whether he abides by their wishes or not. In their eyes he has changed the climate just by his less myopic world view. They see this world view as essential for world peace. In essence we are not only important in Europe's eyes, we are essential! They like Obama because he perceives their value as well. But don't take my word for it. Ask a European.

This just in: OBAMA WINS HEISMAN TROPHY!

Terry,
Your semantic criticisms are somewhat off. My only concession is this: the writer of the story may not have deliberately lied. Journalists are often lacking in the clarity of thought that makes deliberate lies possible. Nevertheless, he did state a direct falsehood that he could have recognized as such (assuming he has basic literacy skills) if he had looked carefully at the material he was writing about.
As for the definition of "deserve", I originally started a long exegesis of the dictionary definiton, but then realized it would violate Rule 3 (which I may be doing anyway) and be out of proportion to the significance of the point in the discussion. Suffice to say that "deserve" does not mean "be awarded by the lawful authority" (in this case the Nobel Prize committee). It means something more like "have a just claim to because of qualities or actions". It is perfectly possible for the lawful authority to award something to someone who does not have this just claim, and that's what happened here.
"Congratulate", according to the OED, 1989 edition, means: "To address (a person) with expressions of joy or satisfaction on an occasion considered fortunate; ‘to compliment upon any happy event’ (J.); to felicitate." The statement cannot have done this, because it never addressed Obama at all. The other sense you give, merely expressing pleasure on a happy occasion, is obsolete, and does not have a person as its object. Therefore it is not the sense meant, and the statement in the Zenit story remains false.
The article did not say they "approved" the decision nor did it even say they "praised" the decision but only that they "praised" the "win".
How is praising the "win" different from praising the decision? If the Vatican statement had used the words "approval", "approbation", or something like that instead of "appreciation", that would have been praise. But "appreciation" is less clearly laudatory. However, this is a fine distinction, which depends on assuming that a corresponding word is used in the Italian. Can someone who reads Italian and has access to the original statement help us out?
The section dealing with nuclear disarmament, beginning with the words "and in particular", constitutes the majority of the statement. Its position at the end does not indicate that it is "tucked and trailing", but rather that it is emphasized.
even games of chance, effortless games and rigged contests can all have prizes. So too, anything that is desired can be considered a "prize", even if it only happens by "chance" or by grace of God, with no "game" or "contest" otherwise involved at all. And then, of course, there's also the booby prize.
Perhaps, but the Nobel Prize isn't really supposed to be any of those things. It's supposed, theoretically, to be a substantial honor and privilege that is based on merit, though that identity may indeed be fading.

Dear Bill. I am sorry if I have hurt you in any way. That was not my intention, please forgive me.

"Go do your own research."
Doesn't it sound like he's demanding that I do *his* research?

Pachyderminator,
Assuming that this translation is complete and accurate, we can say the following... the Zenit story's statement that the Vatican said Obama "deserved" the award is a flat-out lie, because the statement does not say that at all.
Did you mean "a lie" as defined by CCC#2482? "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."
And if by "deserve" you meant "to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation", what rules are "we" to go by in deciding who is or isn't deserving of the Nobel Prize if not the Nobel Prize rules? By those rules, "the decision is final and without appeal." By the Nobel rules, which put the decision of who's deserving in the opinion of the Nobel committee, Obama "deserved" it. Likewise, if the rules were that the winner be decided by a dice throw or spitting contest, then that's how the winner "deserved" it. The rules said the winner is decided by the Nobel committee, and so it was and so he "deserved" it.
It is not strictly true, as the linked Zenit news story said, that the Vatican "congratulated" Obama on the award.
Strictly speaking, to "congratulate" can mean "to express pleasure on a happy occasion" or "to express vicarious pleasure to (a person) on the occasion of success or good fortune", such as when someone wins the lottery. Do you make more out of it than that?
It is not strictly true that they "praised" the decision, "appreciates" being a vaguer word than "approves".
The article did not say they "approved" the decision nor did it even say they "praised" the decision but only that they "praised" the "win". And considering that the word "praise" is related to the word for "prize", as in Nobel Prize, and to the word "appraise", and that to "praise" the win can mean "to express admiration of" the win as in "to regard [the win] with wonder or surprise", it very well could be that they "praised" the win. So too I might praise the win, the Vatican press release and your comments.
The most prominent element in the statement was its advocation of nuclear disarmament.
That could be how you read that translation, or someone could read it that "also recently in favor of nuclear disarmament" was not the "most prominent" element because its position is neither most prominent nor prominent but tucked and trailing, and likewise, because the words say "in particular also" rather than "but most particularly".
the expectation is that a "prize" is given to someone who has actually accomplished something, generally something difficult
SDG quoted such remark as someone's "wry" note. Perhaps awry, since even games of chance, effortless games and rigged contests can all have prizes. So too, anything that is desired can be considered a "prize", even if it only happens by "chance" or by grace of God, with no "game" or "contest" otherwise involved at all. And then, of course, there's also the booby prize.

I follow only bishops who love and speak the truth. How can a bishop of the Holy Roman Catholic Church if he were in the truth even think that Obama should have got this NPP.
WHERE IS THE TRUTH IN IT?

Evidence, please............ Go do your own research.
What say you then Bill, Do you agree with the bishops.

I'm confused. If you're a Roman Catholic, brian, wouldn't these be your bishops, too? Or are you some new kind of bishop-less Roman Catholic?
And let's not bicker and argue over who loves the Church more. It's obvious to any unprejudiced observer that I love the Church more than both of you put together, with one hand tied behind my back.
Nyah. So there.

"Our Lady did say those words..."
Evidence, please.
"...who loves the Church more than you..."
Have you been gifted with the ability to read souls for long?

Bill I did not take Jesus' name in vain. Our Lady did say thoes words and I am a Roman Catholic who loves the Church more than you, otherwise you would feel as hurt as I do at the ass licking of the so-called bishops who would sell Jesus down the road for a pinch of snuff and a bacon roll. When will you have the guts to stand up for Jesus in truth. Did you ever hear the saying,,,,,,,,,,zeal for my fathers house???????????????????
Why don't you ask your bishop what it means.

Brian, thank you for dropping by to take the Lord's Name in vain, attribute heresy to our Lady, and spew your hate.

I said it some time ago and i will say it again just as our lady said. Rome will lose the faith, if is hasn't already?????????????????????????

US Bishops Congratulate Obama. http://www.zenit.org/article-27162?l=english
I must be on a different planet. Jesus I am sorry for your Church if this is the sort of scum you have to put up with. Bishops who support abortion.

For what it's worth, here's the English translation of the Vatican press office statement, obtained from the National Catholic Reporter website:
"The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Obama is greeted with appreciation in the Vatican, in light of the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena, and in particular also recently in favor of nuclear disarmament. It's hoped that this very important recognition will further encourage that commitment, which is difficult but fundamental for the future of humanity, so that the desired results will be obtained."
Assuming that this translation is complete and accurate, we can say the following: 1: The most prominent element in the statement was its advocation of nuclear disarmament. 2: It is not strictly true, as the linked Zenit news story said, that the Vatican "congratulated" Obama on the award. 3: It is not strictly true that they "praised" the decision, "appreciates" being a vaguer word than "approves". 4: Most importantly, the Zenit story's statement that the Vatican said Obama "deserved" the award is a flat-out lie, because the statement does not say that at all.
However, it remains true that the Vatican press office reacted to the award by releasing a statement which contains unalloyed praise for Obama and at least implied approbation for the Nobel committee's decision. I think they're trying too hard to be conciliatory in the wrong way-unless of course there are lunatics at the Vatican press office who actually believe Obama deserved the award.
Remember what C.S. Lewis said: "That journalists can be saved is a doctrine, if not contrary to, at least certainly above, reason!"

I think a commenter on the Catholic Answers forum said it best:
"See, this is the real reason Chicago did not get the 2016 Olympics - the IOC did not want to witness the spectacle of handing out Gold medals before the races had been run."

It seems the Vatican is very pleased. http://www.zenit.org/article-27125?l=english/
Maybe the vatican could give him a Peace Prize for his pro-abortion views and for funding the killing of millions of its sheep. The Vatican should hang its head in shame at this statment.

Two quotes for reflection:

For the very reason that they led my people astray, saying, "Peace!" when there was no peace, and that, as one built a wall, they would cover it with whitewash,
say then to the whitewashers: I will bring down a flooding rain; hailstones shall fall, and a stormwind shall break out.
And when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked: Where is the whitewash you spread on?

and

They would repair, as though it were nought, the injury to my people: "Peace, peace!" they say, though there is no peace.
They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD.

I hereby nominate jean for the next Nobel Peace Prize.
(just remember me, jean, when you come into all that cash)

I like to talk. I'll talk to anybody. I'll be very careful not to offend any sensibilities. Can I have one too?

My apologies for the lack of charity in my comments, above. I strongly disagree with the awarding of the Prize to Obama, but I have to better learn how to state my criticisms of the actions without sounding as if I am judging or actually judging the actors.
The Chicken

"It actually wasn't very funny, so I can't blame the audience too much. Still, it's clear they were aware that making fun of Obama is some kind of social transgression, and they weren't comfortable being a part of it. Nervous chuckles, only."
I agree. I think SNL wasn't too comfortable either. Fred Armisen usually at least tries to sound like Obama. This time he just used his normal voice. I don't think his heart was in it.

For eight years the Lefts woke up each morning and thought, "I can't believe the American president is so stupid." Now I find myself waking up each morning thinking,"I can't believe the Lefts are so stupid."

LOL

"Whether they've helped or hindered, as the pope said, "History is truly guided by the almighty hand of God!" Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances. God bless."

That reminds me, a U.N. plane crashed today in Haiti killing all eleven people aboard.

Next up: Obama will get the Cy Young award for [bouncing] the first pitch at the all-star game. :-P

In the words of Bishop Hollis, "With millions of others, I have been thrilled by Barack Obama's victory and I thank God for it. For me, it represents a rare moment of hope and optimism which shows American democracy at its best and it is of seismic significance and potential for the whole global community." The Nobel committee echoed similar sentiments, saying "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." If that's true, how wonderful! Years ago, Pope John Paul II had echoed similar dreams of a time when "the progressive rise of new democracies has given back hope to entire peoples, inspired confidence in more fruitful international dialogue and made possible a long-awaited era of peace." Benedict XVI also spoke of that "moment when the widespread hope for peace induced many people to dream of a different world, where relations between peoples would develop, safe from the nightmare of war, and where the 'globalization' process would unfold under the banner of a peaceful encounter of peoples and cultures in the context of a common international law inspired by respect for the needs of truth, justice and solidarity." Apparently, the Nobel committee believes Obama brought that moment fresh again and wanted to use the Nobel name to help propel the moment forward. Whether they've helped or hindered, as the pope said, "History is truly guided by the almighty hand of God!" Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances. God bless.

The only international help prior to his presidency was a couple of AIDS campaigns in Africa as a senator. Odd how his real accomplishments are ignored.

"I have to hand it to SNL for at least trying to poke fun at Obama and the left. Sounded like maybe only a handful or two in the audience found it funny though."
It actually wasn't very funny, so I can't blame the audience too much. Still, it's clear they were aware that making fun of Obama is some kind of social transgression, and they weren't comfortable being a part of it. Nervous chuckles, only.

It gets more absurd:
http://www.lifenews.com/int1345.html

This is unreal. Jack Chick more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Obama is. At least he opposes abortion!

In related news, the baseball writers have named a New Jersey little leaguer American League Rookie of the Year for 2009, because of his potential.

Some choice comments from Dreher's combox:
"Another puzzling aspect of this is that he isn't even 'not George Bush'. He failed in his cynical promise to close Gitmo. He is keeping extraordinary rendition. He escalated the war with unmanned drone attacks. The list of Bush policies that he criticized but kept is long."

"The same generation that gives children trophies for trying. Not achieving, but 'good trying!'"

"It's not Obama's fault, of course. But this sounds like something Karl Rove would dream up. A laughably undeserved award that just makes him look like an empty suit."

I have to hand it to SNL for at least trying to poke fun at Obama and the left. Sounded like maybe only a handful or two in the audience found it funny though.
My take is that all the rancor about being upset with the war in Iraq and foreign policy and Bush was mostly just cover to gain power and attack traditional values. It worked. Hopefully not for long, but what damage will be inflicted in the meantime? It's probably one of his few "accomplishments".

"Cheapen its brand" is the word for it. This is the final proof that receiving the Nobel Prize has entirely lost its punch. What a sad comedown for the institution founded by the man who invented dynamite.

Thanks for grounding me back in reality as to what the Nobel Prize means. About as much as Halle Berry's Oscar.

Liberal, pro-Obama criticism of the award at HuffPo and Salon.

I have been so angry, today, that it has taken most of my self-control not to slip into scatological utterances. Let me put this into even plainer perspective than SDG - the nomination, according to the Rules (you know those things) was to be for significant accomplishments BEFORE the nomination, not after. The stupid committee can't even follow their own rules. The prize was never meant to be able to be used to "encourage" someone. By that logic, every promising young actor should win an Academy Award based on the really good movies he/she is likely to make in the future, just to "encourage" them.
Oh, and this was the committee (if not the men) who waited until after Gandhi was dead to decide that they should have really realized his contributions a few years earlier. The best they could do was leave the Prize unawarded the year he was killed.
I think there is good cause to declare this an act of interference in domestic politics by the Nobel Committee (one has to wonder if they didn't realize this). It will certainly polarize Congress and make it less/more likely that Obama will get his way (on either the premise that he's so important and right - he won that Prize, you know, or he's such a poseur that he should be put in his place).
I have been reading some of the nerd blogs and even they, usually Libertarians that many of them are, are up in arms.
Personally, I think one of a few things has happened:
1) the real committee has been kidnapped and replaced by replicants,
2) there really is some hidden, nameless, faceless, cabal that is calling the shots in world politics (time to adjust my tin foil hat) and they wanted this,
3) they changed the calendar last night without telling me and this is really April 1,
4) the impact on the moon released a strange form of radiation that had made men from certain countries to act looney,
5) it doesn't take much to impress a Nobel Committee,
6) I am dreaming,
7) I missed the end of the world - you guys have all been raptured and we are in the end times.
In any case, that stupid committee has just legitimized Obama's pro-abortion stance to most of the world by this award. Yeah, real peace, there. Should I say, this is more of a Piece Prize than a Peace Prize, with reference to those infants crying from the womb.
Disgusting.
I apologize, ahead of time, for my rant. It is hard to tell if this is just anger or not.
The Chicken

Why? From the official press release (my italics).
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.""
I think that he got the prize as a hope and encouragement for what he might do internationally - not for his internal policies within the US (which understandably exercises his detractors within the US). My italics indicate my assessment of his initial international impact: a feeling that America had grown up enough to elect a black man as President, and with his rhetoric, a feeling that US foreign policy has changed for the better. Some international reactions BBC
For comparison and contrast, a list of all Laureates

He won't decline the award, his ego is way too large for that.

If Obama has any sense, he'll decline to accept the prize; if he has any sand, he'll suggest to the Nobel Committee an appropriate place for them to house their prize. My guess is that Obama's response, like Carter's, will be that of Kevin Bacon in "Animal House": "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

I was reading Michelle Malkin's blog and this comment wins hands down:
>On October 9th, 2009 at 9:13 am, Regulus said:
>This award is notable as another symptom of the decline of the Western elitists: a plaintive, wishing-makes-it-so
>statement of desperation in the face of a world going to Hell.
>
>I started treating the peace prize about as seriously as the Oscars when Yasser Arafat got one.
>2002: Jimmy Carter gets the “We Hate George Bush!” award.
>2007: Algore gets the “No, Seriously, We Really, Really Hate George Bush!” Award.
>2009: Hope-a-Dope gets the, “Did We Mention that We Really, Really, Really Hate George Bush?” Award.
>At least they’re consistent…