It's that time of the year, fall, oh fall. The leaves change colors, the rain picks up, school has kicked into full swing (even on the west coast), and of course, a certain committee in Oslo has anounced who shall receive the worlds' most coveted "intellectual" prizes. I am, of course, referring to the Nobel prize, whose winners have been announced; congratualations to those folks whose hard work and dedication have earned them a place amongst the Nobel Laureates. A new set of winners for Physics, physiology/medicine, literature, economics, and chemistry were awarded; and today, the winner for the Nobel Politics prize was also awarded.

The Nobel Politics prize? Oh, it's supposed to be the Nobel Peace prize, and there have been a number of winners who have furthered the cause of peace: Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, Dorothy Day all come to mind. Oh, what's that? None of these people ever received that award? Well, at least such folks as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Desmond Tutu, and Martin Luther King Jr have won it, so surely these first three were exlcuded only because other worthy people won in their stead. Worthy people such as Rigoberto Menchu, Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, and our latest winner, Barack Obama. Oh, I see--it's no wonder that the Nobel Peace Prize may be mistaken for the Nobel Politics Prize.

How else could one explain that The prize has been awarded to a number of blowhards (Gore), liars (Menchu), and terrorists (Arafat)? Indeed, how else could one explain the inclusion of Obama, who has done virtually nothing to date to further peace? Indeed, Obama is the first person to be awarded this prize based not on merit or accomplishment but on potential. To quote from Egytian human rights Hisham Qasim activist on this award, "[Obama] has achieved nothing. He's stumbling. He hasn't achieved any of his promises and nothing is working. He promised to close Guantanamo and now that's not going to happen, and the Arab-Israeli conflict looks like it's going to get very nasty."

Nor is Qasim alone in his shock. Says Gideon Rachman, a foreign affairs correspondent who is an admitted fan of Obama, "While it is OK to give school children prizes for 'effort' -- my kids get them all the time -- I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard....I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama's efforts have actually brought about peace - Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka?" Indeed, even the 1983 winner of the Nobel Peace prize, Lech Walesa, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal to have said "Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast -- he hasn't had the time to do anything yet."

And that is the problem here. The Nobel Prize is not mean tot be awarded based on "potential to do something." Otherwise, there would ahve been a great deal more presidents and popes, prime ministers, and preachers to large crowds, who would be numbered amongst the winners. After all, these are the people in direct position ot influence large numbers of people with policy or prayer--in short, these are teh people who have the most potential at any given time to affect the world, and to really shake things up and bring about world peace. Few of these have: the popes, a few preachers, the occasional president or prime minister, perhaps, but not a majority of all of these people.

Perhaps this was merely the prize's awarding committee's way of saying that there is nobody in the world who really deserves this prize this year--though I could certainly think of a few such people, from Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai to Jordanian interfaith dialogue advocate Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad to Mary Ann Glendon and Archbishop Charles Chaput. In any case, if the committee only wanted to say that there were no people worthy of the prize this year, why not make like 1948 and refuse to award the prize?

Indeed, to add to the scandal, the leadership of Hamas has come out on the record in opposition ot giving Obama the prize. Far be it from me to agree with much of what Hamas has to say, but then Obama is supposedly being awarded this prize in part because of "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy," his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and for inspiring hope and creating "a new climate in international politics" (according to the the prize committee's chairman). Among other things, these "efforts t strengthen international peace" would include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Hamas is, of course, a leader of the Palestinian side of this conflict. Hamas' spokesperson in Gaza has stated that "Obama does not deserve this prize."

Yet, in spite of this, and in spite of the fact that Obama's has been one of the most polarizing presidencies in American history, the committee voted unanimously to confer the prize upon Obama. So much for a "peace" prize.