Time and again those of you who support the notion that President Obama deserves the Nobel Prize, state his "calming" influence and his "inspiration". But the facts do little to support that notion. Were or are the Taliban calmed? Did the Russians decide to fully enforce sanctions against an about-to-go-nuclear Iran? I wonder if the Polish and Czech Republic would agree with your "calming" description; or rather are they now feeling betrayed and vulnerable.

It should take more than fuzzy warm feelings to earn such a prize, particularly when some of President Obama's actions and deeds might result in more violence and strife.

It should smack anyone who cares about peace as an insult that President Obama now sits as an equal with the likes of Nelson Mandela, and Mother Theresa. Really, is President Obama's efforts or actions in any way comparable to these individuals?

If the Nobel Prize is going to be awarded on such ephemeral criteria, then the Nobel Committee should be prepared for the trivialization of the award. Starting with Al Gore winning (now winning twice), Jimmy Carter (who ushered in another few decades of violence in the Middle East) and United Nations and Kofi Anin winning (in the same year that massive scandals were uncovered), it would seem that the Nobel Committee has lost any claim to be a serious contemplative body.

This is really just an extension to a dispute I had with another argument: If I accept your description that the Nobel Peace Prize is an international award for "efforts" to bring about peace, then what demonstrable effect has any of President Obama efforts to bring about peace had in the world?

If the sum of his efforts is to inspire "large groups of people to dedicate their continued efforts to peace" then where are these "large groups people"? Does it matter which people are dedicating themselves? Because if the issue is whether or not President Obama's efforts has renewed, or inspired a dedication to peace, (putting aside the criteria of "large groups") then I think we can agree that getting large groups of Americans and/or Europeans to dedicate themselves to peace is not particularly meritorious for two reasons.

The first is that the efforts, and dedication of these groups have little to do with President Obam. Peace groups in America and Europe have been around for decades (actually President Obama has a negative effect on these groups because they are more galvanized when they feel the government is opposed to their efforts), and will be active long after President Obama.

The second reason is that these individuals, no matter how dedicated, have little impact on world peace. Peace efforts need to be pinpointed and perhaps even begun in those areas that are in conflict or turmoil. Americans holding rallies and singing Kumbaya does little for say...the plight of women in Afghanistan.

So it would seem the "large groups of people" would need to be either newly inspired or previously disposed peace groups resurging in areas that are conflict-ridden. Without expecting President Obama's efforts to be fully realized, there should be some way of judging the effect of his efforts thus far (and again putting aside the issue of whether it is measured from the date of his nomination or the date of the award).

So taking a gander at the international scene it should be possible to see some movement away from violence and towards peace. There should be at least some groups speaking loud and large in the most conflict-ridden regions of the world.

Isn't the opposite true? Genocide continues unabatted in several regions. Taliban violence has erupted in Afghanistan. Voilence is now erupting in Pakistan, and perhaps most sadly the President of the United State--the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize--sat quietly for days as the Iranian government squelched any dissent from protesting Iranian citizens over what most of the international community agrees was a corrupt election. In the one moment that could have led some credence to the awarding of the prize to President Obama; he failed.

This is not a man who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. That doesn't mean he is a terrible president, or a bad human being (most of us don't win a Nobel Peace Prize). But the prize is supposed to be reserved for extraordinary efforts, and/or accomplishments. This president has demonstrated neither.

And your evidence for this rather lofty claim is what exactly? How are these inspired people demonstrating that they are more oriented toward peace than a year ago? It would be nice for someone to offer at least one, and maybe only one, demonstrable difference in world peace since President Obama was elected.

So, for example, have the Taliban been so inspired by the election that they are at least thinking about toning down their violence? Have the Iranians been inspired to hold something like a fair election? How is Darfur these days...has there been an inspirational movement there?

Having a warm fuzzy feeling because someone has been elected president, shouldn't be the standard-bearer of what constitutes the bringing about of peace, or even constitute the "effort" of bringing about peace.