What first: award or nomination?

Wow. Our president has been given the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel committee, consisting of five Swedish citizens, must have held hands around a table and had a vision that he is going to accomplish great things.

Our president is in curious company consisting of Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and our home grown Al Gore. Their cumulative accomplishments are what can be kindly called, a mixed bag. This is the only Nobel award that is allowed to be 100 percent subjective and can award a peace prize where there is no peace (like awarding the Nobel Prize for literature whereas nothing was written).

One only needs to make speeches about peace. Using that criteria, means Joe Biden will be the 2010 Nobel winner. In fact, as is the philosophy of the most liberals, as long as your intentions are pure in whatever you are attempting to do, that in itself is worthy of an award; any success is optional. Even the subject is not important, as in making a movie that some say is less factual than anything Michael Moore has ever done.

I do not begrudge our president the $1.4 million he will receive. After all, he is from Chicago and he has the good sense to take it and run. The morning of the award, in the spirit of brotherhood, solidarity and truth, he said, "I do not deserve this award." I believe he is being sincere.

Because the nomination came two weeks after he was sworn in as president, I am still bothered by this feeling: What came first, the award or the nomination?

D.O. Lipensky

Wheaton