The Ignobel Prize                                                                                                       subscribe via RSS

Current and recent events such as the drone attack that assassinated an American al Qaida leader, the CIA/Navy SEAL mission that took out bin Laden earlier this year, Constitutionally-questionable military involvement in Libya, the continuation of Bush era War on Terror tactics and institutions, the troop surge in Afghanistan and numerous military-related presidential photo-ops are, today, in confluence with the annual bestowal of Nobel Prizes.  Two years ago the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Barack Obama based only on the peacefulness (read: anti-Bush-ness) portrayed by your Dear Leader during his presidential candidacy (the award committee's vote was held less than two weeks after Obama's inauguration).  In light of Obama's not-so-peaceful presidency and numerous broken campaign promises, should the Nobel people revoke the prize or, at least, condemn the recipient?

 originally published 10/9/09

It makes me wonder whether the votes were tabulated before or after Obama dissed the Dalai Lama in favor of preserving good lender/debtor relations with our militaristic Mao anniversary-celebrating Chi-Com benefactors. 

Was it before or after the administration's latest re-pledge that the ongoing "good war" in Afghanistan will never be abandoned and that a ramped-up troop count is, at this very moment, under consideration?

We know for sure that the voting occurred some time after that day in April when the president went to church and played with his kids and their new dog as Navy Seals were allowed to blow the heads off Somali pirates in order to rescue a captured US ship's captain.

My own list of Barack H. Obama's accomplishments thus far -- smooth oratory, beer summits and heart-tugging photo ops excluded -- contains but one item.  It was the permission he gave for military professionals to do their thing in the tricky aforementioned rescue of Maersk-Alabama Capt. Richard Phillips [add to that list the aforementioned assassinations of bin Laden and al-Awlaki -ED]. 

Such a decision by someone also known as "Commander-in-Chief" is not exactly part of the qualifications you would expect from a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Then again, there was a Nobel Prize given to Yassir Arafat who was rarely seen out of uniform.

Another thing that makes you go hmm is whether that recent trip to Copenhagen was more about being on the Scandinavian sub-continent while his Nobel Prize was being announced than about upstaging his wife's Chicago pitch to the Olympic Committee.  It could have turned out like their summer vacation in Cape Cod that coincidentally enabled the president to be on the spot as Ted Kennedy breathed his last and the memorial ceremonies for the life-long universal health care advocate unfolded.

Perhaps the skyrocketing price of gold, due in large part to the US Dollar's decline under Obama's watch, had something to do with delaying the prompt minting of his Nobel medal.  On the other hand, the cash prize is no longer worth what it used to be when Al Gore won it.

Even if Al Gore is one of your heroes, it would be a big stretch to try and turn his global warming claims and pro-environmental advocacy into a world-renowned fight for peace.  However, like Barack Obama, Gore has been an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush and can even boast of beating Bush fair and square in the popular vote in the 2000 election. 

International Bush hate/vindictiveness appears to be a big motivator for Nobel Committee members who had over 200 other candidates from which to choose.  Obviously, many of those who were snubbed in favor of Obama's world-wide recognition factor and anti-Bushness are long-time peace activists with extensive accomplishments to show for their efforts.

Of the early comments about the Nobel anomaly, South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Rep. Gresham Barrett said it best.  "I'm not sure what the international community loved best -- his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran," Barrett said. 

Other commentators have taken this ridiculous situation and made it even more ridiculous by insinuating that the Nobel Committee was eager to select Obama because he is the first African-American president.  In 1964 that same body selected the very brave and well-credentialed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Playing the race card in this case, therefore, is unproductive and misguided.

Plain and simple, Obama makes these internationals feel good for the very same reasons that he made the majority of American voters feel good.  He says what they want to hear and he makes promises that they believe he can fulfill.  But despite Obama's rhetoric, look around the world and ask yourself the question that each Nobel Peace Prize Committee member should have asked himself before casting a vote for Barack Obama:

Is the world a more peaceful place than it was on January 19, 2009? 

eddobloggo home