Posted by The Real Don Johnson on Saturday, October 10, 2009 7:44:09 AM
A young man went to the carnival one day, the "International Community" Carnival it was.
He spent hour after hour pitching quarters at the saucers in hopes of winning the grand prize, but all he managed to do was make a lot of noise and spend a lot of quarters.
Who knows why, but the proprietors of the carnival decided that his good intentions (and the quarters) were the finest and most noble thing seen in many months and years of carnival barking.
The young man went home happy, and placed the Noisy, Clattering, Quarter Toss Carnival Prize proudly (but humbly) in the most prominent place in the village, and continued on with his quest to "slow the rise of the oceans, and heal the planet".
I often enjoy reading of the accomplishments of great scientists and researchers. The recognition they get via the Nobel Prize is a good thing, because so often the accomplishments are truly worthy of praise. But the "Nobel Peace Prize"? Surly this latest folly of the Norwegian committee is completely absurd and laughable. If you remember back a few years, this is the committee that awarded the prize to Yasser Arafat. Arafat’s core defining characteristic was his absolute hatred for Jews, and his core defining accomplishments were to continue his uncle’s plans and actions to murder the Jews, all of the Jews. In case you don’t know what I am talking about, Arafat’s uncle was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and spent a considerable amount of time in Berlin during the late 30’s and early 40’s collaborating with the Nazi and planning the extermination of the Jews. Benjamin Netanyahu’s "have you no shame?" speech before the UN certainly applies to the Nobel Peace Prize committee in picking characters such as Arafat. I know I am getting dangerously close to a line I don’t want to cross, and I am in no way associating President Obama with the Nazi’s. Rather, I am trying to point out the mindset of the Nobel committee.
Looking at the committee from a different perspective, look at who they could have selected in the past, but declined to pick; President Ronald Reagan, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher or Pope John Paul II for their role in the defeat of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, and the liberation of many millions. Or, President George H.W. Bush for his liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Or President George W. Bush for his liberation of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan with the dismantling of Al-Qaida, and the establishment of the only democratically elected republic in the middle east.
One could hope that President Obama would refuse the prize on the grounds of accomplishment. The Nobel should be based on the basis of solid past tense accomplishments furthering the cause of a more peaceful world. Mr. Obama does not yet have that record. Secondly, one would hope he would refuse the prize because the prize itself is not worthy to sit on the mantle of the leader of the free world.