There have been many worthy recipients in the past, such as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and Albert Schweitzer, but recent recipients such as Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are laughable, and an obvious jab at American capitalism.
On the other hand, we have the obvious oversight of Ronald Reagan, who liberated hundreds of millions of people in his "tear down this wall" campaign, ending the Cold War and defeating the 'Evil Empire' [without firing a single shot, I might add]; the oversight of George W. Bush, who liberated millions of Muslims from tyranny and torture in Iraq; and the oversight of Mahatma Gandhi, the strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century; or Pope John Paul II, know to millions as the Pilgrim Pope, to name of few.
And, so it goes ...... PajamasMedia writes a witty report:
Obama Wins Yasser Arafat ‘Peace’ Prize: World Amazed
The appropriate response is a compound of contempt and irritation.
by Roger Kimball, October 9, 2009
So Barack Obama just picked up the imprimatur and nihil obstat from Oslo’s Nobel Prize Committee for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.”
Yes, that’s right, this year’s Nobel “Peace” Prize goes to Barack Obama. What’s the appropriate response: incredulity? Nah: the Nobel Peace Prize is a thoroughly discredited politically-correct coefficient of liberal transnational socialism. Barack Obama was tailor-made for this dubious honor, just as Yasser Arafat was. No, the appropriate response should be a compound of contempt and irritation, contempt for the bloviating Norwegians who once again have distinguished themselves by their sanctimonious fatuousness (”Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future . . . .”), irritation at the fact that this pseudo distinction will, in the eyes of the credulous, tend to legitimate the actions of the most anti-American and incompetent President in history.
The Times (no, not The New York Times, which is purring with pleasure at the news, but the London Times) is correct:
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
Bottom line: this action is less the awarding of a prize than a kick in the teeth aimed at traditional American power and prestige.
As usual, Andy McCarthy cuts to the chase:
I’m not all for Americans winning international prizes, especially the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I’m vigorously against it. The transnational progressives who pass out these accolades believe America is the problem in the world, the main threat to peace, the impediment to “progress,” etc. The award is a symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America’s interests in the world.
Exactly. If you are pro-American, you must be anti-the Nobel Peace. I am pro-American, ergo, etc. And Andy is to be commended, too, for his suggestion that we rebaptize this discreditable faux-honor with a more suitable name:
After a number of years, the NFL renamed its Super Bowl trophy after its most fitting recipient — it’s now called the Vince Lombardi Trophy. I’d like to see the Nobel Foundation follow suit. If today’s headlines said, “Barack Obama Wins Yasser Arafat Prize,” that would be perfect.
[UPDATE: a friend reminds me that this year's Nobel Peace Laureate, B. Obama, has just refused to meet last year's Nobel Peace Laureate, the Dalai Lama: what do you make of that?]