The Norwegians are evidently smarting from alleged snubs by President Obama during his visit to pick up his Nobel. And it is rather stunning the President couldn’t find time to lunch with their king. But I have a suggestion for the Norwegians: Spare yourselves the embarrassment and get rid of the Peace Prize altogether. It has outworn its usefulness – if it ever had any.
Okay, I admit I have no standing in requesting this. At least Lionel Chetwynd and I were members of the Academy when we called last week for that organization to rescind Al Gore’s (actually his producer’s) Oscar for “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Nevertheless, the Norwegians would actually be doing themselves a favor by dropping the Peace Prize, which has become a moral absurdity since their committee gave it to Yasser Arafat some years ago. (Why not Manson when he’s still alive? Okay, Arafat killed more people when he nailed those Israeli athletes in Munich.). Very peaceful, wouldn’t you say?
Medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. are much better bets. For one thing, the recipients are largely unknown to the public and therefore bound to be much less controversial. And the literature committee of late has done a good job of choosing unknown prize winners as well. It’s probably advisable to keep it that way.
But the Peace Prize? Fuhgedabouddit! (Yes, I chose the Mafia locution deliberately. It seems to fit.)
This is the inevitable result of Barack Obama’s pathetically awful Harvard University education. The highly destructive affirmative action programs have been in place for over 40 years. They have lowered the quality of instruction for both minorities—and members of the larger white community. Obama simply does not have much of an education. He is not even close to being ready to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. We must learn to treat all Ivy League liberal arts graduates as idiots until proven otherwise. Obama is simply an intellectually shallow and poorly read man who has surrounded himself with other similarly ill educated individuals.
Hey, mind your manners. Your host is an Ivy League liberal arts graduate. (Okay, I take your point.)
David Thomson is right. I graduated in 1965 from a third rate inner city state university, and I am continuously amazed at how much better educated I am than most recent graduates of prestigious schools. My father, with a tenth grade education, was well read and better educated. Harry Truman, a self-educated man, was better read and more intelligent. We may be spending more on education, but the results are discouraging.
“Your host is an Ivy League liberal arts graduate.”
It also took you years to undo the damage. You were a pro-Castro whack job when you graduated. Somebody obviously failed you during your formative years at Dartmouth. And you attended this university before the affirmative action stuff really kicked in! There are two major reasons why the Ivy Leagues are in trouble:
1.) Wealthy and power academic institutions must constantly ask whether their own professors really possess the best arguments—or are merely able to threaten the careers of those opposing them. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.’s scandalously awful writings on the New Deal era are a quintessential example of this phenomenon. The corrupt academic historians have even victimized one of Pajama Media’s regular contributors. What do you think happened to Clayton Cramer? Why isn’t he a tenured professor teaching at an Ivy League school? The same might also be said of Victor David Hanson.
2.) Ivy league schools regularly teach their students to squeeze the truth, bend it, and do all sorts of other nasty things to facts and evidence. They bury what they really want to say in the third chapter, the twentieth paragraph, and the tenth sentence. Remember Bill Clinton? He blatantly told the American people that he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Later he explained that oral sex wasn’t real sex!
Obama is not well educated and lacks the ability to think and follow a logical argument. Schlesinger has done enormous damage to this country with shabby historical writings—which are easily shown to be of poor quality. How many citizens believe the insane myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt saved American capitalism? Harvard has got to pay a price for its well-established moral and intellectual corruption. There are a number of bright people who graduated from Harvard and the other Ivy League institutions. Sadly, the good must suffer along with the bad. They must be treated like idiots until proven otherwise
It’s always good to recall William F. Buckley’s comment: “I would rather be governed by the first 1,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard.” I think we can add the faculties of Yale, Columbia and Princeton — for starters.
Alfred Nobel start his prize, motivated by the guilt which he had from making such a terrible weapon like dynamite.
Perhaps the Peace Prize good be renamed the Guilt Prize. BHO was certainly in his element, spreading the guilt and hope to all of those elite white Norgegians.
Perhaps it could also be named the Human Rights Achievement award, as that phrase was spread thickly. For example, ‘maintaining the rights of the Chrysler investors over the union employees when than company collapsed.’ The Irony Award? The Hypocracy Award? The Great Con award?
Mr. Simon: i agree with you that Norwegian should stop giving the peace prize.. after all why give to a murderer like Arafat, and discriminate agains the Israeli hitler and buther of Lebanon who murdered thousands of Lebonanese people in the 1980′s. If you like to know who that murderer is that would be Ariel Sharon. let’s give the peace prize to all murderers and just one.
Old Joe Kennedy bought a Pulitzer for Jack’s book that was written by Ted Sorenson…I think most people know these “prizes” can be purchased. If not with money, then through influence.
If the Norwegians refuse to take Simon’s suggestion and abolish the peace prize altogether, they should — at the very least — call it what it really is these days: The “I’m not George W. Bush” award.
“It’s always good to recall William F. Buckley’s comment: “I would rather be governed by the first 1,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard.” I think we can add the faculties of Yale, Columbia and Princeton — for starters.”
William F. Buckley was probably dead serious! I don’t think he was indulging in hyperbole. The affirmative action policies of the mid to late 1960s only made a bad situation a hell of a lot worse. Left-wing Ivy leagues professors have long taken it for granted that they can avoid the hard questions. After all, a consensus already exists among the so-called elite academics. Al Gore, Jr. is simply adhering to a well-established Ivy League tradition.
The peace prize was a sop that the Swedes threw to Norway while keeping the serious awards in Stockholm. The Swedes love to poke fun at their western neighbors and Obama has provided good source material.
#8, Wow, Amazing!
My gripe with “Israeli hitlers” is that they can never be trusted to do a good job. They missed one in Lebanon, in 1980, and now he is here. And they call themselves professionals? I tell you man, those Israeli’s.
Unless peace is ever going to mean real peace again, the Nobel Peace prize is useless.
Abolishing the Nobel Peace Prize is a profoundly absurd suggestion – and reasonable observers are not surprised to find such unreasonable thinking showcased at PJM.
Certainly one might disagree with a particular decision of the committee, in honoring a specific individual one dislikes or thinks unworthy – but the prize itself continues to serve the worthy purpose of bringing attention to the cause of peace, and to those who make efforts to reduce the impact of war on humanity.
This is just a continuation of the sour grapes evident in the initial reaction to Obama’s prize. It shows the shallow thinking and reactionary zeal of the right is still functioning at the usual level.
Calling for the abolition of the peace prize is a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the very real accomplishments and ambitions that Obama embodies and promotes.
The only real argument advanced here for abolishing the award is that the peace prize causes controversy – but that is really a good argument for maintaining the prize, because controversy brings publicity to the cause, which is about all a prize committee can hope for.
I understand this is just red meat for the faithful here, but this is a public website, and such idiocy should not be left unchallenged.
Peace.
DS
re: David S #14
Given your lame attempt, I believe the “idiocy” of which you speak remains unchallenged.
Care to condescend and try again?
It’s not that recent Nobel Prize recipients are controversial. It’s that they are ridiculous. Obama??? Seriously??? His only real accomplishment is that he’s not GW Bush. Hell, there are several billions of us with that credential. Gore and the IPCC??? WTF?? I thought the prize was supposed to relate to war and peace issues. Arafat??? The father of modern terrorism. Jimmah Carter? The the friend to every dictator and dhimmi par excellence (though, I guess, if we all surrender to Islam we can have the “peace” of the submissive and the slave).
Can you name three worthy recipients in the last twenty years? Maybe, but it’ll be a stretch. Good luck.
Has the Nobel Peace Prize outlived its’ usefullness? I submit that instead of wanting to have it discontinued we should celebrate it. It is a fantastic measure of European sensibility and therefore, we as Americans, should promptly do the exact opposite thing of whatever the recipient endorses. In recent years I have not seen as accurate a barometer of what not to do than the Nobel Committees selection for the recipient of thier “Peace Prize”. Please Mr. Simon do not remove such a valuable resource just because the award has no real meaning anymore. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people need to know how stupid the European Sensibility really is and no finer example exists.
Congratulations for your president new award.
re: mr #8
Your thinking is even more muddled than your spelling–and that’s saying something.
No one has been responsible for more violent death in Lebanon (and Jordan before that) and “Palestine” over the last 50 years than Arafat and the PLO. Their inability to find a way to live with the state of Israel has led to nothing but misery for the Palestinians and everyone that has to deal with them.
Sharon was a great soldier and General of his country. The only killings in Lebanon that might be described as butchery during the Sharon commanded Israeli war in Lebanon against the PLO were the Sabra and Shatila massacres–committed by Lebanese Christian militiamen who had had enough of the Palestinian crap that arrived to blight a once peaceful and harmonious country.
Comparing Sharon to Arafat is like comparing Patton to Hitler.
@16. DGT:
Care to condescend and try again?
Only because you ask for it.
Obama is not only “not Bush” – he also is among those who recognized that the Iraq war was unjustifiable, and spoke out on the subject. Not only that, he has moved with deliberate speed to restore American standing in the world by repudiating the Bush administration’s violations of fundamental norms of international law and conduct, including pre-emptive war and torture.
Gore and the IPCC were a clear and obvious choice as well, given the potential for climate change and fossil fuels to precipitate wars over resources if nothing is done to avert AGW and dependence on polluting energy sources. If you can’t see the clear and direct connection between fossil fuels, climate change, and war, you have no business commenting on the subject.
Arafat may seem like an odd choice, but if you reflect on the context, and the others who shared the award with him (Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin), the prize makes a lot more sense. Arafat repudiated his prior acts by taking on the project of building peace with Israel. Sure, peace is still elusive in Palestine – but the point is that efforts were made, and progress achieved.
Jimmy Carter’s contribution to peace is so clear and obvious, it is only an indication of your partisan perspective that you include him as an “unworthy” honoree. Thirty years of peace between Israel and Egypt stand as a testament to his accomplishments.
Can you name three worthy recipients in the last twenty years? Maybe, but it’ll be a stretch. Good luck.
You may think it’s a stretch – but I’m curious who you would suggest as alternative winners. If you were on the committee, who would you decide to honor with the prize?
Peace.
DS
“And it is rather stunning the President couldn’t find time to lunch with their king.”
Guess the norwegian King.. just was not the right color.
David, my short list would be:
1) The hacker(s) who broke into East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit. For downloading the data the conferees in Copenhagen are ignoring.
2) Sarah Palin. For doing as much as Obama to deserve the award, and being a lot better-looking.
3) Glenn Beck. For consistently telling the truth about the absurdities of the Left.
Of course, I would do away with the Prize in the first place.
Finally, what accomplishments earned Obama this “prestigious” award?
“If you can’t see the clear and direct connection between fossil fuels, climate change, and war, you have no business commenting on the subject.”
On the contrary: I can clearly see that there is no connection, which is (one reason) why I have every right to observe that the award was rubbish. Or perhaps you would like to see a permanent Defense Against ManBearPig Medal?
Kofi Annan?
Mohamed el-Baradei?
Some track record.
Face it: the NPP has become nothing more than a gold star awarded by five ultra-leftist Scandinavians to people who advance their cause, which is nearly always directed against the United States.
I’m curious who you would suggest as alternative winners. If you were on the committee, who would you decide to honor with the prize?
Ronald Reagan. Next?
“Guess the norwegian King.. just was not the right color.”
Barack Obama has not worked out his “issues” with white people. I do indeed think that subconsciously he enjoys insulting leaders who are of a lighter pigmentation. I find it ironical that he wrote a book citing his father in its very title. This man seemed rather indifferent toward him. It was Barack, Jr.’s mother and her parents who actually did much of anything for the youngster. But Obama’s leftist friends told him to instead blame white people for his father’s abandonment! Barack, Sr. was supposedly a victim of Western imperialism.
And then someone beloved by Republicans will win the Nobel Peace Prize and you’ll be praising the good taste of the Norwegians.
Stop being so petty and shortsighted.
The grapes are quite tasty and not sour at all.
I just read a news story about one of the functions that Obama skipped in Norway where they used a cardboard cut image as a stand in. This gave me a real lung clearing laugh. Why dont’ we send a life size image of the “Duke” (John Wayne) to represent America abroad and bring home the Obama cardboard image and just add audio to his teleprompter.
The next three years would be much more bearable.
The overblown prize glorifies mediocrity, or worse, which is a rather faithful rendition of the wages of affirmative actions of various flavors, which only distribute undeserved recognition all over the landscape. Mental illnesses are not limited to individuals, they can affect whole societies. Do we still possess some kind of collective immune system (a.k.a. morality) against cultural absurdity? Can we make the collective choice of bouncing back to humility before work, commitments in general and God in particular?
“Obama is not only “not Bush” – he also is among those who recognized that the Iraq war was unjustifiable…”
As long as the world is plagued by the ever-psychotic Left, there were always be a Nobel “Peace” prize.
re: #20 David S
some better choices for the Nobel Peace prize over the last 20 years:
1990: Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II for their successful efforts in ending the Cold War and bringing down the Soviet Empire (an evil empire if there ever was one) with very little bloodshed–as opposed to Gorbachev who was given the prize when his only “accomplishment” was failing to save the USSR despite his best efforts.
1992: James Baker and GHW Bush for putting together a massive coalition to oppose and reverse the predations of Saddam Hussein–as opposed to Rigoberto Menchu who was given the prize despite being nothing more than a literary fraud.
1994: Bill Clinton for bloodlessly resolving the crisis in Haiti by the the threat of force or The Rwandan Patriotic Front for stepping in an ending the Genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda as the feckless UN fretted–as opposed to Arafat whose history we all know.
1995: NATO whose air campaign ended the violence and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia–as opposed to the silly, little-known, anti-nuke activists who won the prize that year.
1999: Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and NATO for stepping into the Kosovo war to end the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing, as well as ending the predatory activities of Serbia–as opposed to Medicins sans Frontiers who do good work, but not really in the realm of war and peace.
2001: GW Bush for resisting the impulse to nuke Mecca, Medina, and all things Islam. (Okay, that was a little facetious–but just a little). How about GW Bush for ousting the simply awful Taleban from power?–as opposed to Kofi Anan who was given the prize when his only “accomplishment” was overseeing a thoroughly corrupt institution (see Oil for Food scandal).
2003: Joseph Kabila et al for negociations ending the worst of the violence in the Congo.
2005: Viktor Yushenko and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine for peacefully throwing off Russian domination or those responsible for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement ending the extremely bloody 2nd Sudan Civil War–as opposed to El Baradei who was given the prize when his only “accomplishment” was enabling the nuclear weapons pursuits of N Korea and Iran.
2007: Thabo Mbeki for moderating the peace talks ending the civil war in the Ivory Coast or Irena Sendler for her heroic deeds in the Polish underground during WWII saving countless Jewish children (yeah, it was a long time ago, but she was nominated in 2007)–as opposed to Gore and the IPCC who enrich themselves in treasure and adulation while foisting an exaggerated (and probably fraudulent)version of AGW on the world at who knows what expense to all of us.
2008: David Petreus whose plan and execution of the Surge in Iraq dramitically reduced the bloodshed in that country and gave a fledgling democracy a chance.
2009: Anyone bringing anything to the table beyond empty speeches. As for Obama’s vaunted “restor(ing) of America’s Standing in the world”–we’ll see how much peace is accomplished when the world’s “bully” becomes the world’s chump and patsy. I don’t see Khamenei/Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Putin, Hamas, Hezbullah, Assad, al-Bashir, al Queda (and islamists in general), et al becoming less aggressive in a world where the power, confidence, and assertiveness of the USA is attenuated. We can expect such malefactors to “probe with bayonets” to find out just how squishy we’ve become under Obama.
re: #20 David S
“Jimmy Carter’s contribution to peace is so clear and obvious, it is only an indication of your partisan perspective that you include him as an “unworthy” honoree. Thirty years of peace between Israel and Egypt stand as a testament to his accomplishments.”
If Carter had won the Peace Prize in 1979, I would concede your point. But….in 2002, when he actually was given the prize, Carter was doing nothing but criticizing the USA in general, Bush in particular, and, of course, Israel. Nothing seems to get europeans as excited as dumping on the Israel and the Jews, unless it’s bowing to the mystery of multi-culturalism or cowering before the islamists.
re: #20 David S
“Gore and the IPCC were a clear and obvious choice as well, given the potential for climate change and fossil fuels to precipitate wars over resources if nothing is done to avert AGW and dependence on polluting energy sources. If you can’t see the clear and direct connection between fossil fuels, climate change, and war, you have no business commenting on the subject.”
Though I’m aware of proported connection between global warming and war that you suggest, I’m not buying it. Global cooling has actually caused a lot more misery and warfare: the “Dark Ages” and “Little Ice Age” with their plagues and almost unceasing war. The warmer periods of the Roman Republic/Empire and Medievel times were generally better for humans–more food, increasing standards of living.
And besides, the whole AGW thing is looking more and more like a sham every day.
Gore has always been a huckster on the issue, whereas the IPCC could be charitably be thought as “pious” fraudsters–producing faux-icons like the “hockey stick” graph to push something they actually did believe. I imagine they were merely embarassed and abashed by the increase in funding for their research and the adulation they received for their heroic work. Right.
The problem with the argument above about the Nobel Peace Prize still being valuable even if flawed is that flaws in the Nobel selection process undermine its purpose entirely. The prize is designed to encourage peace makers, if it is ever awarded counter to that purpose (Arafat comes to mind) and if it is awarded frivolously frequently enough (Gore and Obama come to mind) then it loses much of its power of encouragement and loses much of its power in discouraging war-mongers as well.
If the Nobel Prize for Chemistry had been awarded to alchemists several times in recent years and to people with no notable achievements in the field (like, say, Carrot Top, Tom Hanks, and a 1st year undergrad student) then it would lose all credibility. Such is the state of the Peace Prize today, any credibility it once had is rapidly evaporating in the increasingly counter-productive and frivolous choices of the selection committee. Last year, people would have laughed uproariously if they had heard that the prize was given to Jim Carrey. If they heard the same today or next year they would not laugh nearly so hard, and they would not disbelieve it nearly so much. Such is the degree to which the stature of the Nobel Peace Prize has fallen. At this point it is just a hair’s breadth from an absolute mockery, and only then due to the tattered remnants of its once impressive legacy.
WWAND?
@DGT
Well done.
Nicely said DGT. I like your list of the overlooked; particularly the suggestions for ’03,’05, and ’07. Choices made by the prize committees over the last decade have been particularly feckless. And, your point about the deadliness of colder periods of human history has been made repeatedly to no particular effect, I’m afraid.
Oooops!!!!!!!!!!!!!! # 20 David S:
who wrote
“Obama is not only “not Bush” – he also is among those who recognized that the Iraq war was unjustifiable, and spoke out on the subject.”
Seems that your MESSIAH just made a complete fool of YOU and exposed you for the idiotic PC MC Moral equivalent spouting moonbat that you are when he said this in his Oslo speech
“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
and THIS
“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”
Need a tissue to wipe all that egg off your face moonbat??
Now you can take that as Obambi JUSTIFYING the War in Iraq or you can take it as we all know it really is Obambi LYING through his teeth again and trying to be all things to all men. But any way you cut it it still leaves YOU as a complete fool David S.
Jimmy Carter received the peace price in 2002. As we all know Carter famously assisted Anwar Sadat President of Egypt in forging a peace agreement with Menachem Begin and Israel in 1978. Unfortunately for Anwar Sadat he was later murdered by another Peace Price winner Yasser Arafat. How ironic. Then maybe again it’s not so ironic. Albert Nobel did invent the gunpowder. And gunpowder was indeed used.
I want “Peace in the World and no more wars and no more babies dying young and no more AIDS and no more malaria’ Can I have my Peace Prize now after all by saying that I have just done MORE than Obambi did to get his.
The Nobel Peace Prize for politics is always awarded to socialists of various shades, and their well-heeled sycophants, by like minded Norwegian quislings.
IMO it’d be better to use the award as a red flag to begin gathering intelligence on the recipient, rather than to do away with it.
Then again, I’m far less tolerant of Reds than most.
Serious Questions on Barack and Harry
On rare occasions, “stuff” happens which has to make us wonder if all is right with the world and its denizens.
When politicians or normal people say or do things either totally out of character or just so “out there,” we really should question whether their bodies have been infiltrated by alien beings or they have totally lost their minds.
Case in point of an out of character public commentary was President Barack Hussein Obama’s speech in Oslo yesterday.
Okay, he knew that being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishing nothing was nothing more than a political gesture by the Prize Committee, a reflection of their still-seething antipathy for Bush 43’s patriotic quirks and disdain for world opinion when it came to protecting the interests of Americans.
Obama had to have known that he was undeserving since 90% of thinking creatures on the planet were fully aware of that fact of international politics.
He also had to have known that his audience probably read the papers and knew he had just dispatched 30,000 additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan and invited our allies to feel free to jump in and help us crush the Taliban.
True, he did dither for months as our soldiers, in desparate need of reinforcements, died on Afghan battlefields but it was not exactly a Gandhi-esque speech for a peace prize recipient.
So, what happened during his address which turned out to be longer than his inaugural speech?
(See the full text here: http://bit.ly/4R6fEV)
He supposedly personally wrote the speech all on his own and, though he read it off his trusty teleprompters, . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1369)
What’s that, Robin? The Nobel is supposed to encourage the Cheesemakers? All right then!
The Nobel has less credibility than the rubber-ducky prize our local fishing club presents at the end of the fly-fishing season. Truly, it doesn’t even compare to our award. No glitz or glamor, just lot’s of drinks all round, funniest banter you’ll ever hear, and everyone who’s won it has absolutely earned it. There’s also a Chump award that’s handed out on the night! Now that is something I can see Obama winning with his eyes closed, he doesn’t even have to be born here – but he has to join the club first (we need proper id) and he’s gotta know how to gut a trout… lol
The offer’s on the table Mr. Obama, you know, if you ever want to add a REAL prize to the mantle piece.
I just scanned over the Nobel Peace Prize laureates over the last 2 decades and at first glance it looks like easily half, if not more, of the prizes awarded in that time have been frivolous or counter to the spirit or the original instructions for the prize. Given this it really is very difficult to justify it’s continued legitimacy and existence.
David S…”peace indeed”, you sign off with the hippie dippy salutation after delivering a cold slap in the face to anyone who dissents from your echo chamber inspired message.
The Nobel Peace prize was deliberately given to Jimmy Carter as a “kick in the shin” to George Bush. Hardly the stuff of compassion, rational deliberation or “goodness”…it was a trailer trash move by leftists, inspired by malice and promulgated by hypocrisy.
Barack Obama and other leftists didn’t “recognize” …well, anything…about the implementation of the WORLD’S penalty for the wilful tyranny of Sadam. The repeated violations that brought down the WORLD’S sanctions against Iraq’s brutal and murderous and criminal regime…became toothless and even more dangerous after 9/11…and if YOU don’t recognize that fact, YOU are not worthy to comment.
EVERY reasonable person on the planet was in agreement that SOMETHING had to be done. And…nearly EVERY Democrat agreed.
It was only when the constant drumbeat of the propaganda arm of the leftists beat weak willed Democrats senseless, that they CHANGED their tune. This was NOT “Bush’s” war…or even his doctrine.
Barack Obama was one of the leftist parrots who condemn EVERY act of defense via the use of the military. His lip service on Afghanistan in order to portray himself as more centrist in order to be “electable” aside, …the non-thinking stance of being against every military action…is a staple of echo chamber leftist pap.
The Nobel Prize for being against American exceptionalism, for being against America’s defense of herself, her people, her allies and her interests..serves the hypocrisy of leftism at its core, but it does nothing to advance peace. It’s a sham.
The prize has become a caricature of leftist narcissism. Arafat was a murderer of innocents. Carter is and was a tool for Arab hate, slander and intended genocide.
Gore is a stumbling fool who latched onto an issue purely grandstanding, self-aggrandizing and propaganda purposes. And it turned out to be junk science, ridiculously researched and fraudulently presented.
You are a leftist apologist, who wallows in hypocrisy.
But hey…
Peace.
Neo-Levantines to Old Europe: Drop Dead!
(( ’Tis is not a headline worthy of very big type any longer, though. Perhaps it might even be demoted to a mere sidebar without too much loss? ))
Healthy days.
David S., if Obama’s against the war in Afghanistan, why is he sending more troops there? (I know, I know—”IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT!”)
And, yeah, Arafat does seem an odd choice for the Peace Prize, seeing as he was a killer, and the father of modern terrorism. Practically invented the art of airplane hijacking. Died very rich, however, after ripping off the Palestinians, stealing the lion’s share of their foreign aid. His wife, reportedly, lives the life of Riley, in a posh French hotel. A swell guy! Let’s give him the Peace Prize!
(Yes, I know; “IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT! AND THE JEWS’ FAULT! AND AMERICA’S FAULT!”)
Couldn’t agree more. No award or award recipients on earth (except maybe the Oscars) reek more of sanctimony, insider politics, self-congratulation.
Let’s be fair. King Harald of Norway did, however, just receive an iPod from Obama. Additionally the President is scheduled to bow to his majesty’s photo on the plane back home.
37. Alfred (not Albert) Nobel invented dynamite, not gunpowder. Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese centuries ago.
32. As a nuclear engineer, I resent that remark about alchemists.
Any many with a shred of self respect or an ounce of integrity would refuse any award he did not earn or deserve. I would have had much more respect for Obama had he turned them down.
Th Peace Prize might mean something if they didn’t hand it out to people like our current commander-in-chief who employ violence.
Whether you approve of violence or don’t approve of it, violence is not peace. Fighting a war in Afghanistan is not a peaceful act, and that’s what El Jefe is doing.
Obviously, the Peace Prize is a total joke.
The way they hand out this prize,it means nothing. It should be for something acomplished.
The ‘Propaganda Piece Prize’.
Just call it what it really is.
Problem solved.
the prize, if it had any meaning, lost it when they gave it to Kissinger.
He would have attended if they had told him that he would have to bow to King Harald
HURRY DOWN TO THE LOCAL GROCERY STORE NEXT YEAR AND BUY YOUR BOX OF CRACKER JACKS AND SEE WHO WILL OPEN THE BOX WITH THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IN IT !!!!!
I get the strong feeling Obama was just embarrassed by the whole charade it has become. That would explain to some extent his inept behaviour there.
The issue is that the Nobel Peace Prize is given out not to reward past achievements but to influence present day politics. If the Nobel Prize could only be awarded for accomplishments more than twenty years old, for example, then you’d get the benefit of history and hopefully remove much of the political influence. For example, right now Reagan and Gorbachev would probably be getting it.
Fuhgedabouddit! (Yes, I chose the Mafia locution deliberately. It seems to fit.)
I allus tot dat wuz Noo Yawk speak.
20. David S:
Obama is not only “not Bush” – he also is among those who recognized that the Iraq war was unjustifiable, and spoke out on the subject.
Obama sponsored a resolution in early 2007 that would have withdrawn combat troops from Iraq by March 2008. This is consistent with your statement. However, Obama has said much more.
From that neocon rag, the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Yes, David S., he definitely spoke. His consistency of opinion has a Kerry-like aspect to it.