Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Efforts. Not a result - efforts. That's going to be important here. Do I think he "deserves" a Nobel Peace Prize? Well, my initial response was, "no." But I decided not to get nuts about it because I realized something very important: It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I don't care. People all over the world went nuts when this august body of Norwegian politicians randomly decided that our President deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. For his efforts to create peace. Whatever. Who cares? Rush Limbaugh does, 'cause he can get a week's worth of press out of it. Obama's opponents, because they hate him and wish him only ill. But ultimately, why do we care about the Nobel? They're essentially a grant distributing body elected by the Norwegian Parliament to hand out money left in trust in a private fund. Why do you even care what they think? Or is this one of those things people get worked up about solely because it's on the news? I spend a lot of time around people and still find myself consistently confused by their behavior, so this might need to be explained to me again.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it," as a wise man once said. It's all about effort, folks - not results. Look at some of the past winners of the "peace" prize. The IAEA took it 2005, because of their work trying to "prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way." A resounding success, obviously, since the rollback of a nuclear world is one the things the Nobel's recognizing Obama for, four years later. What about Henry Kissinger being in there, 1973? Or Arafat, Peres, and Rabin (sans Clinton)? For that lasting Middle East peace they pulled off? It's not about the success rate, people. And it can't be about motivation. It's hard to say what DeKlerk would have done with his life if Botha hadn't had a stroke, and yet, there he is, on the list, sharing a prize with a man who spent 19 years in jail for his convictions. Hmmm.
Peace is an elusive thing. Technically, true peace would be an absence of conflict of any kind, but the Nobel committee rewards pacifism as a virtue, and often, that looks like doing nothing. I for one, am a little lost on what the Dalai Lama actually does. But I assume that's because I'm godless Western scum.
Politically conservative dickheads in this country need to understand something before they continue with one of their current arguments about this thing - "liberal" thinking, in the classic sense of the word, is more inclusive, and features ideas that are groundbreaking, at the outside edge of what can be achieved and even conceptualized. Because you are conservative, it will often seem like the intellectual rest of the world is turned against you. They are. They reject conservatism - keeping a status quo, valuing traditionalism over the reality of the present and future - as a backward obsolete way to be, and refuse to participate. When the rest of the world hated us while Bush was in office? That should have been your first giant-ass clue. You're wrong. Not just in your ideas, but in the very process that allowed you to arrive at them.
Finally, the biggest problem with all of this Nobel / Obama mishigas is that we overlooked the fucking clown in space, people! Cirque du International Space Station! Priorities, guys. If we get so caught up in hating on the President and a bunch of Norwegians that we can't appreciate the Space Clown, then I don't want to play anymore. Unless it's some of the games on the Nobel site.
Recent Comments