The Late Night Chronicles is pleased to announce that we believe that we should reduce and completely rid the world of all nuclear arms and moreover, we also think that we should all just be groovy to one another and get along.
Hopefully, the Nobel Prize Committee is going to read this, because I'll be waiting for my kroner and my big, fancy, medallion. Put in the mail, first class please- because I don't want it to get broken or anything. And if you could send the kroner in dollars instead? That'd be totally awesome...
I started my last break in front of a television in Stanley this morning mildly pleased with myself. Thursday night had been fairly quiet, for a change- Burge failed to be the pit of chaos and mayhem that it often is. I finished up my paperwork, sat down and flipped on MSNBC to discover that we were bombing the moon. (NASA carried the one and used the right units this time, so they managed to hit the moon on target!) Oh, and our Glorious President has won the Nobel Peace Prize for reasons passing understanding.
That annoyed me. It really chaps your ass when a bunch of old Scandanavians manage to ruin your morning before it's even really started. I was mildly irritated I got stuck with unlocking a shit-ass ton of buildings, but only mildly. The Nobel Committee managed to reduce me to incoherent rage in the space of about five minutes. Let's be clear: I voted for Obama and I'm really trying very, very, very hard to like him and to find reasons to keep liking him, but WTF, MAN? REALLY? Seriously?
I would be thrilled beyond belief if President Obama had actually done something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, but not to put too fine a point on it, he really hasn't. Not being George W. Bush isn't worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Saying you want a nuclear free world and everyone to get along is a splendid sentiment, but it's not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Changing the international climate is an awesome thing- being more multilateral and respectful of everyone else's feelings in the world- also a good thing. But not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
Perusing the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia, we see that the majority of Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded for past achievement, not some made up bullshit about the stuff our Glorious President has supposedly done in the past nine months and the hope that he'll do something totally kick-ass in the future. I mean, obviously, it'd be great if he does do something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize in the future-- but he should, therefore get it in the future. You know, when he's actually done something!
And I know, I'm being a really cynical bastard- and I'm probably coming across as a right-wing firebrand of the worst kind, but I'm really not. I'm a solid independent who can't stand the Republican Party and has seen invertebrate creatures in petri dishes that have more spine than your average Democratic Politician-- but the justification I've seen thus far is that Obama's made everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because 'America is back.' 'Bush is gone.' The justification seems to be that because he's not George W. Bush we should give him a Nobel Peace Prize, which is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard, because let's be totally honest with each other, kids- we could have elected 'Dave The Methhead from the Trailer Court Down the Street' President and the World would have gotten a serious case of the warm and fuzzies. We could have elected Paris Hilton and achieved the same affect.
Not being George W. Bush is one of the chief reasons I voted for Obama in the first place. But does that qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize? Not in the slightest... look at the list of laureates- and hell, let's start with the US Presidents- the sitting ones who got it: they both got it for doing something! Teddy Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War and Woodrow Wilson- Woodrow Effing Wilson got it for forming a useless international organization (The League of Nations) and crafting what ultimately proved to be a terrible peace treaty (the Treaty of Versailles, that we didn't even sign!)
The official justification: "In its surprise choice, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament, even though he is just nine months into his presidency." (That's straight from the AP article, by the by...) Ah, so the official justification is that he's not George W. Bush and his supposed work on nuclear disarmament. Can anyone tell me how many nukes we've gotten rid of since he's taken office? Have the Russians signed on? Because if they have and it's been kept a secret- please share, so I can be mildly pleased by this.
The most similar Nobel Peace Prize Laureate I've been able to find who matches the vagueness and incoherence of President Obama's win is Philip Noel-Baker of the UK who won in 1959 for being a 'lifelong ardent worker for international peace and cooperation.' If you've never heard of Mr. Noel-Baker, don't worry, neither have I. A cursory glance at his wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) page reveals that he was awarded the Prize at the age of 70, with a lifetime of work behind him. So it seems that the standard has been for past achievement not just waving and looking pretty and talking a lot, like our Glorious President has done thus far.
Personally, I think he should decline it. That'd be smart politics to me- say thanks, but no thanks- there are more deserving people out there this year and I'd like the chance to actually do something wonderfully kick-ass that's worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Then our President looks very Presidential and very humble, because he had the nuts to turn down a Nobel Peace Prize- which is like the equivalent to an Oscar for a head of state. (Would you really say no to an Oscar? Really? If you weren't terribly bad-ass like Peter O'Toole, who initially turned down an honorary one.) I'd have more respect for the man if he did turn it down and then proceeded to knock heads together in the Middle East and get a peace treaty or something. The fact that he's going to apparently accept it means that he's now got to actually justify getting the damn thing, which is something that could seriously come back to bite him in the ass.
"So soon," said former Polish President Lech Walesa (who won in 1983) "Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage."
Kids, Lech don't sound to happy about this- and neither am I.
No comments:
Post a Comment