Friday, October 9, 2009

In other news, Edward Feser has been awarded the Dawkins Prize…

OK, I’ve finally stopped laughing. I see two good things coming out of this:

1. We now have an absolutely infallible test for determining whether Obamolatry has yet completely rotted out a given individual’s mind: Either you’re sane and still have a shred of intellectual honesty, or you think Obama merits the Nobel Peace Prize. Apply to your liberal friends, sit back, and enjoy.

2. This farce will only solidify in the electorate’s mind the truth of what was blindingly obvious before the election and has become Metaphysically Certain since: Obama is an empty suit with no substantive achievements to speak of, who owes whatever standing he has entirely to the ridiculous fantasies that have been projected onto him by his sycophants.

Said sycophants will, of course, be utterly unmoved whatever their idol does or fails to do. But with the swing voters whose opinion actually makes the difference in elections, this will only hurt Obama. When buyer’s remorse has been setting in already, the last thing you want to do is double down on the salesman’s BS. And there ain’t enough cash left in the Treasury for this clunker.

So, thank you Nobel Committee! Next year, why not go ahead and award one to yourselves? Couldn’t make you look any worse…


  1. From the article: "The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself."

    If he were "deep embarrassment" -- as he *ought* to have been -- would he have accepted it?

  2. What I can't understand is all the earnest hand-wringing to the effect that this makes the Nobel Peace Prize a joke or a farce. Isn't it blindingly obvious that the prize has been a farce for decades - at least since Yasser Arafat won it, and probably long before that?

  3. In other news, Edward Feser has been awarded the Dawkins Prize…

    No, that would be Bill Maher, "pro-science" germ-denier :-)

  4. Check out when the nominations had to be made and the voting had to be in.

  5. I agree, Edward. Mr. Obama seems to be playing the ritual role of the redeemer within a mythical story / play.

  6. When I heard about it I considered myself the winner too, since I did about as much as Mr. President.

    But then I found out that someone already made a "I found a nobel peace prize in a cereal box"-joke.

    But I like the "Does Obama deserve it?"-test. It's very amusing.

  7. Mike: When the nominations had to be in was seven months or so before the decision was to be made.

    Anyhow, this is just embarrassing to all parties. As a Norwegian, at the moment I am looking for the quickest way to become a Swede.

  8. Bjørn said...
    When the nominations had to be in was seven months or so before the decision was to be made.

    Ja. Which means he hadn't even been in office more than two months. Just when was he nominated?

  9. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

    When imagination (visions) take precedence over reality we can diagnose mental illness.

    Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.

    Here, the Committee champions the decline of nation-state sovereignty, specifically the decline of US power, and heralds an increase of UN and "other" unspecified institutional power. It is as if they recognize Obama as a a non-President of a non-nation.

    Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.

    This is quite ironic, inasmuch as the inaction of "dialog" will necessarily exacerbate on-going conflicts where those acting have no particular incentive to negotiate.

    The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.

    Translation: "the vision of a world free from US nuclear arms..." I find no particular indication that Pakistan, Russia, Israel, Iran, India, or North Korea are stimulated by any desire for new negotiations. I have not even heard the French or British offer to host new talks.

    Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

    This must refer to the idea of global warming (or whatever it is now called), although its relation to democracy is a mystery. Actually, the entire paragraph is constructed rather poorly, but perhaps it's a literal translation from Norwegian, and would read differently (and better) in the original.

    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.

    I could mention Stalin and Mao, but their brand of hope and change was more globally provincial, i.e., national, and not based on any concern for the "people of the world." Not sure what a US president is doing giving hope to the "world's people," anyway. Last time I looked, the President's job was to uphold the Constitution. And I'm not even sure how the Nobel committee could know whether their statement is true. Hell, I'm not even sure in what respect it could be true.

    His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

    This probably describes Obama's thinking, although it is not desirable for Americans as Americans, inasmuch as the "values and attitudes" of the majority of the world's population are decidedly anti-American.

    For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman.

    The world's leading spokesman? And have the Committee been anti American that long? Many people believe this is a joke. It is certainly absurd, but it is not a joke, at all. It simply underscores the decline of traditional European civilization. I'd give Europe another two generations at most.

    Finally, for all the Committee's "we are the world" talk, it's just a handful of liberal white women, and one white guy (from the pictures I've seen). I suggest they hire a few Muslims, some real Africans, got to have a handful of Mexicans, and maybe three or four Chinese. Only then will we get truly representative picks, and only then will the true reality of multicuturalism and all its cultural and social benefits manifest.

  10. Mike: The nominations had to be in by Feb 1th, which as you and I and everyone else agrees was a parody after less than two weeks in office.

    However, "the voting" by which I thought you meant decision on who was to be awarded, was done in September or something.

    So, even if I still find it all very embarrassing, Obama at least had managed to do something, spread some hope and such which the committee fell for.

    In short, I think he really got awarded as a symbol of hope - in some europeans perception.

    However, I think it was a silly move, making Obama's situation a lot harder. He can't be anything but highly embarrassed. Like a lot of Norwegians.

  11. I think the word here is that he has been "Thorbjorned", fittingly coined from the rosy romantic dreamer who leads the committee and has been heavily criticised in Norway for decades for his well intended, though often rather fumbled political visions.

    See a fantastic take on it here

  12. Bjørn Are said... He can't be anything but highly embarrassed. Like a lot of Norwegians.

    Why would you think that, and what are your reasons? What you probably mean to say is that a reasonable person with standards would understand the fiction, and respond accordingly. Nothing in Obama's political, and also, most likely, in his educational life, has been anything but fictional; I suspect you are attributing a sense of propriety to him that he does not possess.

    However, an historical review of their Prize shows that this sort of thing is very common in categories such as "peace," literature, and, possibly, economics. The science awards are more difficult to politicize, but not impossible. Indeed, in order to win the Peace prize one must subscribe to a certain political agenda outlined on the Nobel site. Obama winning this prize should not surprise anyone, however from reading many comments from many venues it appears otherwise. The disconnect is that, from a practical standpoint (i.e., apart from rhetoric), Obama is not that much different than George Bush, a man that never would have been given the prize.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Well I base the embarrassment on my own feelings as a Norwegian, and those of most of my friends;-)

    Indeed, these kind of prizes are rarely about anything really rational or objective (this is neither science nor philosophy), they are about hopes and dreams, aspirations and politics, and sometimes - as with Mother Theresa and Mandela - about courageous people who have done rather a lot, or are important symbols for peace or improvements. Or people the committee hope are such.

    That's why both Theodor R and Kissinger got it, as well as Luther King and Ossietzky.

    And even the most puzzling and in my view idiotic winner ever, Arafat.

  15. It is interesting that you mention Dr. Kissinger, who shared the prize with Le Duc Tho. Le had the good sense (who can really say his motivation?) to decline the award, understanding that peace had not been accomplished, while Kissinger returned the "blood money" portion of the award. Say what you will about them, both men showed a sense of proportion unknown to Obama. But what does anyone really expect?