President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize nine months into his presidency makes me think of a Saturday Night Live skit from the 80s. Julia Louis-Dreyfus' character proclaims that Winston was her favorite Ghostbuster and her confounded co host can't do anything but repeat the words, "He didn't do nothing..."
"I like Winston."
"He didn't do nothing..."
"He was great Ghostbuster!"
"He didn't do nothing..."
And that's how I feel about Obama winning - he didn't do nothing. He has said a lot of things; he's gone around the world and apologized for America's actions that past 100 years or so - he sold out Poland and the Czech Republic to make Russia happy and he kowtowed to Chavez and Ahmadenijad. How does that promote peace?
There is some positive though. At least it shows that there are some in the world who are still willing to believe in America - this vote for Obama means that he was not written off simply because he is American.
But how is it that Obama, Al Gore (what does global warming have to do with peace?) Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat and Mikhael Gorbechav each have a Nobel Peace Prize and Ronald Reagan doesn't? Maybe we shouldn't put too much stock into this thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The fact that Gorby got one and Reagan didn't is proof positive that there is a serious flaw in the logic of the selection committee.
Obama winning the prize in a time when his country is the most divided it's ever been, coming off of the most divisive and negative campaign since the 1800s shows that their criteria for awarding the prize is based on increasing their own notoriety and not on actually accomplishing anything.
I think part of the criteria is making America look bad - hence Carter, Gore and Obama but no Reagan
Post a Comment