The Nobel Political Prize


No one deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama.


The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama. In step with this decoration are the critics, crying at both the Nobel Committee and Obama.

Although criticism usually follows Obama for the same reason stink follows poop, awarding him the prize simply for not being George W. Bush isn’t a patronization or an incredulity, as the NNC has demonstrated during their 109 years. Obama deserves the Peace Prize because he represents what the Peace Prize stands for.

Woodrow Wilson won the Peace Prize in 1919 for establishing the League of Nations. Let me rephrase that: the man who volunteered America for our most superfluous and bloodiest war because of his self-proclaimed divine right only to later formulate a lame-brain attempt to end war that was arguably the enabler of World War 2, won the Peace Prize in 1919.

Nathan Solderblom won the Prize in 1930 for his efforts to establish common ground among all religions. Never mind that this was hopeless, and never mind that the common ground of religion still leads to dictatorship.

Nicholas Murray Butler, the President of Columbia University, won the Prize in 1931 for promoting the Briand Kellogg Pact, which “prohibited the use of war as an instrument of national policy.” Unfortunately for him, German Nazis cared less about pacts with egghead wussies than American Nazis care about getting stupid tattoos.

Carl von Ossietzky won the Prize in 1935 for his writings in die Weltbuhne, a socialist fag rag that was banned during the Weimar Republic. So either the NNC thinks socialism is good whereas national socialism is bad, or they think homosexuality is the key to world peace. If it’s the latter, then does saying "fag rag" make me a war monger as opposed to just a bigot?

Two of the laureates, Emily Greene Balch and Jane Addams, were leaders in the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, an advocacy for planned starvation, whether they knew it. And let’s face it, every non-profit organization that has “Women’s” in their title might as well be a Castro faction, a religious order, or both.

The 1977 prize went to Amnesty International, which functions mainly as a lobbying organization. Achieving human rights through lobbying is, to put it in Amnesty International’s terms, like scorning the darkness and then trying to use it to light a candle.

More than a dozen of the laureates were lieutenants in the United Nations, an organization that gives Libya the same legitimacy as countries that don’t suicide bomb the bejesus out of people who believe in Jesus.

Ten of the laureates, including Jimmy Carter and Kim Dae Jung, won for their promotion of “democracy and human rights.” Just to be clear, because a laissez faire economy does not exist, democracy here means pressure groups, which are antithetical to actual democracy. And so, in the vein of contradiction, the committee gave the 1994 Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat, who is such a terrorist that he totally looks like a terrorist.

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank won the Prize in 2006 for “advancing economic opportunities for the poor.” Oh, so they advanced the ideas of capitalism in their native Bangladesh? Nope, they developed the poor man’s version of the subprime loan. Gee, wonder how that’s going to work out.

And let’s not forget the most popular crank laureates: The Dalai Lama, who is essentially a pharaoh; and Mother Teresa, who rescued indigents like tequila rescues an alcoholic.

Of course, there were some good guys in there, but we can see the undercurrent of the NNC is reverence for political correctness—that is, solutions that sound good if you’re eight-years-old but don’t work in real life. Therefore, it’s fitting they award this year’s Peace Prize to one of the most platitude-promising, bromide-boasting, fuzzy-feeling-formulating figures of 2009.

PhilosophyMark Derian