And, invoking Godwin’s Law, I’m closing comments for this post.

Another brilliant choice for the Peace Prize was 1939, when Adolph Huitler got ther award.

For an alternate view on Mother Teresa, one can read Wikipedia.

Maybe if she’d share her clinic with Jack Kervorkian she would have been worthy?

So, what does she do? Set up shop in one of the most poverty-ridden countries in the world, house the poorest people who are clearly dying, then give them a pat on the head and tell them that Jesus loves them when they are writhing in pain, without so much as an aspirin to ease that pain. Of course, when she got sick, she flew first class to America to get Cadillac medical help by the best doctors in the world. Never mind that that money could have been used to alleviate the suffering of hundreds of people in her own ‘clinic’ in India.

Now, what does all that have to do with peace, when spending that money on condoms to be distributed in the slums of Mumbai would have stopped the suffering and death of perhaps thousands of people over time? Peace, my great aunt’s knuckles!

Still, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that I was “ragging” on Obama. I don’t expect any president, not even President Obama, to do anything in the first ten days of office worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize short list. To win it in his first year is, well — let’s allow Obama speak for himself on this issue:

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

I can pay the same favor to those who selected Obama:

The section of Alfred Nobel’s will detailing the creation of the Peace Prize states that it should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” In answer to questions during the announcement press conference about how early in Obama’s Presidency the award was being made, Thorbjørn Jagland replied that the Committee wanted to demonstrate its support for the approaches he is taking towards global problems.

In other words, the committee didn’t select Obama because of his accomplishments.

To conclude: sarcasm, yes. Directed at Obama, no.

So now we know that the individual components of the 5-member selectuion committee is comprised of left-leaning people. But that is no surprise, since they gave the awalrd to Al Gore awhile back, which sort of tipped their hands regarding their politics.

I agree with your first statement, though: it was premature. Give him a chance to accomplish something concrete.

I was sitting in a general science classroom, waiting for the bell to ring. Somebody from my grade school walked by me toward a vacant seat. As he passed, he said, “hi Stretch.” I responded appropriately. The teacher heard the exchange and promptly started chewing me out for allowing the peer to address me in such a disrespectful manner. I promptly reminded her that I was not responsible for what came out of the mouth of other people, so why was she ragging on me? She continued until the bell rang and she started her classroom spiel.

The same applies in this case. Why are people ragging on Obama about something over which he had no control that was obviously done by another person?