Oh glory be to the Obama, glorious leader of we who be the citizens of the land and country of the Obama, that he has for the 11th straight year won the coveted the Obama Glory Be Prize. It was unanimous the decision by the council of the Obama to award the Obama the Obama award. May the glorious the Obama's ego be stroked. The council of the Obama sited his continued pontification on silly things as the reason for once again awarding him the Obama. The response of the rest of the world was one of great jealousy - Ho Hum, once Again! the Obama celebrated by sending another 11,000 Obamas to die in his fight to spread the word of the Obama. Glory be, to he that be, the Obama. Obama to you!
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Ignorant Krugman
Paul Krugman liberal columnist for the NYTimes wrote a thinly veiled plea for a second round of stimulus funding: The Uneducated American. The column is tacitly about the state of education in America and the impact of funding declines on education. In fact it is an appeal for a second stimulus bill. Instead of just saying, "Why don't we spend more of our current stimulus money on education?" Krugman is actually saying, "Pass another stimulus bill, some of that money should go to education." In the entire article he never once addresses the real problem with education in America. What does the great liberal suggest:
First of all, Congress needs to undo the sins of February, and approve another big round of aid to state governments. We don’t have to call it a stimulus, but it would be a very effective way to create or save thousands of jobs. And it would, at the same time, be an investment in our future.
Beyond that, we need to wake up and realize that one of the keys to our nation’s historic success is now a wasting asset. Education made America great; neglect of education can reverse the process.
Since lack of funding isn't the real problem with education, I would suggest that instead of pumping more money into the lost cause, why don't we just go find several million toilets and piss the money down them - the effect on education would be the same.
You too can succeed by doing nothing
So, what is the real meaning of the Obama winning the No-Bel Please Prize? Well, the most obvious meaning, is that it is an affirmation of the liberal principle: "That it is not what you do that counts, it's what you think you deserve." It is an affirmation of the growing socialism in this country. It sends the message to young people that achievement is not what it is about - just showing up gets you ahead. The prize symbolizes the movement to eliminate grades and measures of accomplishment; the movement to stop keeping score to protect the fragile psyches of our little ones. The sad thing is that there are people and groups that were nominated for this prize that are actually doing something to promote peace and for whom $1.4M would go a long way to helping their cause. Instead the prize goes to boost the fat head of a man who has accomplished nothing ever and especially nothing toward building peace. If the award is to be handed out for giving airy empty speeches then why didn't Castro or Chavez get it - well maybe they should - (see and earlier post). I'm surprised that thousands of liberals haven't come out of the woodwork screaming, "Hey I haven't done anything either, were's my prize?"
the Obama Gladly Accepts the Nobel Prize for Clowns and Meaning Well
I thought that I might give you a few excerpts from the Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Clown Prize:
I the great one, the Messiah, the Obama, gladly accept this prize on behalf of my ego. This prize means as much to me as the prize I won in 6th grade for just showing up at a little-league baseball team even though I was not on the team and did not play. I did show up, though. I know that I have accomplished nothing and that the world is less safe than it was before I took over the White House, but I have the audacity to blame that all on the former president ... Bush. I see this prize as a call to give more speeches that say nothing but do give hope to terrorists around the world that they one day rule us all. I will do all I can to insure that Iran and North Korea continue their weapons development and to help them join the nuclear world. When I said in my much derided babble to the security council that I wanted I nuclear weapons free world, I meant that, I want everyone that hates us to have free nuclear weapons. Only when those countries that hate us have weapons of mass destruction will they be able to settle the score with the great demon of the west, the US, which I hate - death to the infidel Americans. Thank you. I plan on using the money to help ACORN get my cronies out of Chicago before the weapons fall. Honk, Honk!
The 2009 Nobel Clown Prize has been awarded to the First Clown - the Obama
The Audacity of Audacity! For probably the last 10 or 20 years it has been pretty well given that the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing but a political prize given by a committee - not associated with the real Nobel Prizes given for real contributions to society - to individuals or groups that have actually not contributed to the promotion of peace. This year the final nail in the prizes' coffin has been set - the Messiah, the Great One, the Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. From a Washington Examiner piece, the opening paragraph, gives the reasons why the committee thought the Obama worthy of such a worthless prize - a total mockery of the Obama's world vision:
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism. (Emphasis mine)
Every president since the rise of the Soviet Union and the growth of the terrorist Islamic states have had this mission - so why give the prize to the Obama, who has had not one success in foreign policy since taking office - well, because the prize is not given for success and accomplishment but only as a reward for awkward stupidity. The world is still rolling around laughing from his UN Security Council speech to eliminate nuclear weapons and Israel is about to destroy Iran because the Obama's great diplomacy has led to great advances in Iran's Nuclear Weapon's program. I still haven't heard NK promising to give up its weapons. Given the Peace Prize committee's decision this year, I think that if I were to hear that I had won the prize I would immediately hold a press conference and decline. I would never want to be placed along with the pantheon of clowns that have won the award in the last decade.
My biggest disappointment, other than the final everlasting cheapening of the Peace prize to just another "he showed up" prize, is that the committee did not go all the way and include a co-recipients of the prize the other major players in the Obama circus - Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I mean, afterall, fair is fair, if you are going to reward doing nothing to help peace why not include everyone?
The only sitting President to win the award for actually doing something to promote peace was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, when he helped end the Russo-Japanese war. His negotiations led to the "Treaty of Portsmouth." Woodrow Wilson also received the prize, as a sitting president, but his prize was for work that led to World War II. And now the 3rd sitting president to receive the award, the Obama, gets it for doing nothing. In 2002 Jimmy Carter, a former president - in title only - received the prize for being a Bush critic.
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
I am trying to remember when Nobel's charter was changed from this to, "the peace prize should go to the person who blathers the most on the most inane subjects," which clearly fits the Obama and would be the reason for the award. I am sure that Sarkozy totally agrees with the choice!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
