Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Stu Bykofsky: What's really behind the Nobel Sur-Prize?

GLUED to the TV Friday morning, awaiting President Obama's remarks about the Nobel Peace Prize, I fantasized about how he would gracefully decline it.

GLUED to the TV Friday morning, awaiting President Obama's remarks about the Nobel Peace Prize, I fantasized about how he would gracefully decline it.

I did say "fantasized." Obama accepted the award, but gracefully acknowledged that he had not earned it, that it reflected America's diplomatic efforts.

He said the Nobel committee likes to use the prize to prod efforts in a certain direction. The direction is peace, harmony and ecology of the Left, and that's fine. We should understand that the Nobel committee is as politicized as MSNBC, the Fox News Channel and the U.S. House of Representatives. The Nobelites award the prize as a reward for good intentions rather than actual accomplishments.

This was unlike the Liberty Medal celebration here a day earlier, when Steven Spielberg was honored for decades as America's premier film entertainer/educator, plus several decades, and millions spent, as a humanitarian. The surprise about Spielberg's honor might have been, what took the committee so long to select the Haddonfield-raised director? I wondered if the Nobel surPrize was some kind of karmic "make-good" on the part of the international community to compensate Obama for his failure to secure the 2016 Olympics for his Chicago hometown.

Some political analysts, both left and right, hypothesized that the Olympic "humiliation" would cripple his presidency, which shows I'm not the only one fantasizing. What will affect Obama's presidency are the U.S. economy, American joblessness, health-care reform, success in containing both Iran's nuclear hunger and murderous insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Nobel Peace Prize was announced on the same morning that President Obama allowed NASA, unprovoked, to fire rockets into the defenseless, benign moon to see if there's water there. While Obama has a way of telling the world things it likes to hear, has the virus of American "cowboy" bravado worked its way out of our system? Didn't Obama give the kill order to Navy SEALs to take down teenage Somali pirates in the April rescue of a U.S. merchant ship?

The Nobelites, who have previously handed out awards based on wishful thinking and hopeful words, outdid themselves this time. Our president was nominated - I wish I knew by whom, but I'm betting it wasn't Hillary - two weeks after inauguration and before he was fully unpacked in the White House. It took him longer to get his dog Bo than the Nobel Peace Prize.

Some analysts see the prize as a not-too-subtle knee to the groin of President George W. Bush, who could not receive the prize because he talked funny and started two wars.

One of which (Iraq) Obama continues, while the other (Afghanistan) Obama will expand, rightfully. I guess it's OK to be at war as long as you say you wish you weren't at war.

The Nobelites cited Obama for wishing for a nuke-free world, yet he has not said what he will do to implement this desire against rogue states like North Korea (with nukes) and Iran (almost there). To be fair, defanging these snakes requires global action and not many who share Obama's dream will lift a finger to make it come true.

So, what prodded the Nobelites to give an honor that confounded both Obama's friends and foes? I picture the scene in "A Clockwork Orange" in which hooligan Alex has his eyes taped open and is exposed to repeated, disturbing sexual images. I imagine the Nobelites, their eyes taped open, exposed to an endless loop of New Jersey school children singing, "Barack Hussein Obama, Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm."

This is not criticism of Obama. He was as surprised as the rest of us and I'm betting a little embarrassed, like hitting the lottery when you hadn't even bought a ticket. This is a knock of the Nobelites, who live in a fantasy world in which wishing and accomplishment are interchangeable.

As an example, the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East." The Nobelites popped the champagne a bit too early.

Was there peace? No. Peace proved to be a mirage, a shadow with no substance.

The prize was for "efforts," which were unsuccessful. Words count more than actions? Effort is more important than success?

Why not Bill Clinton for "almost" getting it done with Nobel Peace Laureate Arafat and Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000? Why not Bill Gates for billions spent to rid the world of disease? Why not Brad Lidge for making good effort and "almost" saving 11 games?

It's their prize, it's their money, they can do what they want to do. But they have - again - mystified the masses with a politically correct, but reality-wrong, selection. By their standards, I'm overdue for a Pulitzer.

E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns:

http://go.philly.com/byko.