Sunday, October 11, 2009



By definition a laureate is someone honored for significant achievement. When did the criteria become based on intentions? It reminds me of the Popeye cartoon and Wimpy exclaiming “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

Suddenly I’m struck with a fantastically progressive idea. Perhaps we should begin handing out diplomas at college admission offices simply because the fresh faces gathered there exhibit a reasonable desire to educate themselves. And as soon as that happens I’ll anxiously wait at my mailbox, certain the first two timely payments on my new vehicle will be enough to convince the lender to sign over the title. Oddly I’m reminded of a quote involving good intentions and the road to hell.

I do hear some opposition to President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize; primarily based on the grounds he has not promptly withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, which in itself should preclude him from consideration. I’m perfectly content with that. A president should be concerned with the leadership of his country long before giving a thought of garnering hardware on a victory lap. I only hope President Obama has enough steel to resist the progressives long enough to ensure we finish a worthy battle. We’ve all heard plenty about the “illegal war based on lies in Iraq”, what exactly would be the reason for leaving Afghanistan? “It’s been too long—the road’s too hard—we’re sure Bin Laden is remorseful”?

Those blindly promoting peace seem to lack a basic understanding of good and evil. While the principle is worthy, all equations are not so easily solved. Two gaping holes in the Twin Towers= Evil. Do we somehow think that after eight years when a surviving family sits down at the dinner table no one notices the empty chair? Maybe it’s similar to the Roman Polanski sympathizers; let’s just forget that he admitted to drugging and sodomizing a thirteen year old girl—it’s been so long—who are we to judge, right?

Personally I felt the Nobel Prize was cheapened significantly when Al Gore received it. Only in America can one profit so obscenely from a questionable premise that began as manmade global warming and since been retooled as climate change…hmmmm. Seems like a simple achievement test question.

Which of these things is not like the other?
A. Desmond Tutu
B. Mother Theresa
C. Martin Luther King
D. the Dalai Lama
E. Al Gore

I’ll not deny President Obama has the potential to achieve great things, but it might not hurt to take a second look at the picture above.

7 comments:

Jo A. T.B. said...

Here! Here! Hastily for accomplishments not even achieved yet!

Jo Janoski said...

You've got this right, Dan!

punatik said...

I know there are a lot of individuals and organizations working hard towards peace...but with 20 some wars raging on the planet , maybe they should wait until they have ended , then give the dang thing out. You are right Dan...Obama, peace prize ? Nah, bad call.

Scott Clawson said...

I wrote about this same subject on my facebook page. I too believe that the prize was cheapened when Al Gore recieved it, however this latest round not only makes the prize a farce, it diminishes the accomplishments of earlier recipients.

Donielle Smith said...

Hi, interesting poem indeed, however I rather not get into the political aspect of it. I do appreciate your honest views in reference to our country. I just feel that we should try to support whoever is in office, although we may not totally agree with their overall decisions. Thanks for sharing your opinions with us.
I hope that you have an opportunity to visit mine as well. Please feel free to leave a comment. Thanks.

writer&poet
Donielle S.

Anonymous said...

It is rather interesting for me to read that article. Thanks for it. I like such topics and everything connected to them. I would like to read more on that blog soon.

snore stop said...

I too believe that the prize was cheapened when Al Gore recieved it,Thanks for sharing your opinions with us.