Oh, Who Will They Honor?

The ladies and gentlemen of the Nobel Prize committee are living up to their reputation as leg-kicking SOBs.

Let's see who the article highlights:

Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko. This is a peace prize, right? I mean, what exactly does Yushchenko's victory have to do with the concept of peace? I mean other than the fact that US support was critical to keeping the Russian-backed goon squads out and making sure the transfer of power went peacefully? And that is the killer--the US was key. Can't give any credit to the cowboy US. Sorry Victor.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell. He has to be the sentimental favorite as he is perceived by the likes of the Nobel committee to have tried to stop President Bush's many wars (well, two--and the people involved seem to be happy about them--but that's irrelevant). But he did aid in justifying the Iraq War, so sorry Colin. Oh wait, could it be for his efforts to highlight the Darfur genocide? Probably not since it just highlighted the UN's ability to look away when it is not convenient. So not this year.

The Pope. Since the Pope is kind of expected to not wage wars, this seems pointless. But oh yeah, he was widely reported to be against the Iraq War--whether or not that was actually true. But not quite the kick in the leg to the US that they want. And he is kind of conservative as the article notes. Sorry Pontiff.

International Atomic Energy Agency. Because they've done such a good job with North Korea, Iran, and Libya, I guess. And Iraq, too, for that matter, prior to 1991. Or is this why the Nobel people want to honor the agency?

Indian spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Who? Not to sound insular and with no insult intended to India who I hope will be our good friend in the future, but shouldn't a winner be generally recognized for the prize he is to receive without a lot of prodding?

Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu. Because putting the screws to the Jews can't be simply ignored by this august body!

Bono. Ok, now they're just pulling our legs, right? Or has the concept of peace been so thoroughly perverted that a mere do-gooder qualifies?

Others speculated there could be another African winner, possibly to spotlight the peace accord between Sudan's government and the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement in January, ending Africa's longest-running civil war. This is what really gets me. The surest way to a peace prize or at least a nomination (as Hitler and Milosevic can attest) is to commit mass murder and then to ... stop--or at least slow the rate of killing. Is that not obscene? Could the prize be any more insulting to the concept of peace?

There is a little hope, although as I've noted above it would kind of be outside the lane of the concept of "peace." But still, consider this last note: Some Nobel watchers believe the 2005 award will go to someone involved with relief efforts after the Dec. 26 tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Well who could that be? Australia which jumped right in? Perhaps the US Navy and supporting military forces of America? The Japanese? Get real. If the tsunami is the reason for the prize, you know that the UN will be honored for its many fact-finding missions and press conferences that they held while the real work of helping the victims of that tragedy went on.

Peace prize, indeed.

I'm betting on Kim Jong-Il getting the prize. Nothing else could be quite as criminal.