The Thesis: The Nobel Peace Prize means nothing. It is now just another paragon of political correctness manifested on the world stage. It’s the international equivalent to “Student of the Week” or any other unearned, self-esteem-based prize.

]]> http://www.newmediablog.com/2009/10/breaking-obama-wins-more-awards/feed/ 0 http://www.newmediablog.com/2009/10/obama-and-the-nobel-right-man-wrong-prize/ http://www.newmediablog.com/2009/10/obama-and-the-nobel-right-man-wrong-prize/#comments Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:21:56 +0000 Doug O'Brien http://biggovernment.com/?p=14930 The Norwegian Nobel Committee wanted to let everyone know that they really like Barack Obama. They approve of his political views and they want him to remake the world according to his vision.  Okay, we get it.  The Norwegians, one of the most homogeneous societies in the world, whose sole significant imprint on the world stage is the annual awarding of this increasingly worthless prize, arrogantly assume the role of moral arbiters of United States politics.  Thanks.  Appreciate it. 

It is blatantly absurd to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a nine-month president with absolutely no foreign policy achievement of note.  Especially when there are so many other fields where the Academy could justify lavishing glory, (and money–one wonders what POTUS will do with the cash?) on their secular savior. 

 President Obama has written two highly acclaimed (by the left) books.  Dreams from My Father is his accounting of his unique life story and his journey to understand his roots and his father’s abandonment of him and his mother.  It was called, “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,” by fawning sychophant Joe Klein.

 His second book, The Audacity of Hope (the first campaign flier published by Crown) was his soaring vision of a nation and world guided by the kind of social justice that only a community organizer can envision.  No less a literary critic than Gary Hart called Obama a, “figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur.”  The book occupied the New York Times Bestseller List for thirty weeks and won a Grammy to boot.

Almost any writer would kill to have sold as many volumes and have his or her books become so influential.  Surely the Nobel Prize for literature would have been much more justifiable.

Come to think of it, one could justify almost any other Nobel Prize for Obama other than the Peace Prize.  As has been exhaustively noted by questioners around the globe, the prizes are awareded for acheivement, not for good intentions, not for speeches or sound bites or just not being the guy you replaced.  It could be rationalized if Obama had spent decades striving for peace and had kept coming up short, to give him the prize for persistency.  Kind of like the Irving Thalberg Award for sticking around long enough.  In other words, Jimmy Carter’s Nobel Prize.

How about the prize for medicine?  Come up with some new discovery of how this gene or this virus works and help some people live a better life?  Pfooey!  Completely restructure the way 300 million people get treatment, invade people’s lives to an unprecedented level, decide what care is government-sanctioned and what isn’t, and in the process undermine the best care in the world, and you can really lay claim to having an impact on medicine.  Even without a bill passed yet, there is something there to hang your hat on.

But without a doubt, the prize to which Obama can most reasonably lay claim is that for economics, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.  His nearly one-trillion dollar stimulus package has been a major achievement in the field.  It has been the most high-profile repudiation of Keynesian theory ever launched.  Of course, that wasn’t Obama’s intent, but so many scientific breakthroughs have come about while academics were trying to determine something else entirely.   The president conducted one of the highest-cost economics experiments in history, (with taxpayer money) to see if J. M. Keynes theory that massive government spending could essentially end economic recessions. 

The answer is, of course, no.  In an era where economic cycles, like all others are compressed, the consensus is that the stimulus has fallen far short of its desired impact.  Even if we grant that Congressional Democrats hijacked the initiative to pay off organized labor, environmentalists, and special-interest advocates of pet social projects, the package has not delivered.  Unemployment continues to creep upward, no matter how much dissembling the administration undertakes about “jobs saved,” and how many more would be out of work without the stimulus.

In a few short months, Professor Obama has achieved what many economists spend a life time trying.  He has provided concrete evidence to support an economic theory.  Fortunately for the future of the republic and the solvency of generations to come, the theory he has helped prove is that Keynes’ theory is garbage.  Government cannot borrow and spend its way to prosperity.   Obama’s experiment shows that government is an inefficient agent for redistribution of resources.  Its efforts are subject to political whims, its actions are slow and entail unforeseen costs and consequences that diminish, rather than increase positive economic activity. 

Now that is an achievement worthy of a Nobel Prize.  Come to think of it, a few more years of this and Obama will be a lock for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

It is blatantly absurd to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a nine-month president with absolutely no foreign policy achievement of note.  Especially when there are so many other fields where the Academy could justify lavishing glory, (and money–one wonders what POTUS will do with the cash?) on their secular savior. 

 President Obama has written two highly acclaimed (by the left) books.  Dreams from My Father is his accounting of his unique life story and his journey to understand his roots and his father’s abandonment of him and his mother.  It was called, “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,” by fawning sychophant Joe Klein.

 His second book, The Audacity of Hope (the first campaign flier published by Crown) was his soaring vision of a nation and world guided by the kind of social justice that only a community organizer can envision.  No less a literary critic than Gary Hart called Obama a, “figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur.”  The book occupied the New York Times Bestseller List for thirty weeks and won a Grammy to boot.

Almost any writer would kill to have sold as many volumes and have his or her books become so influential.  Surely the Nobel Prize for literature would have been much more justifiable.

Come to think of it, one could justify almost any other Nobel Prize for Obama other than the Peace Prize.  As has been exhaustively noted by questioners around the globe, the prizes are awareded for acheivement, not for good intentions, not for speeches or sound bites or just not being the guy you replaced.  It could be rationalized if Obama had spent decades striving for peace and had kept coming up short, to give him the prize for persistency.  Kind of like the Irving Thalberg Award for sticking around long enough.  In other words, Jimmy Carter’s Nobel Prize.

How about the prize for medicine?  Come up with some new discovery of how this gene or this virus works and help some people live a better life?  Pfooey!  Completely restructure the way 300 million people get treatment, invade people’s lives to an unprecedented level, decide what care is government-sanctioned and what isn’t, and in the process undermine the best care in the world, and you can really lay claim to having an impact on medicine.  Even without a bill passed yet, there is something there to hang your hat on.

But without a doubt, the prize to which Obama can most reasonably lay claim is that for economics, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.  His nearly one-trillion dollar stimulus package has been a major achievement in the field.  It has been the most high-profile repudiation of Keynesian theory ever launched.  Of course, that wasn’t Obama’s intent, but so many scientific breakthroughs have come about while academics were trying to determine something else entirely.   The president conducted one of the highest-cost economics experiments in history, (with taxpayer money) to see if J. M. Keynes theory that massive government spending could essentially end economic recessions. 

The answer is, of course, no.  In an era where economic cycles, like all others are compressed, the consensus is that the stimulus has fallen far short of its desired impact.  Even if we grant that Congressional Democrats hijacked the initiative to pay off organized labor, environmentalists, and special-interest advocates of pet social projects, the package has not delivered.  Unemployment continues to creep upward, no matter how much dissembling the administration undertakes about “jobs saved,” and how many more would be out of work without the stimulus.

In a few short months, Professor Obama has achieved what many economists spend a life time trying.  He has provided concrete evidence to support an economic theory.  Fortunately for the future of the republic and the solvency of generations to come, the theory he has helped prove is that Keynes’ theory is garbage.  Government cannot borrow and spend its way to prosperity.   Obama’s experiment shows that government is an inefficient agent for redistribution of resources.  Its efforts are subject to political whims, its actions are slow and entail unforeseen costs and consequences that diminish, rather than increase positive economic activity. 

Now that is an achievement worthy of a Nobel Prize.  Come to think of it, a few more years of this and Obama will be a lock for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

“The Nobel gang just suicide bombed themselves. Gore, Carter, Obama, soon Bill Clinton. See a pattern here? They are all leftist sell-outs. George Bush liberates 50 million Muslims in Iraq, Reagan liberates hundreds of millions of Europeans and saves parts of Latin America. Any awards?… Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and for that gets a prize, which is now worth as much as whatever prizes they are putting in Cracker Jacks these days.”

“This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama. It is a greater embarrassment than losing the Olympics bid. And with this ‘award’ the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States. They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept.  I think God has a great sense of  humor, too.”

Read the full article here.

From the AP:

OSLO (AP) – 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.

Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying “to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now.” It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Read the full article here.

A total of $14.38 million in federal stimulus funds has been allocated for about 35 different projects to date at Montana State University, according to university officials. The grants are funded by the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in February to spur economic growth and create jobs.

Critics of the funding say it misses the mark of the goals set by Congress and amounts to wasteful spending. Supporters say the research does have an economic impact and will produce numerous long-term positive benefits.

The spending was criticized by National Taxpayers Union Vice President for Politics and Communication Pete Sepp. He said many taxpayers think of stimulus spending as long-term job creation in the private sector and not “expeditions to the Andes or, more up close, expeditions into people’s gums.”

Around $400,000 has been allocated for a study of the “relationship between pluton growth & volcanism at two active intrusions in the central Andes,” with another $391,875 for research into “combinatorial therapy for treatment of periodontal disease.”

Todd Feeley, associate professor of geology at MSU, said the grant to study volcanic activity will provide employment for one graduate student for two years to assist him in looking at lava flows from previous volcanic activity in the Andes and related work. He said that experience should help the student gain experience and hopefully assist them in finding permanent employment after their studies.

Feeley said increased research funding also makes science a more appealing field. “More young people are going to want to go into science…if they see there’s more opportunity,” he said.

Stimulus funding listed by the university also includes $25,000 to pay partial salaries for two full-time employees for Shakespeare in the Park.

“Shakespeare in the Park brings a cultural opportunity to rural communities throughout Montana that otherwise would not have those opportunities,” said MSU News Service Director Tracy Ellig.

Sepp said families who are struggling with the cost to send their children to college may not see the benefit of spending stimulus funds on such projects, particularly when the cost may fall to future generations.

“They’re the ones who are paying for those projects, in the end,” Sepp said of college students.

Ellig said most of the projects could be characterized as basic research and could have “enormous implications for protecting America’s health.”

“The value of basic research can be difficult to quantify,” Ellig said. “However, it can have enormous, unanticipated payoffs in the future.”

As examples, Ellig pointed to a $447,000 study of viruses (Structural Studies of Crenaracheal Viruses) that he said could have application in combating airborne bio-terrorism at some future point. Ellig also said research is an important part of the work done at MSU.

In fiscal year 2009, MSU budgeted $98.4 million for research with most of the funding from federal grants, according to Ellig. That is up more than $2 million from research funding in fiscal year 2008. Ellig said it is too early to tell whether the stimulus funds will produce an overall boost to research funding in fiscal year 2010.

Sepp said the examples at MSU should be evidence enough to derail any thoughts of a second stimulus.

“(Those) who believe that ‘Stimulus Two’ is going to be any better than ‘Stimulus One’ need only take a look at examples like these,” Sepp said.

Embattled Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) is headed for more trouble as the House ethics committee announced Thursday it has expanded its investigation to include Rangel’s financial disclosure reports, which show hundreds of thousands of dollars in previously undeclared personal assets and income.

The growing investigation comes as Rangel continues to fight off Republican attempts to oust him from his chairmanship – the House voted largely along party lines on Wednesday to allow Rangel to keep his gavel while the ethics panel continues its months-long probe of the Harlem Democrat.

The ethics panel also disclosed Thursday that it has issued nearly 150 subpoenas as part of its year-long Rangel investigation, interviewed 34 witnesses and combed through thousands of pages of documents related to the New York Democrat’s personal finances. The vote to widen the already sprawling investigation was unanimous.

In July, Rangel quietly filed amended financial disclosure documents, going back to 2001, showing at least $600,000 in assets that he had never previously declared.

Read the whole thing here:

By seeking to enlist the private sector in lobbying for the President’s agenda, the alleged conduct may have violated the Anti-Lobbying Act (18 U.S.C. §1913), which as Ben Shapiro pointed out in a previous piece, explicitly provides:

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation.

The Anti-Lobbying Act, according to government handbooks, prevents government employees from engaging in “substantial ‘grass roots’ lobbying campaigns … expressly urging individuals to contact government officials in support of or opposition to legislation …. Provid[ing] administrative support for lobbing activities of private organizations”

It is important to note that 18 U.S.C. §1913 only applies to federal officers or employees and not to the private recipients of federal grants, contracts or other federal disbursements.  Thus, while the artists who responded to the NEA’s request for political help may not have violated this particular provision of federal law, Yosi Sergant, who was apparently the main person behind the NEA phone call, and other members of the White House staff who were involved in the May 12 meeting at the White House, may very well have violated §1913.  Those staffers included “people very close to the President” according to Mike Strautmanis, Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement.  Punishment for such a violation can be severe – a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each violation.

The behavior of these administration officials may have also violated 18 U.S.C. § 607, which prohibits anyone from promising “any employment, position, contract, or other benefit derived in whole or in part from an Act of Congress, as consideration, favor, or reward for past or future political activity.”   Ben Shapiro’s article relates that Mario Garcia Durham, the Director of Presenting for the NEA, told the gathered artists at the White House meeting that the “government and its policies should be shaped by participants’ voices in connection with the NEA,” a pretty direct statement that the NEA considers its mission to be ensuring the president’s policies are being supported by its constituency – which are the artists who get its grants.

Whether or not the conduct of NEA and White House officials violates the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §7324) hinges on how broadly the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which has jurisdiction over Hatch Act violations, construes “political activity” and who specifically was involved in these calls and meetings.   In general terms, the Hatch Act prohibits all federal employees (except for the President and the Vice President) from engaging in “political activity” in the workplace.  While certain federal officials, such as some assistants to the President and some in Senate confirmable positions, are bound by the Hatch Act, they are exempt from the prohibition on engaging in political activity.  So who was involved in the alleged conduct is the first question.  

The second question goes to the underlying conduct.  “Political activity” is defined as activities that are “directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”   That phrase has historically meant activities that were oriented towards campaigns or elections as opposed to simply political in the legislative sense, and the underlying intent is important.  As an example, the Bush Administration came under OSC scrutiny regarding briefings that were held in federal buildings that analyzed the political landscape in the run up to the 2004 and 2006 election cycles.  In this case, the alleged conduct appears to be even more forward looking – not rooted in an upcoming election cycle per se, but leveraging past campaign resources to promote a legislative agenda that may have an electoral benefit down the road.  It would be a much easier analysis if comments were made about the 2010 cycle or about the need to help out in vulnerable member districts.

 In the era of the permanent campaign – and the references to past support by the artists that apparently occurred on both the phone call and at the White House meeting – it remains to be seen if such conduct could be attributed to future and potential campaigns. On the other hand, the Hatch Act also prohibits soliciting or discouraging political activity by anyone with business before a federal agency – and there is no question that the artists the NEA was talking to had business (grants) before the NEA.  The issue again is whether the NEA was soliciting political activity.

Another interesting side point is that historically – and in some cases problematically – so called “political activity” by the White House has been within the purview of the White House Office of Political Affairs.  That office has not been without controversy.  Senator John McCain pledged to eliminate it during the 2008 campaign and Congressman Henry Waxman has also called for its abolishment.  But shortly after the election, President-Elect Obama announced that he would keep that  office although it has been relatively quiet over the last eight months.  The political conduct with the arts community seemed to come out of the White House Office of Public Engagement.  So it would seem that the desire to push a political agenda has drifted into other White House offices. 

But the ultimate question is whether the White House Counsel, the Office of Special Counsel or the Justice Department determines there is  enough evidence from the NEA telephone call and the meeting at the White House to form the basis of an investigation into the actions of White House and NEA staff.  That will serve as the ultimate indication as to whether this administration represents the promised new era of accountability or simply more politics as usual.

As a fan, I didn’t want Letterman to move into Carson’s chair.   Not because Letterman couldn’t handle it.  It just seemed too refined for someone as eccentric and edgy as Letterman.  Turned out NBC saw it that way too when they awarded “Tonight” to Leno.  It pained Letterman.  But it helped to foster that continued edgy, underdog status that led fans like me to follow him to CBS.

Letterman’s historically large deal with CBS was fascinating.  He was granted an enormous contract and complete ownership of his own show.  A show that could be built from the ground up with no expectations or standards set by a previous host like Carson at NBC.  More importantly, Letterman answered to no one.  He became his own boss – a dream scenario for an entertainer who always answered to someone else.

For fans at home it was like watching the underdog finally win one.  He won by remaining true to his “Late Night” formula.  Silly characters, Stupid Pet and Human Tricks, Top Ten Lists all made the trip to the new show.   Though Letterman only enjoyed one year atop the ratings heap versus Leno - it mattered not to me and people my age.  Ask a high school or college kid at the time who was the “cool” host, or the “funny” host – Letterman won in a landslide.

As a college student in the rural Midwest, I applied to become an intern with my broadcasting hero.  I would later discover hundreds of kids a semester applied for one of fifteen spots as interns on the show.  Although I presumed I stood little chance, the internship coordinator informed me that Letterman’s show favored Midwesterners.  Letterman was a Midwest kid himself, and the show was of the mindset that Midwest kids were generally polite, conscientious, and hard working.  It was the most exciting, promising, thrilling moment a young college kid with a broadcasting dream could have.

It took only a few months of my internship to learn a thing about the business of comedy, at least as it relates to Letterman.   It was not an epicenter of fun and creativity.  Rather, it was an atmosphere of employees who worked for a man many of them never saw and seldom, if ever talked to.  Many of his employees seemed to resent his cold distance.  He was most certainly guarded and unapproachable.  This was not the irreverent showman I came to adore. The wide-eyed enthusiasm I arrived with in New York was quickly dashed. 

To be clear, I never witnessed anything inappropriate as it relates to Mr. Letterman.   I was not mistreated nor was there any juicy gossip overheard during my stay.  The knowledge I came home with regarding Letterman was purely observational. Honest students of “Late Show” and comedy in general have certainly come to the same conclusion.  Letterman, we must sadly confess, is seldom funny anymore.

It’s hard to know just when his entertainment value began to decline.  It most likely began the day he became his own boss, ironically.  Letterman’s personal work ethic he admired in Midwesterners like me seemed to be wanting.  He slowly phased out any sketch comedy that featured him.  It was a staple of his old shows.  The Alka-Seltzer-covered suit he sported before jumping in a tank of water and the Velcro suit that left him stuck to a wall of fabric were no longer.  His roving interviews and interaction on the streets of New York became less and less.  It was as though the thing that made Letterman so likable – his ability to be silly and laugh at himself – disappeared.  He was too important for that now.

Letterman’s personal politics have become so strident and hostile in just the last two years, any conservative feels unwelcome to watch.  He would regularly pontificate about the war in Iraq.  “George Bush is a dumb guy” jokes were told with such frequency it became rote.  When candidate John McCain had the “audacity” to cancel a scheduled appearance in 2008, Letterman blasted McCain with both barrels until Election Day.  A tasteless shot aimed at Sarah Palin’s daughter seemed to be the joke that broke the audiences’ back.  Letterman, after much public outrage, eventually apologized for the remark.  Then, the recent hour-long sit down with Barack Obama.  It seemed to be the host’s final admission.  Dave’s a pundit, not a comic. He’s not interested in entertaining the masses any longer.  Just the partisans. 

Letterman’s admission of sex with members of his staff and stories of sex in the office dominated his show in the last week.  News of his personal life, his humiliated and injured wife, his six year old son, and his beleaguered employees made a once entertaining show of comedy and variety nothing more than a television tabloid.  Ratings, while high, weren’t due to the quality of show being produced by the legendary host.  America is tuning in to see a famous man’s life crash and burn around him. 

David Letterman has, in fact taught this intern something.  He is a cautionary tale of the ultimate success story.  Success can be achieved through hard work, tenacity, and staying true to your style.  Success can also breed complacency.  Success can breed arrogance and narcissism that places your personal needs, wants, beliefs, and desires ahead of all others.  Success can ultimately be your undoing.

I wish I could have interned for that edgy, Midwestern underdog at NBC.