The decision sparked an immediate flurry of criticism from observers worldwide who pointed out that President Obama has accomplished essentially nothing in the 262 days he’s been in office, or at the very least nothing pertaining to a Nobel Peace Prize.

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin ...

As examples of nothing, critics pointed out the health care reform efforts that remained stalled despite both Houses of Congress being occupied by socialist majorities, a “Bush business as usual” approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the continuing, decades-long impasse between Israel and the occupied territories in the Middle East.

Responding to the criticism, the Nobel Committee has moved quickly to explain its selection of Obama, hoping that by elaborating on the decision-making process they can quell the uproar.

“Once people understand our thought process, they will join us in congratulating Mr. Obama for this well-deserved honor,” insisted Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland.

Jagland explained that last year, the Committee challenged itself to rethink the entire concept of peace. As a result, they formed a subcommittee made up of neo-stoic philosophers, left-bank Parisian baristas and board-certified Bodhisattvas.

After a month-long retreat in the Himalayas last December, the subcommittee reached a unanimous recommendation to the Nobel Committee: the ultimate incarnation of peace is inaction.

“We realized right away that the subcommittee had unearthed an Absolute Truth – be sure to capitalize that phrase,” said Jagland. “Right away, it changed our approach as we screened the nominees.”

Once affected by that paradigm shift, the Committee required little time to settle on the president, who was “obviously perfect and perfectly obvious,” said Jagland.

“We needed someone who embodies passivity, someone who knows how to use rhetoric to forestall action yet, at the same time, someone dynamic, energetic and famous. Obama was ideal.”

Even better, says Jagland, is that the non-actions of the president are the very things that, had they actually been accomplished, would be most likely to garner a peace prize under the old requirements of the award.

“He talks about free health care for everyone, about making peace in the Middle East, about finding water on the moon, about curing cancer and about holstering nuclear weapons. I think once he even talked about how nice it would be if we could reverse aging and control gravity.”

“He’s leading by example,” continued Jagland. “He knows his own inaction creates space for action on the part of the disenfranchised. This is what the rest of the world, especially the Russians, Iranian, Chinese and Al Qaeda, so dearly appreciate.

“This selection is pure genius,” said Jean-Philippe Pompeux, a professor of dysteleological ethics at Paris’ Center for Philosophical Inquiry who was not involved in the selection process. “Here we are reminded that as long as one is eternally becoming, one need not preoccupy oneself with being.

“It is not the destination – or even if one arrives at all – it is the journey that matters.”

Responding to criticism from conservatives that a policy of inaction and appeasement by the U.S. will only be rewarded by continued acts of demagoguery and violent expansion on the part of totalitarian countries, Jagland dismissed the notion of passing judgment on such developments.

“The U.S. is advanced; it’s a Western Democracy,” he said. “These other countries are still evolving, so you can’t apply a universal set of standards here. You don’t spank an unruly toddler, you allow him to keep expressing himself, keep bettering himself. Sometimes, things get broken along the way, but that’s the price of self discovery, and it’s well worth it.

“The man who recognizes that, who is willing to pay that price, is a true man of peace. President Obama has the world’s gratitude.”

Originally posted 2009-10-09 13:55:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Al-Queda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri condemned American support of the Israeli attacks – despite no such support from the White House – official or otherwise.  In a radio address,Al-Zawahiri said that Obama fulfilled, “…the words of Malcom X concerning House Negros…” and went on to further insult the new president by calling him a “dishonorable black.”

When asked why he directed his outrage at America, Al-Zawahiri became visibly irate.  “Hit the Zionists and Crusaders wherever and in whatever way you can!  Allahu Akbar!” Al-Zawahiri then excused himself from taking further questions, citing a doubles tennis match between him and Osama Bin Laden vs. his stockbroker and an up-and-coming Hollywood entertainment lawyer.

Representatives from the Israeli embassy were unavailable for comment, as they were all at a local synagogue partaking in a bagels and lox brunch function.

Here in America, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to condemn the insults to the new President, saying that “America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.”  Exactly what that had to do with either the Israeli attacks on Gaza or the Arab protests remains unclear.  When asked to explain, she again attempted to go on the offensive by saying “protecting America from terrorism requires more than just resolve, it requires a plan. As we have seen in Iraq, planning is not the Bush Administration’s strong suit.”

Whether or not she is aware that Mr. Bush is no longer President also remains unclear at this time.

Obama - a light to the Muslim world, or just another off-white devil?

Reaction in America ranged from shocked to confused.  Moonmuffin Kliebold-Harris, a sociology major at the University of Vermont, seemed particularly puzzled.  In a recent National Public Radio person-on-the-street interview, she cried, “But we elected Obama!  That’s supposed to show we care about them.  My political science professor said that Obama said that if we were nice to them, that they’d stop hating us. Why do they still hate us?  Why, why, why?”

Jerry Sandusky, an unemployed autoworker from Flint, MI, had similar sentiments.  “Obama promised us change,” he said, “but those darned Arabs haven’t changed at all.”

On behalf of President Obama, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that the jihadists need “empathy.”  He cautioned that should their unchecked aggression continue, President Obama might be forced to shake his fist and speak in harsh tones.  If that fails, Gibbs warned, Obama might even have to resort to giving all of Islam a great big, collective hug.  In response, the jihadists ran over Obamas picture with a car.

Originally posted 2009-02-04 20:32:47. Republished by Blog Post Promoter