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

Demonstrators have suffered heavy and repeated losses during routines staged in the middle of bustling intersections where participants have been overrun by cars, taxis, buses and tuk-tuks, but its members hope to follow in the successful footsteps of the trendy and mysteriously contagious political revolts that have gripped the Middle East in recent weeks.

“Today Tunis, tomorrow Tahrir Square!” shouted one agitator. Wearing a Bieber mask and clutching a large, 1980s-style boombox, he doused himself in kerosene, stepped into traffic and set himself ablaze, his screams fading well before his melting boombox succumbed to the intense heat.

Vehicles did yield to this spectacle, and his fellow protesters hailed his sacrifice as “heroic” and “tide changing,” pointing to how their counterparts used self immolation to ignite the beginnings of political unrest only weeks earlier.

“Who can explain why several other countries should embrace anarchy just because Tunisia, more than a thousand miles away, did,” remarked one protester. “I guess it’s because people are just lemmings, which is perfect for us, since only that same behavior can explain Bieber Fever to begin with.”

Bieber fever is the latest ingredient in the Middle East powder keg.

After enraged Tunisian youth set themselves aflame and prompted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to flee the country, copycat, regime-changing riots erupted in Egypt, culminating in longtime Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak’s ungainly exit from power on Feb. 11.

Meanwhile, malcontents inspired by those events are today stoking their own unrest in Yemen, Bahrain and Iran with hopes of effecting similar, if ill-planned, change.  Multiple reports indicate that Bieber Fever may be afflicting the region in much the same fashion, despite flash mob casualties numbering in the thousands.

In Tehran, a live BBC radio interview with a diplomat in the Swiss embassy in Tehran abruptly ended in screams followed by the overpowering strains of “Overboard,” the Bieber remix featuring fellow pop tart Miley Cyrus. Off the coast of Somlia, militant pirates broke off a successful attack against a mammoth oil tanker to instead pursue a cargo ship containing 76,000 tons of bootlegged Bieber DVDs headed from China to South Africa.

Iranian leaders have angrily denounced the Bieber Fever threatening to sweep the already-troubled region. Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani blamed Israel and the United States for the “heinous injection of Western, pop-music garbage into Allah’s hemisphere.”

“When we blocked the Devil’s satellites and Internet signals to keep out such filth, they sent these agitators instead. Death to them all!” he shouted in an impromptu fatwah he delivered against “all things Bieber.”

However, the Bieber movement vigorously denies ties to Israel or the United States. “Israel might be to blame for 99% of the region’s problems,” said one protester struggling to set her heavy burka on fire. “But Bieber is Canadian and he’s not even Jewish!”

“Curse these fuel shortages,” she added. “Do you know how hard it is to set a wool burka on fire with just a match?”

Originally posted 2011-02-15 22:25:47. Republished by Blog Post Promoter