Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Cal Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
No Peace, No Prize
by Cal Thomas
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

"War will continue until the end..." (Daniel 9:26)

Like the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, along with the Oscar and Emmy for film and television, the Nobel Peace Prize is an inside job in which liberal, wishful-thinking humanists give awards to each other.

For all I care, the Nobel Committee could have given their useless (except for the money) prize to Homer Simpson. Like President Obama, Homer has done nothing to earn it, though he may be the only character who has been on TV more than the president.

According to the Website www.globalsecurity.org, there are currently "42 active conflicts and/or wars in the world today." Not all are shooting wars at the moment and there are several civil wars and conflicts between Israel and various terrorist groups, but 42 wars is a lot of war.

Peace generally occurs when aggressive evil is defeated, which is why Germany and Japan no longer war with the United States. The Nobel Committee apparently believes that by diplomatically singing "All we are saying is give peace a chance" evil people will study war no more and be so impressed by our intentions they will lay down their arms.

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could win the Nobel Peace Prize in an instant if he announced his god had told him not to eradicate Israel, or usher in Armageddon. But Ahmadinejad won't, because he is evil and must be defeated. Neither will he respond to negotiations, or sanctions. Same with Osama bin Laden. The United Nations would welcome him as a speaker and the Nobel Committee would award him their top prize if he would announce he no longer believes in terrorism and has become a follower of the Dali Lama or some other "acceptable" pseudo-deity. He also will do no such thing because he is evil and must be defeated.

The Nobel Committee believes George W. Bush is evil, but apparently not bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. It cringes at leaders who wish to overcome evil by force rather than have the forces of evil overcome them. The Nobel Committee hates Israel, too. And this is because its members, and like-minded male wimps around the world, idolize Michael J. Fox instead of John Wayne and find their role models in the liberal ladies of "The View," not in muscular characters like Jack Bauer (and Chloe, who gets it) on "24."

The peace prize concept is flawed because the problem of war does not lie with those who would make peace, but with those who would make war. If the Nobel Committee were realistic, it would stop handing out peace prizes and start issuing awards for those who have confronted evil and produced peace in nations that have only known oppression. Candidates for such prizes would include Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, who conspired to liberate Europe from the totalitarian hand of Soviet communism.

Bill Clinton would also be a legitimate candidate for his efforts that stabilized Bosnia. He could take some small credit for the peace in Northern Ireland, which, though worked on for decades, was finally brokered on his watch. President Obama was right when he acknowledged that he doesn't deserve the prize. Neither did Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho or Al Gore.

The question should be: why, despite man's best efforts, including the League of Nations and United Nations, have we been unsuccessful in eradicating war? The answer lies in this ancient wisdom: "What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4:1-3)

That's why a peace prize is meaningless.

Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(29 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Oct 16, 2009 - 7:41 PM EST
Manichean Outlook Simplistic (part II)
But these occurrences could be limited with earlier, rational interventions. If the nations of the world had used a more compassionate, understanding approach to Germany at the end of WWI, for example, there would have never been a Third Reich to contend with. Likewise, on a more personal level, what would happen if we came to grips with the fact that beating and humiliating children is a means not of preventing evil from taking root, but in fact inoculates the child with repressed rage and resentment--fellings that will later bear destructive fruit? Such a discovery, once accepted, might then lead to the pulling up of the true root of most violence and misery in the world (Hitler, for example, had he been protected from his father's savage beatings, would certainly not have embarked upon a quest to destroy the world).

I too believe that this year's Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an undeserving recipient, but because it was directed wrongheadedly this year does not necessarily mean it's meaningless. Many past winners have seen their worthy causes given increased impetus with the recognition. I personally think it should have been awarded to Alice Miller, whose works on toxic childrearing practices--and their destructive consequences (for both society and the individual)—illuminate a path through which humankind might actually hope to one day rise above its violent ways. Of course, embracing her tenets would entail leaving behind simplistic approaches to violence such as labeling, finger-pointing, and reducing complex issues to black and white terms. Mr. Thomas might mourn such a passage, but humanity would celebrate it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Oct 16, 2009 - 7:33 PM EST
Manichean Outlook Simplistic (part I)
This is the same simplistic, Manichean philosophy that was at the heart (along with unhealthy doses of arrogance and stupidity) of this country's recent wars--against Iraq and against its own principles. I certainly agree that evil is rampant in this world, but labeling individuals as "evil" is not only unproductive, but dangerous as it ignores the complexity which lies at the root of human motivation and behavior. I despised virtually everything that Bush and Cheney represented, but though their actions resulted in great evil, I would not label them as being evil---even though their policies resulted in more suffering and carnage than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to author (which should not to be read as even the most remote sanction of bin Laden and his ilk). The actions of Bush, or bin Laden, which resulted in so much horror, came about not because of inherent evil, but because of a Gordian knot of influences—influences that might have afflicted us in similar ways had we been subject to them. The idea of “there but for the grace of God go I” is a much more apt--and Christian, I dare say--way at looking at the authors of evil than decrying them as actually being evil. The only purpose such labeling serves is to deny the destructive urges that exist within each of us, or, in some cases, to deny our own culpability in some destructive action (e.g., voting for G. W. Bush, or the United States' bringing down Iran's democratic government in the 50's). But this limits our ability to understand what is really going on, which in turn limits our ability to positively impact events. Now, there are times when evil has taken such deep root, and has become so destructive that understanding is not nearly so important as stopping the expression of that evil, as for example, after the Third Reich's invasion of Poland. (Coninued below)
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.