I'm sure readers remember the disgust that erupted in all right-thinking circles when President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. It had most emphatically not been justified by his life or conduct to date. As former winner Lech Walesa said at the time, "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act." The Von Mises Institute was even more scathing.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is further confirmation ... that the prize has degenerated into politically motivated rubbish.
. . .
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama ... should disgust any true supporter of peace, and cause any principled individual to seriously question the integrity of the prize and those who award it.
Now, in similar vein, comes the news that three days after commencing his new show on MSNBC, 26-year-old journalist and political activist Ronan Farrow has been awarded the annual Cronkite Award for Excellence in Exploration and Journalism by Reach The World. The organization states that the award recognizes Mr. Farrow's "transformational work in global humanitarian issues and his founding and direction of the State Department's Office of Global Youth Issues in addition to his extensive work as a print journalist".
Wikipedia notes that Mr. Farrow has been the recipient of numerous other awards during his brief career.
He has been named New York magazine’s "New Activist" of the year and included on its list of individuals "on the verge of changing their worlds” for 2009; listed as Harper’s Bazaar’s "up-and-coming politician" of 2011; and ranked number one in Law and Policy on Forbes Magazine’s "30 Under 30" Most Influential People list for 2012. In its 2013 retrospective of men born in its 80 years of publication, Esquire magazine named him the man of the year of his birth.
Farrow was awarded Refugees International's McCall-Pierpaoli Humanitarian Award in 2008, for "extraordinary service to refugees and displaced people."
He was awarded an honorary Doctorate by Dominican University of California in 2012.
There's more at the link.
A couple of points come to mind when looking at this roll-call of honors.
- To be awarded an honorary doctorate at the age of 24 is frankly ridiculous. Nobody, but nobody has achieved enough by that age, by the normal standards for such awards, to qualify for an honorary doctorate. They're usually granted to recognize decades of achievement, if not a lifetime's work - so why was one conferred on Mr. Farrow?
- Mr. Farrow appears to be riding on the Obama administration's and Clinton family's coattails in his work to date in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and subsequently for the State Department. His activities in those posts coincided with the list of awards mentioned above. He's just taken up his new position at MSNBC in time to receive Reach The World's award (although it was said to be for his earlier work). I'd love to know how many 'hints' came from the Obama administration and/or the Clinton election campaign to those who conferred this and his other awards. He's also a Rhodes Scholar - a path followed by Bill Clinton. How did he earn that scholarship - if it was, in fact, truly earned?
Frankly, this smells to high heaven. I can't escape the conviction that just as Barack Obama was a nonentity in terms of real-world achievement who was groomed and polished to seize political power, so someone (or perhaps several someones) appear(s) to be grooming Mr. Farrow in precisely the same way. He can't possibly have done enough to deserve the awards he's been given - not at his age and level of experience. Compare his resumé with those of people who have truly significant achievements to their names, and you'll see what I mean at once. He's achieved little, if anything, of real and lasting value - yet he's being lauded to the skies. Why? What's going on? I can only assume it's to take advantage of his undoubted youthful good looks and capitalize on his family name and its public recognition.
I smell a large, hairy rat here. What say you, readers? Am I being unduly cynical, or just plain unfair - or am I on to something? Please let us know your reactions in Comments.
Peter
10 comments:
Well, he -did- graduate from college at 15. So if anyone was going to earn a doctorate by 24, it'd probably be him. As for how he became a Rhodes Scholar, probably also because he's the sort of person who graduated from college when he was 15. Did you even glance at his wikipedia page? :-/
But Travis--he didn't "earn" a doctorate. He could have gone back to school and worked towards one but he chose to do other things and someone just turned around and conferred one on him despite a lack of coursework, academic achievement or anything else noteworthy. Like Peter says, this is troubling due to the appearance of a set-up if nothing else. I agree with that assessment 100%, and I'm wondering what the quid pro quo is supposed to be here and who is on the other end.
In a nutshell, I think you're spot on.
Ratus Finkus, as Bugs Bunny would say. I trust nothing the MSM promotes as good, true and wholesome.
That barrel is totally gone.
Remember the old joke from the Soviet Union? Brezhnev was in for another surgery - chest widening to make room for another Order of Lenin.
VP in 2016?
Since you posted this before you commented on Og's Frontline thread, maybe you didn't catch my 1st and 3rd comment there yesterday.
In my first comment I was dismayed by the Frontline editors introducing the election of Pope Francis with and unbalanced gushing by some woman that "Francis IS the best Pope of all time" barely before the white smoke had cleared Vatican City. And I compared that to Obama's Peace Prize.
Later in the day Drudge headlined the Farrow story and it prompted me to post a third comment "Something I noted in my first comment has happened again. Our Soviet-Style Media has begun a trend."
Do you recall the Dilbert Principle? It states that unlike the Peter(!heh!) Principle, someone is promoted to their level of incompetence without ever passing through lower levels of competency.
Knowing that, shortly after Zero took office I labeled him the Dilbert Principle President. No I'm not bragging; I think it was apparent to most thinkers that he was a nonentity from the start -- and that is your initial point about Farrow too isn't it?
What do I think about your speculation?
Well, we have no real idea what the powers-that-be have in store for us with either Pope Francis or Ronan Farrow. In the Frontline case, they are historically following the script of the Frankfurt School and criticize every and all institutions UNTIL the Left has taken it over. Now that Liberation Theologian "outsider" is Pope, they allow him to be called "the greatest Pope evah" without a stitch of evidence nor of contradictory commentary.
In other words, it really does not matter what the higher powers have planned for Farrow, it is more about the process of indoctrinating large numbers of people to respond automatically to such propaganda (if they know what is good for them that is.) It's about establishing this pattern of awards before accomplishment, period, so that they can place anyone they want in power with a few chosen fine words about them.
Awards are always a comment on the grantor's values.
Why they have them.
'Nuff said.
Peter.
In the interest of leaving a precise record, went back to precisely get the words. The woman whose comments that Frontline made sure to include can be found at just before 1 hour and 10 minutes of the program. (I see you link to the complete vid in your next post).
She said "He is already the best Pope anybody can remember." No quite the best Pope evah, but close.
The trend I noted will continue. You can bet on it. In fact, as with most things Progs come up with, it can get much worse. Here you are talking about awards before merit. Lewis Carroll had his Queen of Hearts declare "Execution first; trial later"
Hey Peter,
I think VP nominee to go with Hillary, so they can get the young and hipster vote then he can be president in due time. ir am I being cynical?
Post a Comment