Because I didn’t think that part of your post made it perfectly clear about anything other than you were mistaken. If your jokes wallow in obscurity, maybe they need some smilies?
You’re thinking of a different president. Roosevelt had polio.
Stop razzing Yazzerz.
Oh, so now you’re going to come in and seriously defend your woosh? Feel free.
Damn! You’re right. It was the other one that was shot by an elephant in his pajamas.
I’m not sure this is a widespread problem. Frank, just FYI, I didn’t have any trouble realize which parts of your post were serious and which were in jest.
I think it comes from two aspects of the prize - they are often given in the hope of what a person will accomplish, as much as for actual accomplishments, and they cannot be granted posthumously. So while it is nice when history validates their selections, that has never been part of the criteria.
The prize committee has quite often used it to highlight various issues with the hope that the recipient will become a catalyst for progress, rather than reward any substantial progress amongst those issues.
With Arafat I think it was a combination of both - to reward Arafat for participating in the Oslo Accords, and that by making him a Nobel laureate, he (and hopefully Fatah as well) would continue to back the Accords and the peace process.
That’s really insightful, Agnostic Pagan. Thanks.
Elephants don’t wear pajamas.
They wear Teddy’s
Jointly to Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Le Duc Tho at least had the decency to decline it.
Which is the antithesis of what Alfred “the merchant of death” Nobel spent his entire life doing.
Well, that and it was Truman who nuked Hiroshima.