The task of covering Trump rarely lends itself to devolving into utter hilarity — most issues break down to laughter in place of tears, decisions or actions that are offensive to joke about as they most certainly hurt people.
And yet, on those occasions when he spits out a spectacular unicorn, something with such brain-busting stupidity, so fantastically funny, one best not fumble.
Grab the rod, strap yourself to the seat, reel in a real big one — this utter farce has hilarity bursting from our sea-to-shining-sea hellscape.
Trump has spent at least six months campaigning for this year's Nobel Peace Prize (Something he often spells as "Noble." Ironically, he wouldn't win that, either), only to obviously lose to someone deserving — Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, 85, of South Africa, a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, former International Criminal Court judge, and currently an ad hoc judge at the International Court of Justice, deservingly edged out the ever-eager man this year.
Pillay spent decades defending human rights, beginning with her opposition to apartheid in South Africa and her legal work defending Nelson Mandela. As an international judge, she helped establish that rape and sexual violence could constitute genocide and crimes against humanity.
(Perhaps keep that compelling act in mind.)
That's... ah... quite the resume, and such resumes are often the assumed predicate for either the Nobel or non-existant Noble. We should take a moment to concentrate on how she risked her life for voiceless victims, then transition to the guy who... ah... did not.
Rest assured, Pillay deserves the prize, and let us count the reasons that Trump does not.
First: Rule Number One is so ironclad as to be perhaps the biggest predicate: never, ever, ever, even appear to campaign for the prize, and that rule applies to every Nobel, whether the peace prize, medicine, economics, even literature; this is true not only in part because such whining/campaigning is not noble. I have a greater chance of winning the prize for literature than Trump for the peace prize, in large part due to following Rule Number One, this suggestion notwithstanding.
Campaigning for the prize can be considered obvious evidence of someone needing the prize to cover a resume that is... ah... not so peaceful? A life stuffed with acting on behalf of peace sort of negates any need for a campaign.
Under absolutely no circumstances can one violate Rule Number One and consider oneself eligible.
Second: Rule Number Two is not funny. It is highly important that one have a resume just stuffed with promoting peace around the world. There is simply an entry-level requirement that one not start a war, particularly one in which a bomb killed 200 schoolgirls, without ironclad evidence that it is needed to save millions.
You can end 100 wars, but starting just one, one in which thousands die without any real justification, acts as a punch in the face over peace.
It may be even more important that one not be personally responsible for masked storm troopers grabbing parents off the street away from crying kids, actually taking kids, shooting people trying to protest and protect themselves from detention centers that look like cages. Also, do not be responsible for those detention centers that are designed to be "difficult and painful," as reportedly demanded by Stephen Miller on behalf of Trump.
Three: This one comes out of left field as something oft not associated with prohibitive eligibility, but please do not be associated with the single most notorious child sex trafficker in history. Do not send that trafficker a birthday card outlining a crude female form referencing secrets. It is not just a bad look, it actually appears to violate the very sexual violence law established by Pillay, this year's winner, and thus seems to make him ineligible.
Four: If one simply must violate Rule Number One, which again is a brick wall to the prize, at least campaign to the right people!
Trump must believe that the Prime Minister of Norway runs everything the way Trump runs this country. He texted Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and basically submitted a resume bereft of peace but demanding the Peace Prize. P.M. Støre peacefully notified Trump that a committee appointed by the legislature determines the winners.
Nuclear whammy! Campaigning and campaigning to the wrong person, essentially requesting the prime minister overthrow the committee — not very peaceful.
Five: Well, learn to spell Nobel because the Nobel committee may toss the campaign application over to the Noble Committee, which doesn't exist, which makes it a tough referral.
Six: NEVER, EVER, gleefully watch television after sending a horde to jump the Constitutional moat and attack your own legislature. If Pillay received the award in part due to her work for peace within her own nation, it is incumbent on a compelling candidate to not seem to enjoy violence on one's own behalf, so much so that when next in power, you pardon every radical who attacked law enforcement and scared the spit out of every legislator.
Note. Pillay prosecuted those who promoted violence. A pardon only multiplies Rule Number Six.
Seven: One struggles to come up with a fascist dictator who has ever won the Peace Prize. But the few quasi-dictators that have did so by signing massive peace agreements — world-changing peace agreements. Anwar Sadat and Mikhail Gorbachev lead the list. This guy ain't those guys.
Eight: Don't violate Rule Number One, but if one must violate Rule Number One, never let it be so obvious that your campaign is based on insecurities arising out of the fact that a previous Black president, the one you so much want to be that you hate him at a galaxy-embarrassing level, won.
It reeks of racism, a rabidly disqualifying act.
Nine: Best not to be rich. But if rich, don't spend an entire lifetime dedicated to unlimited further enrichment, especially with almost no significant charitable contributions beyond pampering oneself so charitably as to create international policy based on gorging oneself on more money. Such gluttony is off-putting.
There is a presumption that amassing an unforgivable fortune can only come at the cost of abusing workers, spreading poverty rather than alleviating it. This guy qualifies for wealth disqualification.
Ten: Yeah, don't be a jerk, either. Even the most peaceful person on Earth will have a tough time if the Committee anticipates an acceptance speech demanding a second Nobel Prize. It is just a bad look in what is supposed to be a celebration of, well, the most awe-inspiring people on Earth.
Obviously, this list doesn't comprise many more of the reasons Trump will never win a Nobel Peace Prize.
For now, we're limited solely to having to put up with the guywho most violated Rule Number One through ten. Maybe instead he should campaign hard for the Noble Peace Prize; after all, anyone who finds a noble way to campaign for that prize really would be a unicorn charmer. Alas, he might lose that competition by a greater margin than the real one.
Jason Miciak is a Raw Story Columnist and former editor of Occupy Democrats, author, consultant, attorney, and single parent girldad. Please follow on Bluesky, and he can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com