According to Geir Lundestad, secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, it is a myth that the prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace after they have proven successful; "more often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments."
This to me, seems like giving a building an award for being a magnificent structure while it is still under construction. Anything could happen between any given day during construction and the grand opening, and to call something "Building of the Year" before it is done seems completely presumptuous.
I'm not saying anything about Obama being awarded the Prize and whether he's peaceful or not (there are many arguments for all sorts of sides to that argument, and I'm not qualified to talk about it), but I am saying that I never realized the rationale behind the award itself seems a bit flawed. We're just awarding someone a big fancy award to encourage them to "keep on keeping on?" Who else gets awards for stuff like that? A "you're doing a nice job so far and we're 100% convinced you're not going to screw it up between now and then" award?
(I know there are building awards for "On the Boards" building projects, but those awards openly recognize a project "in design" and not for any merits as a future completed structure!)
Your thoughts?
3 comments:
The Nobel prizes have gone left-wing political. When they gave it to AlGore, that took the cake.
I believe that awarding the prize to BHO was designed to prevent him from sending more troops over to the present fighting zones in Afghanistan, et al.
That must be why Al Gore won the Peace Prize in 2007 for making a documentary instead of going to Irena Sendler, who rescued thousands of children from the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII.
So by teaching my children to share and live peacebly with their family and communities I might ONE DAY win the noble peace prize becuase I laid such a foundation? Actions, not promises, should be rewarded.
Post a Comment