Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize makes me sick. I was away when the winner was announced, but an article about it in the New Yorker gives me a good excuse to mention it now. It is supposed to be awarded to people who have fostered peace in the world. It is definitely an Edwardian lamps-not-yet-out-all-over-Europe kind of prize. You know how I love that Captains of Industry ethos. But it has been abused in these recent years. I think they should just discontinue it, if they're going to treat it this way.
There are two ways to misuse a Nobel Peace Prize. The first is to award it to more than one person. Awarding first prize to more than one person is a bad habit of judges. It would have ruined the whole 2002 Winter Olympics for me, if they had not already been ruined by their own awfulness. Looking back, I see that in the past 10 years, 5 of the prizes have been awarded to more than one person. What motivation is there to do that? The process is simple: Somewhere in the world, there is the most peaceful person. Find him, and give him the prize. The second place finisher is an awfully peaceful person, but awarding it to two people means that the average peacefulness of the Nobel Peace Prize recipient is diminished. Is that something the Nobel board wants to encourage?
Even worse is when they treat the prize as a medal for good behavior. It's good to be a humanitarian, but that's not what the Nobel Peace Prize is about. The Nobel Peace Prize, bizarre though it may sound, is for people who foster world peace. Of the last ten awarded, 5 have been given to general do-gooders. I understand the temptation to reward a philanthopist with whatever is at your disposal (in this case, a Nobel Prize), however inappropriate, but please hold back. It doesn't make you look magnanimous. It makes you look either ignorant or political.
Only 5 proper Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded in the past 20 years. My pick for 2007? The world's trees (for their work producing oxygen and promoting democracy). Don't think this problem is confined to Nobel Prizes, though. Look for my expose on Time's Man of the Year when it comes out. It's enough to make you vomit into your diving apparatus.
There are two ways to misuse a Nobel Peace Prize. The first is to award it to more than one person. Awarding first prize to more than one person is a bad habit of judges. It would have ruined the whole 2002 Winter Olympics for me, if they had not already been ruined by their own awfulness. Looking back, I see that in the past 10 years, 5 of the prizes have been awarded to more than one person. What motivation is there to do that? The process is simple: Somewhere in the world, there is the most peaceful person. Find him, and give him the prize. The second place finisher is an awfully peaceful person, but awarding it to two people means that the average peacefulness of the Nobel Peace Prize recipient is diminished. Is that something the Nobel board wants to encourage?
Even worse is when they treat the prize as a medal for good behavior. It's good to be a humanitarian, but that's not what the Nobel Peace Prize is about. The Nobel Peace Prize, bizarre though it may sound, is for people who foster world peace. Of the last ten awarded, 5 have been given to general do-gooders. I understand the temptation to reward a philanthopist with whatever is at your disposal (in this case, a Nobel Prize), however inappropriate, but please hold back. It doesn't make you look magnanimous. It makes you look either ignorant or political.
Only 5 proper Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded in the past 20 years. My pick for 2007? The world's trees (for their work producing oxygen and promoting democracy). Don't think this problem is confined to Nobel Prizes, though. Look for my expose on Time's Man of the Year when it comes out. It's enough to make you vomit into your diving apparatus.
posted by apk01004 at 9:48 PM
2 Comments:
Why is it impossible for more than one person to be at least as peaceful as everyone else?
Under such conditions, is it not very reasonable to award Mr. Nobel's prize to each of them in parallel?
On another note, it seems that, when I am posting comments like this one, I have the option of clicking on the cripple icon for a slighty less visual alternative to the normal word verification process. If any person can tell me what this alternative is intended to accomplish, I hope that such a person will do exactly that.
It is not possible in the same way it is not possible for two numbers, selected at random out of the set of real numbers between X and Y, to be equal.
I never clicked on the wheelchair icon before. I think maybe this is intended for split-brain patients who can't see the letters below as letters (when they have one eye closed)? Or dyslexics, or something?
I suspect the developers didn't have any particular disability in mind when they designed it. They just thought, better safe than sorry, and it was easy to program, so why not?
Post a Comment
<< Home