I mean, it's fine for the Nobel Peace Price to make a political statement - the award is a political statement! - but c'mon, dude should have to do something first.
According to this AP thingy: _ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only 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.
ETA: Seen elsewhere, perhaps they should change the name of the award to "Excellence in the Field of Not Being George Bush." Since that's pretty clearly why they gave it to him.
I think I might stock up on ammotinlailOctober 9 2009, 19:11:02 UTC
Given the track record of the Nobel prize committee.
" [T]o fully appreciate the farcical nature of the peace prize, you need only go back to the painful years before World War II:
In 1931 the prize was shared by Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, whose later enthusiasm for keeping good relations with Nazi universities has been a source of embarrassment to Columbia.
In 1933, 1934 and 1936, the peace prize went to executives of the League of Nations, already a colossal failure.
From 1939 through 1943 there was no peace prize. You know, World War II was such an inconvenience, and Oslo, where the peace prize is given, was under occupation. Ah, the success of those past prize winners!" http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024667.php
Comments 4
I mean, it's fine for the Nobel Peace Price to make a political statement - the award is a political statement! - but c'mon, dude should have to do something first.
Reply
_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only 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.
Still, my reaction to the news was "for...?"
Reply
ETA: Seen elsewhere, perhaps they should change the name of the award to "Excellence in the Field of Not Being George Bush." Since that's pretty clearly why they gave it to him.
Reply
" [T]o fully appreciate the farcical nature of the peace prize, you need only go back to the painful years before World War II:
In 1931 the prize was shared by Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, whose later enthusiasm for keeping good relations with Nazi universities has been a source of embarrassment to Columbia.
In 1933, 1934 and 1936, the peace prize went to executives of the League of Nations, already a colossal failure.
From 1939 through 1943 there was no peace prize. You know, World War II was such an inconvenience, and Oslo, where the peace prize is given, was under occupation. Ah, the success of those past prize winners!"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024667.php
Reply
Leave a comment