Oct 21, 2009, 09:23 PM
|
1
#2 of 25
|
It comes down to this modern constant: 95% of the people who are well-known enough to be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize come from backgrounds and experiences that are decidedly not conducive to promoting unified world peace, else their careers and lifebloods would be obsoleted. What need is there for world leaders when the world can govern itself? For every five good-natured men and women out in the jungles treating injured elephants or teaching impoverished Cambodian children how to read, there's some ivy league jackass phoning the media, saying "Yeah, see them? I did that." And that person will get the glory every time.
So just accept that the nobility has been taken out of the Nobel Prize. They don't select recipients based upon the person, but rather the proximity of the person to the particular cause that the Nobel Committee wishes to bring to public attention that year, regardless of how much benefit or harm the winner may have had in relation. Wanna promote peace in the Middle East? Give it to Arafat, even though he was the biggest antagonist there for decades. Wanna promote the green agenda? Give it to Gore, even though he's become a mouthpiece who uses sensationalism in place of facts.
It's a lot simpler to give Nobel prizes to tangible efforts such as physics, chemistry and medicine - fields whose research yield measurable results. But for peace, all they can do is offer to someone with outspoken good intentions, and we all know where that paved road leads.
There's nowhere I can't reach.
|