I always thought winning the Nobel Peace Prize was a big deal. After all, this is a prize that even Gandhi wasn’t good enough to win.
Barack Obama was nominated for it less than two weeks after his inauguration. The committee voted for him while he presided over two wars that have lasted longer than World War II. And he actually won the award on the day we bombed the moon. I don’t know where to start with what’s wrong with this.
The problem with handing out Nobel Peace Prizes like tic tacs is that it cheapens the award for the people who really earn it. You know, the people who actually do something for peace, like Martin Luther King, or Mother Teresa, or Nelson Mandela, or the 14th Dalai Lama.
It’s entirely possible that Obama will earn it in time (ending these two wars would be a nice start). But even so, wouldn’t it have been better for everyone, Obama himself included, to at least wait until the end of his presidency, instead of hoping he’ll earn it someday?
###
In other news, the price of How To Be Rich And Happy has been dropped from $97 to $47. For people who have already bought it, don’t worry – Tim will be in contact with an offer to make it right.
If you check the list of people who have earned the Noble Peace Prize, you’d be amazed. One is a Japanese former prime minister, and even I don’t know what he did for peace.
@ Akemi, yeah, there have been some odd choices. One of the most controversial winners that I remember was Henry Kissinger.
Actually, the Peace prize tends to be the most controversial of the Nobels. It’s just harder to show you’ve done something in literature or physics.