On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Manar Hussain <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Friday 09 October 2009 06:50 PM, Manar Hussain wrote: >>> Which seems most unusual, but presumably the purpose of recognising >>> past deeds is to encourage the future deeds of others. I think there's >>> some merit - though I'm far from convinced - in saying that Obama has >>> an exceptional opportunity, which the prize makes more likely, that if >>> achieved would be very significant furthering of the prize's raison >>> d'etre. >> >> I agree with the first bit, but shouldn't the prize should be awarded to >> recognize contribution, rather than mere aspiration. How else would one >> distinguish between a beauty queen promising to work towards world peace >> and the president of the USA doing the same? "Opportunity" (even if >> exceptional) is not sufficient, as diplomacy and anti-nuke messages are >> not something new to the rhetoric of U.S. presidents -- they're just a >> welcome changes from GWB tenure. And presumably all U.S. presidents >> have exceptional opportunities by virtue of their position. > > Absolutely. The opportunity would need to be something like: "We the > committee genuinely believe that Obama will seek to use his office to > further Peace, and that us giving him the Prize now substantially > increases the chances of him trying and succeeding in making a big > difference". I can't imagine they've thought that about many US > presidents, and even fewer beauty queens.
I should add, I'm far from convinced the committee was correct. I just don't think that they were so obviously wrong for the reasons given so far, even if those reasons are understandable; Obama doesn't deserve the Prize (yet?)! m
