DS got one of those World Almanac/Fact Book for Kids things from the book fair, and was reading a section that talked about the Nobel prizes. He asked me what he'd have to do when he grew up to win a Nobel Peace Prize. I managed not to laugh, and gave him a general idea, but it does seem the criteria really has changed over the past several years, not just that one special year a few years ago. How would you explain the criteria?
Jean Henry Dunant Switzerland "[for] his role in founding the International Committee of the Red Cross"
Frédéric Passy France "[for] being one of the main founders of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and also the main organizer of the first Universal Peace Congress."
Élie Ducommun Switzerland "Honorary Secretary, Permanent International Peace Bureau"
Charles Albert Gobat Switzerland "Secretary General, Inter-Parliamentary Union; Honorary Secretary, Permanent International Peace Bureau"
William Randal Cremer United Kingdom "Member, British Parliament; Secretary, International Arbitration League"
The last 5 winners:
Muhammad Yunus Bangladesh "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work"
Grameen Bank Bangladesh (yes, I am familar with the program - it still amounts to saddling people with long term credit agreements)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Switzerland "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
Al Gore United States
Martti Ahtisaari Finland "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts"
Barack Obama United States "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (awarded before he actually did anything, how well is he really doing at strengthining that international diplomacy yet? Or is that still Bush's fault?)
Liu Xiaobo China "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"
Only 2 of the past 5 are remotely similar to the type of efforts they expected when they first handed it out.Answer Question
Answer by agentwanda at 9:28 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Answer by mrssundin at 9:38 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Answer by MommaClark3 at 9:56 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Well, if it were my DS, I would tell him that he didn't actually have to DO something, but he would have to talk a lot about doing something big and it's got to sound like it will help people that are struggling.
I guess that's the good news, is that you don't actually have to accomplish anything anymore, you just have to have a really big plan (with no way to implement it).
Answer by QuinnMae at 10:22 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Answer by tinamatt at 10:29 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Answer by lovinangels at 10:32 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Answer by Carpy at 10:36 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Because it has been awarded to Liberals doesn't make it "a pile of dog shit". It may simply mean that no Conservative has done anything to promote peace. Waging war against a country under false premises doesn't quite qualify as a "peaceful endeavor". The only issue you have with the Nobel Peace Prize is that a few of the winners represent a party that you loathe. Otherwise, you might not have such a disdain for the award. But go ahead, crap on the Liberal winners, if it makes you feel better. I doubt attitudes like that would make you a winner, either.
Answer by jsbenkert at 10:48 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Answer by Carpy at 10:58 PM on Feb. 7, 2011
Next question overall
Any recommendations on places to stay in Destin Florida?