In case you’ve been living under a rock for the last week you know that Al Gore was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts around global warming.
According to Alfred Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". I'm sorry, but I don't think Al Gore, or global warming in general, fit this criteria in the least. I'd rather see someone win the prize multiple times than have a lame-duck award given.
Gore shared the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since the prize can be awarded to a group or organization (and it has numerous times over the years) why not award it to the Peace Corps this year? While their mission is actually pretty lame and too broad to mean much, at least incarnate they are more in line with what Mr. Nobel intended his prize to be awarded for. Or why not Bono? He's never been awarded a Nobel peace prize and he's been working for peace-related causes for years.
I think the Nobel Foundation needs to re-evaluate their Peace Committee; it seems to me there might be some politics creeping into something that should be, well, noble.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here, here. Nicely said, Amie!
Thanks Jen. :) I suppose I should add to the post that I DO think global warming is a problem and I think his movie was good (overblown but necessary to bring the issue to the forefront) but just not Nobel peace prize material.
Where's Amie? Wheeere's Amie?
Post a Comment