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. m
