October 15, 2007

Some people are really angry about former Vice President Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I agree that it's unmerited (what does global warming have to do with peace?) but I can't say I share their indignation for a crucial reason. I wasn't really aware that the Nobel Peace Prize was worth something. After it's been awarded to people who sign peace deals and later renege on them, and to people who failed to stop nuclear weapons proliferation, it's hard to look at the Nobel Peace Prize seriously.

I still have some respect left for the Nobel Physics Prize, because it requires demonstrated, working accomplishments, and usually those accomplishments have to have been about two decades in the past and resulted in new research or technology.

If someone wants me to have respect for the Nobel Peace Prize, I think that the Nobel Peace Prize ought to have standards like that. There have probably been some laureates who have merited the award which the Nobel Peace Prize should be, but the unworthy laureates drag the whole prize down.

What if the Nobel Peace Prize waited about 20 years instead of 1 to see what resulted from a person's efforts- whether it even lead to peace, let alone better lives for the populaces of the conflicting nations? I think it would lead to more thoughtful awards, and recognize true accomplishments of peace.

I'm afraid I'm not counting on that occurring anytime soon, however. After all, which is easier; to sift through the past few decades and find out what was really significant, or to glibly gladhand a person who supports a cause popular in your political circle?