The carefully made and deliberate choices of the Nobel Peace Prize committee point to a clear amBUSH. Consider these recipients: Jimmy Carter in 2002, Al Gore in 2007 and Obama 2009: US politicians all battened around the Bush years. It is as if the Bush men didn't even exist. Hmmm....doesn't that have a musty odor that stinks a little like political agenda?
The connections may have more to do with security than peace and the particular worldview of the Peace Prize Committee itself (which I'm not going to expound on here).
Ok...but besides all that political stuff, let's talk about another issue. That of being rewarded for a plan and not an act. The nomination deadline for the award was Feb 1: a mere TWO weeks after the inauguration of Pres. Obama. So the award is not based on anything Obama has actually done. The Committee openly acknowledges this, endorsing the decision by rewarding Obama's "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." (What was I just saying about security??)
As Winnie-the-Pooh so cutely says, "Oh bother." I suppose it is awfully old fashioned of me to think Awards should REward actual accomplishments, credible actions, or a lifetime body of work representing a deep commitment and loyalty to the work of peace. Think about the meaning of the word RE-ward. You DO something and are paid first via an internal satisfaction from doing the very act, and then you are RE-warded, or given again a gift of thanks, sometimes through a more publicized award. Re-warded....awarded a second time. Implies that there must be something great in the first place.
To his credit, President Obama has a sense of the hastiness for this honor. Seeking to quell some of the naysayers and justify the decision, Obama stated in a recent press conference: "I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honour specific achievements."
He continued, "It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century."
"[This award may] give momentum to a set of causes." What a great phrase! I really hope that bears true. Mostly, it seems that hope is often puffed up in the emotional mind and seems grander and greater than reality, and that faith breeds rose-colored ideals in the power of politicians to solve the world's problems.
At the very core of it, this award simply supports the notion that power lies in smooth and titillating words. The ability to communicate the dream of building a bridge to the future and designing a roadmap to get there is as important as the drive itself. Vision is as important as actions.
If this is the case, Miss America and other beauty pageant contestants should have it made in the shade. (Who knows? Maybe Miss Teen North Carolina and her vision of MAPS FOR ALL is really on to something).
10 comments:
Dang it Jenni!!! You stole my thunder....I was going to say that every Miss America contestant has firmly placed in their political platform the great hope for (please don't let me sound cliche') 'world peace'!!! The only difference is the pageant contestants lack the mysterious political backing that has allowed Obama to rise from relative obscurity to become president of what used to be the most powerful nation on the planet (not so sure about that of late). Why don't we just give out Nobel Peace Prizes like chicklets to all with that great dream of 'world peace' in their hearts?!?
Bridge....great minds think alike. What can I say??
You know what else I didn't even mention...speaking of the power of words? Shouldn't Obama's speech writers get some of the prize money?
I am posting this for my colleague:
In my opinion, I think Pres. Obama is a visionary, charismatic, corageous, inspiring, wellcomes and values diversity kind of leadership. It will be very hard to walk his shoes right now when this country is suffering major issues that is at the peak. May God bless him and those that are in power.
-Suzi
Posting this for Marti:
When the Dali Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize (quite a few people were excited as they thought it was a long time coming)....when asked for his responce he said in a Yoda/Yogi way..."Best not to get so excited about such things"
He's got other priorities;-)
Posting this for Sandra:
Dear Jenni the Futurist,
I could not agree more. I was shocked. I then felt bad I was so shocked and could not be happy for him. But I could not it was outside my understanding. One source said it was in part for speeches given. DO presidents not have speech writers? Should he share it with the ones who wrote the speeches? Is a Nobel Peace Prize not for a contribution rather than just position?
Posted for Leanne:
I TOTALLY agree with everything you wrote. Amen sister!
Posted for Loni:
very, very profound.
Posted for Jeremy:
I couldn't believe he won the prize though. It certainly weakens the Nobel Peace Prize that is for sure - it makes it almost a joke actually. Then again, has it really ever meant that much? I think it is a weird way to try to slap Bush in the face - I mean, how many more slaps does he need? I think the fact that his popularity vote is less than 10% is as good of slap as anyone can deliver.
Posted for Lori:
I believe that the Nobel Peace Prize has become a farcical nod to the rock star of the day. Al Gore and Barack Obama in the same century! It frightens one, indeed, that a leader developing and communicating a clear and tantalizing vision is the only criteria for a once noble acknowledgment of honor. If Adolf Hitler were alive and well, his expertise in communicating his beguiling vision might too, be recognized by the impotent honors that today's society bestows upon those in the limelight merely because they have good speaking skills.
It has long been spoken that it is not what we say but how we say it that is key in communication. Indeed, this is true for any leader. Argument is merely persuasive communication. The give and take of argumentation in general is something that a great leader must develop. Some would call it negotiation as argument carriers with it an unwarranted negative connotation. Obama is a master of this negotiation/argument communication. He gives the listeners a bit of what they want to hear and agrees with them on emotional points, then he proceeds to incorporate and sway the listener to a varied stance with only a facade of their original thought.
Clearly, there is a vast difference between the characteristics of a good leader and one who leads but not for good but for power. I will now swing away from the absurd of Obama being awarded a crown and speak of what characteristics I have observed in a good leader....
Gordon B Hinckley was a good leader in every sense of the word. He lead by example. He motivated. He complimented us first on what we were doing right and then built upon that momentum not by pointing out what we were doing wrong, but allowing us to know what the expectations were and allowing us the agency to challenge ourselves to better. Once our own recognition came into view of the vision, he again reinforced our ability and power to achieve. He was genuine and not self-serving. He did not condescend and honored the gifts that each person had to share at life's table. He encouraged us to educate ourselves for our own betterment. He was patient, tolerant, transparent in his dealings, honest, kind, trustworthy, brave, friendly and chaste (funny how boy scouts teach good leadership too :0). President Hinckley developed many clear and tantalizing visions (look, for example, at the number of temples built during his tenure) under which he enrolled so many people only the greater good, not his accolades in this life or after. Once again, underscoring, the difference between good (Hinckley) and power (Obama).
I must stop now, I could go on all day. I must turn my trusty spurs inward and go forward with my day.
Nice blogging toots--and good luck on that assignment.
Have a nice day Jen
Annie O
Post a Comment