"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:14:23 -0400, H the K
wrote:



The Nobel committee has awarded on the basis of "hope" before.

Desmond Tutu won the prize for working for the end of apartheid, which
was not achieved for more than 10 years after his selection.

The Dalai Lama won the prize for struggling for the liberation of Tibet,
which has not been achieved.

Aung San Suu Kyi won for her efforts to liberate Burma, which has not
happened.


I saw the same Rachel Maddow puerile argument. She really
disappointed me with that.
Akin to saying those who won the medicine award for the double helix
wouldn't have got the award because DNA still isn't fully understood.
A look at the list of former winners shows without exception - until
Obama - years or decades of hard and often not widely recognized work.
There can be quibbles with the list, but that is a constant.
Even Obama is embarrassed at getting the award.
But he's handled it well.
Any justification is political nonsense IMO.
And the award was a political statement more than for real
accomplishment and sacrifice.
We'll see how it holds up if he decides to drop some MOAB's on the
Arabs. I suspect this is an attempt to forestall such events.

I can think of many reasons why Obama won, including these few:

his ending of the concept of pre-emptive war
his ending of the policy of not talking to our enemies
his shutting down of the torture mills

Right. Except those are givens, and to me simple American and common
sense values. Hardly groundbreaking. Party platform.

his message of hope and a brighter future for people all around the world

I understand "hope." But we live in a reality of sacrifice and work.
And that's how medals and ribbons should be won.

--Vic



We also live in a reality of hope and sometimes hopelessness. I choose the
former.

--
Nom=de=Plume