Fnord wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Probably not, but seeing the collective clench of the high and mighty when he refuses might be worth it.
I think it would be drowned out by the collective sigh of relief from the rest of us.Given that the prize has been devalued through having being awarded to a person who had done absolutely nothing to earn it, does it really make a difference whether he wins it or not?
It can be argued that the Nobel Prize for Peace has never been awarded to anyone for doing anything other than talk. The fact that it was awarded to a black man for his accomplishments -- not the least of which was getting elected president of a racist nation -- does not diminish the fact that a lot of leaders want one. You seem to be presuming that the Nobel Prize for Peace has been devalued because a black man got one. If that was the actual case, then why does Donald Trump want one so badly?The award is supposedly given:
Quote:
to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_PrizeAs such, your claim that "it was awarded to a black man for his accomplishments -- not the least of which was getting elected president of a racist nation" would appear to meet none of the criteria, thereby devaluing the award should that have been the reason.
Given that nominations had to be submitted 12 days after he took office, it would be interesting to know how the nominees could have come to the conclusion that he had done anything during this time worthy of the award that was within the guidlines outlined above: hence the devaluation of the award....Had it been the following year, however, when there would have been more than 12 days to base "suitability" for nomination, I doubt there would have been such a problem, providing there was evidence of his actually doing anything that could make him worthy of a nomination at that stage.
It is interesting that the committee who awards the prize "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect", indicating it likely was not for anything he had done, but in the hope he would "earn" it through later actions - being both an insult to other nominees with actual achievements, and an indication that the prize's value had been diminished through this attempt at "strengthening" an unworthy recipient (according to the stated requirements for receiving it).