This being a holiday, I was told that I had the day off. Not sure what I'm going to do exactly except my child does need long sleeves. Last night he didn't sleep so well and this morning the temp in the house was below 70 so I think it was really cold last night. We turned on the heat; the first time ever.
I flew through yesterday's post and had every intention of sharing some of my thoughts about the Nobel Peace Prize. As much as I hate to admit it, the Peace Prize has, of late, turned into a political motivator. I think the Chinese are wrong to threaten people as they have, but to some degree they are right.
Last year, Obama won the Prize and people were outraged. Well, the conservative Republican people were. I wasn't outraged. I was confused. They said that they awarded it to him because he had done some great things and were hoping that he would do more. Giving someone an award so that they would live up to it, doesn't seem like much of an award. It chalks up memories of giving children trophies simply because they signed up and showed up to little league practices and games. It's really not a reward earned for a positive outcome. It's a reward earned to motivate a person.
Now, Liu has definitely earned the Prize. I'm not saying that he hasn't. I, as you may recall, actually hoped that he would earn it. But the Chinese are right about one thing. Most likely he earned the reward because the West is trying to motivate the Chinese to end communism and bring about reform. I want to end communism and reform to happen for China too.
As a result I'm kinda at a quandary. Should the Nobel Peace Prize be used for political means? And did Liu receive the prize for political reasons rather than because he is doing good things for his people?
Since today is Veteran's Day (yet another holiday that I detest), I will say that I think that there are other motivators to bring about reform and change than going to War. Should the Nobel Peace Prize be one of them? I'm not entirely sure. Part of me says yes. But then part of me wants the Prize to be an award without political motivations.
I'm hoping that in this case, the Prize was awarded for a good job done. But given that Obama was given it, I'm inclined to think that the committee awarded it to Liu, above other nominees, because of the political climate that they want to change. Which goes back to the above point, is it okay to use the award as a means to bring about peaceful reforms?
All in all, I want to be naive and think that the award was given to the right man. But selfishly, I hope that it will open up a pathway to democracy in China. Is this wrong or right? Do you think the Prize should be above political motivations or a peace means to motivate political change (or change in individuals)? Do you think the award was awarded to Obama to bring about reform in the US? Do you think Liu received the award to bring about reform in China? Please share your thoughts.