Award (noun)

Bizzarro Date 10/10/2009

   Webster's dictionary has always held a special clout with the education system, and for that matter , the general public. When there is a dispute over a word's meaning you will usaully find someone popping open their Webster's dictionary. A few "I told you so" phrases are usually tossed around , and the matter at hand is firmly resolved. Businesses, pop culture, and various individuals spend years "lobbying" the Webster organization to get their word or phrase accepted in print.  It seems that once you have accomplished this feat, your word is immortalized and the definition is accepted as the gospel in the community.
   This "respect" for Webster's is why I have a hard time accepting the Nobel Peace Prize as an award by definition. Webster's dictionary defines award as : "1.a a judgement or final decison; especially:  the decision of arbitrators in a case submitted to them b. The document containing the decision of arbitrators. 2: Something that is confered or bestowed especially on the basis of merit or need."
   "Confered or bestowed especially on the basis of merit or need". That is pretty strong language when you are describing eleven days of a man's presidential term. Some people have had lifetimes without award worthy accomplishments. When did the merit happen? The need? I am not the kind of guy that can recite all of the past Presidents and Vice Presidents in alphabetical order but I don't remember living under a rock for the last week and a half of January. Did I really miss this/these great accomplishment(s)? I remember January of 1981 and the release of the hostages in Iran. I remember the first and second Gulf Wars. I remember the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. But I just can't latch on to what basis or merit for a Nobel Peace Prize happened during the last eleven days of January 2009.
   "The decision of arbitrators in a case submitted to them". This "case" was submitted with "hopes" of a man having great accomplishments. The NPP guidlines don't say anything about awarding future good deeds. Mahatma Ghandi was nominated Five different times over a span of eleven years, yet he never received the award. You tell me what kind of world we are now living in when Ghandi's peace actions spread out over a lifetime aren't enough to justify getting this award and a man who was in office eleven days is. This decision of arbitrators sounds like a decision of traitors to humanity. The men that made this decision deserve a lifetime suply of Nyquil, because I know they will need it to sleep at night.
   "The document containing the decision of arbitrators". This is the only justification that I can find for the definition of the Nobel Peace Prize. Barack Obama will actually be given a document containing the decision of the arbitrators on December 10, 2009. It is kind of hard to argue that point. So I guess that is the definition of The Nobel Peace Prize: A document containing the decisions of arbitrators. Nothing more than a piece of paper. Sort of like that perfect attendance paper you got in second grade. But you don't have to actually do anything for this one.