A Nobel Acceptance Speech

The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to First Term US President Obama has made the Nobel committee an international laughing stock. The decision for the President to accept the award has done the same for him, especially directly following the Olympics fiasco.

Yes, it wasn’t his decision to be named as this year’s award winner. But it was his decision how to respond. With it, he was given a great opportunity to win political points at home and abroad for both him and the US.

Here is what he should’ve said:

“I’d like to thank Nobel Committee for acknowledging the efforts WE in American have been making to encourage peace and democracy within America and around the world. This for the most part has always been our understood mandate.

Since it is apparent that both the Nobel Committee and the US share these similar values, we would like to recognize those who have not only strived and sacrificed, but also succeeded in their efforts.

Therefore we will accept this award in the name of …….”

At this point, the president could name any number of deserving people at his discretion and who embody issues he would like to raise attention to. Here is an example with the person who many believe really should have won:

“Therefore we will accept this award in the name of an incredible accomplished woman fighting for the well being, rights, and democracy of her own people in Afghanistan, Dr. Sima Samar. Dr. Samar, the Chairman for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Dr. Samar was forced to flee after her husband was arrested. He was never heard from again. In Pakistan, Dr. Samar worked to set up medical services for Afghan refugees. In 1987, she helped open the first hospital for women, staffed by women in Quetta, Pakistan. In 1989, she established the Shuhada Organization, a non-governmental and non-profit organization committed to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan with special emphasis on the empowerment of women and children.”

Now he would have been in a position to win points AND create support to do what he needs to not only conclude the war in Afghanistan but also attack its corruption.

To outright reject the award, although appropriate since it was undeserved, would have been greatly damaging and embarrassing the Nobel people. Instead, simply deflecting the award to worthy candidates would not have only boosted his dignity but also the issues that are dear to him.

It would be nice to see Obama's administration take a page from Reagan's who kept as a working principle: There is no limit to what can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit.

But alas, it seems the NOBEL has lost its nobility

A Sickness of Change Revealed in the Healthcare Debate

The US is currently debating health care reform. And after listening to the President’s national address on the issue, realized a common ailment that exists in most change initiatives.

Although, it is widely agreed that there is a need for healthcare reform in the US., Americans are generally happy with the healthcare they receive. Which in fact is among the best healthcare in the world.

So, the problem and therefore the focus of reform should not be in the service, but in access.

Access to healthcare is primarily limited by cost. The very little that we know about the Health Reform Bill that the President is pushing is that it will increase access to healthcare by lowering cost to the public.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is a sickness that pervades most development/reform/change programs around the world. There is an addiction in development in treating the symptoms, rather than working on cures. Is it not about WHAT will be done, but about HOW.

The symptom in healthcare is high cost. Therefore the solution should include ways to deal with the REASONS for those costs. The current bill does not. It merely addresses the issue by simply finding more creative ways to pay for it. In other words, a glorious way to simply throw money at it.

Problem solving, healing, and real change means getting to the core of the problem, and dealing with it at its source. Can one deal with poor education by lowering test standards? If one gets a rash on their skin, should they just cover it with make-up? If there are problems at home, is it solved by drinking? You and your spouse are fighting a lot, is the answer simply not speaking? If you’re over-weight, should you just take a pill? (although, that would be nice)

Once, I was involved in a program to deal with drug problems among teens in a local community. After research, I proposed a program that dealt with core issues: a lack of role models, a lack of future prospects, lack of constructive activities and support in which to develop strong social skills, coupled with cooperative law enforcement. It was cost affective, used resources currently available in the community, sustainable and therefore long term. However, the plan was rejected because the quota was for an anti-drug program rather than a community development program which mine appeared to be.

On a separate issue, I was asked to work on development for a crime-laden area. After research, the proposal came back as a socio-economic development program for the entire region. But again, rejected because the quota was slated for dealing with the “problem people” and my program dealt with the community at large.

In working to improve educational standards in another developing country I was met by resistance from educators who simply didn’t want to do more work.

Recently, a friend kept complaining about her weight, yet refused to do anything about it that constituted sacrifice or sweat.

Change is a good topic, but the sickness lies in the denial to do what is really necessary. Why? Because real reform takes work, real growth comes from pain, real change means removing that which currently holds power. It is not always nice, it is not comfortable, it is never easy.

If the President is really serious about Health Care Reform, it should address malpractice lawsuits (tort reform), rising insurance costs, separating medical insurance from work, and encouraging healthy lifestyles.

Want to increase an economy? Encourage companies to invest and grow and limit government to regulation.

Want to improve education? Deal with the teacher/education unions and keep teachers accountable.

What to lose weight? Adjust your eating habits and EXERCISE!

Involved in community development? Do the research, instead of simply copying a program from another culture.

Unfortunately for most development, instead of doing the work, it’s a lot easier and more popular to take it easy and just throw money at the symptoms.