Giving out awards

A The New Republic Jonathan Chait notes in "The case against awards" that:

"A recent statistical analysis by Robert T. Hodgson, published in the Journal of Wine Economics (I kid you not), found that a wine that wins one competition is no more likely to win another competition than any other wine. Which is to say, wine awards are handed out completely at random. If you listen to movie buffs, they will tell you that the Academy Awards regularly commit unforgiveable sins of commission or omission. Look closely at any field that gives out awards, and you will probably find that injustice is more the rule than the exception.

I've often suspected as much at art shows when I look at the winners. However, since I think the point of his article was to reference Obama's recent prize when he erroneously says, "the committee frequently chooses recipients in order to encourage or empower them, rather than to reward actual achievement" at least I can't think of any examples, one person comments:

Originally the award was designed to be given to those who had done the most to bring about peace. This means it should go to international mediators and those who make peace with their internal or external enemies. While there might not be good candidates every year, there are many who fit this criterion who haven't received the award. It took the Nobel Committee in Oslo 23 years to award Carter for mediating the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. There are two figures in the Obama administration who deserve it for their work in the Clinton administration: George Mitchell for mediating the Good Friday Agreement in Belfast in 1998; Richard Holbrooke for mediating the Dayton Accords for Bosnia in 1995. Obama should give each of them half of the peace prize.

I think I could go for that--split it with people who deserve it. Although wasn't Clinton given the credit for the Belfast Agreement? He certainly is revered in Ireland.