I don't think the nomination deadline had much to do about it, since final voting was probably pretty recent; only that he would have NO chance if he weren't nominated early.
I was dumbfounded by the decision, but the more I read about it from European sources and people who follow such prizes, the more sense it makes.
Skipweasel, it's because people set up their lives as if the income will always be there. Too much house, too much commute, too many cars, etc. And especially too much debt!
People who always live a little below their means have a cushion when hard times come. While you and I paid off our houses by doing without some luxuries, many people just consider mortgages to be a regular expense forever.
Before this goes any further, I want to remind you of Neatorama's policy of no personal attacks in the comments. No name calling. However, you can go at it against something that someone had SAID here.
To answer the title question: no, I couldn't. However, I am familiar with heartbreaking stories of disrupted adoptions, involving older children who abuse siblings or start fires. My heart goes out to those parents. I've also heard about adoptions which are disrupted because a biological parent came forward or some corruption in the process was found. Doubly heartbreaking.
However, I read this story at its original source a few weeks ago, and there were things that disturbed me. I can't put my finger on what the author is trying to accomplish by posting the story. It does not make her look good. Is she trying to justify her decision? Was it really necessary to point out the coprophagia? What adoption agency approved this family with so many existing children and a father who was often called away? And how can she show so little concern about the sisters' attitude toward their brother? I can't pass judgment on such an elusive story, but it doesn't quite add up.
Orn, the data they used for this is from 2007, before the global financial crisis. Iceland will probably see the effect of their economic straits in the next UN list.
I was dumbfounded by the decision, but the more I read about it from European sources and people who follow such prizes, the more sense it makes.
People who always live a little below their means have a cushion when hard times come. While you and I paid off our houses by doing without some luxuries, many people just consider mortgages to be a regular expense forever.
However, I read this story at its original source a few weeks ago, and there were things that disturbed me. I can't put my finger on what the author is trying to accomplish by posting the story. It does not make her look good. Is she trying to justify her decision? Was it really necessary to point out the coprophagia? What adoption agency approved this family with so many existing children and a father who was often called away? And how can she show so little concern about the sisters' attitude toward their brother? I can't pass judgment on such an elusive story, but it doesn't quite add up.