"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change,'' the citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."
Does this mean we'll see some more "strong commitment" to "political activity"? Al Gore for President!
Oh, go ahead and talk about whether he deserves it, blah, blah, blah, blah. But we've already been through that.
I want to talk about what happens now. Is Al supposed to sit home and content himself with his collection of every prize but the presidency? Or is he going to emerge from his world of warmth — where everyone effuses over his brilliant goodness — and come back to the cold reality of a presidential campaign?
And what is Hillary thinking right now?
पोस्ट्स
११३ टिप्पण्या:
Gore should refuse it.
If the prize really meant anything, Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov would have one, and Yasser Arafat wouldn't.
Al Gore will not run. He is afraid of the Clintons. I hope that I'm wrong, because the verbal sparring would be priceless.
I truly enjoy the "time traveler" approach to life exhibited by the above. Oh well.
Why don't we just give him his due, let him have the moment. By all accounts 2000 soured him on "the other prize". Let him bask in the sun now and after a few days decide if it is enough or not.
This is a prize handed to you partly by fate, a lot by accomplishment and some by blind luck at being the choice in perhaps a not so choice year. In any event he won and that is something.
The Nobel Peace Prize has become meaningless. Awarding it to Albert Gore Jr., Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Yassir Arafat, Rigoberta Menchu among others shows how politicized the Nobel Committee has become in recent years.
Albert Gore Jr., by the act of producing a science fiction movie has done nothing to advance the cause of world peace.
With a cool mil prize he can afford more carbon offsets.
He could run and do very well.
But without the Clinton base (and against them), he would have a very tough time. More than Obama or Edwards, he would have to get very ugly about what he knows or thinks of her in order to weaken her support.
For some Democrats, he'd be seen as Ralph Nader on steroids, a too-effective spoiler.
So it will come down to what he thinks is more important: a Democrat in the WH, or Al Gore in the WH. I think it will be for him a very tough call.
These next few days are going to be hard to endure.
"he would have to get very ugly about what he knows or thinks of her"
Watching the dagger thrusts between Gore and the Clintons would be so delicious it would almost be worth the risk of Al in the White House.
People like him, he's invited to all the cool parties, and he wins all the awards. Why throw that away to be attacked nonstop and stabbed in the back by supposed friends for the next year.
He can sit back and be the elder statesman without all the baggage. Like Jimmy Carter without the failed presidency and the desperate need to be respected.
I'm really happy that Al Gore won the award. Conservatives can whine all they want about how the prize is "meaningless" because a handful of assholes have won it in the 100+ years in which it has been awarded. Aren't they missing the point entirely? If their reasoning was valid, then the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Presidential Medal of Freedom have been permanently tainted by George Tenet and Paul Bremer.
The arguments over whether global warming is a serious, immediate threat or merely a serious long-term threat are important to have, but they again are sort of beside the point. This issue, and environmentalism more generally, are on the average American's radar screen in large part due to the efforts of Al Gore. If you ask me, that is a more significant accomplishment than anything that President George W. Bush has ever done in his career.
He certainly is more deserving than Hillary Clinton, with a more engaging personality and more experience.
The Democrats are going to probably win next year regardless, but Gore is a better candidate and would likely be a better President.
I've decided not to vote for Hillary, but I would consider Gore.
Wade: You better check on who wins the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Neither of the two twits mentioned can even qualify.
I'm waiting for the real neo-cons to wake up to this news and comment. We will see and hear all day long about the worthlessness of the prize, how Arafat won soooo...how Carter won sooooo...and it will be then renamed the Nobel Political Peace Prize.
Just give him his due. He won. Be happy for him.
"If their reasoning was valid, then the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Presidential Medal of Freedom have been permanently tainted by George Tenet and Paul Bremer."
That's not a bad point (although lars pointed out a problem with it factually). However, the obvious counter is that others who were very deserving have won the Medal of Freedom, while of late the Nobel Peace Prize has been incredibly politicized.
The biggest travesty with the Nobel Peace Prize to my eyes remains that Jimmy Carter, who emboldened and, in the case of Iran, empowered tyrants, won it, while Ronald Reagan, who won the cold war without there being an actual war, did not.
But good for Al, and as you mentioned the cause of environmentalism is at the forefront in part because of his advocacy. It wasn't the most honest of films, and I think the alarmism was overdone, but sometimes to move the goliath one must go to the far edge and push. Rattling sabers, if you will.
Where I work, there is a big push on sustainability, which is all an offshoot of the focus on the environment. The result will actually end up saving money rather than costing it, which surprised the hell out of me. I'm sure in other businesses it will be the reverse, but I believe we can do better by the environment without it being an economic disaster.
The thing that I hope, however, is that Gore realizes he is already enacting change without needing the government to go regulation happy. We don't need laws, we need leaders.
It means global warming is over. The tuna has been jumped.
Thanks Steven,
I googled Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov , fascinating.
I think Wade meant the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Hmm...better to have honor or freedom?
Hilarious is furious, along with most conservatives.
"And what is Hillary thinking right now?"
She's thinking *I wonder, if I send him one of my fake hand-written note emails, would he consider it: Clinton/Gore '08. After all, he fell for it with Bill. Of course, we all fell for it with Bill.*
ok, HD, I'll bite.
I could not pass up this great line from a "Telegraph.uk" article today.
The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like if the Norwegian Nobel committee gives him the prize?
The best thing to do with the Congressional Medal of Honor now would be to give it to the person who did most to bring peace to some war-torn part of the world, since the Nobel Peace Prize is apparently no longer available for that purpose. War heroes could get the Pulitzer Prize instead. We'd make it up to the people who write the best newspaper stories by awarding them the Stanley Cup. The best team in the NHL would get the donations George Soros used to give to prominent lefty spokesmen before that function was taken over by the Nobel Peace Prize.
"furious, along with most conservatives"
Not really. Like I stopped giving a damn what the NYTimes says about anything anymore, I find that the the Nobel committee long ago gave up any shred of being nonpartisan. as a result, their choice elicits merely a Heh, next year maybe Ahmadinejad can get one to match Carter's. Hardly anything to cause one's teeth to gnash when their selections are more whatthehell? than of course.
Like the UN, they have an ideology to sell, and they are going to give it to us good and hard.
Too bad Bono missed out. Anyone catch the new South Park about him?
I'm glad someone who is concerned about the environment, and meteorology, won. I wonder how he'll split the award with the IPCC?
If only the physics prize had been awarded to Vilhelm Bjerknes back in the day.
hdhouse: I'm a "real neocon," bud. Gore's a presidential loser (unlike Jimmy Carter, not withstanding his own international foibles [disasters?]), an inconvenient fact the Nobel committee obviously sought to rectify
This one's for Wade, from Damian Thompson at the Daily Telegraph:
"Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed."
And what is Hillary thinking right now?
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
If he can avoid suffocating on the cloud of smug that will follow him for the rest of his days, Gore will not return to the sordid realm of electoral politics. At this point he's basically a secular pope. On top of that, he's making absurd amounts of money through his various ventures. He can even leverage the prize to increase the profile of his TV network, gaining a greater share of media control and using that to make more money and further push his agenda. Why would he give all that up for the opportunity to get into a position where his every failing and hypocrisy would be even more publicized and where, if he succeeded in his electoral ambition, he would have countless opportunities to tarnish his reputation and demonstrate through his actions that he does not buy the doomsday scenario he's been selling with such success and fanfare. Gore would be a fool to run for anything at this point - he's transcended politics and become a cultural and political force independent of any elected office.
Incidentally, and despite your dictate to the contrary, I can't help but note that it's pretty silly they gave him the award.
I think some of you are a bit confused about what teh Congressional Medal of Honor is.
It practice, one pretty much needs to die for the country or at least be badly wounded.
here is a typical award citation:
"...Among the phosphoresce bombs launched by S/Sgt. Erwin, 1 proved faulty, exploding in the launching chute, and shot back into the interior of the aircraft, striking him in the face. The burning phosphoresce obliterated his nose and completely blinded him. Smoke filled the plane, obscuring the vision of the pilot. S/Sgt. Erwin realized that the aircraft and crew would be lost if the burning bomb remained in the plane. Without regard for his own safety, he picked it up and feeling his way, instinctively, crawled around the gun turret and headed for the copilot's window. He found the navigator's table obstructing his passage. Grasping the burning bomb between his forearm and body, he unleashed the spring lock and raised the table. Struggling through the narrow passage he stumbled forward into the smoke-filled pilot's compartment. Groping with his burning hands, he located the window and threw the bomb out. Completely aflame, he fell back upon the floor. The smoke cleared, the pilot, at 300 feet, pulled the plane out of its dive. S/Sgt. Erwin's gallantry and heroism above and beyond the call of duty saved the lives of his comrades."
hdhouse said...
"This is a prize handed to you partly by fate, a lot by accomplishment and some by blind luck at being the choice in perhaps a not so choice year. In any event he won and that is something."
... And mainly handed to him by the desire of Europe to stick a middle finger up to its hated enemy any way it can. I don't think the prize is itself worthless, notwithstanding that it's sometimes won by undeserving recipients, but the specific award of it to an undeserving recipient (such as Gore) is worthless and non-notable.
Did he accept the award in person or video link? If the former, what's the carbon footprint for the wholly unnecessary transatlantic flight?
Oh Gaia! I hope Gore enters the presidential race. Although the inevitable mutually-assured destruction between Gore and Hillary! would set back the cause of world peace, it certainly would add some fun to 2008.
Pogo said:
"Too bad Bono missed out. Anyone catch the new South Park about him?"
Gore didn't win the prize; he is the prize.
God help us now that the Elmer Gantry of this generaton has his gasbag ego inflated beyond our wildest dreams. Hail to the Goracle..the Christ figure in the religion of enviornmentalism
"Hail to the Goracle..the Christ figure in the religion of enviornmentalism"
We're eagerly awaiting the crucifixion...
I also hope Fat Albert runs again for president, but I doubt he will. Can you imagine the fireworks that will occur when two of the most sanctimonious bores in the history of the human race debate each other?
when two of the most sanctimonious bores in the history of the human race debate each other?
This description fits so many potential Presidential debates. Perhaps you should clarify :)
Forget the presidency. Go for a Grammy and a Tony.
And what is Hillary thinking right now?
Holy fucking shit! First I was born without a penis and now this! Gahodd! I guess you're NOT a woman! WTF? Gore-Obama in '08? I can't beat Gore-Obama in '08! The Gorebamians will destroy me! Not fair. Sooo not fair. All that scheming since middle school, and for what? Sheesh, I wish I had an intern...
What comes next?
Well, if global climate change really is a "planetary emergency," a "moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," and "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then 1600 Pennsylvania is setting your sights too low.
No, the only thing left for Al now is the three-tiered miter.
Mohammed Al-Baradei & Jimmy Carter & Arafat won it for hating Jews. Guess the Norwegians are intent on destroying the brand.
Speaking of the Jews, Jimmy Carter gets away with far more offensive comments than Coulter's about the Jews on CNN with Wolf Blitzer without a peep of protest. I think that Jimmy Carter gets away with remarks against the Jews simply because he is a man of the Left.
There is a ginormous double standard about everything in the media----look at 30Rock mocking affirmative action and black entertainers. If it weren't Tina Fey & Alec Baldwin, but a conservative group of actors, the screams and shrieks of the hypocritical left would echo from the rooftops.
Instead, the unwatched but highly acclaimed 30Rock is the TV equivalent of Air America. As an SDS member who stayed at my Ann Arbor home [Mark Rudd had been on the cover of Time magazine the year before for a Columbia U. takeover in May, '68], said to me among other mantras:
"No fault on the Left."
Still holds true today, as does Mark Rudd's second piece of advice to me:
"Dare to cheat, dare to win."
Anyone watching "An Inconvenient Truth" will appreciate how apropos that little aphorism remains to this day.
Screw the Burmese monks, Gore wins for the biggest hoax of the last century. He increasingly talks about global warming in evangelical terms. There is no science or evidence to support it, nothing more than computer models, and what physical evidence there is belies the theory. But Al joins the illustrious company of Arafat and the Jew hating Carter. Perfect company for a megalomaniac phony.
For those confused about the Congressional Medal of Honor - one will be awarded on October 22 to the family of Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy SEAL killed in combat in Afghanistan.
More here about Lt. Murphy and here about the Medal of Honor
Well, I guess the Nobel Committee had to give Al the Peace Prize- its not like they give prizes for acheivement in Science or anything like that, right?
Or is it because even they realize there is no science in his movie?
Joewxman is right to bring up Elmer Gantry. Gore is riding the environment like he rode the internet. Almost certainly his influence is negligible in any way. Oil prices and fears, a general awakening to the fact we don't like trash on our streets or living in concrete cocoons has made the environmental movement grow for 30+ years or more.
It's reflected in city planning, something those of us who live where new cities are still being planned know about.
In SoCal we have the 1950s suburbs which are very asphalt and concrete and quite orderly and modern. Everything is structured nice and convenient and very ugly. Clinical even. No aesthetic.
Newer cities have a lot more emphasis on curves and trees and nature, on top of the massive environmental studies even the smallest building plan has to fund.
Gore rides the wave of it all. Making a movie that comes along just when movie stars are a bit exhausted with poverty, and Bono has pretty much taken Africa as a cause.
Because he's riding the wave it seems there's a lot of influence. Only it would have all happened without him.
But he is a symbol, and a much more sexy symbol than an actual scientist or long time activist who remains little known but probably spent their lives getting the word out to the right people. Gore is sexy because he's famous, and we like to honor famous people. He's sexy because he's the anti-Bush. Countries and committees who have long ago relinquished real influence love to make statements somehow.
Which makes Gore convenient. A lovely thing I'm sure. And as I support environmental causes it's nice to see this take on a global emphasis.
Though, I bet some folks in Darfur or the Congo or Burma would much prefer to have the world support a peace maker in those places.
And that's what I'm left with. Not who they honored but who they couldn't have honored because, frankly, the global community could care less about real peace in real war torn places.
"They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace. They acted shamefully, they committed abomination; yet they were not ashamed, they did not know how to blush."
Give Gore his day. He's ridden the wave and ridden it well. I can imagine the monks of Myanmar are applauding his efforts right now.
Gore Gore
Media whore...
Just practicing for my anticipated Nobel Poetry Prize. I'll be out picketing soon, another prize requirement, and I sure hope lots of drooling "journalists" show up with camera drones in tow. It's all so gratifying.
Run, Al, run.
Deliver us from Hillary and the Two Family Rule.
I have nothing against Gore, I would have voted for the pre-96 version. However I dont see how you can keep a straight face saying this:
" I'm really happy that Al Gore won the award. Conservatives can whine all they want about how the prize is "meaningless" because a handful of assholes have won it in the 100+ years in which it has been awarded."
We are not talking about the last 100 years, we are talking about the
last 15 years or so.
"The arguments over whether global warming is a serious, immediate threat or merely a serious long-term threat are important to have, but they again are sort of beside the point. This issue, and environmentalism more generally, are on the average American's radar screen in large part due to the efforts of Al Gore. If you ask me, that is a more significant accomplishment than anything that President George W. Bush has ever done in his career."
And in 25 years you might be right. Today there is just no way to state that as fact.
Professor Althouse,
We are all just dying to know why you are drawn to Al Gore.
Don't feel bad. The dolts at the New York Times don't know what a Medal of Honor is, either.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07EEDA1138F930A15752C0A9639C8B63
Good for Al. Maybe now he can make a movie about Dafur. That would be great!
I have a feeling though that people wouldn't flock to a movie about Dafur like they did to "An Inconvenient Truth."
Seriously, y'all: Check out all the Gore-Obama 08 comments.
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/gore-and-un-panel-win-peace-prize/#comments
It's just the closest thing Europe can do to "righting" the wrong of Bush v Gore.
Screw the US Presidency, is there a EU Presidency he can claim?
Goreaclism is the perfect secular religion for those in need of something to "care" about. It's vague enough to encompass anything you want; like any religion, it allows people the pleasure of feeling guilty and flagellating others, and unlike Darfur or Burma or Rwanda, it doesn't involve any unsettling and messy human elements.
All nice and clean and abstract. Oh, and extraordinarily lucrative.
My question: how do we make burnt offerings to a deity who shuns carbon?
My question: how do we make burnt offerings to a deity who shuns carbon?
Nuclear fission?
Well, maybe not.
We are all just dying to know why you are drawn to Al Gore.
She isn't, she wants him for source material to make stupid cloud formation posts. But we all know thermometers and measuring devices all have a liberal agenda. Nothing to see here, move along!
Shorter Gore Hater:
Al Gore just cannot be right, cuz otherwise that means we've been so wrong.
Wait a sec -
In all this talk about Al Gore there is a large time jump from 2000, the year he got screwed, to 2007, the year he got cannonized. Al went through a more defining period, for him, than any of the older stuff or the present stuff. That was his pathetic attempt to win the Democratic Party candidacy for President in 2004. Remember that? Why dont we? He not only couldnt get the nomination, he couldnt even distinguish hemself from the 8 other candidates. I think that when you look at how Al Gore is being defined by others, they leave out that big 2004 hole in his life. On the other hand, I think Gore remembers that hole very well. I think he is determined not to fall into it again, that is why he will not run.
Back in the pre-primary days, someone with his stature in the party could have been brought into the convention late in the process and win the nomination. I think both parties ended up with more qualified candidates back in the day, than the primary process gives us now.
At least, thats what I think this morning.
Michael_H said..."The Nobel Peace Prize has become meaningless."
Did you return yours?
Whichever Dem wins the presidency, they can appoint him Secretary of the EPA.
Palladian said..."Goreaclism is the perfect secular religion for those in need of something to "care" about."
Yeah, why would anyone "care" about the environment...especially those who have children.
*And you wonder why I think some here are dumb as a bag of rocks?
Jeff,
Isn't this statement: If you ask me, that is a more significant accomplishment than anything that President George W. Bush has ever done in his career."
An OPINION...and not stated as a "fact."
Giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize is like giving John Madden the Lombardi Trophy, even if you think he's right.
LOS, you are mistaking caring for the environment with caring for Gore. Gore is a chosen popular figurehead who did not start the Global warming topic, and honestly hardly popularized it, as it was getting going pretty strong anyhow.
I am a very strong supporter of environmentalism. There's hardly an environmental law or cause I wouldn't support.
Gore had absolutely no impact. He's the anti-Bush. He's a famous person. Yes, he's raised awareness among the popular set. But, he's not done real work, nor the kind of behind the scenes stuff that should be honored.
He certainly has not helped bring world peace.
I dislike Gore. I don't think he's nearly as influential or helpful as he and others who hate Bush says he is, even as I pretty much support the causes that Gore is supporting in regards to the environment.
This was a vote against Bush. That's all. Gore was a convenient symbol of that.
Meanwhile lesser known people could have really used the advertising, money, and all the support that comes from a Nobel Prize. Too bad it's become a political popularity contest and not a real tool to engage the world.
Gore and this Nobel Prize is like the queen of England. Lots of news. Lots of hand waving. Little of substance.
The world needs to honor the lesser knowns and those who struggle in difficult circumstances to bring justice and peace to this ravaged world. It doesn't need yet another queen and yet another Oscars telecast of the powerful self-congratulating each other for their vaguely earnest angst.
Wade - whine all they want about how the prize is "meaningless" because a handful of assholes have won it in the 100+ years in which it has been awarded. Aren't they missing the point entirely? If their reasoning was valid, then the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Presidential Medal of Freedom have been permanently tainted by George Tenet and Paul Bremer.
Good point, actually, Wade. I think of race baiter and shakedown artist and unelected "Head Negro" (What other blacks asking "Who put that MF'r in charge?" call him dismissively) Jesse Jackson getting his "Freedom Medal".
The Medal of Honor is a little more sacred and shouldn't have the term "Congressional" affixed to it - unless it refers to Congressional meddling like happened with a few people with clout demanding undeserved medals. That happened in a few Civil War MOHs awarded, the Boxer Rebellion, and Daniel Inouye's 30-year campaign to retroactively make Japanese-Americans the most decorated soldiers of WWII (Inouye's efforts were culminated in 2000 when Clinton gave out a wheelbarrow of medals inc. 20 MOHs for Inouye and his 442nd Regiment cronies, on top of one awarded by WWII commanders to a 442nd member. Similar regiments with similar valor and casualties to the 442nd never exceeded 3 MOHs.)
So the Medal of Freedom and the MOH were somewhat tainted - recently by Bush II and Clinton and Senator Inouye - but generally go to the deserving.
The Peace Prize is a little different in that the Award Committee has long been hijacked (the last 20 years or so) by Lefties and has a string of dubious awards to anti-West, anti-American people the Lefty NGOs that order the Award Committee about, make happen.
The Literature Prize also has some taint to it with some laureates gone in complete obscurity, no longer in publication...and true greats in literature ignored.
The other Prizes retain their lustre because they are mostly objectively based related to peer's assessment of their academic achievement & impact on the field, only slightly impacted by "scientist celebrity". You don't have statements from members of the Committee on Physics that they chose someone like Jimmy Carter because they wanted to send a message and really "stick it to your President (Bush II)."
Noble Algore as President? I really hope he runs to see the Clintonistas eviscerate this overblown schmuck of modest intellectual attainment and leadership...
Garage,
Nobody needs source material badly enough to tolerate GORE as president for four years. There has to be some personality trait or policy that Gore supports that appeals to the Professor. But sheesh, for the life of me I cannot think of a single redeeming atribute.
Walt Disney was once approached about running for mayor of Los Angeles. Disney responded to the group, which included science fiction author Ray Bradbury, "Why would I want to be mayor of Los Angeles when I'm already king of the world?"
Al Gore would rather be right, at least right as he sees it, than be President. At times, he seemed to see the 2000 campaign not as a quest for the presidency, but for a statement from voters that he really is right. As long as he wins things like Oscars and Nobel Peace Prizes, I don't think he'll feel the need or the desire to run for President again. He can rest easy, having been anointed as the king of political rectitude.
But I could be completely wrong, of course.
Mark Daniels
Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Danels
LOS,
I think my opinion is shared that most here do not wonder why you think "some here are dumb as a bag of rocks".
Regards,
Paddy O. said..."LOS, you are mistaking caring for the environment with caring for Gore."
That's a crock.
Most here are so obsessed with the Clinton/Gore legacy, they refuse to give Gore the credit he's do.
If Gore's right...and the naysayers are wrong...our children will pay the price.
P.S. John: And well you should understand why I think what I do.
John,
Here's a comment from one of your fellow "bag of rocks" gang:
El Presidente said of Gore: "But sheesh, for the life of me I cannot think of a single redeeming atribute."
Not a "single redeeming atribute."
DUH.
Mark Daniels said..." Al Gore would rather be right, at least right as he sees it, than be President.
He may also actually believe in what he does (which I think is the case)...but for the life of me, I can't understand why so many here think he's doing it for any other reason. Does he have an ego, does he want to be right, does he want to lead...sure.
But name a "leader" who doesn't.
And I don't he'll run.
LOS,
God, you did it again, you devil you, you too-smart-for-the-rest-of-us guy, you. What would we do if you weren't there to crush us dumb rocks into the dust we deserve to be crushed into? Professionally at least, no one knows dumb bags of rocks better than me. Thats the difference between us. I recognize it, and you don't. I don't spend as much time flagging mispellings either.
That's why you don't come to grips with the problem that's being discussed in this thread - awarding the peace prize to Mr. Gore. It neither rewards "peace" nor, as Paddi O put it, rewards "lesser" folks who work much harder for the cause of peace, and could really use the cash. I was a celebrity award, much like the Oscars.
Regards,
I didn't vote for Gore in 2000. I find him to be annoyingly pedantic and a bit too certain of his moral superiority, not to mention being prone to exaggerations and self-aggrandizement. And I'm not sure that his Nobel Peace Prize isn't more a political statement than a recognition of how that activism promotes peace.
But to suggest that Gore has no redeeming attributes is completely unfair. It's uninformed rhetoric like this that has made the discourse of professional politicians and their acolytes so disgusting. It's what often makes blogging and the comments that appear on blogs disgusting. We dehumanize ourselves and our intended targets when we say that they possess no redeeming attributes. That statement insinuates that Gore has no virtues, no strengths, no commendable qualities. Think: Adlof Hitler. No matter how much one may disagree with Al Gore, he's not evil.
Our words have consequences. They wound and they defame and, to people heedless of facts or common sense, they can be convincing. The Internet is a great thing. But why would we want to use it to spout untrue, hurtful crap? It may give the spouter attention, like I'm doing right now unfortunately, and that may be the payoff. But instead of venting untruths, wouldn't it be better to say something helpful. Or, better yet, to say nothing at all?
Mark Daniels
Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Danels
By the way, LOS, I don't think that Gore is faking it when it comes to his concern about global warming.
The point of my original comment, I suppose, is that there are some political figures who are better off not being President. They don't have the requisite "bend" or the love of the political game needed to be successful, even in the pursuit of laudable ends.
Woodrow Wilson, for example, was far too unyielding to achieve his goals as President. This isn't to say that his goals were wrong. It's just that the pedantic President gets nowhere fast. Outside the daily demands of politics though, almost-Presidents and would-be-Presidents can use their prominence to push causes. They gain a hearing from the public and because they aren't susceptible to being voted down by Congress, rebuffed at the polls, or blunted by interest groups, they can undertake long-term campaigns for their causes and have some chance of success.
That's been Jimmy Carter's experience and I think Gore, in a way, is replicating it.
All of this is why I don't think that he'll run for President.
Mark Daniels
Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Danels
I could hear the shrieking before I even started to read the comments.
As expected, the dedicated group of Althouse reactionaries are screeching their favorite "talking points" (Al Gore is fat!, Al Gore is boring!, Jimmy Carter hates Jews!, global climate change science is a hoax!, etc...). It's pathetic even by Ann Coulter standards (to the extent that Coulter has standards).
Professor Althouse certainly deserves better commenters than this.
"I could hear the shrieking before I even started to read the comments."
Cyrus, if I told you once, I told you a thousand times, stop exaggerating!
Regards!
It wasn't the most honest of films, and I think the alarmism was overdone, but sometimes to move the goliath one must go to the far edge and push. Rattling sabers, if you will.
Wait, are talking about Gore and global warming or Bush and Iraq? Sometimes you need a scorecard around here
Mark Daniels wrote:
The Internet is a great thing.
Hey, did you know that Al Gore "took the initiative in creating the internet?" It's true.
Here's what "internet pioneers" Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote in 2000:
[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time... Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.
john said..."I don't spend as much time flagging mispellings either."
I didn't "flag" the spelling, dipstick.
It was the comment itself.
Like I said...dumb as a bag of rocks.
John wrote:
I think both parties ended up with more qualified candidates back in the day, than the primary process gives us now.
Well it certainly is hard to think of a less qualified candidate than Dubya in my lifetime.
Norman Borlaug...
Won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970...
It's been said that his work has saved the lives of One Billion people.
He's still alive, too.
They don't make Nobel Peace Prize winners like they used to...
Mark Daniels said..."By the way, LOS, I don't think that Gore is faking it when it comes to his concern about global warming.
The point of my original comment, I suppose, is that there are some political figures who are better off not being President."
I agree.
What makes me wonder about some here is their never ending obsession with the Clintons and Al Gore...and literally NEVER giving any of them credit for ANYTHING they've ever done.
It's especially galling considering who we have as President right now and how he's effected America's reputation throughout the world.
As for the Nobel Prize...if it was awarded to Rummy or someone in the current administration we wouldn't be hearing the silly comments about what a waste of time it is.
People here should accept the fact that Gore earned the award and leave it at that.
George said..."They don't make Nobel Peace Prize winners like they used to..."
Yeah, where are the Arafats of today?
john said..."That's why you don't come to grips with the problem that's being discussed in this thread - awarding the peace prize to Mr. Gore. It neither rewards "peace" nor, as Paddi O put it, rewards "lesser" folks who work much harder for the cause of peace, and could really use the cash. I was a celebrity award, much like the Oscars."
Everybody can't win.
Gore did.
Live with it.
Cyrus,
Thanks for recognizing the point I was making. Don't get snarky on it though, wrt GWB, as I was trying point out that our primary process destroys the ability of both parties to nominate the most electable person, in their opinion. Gore lost in the 2004 primary season, when in a different time, he could have won the nomination in convention. If so, he might have had better success than Kerry against Bush. Just saying.
This has nothing to do with the peace prize, though. However, it is still my belief that the 2004 Gore debacle gave rise to both his reinventing himself wrt championing climate change issue, and his not wanting to run again in 2008. (BUT, if there was such a thing as a real convention where candidates are really voted on, then he could get the nomination by acclamation. That won't happen.)
Regards, sorry for running on, and thanks for not commenting on my joke.
Borlaug's ancestors settled just north of Madison. I wonder if there are any relatives still around.
Oh! I would dearly LOVE an Algore run for the presidency! Such blogfodder!
Please, Algore: Run!
hdhouse said it best:
Just give him his due. He won. Be happy for him.
The man was almost President of the United States and was Vice President. Perhaps you didn't want him to be President or can't agree with his environmental agenda - and I'm solidly in that camp. But he deserves respect for his service to this country, his excellent example of leading a wonderful family, and his sincere commitment to make the world a better place.
And yes, the Nobel Peace Prize is political; which non-sport awards aren't? Arafat was a terrible choice, but Mother Teresa was a great one. It all balances out eventually.
Congratulations, Mr. Vice President, from a member of the loyal opposition. Enjoy!
If the Nobel Prize in Physics had been handed out a dozen times for "cold fusion"-type "discoveries" and several times to astronomers who spent their careers promoting the idea that the Sun orbits the Earth, would anybody treat it as a prestigious award in physics?
That's the analogous state of the Peace Prize.
people have been arguing
and arguing about global warming.
these issues kind of define you.
if you're skeptical, you're a 'denier.'
if you believe the former v p
you're a 'true believer.'
i never know what to believe when scientists are involved.
first, scientists said ddt was the best thing since sliced bread.
then they said it was terrible.
i could have told them that.
now, we're supposed to be afraid of warm temperatures and high tides.
can someone tell me what else florida is good for....
like i've said,
i'll do fine in a globally warm world.
heat and humidity are my friends.
could be a problem for a lot of others, though.
guess it just depends on
whose ox is being gored.
Luckyoldson said...
"Most here are so obsessed with the Clinton/Gore legacy, they refuse to give Gore the credit he's do." (sic.)
The credit he's "do"? LOL.
dave in boca said...
"look at 30Rock mocking affirmative action and black entertainers. If it weren't Tina Fey & Alec Baldwin, but a conservative group of actors, the screams and shrieks of the hypocritical left would echo from the rooftops."
Hot chicks get away with everything.
Simon,
If you're going to quote Dave from Boca, at least use his best material:
Mohammed Al-Baradei & Jimmy Carter & Arafat won it for hating Jews.
Simon said..."The credit he's "do"? LOL."
A typo?
That's the best you've got?
B said..."Congratulations, Mr. Vice President, from a member of the loyal opposition. Enjoy!"
Finally, a person of integrity.
Bravo.
Luckyoldson said...
"A typo? That's the best you've got?"
It was the only thing you'd said thusfar in this thread that was worth commenting on.
Cyrus - oh, you folks can have your little spat if you like, it's très adorable, but don't try to drag me into it.
Lucky says "credit he's do"
Pot. . . This is Kettle.
Hey, LOS is here.
Schoolbus was a little late today, huh?
Simon,
I'm thrilled that Dave in Boca is under the GOP "Big Top" with you.
Note to the wingnuts, nutters, and loons,
Nobody expected, or expects, you to be happy that Gore won thie Nobel Prize.
It's an award for his work on a problem you refuse to even admit exists, of course you're going to have a weepy fit.
We don't care.
If it's any consolation, most of you will be over it within a few years, especially if Gore fades from you.
(Ok, I'll grant you could harbor a self-pitying grudge for decades, if Gore remained in the public eye for that long.)
Maybe you should move to Singapore, or something.
What bugs me about this is that it denigrates the Nobel prizes for the sciences, mathematics and economics which are almost always well founded and deserving.
One telling point of contrast is that the aforementioned prizes are generally awarded many years after the fact when the benefits of the research have been proven out.
(Ironically, I'm staunchly against awarding Medals of Honor too long after the fact. As has been pointed out, congressional action has resulted in denigrating that award as well. There is a campaign to award Dick Winters the MoH, largely due to his exposure in Band of Brothers. While I think he was deserving--and only due to an understandable political decision at the time wasn't awarded one--it now smacks of a fad.)
Well one good thing, it's ruined his chances of ever being elected to high office.
Americans voting for someone who's middle name is 'Peace'?
Geddout!
BTW, my beef isn't with Gore himself, but that what he's done has absolutely nothing to do with peace. (It has little to do with science either, which is why he won't win the Nobel prize for physics.)
El Presidente said,
Too late numbnut.
Peter Palladas said...
"Well one good thing, it's ruined his chances of ever being elected to high office."
There may have been a time in American electoral politics when the approbation of some stuffy European éminence grises would have been a scurillous rumour spread by one's opponent, rather than something to proudly display on the electoral C.V., but I don't know whether that's still true.
Joe's really bugged about this.
If Gore's right...bugs will be the only thing left.
*What is it with the right wing nuts here?
Always denigrating the success of others.
Is it because so few from your side of the aisle are successful...at damn near anything?
Gore won...live with it...end of story.
P.S. Simon, can you do a SpellCheck on this and get back to me?
Joe said..."(Ironically, I'm staunchly against awarding Medals of Honor too long after the fact."
Now THAT'S FUNNY.
Mark Levin, on The Corner:
I'd like to add my name to those congratulating Al Gore for his peace prize. Frankly, I can't think of anyone who has done more to bring peace to this world - from Rwanda to the Sudan, from Burma to North Korea - than Al Gore. And what a selfless man. He always avoids media attention, preferring to direct accolades to the little people who do all the heavy lifting behind the scenes. And like Mother Teresa, Al Gore eschews materialism and luxury, despite his enormous wealth from oil and technology stocks. I hear tell that he insists on flying older private jets to his six-figure speeches. What a guy! I just wish there was another honor somebody could bestow on Al Gore — as long as it's not president.
Simon, Tina Fey is not hot. Unless you refering to Alex Baldwin who does like to dress up as Kathleen Turner on alternate Thursdays.
Verso,
Good to see you again! Seriously. I wanted to thank you for accepting my faulty memory on Jim Webb a couple of weeks ago. It was just memory. Anyway, thanks.
As for Gore and the Nobel prize for Politics, well I am not convinced that Al has his facts right, and I think he is overhyping, but I absolutely encourage him to run in 2008. It would provide lots of things to blog about.
Joe,
I agree with the devaluation of the MoH after the fact.
What do you think that Dick Winters did that deserved the MoH? The D day attack on the artillery battery? It was very well done, but my reading of it doesn't make it MoH material.
I do think that Bruce Crandall's recent award for his support of the 1/7 Cav at LZ Xray was special. He made 22 flights himself and led volunteers into a very hot closed 1 ship LZ bringing in essential ammo and lifting out 72 wounded, many critically. 72 men. 22 flights. That was amazing that they lived through that day.
http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/crandall/citation/index.html
Eh, I got over being outraged at undeserving people winning the Peace Prize when I first learned that Kissinger had won one.
Joe said..."(Ironically, I'm staunchly against awarding Medals of Honor too long after the fact."
Now THAT'S FUNNY.
Exactly why is that funny, Lucky? Do you think it's proper to award a Medal of Honor to a soldier sixty years after the fact just because it's politically expedient? This isn't to say those recipients didn't do heroic actions, but that the Medal of Honor should be reserved for acts that are a mark above the rest. If care isn't taken, the award becomes meaningless.
If Valedictorian is suddenly changed to mean any student with at least a B average or who is otherwise popular, it would quickly lose it's meaning (and has in some schools.)
Unfortunately, in all walks of society, excellence is being denigrated and mediocrity awarded all too often to either make someone "feel better" or because it's politically advantageous.
Luckyoldson said...
"P.S. Simon, can you do a SpellCheck on this and get back to me?"
Sure, the results are in and it turns out you're still really, really boring.
Trooper York said...
"Simon, Tina Fey is not hot."
I respectfully dissent. She's just wrong, in a very agreeable way, and personally, that she'd probably loathe me and everything I stand for if we ever met just makes it mildy amusing to me. :)
I am still trying to figure out what Al Gore has to do with peace? Didn't he vote for Gulf War I? Remember that war... no blood for oil? Didn't Clinton pick him precisely because of that vote?
The funny thing is that Gore's proposed policies on how to curb "global warming" are exactly the kind of policies that lead to war.
He is only in it for the money.
If Enron had only gotten carbon credits passed by Congress Al gore would have been a billionaire by now.
He still has a chance.
In any case it will raise the value of his speeches by at least 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
This video of Doris Lessing getting the news of her Nobel Prize in Literature is pretty amusing too.
the world's scientists vs the danish fringer and the althouse comenters -- what a lonely fight you have
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा