October 12, 2007

The Nobel Peace Prize is now officially a sad joke

Al Gore wins.

Anyone remember when Yassir Arafat won it?? Other "winners" have included Jimmy "I Was A Much Better President Than You Remember" Carter (2002), Kofi Annan and the UN (2001), Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) (funny how Ronald Reagan didn't get a co-prize); the UN Peace-Keeping Forces (1988); and perhaps most notoriously, the fraud author Rigoberta Menchu (1992).

It wasn't always this way. Back when, there were some true advocates for peace who actually risked their own hides. Take, for instance: Martin Luther King Jr. (1964); Andrei Sakharov (1975); Anwar Sadat (1978) (jointly with Menachem Begin; Sadat was assassinated a few years later); Mother Teresa (1979); Lech Walesa (1983); Desmond Tutu (1984); and, amazingly in the 1990s a common sense one to Nelson Mandela (1993) (shared with Frederik de Klerk).

UPDATE (Oct. 13 at 7:48pm): David Bernstein over at Volokh tried to find some criteria by which the Nobel Peace Prize recipient is chosen. This is all he could find, and it was from Wikipedia:

"according to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'"

OK, so why did Gore win again??

Posted by Hube at October 12, 2007 08:33 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Nelson Mandela (1993)? wouldn't be giving to a communist sympathizer be a joke too?


just sayin

Posted by: donviti at October 12, 2007 08:49 AM

Someone who is jailed for over a quarter of a century merely for his political beliefs -- like, mainly, a belief in a quite common sense concept called "majority rule" -- more than deserves such a prize. Is SA a communist dictatorship, dimwitty? Did Mandela make it one when he became prez?

Posted by: Hube at October 12, 2007 08:54 AM

I completely agree. To add to your list, it turned out in June 2007 that Lech Walesa was an agent of the communist secret police, after all. Search for "agent bolek". Click my name to see my comments on Gore's prize.

Posted by: Luboš Motl at October 12, 2007 09:14 AM

Lubos: A search as you suggest says that the Walesa bit is only a conspiracy theory. No proof exists that he was an agent of the SB.

Posted by: Hube at October 12, 2007 09:21 AM

Nelson Mandela was not jailed "for his political beliefs." He was jailed because he got caught smuggling in 40,000 hand grenades he had procured from Che Guevarra. Mandela and Tutu were two more bad choices.

Posted by: Iron Chef Klingon at October 12, 2007 03:11 PM

"When do I get mine?"

-Bill Clinton

Posted by: G Rex at October 12, 2007 03:49 PM

Hube, do you have it in you to just congratulate Al Gore for his efforts to effectively enlighten us on the threats of global warming, and then to be acknowledged for same with the Nobel Peace Prize, or is your ideological mean-spiritedness that deep and dense?

Posted by: Perry Hood at October 13, 2007 11:32 AM

Perry, do you have it in you to acknowledge that Gore's prize has NOTHING to do with "peace," and that the science behind his claims is very dubious? And that his behavior is very hypocritical when it comes to "living green"? Or is your ideological mean-spiritedness that deep and dense?

Posted by: Hube at October 13, 2007 11:59 AM

I was right about you, Hube, correct?

"...and that the science behind his claims is very dubious?" ==> Hube

There is scientific consensus on the existence of global warming, and that the activities of man play a significant role. This is what the UN IPCC has determined. Nevertheless, you ideologues cherry pick the outriggers to support your politics. That's stupid!

Hypocrisy? Yes, formerly. His home's carbon footprint has been addressed and decreased substantially. But aren't we all hypocrites? Fess up, Hube!

Related to world peace? Absolutely and directly related. Consider the outcome for peace if we are unable to successfully address this threat as a global community.

Ideology has nothing to do with my position on global warming, Hube; I'm with the scientific consensus. You are in denial, and mean-spirited about Al Gore's contributions and global impact for effectively highlighting the seriousness of this global warming phenomenon. I am neither! 'Tis obvious, but not to the mean-spirited folks among us!

Posted by: Perry Hood at October 13, 2007 01:43 PM

Scientific consensus means very little, Perry. As I've mentioned numerous times, I concur there IS global warming; however, there is NO consensus about man's impact on it. It's actually more like 50-50 if anything. Remember -- during Galilleo's time there was a "scientific consensus" that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Nevertheless, you ideologues cherry pick the outriggers to support your politics. That's stupid!

Actually, you're stupid, Perry, for buying into Gore's alarmist drivel. I don't blame him entirely, though. The only way one can get their pet cause noticed is by declaring it an "emergency" or a "crisis."

Hypocrisy? Yes, formerly. His home's carbon footprint has been addressed and decreased substantially. But aren't we all hypocrites? Fess up, Hube!

It has been addressed? When? Even if so, what about all those private jets he jaunts about in, hmmm? And are you really too stupid to know the difference between Gore and me? Really? Here, I'll spell it out for you 'cause you're too stupid: I don't go around telling other people how to live and what they should do, and even if I did, I'd then make sure I'd DAMN WELL PRACTICE WHAT I PREACH.

Related to world peace? Absolutely and directly related.

Baloney.

Consider the outcome for peace if we are unable to successfully address this threat as a global community.

Which is ...? And even if you come up with some stupid premise, you're not seriously saying that there are not much more worthy nominees that actually had a DIRECT voice/action on world peace, are you? That's stupid!

Ideology has nothing to do with my position on global warming, Hube; I'm with the scientific consensus.

Translation: You're a sheep.

You are in denial, and mean-spirited about Al Gore's contributions and global impact for effectively highlighting the seriousness of this global warming phenomenon.

And you're stupid. So?

No, do what you always do: Whine and complain about personal attacks when your last posts were laced with them. And, of course, fail to recognize that you're as big -- if not bigger -- hypocrite than Gore himself.

Posted by: Hube at October 13, 2007 02:50 PM

Hube:

I talked to my niece today . She teaches 7th graders in NYC and worships Al Gore. I warned her this sets a new precedent so now kids can provide a History or English answer to a question on their Math exam. And they will want credit for correct answers.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at October 13, 2007 06:18 PM

Hube, you do/can not distinguish the differences between a personal attack and a difference of opinion, it seems.

Be that as it may, there is scientific consensus on more than the phenomenon of global warming, for example, the fact that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases, and that especially the carbon dioxide content in our atmosphere has almost doubled since the industrial revolution, from about 180 ppm to 400 ppm. Concurrent with this increase is the increased use of fossil fuels, and the increase in global temperature, and the decrease in forested lands, a correlation generally accepted by scientists and presented by Gore in his film.

As I mentioned before, the UN IPCC, which divided the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, provided the scientific consensus backing for the claims in his film. This consensus is not 50/50, Hube, it is closer to being 100%.

The undeniable connection to world peace is to consider the outcome of a massive population movement inland in order to escape rising sea levels. Don't quote me exactly, but well over 50% of the global population lives along the coasts -- I believe it is around 70%.

Your Galileo analogy is inappropriate, because in the context of his time theology and science were interwoven and barely distinguishable. Wasn't he excommunicated for his science? You cannot speak of a scientific consensus in those times.

Regarding Gore's alleged hypocrisy, I don't deny some of it. However, people like you bring it up as a diversion to discredit his message, instead of countering his scientific claims, because you know you might fail in your attempts to counter. Moreover, you attach some sort of ideologically partisan component to your opposition which, in terms of the science, has no validity whatsoever. If Gore were a Conservative Republican, would that impact your judgment?

The global warming trend that we are in is far more rapid and potentially devastating to human life than any of the much longer known periods of trends in changing sun activity or changing magnetic field effects. There is little we can do about a massive volcano or a collision with a body from space, but we can do something about our fossil fuel consumption. With the limited supply of oil as a corollary reason, shouldn't our globe address these issues with significant actions? I agree with Al Gore!

Too many still wish to divert by crunching the ideological debates with personal vilification, rather than to face up to the scientific consensus that exists. The bottom line: It's called denial. That, Hube, is very, very stupid!!!

Posted by: Perry Hood at October 14, 2007 01:14 PM

Perry: I want you to understand something very simple. If you cannot understand it, or simply refuse to, it is all on you and there's nothing I can do.

You said: Hube, you do/can not distinguish the differences between a personal attack and a difference of opinion, it seems.

Let's see what you said on this thread alone:

1. or is your ideological mean-spiritedness that deep and dense?

This is CLEARLY a personal attack and NOT a difference of opinion.

2. Nevertheless, you ideologues cherry pick the outriggers to support your politics. That's stupid!

Again, this is a personal attack. B/c I do not support what YOU believe, I am "stupid." Mm-hmm.

3. You are in denial, and mean-spirited about Al Gore's contributions

This is a combination of the two -- a difference of opinion laced w/a personal attack.

Face it, Perry, you're as every bit political on this issue as you claim I am, and just b/c you may be on the "consensus" side doesn't mean you're right. The "consensus" also thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs, for cripe's sake. And my Gallileo analogy holds up just fine, especially since the SCIENCE just a mere 30 yrs. ago warned of a coming ICE AGE, yet now we're on the verge of the OPPOSITE apocalypse. Please.

I could counter Gore with post after post after post of those who disagree with him. You can find them, too, Perry. It's called Google. But you're too blindly partisan to want to research them because you're already set in your ways.

Posted by: Hube at October 14, 2007 07:19 PM