For no reason whatsoever, Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Next, he’ll be Miss Universe. I heard all the talk that Al Gore was the front-runner for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, but I was certain it was a joke.

Well, the Norwegian Nobel Committee just gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Can someone tell me why? The Peace Prize? What for? Where has he been making peace? Where has he even been trying to make peace?

A cooler planet is a more peaceful planet? What gives?

Believe in miracles. Of course, congratulations are in order. Without ending a war, without persuading one aggressor to lay down his arms, even without keeping the peace where it is threatened, Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

He’s walked under the bar and won poll-vaulting gold for America. Bravo!

Frank Warner

* * *

Afterthoughts: I just wonder how the Nobel Committee could overlook millions of other people on this planet who are doing more in the cause of peace.

Not only has Al Gore not prevented or ended a war, he has done nothing to inspire others to build a lasting peace. He has come up with no new philosophy or analytical system that might help the world avoid violence. And he has taken no personal risk and led no campaign to confront those who use brutal force to suppress the politically voiceless.

Even on the matter of global warming, a worthy concern almost totally unrelated to war and peace, what has Gore himself done? Does narrating a movie place him next to Martin Luther King, Lech Walesa and Andrei Sakharov? Has Gore shown clearly what global warming does? Has he encouraged a full debate? Has he pushed any real solution? Has he even persuaded a Democratic Congress, which worships at his altar, to do anything practical to reduce CO2 emissions?

What earned Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize? It certainly wasn’t the Nobel Committee’s concern for peace. It was its eagerness to appear trendy, against an American president who took difficult and unpopular action to remove a bloody totalitarian regime in Iraq and replace it with a democracy.

For the Nobel Committee, the cool choice wouldn’t be for peace. It would be anti-Bush. It was group think without a thought.

* * *

See also: What are the ‘nine errors’ in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’?

Comments

[jj mollo]

How about the possiblities of conflict involved in new access to resources and confrontations over land and mineral rights. If Al Gore's efforts will eventually lead in some small measure to prevent the catastrophic reallocation of resources and the possibility that much of our current infrastructure will be rendered obsolete, then maybe he deserves it.

[Christopher Taylor]

So what you're saying is that IF what he says is true, and IF it turns out like he claims, then there's a POSSIBILITY that there might be increased world conflict?

With that kind of criteria, I could win the peace prize for my work on elves in my Fantasy Hero campaign.

[George]

I'd say that what Al Gore is calling for IS a catastrophic reallocation of resources (while his eco-unfriendly mansion burns the midnight oil, the morning oil, the evening oil and next year's oil).

[Preevyet]

Let's face it, they gave it to him, albeit belatedly, for creating the internet. If it wasn't for the internet, peace in other countries would not be for they could not log on to see democracy and peace in action. Unless, of course, if they are in China.

[Frank Warner]

You can just as easily argue that global warming is reducing the heating needs of China and the United States and, therefore, shrinking the chance of violent struggles over energy resources.

Alternatively, you could argue that, in taking the bribes, that is, illegal campaign contributions, from China in 1996, Gore (and Clinton) made it too easy for our defense contractors to hand to China the missile technology that could kill millions.

When you give out a Nobel Peace Prize, you have to have a much more direct link of the prize to the prizewinner, or the prize is a joke.

President Bush could stake a better claim to the Prize, having rid Libya of its nuclear program, having gone a long way to rid North Korea of its nuclear program, having rid Afghanistan of its repressive government, and having set Iraq on the way to democracy, which is the only hope to a lasting peace.

But give it to Gore. He's not Bush, and that's the only reason he won.

Next, he'll be Miss Universe.

[jj mollo]

Yes, Christopher, I'm saying IF, but just out of politeness, to give your position the benefit of the doubt. I'm pretty sure you know what I believe on the subject. Obviously the Nobel committee believes that he deserves it. I'm just showing that there is an arguable connection to the concept of World peace.

Now, if people had taken Winston Churchill seriously concerning that funny little man in Germany, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing holocaust deniers today. Maybe in an alternate universe Churchill was wrong. Gore could be wrong too.

There is actually a very interesting argument for that in the NY Times, of all places, though it may have been unintentional. They argue that the dietary danger from fat in the diet was grossly exaggerated because of the bandwagon effect. Unlike the case with tobacco, where people resisted the obvious conclusion until the last dog died, the dietary admonishions were seized on by every popular magazine and diet book that came along. "Everybody knows" became a cascade that caused the whole country (except my grandfather) to switch from butter to oleo.

Now I know what you're thinking. Is this like tobacco, or is this like a diet fad? Is this like Winston Churchill or is this like UFO's? Well, in all the excitement, I've kind of lost track of the arguments myself. But you just got to be asking yourself. Do I feel lucky?

[Christopher Taylor]

Let's face it, they gave it to him, albeit belatedly, for creating the internet

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that turned out to be true.

By the way, here's an excellent article that points out how the "global warming will cause wars" line is historically and logically flawed:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922

Psst: he believes Al Gore is right about Global Warming.

[jj mollo]

You could, imo, more easily justify giving Bush the Prize for his efforts in India, where he is pushing for dramatically increased use of nuclear power and improved oversight and safety controls. Unfortunately, that's not yet a done deal.

[Frank Warner]

On nuclear power, don't forget the conspiracy theory that Gore is out there generating global warming hysteria in order to produce a massive number of nuclear power plants, giving everyone in the world the material to make nuclear weapons that destroy us all.

[jj mollo]

You're kidding, aren't you? I've never heard that one. What political sub-category do these people come from.

[Frank Warner]

That was Alexander Cockburn, among others.

Click here.

[Christopher Taylor]

I think a Nobel Prize Committee that ignores the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years - Radical Islam - is a Nobel Peace prize committee that is full of morons.

Gore could be wrong too.

That's just it. Gore is wrong.

[jj mollo]

Coal barons? That's a laugh.

Yes, I've read Cockburn before and I always have the same reaction. How can someone be so far out without recognizing that something's wrong? Even Wile E. Coyote could eventually recognize that he was running in mid-air.

Now see! There's a definite plus in Gore's column. Cockburn doesn't like him.

I really don't understand GDS. He is not the President, he holds no office, and he has limited influence. He is easier on the eyes than Michael Moore and even if you think he's wrong, he makes a lot more sense than your average Leftist.

Just to throw you another bone, Christopher, a judge in the UK has found that Gore's movie is indeed wrong. Relying on scientific testimony, the judge found that there are nine distinct errors of fact. He ruled that it can only be sent to public schools if it is accompanied by some additional material explaining the nine errors.

[Frank Warner]

In half the time since 2000, Gore has acted nearly insane. I don't blame him, considering how the anti-democratic Electoral College time bomb shot him to Hell. It wasn't until he found himself a comfortable spot on the global warming pillow that he's started to look human again.

But just as Republicans went too far to belittle the man whom most Americans elected president in 2000, the Democrats and anti-Republicans now are so desperate to pump up Gore as the anti-Bush that they can't imagine any prize that's too good for him.

Oscar, Emmy, Nobel. I'm looking around, and I don't see one of the usual Democratic zealots who questions giving a Peace Prize to someone who's clearly doesn't take the Peace Train to work. Where's a Democrat asking, what are those Norwegians thinking?

Gore has achieved sainthood in the Democratic faith. He could be named pope tomorrow and Josh Marshall would say, yep, Gore obviously deserves it. He could be crowned Heavyweight Champion of the World, King of Rap, Queen of England -- same thing.

What would make sense is for Gore to run for president again. By any reasonable democratic measure, he won in 2000. He probably would have won officially in 2004, because the arbitrary Electoral College doesn't usually bite the same winner twice.

If he'd run again, he'd have a chance at holding a prize he earned. Instead, he keeps showing up at beauty pageants.

[Christopher Taylor]

I don't blame him, considering how the anti-democratic Electoral College time bomb shot him to Hell.

Seeing as how he ran his campaign with an eye on an electoral college win and said so several times in interviews I can't see how he can complain. And the Electoral College is anti-democratic, which is why it is there in the constitution: This is a REPUBLIC and we are governed by representatives.

Al Gore won't run because he'd be torn apart by Hillary, hated by his present friends who love him, and because he's a weak, pathetic candidate. He lost against a nobody with the Clinton machine behind him, the Vice President of a popular administration with a great economy behind him (until the last year, but the press was lying happily to cover that up). He didn't even win his own state, Frank.

[jj mollo]

If by "nobody", you are talking about the team that unexpectedly beat the beloved Ann Richards in Texas by six points and handed John McCain his head, then I think you should recalibrate that characterization. Bush, Cheney, Rove were to politics what Tinker, Evers, Chance were to baseball. This is not to say I approve -- I am a Democrat -- but you've got to admire their successes.

I don't agree that Gore was a weak candidate. He is smart and he is hard working. He is also very patriotic, and he believes in the importance of his efforts, whatever he is doing. He's just not as likeable as Bill or W. He also suffers from a tendency toward occasional strange statements, as do most smart people. His campaign performance was only pathetic if you think George Bush's performance was pathetic. There was no difference. It was a statistical tie. The post-election legal scramble, however, was not even close. The Democrats have different political resources than the Republicans. One thing they don't have are the movers and shakers and the fixers. Gore was doomed at soon as Jim Baker showed up, through no fault of his own.

There is also the possiblity -- I'm not saying I believe it -- that Hillary did him in. I don't believe she likes Gore very much, and she may have wanted the job herself. She may have figured that Americans would hate Bush and throw him out in 2004, so she could come in and rescue the Democrats. Who knows? Hillary is very hard to figure out, but she's no political slouch.

[Christopher Taylor]

You might admire Gore but he was weak, and his loss shows it.

One thing they don't have are the movers and shakers and the fixers.

I don't know how on earth you can remotely say such a thing. Take a look at the Clinton machine some time.

[jj mollo]

TINAAIJC

[Frank Warner]

My text messaging friends tell me that TINAAIJC means:

"This is not an argument. It's just a contradiction."

[Preevyet]

I wish Frank would get off the electoral college rant and face the facts that the only way Gore got so many votes was two-fold. One, there were no doubt thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of "dead" people voting for Gore in 2000. Second, the so called hanging chad incidents in Florida were proven to show that the only way a chad would hang is if multiple cards were inserted, ie every democrat got mulitple cards to vote with. It's the reason that the dems are scared of electronic voting and try to keep saying it isn't safe, it's not that it isn't safe, it is just that it nearly eliminates voter fraud. If we went to biometric voting, you'd see just how bad the voter fraud is. And note I'm not saying it's just the dems doing it, but they are the leaders in voter fraud.

Now, as for peace man Gore, wasn't his old man involved in the Karen Silkwood disappearance? Kind of ties in with his nuclear power stuff.