Author
|
Topic: Al Gore: Nobel Peace Prize
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 12 October 2007 09:02 AM
quote: Henry Kissinger has one of these too, and I can't think of many people who killed more for a 'peace' prize.
Well, to be fair, Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho shared the same prize for negotiating an apparent end the Vietnam war. Generally, I'd be for prosecuting Kissinger for war crimes; but when the Nobel is given to the leaders of two warring nations, it will inevitably be true that both have blood on their hands. Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres also shared the prize, for similar reasons.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 12 October 2007 09:13 AM
That's right. Wars tend to end when people make peace. Shouts of "YOU'RE THE AGGRESSOR!" can actually function as a barrier to peace. It can sometimes be fun for outsiders to want to continue hostilities indefinitely, but often the actual warring parties feel differently.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152
|
posted 12 October 2007 02:32 PM
"Few people of principle"? Besides Kissinger and a small handful of others, I submit the candidates are all very deserving. Or do you consider people like Martin Luther King Jr., the Dalai Lama, Mohammad Yunus, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Elie Wiesel, Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, Norman Borlaug, Albert Schweitzer, Shirin Ebadi, Jimmy Carter and Wangari Maathi, and organizations like Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, UNICEF, the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines to be unprincipled?
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 12 October 2007 03:56 PM
I consider several of those people to be lacking in principles, if you must know. And that list you cherry-picked is but a small fraction of the total rogues gallery of past recipients.I also share the following commentator's opinion that awarding a "Peace Prize" to Al Gore is a travesty: quote: Without diminishing the importance of global warming and the work done by this year's recipients - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) and Al Gore Jr. - it is highly disputable whether it qualifies as a PEACE prize in the spirit of Alfred Nobel - even if interpreted in the contemporary world situation and not that of 1895 when Nobel formulated his vision.The concept and definition of peace should indeed be broad. But neither of the recipients have made contributions that can match thousands of other individuals and NGOs who devote their lives to fighting militarism, nuclearism, wars, reducing violence, work for peacebuilding, tolerance, reconciliation and co-existence - the core issues of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is also regrettable that the Prize rewards government-related work, rather than civil society - Non-Governmentals, making the implicit point that governments rather than the people make peace. In particular, Al Gore - as vice-president under Bill Clinton between 1993 and 2001 was never heard or seen as a peace-maker. Clinton-Gore had a crash program for building up US military facilities and made military allies all around Russia - and missed history's greatest opportunity for a new world order. In contravention of international law and without a UN Security Council mandate, they bombed Serbia and Kosovo, based on an extremely deficient understanding of Yugoslavia and propaganda about genocide that has caused the miserable situation called Kosovo today (likely to blow up this year or the next), and they bombed in Afghanistan and Sudan.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 13 October 2007 01:18 AM
quote: I hate hope. It was hammered into me constantly a few years ago when I was being treated for breast cancer: Think positively! Don't lose hope! Wear your pink ribbon with pride! A couple of years later, I was alarmed to discover that the facility where I received my follow-up care was called the Hope Center. Hope? What about a cure? At antiwar and labor rallies over the years, I have dutifully joined Jesse Jackson in chanting "Keep hope alive!" – all the while crossing my fingers and thinking, "Fuck hope. Keep us alive."
Barabara Ehrenreich, "Pathologies of Hope" (Essay is a little off topic, but it does skewer the myth of "hope")mayakovsky would prefer to reduce this critique to elitist or hipster pessimism, as if "hope" could stop climate change if we simply do it hard enough and is not, rather, a shiny bauble packaged and sold by Oprah. Thanks for the "hope," Al! Keep selling those carbon credits! [ 13 October 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 13 October 2007 02:29 PM
quote: He paid for his indulgences in sin credits, so he's allowed to pollute as much as he likes, as long as he's rich enough to pay other people to conserve for him!
Of course he buys his indulgences from himself so it's ultra-efficient. But more to the point, last time I looked Alfred Nobel's will specifies that the peace prize would go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." That's hardly Al Gore. Unfortunately the Peace Prize has become a political award that allows the Committee to make a statement as opposed to recognizing someone's true accomplishments. [ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: abnormal ]
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 13 October 2007 08:31 PM
quote: Gore has shown clearly where the off swich on the oven is.
There is no "off switch". More hubris to think that humans can stop a global environmental process (the cause is irrelevant) that is well on its way. If only we all drove a Prius, built more nukular power plants, then the polar bears will be okay!
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 14 October 2007 09:43 AM
quote: Originally posted by I AM WOMAN: Al Gore is not a progressive.
Effective political definitions change from country to country, due to the fact realities change. Perhaps Gore would not be a progressive in Canada, but his activities have very much moved American discourse to the left. He is the leading public environmentalist, and he opposed the Iraq war from the start. However, if you want to have the same standards for Canada and the United States, then since The USA has ten times the population, the literature, etc. then it is more or less their standards that are to be adopted. And then under those standards Harper is a progressive as he supports universal health care, doesn't currently vote for troops in Iraq, etc. There is of course the choice of judging politicians in the context of the political reality under which they operate.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 14 October 2007 01:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples: ...he opposed the Iraq war from the start.
Please, let's dispose of this canard once and for all! quote: In a speech February 12 [2002], his first major political address since the US Supreme Court stopped a vote count in Florida and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, declared his full support to the Bush administration’s plans for expanded warfare in the Middle East. Gore called for a “final reckoning” with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. .... Gore specifically solidarized himself with the “axis of evil” rhetoric in Bush’s State of the Union speech....“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said. “There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.” Gore made a bow to European criticisms of Bush’s unilateralism, and presented himself as an advocate of a more inclusive style of foreign policy.... But the basic thrust of his speech was to demonstrate how far the Democratic Party’s titular leader would go in identifying himself with the aggressive militarism that now dominates Washington. Gore declared, “I also support the president’s stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union.” The 2000 Democratic presidential candidate thus backed the worldwide campaign of military force, covert provocations and diplomatic bullying that is being waged in the name of the “war on terrorism.” He endorsed Bush’s shift in the focus of this campaign from terrorist groups to governments allegedly engaged in the development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Gore said, “There is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.” The former vice president recalled that he was among a small group of Democratic senators who backed the first President Bush in his decision to dispatch a huge army to the Middle East and go to war against Iraq over Kuwait. His only criticism of the Persian Gulf War was that it did not go far enough and was ended with Saddam Hussein still in power. Gore added, “So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit...." Gore did not spell out what he meant when he said the US had to be prepared to “go the limit” against Iraq. Do his provocative and reckless words imply the destruction of Iraq as a functioning society, through saturation bombing? The invasion of the country and occupation of Baghdad by an American army? Or perhaps the use of nuclear weapons in the event that an air and ground attack should prove insufficient? Gore also said that Iran was “a much more dangerous challenge” than Iraq in terms both of support for terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction. He did not draw the conclusion that war with Iran was more necessary than war with Iraq, but strongly implied that such a war would be inevitable unless the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Teheran were overthrown from within.... He concluded: “When all is said and done, I hope that when the people of our country next return the White House for a time to the Democratic Party, our leadership then will be big enough to salute the present administration for what it will have done that is wise and good. And to build upon it forthrightly....” From the standpoint of American politics, Gore’s remarks demonstrate the politically moribund and intellectually debased character of liberalism. As he did during the election campaign, when he sought to ignore the right-wing campaign that led to Clinton’s impeachment, and as he did during the post-election crisis in Florida, Gore seeks to tranquilize the American people about the dangers to their democratic rights....
how quickly some people forget
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 14 October 2007 09:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
Gore vs Giuliani, I don't see much of a difference, I'll vote 3rd party...again.
And how did that go for you last time? You may be right, but a great many Iraqis are dead too.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 16 October 2007 10:17 AM
quote: Originally posted by I AM WOMAN: In 2000 Nader attracted both Republicans and Democrats that were disgusted with their respective parties.
The reality of Republican crossover "disgust" is greatly exaggerated--as you may already know. The number of Republicans who have "converted" to Nader is tiny compared to the support from Bush-supporting Republicans who managed to get him on ballots and give him money. This is a win-win strategy for the Republicans: 1) there is zero chance Nader can win 2)it siphons off primarily disenchanted Democrat votes allowing Bush to win. "Republican support for Nader, or at least for his appearing on the ballot, is exploding all over. The Wisconsin chapter of the Citizens for a Sound Economy plans to work to get him onto that state's ballot. According to an Arizona Democratic attorney quoted in The New York Times, 46 percent of the signatures filed by the Nader campaign in that state belong to registered Republicans. Arizona Naderites are being represented by Lisa Hauser, an active Republican attorney and counsel to former GOP Gov. Fife Symington."
Nader Republicans "... Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, calls such charges ridiculous, adding: "It's unfortunate that Democrats seem determined to disenfranchise voters who want an opportunity to cast votes for Ralph Nader.''
Still, other Republicans acknowledge that many in the party have mentioned that a donation to Nader may boost Bush, particularly in states where the vote is expected to be close. "Republicans have no problem with it, if the goal is to keep President Bush in office,'' said Hoover Institution research fellow Bill Whalen, a veteran GOP strategist. "It's not pretty. But putting a guy (in the White House) you don't like is not pretty either.'' Whalen said the Republican National Committee or the Bush-Cheney campaign can't technically condone such donations, but "you absolutely want your activists to get out there and help Ralph run'' because of the effects he had on the 2000 election. "Do the math,'' Whalen said. Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in "bundled'' contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31. Bundling is the practice of gathering contributions together for maximum influence." Republicans
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139
|
posted 20 October 2007 07:44 PM
quote: Al Gore joins a long list of past "ignoble" recipients like warrior presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson
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". Woodrow Wilson was an academic with no military service and tried to keep the United States out of World War I. He received his Nobel Prize for helping to found the League of Nations, and destroyed his health trying to sell it in the US. Theodore Roosevelt won his Nobel Prize for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. It is true that he is the only person to receive both the Nobel Peace Prize and their country's highest military decoration (long posthumously), but he was also a progressive (for the time) and a conservationist. I wouldn't call either Nobel Prize particularly ignoble. There are certainly far less worthy recipients and more worthy omissions (such as Gandhi) though.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 21 October 2007 08:56 AM
The fact that you would defend Wilson and “carry a big stick” Roosevelt says a lot about your political judgment. And it’s not complimentary.These men were the architects of “Pax Americana”; the “peace” they promoted was a form of peace based on imperialist exploitation and fear of American military power, which they did not shrink from wielding. quote: Every time we go to Nicaragua we learn more about a sordid and absurd episode in America’s history. This, too, has Wilson’s DNA on it. Marines were sent into Nicaragua in 1916. The country became almost a protectorate of the United States – despite the fact that it was a sovereign nation. Wilson did not stop there. Soon he had U.S. soldiers all over the diarrhea belt. He sent them into Haiti and the Dominican Republic, too. In Mexico, he backed one party…then, a splinter faction…and then, when the splinter group began killing people on both sides of the border, Wilson sent a force of 6,675 Punitive Expedition down to the Rio Grande to hunt down and kill the splinter himself – Pancho Villa. From humbug, to farce, to disaster; in the end, the effect of these interventions was just the opposite of what Wilson had hoped for. Instead of increasing America’s friends in the region, the number of her sworn enemies multiplied. For the next two generations, in many Latin American countries, "Yanqui go home" was practically the national anthem.
Source quote: Take another presidential hero, Theodore Roosevelt, who is always near the top of the tiresome lists of Our Greatest Presidents. And there he is on Mount Rushmore, as a permanent reminder of our historical amnesia - forgetting his racism, his militarism, his love of war. Why not replace him as hero - granted, removing him from Mount Rushmore will take some doing - with Mark Twain? Roosevelt had congratulated an American general who in 1906 ordered the massacre of 600 men, women, children on a Philippine island. And Twain denounced this, as he continued to point to the cruelties committed in the Philippine war under the slogan "My country, right or wrong". As for Woodrow Wilson, also occupying an important place in the pantheon of American liberalism, shouldn't we remind his admirers that he insisted on racial segregation in federal buildings, that he bombarded the Mexican coast, sent an occupation army into Haiti and the Dominican Republic, brought our country into the hell of World War I, and put anti-war protesters in prison. Should we not bring forward as a national hero Emma Goldman, one of those Wilson sent to prison, or Helen Keller, who fearlessly spoke out against the war?
Howard Zinn
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401
|
posted 22 October 2007 05:39 AM
Al Gore's 'Errors': The Verdict quote: The confusion was inevitable. Two days before Gore shared in the Nobel Peace Prize last week, a British high court judge ruled that Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, contains nine "errors." The court also observed that the film was "political."News stories reported that the judge found the movie to be "riddled" with errors. Some accounts said the judge found nine mistakes, others said 11. Climate change deniers, who have found themselves increasingly ignored over the past year, tried to use the judgment to rekindle a debate over whether there is such a thing as man-made climate change. For Gore's supporters, the decision became what ABC News called "an inconvenient verdict."
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 22 October 2007 06:39 AM
why was a film in court in a democratic country?The legal proceedings were started by a fellow named Stuart Dimmock ... a Dover resident, a truck-driving father of two and a school governor, who objected to British schools showing Gore's movie in classes. Dimmock wanted the court to ban the film from schools on the grounds that it amounts to "political indoctrination." at a minimum, the Gore film is not neutral; if you want to open wide that door and show films with a distinct ideological slant in public schools, then intelligent-design, here we come !! weren't people here cheering when a US judge ruled that was politics not science, hence not teachable in public schools? the plaintiff here says essentially the same thing [ 22 October 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
david henman
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14695
|
posted 01 November 2007 11:08 AM
...it's very simple: Al Gore is not a conservative.were he a conservative, other conservatives would be falling all over each other to proclaim him the king of the global warming movement, and claiming the global warming movement as a conservative cause. the fact that Al Gore is one of those dreaded liberals drives conservatives absolutely crazy and, thus, we get proclamations like "global warming is a liberal conspiracy" from Stephen Harper and many others. a conspiracy theory from conservative "realists"? my irony meter just exploded! it's pretty obvious that the mistake Al Gore made was listening to scientists. he should have listened to conservatives. after all, what do scientists know about...you know...science. conservatives, on the other hand...... -dh [ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: david henman ]
From: newmarket | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 24 April 2008 04:54 PM
Gore Launches Ambitious Advocacy Campaign on Climate Monday, March 31, 2008 excerpt: Former vice president Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign Wednesday aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a move that ranks as one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history. excerpt: The new effort comes at a time when the three remaining major party presidential candidates -- Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- have all endorsed federal limits on greenhouse gases, virtually ensuring that the next occupant of the White House will offer a sharp break from President Bush's climate policy.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 24 April 2008 05:00 PM
Obama would consider Gore for cabinet-level postexcerpt: At a town-hall meeting, Mr. Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice-president for his cabinet to handle global warming. “I would,” Mr. Obama said. “Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now.” Since leaving the White House, Mr. Gore has gone on to become one of the world's leading voices for combatting the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. His work earned him a share of the Nobel last year. excerpt: Mr. Obama said he would use Mr. Gore to help forge a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions designed to lower pollution.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|