I don't know why Gore won this. Other than the Committee wanting to take another swipe at Bush. Which is all well and good. But they are robing peter to pay paul. Imagine if they monks in Burma had won this year? Now that would have been something!
The press release from the committee gave their stated rationale:
Quote:
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
Quote:
Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.
That makes a lot of sense if the nature of the risks we face is a planetary emergency. I'm not sure Gore has explicitly made the connection between environmental politics and world peace, but that's probably immaterial if the committee can recognize the impact of his message on world peace, which is at the very least what they've done here. His award is warranted if you accept the premise that global warming will at some point in the future increase the destabilizing risks of migration or armed conflict between nations. If true, the consequences of global warming won't happen in a vacuum.
You asked why Gore won the award, and I responded with the committee's stated reasons for why they chose him for the award.
ShawnJ you're a lawyer in training. Is there ever a time when a group states their reason for something but people still don't know why they did it? What are the possible reasons for that?
ShawnJ you're a lawyer in training. Is there ever a time when a group states their reason for something but people still don't know why they did it? What are the possible reasons for that?
I have no idea why you still don't understand why Gore won the award.
Why don't you tell us since we can't read your mind?
It is appalling that you would bad mouth the Nobel Prize because it was given to someone you dislike. If Gore is a such a piece of crap and he was able to get the prize, why don't the rest of the millionaires and billionaires in the world take turns in getting the damn prize every year?
Start calling everyone who doesn't fit into your model of the world an enemy and label anyone who is friendly with them as an axis of evil... Oh wait, GWB already did that.
Whatever happened to people having an objective view on life without leaning to extremes?
Sentence fragment #4 and 5. You're going to be either the worst or the best lawyer ever.
1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.
2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.
How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?
1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.
2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.
How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?
If complaining about how someone has typed something down while adding nothing to the thread were an ad-hom, I know a certain kettle that would already be perma-banned.
Because people don't believe them or they deny that the reason is valid.
I think the Nobel Committee's reason is valid. On the other hand, SDW and Trumptman believe the Bush Administration's reasons for invading Iraq (even though those reasons kept changing) were valid.
I'm sorry but you are using Trumptman without his consent. I haven't even participated in this thread. Please cease and desist immediately and remit royalties via my Paypal account. Your use in no manner constitutes satire and as such falls clearly is an attempt to harass and defame.
I charge for the pre-rants, I should at least be participating in the thread before you rail against my presupposed position.
We should have had this discussion when Arafat won the award...
Some of us did. However there instead of being labeled delusional defilers of the planet who desire to kill, maim and harm all poor people because we refuse to justify private jets and carbon trading, we were labeled as delusional supporters of Israel who hate Islam and desire to subjugate the entire region to the interests of the United States.
In each case the parties who supported the nomination claimed ulterior motives with regard to leveling any criticism of the award and party to whom it was given because CLEARLY you could never have true cause for criticizing them.
1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.
2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.
How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?
Stiff upper lip ShawnJ. That's hardly a personal attack.
IMO the committee gave it to gore to stick their thumb in bush's eye which they already did the previous year via Carter who had actually earned it. They wasted their opportunity to give it to a group that is acting for peace in today's world. Maybe in the future were Kevin Costner has gills and rides a pontoon boat Gore will be a hero for peace but in this world we have more tangible heroes that should have won. E.g. Monks, people of Lebanon, sundry democracy advocates in Russia, .... but GORE?
So the committee robed (sic) peace to pay politics.
I don't know about the specific advocates of which you speak, but is being a democracy advocate particularly directly related to peace? I think you could make a pretty good argument that global warming advocacy is at least as, and possibly more, related to peace (as ShawnJ and neutrino have ably pointed out earlier in this thread) than advocating democracy.
Interestingly, the opening keynote speech at the conference I attended today discussed how global warming and adapting to its consequences is perhaps starting to become, and will almost certainly increasingly become, a critical part of the duty of the public health community.
IMO the committee gave it to gore to stick their thumb in bush's eye which they already did the previous year via Carter who had actually earned it. They wasted their opportunity to give it to a group that is acting for peace in today's world. Maybe in the future were Kevin Costner has gills and rides a pontoon boat Gore will be a hero for peace but in this world we have more tangible heroes that should have won. E.g. Monks, people of Lebanon, sundry democracy advocates in Russia, .... but GORE?
So the committee robed (sic) peace to pay politics.
Gore won the award precisely for acting to prevent anything tangible from occurring.
You can disagree with the scale of the planetary emergency and the resulting human consequences we face, but if those premises are true, the committee is justified in awarding Gore the prize. The scientific evidence points toward supporting Gore's view of the climate change crisis, and I think the human consequences the committee points to are worth acting on now to prevent. That's not to say your examples don't deserve consideration, but I don't think I support the view that actions promoting peace can't be prospective in nature (or if they can be, that they don't deserve acknowledgment or consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize).
Comments
Who's next? Cindy Sheehan?
I don't know why Gore won this.
The press release from the committee gave their stated rationale:
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.
That makes a lot of sense if the nature of the risks we face is a planetary emergency. I'm not sure Gore has explicitly made the connection between environmental politics and world peace, but that's probably immaterial if the committee can recognize the impact of his message on world peace, which is at the very least what they've done here. His award is warranted if you accept the premise that global warming will at some point in the future increase the destabilizing risks of migration or armed conflict between nations. If true, the consequences of global warming won't happen in a vacuum.
ShawnJ I had at least 6 or 7 sentences there and quote one? You'll make an excellent lawyer.
Well, technically, sentences 1 through 4 should have all been one sentence.
ShawnJ I had at least 6 or 7 sentences there and quote one? You'll make an excellent lawyer.
My response was relevant to your question.
You asked why Gore won the award, and I responded with the committee's stated reasons for why they chose him for the award.
Well, technically, sentences 1 through 4 should have all been one sentence.
That's pretty funny. You're right. I think I was drinking that night.
My response was relevant to your question.
You asked why Gore won the award, and I responded with the committee's stated reasons for why they chose him for the award.
ShawnJ you're a lawyer in training. Is there ever a time when a group states their reason for something but people still don't know why they did it? What are the possible reasons for that?
ShawnJ you're a lawyer in training. Is there ever a time when a group states their reason for something but people still don't know why they did it? What are the possible reasons for that?
I have no idea why you still don't understand why Gore won the award.
Why don't you tell us since we can't read your mind?
Start calling everyone who doesn't fit into your model of the world an enemy and label anyone who is friendly with them as an axis of evil... Oh wait, GWB already did that.
Whatever happened to people having an objective view on life without leaning to extremes?
I have no idea why you still don't understand why Gore won the award.
Why don't you tell us since we can't read your mind?
Sentence fragment #4 and 5. You're going to be either the worst or the best lawyer ever.
Sentence fragment #4 and 5. You're going to be either the worst or the best lawyer ever.
1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.
2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.
How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?
1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.
2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.
How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?
If complaining about how someone has typed something down while adding nothing to the thread were an ad-hom, I know a certain kettle that would already be perma-banned.
Nick
Because people don't believe them or they deny that the reason is valid.
I think the Nobel Committee's reason is valid. On the other hand, SDW and Trumptman believe the Bush Administration's reasons for invading Iraq (even though those reasons kept changing) were valid.
I'm sorry but you are using Trumptman without his consent. I haven't even participated in this thread. Please cease and desist immediately and remit royalties via my Paypal account. Your use in no manner constitutes satire and as such falls clearly is an attempt to harass and defame.
I charge for the pre-rants, I should at least be participating in the thread before you rail against my presupposed position.
Nick
We should have had this discussion when Arafat won the award...
Some of us did. However there instead of being labeled delusional defilers of the planet who desire to kill, maim and harm all poor people because we refuse to justify private jets and carbon trading, we were labeled as delusional supporters of Israel who hate Islam and desire to subjugate the entire region to the interests of the United States.
In each case the parties who supported the nomination claimed ulterior motives with regard to leveling any criticism of the award and party to whom it was given because CLEARLY you could never have true cause for criticizing them.
Hope that clears that up for you.
Nick
The prize was awarded jointly to:
YASSER ARAFAT , Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority.
SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel.
YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel.
for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.
Good, bad...who gives a toss...anyway, Arafat's was stolen.
1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.
2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.
How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?
Stiff upper lip ShawnJ. That's hardly a personal attack.
IMO the committee gave it to gore to stick their thumb in bush's eye which they already did the previous year via Carter who had actually earned it. They wasted their opportunity to give it to a group that is acting for peace in today's world. Maybe in the future were Kevin Costner has gills and rides a pontoon boat Gore will be a hero for peace but in this world we have more tangible heroes that should have won. E.g. Monks, people of Lebanon, sundry democracy advocates in Russia, .... but GORE?
So the committee robed (sic) peace to pay politics.
sundry democracy advocates in Russia
I don't know about the specific advocates of which you speak, but is being a democracy advocate particularly directly related to peace? I think you could make a pretty good argument that global warming advocacy is at least as, and possibly more, related to peace (as ShawnJ and neutrino have ably pointed out earlier in this thread) than advocating democracy.
Interestingly, the opening keynote speech at the conference I attended today discussed how global warming and adapting to its consequences is perhaps starting to become, and will almost certainly increasingly become, a critical part of the duty of the public health community.
IMO the committee gave it to gore to stick their thumb in bush's eye which they already did the previous year via Carter who had actually earned it. They wasted their opportunity to give it to a group that is acting for peace in today's world. Maybe in the future were Kevin Costner has gills and rides a pontoon boat Gore will be a hero for peace but in this world we have more tangible heroes that should have won. E.g. Monks, people of Lebanon, sundry democracy advocates in Russia, .... but GORE?
So the committee robed (sic) peace to pay politics.
Gore won the award precisely for acting to prevent anything tangible from occurring.
You can disagree with the scale of the planetary emergency and the resulting human consequences we face, but if those premises are true, the committee is justified in awarding Gore the prize. The scientific evidence points toward supporting Gore's view of the climate change crisis, and I think the human consequences the committee points to are worth acting on now to prevent. That's not to say your examples don't deserve consideration, but I don't think I support the view that actions promoting peace can't be prospective in nature (or if they can be, that they don't deserve acknowledgment or consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize).
I don't know about the specific advocates of which you speak, but is being a democracy advocate particularly directly related to peace?
Maybe not necessarily, but check out the life of '91 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.