So, Al Gore has been nominated for the once-(but-not-so-much-any-more)-illustrious Nobel Peace Prize. Hell, the MSM and the Left-f-sphere has already awarded it to him in such a fawning manner, it’s as though it is an obvious no-brainer and everyone else should simply be grateful for being mentioned in the same breath as Al “Fly Around the World in my Private Jet while I Blame Everone Else (but mostly President Bush) for Global Warming” Gore.
I think it particularly amusing that Al was nominated by Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party (birds of a feather, and all that…)
Jules Crittenden takes a particularly incredulous and skeptical look at Big Al’s nomination:
What global warming has to do with peace is beyond me. Let me guess. Us hill dwellers won’t have to do battle with the beach dwellers over real estate. Thanks to Al Gore.
But what effect Al Gore has had on the issue, also beyond me. His faux-science laden movie will not make the Earth cooler.* My vote goes to Michael Moore, whose gross cinematic distortion also contributed zip to the cause of peace, but at least had to do with war, and was watched by a lot more people. Moore, as a complete charlatan, is more in keeping with the spirit of the prize. Well, so is Gore, but again, off topic …
The Nobel Peace Prize has long been a Piece of Crap … ever since they gave it to Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat [in 1994].
The award really has become a joke. Jimmy Carter (2002)? Yeah if by peace you mean “the total anhilation of Israel so the Palestinians can live in peace without all those damned Jews living on our land.”
Then there was the laughable awarding of the Prize to Koffi Annan and the UN in 2001 — an organization that has molested, raped, and robbed more people than they have ever helped.
And don’t forget last year when the 1976 winner, Betty Williams, was excused for merely flashing her “feisty German spirit†when she told a group of school children that she wanted to kill President George Bush?
I guess “Peace” doesn’t mean what it used to…
____________
Crittenden has a “it would be funny if it weren’t so likely to actually happen” prediction for future Peace Prize winners:
Next year, Hugo Chavez, for getting his rubberstamp National Assembly to give him dictatorial powers that will keep the loudmouth anti-Yanqui wealth-redistributing Revolution alive in Latin America after Castro has gone on to his Marxist reward. Also, for bravely standing on the floor of the United Nations, sniffing the sulfer, and making rude remarks.
In two years, John Kerry. He’s selflessly sacrificed his shot at the presidency in 2008 to devote all his attention to getting us out of Iraq, which is to say, he’s reclaimed the back bench everyone was unkindly shoving him toward. He took the highly principled stand of being against the Iraq War after he was for it. Nancy Pelosi might edge him out, however, because they don’t get to give that thing to a woman much.
In five years, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for defying the Great Satan and the evil Chimpy McBushitler. For bringing Pax Irana to the Middle East while nipping at the heals of the Zionist entity. But maybe, and this is a bit of an outside shot, Moqtada al-Sadr, for his efforts to bring stability to Iraq.
In 10 years? Osama bin Laden. Because living in a cave and fighting oppression is way cool.
Hah.
I just noticed that Rush Limbaugh was nominated too. Being nominated for and winning the Nobel Peace Prize truly is meaningless now.
I have big problems with all these celebrity conservationists always clucking their tongues at the little people. Let them get rid of their private jets, multiple SUVs, multiple homes with excessive sq. footage before they lecture anyone else. Hell, Laurie David got in trouble for destroying protected wetland by building a 26 ‘ barbque station, fire pit, and outside theatre. It’s always do as we day, not as we do.
There is too much to work with here.
For one, I suppose it’s too complicated to bother with but Al Gore takes steps to offset his carbon production. Gore’s point isn’t for us all to live like monks- simply to not increase the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere: he does this by all accounts.
Secondly, Rush Limbaugh was not nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize: some wingnuts got together and put his name up but they have no standing to do so. It has as much validity as me nominating myself for a Nobel.
Third, you slander Jimmy Carter by suggesting he is an opponent of Israel. He is a critic of their occupation in the West Bank and believes that the settlements are making peace more difficult.
Anon, I think it’s fair to say that most of us probably say more about protecting the environment than we do. Al Gore, for one is proposing systemic solutions that will impact each of us. As I mention above he walks the walk when it comes to reducing carbon from the atmosphere. In any case reduced use of fossil fuels no more has to ‘affect the little guys’ than the transition from whale oil or wood did.
Remember, nominations are open to ANYBODY. Even Hitler could be nominated. Nominations are meaningless. Winning is a different story.
Skul is correct, anybody can be nominated for a Nobel Prize, all it takes is a certain number of people to sign a petition of nomination (though I’m not sure exactly what it is called). One great and well known example of this is Nicolae Ceaucescu, the former dictator of Romania, who actually lobbied for the prize. He was nominated a bunch of years for it, by the same way I described, simply having a committee of signees nominate him. He tried to get it on the grounds that he was evidently trying to broker a peace deal in the Middle East, also during his reign Romania ranked fourth in terms of countries giving out foreign aid.
Still, he never won the prize, despite his obvious efforts to do so, though by the same toke he might have been every bit as deserving of the prize as some others who have been nominated, and even some who have won it.
All one needs is a recomendation of a social science, history, philosophy, law, or theology professor or legislator. To show how meaningless a Nobel Peace Prize nomination is, a local radio show host was nominated by a congressman. Link
One, right, carbon offsets. So, rich environmental whackos can continue to live their excessive lifestyles while telling everyone else to do without.
Two, any moonbat can get nominated for a Nobel prize by another moonbat. Gore is just another example.
Three, Carter is a jew-hating bastard.
Four, Gore has the money to continue his excessive, hypocritical, and useless life while telling everyone else to live like monks. He needs to accept the fact that he will never be president no matter what gimmick he comes up with.
Well, anyone c0uld be nominated- but not anyone can nominate.
Forms, which amount to a personal and exclusive invitation, are sent to about three thousand selected individuals to invite them to submit nominations
rich environmental whackos can continue to live their excessive lifestyles while telling everyone else to do without.
Waaah! Rich people can afford things you can’t. Boo hoo.
I thought conservatives thought that successful (read: rich) people deserved to reap the benefits of their hard work. So, Al Gore is successful enough to fly on a plane and still offset the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere and you can’t. Deal with it.
I can afford what I want just fine. What I don’t want is rich lefttard faux-conservationists like Gore lecturing me on what I can and cannot have while living their own excessive and useless lifestyle. As far as dealing with it — I have: Gore was voted out of office, could not get the primary nominatin in 2004, will not get the primary nomination in 2008, and will never hold any public office in the future. So, you and Gore deal with it.
Al Gore is in his prime. He’s “adored” for being a type of savior. A lot of politicians are that way. They have more money than they know what to do with so the only thing that satisfies them is adoration.
Anonymous- if Al Gore is telling people that increased CO2 is causing global warming and is living his life in a way that reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in what way is that hypocritical or any of your business?
Your evaluation of his electoral prospects has nothing to do with the issue of whether he acts in a manner consistent with his beliefs. It has even less to do with the validity of those beliefs. On that matter Al Gore has cast his lot with fhe UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and India, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. You seem to cast your lot with Rush Limbaugh and scientists sponsored by the oil industry.
Dianne-
Your cynicism is belied by Al Gore’s career of concern for the environment. Do you similarly believe that, say, Sam Brownback is only concerned with banning abortion because of a desire to be adored?
One, Gore and his ilk, who pollute and waste 100x more than the majority of people they criticize. Two, you who has allowed political agenda to dictate science, are a Lysenkoite
you who has allowed political agenda to dictate science, are a Lysenkoite
That’s an ironic accusation given the weight of the scientific opinion that I cited above.
I’m the first to admit I don’t know if the earth is warming or not. But I tend to trust the weight of a dozen scientific organizations before I trust the likes of Rush Limbaugh and bought off scientists.
The bought off scientists are the one’s supporting the global warming hysteria.
the award has always been a joke… think dynomite
I haven’t seen that film he narrates…
but I’ve read many articles claiming that global warming is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Also, that the earth will lose polarity someday… many theories in this world. It is just a matter of time until they’re proven or dismissed. There are theories that if fluoride weren’t in the US (been removed from a few communities) water supply… then children would have poor dental health. Then there are proven theories that say fluoride is a topical agent and should not be consumed and that an overdose of fluoride at a young age can cause a lot of damage on more than just a child’s teeth. But fluoride is still in our water… dirty rotten fluoride which can occur naturally but is often toxic waste shipped in from Florida at 32 cents a year per person. Pretty cheap… pretty gross… pretty sad. Like it isn’t bad enough that they put other chemicals in the public water…….
I really don’t know what to believe… because there are few things in this world that are fact.
Try to be a good person… try not to waste or be a glutton. Just try to live the best life you can without leaving a big mess on your way out the door.
Try to stop being so… close-minded.