Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 14, 2007
WAR: Real Nobel-ity

Who the Nobel Peace Prize Committee wouldhave chosen if they were serious about supporting opposition to tyranny and terrorism, especially non-violent opposition. Surely, each of these was a better candidate.

We are rapidly approaching the point at which the Nobel committee will just cut out the middleman and give itself the prize. In the meantime, I guess it's progress not to give the award (as done repeatedly in the past) to someone who signed a cease-fire they had no intention of honoring.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 1:24 PM | War 2007-12 | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

At this point, as long as they don't give it to an active terrorist (again), I'm OK with it.

Posted by: Rattling The Kettle at October 14, 2007 1:49 PM

I knew upon hearing that Gore won the peace prize that conservatives would object. Gore is as good a choice as any. Conservatives still have their head in the sand about global warming. Thank God someone is raising attention about this most important threat to peace and stability.

Posted by: Steve at October 14, 2007 5:30 PM

Steve, that is one point of view. Gore's flick is chock full of lies, and many folks think he is well aware. He is also quite the carbon consumer, offsets are a fraud the likes of which Fastow wishes he'd thought of. GW might be a threat to stability, but how can anyone consider it top ten in Peace? Vaclav Havel has the right take in my opinion. Regardless of stand towards global warming, anyone endorsing Kyoto cannot be taken seriously. In public cost/benefit analysis it is a clear vote for third world death. Anyway, people are dying around the globe today, apparently nobody is making a creditable effort for peace anywhere? How sad! Thank God for the chubby guy in the Lear and his movie.

Posted by: abe at October 14, 2007 6:01 PM

I would have been more impressed if the WSJ had published this prior to the announcement, instead of as a response.

"GW might be a threat to stability, but how can anyone consider it top ten in Peace"
Destabilizing states directly impacts Peace. Especially in relatively fragile regions, like Africa. It's not a large leap to believe preventing man made climate change would lead to states not destabilizing as much, let alone war for oil in the ice free artic.
What else makes the top 10? Nuke proliferation, Islamic fundamentalists (just to roll them up), Taiwan doing something, poverty - and 2 of those have been hit in the past few years. The others, nothing much have changed.

"In public cost/benefit analysis it is a clear vote for third world death."
I think Kyoto is bad - but it pretty much leaves developing nations alone. If anything, it allows them to run hot and cheap while holding richer nations back. I'm pretty sure you have this wrong.

You've also got to remember the original wording in his will, which included "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations". There's definitely been some bonding over Al Gore and climate change over the past year. I don't think he should have won it, and the monks will next year - too late, even though they've been at it for years.

Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2007 7:18 PM

Careful Crank, if you speak heresy against the religion of globaloney warming you will get all the crazies coming out of the woodwork.

Posted by: largebill at October 14, 2007 9:43 PM

Yeah, imagine if we gave a major prize about peace to people who never signed a peace treaty, like Mother Theresa or Elie Wiesel. It's like the horrendous NY Post headline, calling the award, "How Convenient." To the Conservative movement, as Joseph Welch once said, "Have you no manners sir have you no manners?" Just say congratulations and move on.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at October 14, 2007 10:09 PM

Daryl, don't even bother. These guys whine every time something goes differently than they'd like.

I think it's pretty silly that Gore won the Nobel Peace prize, but this maudlin whine-fest that our friends on the right are engaging in is borderline embarrassing. Hardly surprising at this point though.

Can you imagine the sobs and tantrums if Hillary wins next year? As much as I despise her, I'd almost like to see it happen, just for the perverse thrill of watching all the manly 'wingers throw hissy fits for 4 years.

Posted by: Mike at October 15, 2007 6:56 AM

The tantrums couldn't be any worse than all you guys who promised to move to Canada when Bush won...

By the way, this isn't whining, this is disappointment in how farcial this once-august award has become. Regardless what you think of Vice President Gore and the global warming debate, the relationship between Gore's work and peace is flimsy at best.

Posted by: Cannon at October 15, 2007 9:43 AM

C'mon, just imagine the reaction on the Left if they gave it to Dick Cheney. Frankly, most of the reaction on the Right has been more in the nature of amused mockery at this farce, given that the real result of this is to further discredit the Nobel Committee.

Posted by: The Crank at October 15, 2007 9:49 AM

You guys need to understand, we aren't saying they should have given it to Rush. We are saying they should ahve given it to someone who promoted peace in the world.

Taking a naturally occuring event...like global warming, and making it into a political football does nothing to help the world.

I agree with Cannon, this is becoming more and more a joke.

Posted by: maddirishman at October 15, 2007 10:03 AM

I guess you have to define what is meant by peace. Mother Theresa didn't promote world peace; for damn sure Yassir Arafat didn't. So maybe we have to loosely figure that the award has come to mean some organization or person that has done much to promote world peace and/or security, and perhaps the easing of burdens that can cost millions of people to die or suffer.

I'm not saying who or what is causing the planet's climate to change. Maybe it's part of a natural rhythm. It doesn't matter. We face, as a species, a planetary emergency, and we have to deal with it. Kyoto may or may not be the answer (I doubt it is), but Gore has talked about this a lot; so stop the sour grapes.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at October 15, 2007 11:13 AM

"Gore has talked about this a lot; so stop the sour grapes."
Ah, the new Nobel standard discovered.
There's plenty to discuss re warming; Kyoto is trash. Dirt little secret, almost as pathetically indefensible as Bush's endorsement of ethanol.

Posted by: abe at October 15, 2007 2:03 PM

Yeah, if there's one thing Al Gore can't stand, it's sour grapes.

Posted by: The Crank at October 15, 2007 2:07 PM

just imagine the reaction on the Left if they gave it to Dick Cheney.

I can't, because my mind isn't nearly demented enough to contemplate the idea of Cheney winning any award for "peace."

If Cheney won the Nobel Peace Prize he'd snarl & sneer then order the bombing of at least 4 third world countries to remove the taint of peace from his legacy.

I'm not fan of Gore, but let's not put him in Buckshot Dick territory just yet.

Posted by: Mike at October 16, 2007 6:49 AM

Did some quick checking, and here are the instructions left by Nobel for the Peace Proze:

"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 of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

Now here is what the awarders said: "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Then some checking on who or what got the prizes over the years. The Red Cross got it a bunch of times. WHo could argue that one.

In the beginning, it was awarded to lots of Europeans, who loved clapping themselves on the back, especially for giving us the World War (let's not forget that 20 years later, it needed a Roman Numeral, although Japan helped out lots there too).

Teddy Roosevelt got one, and deservedly so. Woodrow Wilson got one for the League of Nations stuff and the so called peace that came from there (forgetting he did more to spread the 1918 Flu Pandemic than anyone).

A trade unionist got one in 1951, and Albert Schweitzer in 1952. That one clearly presaged the 1999 Doctors without Borders award. So we have a bunch of Red Cross awards to Schweitzer to Doctors Without Borders to the importance of understanding climate change in the category of, "hmmm, world peace just might mean keeping millions of people alive who would otherwise die a horrible death." Maybe that comes under the medicine and physiology prize, but not everyone does it in a biological manner.

So there is ample precedence to giving the award to people and groups who do not start peace treaties or committees, but do lots to advocate saving human life. Now I do consider saving our species in this category. Is climate change that important? Well, I don't know, but we are adapted to a specific type of climate, so are our domesticated crops and livestock. The society we have set up, which includes remote food growing and distribution, and a system of common areas of potable water, and that system cannot tolerate a major change.

So, as you lawyers would say, there is ample precedent from the beginning to award the Peace Prize to people such as Al Gore. Giving it to Arafat was a joke, but at the time, it seemed as though this gangster might actually become something--well, no, gangsters rarely do, but if this prize isn't optimistic, then what is?

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at October 16, 2007 10:29 AM

Well said, Daryl. I am not sure this award was about optimism, the Warming debate seems to be run by scolds and nags. Regardless, I wonder if Gore's award does not foreshadow a future winner .

Posted by: abe at October 16, 2007 10:47 AM

That link is not working, should have taken you here:

http://www.threesources.com/archives/004664.html

Posted by: abe at October 16, 2007 10:50 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg