The Peace Prize

[Dottie]

Apparently it's nowadays enough to be receptive to a scientific fact, make a movie and live in USA to be awarded the Nobel peace prize. I can understand choosing the IPCC, but Al Gore is just silly.

Mind you, it's still several steps above the 1973 selection of Henry Kissinger in terms of sanity.

I also think it's good that they are broadening the prize to encompass poverty and environment since that are extremely important factors in maintaining peace.

So, what do you think of the prize? Both this years laureates and the prize in general.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dottie Apparently it's nowadays enough to be receptive to a scientific fact, make a movie and live in USA to be awarded the Nobel peace prize. I can understand choosing the IPCC, but Al Gore is just silly.

Perhaps they didn't correctly report the news in Sweden. Gore didn't win for his film, nor did he win, alone. He won in conjunction with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("shared, in two equal parts"). The reason, according to the Nobel Committee, was "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."

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dottie Apparently it's nowadays enough to be receptive to a scientific fact, make a movie and live in USA to be awarded the Nobel peace prize. I can understand choosing the IPCC, but Al Gore is just silly.

Why is it sillier to hand it to Gore than the IPCC? Firstly, Gore has done more than film An Inconvenient Truth. Among other things, he's responsible for the GLOBE program, the LIVE Earth concerts and Virgin Earth Challenge (in collaboration with Richard Branson). The perceived utility of those events aside, he's definitely done a lot to get people talking about climate change, which was his goal and was what he was awarded the prize for. As long as you remember that combating climate change starts with getting politicians behind the cause, raising public awareness is nothing to scoff at - as a matter of fact, it can be argued that public opinion is more important than scientific consensus as far as politicians are concerned, and as such his work is more important than the IPCC's.

Of course, if I wanted to put my cynical hat on, I'd probably say that the Nobel Committee is trying to push him to run for president. When's the deadline for the announcement anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Perhaps they didn't correctly report the news in Sweden. Gore didn't win for his film, nor did he win, alone. He won in conjunction with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("shared, in two equal parts").

I thought it was obvious from the part that you quoted that Dottie is aware of this

[Lady Dragonfly]

Quote:

...which was his goal and was what he was awarded the prize for.

Al Gore's endorsement of the man-made climate change, along with the whole man-made climate change affair have nothing to do with Nobel's will to grant the Peace Prize "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".

But what else would one expect from the Nobel Prize committee? Sometimes they give their Prizes to terrorists' leaders (Yasir Arafat, for example), war hawks and nationalists (Rabin, Kissinger, Sadat), and "Tree Women" (Dr. Wangari Muta Maathai for "her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". Yes, the same lady who said that HIV was "invented by white scientists to destroy black people").

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly But what else would one expect from the Nobel Prize committee? Sometimes they give their Prizes to terrorists' leaders (Yasir Arafat, for example), war hawks and nationalists (Rabin, Kissinger, Sadat), and "Tree Women" (Dr. Wangari Muta Maathai for "her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". Yes, the same lady who said that HIV was "invented by white scientists to destroy black people").

I think you're being to harsh - the Peace Prize is awarded for specific actions, and is in no way a judgment of character. While Nelson Mandela does have blood on his hands, he worked to bloodlessly end a brutal regime and thus deserves his prize. If, in hypotheticalalaland, Robert Mugabe sees the light, institutes democratic reforms and brings prosperity to Zimbabwe, I'd have no problem with the him receiving a Peace Prize for doing so, even though I'd probably still harbor a deep seated resentment for him. Peace prizes are awarded for particular deeds and not lifetime achievements, so while I have no particular love for any of the people in your post, I don't necessarily think they're undeserving of their prizes.

Obviously, this wouldn't be as much of an issue if Peace Prizes were awarded like the prizes in physics, chemistry and medicine and had a significant "recognition time lag", but for better or for worse, the committee has decided that the good done by concentrating the world's attention on a particular issue outweighs the bad of giving a prize to someone who'll be judged by history harshly.

Quote:

Al Gore's endorsement of the man-made climate change, along with the whole man-made climate change affair have nothing to do with Nobel's will to grant the Peace Prize "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".

While the Peace Prize doesn't always seem to be granted to persons fitting the description given by Alfred Nobel, I'm not sure that is necessarily the case this time. Having a world that is united and working towards the single goal of preventing climate change seems to fit the "work for fraternity between nations" descriptor. Further, I think it's relatively obvious severe climate change will lead to armed conflicts as desertification or flooding affect impoverished regions, so preventing it can easily be seen as conflict prevention.



Damn it, I like Gore and will defend him against all you haters

[dragon wench]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicsun Damn it, I like Gore and will defend him against all you haters

I have a lot of respect for Al Gore myself, and I agree that his dedication to raising public awareness of Climate Change merits part of the Peace Prize. Within a few short years Climate Change has become a mainstream concern rather than just a fringe issue endorsed by a few environmentalists and ragtag hippies.
Much of that awareness is due to Gore's work, and yes... public support and recognition is a huge factor in any campaign. That is why during a major strike, both union and management go to great lengths in trying to get public opinion on their side. (It's also, I strongly suspect, why the naysayers hate Gore so much)

As far as Gore seeking the presidency goes, I actually hope he doesn't. In my view he can do far more good outside of the Oval Office than within it.
IMO, let Clinton 2.0 deal with the mundane task of being President.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Quote:

I think you're being to harsh - the Peace Prize is awarded for specific actions, and is in no way a judgment of character.

The Nobel Peace Prize prestige is so low that it became irrelevant -- who was awarded and what for.
Indeed, otherwise we would still wonder why Rigoberta Menchu, the fraudulent "author" of the fabricated autobiography, was awarded this Prize in 1992.

In his article Nothing noble about Al’s ‘shockumentary’ published yesterday in Jewish World Review, Wesley Pruden wrote,

"It's not clear what Al has done to make peace, but the committee often chooses someone who doesn't have anything to do with peace, a vain and foolish fancy of men besotted by vanity. Wise men seek justice. Vain men, the Scriptures warn us, "cry peace, peace, when there is no peace."

Peace is what Al travels the world to disturb, and he's counting on hitting the jackpot. The prize is worth 10 million kroner, and that comes to a cool million and a half dollars, which is a lot more than his Oscar is worth, even if you throw in his Emmy. But Al has projector, will travel, so if you see him coming at you, with projector in hand and Tipper following behind with the popcorn and a CD of his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," take the popcorn.
Al left town yesterday, burning up thousands of gallons of aviation fuel and sending nobody knows how many tons of C02 into the atmosphere to contribute to global warming, just to stand by while the Nobel committee types up the press release, which Al could have read in the Nashville newspaper. Getting the news from a distance is the way the other winners do it. The 10 million kroner won't be awarded until the ceremony in Oslo in December.
…..
But rain can fall on any parade. A high court judge in London ruled yesterday that Al's movie actually took several convenient liberties with the facts and it can't be shown in British schools without an accompanying warning, like the warning on cigaret packages that smoking can be dangerous to your health. The judge set out nine inconvenient factoids which render the movie dangerous for anyone in pursuit of facts."

[Claudius]

I suppose it depends what you mean by peace. To my knowledge peace is settling conflicts non-violently. I am not sure what climate change has to do with my definition either. I suppose it could be resolving the difference of opinion on the matter peacefully.

But I noticed the idea that justice is more important than peace. I would point out that justice is relative to the opinion of the one seeking it. Even if a majority of people say 55.1% of people think such and such is justice does not mean that is an absolute truth.

But resolving conflict [side x and side y seeking 'justice' in their opinion] has throughout history resulted in tremendous suffering. Of course it has happened and is woven into the fabric of history.

I think that is why peace is valuable. Not because you receive a prize. (and anyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't know a fritter from a fish tehe )

[Lady Dragonfly]

Quote:

But I noticed the idea that justice is more important than peace. I would point out that justice is relative to the opinion of the one seeking it. Even if a majority of people say 55.1% of people think such and such is justice does not mean that is an absolute truth. But resolving conflict [side x and side y seeking 'justice' in their opinion] has throughout history resulted in tremendous suffering.

Tell that to the peace-disturbing revolutionaries and other fighters for the "social justice" and political correctness. The "majority" opinion is called democracy, not an absolute truth.

[Claudius]

I'm not sure what you are saying. In my opinion the majority and minority opinion should be expressed peacefully. For example a protest should be peaceful. The majorities response to the protest should be peaceful.

'should' as I am using the word is also not meant to be an absolute rather just pointing out that in the relative = cause and effect consequences of violence.

Its like if you are arguing with your spouse about where to put the furniture. The argument can be very negative. If you communicate and think to each other why you want the furniture in a certain location then you would probably reach the conclusion that you wanted the furniture to make you happy. Yet your strategy to get that happiness perhaps raising voice in anger and critical or something produced the opposite effect.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Who argues that a violent resolution is preferable to peaceful? (I mean, a peaceful resolution IS preferable). I think you are misreading something, Claudius.

Anyway, this thread is about the Nobel Peace Prize and its laureates, so let's stick to the topic.

[Claudius]

Yes I think I misread something. Now I see it was Wesley Pruden who you quoted and he is not here to explain why peace is at odds with justice.

[Moonbiter]

Me and some friends had this debate last night, and I came to see it from a slightly different angle. I was initially completely opposed to Gore getting the prize, but consider these things: Most high profile military strategists, analysts and historians agree that the next sadly unavoidable large scale global conflict is going to be triggered by environmental issues. This is one thing they can agree on in most parts of the world. The focus on these issues is therefore vital to us at the moment, and Gore, no matter if you like him or not, is the highest profile figurehead. Hence he gets the prize. To many Americans the Nobel Peace Prize is a subject to be derided and ridiculed. Especially the Republicans loves to paint it as a “pinko-leftist-bleedin’ heart” thing that those “liberal furriners” over here in Europe focus on, and which doesn’t have any merit what so ever. These are the same people who thinks the entire world evolves around the USA and their “God-given right” to drive their SUV 50 meters down to the store. Granted, there has been mistakes made. Arafat springs readily to mind. But if Al Gore can postpone my son or grandchild from having to go to war when a billion people are on the move because their homes are under water, then that’s fine by me. The Nobel Peace Prize is all about putting the focus on specific issues. Al Gore is the most visible crusader for THE most important issue of our time, hence he gets the prize. Naysayers and curmudgeons can dig for factual errors in his movie as much as they want, it doesn’t matter. Even the right –wing nutjobs over here has caught on to the fact that this is a subject that needs ALL our attention. Individual opinions about the merit of the prize be damned.

[Vicsun]

Quote:

But rain can fall on any parade. A high court judge in London ruled yesterday that Al's movie actually took several convenient liberties with the facts and it can't be shown in British schools without an accompanying warning, like the warning on cigaret packages that smoking can be dangerous to your health. The judge set out nine inconvenient factoids which render the movie dangerous for anyone in pursuit of facts."

He also said Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate”

[Lady Dragonfly]

@ Moonbiter

Quote:

To many Americans the Nobel Peace Prize is a subject to be derided and ridiculed. Especially the Republicans loves to paint it as a “pinko-leftist-bleedin’ heart” thing that those “liberal furriners” over here in Europe focus on, and which doesn’t have any merit what so ever. These are the same people who thinks the entire world evolves around the USA and their “God-given right” to drive their SUV 50 meters down to the store. .... Naysayers and curmudgeons can dig for factual errors in his movie as much as they want, it doesn’t matter. Even the right –wing nutjobs over here has caught on to the fact that this is a subject that needs ALL our attention. Individual opinions about the merit of the prize be damned.

So, you say that it is damnable for "the Republicans" (read: all non-liberals) to paint "liberal furriners" as "pinko-leftist-bleedin' heart" while, at the same time, you feel at liberty to call people expressing an opinion different from the one you are inclined to share (and which is doubtless the Absolute Truth Claudius referred to) "naysayers, curmudgeons and right-wing nutjobs".
Besides, do you really feel that "individual opinions about the merit of the prize" don’t matter and therefore can be easily discarded? Is it because they are coming from the wrong crowd? Or do you feel that there is some "Greater Good" out there that renders the freedom of opinion obsolete?
I would call it intolerance but I assume you wouldn't care for my damned opinion.

Talking about care, I could not care less who gets the Peace Prize awarded by the politicians, "furriner" or otherwise. Have you heard about Irena Sendler who saved 2,500 Jewish children during the Holocaust, at great personal risk? This 97 years old REAL hero was also nominated for 2007 peace prize. But she lost to Al Gore and the IPCC. Oh yes, don't forget the IPCC which, as reported by CNN, "notes on its Web page that it does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate-related data. "It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.")"
The IPCC is awarded the Prize for their "assessment". Whatever. In this highly politicized "them against us" war of movies and assessments, little old ladies don't stand a chance.