As expected, Al Gore gets the nobel for his work on global warming education, and ... er, movies. Some people are not at all impressed. Others are totally excited and already casting their presidential votes before he makes a move to run.So the right says the nobel committee is wrong, but what do you think? Is the nobel prize about more than accurate science, true peace, and honorable hard work to improve the world? or does it have a politcal agenda? Some think it does.
4 comments:
Alright, I'll bite.
I'm underwhelmed, to say the least. I say that as a card-carrying Democrat. I'm a leftwing liberal. I love Al Gore. I think he's done some tremendous work on behalf of ... THE ENVIRONMENT.
However, we're talking about the Nobel PEACE Prize here folks. With all of the war, unrest, and horror in the world today it seems to me that the Peace prize needs to go to someone who is actively working on behalf of humanity. Someone like say, Stephen Lewis (a Canadian who works tirelessly to reduce the suffering of AIDS victims). There are people in the world who do not have the high profile of Al Gore, but who are working on humanitarian issues ... I just think the Peace Prize belongs in that context, and does not belong for environmental causes. But I could be wrong.
What I'm curious to know is what Al Gore himself thinks about this. Does he think he deserves the nobelprize for his work? If he does, then I would think of that as a strong indicator that he doesn't deserve it.
I remember when he was running for pres. and he wanted to make an appeal to the environmentalists in NH. He had I-can't-remember-how-many-millions-of-gallons water brought in to bring the water level up in a drought-affected creek so that he could do a photo-op from a canoe wearing an LL Bean vest. It was a lot of tanker loads.
And then there is the concern about his $30,000 a month energy bill at his home.
And of course we can't forget the Anwar oil drilling debate--nothing but a political smoke screen for both liberal and conservative politicians who really don't want to solve real-world energy issues, because they (both dems and repubs)1. receive massive kickbacks from big oil and 2. they would lose strong constituencies if they actually fixed the problems people were concerned about.
We could solve the energy crisis in a heartbeat if our politicians and big corporations wanted to solve it.
One can go on and on about the hypocrisy of guys like Al Gore. So, I have to ask, "what has he really done regarding the environment?" I don't see that he has accomplished anything but to further divide people with lies, half truths and gross misrepresentation of facts. At the end of the day, he has averted the resources of a lot of well-intentioned folks from actually solving the real problems.
Al Gore is a despicable politician (Yeah, I know, that's a redundant double negative), whose very validity in the political mainstream serves only as a confirmation of the American public's shallowness and ignorance.
I care very much about the environment, but as long as we keep on thinking that it is safe in the hands of any of these political buffoons, it will remain endangered.
You asked for my .02, and you got it. ;)
When he was vicepresident of the US about half a million Iraqi kids died as a result of US policies towards Iraq. And the US led the way in the Nato bombing of Yugoslavia.
That's a strange candidate for a peace prize!
Post a Comment