October
2007
Deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King Jr.
From time to time I’ll peruse several blogs and I’m sorry to say that the Republican blogs have met my predictable expectations about Al Gore’s win of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Let’s give Gore’s contribution a little thought. He dragged public opinion along so a strong majority of the world now understands the facts of global warming despite Republican’s flat-earth-society style denial of the facts. Many people have made changes in their lives to reduce their personal negative impact on the environment.
Global warming, if left unchecked will continue to contribute to crop failure as well as melting of the polar ice caps. This will result in flooding of many urban centers across the world as well as food shortages.
But let’s look at what else Republicans guffawed about. Former President Jimmy Carter, a democrat, won the nobel peace prize. Martin Luther King Jr. won the nobel peace prize and back then Republicans thought it was a terrible precedent.
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan
RSS feed
Link
Jim:
So let me get this straight: The republicans are not gushing praise for Gore’s Nobel Prize. I’m shocked. And this after a British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth was unfit for the British public schools because of its lise, fear-mongering, and exaggeration. That’s a shocker.
Republicans are wrong to suggest that Dr. King didn’t deserve the prize. Unlike Gore–who has made no sacrafice whatsoever–King paid with his life for his attempts to help us change ourselves. And sacrafice is what the Nobel committee–a very left-leaning group for the peace prize–should look for. Gore merely reflects the left’s moral superiority and entire ‘do as I say…’ mentality. I’m sure he’ll fly commercial to Oslo.
But look at it this way, will I find even one liberal site that questions Gore’s worthiness? What if it were Reagan?
Finally, what has Gore done for peace? How is the world more peaceful for his efforts?
Lest we not forget that people like Yassir Arafat have also won the Nobel “Peace” Prize.
The Peace Prize is nothing more than leftist liberals heaping praise on their own kind.
Former President Reagan did more to ensure peace between the two world superpowers (US & USSR) than Gore ever will in his entire life. But if you were to suggest Reagan as a nominee to that committe, you would be laughed out of Norway.
Gore is merely the latest “flavor of the day” in regard to the supposed left’s superior morality. During the 80s it was the left’s “no nukes” crowd (boy how wrong were they?) and now in the late 90s/00s it’s Gore and his “Global Warming” obsession.
Good for Al Gore! What bothers people about him is that he is right. He explodes the myths used by the elite to enrich themselves at the expense of all others.
Reagan made the world safer? Is that why we have been at war for five years now? 9/11? Thanks “we start bombing the Russians in five minutes” Ronny Ray-gun. We live in a world so safe that the government needs to spy on every citizen. Beirut, Grenada, Nicaragua … Republicans just love war, 24/7.
Sour grapes. Can anyone name any republican worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize? Larry Craig perhaps? He’s in love and not war, right?
That’s a laugh. Reagan, who doubled the size of the entire federal government, including the military, should get the nobel peace prize? For what? For his heavy handed approach at “diplomacy”?
That’s rich.
You’re right Jim, Reagan should have bowed out of the Cold War and conceded victory to our comrades in the USSR. Why ensure our way of life when we could have had communism? That’s richer!
You cannot equate the peaceful actions of the three I mentioned in this article with the pro-force approach of Reagan. There is a time and a place for both. However, the three that received the award didn’t win because of strong arm tactics.
Your admiration for Reagan is not something I’m disputing. But to not understand that there is one of the four that was dramatically different (Reagan), shows your blind allegiance to republican partisanship.
By your definition, Truman should have won the award also but since he was a democrat, I doubt you would lump him in with the other peacemakers as you have with Reagan.
(…And for the record, I wouldn’t lump Truman in either.)
So then how on Earth can someone like Yassir Arafat win the Nobel Peace Prize if Reagan (or Truman for that matter) can’t?
Dear Mary:
Sorry, but I just noticed your comment:
Could you please enlighten me with one of those “myths used by the elite to enrich themselves at the expense of all others.” Because the dirty little secret we both know is that Dems tend to be more affluent than Repubs, and Al Gore is more affluent than almost everyone.
Maybe you could explain what Gore has done for peace?
I have no idea how Arafat won the peace prize. That runs contrary to what I know of the man.
Christopher, since when do Dems tend to be more affluent than the GOP? It sounds like you’re equating all dems to those in Hollywood. What about all the folks in labor unions such as the SEIU which tends to have lower paid workers?
Jim:
I was looking at LA times polling data as well as data from Taxprof.com which suggests that the higher the medial income (except for the very rich), the more likely support was for Kerry. It also said–I’m sure you’ll note with glee–that those with the most education tended to go left. Of course my statement was. perhaps, overly broad, but the myth that republicans are these mean rich warmongers that mary wants them to be couldn’t be more false.
Al Gore is more Affluent.
Thank god for Reagan’s strong national defense. He made the Soviet Union collapse and become a second wit nation. Russia is now led by Putin, a former KGB thug and murderer. Putin murdered a former KGB spy in London six months ago to shut him up. Putin is now fomenting trouble by supplying arms to Iran and Lebanon/Syria.
Russia needs the cash from arms sales.
They are broke except for oil.
dickmoris.com
if you really want to know what’s going on
Brute force? Reagan did more by doing nothing. He ended the Cold War without launching a single missile. While all the liberal ran around scared that an old man was at the helm and had his finger on the button, Reagan single-handedly ended the biggest threat to our nation without a single life lost. If that’s not worthy of the Nobel Prize I don’t know what is.
Let’s see, during the Clinton/Gore regime they launched attacks against Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavia. So which administration used more brute force? (BTW - I agreed with all of those military actions)
You know, the “sky is falling” attitude that liberals had back in the 80s about nuclear war reminds me of the “sky is falling attitude that liberals have now because of the so-called “global warming”. Maybe 10 years from now we’ll look back and laugh.
First of all, Al Gore is a total hypocrite. He claims people should be environmentally friendly when he himself travels in PLANES to all these destinations, to talk about how they should reduce their usage of planes, electronics ect.
You can’t deny global warming isn’t happenening, but Al Gore is a prick who didn’t deserve it.
Oh and, it does have to do with peace, by the way. A war of resources is going to occur soon if our usage of co2 isn’t cut down.
And how dare you bring up Yassir Arafat? He was the one NEGOTATING for peace not long before he was awarded the prize he was in Oslo signing the ‘Oslo Accords’ thing.
I am so sick of Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy and the speaker of the house and the rest of thedemocraats who are all worried about global warming and don’t care a hoot about a regular American trying to live on $8 - $10 dollars an hour. All they care about is not looking at a windmill or an oil drilling rig. Maybe if they actually worked for a living instead of showing off flying all over and wasting our gas for nonsense.