In an attempt to bring the tangents and comments from the Environmental stupidity post into an independent thread, here cometh the corollary.
The point of contention between Anders and myself appears to be how much previous actions contrary to present behavior should be weighted, and also whether or not the reason for the change in behavior or philosophy is important. In geek terms, whether or not this is a state function.
Going even further off tangent, but on the topic of Al Gore, there has been much buzz now over the possibility that Gore might use his newly found momentum to launch himself as a Presidential candicate for the Democratic Party in next year's elections. This was one of the first things the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK) asked him when they got an interview. In a roundabout and obfuscating way, Gore declined that he was going to run, while still leaving a cloud of confusion - the man is a politician after all, and I imagine that for him, even going to a drive-through and having to answer "Would you like fries with that" is a 45-minute ordeal. Politicians are infamous for their inability to say the words "Yes" or "No" and stop at that, i.e. not adding 25 seconds of sound-byte adapted drivel and buzzwords.
But I digress - back to Al Gore and whether or not he'll try to run for President in a Nobel Peace Prize-fuelled, Phoenix-like ascent from being a third-tier Democrat. Of course he's not. Even to me it's obvious that he'd never be dumb enough to try that, and I'm a Norwegian academic in the "natural sciences". Hell; watching two episodes of "The West Wing" (or one - depending on the episode) plus channel-surfing past CNN every now and then would provide you with more than enough background to see that one coming from light years away. Common sense would get you even further. When Al Gore actually channeled his Vice Presidency into running for office in 2000 - which is just about the most momentum you can have, he was owned more times than a 1986 Honda Civic. Not only was he cursed with being a less-than-charismatic sidekick to a very charismatic President (which Clinton admittedly was), but the only thing he really had going for him was the fact that he had not been impeached for lying to the American public about extramarital affairs. Unfortunately for him, he was not the only guy in the electoral race who hadn't been impeached, so he lost. Bob Dole is just about the only Vice President I can think of with less charisma.
But let's say that Al Gore throws caution to the wind and decides to have another go, and uses the Nobel Peace Prize to launch and propel his candidacy. Would this award help or hurt his chances of becoming the most powerful leader in the free world?
If you think "Yeah; that Gore guy might have been owned worse than President George W. Bush at a spelling bee the last time he ran, but since he got the Peace prize, he might have a chance", then you seriously need to put down the pipe. Crack Kills. Hopefully, your friends will stage an intervention and get you on rehab now and meth later. That's Methadone and not Crystal Meth, ya speed-freak tweaker.
Does receiving the Nobel Peace prize help with getting more jobs for Americans, fixing public schools, social security or the economy, not to mention the all-important strong military presence to protect the US of A from terrorists and having other nations "pimp-strollin' in and taking our $hit". Mother Teresa was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and I doubt you'd be able to find a more worthy laureate this side of Gandhi. She was a wonderful person, no doubt, but would you trust her to keep your country safe in wartime? To keep the troops in iraq out of harms way as much as possible? To uphold a firm American presence in the face of hostile nations?
Didn't think so. Three words you'd never hear the end of for the fifteen minutes Gore's candidacy would last: "bleeding heart liberal".
The point of contention between Anders and myself appears to be how much previous actions contrary to present behavior should be weighted, and also whether or not the reason for the change in behavior or philosophy is important. In geek terms, whether or not this is a state function.
Going even further off tangent, but on the topic of Al Gore, there has been much buzz now over the possibility that Gore might use his newly found momentum to launch himself as a Presidential candicate for the Democratic Party in next year's elections. This was one of the first things the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK) asked him when they got an interview. In a roundabout and obfuscating way, Gore declined that he was going to run, while still leaving a cloud of confusion - the man is a politician after all, and I imagine that for him, even going to a drive-through and having to answer "Would you like fries with that" is a 45-minute ordeal. Politicians are infamous for their inability to say the words "Yes" or "No" and stop at that, i.e. not adding 25 seconds of sound-byte adapted drivel and buzzwords.
But I digress - back to Al Gore and whether or not he'll try to run for President in a Nobel Peace Prize-fuelled, Phoenix-like ascent from being a third-tier Democrat. Of course he's not. Even to me it's obvious that he'd never be dumb enough to try that, and I'm a Norwegian academic in the "natural sciences". Hell; watching two episodes of "The West Wing" (or one - depending on the episode) plus channel-surfing past CNN every now and then would provide you with more than enough background to see that one coming from light years away. Common sense would get you even further. When Al Gore actually channeled his Vice Presidency into running for office in 2000 - which is just about the most momentum you can have, he was owned more times than a 1986 Honda Civic. Not only was he cursed with being a less-than-charismatic sidekick to a very charismatic President (which Clinton admittedly was), but the only thing he really had going for him was the fact that he had not been impeached for lying to the American public about extramarital affairs. Unfortunately for him, he was not the only guy in the electoral race who hadn't been impeached, so he lost. Bob Dole is just about the only Vice President I can think of with less charisma.
But let's say that Al Gore throws caution to the wind and decides to have another go, and uses the Nobel Peace Prize to launch and propel his candidacy. Would this award help or hurt his chances of becoming the most powerful leader in the free world?
If you think "Yeah; that Gore guy might have been owned worse than President George W. Bush at a spelling bee the last time he ran, but since he got the Peace prize, he might have a chance", then you seriously need to put down the pipe. Crack Kills. Hopefully, your friends will stage an intervention and get you on rehab now and meth later. That's Methadone and not Crystal Meth, ya speed-freak tweaker.
Does receiving the Nobel Peace prize help with getting more jobs for Americans, fixing public schools, social security or the economy, not to mention the all-important strong military presence to protect the US of A from terrorists and having other nations "pimp-strollin' in and taking our $hit". Mother Teresa was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and I doubt you'd be able to find a more worthy laureate this side of Gandhi. She was a wonderful person, no doubt, but would you trust her to keep your country safe in wartime? To keep the troops in iraq out of harms way as much as possible? To uphold a firm American presence in the face of hostile nations?
Didn't think so. Three words you'd never hear the end of for the fifteen minutes Gore's candidacy would last: "bleeding heart liberal".
Posts
10 comments:
Actually, we don't really disagree on the "previous vs present action" thingy. You're very sure that previous actions would exclude a candidate, and I'm not still made up my mind.
The two parts we disagree on are:
- Should enviroment issues be considered in the peace price? (My answer is Yes and Will Y's is No)
- Why Al Gore shouldn't recieve the peace prize this year.
(I say it's too soon, because I think that you should show impact streching a little more then a year, while reverende W says he's excluded due to his previous actions as a vice president)
And I agree: If Al Gore runs for office again, he would be owned a second time. And that would just be sad, especially since he now is an nobel laureate.
All I'm sayin' is that at the very least, past and previous actions should be weighed against each other. If Charles Manson was to get out of jail on a technicality and started helping li'l old ladies cross the street one day a week, it wouldn't atone for what he's done.
And yeah; if Gore ran again, he'd be owned like a fake Rolex on a tourist fresh out of Bangkok
..that should be "past and present"...
The above comment will make more sense then
All I'm sayin' is that at the very least, past and present actions should be weighed against each other
You bet! And it's really difficult to a good way of doing that. E.g. It's still not peace in Israel, despite three major players in the conflict got the prize...
His past and present actions seem pretty consistent to me. He did promote the Kyoto protocol. He's been talking against CO2 emissions and pollution ever since he called the first congressional hearing on greenhouse gas emissions in 1979, if I remember correctly. Sure, he did work as part of and administration that allowed those emissions to continue. I don't see how he could realistically be expected to stop that completely during his vice-presidency, but if nobody can accept a political office while their administration allow things they disagree with to happen, then we wouldn't need politicians in the first place, would we? Anyway, it's not like he changed his mind on climate issues all of a sudden. Whether his impact is enough to deserve the piece prize, that's another issue.
Surely comparing Gores efforts and accomplishments with some of the other Nobel laureates leaves something to be desired. Being consistent at a low-level - as defined through his political career - does not necessarily merit awards. Nobody expects him to be able to stop emissions completely during his reign as a vice president - even overlooking the impossibility of that statement - but being mediocre simply ain't good enough. He might have had the same philosophy since forever, but he hasn't done enough to be able to compare himself to some of the other laureates.
By the way - it's impossible to comment on your blog due to the anti-spam thingy failing to load.
No, Kjersti, I have mentioned that he has shown an intersting in enviromental issus for many years. But let's be honest, if it hadn't been for his presentation and movie (and all that came out of that), he wouldn't have gotten the award. And that's like one or two years. I'm not excluding Al Gore as a candidate for the peace prize, but he got to show momentum for more then a year or so to recieve the peace prize. Bob Geldof has done alomost the same thing for Africa as Gore has done for the enviroment, but he has done so at least three times spanning over more then two decades, without getting the peace prize. Mr. Gore must show a similar track record before being consider, I think.
Sure, he did work as part of and administration that allowed those emissions to continue. I don't see how he could realistically be expected to stop that completely during his vice-presidency
Well, he was the vice president of the united states of america. That's probably the second most powerful position in the world. No, you can't expect him to completely stop the emissons. But if the vice president of the united states can't make a difference in eight years, who can? There wasn't any significant change for the better in the US enviromental politics during those years. But, as I said earlier, I have a strong feeling that such a change would have come on the end of Al Gore's second term, if he had been elected.
But let's be honest, if it hadn't been for his presentation and movie (and all that came out of that), he wouldn't have gotten the award. And that's like one or two years. I'm not excluding Al Gore as a candidate for the peace prize, but he got to show momentum for more then a year or so to recieve the peace prize.
That's a legitimate concern, but if that is the central issue, then why did someone confuse the discussion by bringing up the mass-murderer-turned-pacifist allegory in the first place?
Wilhelm: I'm aware of the problem w/ my comments, I'll take a closer look when I can spare a minute. *sigh*
That someone "confusing the discussion" would be me, I guess.
Not that I think it should give cause for any confusion, as the issues are separate yet similar. The Nobel Commitee has a track record of giving out the Peace Prize to persons whose former actions and/or affiliations very much contradict what they got the award for.
No offense, but if that was confusing, the problem's not on my end in this case.
;-)
Just had to add this Rocky cartoon to this thread. It's somewhat related to Al Gore:
http://www.dagbladet.no/tegneserie/rocky/?1193004000
Post a Comment