I began losing respect for the Nobel Committee when in 2002, they the prize to Jimmy Carter specifically to criticize George W Bush for his policies, rather than for a positive accomplishment in increasing the "peace" in the world. Now, former Vice President Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on Global Warming along with the International Panel on Climate change 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".
I don't care what you believe about Global Warming - theory or fact, man-made or natural, good thing or bad thing - does dissemminating information about it constitute "the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the promotion of peace congresses"? (That quote comes directly from Albert Nobel's mandate for the Peace Prize.) Somehow, I'd think the person who negotiated the cease-fire in Darfur is probably more deserving.
Let me be clear. I am not anti-Gore here. I have respect for the man, and enjoyed his movie. But giving him the Nobel Peace Prize is like awarding the 2007 Car of the Year to Steve Jobs for the iPhone. We're all glad he did it, but the prize has no relevance to the achievement.
Friday, October 12, 2007
VP Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize... Why?
Posted by Nomad at 5:08 AM
Labels: algore, hypocrisy, nobel, peaceprize
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The problem here is that there haven't been a lot of successes peace-wise in the past year. While a ceasefire was called in Darfur the genocide continues. Iraq is still a mess - better, but still a mess. Afghanistan's democracy still seems tenuous. And the World Bank is still quite controversial. With that said, I'm sure there are some successes in the realm of peace that fit the goals and criteria better than spreading info about global warming. Heck Bono deserves it more than Gore. At least Bono is trying to help get people out of poverty, which limits the chances of extremism and rebellions. That's not to say that I think Bono should win, but that he would be a better pick for this than the people that did win.
I agree that the Nobel committee has become a political wing to spread its own agenda.
This is why I would not leave a lasting legacy (money) to any group. Even if they are fine at the time of your life/death, others take it over and can distort the initial intent.
This includes churches and schools, which I had considered in the past, but have seen change direction.
Post a Comment