Nobel Peace Prize and Al Gore

[WhatIsStarcraft]

What do you people think about Al Gore getting an Peace Prize, and sharing it with the UN Climate Board. He himself said that it was an honor and that the prize makes it even more valuable for him, because he shares it with the UN Climate Board.

I think it is good for a man like Gore to get a prize, a big and honorable prize indeed.

And the climate problems that we face. Al Gore also said, and has said several times before that we must pay more attention to the climate whatever Bush is saying.

What do ya think?

[Anoiktos]

I think that despite the sensationalist nature of his documentary, and the falsehoods that have been shown in it, he deserves the award for the only reason it can have been given - for having brought the subject of Global Warming to the public's eye in a way that the U.S., somehow, had never managed to understand. Regardless of whether it's natural or unnatural, the fact remains that the earth is growing warmer, its climate is changing, and that we will have to adapt to it, whether that be by reducing emissions or figuring out how to build underground biospheres. Global awareness of this fact deserves a peace prize - not merely to gore, but to the U.N. Climate Board as well - because this kind of drastic change can bring out the worst in people and countries. (a country in crisis with nukes is not one I want to see) A widespread, successful effort to initiate the public to the dangers and start people thinking about solutions is, in my opinion, quite worthy of that prize.

[BlackDefiler]

He really deserves it, although I heard this funny part, stating that Al Gore and his family use seven times more electricity than a normal family. A little controversal you might say. :P

[Anoiktos]

He really deserves it, although I heard this funny part, stating that Al Gore and his family use seven times more electricity than a normal family. A little controversial you might say.
Certainly regrettable, especially considering it's reasonably well documented, but if you consider what a 'normal' family is, I'd recommend taking into account the tendency of high-income families to control a greater percentage of the wealth than a commensurate amount of persons in low-income families. (this is obvious by definition). Thus a higher energy rate simply follows as capitalist imperative.

This doesn't make it right, just predictable.

As I said... Elsewhere, in a slightly different context:

That said, I agree that the fixation on huge cars is ridiculous. At the same time, humans are not purely logical creatures. If [Person A] purchases and uses a SUV, that's his choice; it may be hypocritical, or possibly even unreasonable for him to preach the virtues of ecologically-balanced living while using such a vehicle, but it is nevertheless better that someone preach what they believe to be right, giving as much evidence as possible that others may make reasonable decisions from their examples, despite not following all of their ideals, than it is for them to give up their ideals for the sake of not being hypocritical.

Thus though Gore's energy usage may be hypocritical, devaluing the altruistic merits of the viewpoint he supports on that score would compound the error, not alleviate it. Hypocrisy is a fault too loudly touted - one to which common sense is not often enough applied.

[Oblongato]

Gore's energy consumption doesn't bother me. First, I doubt that his energy use is disproportionate compared to his peers.

Additionally, change doesn't come in the form of individual sacrifice, in my view, but rather through regulation and enforcement. If Gore's goal is to establish regulations, I'm sure he would then comply with them once established. The benefits of such regulation would certainly make good any previous excessive energy use.

If we expect leaders to be perfect and consistent in every way, we will end up discarding the brilliant ones with flaws and be left with a mediocre pack of clean-living but otherwise unremarkable people.

[GenocideAlive]

Gore's energy consumption doesn't bother me. First, I doubt that his energy use is disproportionate compared to his peers.

If we expect leaders to be perfect and consistent in every way, we will end up discarding the brilliant ones with flaws and be left with a mediocre pack of clean-living but otherwise unremarkable people.
I find it strange that you think the man standing on the soapbox preaching about global warming and the dangers of excessive energy consumption should be compared to peers. His peers aren't the ones bitching at everybody and shooting pseudodocumentaries about global warming. In my opinion, if you know better, you should certainly act on that knowledge. I recycle regularly (at home and at work), and regardless of my peers' disregard, I continue to go out of my way regularly to see that recycling gets done. They may be ignorant or lazy, but I have neither excuse.

I won't even get started on your claim regarding his "brilliance", but I find it hard to believe that expecting him to respect his own rhetoric is a tiny flaw. Double standards and lying (yes, you can lie with action) about your status as a pollutant is rather crass. It only highlights the situation with political figures ("leaders") today. A lot of hot air and little / no action.

[Oblongato]

I find it strange that you think the man standing on the soapbox preaching about global warming and the dangers of excessive energy consumption should be compared to peers. His peers aren't the ones bitching at everybody and shooting pseudodocumentaries about global warming. In my opinion, if you know better, you should certainly act on that knowledge. I recycle regularly (at home and at work), and regardless of my peers' disregard, I continue to go out of my way regularly to see that recycling gets done. They may be ignorant or lazy, but I have neither excuse.

I won't even get started on your claim regarding his "brilliance", but I find it hard to believe that expecting him to respect his own rhetoric is a tiny flaw. Double standards and lying (yes, you can lie with action) about your status as a pollutant is rather crass. It only highlights the situation with political figures ("leaders") today. A lot of hot air and little / no action.

My point is that he is doing something. Of course it would be better if he payed more attention to his own energy use. But is this hypocrisy reason enough to write off someone who may succeed in making positive changes? I say not.

I won't argue for Gore's brilliance. But consider how many of the truly brilliant people in the history of humanity have been moral, straight-shooting clean-livers. 3? 7? Not many, in any case. I wouldn't want to do without their contributions just for the sake of what I would call petty moralizing.

[GenocideAlive]

I wouldn't want to do without the truly brilliant people in the history of humanity, either. Petty moralizing would be idiotic in light of their tremendous contributions, you are correct. Given all this, why are you bringing this up in the case of Al Gore? He has contributed nothing extraordinary to society whatsoever, short of spouting a constant stream of rhetoric for attention to issues that he summarily ignores.

You claim that he is "doing something", and I agree. He is consuming seven times the national average of power from one house alone. He is getting in front of a camera and railing about excessive or improper uses of energy to rustle up some votes with the ignorant, then going home and relaxing in 65.3 degree comfort with 20000 lumens of light.

"We should all make sacrifices for our planet's future..."

...except me, because I'm the face of what scientists have been saying for years by virtue of the fact that I have garnered the most attention. Thus, I will parrot back what scientists report like it's data I have gathered and will retire to one of my houses where I will turn on all the lights and giggle myself stupid. People will subsequently label me brilliant.

I guess you're right, he's one of the best con artists I've ever seen, short of Bill Clinton.

[Oblongato]

Gore really said that? I'm shocked. You have completely ruined my image of him.

But seriously, in politics I don't really expect to find integrity or honesty. The nature of politics ensures that those qualities are weeded out very early on. I doubt you can even find a small town mayor with integrity these days.

Still, I don't believe we can do without the political process. I've never voted for anything more or less than the lesser of two evils because that's what the system calls for. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans support the notion that low-brow popularism is the highest political virtue. I'll take a con artist who shares at least some of my ideology over what we've got now any day, if he (or she [or it?]) can win.

[Anoiktos]

Oblongato, GA added the last paragraph after the quotes ended. Or so I assume.
...except me, because I'm the face of what scientists have been saying for years by virtue of the fact that I have garnered the most attention. Thus, I will parrot back what scientists report like it's data I have gathered and will retire to one of my houses where I will turn on all the lights and giggle myself stupid. People will subsequently label me brilliant.
Is obvious parody.

On the other hand, it's also written in a confusing enough way (maintaining the italics) that you might yourself consider a job in politics.

I guess you're right, he's one of the best con artists I've ever seen, short of Bill Clinton.
Gore and Clinton have their share of lies and scamming, but they're nothing compared to the spinmasters and secretive bastards of the current administration. WMD\Iraq\Al Quaeda much? I'm honestly surprised you can overlook the current administration in that regard.

And while I certainly agree that Clinton, due to his charismatic manner and talent for showmanship, was quite an excellent showman, he, at least, had a budget surplus by the end of his term, instead of the most massive deficit the U.S. has ever known, being spent on such marvels as bloodthirsty (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1012/p99s01-duts.html), treasonous (http://www.digg.com/politics/Blackwater_drew_guns_and_disarmed_American_Soldier s?t=9806252) mercenaries, though as you'll note the second article was removed from newsweek, two million dollar washers (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/it.s-a-crime/these-two-washers-cost-1-million-290706.php), and on putting tanks in the line of fire for no reason (http://old.exile.ru/2007-August-14/rpg-m1-warnerd.html), as well as a useless missile defense system (http://www.slate.com/id/2097087).

As for Gore's falsehoods, the nine that are touted so loudly by a british judge aren't exactly without their own bias (and neither is the following article), either. http://consortiumnews.com/2007/101307.html (halfway down.)

[Oblongato]

Oblongato, GA added the last paragraph after the quotes ended. Or so I assume.
Is obvious parody.

Thanks, but I ignored the quotes to make a (lame?) joke of my own. (Note my next words: "But seriously...".)

For me it's clear that the current administration is the worst in recent history, and apparently there are historians who are suggesting the worst in history, period.

I think Gore would have made one of the better presidents of recent times, perhaps better than Clinton, who did a decent job. I often have the impression that his awkward touting of his own achievements (and there are quite a few) is something that doesn't come naturally to him, and that he does it only because he's in politics.

Given a choice between Gore and G.W. Bush, Gore does look quite brilliant.

[xodkrm]

I may not agree with all of what he says, but I respect Gore. Not because of his global warming movement, but because he is a positive being on this earth. He devoted his life for a good change in this world, even after many negative name-calling bully politicians and regular people tried to put him down.

He deserves it.

[GenocideAlive]

I like how after his bid for the presidency, he was broke. All his businesses and ventures literally go belly up. Then after examining fads and the biggest moneymakers, he picks environmentalism and makes millions. He makes a movie called "the Inconvienent Truth" in which he so suckered people that they were going to begin teaching it in British schools. Subsequent review by a British Judiciary revealed at least seven outright falsehoods.

And seriously, you cannot seriously believe that Clinton's amazing politics won the day for his term. He rode the crest of the computer boom all the way to the bank. And guess what popped during G. W.'s presidency? Oh yeah, the computer boom. You think that has anything to do with the numbers? And if you hate G. W.'s amoral conduct so much (bloodthirsty, treasonous hirelings), I don't know why everybody acts like Clinton's getting head in the Oval Office and lying to a Grand Jury about it is so instantly forgivable.

I hate it when people start this Non Sequitur partisan-truthiness about who is what "kind" of President. I have as of yet to see a politician that I like that doesn't have some huge laundry list of policy problems. Let's face it, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and once you become the five star General there's a lot of trouble people are going to have keeping you in check.

[Anoiktos]

f you hate G. W.'s amoral conduct so much (bloodthirsty, treasonous hirelings), I don't know why everybody acts like Clinton's getting head in the Oval Office and lying to a Grand Jury about it is so instantly forgivable.
Lying to a grand jury is bad. Getting head in the office is totally irrelevant to being a president (as, say, Kennedy, Carter, etc. will tell you about closets). Neither one is even on a comparable scale to the damage G.W. has done to our national debt during his presidency. 'You cannot seriously believe' that Clinton's stick-dipping and single lie in court can even begin to compare to Bush & co's consistent lying to the American people, frivolous oil-industry targeted tax cuts, and constant expenditures.

Let's face it, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and once you become the five star General there's a lot of trouble people are going to have keeping you in check.
No previous president - not even Nixon - has lied as often, blatantly used as much espionage on his own people, spent as much money, ignored the constitution, and ignored congress as much as this one. Read the signing orders he's given on bills. Look at the patriot act. There's a difference between being corrupted by power and milking your position for all it's worth. Most presidents have been corrupt. None have been as treacherous as this one.

Subsequent review by a British Judiciary revealed at least seven outright falsehoods.
Read the list of falsehoods. As I linked here (http://consortiumnews.com/2007/101307.html), the judges' decision was certainly not above reproach.

And guess what popped during G. W.'s presidency? Oh yeah, the computer boom.
'You cannot seriously believe' the computer bubble popping has anything to do with spending 100,000 dollars a minute (4.5 billion a month (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002780385_spending03.html)) on the war on Iraq alone.

[Oblongato]

Bush the Younger has been been a disaster; politically (Iraq etc.), financially (Iraq), ideologically (puppet of the Religious Right - see discussion of Idiot America), scientifically (stem cell research [see previous item], the environment, basically everything) there has never been a worse president, not even the senile Reagen could match him for sheer wrongness. Clinton's foibles were insignificant in comparison.

In the U.S. absolute power is kept in check to some extent by a two party system and term limits.

I'll say again that politics are indispensable, despite the fact that honesty and integrity are not compatible.

Edit: Anoiktos, thanks for the link on the "at least seven outright falsehoods".

[Anoiktos]

Edit: Anoiktos, thanks for the link on the "at least seven outright falsehoods".
This may seem odd coming from me considering the general bent of my posts, but don't take that article at face value. Though the 'seven falsehoods' are questionable and certainly biased, that article is also written by (and for) the liberal left, and as such is likely biased as well. Always something to consider in reporting on and from both sides.

[GenocideAlive]

It's not odd, it's protecting yourself from my rebuttal. ;)

Either way, you seem to be taking it as though I'm defending Bush & Co. or that I'm particularly invested in their horseshit. I'm simply stating that nothing can shock me anymore in regard to the Presidency after the sham that went on with Clinton. You have every good point to make that lying to a Grand Jury, sexual harassment of employees, and sexual misconduct is not as serious as the charges leveled against Bush & Co. However, at the time, there was no such comparison to be made and it was still made out to be "frivolous".

As fucked up as it may be, the American Justice System outright failed Monica Lewinsky. She was sexually harassed by her employer, she performed sexual acts as a subordinate, and he lied about it to the Grand Jury. All these things are ground for criminal misconduct and jailtime as a civilian, no matter who you are. But since he was the President, I think his punishment was "censure". Abuse of power is abuse of power, whether it affects one or a thousand.

I think of it like this--GW has caused problems for America at large but people can go about their day-to-day lives without thinking about Bush and be just fine (I do so). Billy ruined Monica's life, and there isn't a day that goes by that she doesn't have to relive that experience. Is one "better" or "worse" than the other? I don't fucking care, both of them should have been impeached a long time ago. The only thing keeping these goofy fucks in office is croneyism.

The Presidency as a public office has failed the American public in the same way elections have failed them: absolutely no accountability. The only "power" that the people have is to elect a different official when the current official's term is expired. Otherwise, to impeach or otherwise punish an elected official is neigh impossible. Politics are rendered moot by this fact.

[Anoiktos]

As fucked up as it may be, the American Justice System outright failed Monica Lewinsky.
From that perspective, which really is what your whole post there is saying - that Clinton's suit was worse for an individual than Bush's has been for any individual in the country - I take your point.

I do, however, also disagree with it. For two reasons.

First was Lewinski's circumstance. Regardless of the truth of the matter - I say regardless because neither you nor I (unless you're hiding something) are telepaths with the capability of long-distance mindreading to a subject we've never met) know to what extent Lewinski regretted the affair, as opposed to the scandal. There is no argument from me that she regrets the affair now, but whether this is due to the attention and shame garnered to her due to its widespread publication or the act itself is a less straightforward affair, and something which I would consider there to be reasonable doubt about. (after all, remember, Linda Tripp recorded her phone conversations without anyone's consent.)

That said, is the shame of a single woman really worse than the anguish of the many families whose sons or daughters have died for a war the country doesn't believe in? For an ideal that, at first, may have been good, but ended up based on lies? For the soldiers who have been sent back to Iraq time and again despite their wishes because the U.S. has courtmartialed soldiers who refused to return even though their tour of duty was over? For the soldiers who were sent on duty for 729 days instead of 730 and so aren't allowed to apply for school benefits?

[Oblongato]

This may seem odd coming from me considering the general bent of my posts, but don't take that article at face value. Though the 'seven falsehoods' are questionable and certainly biased, that article is also written by (and for) the liberal left, and as such is likely biased as well. Always something to consider in reporting on and from both sides.

You needn't worry about my taking it at face value. I consider it unlikely anyway that there was anything more than a stretching of the arguments a bit too far to be extra convincing. With the overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter deliberate untruths would have been unnecessary in addition to being unwise.

But it does seem that what has been portrayed as a damning condemnation of the accuracy of the film is more like inconsequential political sniping from an unqualified source.

[Oblongato]

As fucked up as it may be, the American Justice System outright failed Monica Lewinsky. She was sexually harassed by her employer, she performed sexual acts as a subordinate, and he lied about it to the Grand Jury. All these things are ground for criminal misconduct and jailtime as a civilian, no matter who you are. But since he was the President, I think his punishment was "censure". Abuse of power is abuse of power, whether it affects one or a thousand.

Your description is a closer match to the right-wing propaganda than it is to Lewinsky's own account. Lewinsky was not a minor, and was not coerced. Not every affair between boss and employee is illegal. If I recall correctly, the whole basis for the investigation into Clinton's private life was that it posed a "national security risk". Bullshit.

I think of it like this--GW has caused problems for America at large but people can go about their day-to-day lives without thinking about Bush and be just fine (I do so). Billy ruined Monica's life, and there isn't a day that goes by that she doesn't have to relive that experience. Is one "better" or "worse" than the other? I don't fucking care, both of them should have been impeached a long time ago. The only thing keeping these goofy fucks in office is croneyism.

The Presidency as a public office has failed the American public in the same way elections have failed them: absolutely no accountability. The only "power" that the people have is to elect a different official when the current official's term is expired. Otherwise, to impeach or otherwise punish an elected official is neigh impossible. Politics are rendered moot by this fact.

People ruin their lives every day as a result of their poor choices. Billy no more ruined Monica's life than she ruined his. Monica herself describes the relationship as completely mutual. Why would she lie? As for Clinton, it was painful to watch his contortions as he tried to lie his way out. But the fact is that Clinton was not the only president or high official to have extra-marital sex in office. He was just one of the very few to be raked over the coals for it.

Not that I'm against accountability, but the Clinton Lewinsky case never should have been investigated officially, being a private matter.

The acts that should be investigated thoroughly are things like wasting trillions of dollars and destroying the reputation of a country for personal reasons and on false pretenses. Not to mention causing the deaths of countless innocents.

I just can't help thinking your comparison of Bush's catastrophic, costly and fatal blunders with Clinton's peccadilloes is absurd.

[Anoiktos]

Oh, yes, and here's an interesting one. Is Monica's distress worse than that of the people detained at Guantanamo (http://www.slate.com/id/2176017/) who, when at last the courts begin to demand the 'secret evidence' that put them there, find that that evidence is "no longer available and not easily recompiled", i.e. lost?

[GenocideAlive]

You guys win the fucking argument. You're right, I give up. Clinton getting disbarred, sexual harassment charges, Hillary's brother being investigated for croneyism by the FBI, all of it. The man was a fucking saint and by association, Gore is ready for sainthood too. End of discussion, now that there's no opposition to Gore taking over the world.

[Anoiktos]

You guys win the fucking argument. You're right, I give up. Clinton getting disbarred, sexual harassment charges, Hillary's brother being investigated for croneyism by the FBI, all of it. The man was a fucking saint and by association, Gore is ready for sainthood too. End of discussion, now that there's no opposition to Gore taking over the world.
Er, just because someone's a saint in comparison to bush doesn't mean much. Probably 90% of the people on earth fit that description, if not more.

Frankly, I'd be opposed to Gore taking over the world. I wouldn't be opposed to him serving as president for a few years, but the whole "the world" and the implied "for life" thing don't sit too well with me.

In case you're wondering, no, I have no conception of sarcasm or irony whatsoever. It's like talking to a duck about water.