Friday, October 12, 2007
Peace(????) prize
Putting aside for the moment whatever one thinks of Al Gore and his theories of human causes of climate change, please tell me what does it have to do with peace?? The core of his message - and please note that all he has done is send a message - is that humans caused climate changes that are violently dangerous. He dismisses any other cause for climate change such as geological cycling or solar aging. Why is that so meritorious as to earn him international acclaim, adulation, money and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize? Genuine peace-seekers who did or did not win the award must be spinning and frowning a lot. On the other hand, it is also true that the namesake of the prize was a chemist who invented dynamite, so perhaps I'm missing the point. Yes, I know: inventions aren't good or bad, they're just used for good; or not. Anything good can be used for bad things and vice versa. Blah blah.
Gore's message is that good people have done a bad thing but what is peace-ful or peace-engendering about either the message or the blaming? Longer growing seasons and more rain might actually help some countries gain economic and health footholds, and money spent on what may well be unavoidable planetary and solar system cycling would more effectively be spent on public health and population issues. But again, I am undoubtedly missing the point.
Alan Sullivan at Fresh Bilge puts the case strongly and aptly, that if Gore's "fixes" are implemented, there will be more poverty and disease, and less food, globally: "The victims won’t be blown to bits [by Nobel's dynamite]; they will die early of malnutrition, disease, and the strife endemic in many poor lands, which will get poorer under the global government our international elite is attempting semi-consciously to create."
But I ask again: where's the peace? It's a puzzling, difficult world, Virginia. Santa or no Santa.
Gore's message is that good people have done a bad thing but what is peace-ful or peace-engendering about either the message or the blaming? Longer growing seasons and more rain might actually help some countries gain economic and health footholds, and money spent on what may well be unavoidable planetary and solar system cycling would more effectively be spent on public health and population issues. But again, I am undoubtedly missing the point.
Alan Sullivan at Fresh Bilge puts the case strongly and aptly, that if Gore's "fixes" are implemented, there will be more poverty and disease, and less food, globally: "The victims won’t be blown to bits [by Nobel's dynamite]; they will die early of malnutrition, disease, and the strife endemic in many poor lands, which will get poorer under the global government our international elite is attempting semi-consciously to create."
But I ask again: where's the peace? It's a puzzling, difficult world, Virginia. Santa or no Santa.
Labels: headlines, pcness, people, reflections, warming
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 9:24 AM
jau — at 10:55 AM, October 12, 2007:
ligneus — at 10:08 PM, October 12, 2007:
| posted by jau at 9:24 AM
3 more:
jau — at 10:55 AM, October 12, 2007:
Awesome comment. You're so right. Maybe there's an age limit? Besides, it's a western, dead-white-men image.... Sheesh. (Course, tho' he's not dead, Gore is white and male, too. Hmmm.)
< home >
ligneus — at 10:08 PM, October 12, 2007:
Check out what the guys at Powerline have to say. Interesting that Norway chooses the Peace Prize recipient, the others are chosen in Stockholm.
< home >
And the big elephant in the dining room is when will Santa get the Nobel Peace prize? At least he gets some kids to shut up and be peaceful once a year, right? I guess he not in Al Gore's and Yassar Arafat's league.
< home >