Democrats & Liberals Archives

Right-Wing Nobel Freakout

The Nobel Peace Prize committee has created quite a stir these days. Admittedly, this year’s selection of Vlad the Impaler was bound to create controversy. Even if you dismiss the vampire business, the stories of the highly enhanced interrogations he performed on his people would turn anyone’s stomach.

Now we all know that Mr. Impaler did not win this year, but the Prize committee could not have asked for more criticism in this country if they had selected him. It is fair to say that Republicans and other conservatives have been tripping over each other to explain why the selection of Albert Gore, Jr. is an outrage.

But they aren’t kidding anyone. We all know that their antipathy to Mr. Gore has nothing to do with alternative explanations for the disappearance of the snows of Kilimanjaro. He committed two almost unforgivable sins in their eyes seven years ago. First of all, he was the undisputed winner of the popular vote. This by itself was a problem, because conservatives realized that it was a knock against the legitimacy of the Dear Leader. So it was necessary to argue that votes for him don’t count because he and his supporters are not Real Americans. You have probably all read Mark Steyn’s infamous essay in which he describes Gore voters, the majority, as “Al Sharpton’s entourage, gay scoutmasters, partial-birth-abortion fetishists”, etc. (I almost feel sorry for Mr. Steyn. It must pain him to live in a country where most people are so distasteful to him.) Gore might have been forgiven eventually, if not for his second transgression of challenging Bush’s “victory”*. I am not interested in refighting this old battle for the 27th time, but I think we can all agree that it left bad feelings for Mr. Gore.

To be fair, let’s consider the alternative. Is Mr. Gore’s prize really such a break from tradition? Considering the past list of winners, it really isn’t. Perhaps the biggest knock against his selection is that his work did not directly involve peace. The Nobel Peace Prize, however, has branched out in recent years to people who benefit humanity more generally. Last year it went to a banker, for heaven’s sake. Nothing against bankers, but if loaning poor people money counts as promoting peace then just about any benevolent activity does. Gore is not the first environmentalist to win, either; Wangari Maathai won in 2004 for encouraging women to plant trees.

Another argument against his selection is that Gore is a hypocrite because he burns a lot of CO2. So what? One of the surest ways to win the Peace Prize is to start a war. Teddy Roosevelt won the Peace Prize in 1906, and he loved war. World peace would have depressed the hell out of him. Another thing to note with TR is that he was a politician. So none of this hand-wringing about how they are dirtying the prize with “political” considerations. If giving the prize to a sitting US president wasn’t political, I don’t know what is.

Even more ludicrous are the many claims that Alfred Nobel is “rolling over in his grave”. Nobel died before any of the awards were handed out (remember it was in his will) so there is no way to know what he would have thought of Al Gore or other winners. Considering that he gave out awards promoting science and peace, I am going to go out on a limb and say that he would not want the US to invade other countries and teach creationism in school.


*I fear that this posting will provoke a lot of comments along the lines of “GET OVER IT!!!!!”. I am over it, I just don’t have amnesia.

Posted by Woody Mena at October 21, 2007 5:11 PM
Comments
Comment #236559

Btw, the IPCC shared the award with Al Gore. Next month they will present their fourth report, the synthesis report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html


Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #236562

Woody,

I was not surprised at all by the awarding of the Peace Prize to Al Gore.

After all, the Nobel committee has a history of awarding the Peace Prize to lunatic fringe idiots (Jimmah Cahtah)and bloodthirsty terrorists (Yassar Arafat)…so why not Al Gore?

Par for the course. Move along…no new news here.

Posted by: Jim T at October 21, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #236564

Jim T,
Jimmy Carter brokered the Camp David Accords between Israel & Egypt. It has been the most successful act of diplomacy in the Middle East in our lifetimes.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #236569

Woody,

I believe wholeheartedly in human induced global warming and the fact that we must do something about it, but there were literally dozens of people more worthy of this award than Gore and the reaction of half the world points out why.

Nobel did not envision this award as a means of sticking a finger in the eye of the political opposition of the Nobel committee. Unfortunately they seem not to know this. Simply awarding the prize to the IPCC would have done quite well, particularly given Gore’s tendency to play loose with facts.

The IPCC’s reports have been as sound as science can permit them to be, but by awarding the prize to Gore the Committee gives those who want to deny at any cost yet one more rhetorical stick with which to drive the crowds who distrust Gore first and think later away from their findings.

As to your comments-

“Teddy Roosevelt won the Peace Prize in 1906, and he loved war. World peace would have depressed the hell out of him. Another thing to note with TR is that he was a politician. So none of this hand-wringing about how they are dirtying the prize with “political” considerations”
T.R. was the only president other than George Washington to be involved in a genuine firefight, and the only one to face a machine-gun nest. He did not “love” war. He knew very well that to be perceived as weak in the face of the threat of a fight was literally to invite a fight. So, in spite of the manifest instability of Europe and Asia in his presidency there was only the one major war and HE STOPPED IT.

Bully for him! If only that simpering idiot Wilson had been capable of learning a lesson from him. (Well, actually, T.R. did come up with the idea of the League of Nations, and Wilson used it…)

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2007 8:41 PM
Comment #236574

Gee, maybe Gore got the award, not based on his scientific accuracy (he is not a scientist), but because due to his public recognition index, he was able to get the word out? Naw, couldn’t be.

It seems to me that the Nobel committee are the deciders. Too bad, that.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 21, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #236575

“T.R. was the only president other than George Washington to be involved in a genuine firefight,…”

I would guess Kennedy’s “shipwreck”, and Bush Sr’s being shot down don’t really count?

What about Truman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#World_War_I

“During a sudden attack by the Germans in the Vosges Mountains, the battery started to disperse; Truman ordered them back into position using profanities that he had “learned while working on the Santa Fe railroad.” Shocked by the outburst, his men reassembled and followed him to safety. Under Captain Truman’s command in France, the battery did not lose a single man.”

Posted by: Rocky at October 21, 2007 9:05 PM
Comment #236577

I would have given the peace prize to the Democratic Congress for ending the war in Iraq the way they promised during last year’s election. Oh, wait…

Oh well, maybe we can give them the peace prize two years from now after Hillery gets us into a war with Iran. Of course, both parties want war with Iran so we might have to split the peace prize between them…

War is peace-George Orwell
Talking about Global Warming is peace-2007 Nobel Prize Committee.

Posted by: Peace Now at October 21, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #236578

Lee, as Rocky points out, it’s incredibly inaccurate to say that T.R. was the only president besides Washington to have been involved in a “genuine firefight.”

It’s true that George Bush (senior) and JFK both saw quite a bit of action in WWII. But before that, James Monroe was shot in combat during the Revolutionary war, Andrew Jackson was personally involved in numerous battles with Indians and in the War of 1812. Some were generals (some not), but this was at a time when generals actually LED their troops in battle. Ike is the only president I know of who was a former soldier who was never actually in a battle. William Harrison had quite a military career before entering office, as did Zachary Taylor, U.S. Grant, and James Garfield. Rutherford Hayes was shot numerous times during the Civil War and nearly died on more than occasion. The list goes on.

As for Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize—whatever. Personally, I think the loss of prestige on the part of the Nobel Peace Prize is far greater here than the prestige gained by Gore in having received it. If it wasn’t for the money attached to it, I’d take it less seriously than I do the “prizes” they give out in boxes of Cracker Jacks.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 21, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #236579

Lee,

Your reading of TR’s history is very selective. It is true that he brokered the end of the Russo-Japanese War. It is true that he was not a chickenhawk, for what that is worth. He was also a big proponent of the imperialistic Spanish-American War, however. If you read his descriptions of combat it is clear that he didn’t not view war as a necessary evil but actually a pleasurable activity.

I don’t mean to suggest that TR was a terrible person, just someone who was not a believer in peace.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 21, 2007 9:24 PM
Comment #236580
If it wasn’t for the money attached to it, I’d take it less seriously than I do the “prizes” they give out in boxes of Cracker Jacks.

Sour grapes. If someone like Bush or Reagan won you would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 21, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #236582

Jim T,

If James Carter represents the “lunatic fringe” then how did he get elected?

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 21, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #236584

Sour grapes. If someone like Bush or Reagan won you would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Like you are doing for Gore? Get real. I’ll go so far as to say that no one deserved the Peace Prize this year. Know why? BECAUSE THERE’S NO PEACE AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE IT!

Posted by: Peace Now at October 21, 2007 9:38 PM
Comment #236585

Woody

You really can not blame the republicans for their distaste. It has been so long since anything positive has happened for their party that they are licking their chops in wait. Unfortunately for them the American people are now wise to their misanthropic attitude. With the worst president and vice president in history weighing them down it will likely be a while before they can once again feel some love.

What gets me is these folks act as though Gore just jumped on the global warming bandwagon when it was convenient for him to do so. In his defense he has, as long as I can remember, made preservation of the environment a main issue for him.

I at first wondered what this had to do with peace. But I quickly realized that when taking into consideration the enormous impacts of global warming and the chaos that will be caused by displaced peoples, water shortages, and crop damage there is probably no bigger threat to world peace today. And all the most recent reports indicate that the problems are advancing much faster than originally thought. Whether or not it is the result of man at this point really is of little consequence. If changing habits and looking for alternative measures can help forestall the consequences then it only makes sense that is what we should do. Global warming has the potential to and most likely will in comparison make the problems in the middle east look like child’s play.

Posted by: RickIL at October 21, 2007 9:38 PM
Comment #236586
Sour grapes. If someone like Bush or Reagan won you would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Actually, I’d be in no condition to shout anything from anywhere. I’d be utterly speechless if a group of Scandinavian socialists decided to give an award they hold near and dear to their hearts to a conservative American leader.

It would be tantamount to John Edwards announcing that he was leaving Elizabeth so he could be with his true love—Ann Coulter. Or Rush Limbaugh endorsing Dennis Kucinich for President of the United States. In other words it would mean that the world had turned upside down.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 21, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #236587

Loyal O, that was hilarous.

On the Ann Coulter “freakout” front, I’m still waiting. This is the 12th time the left has proclaimed she has gone too far.

To your point, it is hard to believe the left can’t see the forest through the weeds here … this is agenda driven.

Posted by: Edge at October 21, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #236591

What I really don’t understand, however, is how anyone—especially anyone who is seriously concerned about global warming—can believe that the cause is advanced instead of hurt by giving it to someone whose role in either researching, understanding, or demonstrating behaviors which might address the problem is no more serious than that of Al Gore’s?

Now, I fully understand the pleasure derived from seeing a member of one’s political party given honors. But is that all there is to this? Doesn’t the issue itself matter at all?

Gore is definitely no scientist, and several of the things he’s claimed (though not at all) are either scientifically incorrect or under dispute in the scientific community. He’s also not a political figure who ever enacted policy to address this. As a Senator and Vice President he might have talked about it, but what did he actually do?

The best case that can be made for him in regards to this issue is that he’s raised the issue’s profile and increased the amount of attention it’s given—good and bad. By this standard, however, Danielle Steele or Stephen King should be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature because they’ve done more to sell books than all of those pipsqueaks who have actually won it have managed to do together.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 21, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #236592

Lee,
Where on earth did you come up with this?

“T.R. was the only president other than George Washington to be involved in a genuine firefight, and the only one to face a machine-gun nest.”

Here is a complete list:
George Washington - Commander in Chief of Continental Army during the American Revolution.
James Monroe - served in American Revolution
Andrew Jackson - American Revolution, War of 1812, First Seminole War
William Henry Harrison - Indian wars in the NW territory, War of 1812
John Tyler - War of 1812
Zachary Taylor - War of 1812, Black Hawk, Second Seminole, and Mexican wars
Franklin Pierce - Mexican War
James Buchanan - War of 1812
Abraham Lincoln - Black Hawk War
Andrew Johnson - Civil War
Ulysses Grant - Mexican War, Civil War
Rutherford Hayes - Civil War
James Garfield - Civil War
Chester Arthur - Civil War
Benjamin Harrison - Civil War
William McKinley - Civil War
Theodore Roosevelt - Spanish-American War
Harry Truman - WWI
Dwight Eisenhower - WWII General
John Kennedy - WWII
Lyndon Johnson - WWII
Richard Nixon - WWII
Gerald Ford - WWII
George Bush - WWII

Many, such as Rutherford Hayes and William McKinley, showed remarkable bravery under fire. Hayes was wounded four times and had four horses shot out from under him.


Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #236594
I’d be utterly speechless if a group of Scandinavian socialists decided to give an award they hold near and dear to their hearts to a conservative American leader.

You can stop talking. They gave it to Henry Kissinger.

LO,

You don’t have to be a scientist to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore is an advocate who has been trying to raise aware of this issue for decades. The reason he couldn’t enact policy is that people refused to believe him.

Yes, the issue matters. That’s why he deserved to win.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 21, 2007 10:55 PM
Comment #236596

Gore and the IPCC shared the prize, 50% to each, “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”

Global Warming will be, without question, the dominating issue of the next century, and for their efforts to bring this issue to the public awareness, Gore and the IPCC richly deserve the recognition.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2007 11:27 PM
Comment #236600

So a former Vice President of the United States is honored with a prestigous award and all the righties can do is belittle and ridicule both those that extended the award and the recepient.How truely pathetic and foolishly partisian these comments sound for anyone that loves this Country. Its hard to imagine that an educated bunch like yourselves cannot even find it within yourselves to at least have the dignity to shut up if you can say congratulations or something similar. The hatred and venom spewing from the righties really is a diservice to this country you should be ashamed of yourselves.

“After all, the Nobel committee has a history of awarding the Peace Prize to lunatic fringe idiots (Jimmah Cahtah)and bloodthirsty terrorists (Yassar Arafat)…so why not Al Gore?”

“I believe wholeheartedly in human induced global warming and the fact that we must do something about it, but there were literally dozens of people more worthy of this award than Gore”

“I would have given the peace prize to the Democratic Congress for ending the war in Iraq the way they promised during last year’s election. Oh, wait…
Oh well, maybe we can give them the peace prize two years from now after Hillery gets us into a war with Iran. Of course, both parties want war with Iran so we might have to split the peace prize between them…
War is peace-George Orwell
Talking about Global Warming is peace-2007 Nobel Prize Committee.”
“As for Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize—whatever. Personally, I think the loss of prestige on the part of the Nobel Peace Prize is far greater here than the prestige gained by Gore in having received it. If it wasn’t for the money attached to it, I’d take it less seriously than I do the “prizes” they give out in boxes of Cracker Jacks.”
“To your point, it is hard to believe the left can’t see the forest through the weeds here … this is agenda driven.”

How sad. How very sad.


Posted by: j2t2 at October 22, 2007 2:22 AM
Comment #236607

Woody
Nice piece.
Too bad your pointing out Kissingers win to LO will not work. Kissinger is not a “real” American conservative leader. After all he speaks with an accent and thinks from time to time.

Lee Jaimison
Welcome to the blue side. Sounding authoritive here does not cut it. Best to have your ducks in in a row. Just ask LO and Jack,two of our frequent and respected con-contributers.

Posted by: BillS at October 22, 2007 6:41 AM
Comment #236609

j2t2,

So a former Vice President of the United States is honored with a prestigous award and all the righties can do is belittle and ridicule both those that extended the award and the recepient… The hatred and venom spewing from the righties really is a diservice to this country you should be ashamed of yourselves.
How sad. How very sad.

Know who else was (by your definition) a venom spewing rightie? Alfred Nobel.

According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. That certainly ain’t Gore.
There isn’t much of an effort these days to bring about peace (especially in this country), but there are plenty of humanitarian efforts this award could have recognized.

Posted by: PeaceNow at October 22, 2007 7:28 AM
Comment #236610

PeaceNow,

Alfred Nobel is NOT criticizing Gore. People are IMAGINING him criticizing Gore.

Actually, a vision of the late Alfred Nobel appeared on my wall last night and was raving about what a great choice the committee made. His theory was that curtailing global warming will have a far greater impact on world peace than ending any particular conflict. He also said that environmental conferences count as peace conferences. He was also big fan of Jimmy Carter.

I am sure my imagination is better than everyone else’s because it was in vivid Technicolor.

I am miffed about the war in Iraq too, but it is silly to blame Gore for that because he was out of office and openly OPPOSED it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 22, 2007 7:42 AM
Comment #236616

but it is silly to blame Gore for that because he was out of office and openly OPPOSED it.

What? I didn’t blame Gore for Iraq.

Posted by: PeaceNow at October 22, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #236617

PeaceNow, Your not seriously trying to tell me the comments I quoted were justified because someone elese was more qualified for the prize are you? The comitee made there decision, who are you to say other unnamed people should have received this prize yet because they didnt you should name call and degrade a fellow countryman for receiving the peace prize instead? especially after comments like
“I’ll go so far as to say that no one deserved the Peace Prize this year. Know why? BECAUSE THERE’S NO PEACE AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE IT!”
Your partisan hatred is showing. Your venomous attacks are what divides this country. The man won the Nobel Peace Prize and all the righties can do is attack him. If this is conservative logic you and your fellow righties should take time to think about what your movement has become and where it has taken you. Are all your comments really this hateful. Zeig Heil comes to mind.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 22, 2007 9:13 AM
Comment #236619

Loyal Opposition,

You are quite right about presidents in battle. I regretted the statement as soon as I posted it, but was on a balky intenet connection and couldn’t correct myself. What I was thinking about, and trying to post with my time running out, was participation in a ground assault on a heavily fortified position. I discounted generals, dismissed Truman as manning positions behind American lines, and overlooked my own favorite “American” president, Sam Houston, who was wounded three times in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (assaulting a heavily fortified position) and again at the Battle of San Jacinto. The senior George Bush even owns one of my paintings. It was, all in all, a pretty stupid thing for me to say.

The point I wanted to emphasize, but wound up distracting from, was that T.R. had good reason to respect the horror of war enough to be strong when strength would avert bloodshed. He had credibility enough on the world stage to bring a halt to an active war between industrial powers. His peace prize was well deserved.

Someone who thinks as I do could be forgiven for musing that if only, at the 1912 Republican convention, Taft had given up the job he never really wanted in the first place the teens could have been a very different decade and, perhaps, the 20th century a very different century.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 22, 2007 9:41 AM
Comment #236648


Before and during Al Gores public campaign on behalf of Global Warming, nearly every Republican was denying that global warming was even happening let alone admiting that human activity might be a contribution factor. Afterwards, even George Bush admitted that global warming was occuring and he gave lip service to actually trying to do something about it. Today, many Republicans are admiting that global warming is occuring and many of them are even acknowledging that humans are contributing to it.

IMO, Gore deserves the prize even more than the IPCC because the Republicans were having some success at countering or at least muddying the IPCC message with corporate sponsored pseudo-science. That red herring is now belly up and even the oil companies are trying to jump on the global warming band wagon. Gore is the Man!

Posted by: jlw at October 22, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #236649

j2t2,

Your not seriously trying to tell me the comments I quoted were justified because someone elese was more qualified for the prize are you?

I’m trying to tell you Gore wasn’t qualified at all. Not by Nobel’s standards.

who are you to say other unnamed people should have received this prize yet because they didnt you should name call and degrade a fellow countryman for receiving the peace prize instead?

Where have I name called or degraded Gore? I respect what he’s trying to do, but it has nothing to do with what the Peace Prize is supposed to be.

Your partisan hatred is showing. Your venomous attacks are what divides this country. The man won the Nobel Peace Prize and all the righties can do is attack him. If this is conservative logic you and your fellow righties should take time to think about what your movement has become and where it has taken you.

I’m a liberal Democrat. I don’t know where you’re getting all this “righties” stuff.
My relationship with the party is fast coming to a close, though, because of their complete ineffectiveness. They have done nothing about Iraq and now we’re heading toward war with Iran.

Are all your comments really this hateful. Zeig Heil comes to mind.

Is it hateful to want the Peace Prize to mean something? Is it “partisan hatred” to want my own party to do as they promised and end the war?

Posted by: PeaceNow at October 22, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #236653

Gore’s contribution to a huge sea-change in public perception on global-warming is remarkable. Although it might be said he is simply riding the wave of a growing environmental movement he has successfully defeated the industry-led anti-scientists and this administration’s stonewalling. Not that anything significant has been physically accomplished regarding global warming but if the last seven years have taught us anything the fight for public opinion is a huge one. He is no Johnny-come-lately to this issue. For his work in promoting awareness of an issue that will affect world peace for a long time to come it is appropriate he shares the peace prize with the IPCC.

Of course, it helps having science on your side. There would be little need to discuss this year’s award as a poke at this administration if Bush Co hadn’t been systematically been attacking science to advance its policies.

Posted by: chris2x at October 22, 2007 12:20 PM
Comment #236662

I thought the committee decided what the peace prize is supposed to be, not you PeaceNow. Who died and left you in charge?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 22, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #236670

I thought the committee decided what the peace prize is supposed to be, not you PeaceNow. Who died and left you in charge?

Just going by Nobel’s discription: “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Posted by: PeaceNow at October 22, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #236671

jlw,
Your progression of events suggests Al Gore has more influence on the Bush administration than the science, dribbled out to us but fully available to the administration for well over a year, that now even more strongly backs up the human influence on climate. That just makes no sense.

Gore’s participation actively hurts the cause of selling this truth to conservatives. Using him for a spokesman for the cause is like us trying to use Newt Gingrich to convince liberals to accept the banning of all abortions! It’s nuts.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 22, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #236680

Peace Now,

Have you considered the disruption global climate change potentially has to people, nations, and their need for resources? Do you not think the (greater) struggle for resources will lead to more war and greater natural calamity to more suffering including refugees? Focus on this issue greatly concerns peace and the fraternity between nations.

Posted by: chris2x at October 22, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #236684


Lee: I don’t believe that Gore or the science had an impact on Bush. Because of the influence that the science and Gore had on public opinion, Bush felt obliged to say something, not do something. If conservatives are starting to believe the science and are coming to the conclusion that global warming is a threat that we must address, I could care less if they hate Gore.

“Gore’s participation actively hurts the cause of selling this truth to conservatives.” This statement says a lot more about conservatives than it does about Gore. I have always thought that conservatives have an aversion to truth. It is good to know that my thoughts have been justified.

Posted by: jlw at October 22, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #236685

Lee said,

“Your progression of events suggests Al Gore has more influence on the Bush administration than the science, dribbled out to us but fully available to the administration for well over a year, that now even more strongly backs up the human influence on climate. That just makes no sense.”

Yet that is exactly what has happened. It was only through political pressure (created in part by Gore) and the drum of repeated accusations that this administration was ignoring science that they made any movement towards recognition of global climate change at all.

Posted by: chris2x at October 22, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #236687

All I have to say is

Yea, GO AL!, GO AL!!!!

LOVE YOU BABY!!! wish you were president-You was robbed!!! Just look where we might be today if you were president, no war, no dead, no wounded, no major debt that will come due someday. My heart breaks.

Posted by: Carolina at October 22, 2007 4:45 PM
Comment #236733

Woody,
Great piece and well written. Yes, the ultra conservatives just hate anything good happening to Al Gore, actually they just hate Al Gore. When you have such water carriers for the neocons and the RNC such as Cal Thomas calling Global Warming a Secular Religion it just tells me they just love to hate. There are some people that believe anything that Rush, Shawn, Billo, Colterguise etal tell them what to believe.
I am glad that we Democrats make up our own minds and do not let water carriers tell us what and how to think.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at October 22, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #236735

ps: Woody, Vlad was a blood sucking beast. The Republicans should feel akin to him afterall they represent those who have been sucking the U.S. Treasury dry.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at October 22, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #236768

jlw,
Just because the truth is true does not mean people will accept it regardless of which side of the aisle they are on. Alfred Wegner first wrote of continental drift in 1905. The subject was still controversial among geologists when I took my geology courses in the late ’70s.

Liberals like to keep issues emotionally polarized so that people will be blinded to the things that would really make things better, so they trot the cigar store Indian, Al Gore, out as a spokesman they know will actively stand in the way of conservative comprehension. Newt Gingrich really is trying to get conservatives to hear the message on global warming, but the left would never hear of having him bear the message precisely because he might accomplish something. If those who have carried this banner as a cause celebre for twenty years really cared whether their opponents got the message they would seek out messengers with some credibility among those who disagree with them. They don’t care, though. It is too important to be able to poke a hot stick in the opposition’s eye and then circle round and pat the would’a, could’a, should’a been president on the back and blow rasberries like three-year-olds.

If you really care about the environment quit acting like adolescent snots who couldn’t get invited to a pre-prom party and help those conservatives like myself who agree with you to tell our fellow partisans the truth in a way that they can hear it. If it is beneath you not to spit in our eyes while you try to teach us climate change is as much your fault as ours.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 23, 2007 9:27 AM
Comment #236783


Lee Jamison: I understand your argument but, I think it applies far more to conservatives than it does liberals. For instance, I detest Newt Gingrich but, if he had been the spearhead on global warming instead of Al Gore, I would not have rejected his argument because of how I feel about him personally. I would have no problem if Newt and Al were to join forces to get the message heard and get meaningful answers to the problem.

My problem is not with conservatives getting the message, it is with how they will go about combating the problem. For example, the President has acknowledged that global warming is a problem. His solution; promote a rediculously expensive stop gap solution (bio-fuels) and to rely on oil for at least another 20 years until the oil companies replace their gas pumps with Hydrogen fuel cell technology and build nuclear power plants. The number of electrical generating plants that have been and are curently being bought by oil companies is growing rapidly. This conservative plan is to protect the profitability of the oil companies that through their policies and bribes have prevented us from begining to ween ourselves off of our dependency on oil thirty years ago. As a result of that conspiracy, our kids are killing and being killed because of oil.

John Kennedy said that we were going to land a man on the moon and return him to earth in a decade. It didn’t take us a decade to do it and the benefits to our economy, and indeed the worlds economy, from the advances in technology have been enormous. IMO, a similar program applied to our energy needs could achieve similar results. In the mean time, the latest scientific studies show that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by 35% more than was predicted, since the year 2000, because the oceans and the land masses are becoming saturated and can no longer absorbe CO2 at a normal rate.

Posted by: jlw at October 23, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #236791

Lee,

On of the true issues here isn’t that some conservatives may be turning toward belief, but there are still those that are doing their best to convince the more gullible amongst us that global warming is a religion, and that Gore is the “high priest” of that religion.
This propaganda campaign hurts us all, as it takes the spotlight off of the actual problem and places it on a spokesman.
I suppose they think that if they kill the messenger the message might die with him.

Posted by: Rocky at October 23, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #236820

Lee what kind of tripe are you peddlin’?
“Liberals like to keep issues emotionally polarized so that people will be blinded to the things that would really make things better, so they trot the cigar store Indian, Al Gore, out as a spokesman they know will actively stand in the way of conservative comprehension.”
Its the liberals fault cause their telling the truth about global warming. Its the liberals fault the cons have been sucked into believing the disinformation propagated by the right wing hate mongers like Rush and his ilk.

“Newt Gingrich really is trying to get conservatives to hear the message on global warming, but the left would never hear of having him bear the message precisely because he might accomplish something.”
Its the liberals fault the cons have talked trash for so long that not even the Newtster can convince them of the error of their ways.

“If those who have carried this banner as a cause celebre for twenty years really cared whether their opponents got the message they would seek out messengers with some credibility among those who disagree with them.”
Its the liberals fault the cons choose to beleive the likes of Rush & Sean who have spent years demonizing Gore instead of listening to Gore.

“If you really care about the environment quit acting like adolescent snots who couldn’t get invited to a pre-prom party and help those conservatives like myself who agree with you to tell our fellow partisans the truth in a way that they can hear it.” Its the liberals fault cons cannot accept personal responsibility for their actions, that the cons cannot understand the concept of climate change unless the message is filled with left bashing hate filled propaganda.

Are you serious?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 24, 2007 1:19 AM
Comment #236821

The first major Environmental Reform the Bush Administration performed was to rescind an relax
many EPA activities an laws, Stopped many on going
Law suits against many Corporations, stopped enforcement in certain areas, and worst of all
Returned most of the money received by the EPA
in some cases an all the money from Fines from
at least three Major Corporations was Returned.
An that was the only Accomplishment the Bush
Administration has made for the Environment unless
you consider his refusal to sign the Kyoto
Agreement Important, Towards a World wide endeavor. In the Long run, Al Gore, with his World
Wide Campaign has done more for the Environmental
Awareness than any one bar none. Those of you who
want to find or make a Political Football with
the Environment, can do so at your own peril!

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 24, 2007 5:17 AM
Comment #236838

People, you want to win this for the Earth? You have to beat Rush Limbaugh, a guy with a brilliant understanding of the law and of the fashioning of arguments, and, BTW, someone who has the science education of a troll doll. On most other issues Conservatives see him as dead-on right. You will not separate them from him on this issue by “beating” him or by trotting out wooden former vice presidents with half his I.Q. and half a Nobel Prize.

You will have to find conciliatory ways of showing the inevitability of the facts. You will have to convince them the economy will not collapse, and that, indeed we could even greatly benefit and find new markets and new industries in the solutions. You will have to convince them their freedom is not compromised, because you are dealing with people who will happily die free before they would thrive in chains.

If you can’t do that much, for the sake of Mother Earth, and things are as bad as the most alarmist prognosticators say, (I don’t even believe that.) we all die.

There, that’s the deal.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 24, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #236911

Lee- Conciliatory, Facts, Solutions,(never happen) Prognosticator, Rush Limbaugh who has no Collage an
you claim he has a higher I.Q. than Gore ?? Than,
Equate Brilliance, “with Limbaugh” who may be
characterized by his chronic behavior by exploits,
manipulates, or violates the rights of others, maybe
a Borderline Personality, an not more than a small, stones throw away from being a total Sociopath, an
nurd. An good luck at making any Converts out of
any conservatives.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 25, 2007 6:18 AM
Comment #236918

David,

John Harrison, the inventor of the chronometer, was denied the credit for his amazing achievement for nearly three decades because the British, college educated, powers that were simply could not imagine that an unschooled “common” craftsman could be both smarter than the whole lot of them combined and able to accomplish a tour de force in applied physics.

College does not make people smart. It only is intended to provide the understanding that maximizes our capacity to use intelligence. From the illustration above one can see sometimes being well educated can actively interfere with understanding. As a matter of fact I read survey results over the weekend indicating that an education at five of the nation’s most elite colleges actually SUBTRACTS from their student’s understanding of American civics and public policy.

Is Limbaugh smarter than Al Gore? No question about it. That just means that, to his audience, who survey after survey shows to be the best imformed media audience in America, it will be very diffucult to separate them from him on issues such as this one where he is wrong. You can’t win them by demonizing him.

The strongest impulse of the liberal mind is the drive to be acknowledged as being smart. Prove that you deserve it. Learn how to educate.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 25, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #236922

Lee,

“That just means that, to his audience, who survey after survey shows to be the best imformed media audience in America, it will be very diffucult to separate them from him on issues such as this one where he is wrong.”

I find it ironic that the “best informed” audience in America, has bought into this shameless buffoon’s campaign of disinformation.

I would submit that Limbaugh isn’t necessarily “smarter” than Gore, just more clever.

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2007 9:54 AM
Comment #236926

Lee,

You have written a lot of silly things here. The thrust of your argument seems to be that if conservatives don’t believe Al Gore, then it’s his fault for being Al Gore. Maybe conservatives should get past their distaste for the messenger and pay more attention to the message.

The fact that Newt Gingrich is saying essentially the same things just undermines your argument. If people don’t believe Newt Gingrich, Al Gore, and the vast majority of the scientific community, then who the hell are they waiting for? The ghost of Ronald Reagan?

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 25, 2007 10:38 AM
Comment #236936

Woody,

Belief is a facinating thing. One of the reasons for the polarization of the populus these days is that none of us live in the real world. We live in the conceptual constructs inside our heads and those, hopefully, correspond well to the objective reality of that world. Right now, when Democrats talk about heavy taxation being the way to increase government revenue they ignore reality and choose to live in a conceptual construct more amenable to their comfort level. In the same way, when conservatives disbelieve in human induced global warming they live in a conceptual construct more amenable to their comfort level. You can rail away at that as being stupid, but there is plenty of stupid to go around and conservatives by no means corner the market.

Getting people to deconstruct these conceptual havens is hard because, like forcing someone out of their home, they must have some other space in which to move. Democrats, in order to accept certain aspects of economic reality would have to create a new concept in which to live, some of the features of which they find unacceptable. It is the job of conservatives in that instance to find what the unacceptable elements are and show how our way, our concept, does not really violate their most deeply held values.

In selling a new concept to conservatives the situation is the same.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 25, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #236955

Lee Jamison- It would appear that you are trying to

quibble over the semantics of conservatism, which

is a false premise. I would like to reassure you,

The Health an Life expectancy of our children

an everyone else, should be of a major concern

to all, regardless of political persuasion!!

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 25, 2007 4:02 PM
Comment #237004

David,

Indeed it should, so should their liberty, for without that, no matter what wonders our rulers will promise us to wrestle freedom from us “for our own good”, we will have no leverage to assure ourselves we have not won the health and privilege of the government-connected few at the expense of millions of lives.

You are perfectly willing to fear the most recent ghost right to the limits of reason. Even to the sacrifice of that. Global warming will change things and that will certainly change minds, a process that will be greatly slowed by demonizing the conservative population that is quite rightly more terrified of government than it is terrified of climate change.

Governments killed well over a hundred million people in the 20th century. Weather killed about ten million. I will try to convince my bretheren there is a problem with climate change, but I stand with them unapologetically in fearing government far, far more.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 26, 2007 9:54 AM
Comment #237056

Lee Jamison-

Conjuring up ghosts, limits of reason, sacrifice,

demonizing the conservative population, terrified.

Defensive are we? I am sorry, but I see no critical

thinking with your statements in making an attempt

at defending Conservative values. Conservatism

needs no defence, when applied where apolitically

appropriate.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 26, 2007 7:39 PM
Post a comment