Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

DaveOrion · 10-12-2007, 08:36 AM

Although I wasn't born in TN, I have lived here the majority of my life and have always been a liberal democrat. That being said I feel a certain sense of pride when a native TN son wins such a prestiges award for his work on global warming.

Quote:

Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work

By WALTER GIBBS
Published: October 13, 2007
OSLO, Oct. 12 — The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to Al Gore, the former vice president, and to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work to alert the world to the threat of global warming.

Al and Tipper Gore at the Academy Awards in February.
The award immediately renewed calls from Mr. Gore’s supporters for him to run for president in 2008, joining an already crowded field of Democrats. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, has said he is not interested in running but has not flatly rejected the notion.

Mr. Gore “is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted,” the Nobel citation said, referring to the issue of climate change. The United Nations committee, a network of 2,000 scientists that was organized in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, has produced two decades of scientific reports that have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming,” the citation said.

Mr. Gore, who was traveling in San Francisco, said in a statement that he was deeply honored to receive the prize and planned to donate his half of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit climate group where he is chairman of the board.

“We face a true planetary emergency,” Mr. Gore said in his statement. “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.”

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said he received the news with his wife, Tipper, early this morning in San Francisco, where he spoke on Thursday night at a fund-raising event for Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a fellow Democrat.

Ms. Kreider said Mr. Gore would hold strategy meetings with the Alliance for Climate Protection in San Francisco today and return to his home in Nashville over the weekend.

In New Delhi, Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian scientist who leads the United Nations committee, said the award was “not something I would have thought of in my wildest dreams.”

In an interview in his office at the Energy and Resources Institute, Dr. Pachauri cast the award as a vindication of science over the skeptics on the effects of human activities on climate change.

“The message that it sends is that the Nobel Prize committee realized the value of knowledge in tackling the problem of climate change and the fact that the I.P.C.C. has an established record of producing knowledge and an impartial and objective assessment of climate change,” he said

Dr. Pachauri said he thought the award would now settle the scientific debate on climate change and that governments would now take action.

He said it was “entirely possible to stabilize the levels of emissions but that climate change and its impact will continue to stalk us.”

“We will have to live with climate change up to a certain point of time but if we want to avoid or delay much more serious damage then its essential that we start mitigation quickly and to a serious extent,” he said.

The Nobel award carries political ramifications in the United States, which the Nobel committee tried to minimize after its announcement today.

The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, addressed reporters after the awards were announced and tried to dismiss repeated questions asking whether the awards were a criticism — direct or indirect — of the Bush administration.

He said the committee was making an appeal to the entire world to unite against the threat of global warming.

"We would encourage all countries, including the big countries, to challenge all of them to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global warming,” he said. “The bigger the powers, the better that they come in front of this.”

He said the peace prize was only a message of encouragement, adding, “the Nobel committee has never given a kick in the leg to anyone.”

In this decade, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given to prominent people and agencies who differ on a range of issues with the Bush administration, including former President Jimmy Carter, who won in 2002, and the United Nations’ nuclear monitoring agency in Vienna and its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, in 2005.

In Washington, a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, was quoted by Reuters as saying: “Of course we’re happy for Vice President Gore and the I.P.C.C. for receiving this recognition.”

Global warming has been a powerful issue all this year, attracting more and more public attention.

The film documenting Mr. Gore’s campaign to increase awareness of the human effect on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Academy Award this year. The United Nations committee has issued repeated reports and held successive conferences to highlight the growing scientific understanding of the problem. Meanwhile, signs of global warming have become more and more apparent, even in the melting Arctic.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming “may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources.”

There is another page here....http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/wo...el.html?ref=us

Willravel · 10-12-2007, 09:04 AM

I'm glad for him. He's a brave man.

AVoiceOfReason · 10-12-2007, 09:25 AM

The instrument to measure my indifference to this has yet to be invented.

The Nobel committee on such blew all credibility when they gave a terrorist the award--Yassir Arafat. (Following up with the Great Appeaser Jimmy Carter did nothing for them, either.)

I'm no more interested in this than I am the Grammies or Academy Awards.

I am, however, amused that Gore is lauded in the same week a British Court said his propaganda film needs disclaimers due to inaccuracies.

rlbond86 · 10-12-2007, 09:25 AM

Well, it's official; Al Gore is co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I feel he deserves it -- he's worked very hard to try to emphasize the impact of climate change. Unfortunately the disinformation campaign by industries has tricked many Americans, despite the fact that the scientific consensus is that climate change is here, man-made, and bad news (Concluded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the G8 joint science academies, the American Meteorological Society, the US National Research Council, and many, many more).
Hopefully more light will be brought on this issue. We need a world in which our descendants can prosper for generations.

DaveOrion · 10-12-2007, 09:43 AM

I was also proud of Carter another democratic southerner who won the Nobel Peace Prize......

Quote:

The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...aureates/2002/

And of course his tireless work with Habitat for Humanity...

Quote:

Jimmy Carter's involvement with Habitat for Humanity International began in 1984 when the former president led a work group to New York City to help renovate a six-story building with 19 families in need of decent, affordable shelter. That experience planted the seed, and the Jimmy Carter Work Project has been an internationally recognized event of HFHI ever since.

Each year, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter give a week of their time—along with their construction skills—to build homes and raise awareness of the critical need for affordable housing. The JCWP is held at a different location each year, and attracts volunteers from around the world.

http://www.habitat.org/how/carter.aspx

It says something about both men, that that truly care about other human beings & the planet. It says they weren't involved in government just for the power & money, which seems to be the case so often.

Elphaba · 10-12-2007, 10:06 AM

This yankee applauds Gore's well deserved acknowledgement.

dksuddeth · 10-12-2007, 10:18 AM

how does somebody win this award when the documentary they put out has been judged to be inaccurate? how is it that he can ask US to cut down on fossil fuel usage, yet he puts out much more, and win this award?

total hypocrisy in action.

roachboy · 10-12-2007, 10:52 AM

whenever a celebrity gets the peace prize for being a celebrity who does interesting or important stuff, but whose primarily thing is being a celebrity, it makes me wonder what the point of the nobel prize is. i dont say this because i am concerned one way or another about this awarding of the peace prize to gore and the head of the un commission on climate change. i just wonder why it doesnt ever seem to be awarded to less visible folk who devote their lives and resources to the grinding work of trying to affect change on the ground, day in day out. why the peace prize is not given to a group like medecins san frontiers, for example, i'll never understand.

but yes---i think that its nice that folk are able to feel a degree of pride in this.

sidebar: folk dont seem to know what a documentary is, still.

a documentary is an argument about the world:the point is to make an argument about the world, not to tell you what the world is.

this is *the* foundational principle of documentary as a cinematic form.

so if there are factual errors in a documentary, they can and should be exposed and become part of the debate--but the point of such a film is to generate debate.

if a documentary simply told you how the world is, the debate would be unnecessary, meaningless.

so the claims above that factual errors might or do exist in the film is empty as a judgment about the documentary status of the film. that folk are worked up about the film enough to care is an index that the film does--and does well--what conventional documentary is supposed to do. so you make the point, you loose the argument.

dc_dux · 10-12-2007, 10:59 AM

The prize was shared by Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC press release)

Its a nice combo. Gore, with his celebrity status, will continue to draw attention to the issue, even if at times his approach is a bit extreme...and the IPCC will continue to perform its work, but with a new recognition of its objectivity and scientific approach to the issue.

Ustwo · 10-12-2007, 11:28 AM

He can join Jimmy Carter in this meaningful, non-political award.

My heart is warmed, much like our planet.

DaveOrion · 10-12-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but yes---i think that its nice that folk are able to feel a degree of pride in this.

sidebar: folk dont seem to know what a documentary is, still.

Other folk don't seem to realize that the peace prize wasn't issued solely based on a documentary, that this isn't a global warming thread, and that I don't consider either of these a political issue.

This thread was moved to politics, I didn't start it here.

samcol · 10-12-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

He can join Jimmy Carter in this meaningful, non-political award.

My heart is warmed, much like our planet.

HAHA

/agree

Rekna · 10-12-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

how does somebody win this award when the documentary they put out has been judged to be inaccurate? how is it that he can ask US to cut down on fossil fuel usage, yet he puts out much more, and win this award?

total hypocrisy in action.

Actually it was judged to be highly accurate with a few flaws.

Bill O'Rights · 10-12-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My heart is warmed, much like our planet.

I don't care whether you agree with his underlying sentiment, or not. That's just plain damn funny.

DaveOrion · 10-12-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I don't care whether you agree with his underlying sentiment, or not. That's just plain damn funny.

Strange, I didn't find it the slightest bit funny, but It does tell me all in need to know about him.........for those who actually care and aren't completely self absorbed I'd recommend a look at Bill Clinton's new book and site dedicated to helping each of us change the world for the better. Yet another Southern Democrat who cares.....weird huh???

A brief synopsis....

Quote:

GIVING: How Each of Us Can Change the World takes an inspiring look at how individual endeavors can save lives and solve problems. Through the stories of amazing people and dedicated organizations, President Clinton offers compelling examples of both citizen and corporate activism at work in the world today.

GIVING highlights the work of a number of extraordinary people and organizations – some famous, as well as many private citizens whom readers will be hearing about for the first time – all of whom represent a global floodtide of nongovernmental, nonprofit activity. Their remarkable stories suggest that the act of giving takes many forms and emphasize that offerings of time, skills, objects and ideas can be just as important as contributions of money.

President Clinton is dedicating a portion of the book's proceeds to charities and nonprofits that are doing their part to change the world.

http://giving.clintonfoundation.org/about

Ustwo · 10-12-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

Strange, I didn't find it the slightest bit funny, but It does tell me all in need to know about him.........for those who actually care and aren't completely self absorbed I'd recommend a look at Bill Clinton's new book and site dedicated to helping each of us change the world for the better. Yet another Southern Democrat who cares.....weird huh???

A brief synopsis....

Plan9 · 10-12-2007, 06:38 PM

I thought he already had a Nobel prize for inventing the Internet.

rlbond86 · 10-12-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

how does somebody win this award when the documentary they put out has been judged to be inaccurate? how is it that he can ask US to cut down on fossil fuel usage, yet he puts out much more, and win this award?

total hypocrisy in action.

The documentary was not judged to be inaccurate; this was misreported by papers such as the New York Times. There were 9 points of contention that were suggested to be misinterpreted, but this was shown to be not the case. Also, Al Gore's house uses less energy per volume than most houses. It's just really big.

tecoyah · 10-12-2007, 07:38 PM

There is a wonderful lesson to be gathered from this thread in my opinion. Two men, who have put in quite a bit of effort to improve the world, and the lives of people they will never know, have been recognized for the attempts by a body intent on promoting and rewarding others for helping the world population at large.
For some reason they are attacked by a certain political leaning mindset in an obvious attempt to diminish what they accomplished due to some form of hatred of what they stand for politically. I find it fascinating that the extreme good these men have done, is tossed aside to focus on weaknesses we all share to an extent. While the people who represent the politics the dissenters stand for, would never even be considered for such recognition in the first place. Even after they get pardoned.

ngdawg · 10-12-2007, 07:43 PM

Pickins must have been slim this year....

Al Gore on a par with Nelson Mandela or Bishop Tutu or MLK?...pffftt
Granted, there are some on the winner's list that are less than stellar (Arafat, for ex), but...Al Gore?
At least now he can afford to buy his own hybrid jet.

Past winners:
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

Ustwo · 10-12-2007, 07:50 PM

Don't forget we had Jimmy Carter in 2002 and god help us Kofi Annan in 2001.

Its become a political statement, shame really.

Elphaba · 10-12-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I don't care whether you agree with his underlying sentiment, or not. That's just plain damn funny.

You have encouraged much more of the same.

Please explain to me how the VP of the Clinton administration is a "celebrity?" Gore dropped out of politics after the 2000 election, and he only reemerged as a person of note, when his work in addressing climate change began to get public recognition last year. Leonardo DeCaprio, a true celebrity, got instant recognition for his documentary on global warming this year. Identifying Gore as a "celebrity" is curious, at best.

Carter wasn't a "celebrity" when he received his Nobel peace prize, but was rather a "failed" president by some standards. He has worked long and hard to earn the "Elder" status that he carries today, but his work in the Middle East was worthy of the Nobel.

Did anyone else notice that the right's conservative talking points were prepared and distributed before Gore won the prize? All of the conservative talking heads and a few negative posters here, used the identical arguments to dismiss Gore, and the Nobel committee.

This topic says everything about what has become of our country. Rabid political rancour drives some people to tear down one of our own citizens who has won a well deserved international acknowledgement. WE, as a country, are unable to celebrate the acknowledgement of one of our countrymen due to nothing more than trite internal partisanship.

We, as a country, have never been this polarized in the past, and I suggest to you that this current divisiveness is deliberate.

Jetée · 10-12-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

You have encouraged much more of the same.

Please explain to me how the VP of the Clinton administration is a "celebrity?" Gore dropped out of politics after the 2000 election, and he only reemerged as a person of note, when his work in addressing climate change began to get public recognition last year. Leonardo DeCaprio, a true celebrity, got instant recognition for his documentary on global warming this year. Identifying Gore as a "celebrity" is curious, at best.

Carter wasn't a "celebrity" when he received his Nobel peace prize, but was rather a "failed" president by some standards. He has worked long and hard to earn the "Elder" status that he carries today, but his work in the Middle East was worthy of the Nobel.

Did anyone else notice that the right's conservative talking points were prepared and distributed before Gore won the prize? All of the conservative talking heads and a few negative posters here, used the identical arguments to dismiss Gore, and the Nobel committee.

This topic says everything about what has become of our country. Rabid political rancour drives some people to tear down one of our own citizens who has won a well deserved international acknowledgement. WE, as a country, are unable to celebrate the acknowledgement of one of our countrymen due to nothing more than trite internal partisanship.

We, as a country, have never been this polarized in the past, and I suggest to you that this current divisiveness is deliberate.

God, I think I love you.

Ustwo · 10-12-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

You have encouraged much more of the same.

Please explain to me how the VP of the Clinton administration is a "celebrity?" Gore dropped out of politics after the 2000 election, and he only reemerged as a person of note, when his work in addressing climate change began to get public recognition last year. Leonardo DeCaprio, a true celebrity, got instant recognition for his documentary on global warming this year. Identifying Gore as a "celebrity" is curious, at best.

Carter wasn't a "celebrity" when he received his Nobel peace prize, but was rather a "failed" president by some standards. He has worked long and hard to earn the "Elder" status that he carries today, but his work in the Middle East was worthy of the Nobel.

Did anyone else notice that the right's conservative talking points were prepared and distributed before Gore won the prize? All of the conservative talking heads and a few negative posters here, used the identical arguments to dismiss Gore, and the Nobel committee.

This topic says everything about what has become of our country. Rabid political rancour drives some people to tear down one of our own citizens who has won a well deserved international acknowledgement. WE, as a country, are unable to celebrate the acknowledgement of one of our countrymen due to nothing more than trite internal partisanship.

We, as a country, have never been this polarized in the past, and I suggest to you that this current divisiveness is deliberate.

That or we really believe that Al Gore is unworthy of pretty much any prize that doesn't have 'boobie' attached to it somewhere.

I've been dismissing the Nobel committee on the piece prize long before this, its a political tool. Carter was picked BECAUSE he was anti-Bush. Kofi? Christ on a cracker, I can't think of too many less worthy of one.

And please, don't give me this right is causing the country to be polarized innocent crap. The left has done nothing but try to erode support for the president since he took office, and yet this is all our fault?

Please, your implication is absurd.

Elphaba · 10-12-2007, 08:22 PM

Try reading my post one more time, very slowly if you need to.

Baraka_Guru · 10-12-2007, 08:37 PM

Let's not forget this close call: Nobel nomination for Bush and Blair.

host · 10-12-2007, 08:52 PM

Same shit on this forum.....over and over....here's the "drill".....unsupported taunts are posted in response to an OP.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

The instrument to measure my indifference to this has yet to be invented.

The Nobel committee on such blew all credibility when they gave a terrorist the award--Yassir Arafat. (Following up with the Great Appeaser Jimmy Carter did nothing for them, either.)

I'm no more interested in this than I am the Grammies or Academy Awards.

I am, however, amused that Gore is lauded in the same week a British Court said his propaganda film needs disclaimers due to inaccuracies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Pickins must have been slim this year....

Al Gore on a par with Nelson Mandela or Bishop Tutu or MLK?...pffftt
Granted, there are some on the winner's list that are less than stellar (Arafat, for ex), but...Al Gore?
At least now he can afford to buy his own hybrid jet.

Past winners:
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

following the taunts....host....dc_dux....roachboy, and a number of other participants who actually come here to engage in political discussion, post replies: (Yawn....it really, really....is getting like ground hog day....on this forum....but what the hell....for old time's sake....one more time...)

RE: the short, unsubstantiated posts criticizing Gore and Carter:

<h3>I am aware that y'all "know what you know"....but....since I've already posted tirelessly and throroughly to counter your unsupported opinions, could you maybe take then over to the CNP owned, townhall.com. where everybody knows what you're talking about?</h3> ....on this forum, I've qualified my opinions of Mr. Gore, and Mr. Carter...and you detractors don't seem, after all this time and challenge, to be able to afford me the courtesy of providing actual support for your opinions....but that's how it is here....short, flippant posts, fully displayed, and posts crafted via actual time, effort and accompanying support......are to be posted behind the <h2>hide</h2>....tag.... Question, Ustwo....why have you come back here....is it to broaden the "discussion", or to stamp it out???

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...et#post2133697 post #1

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Welcome to the forum, Intense1. I have been very curious as to why the majority of Tennessee voters have voted for republican candidates since 2000, and you seem like someone with a reasonable demeanor who I can pose this question to:

Given that the vote of Mr. Gore's "homestaters" in 2000, had the direct effect of costing him the presidency, what have you and your fellow voters who have voted for republican candidates, gained by the shift away from Mr. Gore, and the democrats. I know what you have lost:

1.)The prestige, recognition, and tourism that would have flowed into Tennessee, if Gore had been elected.

2.)The political influence, translated into a higher flow of federal funds into Tennessee, if Tennessee had voted for Gore.

3.)The planning, right about now, and then the completion of a Gore presidential library, in Tennessee, that, along with Gore's birthplace, and his residence, would stimulate worldwide interest, and tourist dollars, and jobs, in Tennessee, as it will, for a long time to come, in Clinton's Arkansas.

4.)A balanced federal budget, replaced by an addition to the federal treasury debt that will mushroom the debt from $5414 billion, in 2001, to at least $9000 billion by Sept. 30, 2009.

5.)Open government....it's gone....reversed from a trend towards justification of the classification of every federal government document, to a new paradigm that began in 2001.....instead free access to documents must be justified, release to the public of presidential documents was delayed in a 2001 executive order, to the point that the presidential libraries complained about the emptiness of their stacks. Documents that had been de-classified, were reclassified, much to the chagrin, and puzzlement of historians who already possessed them.

6.)The peace, and a reputation of the US as a country that was reluctant to ever go to war, and only did so when it was first attacked by another country. The US is now mired in an avoidable war in Iraq that disproportionally claims the lives and limbs of military personnel from less affluent, and more rural states....like Tennessee. The other loss is the opportunity cost of sinking money and a hopelessly flawed military strategy in Iraq, vs. the lost opportunity to lessen the amount of the federal treasury debt, or spend some of the money wasted in Iraq, on new schools, and infrastructure repair, in Tennessee and in other US states.

Good relations and the trust of many other nations' governments, and their citizenry, has also been lost because Iraq was invaded and occupied.

7.)The boundary between church and state....it has definitely been blurred since the 2000 election.

8.)The compact between the federal government and workers rights and workplace safety. The NLRB has been stacked, since 2001, with 5 appointees who comprise the entire board, who are pro-management, none come from a labor, or union organzing background. OSHA has, until the deaths of several miners last year, adopted a policy of lax enforcement and industry self inspection of workplace safety hazards and remedies.

9.)Strong federal Environmental protection iniatives, with a focus on improving air quality. The <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/14/Business/EPA_eases_air_polluti.shtml">enforcement intiatives that resulted in TECO</a> in Tampa, Fl, dramatically cleaning up it's act.

10.)Bankruptcy protection for individuals. Did the tradeoff of legal protection from debt collection....the ability to make a clean start, after what reputable studies demonstrated is more often bankruptcy induced by illness, worth lowered interest on credit card borrowing, or increased profits to the banks that issue the credit cards, vs. the loss of the option, by Tennesseans, who "enjoy", on average, lower per capita income to begin with, after a financial setback caused by an illness, a fresh start with their debts erased?
Hasn't the only beneficiary of "the Bankruptcy Reform Act", been the financial corps. who successfully lobbied for it's passage?

I could go on....but I'm sure that you get the idea. What economic benefits have come (or will come to your state), and what have Tennesseans gained, vs. what they could have retained, if they had voted for Gore, instead of for Bush? Is the air or water cleaner, are workers enjoying better or even equal protection, is your state a safer or more popular tourist destination, because you vote republican? Do the economic "benefits" to your state and it's people, outweight the impact of an addition of $3600 billion to total treasury debt? Wouldn't a portion of that debt, if it had to be accrued, had been better spent if a mximum of $2000 billion had been borrowed to pay the SSI Trust fund debt, which would have made funding of SSI "privatization", actually practical, and possible?

If most people vote republican, the consequence will be continued "one party rule" of the federal government. Your answers to the list of what Tennessee has gained, to replace the losses on the ten category list above, may give you insight into the continued consequences of voting for increasingly unaccountable, unresponsive, and secret, government administration.

What are the pluses that you perceive, for voting republican, vs. democrat?
I may seem partisan, but I started out neutral, many years ago, and I read a lot. I don't find any benefit for the people of a below average per capita wealth and income state, to vote to deny a "son" of that state, the presidency in exchange for what they've gotten in return.

Is anything that I've posted, untrue? Why would you even consider voting to keep this party in total control? Would democrats do less for Tennesseans? How?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...et#post2133697 Post #4

...and here is a thoughtful, thorough rebuttal...to the opinions and supporting citations contained in my posts quoted in the two preceding boxes:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...et#post2133697 post# 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." - Alexander Tytler

We are well on our way.

Oh and intense1 welcome to the boards, very nice reply

...and in response to the "one line" sniping at Jimmy Carter:

I posted this, responding to an Ustwo thread devoted to a dismissal of Jimmy Carter....and I prefaced the following comments with supporting articles:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ghlight=carter post# 39

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

.....Why is Carter held in such low regard, compared to Reagan, and why are democrats demonized as "tax and spend liberals", given the record that I've outlined? Why would it be in the interest of any working class American, to support Reagan or either Bush? Did Americans receive more from government versus the taxes they paid, the debt that they owe. and pay the interest on,
from the Reagan and 2X Bush administrations, than they would have from four additional years of a Carter presidency, and six years of Al Gore, vs, the ten years that the republicans held the presidency, instead?

Are we, as a nation, safer, enjoying higher environmental quality, more energy independence and conservation, more individual rights, better education and social services, less poverty, better maintained public infrastructure, and better relations with our allies, and non-aligned nations, in a world that has a higher priority of promoting human rights and uniform justice....are our courts more representative and sensitive to today's population demographics in the US....is the workplace safer, and labor organizing oversight, and SEC oversight, and the fiscal soundness of our corporations, because of the higher debt that the ten extra years of republican presidential administration, and congressional "leadership", has provided to us, than if democrats had been elected and served? Is our government less corrupt, more transparent?

Can anyone make an argument that Carter and Gore could have governed in some way that would have been less fair, shortchanged us more, left us with more debt, and in a worse state in our relationship with the community of nations, than we find ourselves in, today? Could we possibly be more dependent on imported petroleum, have a higher trade and budget deficit, have cities and race relations in worse shape, than they are today? Speaking for the 150 million Americans who control less than 2-1/2 percent of the national wealth, and the forty percent who control another 27 percent of that wealth, I just don't see how they could have produced worse results or greater debt, or more gender, race, and sexual orientation based discrimination and inequality or worse international relations, or a greater threat to national security that exorbitant treasury debt and disproportionate energy consumption and dependence, compared to all other nations, than what we currently experience, in all of those categories, can you....how?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=47 post# 47

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Quote:

Arco Solar, Solarex Corp (NAICS: 333414, 333611 ) , SOLAREX CORP, STANDARD OIL CO (INDIANA)
Lueck, Thomas J.

New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 16, 1983. pg. A.18
New York Times Company Oct 16, 1983

The Sun, long a source of power in mythology, may soon be an actual source of household electricity - at least in bright places like America's Sun Belt. But some of the people working to develop the cells that generate electricity from sunlight are concerned that the oil business is controlling more and more of the solar industry.

This trend was highlighted last month when the Standard Oil Company of Indiana purchased Solarex, a Rockville, Md., company that last year ranked as the second largest United States manufacturer of photovoltaic cells. Arco Solar, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlantic Richfield Company, was the largest. Ranking third was the Solar Power Corporation, owned by Exxon.

''Virtually all of the photovoltaics industry is owned by Big Oil,'' said Scott Sklar, political director for the Solar Lobby, an organization that advocates expanding development of solar technology. ''And the problem with that is these huge corporations don't have the kind of commitment you find in small innovative companies.'' Some consumer groups profess even greater worries about the oil industry's motives. ''The major oils see solar power as a competing source of energy, and they want to control it and slow it down,'' said Edwin Rothchild, a spokesman for the Citizen Energy Labor Coalition, another lobbying organization. But many experts in alternative energy research maintain that, if not for large investments by the oil companies, photovoltaic development would be grinding to a halt. ''If the oil companies are a menace, they are the most benevolent menace you could find, because nobody else seems willing to spend a dime,'' said Mitchell Diamond, an energy analyst for Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc., a consulting firm.....

....Throughout most of the 1970's, the Federal Government functioned as one of the largest sources of photovoltaic research money. Those funds have been sharply reduced. In 1980, the Department of Energy administered $797 million in research and development grants for renewable energy projects. This year, those grants have fallen to $262 million.

Several major corporations outside the oil industry have either withdrawn from photovoltaic research or put it on the back burner.
The RCA Corporation, which was a leader in research aimed at the most advanced forms of photovoltaic cells, sold its technology to Solarex earlier this year for an undisclosed price. Texas Instruments Corporation, which spent $20 million of its own and Federal money on a major photovoltaics research project for which many experts held high hopes, suspended work in the area two weeks ago.
....

Quote:

.....Would it be too much of a "mind fuck" to consider that Carter met the US growing dependence on foreign oil, "head on", drafting a 3 legged plan of conservation and price deregulation, strategic reserve stockpiling, and research, public funding,and tax credits to promote new and alternative energy resources, that was prescient enough to avoid the negative effects on progress that swings in free market pricing. and the natural tendency of wealthy competitors of alternative energy to buy up the fledgling industry and stifle it's growth?

Is it possible, at all, for you to consider that <b>the opposite</b> of what you believe, what you stand behind politically, is most likely more accurate......that Carter put our country on the correct path, towards balanced trade, foreign energy independence, national security that doesn't depend on cronyism from the money and influence of the oil and defense industries, and the "politics of fear" that is required to attract votes and to blind the electorate as they are made less safe and less prosperous, mired in astronomical debt? Can you not even suspect that this is the legacy of Reagan and the two Bush's? The proof is in what happened to alternative energy and the program of tax credits and government funded research that Carter persuaded the congress to pass and to fund. The treasury debt numbers show which administrations cut the taxes on the rich and domestic spending, while they continued to grow the government and accumulate the debt, and which presidential administrations reversed the growth of debt, slowed military spending, enjoyed better foreign relations with other nations, operated in a more open and accountable manner with the electorate, and stifled oil industry profits, while protecting the environment and public land, lessened the poverty rate, and the number of Americans without health insurance.

Does it puzzle you at all, that Reagan could destroy Carter's energy reform initiatives, end the tax credits that were vital and offered pay back in so many ways....from new employment in the alternative energy industry, to savings in military spending for a nation relieved of the dependence on foreign oil, and the cost, that we've experience, avoidably for 20 years? Does the initiation of a period of tax cutting and military spending, all to insure that the "fear" message would enrich the defense industry and attract the votes, that caused a 12 year federal borrowing "spree", that increased the treasury debt, by a factor of 4-1/2 times, the existing debt as Carter's single term ended, give you pause? Hasn't the last six years, going from reduced oil industry profits, elimination of deficit spending, reduced military spending, to the opposite.....and a new, six year deficit of $2750 billion, cause you any doubt?

Can you consider that former oil industry executives, as US president and Vice president, and the cronyism and influence of multi national oil corps. that they've brought into our government with them, are a cancer on the fiscal health or our nation, on our security, and on our legacy to our children....a pox on all of our houses, that we just got through enduring, as recently as in 1993, and here it is again?

If the newly minted treasury debt, the oil and defense industry profits, the message of fear, are not all a repeat of the post Carter period in America, than what are they? How stupid do you think we are? We've opposed the influence, money, and the agenda of "big oil", and of the defense industry, on our governance, and on the quality of our lives, since high school, et tu?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ghlight=carter post# 49

Quote:

DANIEL S. GREENBERG
WASHINGTON
Metro; PART-B; Metro Desk
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 13, 1990. pg. 3

Daniel S. Greenberg is editor and publisher of Science & Government Report, a Washington-based newsletter.

Count the 1980s as the squandered decade for energy research aimed at reducing America's risky dependence on foreign oil. And credit the loss to the Reagan administration, which gutted the government's energy-research programs-and redeployed much of the savings to nuclear-weapons research. A sager Bush administration has been repairing some of the damage with selective infusions of funds. But in general, energy research remains in the fiscal doldrums.

The evisceration of the government's energy-research programs was one of the proudest achievements of the Reagan administration, which took the cheery view that the marketplace is the infallible governor of energy production, use, and innovations. Upon taking office, Reagan sought to reverse the big energy-research buildup started by Richard Nixon in response to the 1973 oil crisis and accelerated by Jimmy Carter as his domestic centerpiece.
They aimed to mobilize science to squeeze more power from common fuels and guide the transition to new ones. In the hierarchy of tough research problems, these rank high, and require a lot of time and money.

When Congress thwarted Reagan's pledge to abolish the Department of Energy (DOE), he responded with budget cuts that severely reduced or even eliminated the Department's various civilian energy-research programs. Congress again balked and kept them alive, but for energy research, it was the beginning of a decade of drought that has only partially lifted. The science and engineering grapevine naturally reverberates with news of hot and cold professional opportunities-with the scale invariably linked to the flow of federal money. There's still relatively little money, and therefore no stampede to energy research.

In 1980, the year before Reagan took office, DOE was budgeted for $560 million for solar-energy research and development, in its own laboratories and in universities and industry. When Reagan left office, the solar program was down to $90 million-thanks only to Congress preventing a complete wipeout. Among the items rescued from elimination was the Solar Energy Research Institute, the main federal laboratory for research in that field. The Bush budget for next year calls for a 30 percent boost in solar research, awesome by Gramm-Rudman standards, but the sum is still far below pre-Reagan levels.....

....<h3>...gosh guys....the actual record supports accusations that it was Ronald Reagan and father and son, Bush, who have spent us into an insolvent condition...with a rapidly declining dollar, while they intentionally favored multinational "big oil" and dismantled/discouraged all of the Carter era intiatives that would have lessened US dependence on foreign oil, relieving the stress of the current dollar depressing, $850 billion annual trade deficit.....and no one could have spent down our US treasury, they way it's been done since 2000....Gore, in comparison, would have been a far superior alternative to the fiscal, military and foreign policy crisis we have all been "led" into</h3>....certainly not an outcome addressed by short, smug, "everybody knows that Gore or Carter" were nothing, compared to......<h2>Who ????</h2>

ngdawg · 10-12-2007, 09:22 PM

host, just a little threadjack, but....
do you ever post anything short? Is it necessary to quote yourself?
We get it, you vote Democrat.

/end threadjack
World Wildlife Fund has done more to save the planet in the last 25 years than Gore, but I don't see it anywhere on that list.
Carter was and still is, a hippie in a suit. That's not to say he doesn't or hasn't done good things, but he had no business being president and won for ONE reason-Nixon's legacy.
For years, the Nobel committees have waivered between political choices and nonpolitical humanitarian ones. There's no one person or group who wields the power of a Martin Luther King, Jr. or the idealism of a Nelson Mandela or Lech Walesa. Quite frankly, a 'Peace Prize' is a misnomer any more and very much so in this case.
Who gets it next year? Toyota and Chevrolet for their hybrids?
I don't knock Gore for his work-if someone believes strongly in something, they should forge ahead-I just don't feel that his accomplishments are worthy of something that portends to hold a great deal of "honor", nor do they have anything to do with peace.

cadre · 10-12-2007, 09:23 PM

Well, I had a couple discussions about this today. I'm not happy about it, but then I'm also not a big fan of Gore. I give him credit for supporting what he believes in, I just don't agree with the concepts.

I am glad Bush didn't win but I think there were better options. But, it's all opinion, not fact, so it's all arbitrary I suppose.

host · 10-12-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

...Carter was and still is, a hippie in a suit. That's not to say he doesn't or hasn't done good things, but he had no business being president....

....I don't knock Gore for his work-if someone believes strongly in something, they should forge ahead-I just don't feel that his accomplishments are worthy of something that portends to hold a great deal of "honor", nor do they have anything to do with peace.

ngdawg....I don't "feel" that Gore is not an appropriate choice for the peace prize....I am convinced that it is an reasonable award for Gore, because of the circumstances of his nomination for the prize, and by the impressive sentiment in support of his nomination:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922067/
Live Vote
Should former Vice President Al Gore get the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his call to action on global warming? * 26491 responses
Yes, he has gotten people to pay attention to a major long-term threat to everyone.
77%
No, he's an alarmist and besides, what does warming have to do with a peace prize?
23%

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/
And the Nobel Peace Prize goes to ... Al Gore?
He 'has put climate change on the agenda,' two Norwegian sponsors say

pdated: 8:32 a.m. ET Feb 1, 2007

.....OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world’s attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

“A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference,” Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Gore as well as Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier before the nomination deadline expired Thursday.

“Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up,” Brende said.

"I think climate change is the biggest challenge we face in this century," Brende said.....

....and now...again....about your Carter comments....if your opinion of Carter is a feelings based conclusion....kindly say so....if not....where on earth is the support for your argument that Carter "had no business being president"? Why won't you post it? You make it impossible for me to consider the validity of your opinion....and I've attempted to lead you to what I've read that influences my opposite argument....I suspect that you haven't even clicked the links to my old posts and read the articles that document Reagan's deliberate efforts to reverse Carter's prescient and promising leadership in planning, legislating, and executing his plan for US energy independence.... it is so irritating to read post after post containing short, sweeping statements that contradict my research, and the historical record....posts brimming with a confidence that seems obnoxious and taunting, given that they are not supported....

....Did Carter assess the greatest challenges that America would face after his presidency, and design and implement a comprehensive plan to meet those challenges....or....didn't he? I have shared everything that I've dug up about Carter's vision and accomplishments, and what was later done to thwart them and to discredit him.....and you've complained that I've shared too much...and you've offered nothing in response.... I'm tired of that kind of crappy dynamic.....here.....

Cynthetiq · 10-12-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ngdawg....I don't "feel" that Gore is not an appropriate choice for the peace prize....I am convinced that it is an reasonable award for Gore, because of the circumstances of his nomination for the prize, and by the impressive sentiment in support of his nomination:

....and now...again....about your Carter comments....if your opinion of Carter is a feelings based conclusion....kindly say so....if not....where on earth is the support for your argument that Carter "had no business being president"? Why won't you post it? You make it impossible for me to consider the validity of your opinion....and I've attempted to lead you to what I've read that influences my opposite argument....I suspect that you haven't even clicked the links to my old posts and read the articles that document Reagan's deliberate efforts to reverse Carter's prescient and promising leadership in planning, legislating, and executing his plan for US energy independence.... it is so irritating to read post after post containing short, sweeping statements that contradict my research, and the historical record....posts brimming with a confidence that seems obnoxious and taunting, given that they are not supported....

....Did Carter assess the greatest challenges that America would face after his presidency, and design and implement a comprehensive plan to meet those challenges....or....didn't he? I have shared everything that I've dug up about Carter's vision and accomplishments, and what was later done to thwart them and to discredit him.....and you've complained that I've shared too much...and you've offered nothing in response.... I'm tired of that kind of crappy dynamic.....here.....

Personally I don't understand the criteria for picking the Nobel Prize laureates. I find it equal to the decision making process as the MTV Movie Awards best kiss. It's just picked by a group of people who deem it so.

But c'mon are you serious host, posting the MSN.COM internet vote? Is it a popularity contest? So if next year they put up Britney Spears that's agreeable to you?

host · 10-12-2007, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Personally I don't understand the criteria for picking the Nobel Prize laureates. I find it equal to the decision making process as the MTV Movie Awards best kiss. It's just picked by a group of people who deem it so.

But c'mon are you serious host, posting the MSN.COM internet vote? Is it a popularity contest? So if next year they put up Britney Spears that's agreeable to you?

....the MSNBC poll was linked on the Feb., 2007 Gore Nomination article....it is certainly more "weighty" than anything contained in the negative posts about Gore's peace prize....and it was one part of a two part example of how to support (briefly....in fact...) a posted opinion, thereby demonstrating that an opinion is influenced by....whatever.......

Back to replying to the Carter trashing....what is the basis for your negative opinions? I don't see it, because you won't post anything that I can verify or challenge.....

Quote:

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/...70121020.shtml
Carter gave up re-election hopes to level inflation, adviser says
Domestic policy II

By Blake Aued | blake.aued@onlineathens.com | Story updated at 4:23 AM on Sunday, January 21, 2007

Jimmy Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve saved the country from runaway inflation, but cost Carter a re-election, Carter's chief domestic policy adviser said Saturday....

....But Carter also knew Volcker's plans probably would seal his defeat in the 1980 election, Eizenstat said.

"This was the ultimate sacrifice President Carter made for the American people," he said.....

....But Carter's commitment to social issues led to political trouble. When Bakke v. Regents, a reverse discrimination case challenging a California university's lower standards for black students, came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978, the Department of Justice advised Carter to submit a brief opposing affirmative action, Eizenstat said.

The case put Carter in a tough spot, Eizenstat said. If he supported affirmative action, he would alienate Southern whites, but if he opposed it, he would lose black votes. He ended up going with his conscience and supporting affirmative action, but received a lot of blame and little credit, Eizenstat said.

"It was an extremely difficult choice," he said........

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...57C0A967958260
The Election Story of the Decade

By GARY SICK;
Published: April 15, 1991

.....In the course of hundreds of interviews, in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East, I have been told repeatedly that individuals associated with the Reagan-Bush campaign of 1980 met secretly with Iranian officials to delay the release of the American hostages until after the Presidential election. For this favor, Iran was rewarded with a substantial supply of arms from Israel........

Cynthetiq · 10-13-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....the MSNBC poll was linked on the Feb., 2007 Gore Nomination article....it is certainly more "weighty" than anything contained in the negative posts about Gore's peace prize....and it was one part of a two part example of how to support (briefly....in fact...) a posted opinion, thereby demonstrating that an opinion is influenced by....whatever.......

Back to replying to the Carter trashing....what is the basis for your negative opinions? I don't see it, because you won't post anything that I can verify or challenge.....

Again, so if there is a Britney Spears article for Nobel Peace nomination from whatever source, and enough people vote for it that is acceptable to you? Another consideration is the sample that gets taken by the fact that the only people who can vote are those that have computers. How about can you vote multiple times (general problem plagued by these types of voting systems)? Nevertheless, again, I think that it is still a popularity contest.

As far as negative about Carter, only a few things that stick in my mind about President Carter is the long gas lines I had to sit in. When I was growing up there were 4 corner gas stations on most intersection in the San Fernando Valley. The gas crisis reduced those to 1.

Another item which I'm not 100% sure about but understand that some of it had to have happened on his watch is the S&L crisis of the early 80s.

The biggest thing from President Carter's presidency that I remember is the 444 days of captivity of the American hostages in Iran. The failed military recovery that didn't even get close to a recovery attempt.

In my opinion, it is the hostages and the gas crisis that did in President Carter, I don't see the martyr aspect of him hiring Paul Volcker as the reason.

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

As far as negative about Carter, only a few things that stick in my mind about President Carter is the long gas lines I had to sit in. When I was growing up there were 4 corner gas stations on most intersection in the San Fernando Valley. The gas crisis reduced those to 1.

Another item which I'm not 100% sure about but understand that some of it had to have happened on his watch is the S&L crisis of the early 80s.

The biggest thing from President Carter's presidency that I remember is the 444 days of captivity of the American hostages in Iran. The failed military recovery that didn't even get close to a recovery attempt.

In my opinion, it is the hostages and the gas crisis that did in President Carter, I don't see the martyr aspect of him hiring Paul Volcker as the reason.

Carter did not receive the Nobel Prize in 2002 for his actions as president, but rather for the work of the Carter Center for the last 20+ years.

* Promoting human rights and working with refugees in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, ...

* Mediating fair elections in Haiti, Guyana, Suriname, Paraguay...

* Serving as Clinton's informal ambassador and facilitating a peaceful settlement in Bosnia

* Working with Habitat for Humanity around the world

But even his presidency was recognized for his emphasis on human rights as central to foreign policy and his accomplishment in bringing peace between Egypt and Israel with the Camp David accords.

Cynthetiq · 10-13-2007, 07:39 AM

While not trying to interject levity into this conversation as I'm reading more about Mr. Gore today, I found this quote humorous:

Quote:

"I've called Al Gore and urged him to run for president so many times," Carter said on "Today." "He finally told me the last time, 'President Carter, please do not call me any more.' "

roachboy · 10-13-2007, 07:57 AM

ok so first, when i posted earlier wondering why the peace prize only goes to the prominent rather than going to people or organizations who work at a less visible level in the day-to-day grind of trying to make lives better, defuse conflict, alter socio-economic realities, i in no way wanted or expected that i'd find this position collapsed into the conservative american glibfest about al gore.

i was making an entirely different point.
had i waited to see how the thread would develop before posting, i would not have said it at all.

secondly, i find the conservative responses to this award to be kind of astonishing.
what we have is yet another sorry example of the effects of right-medias use of an orwellian-style group-hate technique to structure the beliefs of the few remaining faithful. what we have is a collapsing of the substantive questions onto short, punchy-but-empty memes about the person of al gore.

what we have is a almost like a programmed response: the heros of independent thinking on the right say exactly what is expected at exactly the same moment given a trigger. and more bewildering still, somehow this near-pavolivan exercise is confused with an extension of a sustantive debate.

well sports fans: it isnt.

the award itself does not raise new problems--the gap that separates the private language of american conservative views of global warming from those of the rest of the planet have been evident in the debates about the kyoto protocols.

even on this board, of late, the basis for this private language-based rejection of the notion of global warming has been reduced to a matter of claims to direct causation, from which appears to follow questions qas to whether it makes sense to act, as if the possibility that human agency is not the sole cause of the phenomenon means that there is no reason to do anything.
that is ridiculous.
it is high time that the americans reconsidered their transportation model, just as it is high time that china reconsidered its reliance on coal as a domestic heating source.

=========
addendum: the arguments for reconsidering the us transportation model do not exclusively require gw as a motive--congestion in urban areas is also a strong argument--rethinking suburban-urban connections are another, moving to a more regional concept of space/community woudl make sense---addressing class disparities at the level fo transportation---a new-deal style infrastruicture development program--a trigger for new types of industrial development within the boundaries of the us---any of these (and there are more) could get you to the same place.
==============

if making the case for these processes of rethinking requires that al gore's film be place at the center of the american debate, then fine. and the work of the un on this issue has been fundamental.

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ngdawg....I don't "feel" that Gore is not an appropriate choice for the peace prize....I am convinced that it is an reasonable award for Gore, because of the circumstances of his nomination for the prize, and by the impressive sentiment in support of his nomination:

....and now...again....about your Carter comments....if your opinion of Carter is a feelings based conclusion....kindly say so....if not....where on earth is the support for your argument that Carter "had no business being president"? Why won't you post it? You make it impossible for me to consider the validity of your opinion....and I've attempted to lead you to what I've read that influences my opposite argument....I suspect that you haven't even clicked the links to my old posts and read the articles that document Reagan's deliberate efforts to reverse Carter's prescient and promising leadership in planning, legislating, and executing his plan for US energy independence.... it is so irritating to read post after post containing short, sweeping statements that contradict my research, and the historical record....posts brimming with a confidence that seems obnoxious and taunting, given that they are not supported....

....Did Carter assess the greatest challenges that America would face after his presidency, and design and implement a comprehensive plan to meet those challenges....or....didn't he? I have shared everything that I've dug up about Carter's vision and accomplishments, and what was later done to thwart them and to discredit him.....and you've complained that I've shared too much...and you've offered nothing in response.... I'm tired of that kind of crappy dynamic.....here.....

You're correct, I don't click your links. For every accomplishment you dig up, it'd be extremely easy to dig up a failing. You chose to not do so, but we are aware of what the man has done, both pro and con.
As Cyn has stated, our remembrances of the Carter Administration begin and end with long lines at the gas pumps, American hostages in the Middle East, the economical disasters, including but not limited to inflation, rising interest rates on credit and falling interest rates on savings(political opinions state he almost cost us the COld War with that stuff), increasing taxes to cover Social Security funding and witnessing a UFO. It's common knowledge that he won the presidency, not on his strengths alone, but because of the disgrace of Nixon and Ford's decision to pardon him. His weaknesses, including the inability to bring home the hostages, were why he didn't get a second term.
I find it ironic, by the way, that this man who also claims and is seen to be a staunch environmentalist, started a fertilizer business back when he was also a 'peanut farmer'.

seretogis · 10-13-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

whenever a celebrity gets the peace prize for being a celebrity who does interesting or important stuff, but whose primarily thing is being a celebrity, it makes me wonder what the point of the nobel prize is.

I.... I.... agree....?.... with... roachboy....!?

DaveOrion · 10-13-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

You're correct, I don't click your links. For every accomplishment you dig up, it'd be extremely easy to dig up a failing. You chose to not do so, but we are aware of what the man has done, both pro and con.
As Cyn has stated, our remembrances of the Carter Administration begin and end with long lines at the gas pumps, American hostages in the Middle East, the economical disasters, including but not limited to inflation, rising interest rates on credit and falling interest rates on savings(political opinions state he almost cost us the COld War with that stuff), increasing taxes to cover Social Security funding and witnessing a UFO. It's common knowledge that he won the presidency, not on his strengths alone, but because of the disgrace of Nixon and Ford's decision to pardon him. His weaknesses, including the inability to bring home the hostages, were why he didn't get a second term.
I find it ironic, by the way, that this man who also claims and is seen to be a staunch environmentalist, started a fertilizer business back when he was also a 'peanut farmer'.

Yea, I'm not a big link clicker either, this is the net and its easy to find anything you desire to support your claims.

Carter, a good man, not the best president as they go, but certainly not the worst either. The hostages were however eventually released solely because of Carters work, even though Reagan was pres, he had nothing to do with the release. As I recall Reagan called the Iranians "Barbarians" and refused to negotiate.

Quote:

Finally, in September, Khomeini's government decided it was time to end the matter. There was little more advantage to be gained from further anti-American, anti-Shah propaganda, and the ongoing sanctions were making it harder to straighten out an already chaotic economy. Despite rumors that Carter might pull out an "October Surprise" and get the hostages home before the election, negotiations dragged on for months, even after Republican Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in November. Carter's all-night effort to bring the 52 hostages home before the end of his term, documented by an ABC television crew in the Oval Office, fell short; the Iranians released them minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

On January 21, 1981, now-former President Carter went to Germany to meet the freed hostages on behalf of the new president. It was a difficult moment, fraught with emotion. Hamilton Jordan recalled that Carter "looked as old and tired as I had ever seen him."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/...e_hostage.html

The UFO siting did diminish his credibility which is sad since he certainly wasn't the first or last human to see one. Many expert witnesses, who have everything to lose & nothing to gain, have seen & continue to see them today. He should have kept his mouth shut much as I should have.

Many of Carters detractors definitely suffer from prejudice towards southerners in general. Being a peanut farmer doesn't help this view. I much prefer an honest hardworking farmer to a corrupt career politician hell bent on securing middle east resources for the exploitation of his cronies.

I find it somewhat short sited to blame all the ills of the country on the president at that time. Unless that pres attempts to circumvent the constitution, bypass congress & remake the country in his own image.....

ubertuber · 10-13-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

Yea, I'm not a big link clicker either, this is the net and its easy to find anything you desire to support your claims.

You're definitely not the only person who has said this, but if this statement is all there is to the matter, then where does that leave us? There's no reason to offer any support or justification for our opinions just because you can always dig something up that supports your view? That's a pretty limiting view of discussions.

I do click links, because not all support is equal. Not all positions have equal merit, and not all support has equal validity. It's incumbent on us to take that into account since the alternative is unproductive.

My thoughts...

10-12-2007, 09:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	The instrument to measure my indifference to this has yet to be invented. The Nobel committee on such blew all credibility when they gave a terrorist the award--Yassir Arafat. (Following up with the Great Appeaser Jimmy Carter did nothing for them, either.) I'm no more interested in this than I am the Grammies or Academy Awards. I am, however, amused that Gore is lauded in the same week a British Court said his propaganda film needs disclaimers due to inaccuracies. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

10-12-2007, 09:25 AM	#4 (permalink)
rlbond86 Insane	Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize Well, it's official; Al Gore is co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I feel he deserves it -- he's worked very hard to try to emphasize the impact of climate change. Unfortunately the disinformation campaign by industries has tricked many Americans, despite the fact that the scientific consensus is that climate change is here, man-made, and bad news (Concluded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the G8 joint science academies, the American Meteorological Society, the US National Research Council, and many, many more). Hopefully more light will be brought on this issue. We need a world in which our descendants can prosper for generations.

10-12-2007, 10:06 AM	#6 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	This yankee applauds Gore's well deserved acknowledgement. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

10-12-2007, 10:18 AM	#7 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	how does somebody win this award when the documentary they put out has been judged to be inaccurate? how is it that he can ask US to cut down on fossil fuel usage, yet he puts out much more, and win this award? total hypocrisy in action. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

10-12-2007, 10:52 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	whenever a celebrity gets the peace prize for being a celebrity who does interesting or important stuff, but whose primarily thing is being a celebrity, it makes me wonder what the point of the nobel prize is. i dont say this because i am concerned one way or another about this awarding of the peace prize to gore and the head of the un commission on climate change. i just wonder why it doesnt ever seem to be awarded to less visible folk who devote their lives and resources to the grinding work of trying to affect change on the ground, day in day out. why the peace prize is not given to a group like medecins san frontiers, for example, i'll never understand. but yes---i think that its nice that folk are able to feel a degree of pride in this. sidebar: folk dont seem to know what a documentary is, still. a documentary is an argument about the world:the point is to make an argument about the world, not to tell you what the world is. this is the foundational principle of documentary as a cinematic form. so if there are factual errors in a documentary, they can and should be exposed and become part of the debate--but the point of such a film is to generate debate. if a documentary simply told you how the world is, the debate would be unnecessary, meaningless. so the claims above that factual errors might or do exist in the film is empty as a judgment about the documentary status of the film. that folk are worked up about the film enough to care is an index that the film does--and does well--what conventional documentary is supposed to do. so you make the point, you loose the argument. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-12-2007, 09:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm glad for him. He's a brave man.

10-12-2007, 10:59 AM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The prize was shared by Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC press release) Its a nice combo. Gore, with his celebrity status, will continue to draw attention to the issue, even if at times his approach is a bit extreme...and the IPCC will continue to perform its work, but with a new recognition of its objectivity and scientific approach to the issue. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-12-2007 at 11:05 AM.. Reason: added press release

10-12-2007, 11:28 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	He can join Jimmy Carter in this meaningful, non-political award. My heart is warmed, much like our planet. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-12-2007, 06:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I thought he already had a Nobel prize for inventing the Internet. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-12-2007, 07:38 PM	#19 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	There is a wonderful lesson to be gathered from this thread in my opinion. Two men, who have put in quite a bit of effort to improve the world, and the lives of people they will never know, have been recognized for the attempts by a body intent on promoting and rewarding others for helping the world population at large. For some reason they are attacked by a certain political leaning mindset in an obvious attempt to diminish what they accomplished due to some form of hatred of what they stand for politically. I find it fascinating that the extreme good these men have done, is tossed aside to focus on weaknesses we all share to an extent. While the people who represent the politics the dissenters stand for, would never even be considered for such recognition in the first place. Even after they get pardoned. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-12-2007, 07:43 PM	#20 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Pickins must have been slim this year.... Al Gore on a par with Nelson Mandela or Bishop Tutu or MLK?...pffftt Granted, there are some on the winner's list that are less than stellar (Arafat, for ex), but...Al Gore? At least now he can afford to buy his own hybrid jet. Past winners: http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

10-12-2007, 07:50 PM	#21 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Don't forget we had Jimmy Carter in 2002 and god help us Kofi Annan in 2001. Its become a political statement, shame really. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-12-2007, 08:22 PM	#25 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Try reading my post one more time, very slowly if you need to. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

10-12-2007, 08:37 PM	#26 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Let's not forget this close call: Nobel nomination for Bush and Blair. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-12-2007, 09:22 PM	#28 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	host, just a little threadjack, but.... do you ever post anything short? Is it necessary to quote yourself? We get it, you vote Democrat. /end threadjack World Wildlife Fund has done more to save the planet in the last 25 years than Gore, but I don't see it anywhere on that list. Carter was and still is, a hippie in a suit. That's not to say he doesn't or hasn't done good things, but he had no business being president and won for ONE reason-Nixon's legacy. For years, the Nobel committees have waivered between political choices and nonpolitical humanitarian ones. There's no one person or group who wields the power of a Martin Luther King, Jr. or the idealism of a Nelson Mandela or Lech Walesa. Quite frankly, a 'Peace Prize' is a misnomer any more and very much so in this case. Who gets it next year? Toyota and Chevrolet for their hybrids? I don't knock Gore for his work-if someone believes strongly in something, they should forge ahead-I just don't feel that his accomplishments are worthy of something that portends to hold a great deal of "honor", nor do they have anything to do with peace.

10-12-2007, 09:23 PM	#29 (permalink)
cadre The Worst Influence Location: Arizona	Well, I had a couple discussions about this today. I'm not happy about it, but then I'm also not a big fan of Gore. I give him credit for supporting what he believes in, I just don't agree with the concepts. I am glad Bush didn't win but I think there were better options. But, it's all opinion, not fact, so it's all arbitrary I suppose. __________________ My life is one of those 'you had to be there' jokes.

10-13-2007, 07:57 AM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok so first, when i posted earlier wondering why the peace prize only goes to the prominent rather than going to people or organizations who work at a less visible level in the day-to-day grind of trying to make lives better, defuse conflict, alter socio-economic realities, i in no way wanted or expected that i'd find this position collapsed into the conservative american glibfest about al gore. i was making an entirely different point. had i waited to see how the thread would develop before posting, i would not have said it at all. secondly, i find the conservative responses to this award to be kind of astonishing. what we have is yet another sorry example of the effects of right-medias use of an orwellian-style group-hate technique to structure the beliefs of the few remaining faithful. what we have is a collapsing of the substantive questions onto short, punchy-but-empty memes about the person of al gore. what we have is a almost like a programmed response: the heros of independent thinking on the right say exactly what is expected at exactly the same moment given a trigger. and more bewildering still, somehow this near-pavolivan exercise is confused with an extension of a sustantive debate. well sports fans: it isnt. the award itself does not raise new problems--the gap that separates the private language of american conservative views of global warming from those of the rest of the planet have been evident in the debates about the kyoto protocols. even on this board, of late, the basis for this private language-based rejection of the notion of global warming has been reduced to a matter of claims to direct causation, from which appears to follow questions qas to whether it makes sense to act, as if the possibility that human agency is not the sole cause of the phenomenon means that there is no reason to do anything. that is ridiculous. it is high time that the americans reconsidered their transportation model, just as it is high time that china reconsidered its reliance on coal as a domestic heating source. ========= addendum: the arguments for reconsidering the us transportation model do not exclusively require gw as a motive--congestion in urban areas is also a strong argument--rethinking suburban-urban connections are another, moving to a more regional concept of space/community woudl make sense---addressing class disparities at the level fo transportation---a new-deal style infrastruicture development program--a trigger for new types of industrial development within the boundaries of the us---any of these (and there are more) could get you to the same place. ============== if making the case for these processes of rethinking requires that al gore's film be place at the center of the american debate, then fine. and the work of the un on this issue has been fundamental. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-13-2007 at 08:09 AM..