BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!

Subject: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:39 AM

"Prize Caps Year of Highs for Gore

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 12, 2007
For Al Gore, winning the Nobel Peace Prize today is the latest twist in a remarkable decade of soaring highs and painful lows. In the span of the last decade he went from being the vice president to being the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to winning the popular vote for president only to lose in the Electoral College — after an intervention by the Supreme Court made his 537-vote loss in Florida official."

This is a man to be proud of. Nobel Peace Prize AND Academy Award. Articulate, compassionate, thoughtful and competent.


Well done, Mister Gore. Congratulations. And thanks for showing the Right Stuff in spite of huge temptations not to. You make the Rovian Supremes look like ugly wizened gnomes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:43 AM

Gore, Bush, Gore, Bush: What to DO?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:47 AM

IRony of chilling porportions, Mr Peace! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:54 AM

numberusa.com gives Al Gore an A- on his stand on immigration. The only ones with better grades are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:13 AM

Heh! I was glad to see this.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:17 AM

What a shocking choice!   The surprises never cease.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:26 AM

I see nothing shocking to it; he made a major contribution in disseminating the facts of the case; and it should be emphasized, as well, that he shared the prize with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its efforts to alert the world to the threat of global warming. "The United Nations committee, a network of 2,000 scientists, 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. " (NYT story on the award). What is so surprising, John?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:29 AM

Good news. Slowly but surely people are beginning to figure out that they're fouling their air and need to think about how their choices impact the environment and from there make the choice to make less impact. It had to be come a popular culture cause because it wasn't going far with scientists and environmentalists speaking among themselves.

Now if the U.S. will adequately fund the rail system and local commuter rails and make rapid transit more widely available and affordable and make that second family car obsolete we'll have a good start.

I work in a large city that doesn't have a public transit system. They have the Ballpark (Texas Rangers), they have Six Flags Over Texas, and other very large tourist attractions, they are building a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys and have learned that they get the Superbowl for some game way out in the future. But they don't have the simplest bus or train system in place. There is a train that runs from Fort Worth to Dallas and passes nearby, but that is the extent of it. In a world that has allowed the continual purchase and destruction of entire neighborhoods so they can raze them and pave for more parking lots, you'd think someone would get the idea. Not so far. But maybe Al can get enough attention some of these city officials will finally catch on.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:54 AM

There is new talk of Al Gore running for the presidency. I'm of two minds.
One: I hope he does not. I like the role he is filling now.
Two: I think he is eminently electable.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:57 AM

The prize doesn't make him right...only politically correct.
One wonders why the award is the Peace medal, rather than the Science medal; could it be there is no, or little, science there?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:58 AM

"Earlier this week, a group of US Democrats placed a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging Mr Gore to jump into the race for the White House. In an open letter, they told him "your country needs you now, as do your party, and the planet you are fighting so hard to save"."

It would certainly give the USA something it sorely needs: A credible candidate. All the mud that can be flung HAS been flung. I hope he agrees to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 12:30 PM

could it be there is no, or little, science there

Well, John, the major thrust of his presentation is based on peer-reviewed statistical observations. His sources are provided.

So I would say, no.

If you feel there are substantive counter-hyptheses, with supporting data, there's at least one thread on which to raise the issue. In addition, it should be pointed out again that the network of scientists constituting the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not engaged in idle rhetorical displays. Yet their data seems to sorrespond well with Mister Gore's.   


The rationale for his being given the Peace prize is because (a) he is not himself a scientist and (b)the issues he makes widely known will become a central cause of the disruption of peace, unless they are addressed; in fact, the Committee pointed out, this is alreayd beginning to happen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 12:38 PM

It appears to me that you are selectively reading the literature, and watching a polemical film. Google articles regarding man-made global warming and you will find hundreds of articles of scientific dissent.
The so-called rationale of the committee is in itself an opinion, not a fact. Climate and weather over the millenia have been causes for migration and war...nothing new here.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Leadbelly
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 12:42 PM

Amos, indeed: the USA should proud of Al Gore. Well done, Al!!!

Manfred

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 01:53 PM

"scientific dissent" - well, that's one word for it.

You find all sorts on the Net. Here's a link to the Flat Earth Society.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:09 PM

Yes, indeed. A hearty BRAVO!!

Run for Pres? No way. He can do far more good with far less bullshit. And, he can afford to wait for a couple of more terms to return. He may be even more saleable in future. In the meantime, he can enjoy his family amongst other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:19 PM

Bravo, Mr. Gore! Bravo!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:31 PM

John on the Sunset Coast sez:

The prize doesn't make him right...only politically correct.

Google articles regarding man-made global warming and you will find hundreds of articles of scientific dissent.

Generally you don't go to Google for peer reviewed scientific articles. They are behind logon portals for member libraries and individual subscribers. Sometimes they're even printed on paper where Google can't reach them. Wikipedia doesn't count as a source of good science, even though some of the essays might be accurate for a few minutes at a time, before naysayers purge or adulterate them.

Park your Hummer, pull your weeds by hand instead of spraying with noxious chemicals, wash your clothes instead of dry cleaning, recycle, buy organic fruits and veggies, plant a tree, put in a few solar panels, and you, too, can help reduce greenhouse gases.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:57 PM

I think it's a tremendous irony that Gore, who was denied the U.S. presidency because of votes syphoned off by The Green Party, should win the Nobel Prize for espousing ideas central to The Green Party's platform.

He's expressed reluctance to enter the 2008 presidential race because he'd be going against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Perhaps instead of seeking the Democratic nomination he should run as The Green Party candidate. If he were to do so and win, the irony would truly have come full-circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 03:17 PM

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis--a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. 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.

"My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

"Thank you,"

Al Gore
[e-mail]

10/12/07

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: GLoux
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 03:38 PM

From http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?1247&soc

An Inaccurate Truth?

May 15, 2007

By: The Pennsylvania Gazette

Scientists have theorized about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century, and today we are closer than ever to understanding the complex processes that sustain life on Earth. But the science of climate change is as complex as the politics are contentious. In recent years a sharp increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), a primary greenhouse gas, has aligned with rising global temperatures. This trend was explored in Al Gore's provocative documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which illustrated the potentially grave consequences with computer-rendered doomsday scenarios.

Professor Robert Giegengack of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science, has a substantially different view on climate change. "I'm not telling anybody to not worry," he explains. "I'm just unhappy about the way Gore presented it." By using a minuscule timeframe and appealing to fear, Giegengack argues, Gore produced an inaccurate report, "a political statement [that] has to go head-to-head with what comes out of Washington or the American Petroleum Institute." Giegengack contends that natural warming periods in our planet's past have triggered the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from ocean- and land-based reservoirs, and that the most significant consequence of human fossil-fuel consumption is that we have altered that balance by pouring CO2 into the atmosphere and those terrestrial reservoirs simultaneously. Since that relationship has been disturbed, he says, even a drastic reduction in CO2 pollution may not restore the natural dynamic. The Gazette's Carter Johns recently spoke to Giegengack about Gore's film, climate-change science, and the environmental problems that really scare him.

What is your assessment of the threat global warming poses to the environment?

There are plenty of environmental problems out there; most of them are the consequence of a lot of people using a lot of energy. Global warming is a symptom of that fundamental problem. It's one of many symptoms; it's not the most severe. In terms of its capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10.

What problem do you have with Gore's film?

The advocates of change are now appealing to fear as brazenly as the proponents of business-as-usual. [The latter] tell us we can't afford to cut back on our carbon emissions because it would destroy the economy. The other side says the world is going to hell and the polar bears are drowning. Both are extreme positions. Scientists have gotten tied up in this political argument because they were frustrated that the politicians weren't paying attention to what they said. In order to make the message more apparent to the public, they're exaggerating the risks. An Inconvenient Truth is a prime example.

What are some examples of these misleading statements?

He claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. Variations in planetary alignment are most likely responsible … When gravitation from other planets' orbits causes the Earth to move closer to or further from the sun, temperatures increase or decrease. When we find that CO2 levels follow that directly, it's hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2.

How does that work?

Certain "feedback loops" naturally control the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A warmer temperature drives gases out of solution in the ocean and releases them. Microorganisms in soil become more active; they chew up leaves and emit CO2. Permafrost melts near the poles and trapped methane escapes and flows into the atmosphere ... [Today, humans] are putting 6.5 billion tons of fossil-fuel carbon into the atmosphere, and only 3.5 billion is staying there, so 3 billion tons is going somewhere else. In the past, when the Earth's climate rose, CO2 came out of the ocean, the soils, and the permafrost. Today as temperatures rise, excess CO2 is instead going into those and other reservoirs. This reversed flux is very important. Because of this, if we reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the atmosphere, it won't reduce the concentration in the atmosphere; CO2 is just going to come back out of these reservoirs ... If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations.

Doesn't he appeal to scientific opinion, though, in saying human carbon emissions are responsible for warming?

Gore mentions 928 recent articles, saying they all agree that warming is human-caused. However, the majority of them are reports such as [that] ice is receding. If I wrote an article about the rate of retreat of the permafrost and added, "By the way, this is caused by humans," an editor would cut it out. When you write a scientific article, you don't politicize. You just present the data. What he found in those articles is that nobody said warming isn't the result of human activity. No one's going to say that either. They are dispassionate scientific observations of what's going on in the world.

What are some other misrepresentations or exaggerations that Gore makes?

He shows simulations of coastal lands flooding that would require a six-meter sea level rise. At [a standard rate of] two millimeters per year, that will take over 3,000 years. He didn't say that. He shows pictures of drowning polar bears, but he doesn't address the question of what the polar bears did in the last non-glacial period. Polar bears have been around through many of those cycles. Today as the ice melts, they have no place to go because we have compromised their habitats.

Why does Gore use "Since 1970…" as a frame for most of his arguments?

There was a global cooling episode that started in 1941, and lasted until about 1976; some people would say that the coldest time was about 1970, at which time it turned around and started to warm again. So for him it's useful to put the time between 1970 and 2005 because you don't have to worry about the fact that between 1945 and 1975 there was cooling. The best way to document the most drastic changes is to look only at those 35 years.

What has been the evolution of the politicization of environmental issues?

When I first learned about global warming in 1957, it wasn't given a lot of political attention. In 1976 people were talking about it, but politicians didn't pay any attention until about 1988. The Missouri River got so low that barges were stranded and trade traffic, which was a big part of the heartland economy, slowed considerably. There were huge fires at Yellowstone. As a consequence, politicians started to notice. They jumped on the bandwagon because there were political ends to be gained by laying the blame somewhere and being an environmental hero. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established at the same time. The IPCC, UNESCO, and the National Science Foundation have spent a lot of money supporting climatic research. The issue has acquired the attention it didn't have before 1988, and it deserves more attention. But if you're one of the people whose future as a scientist depends on continued funding from one of these agencies, you're not going to say "My findings are uncertain," or "It's going on but I don't think humans are at risk." Data that represents the largest threat to human welfare and security is more likely to attract funding than a carefully worded scientific assessment. So I think that is a major factor: people pursuing what is in vogue.

What response have you gotten about your thoughts on the film?

People appreciated that I was drawing attention to the weaknesses in the film. Al Gore missed out on a really terrific opportunity with his name recognition, his access to these resources, and his pretty good understanding of climate processes. He could have put together a film that would have presented this problem in a rational context, and that would have been an enormous contribution. But he has abandoned the credibility of the scientific establishment. He missed the point in studying the cycles from prior periods, and he missed the point that it is the temperature that controls the CO2. Now, we have probably changed that because of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and we know or suspect that because we know we have reversed the flux. That's probably the most significant finding: that we changed the way those systems operate.

So it's not that Gore is wrong, but that he portrayed the "crisis" inaccurately?

He focused on fear. CO2 may make this change, but we'd like to be sure of that. And even if it does, he didn't offer any solution, and neither has anybody else. He ignored the real threat, which is India and China, and he ignored other more immediate environmental problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 04:34 PM

Bull.

You will find he addresses data much further back than 1970 if you bother listening to his actual presentation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:01 PM

You know, I really don't give a rat's ass whether or not 'global warming' is caused by humans or nature or some weird combination of both. The fact is that climate IS changing and the poles are melting more than usual. Let's suppose Gore and the group are wrong. What harm will have been done by their attempts to clean up pollution going into Earth's atmosphere? Now, consider the converse/reverse, and stop being so damned dense. You may be going to live for a few more years and hey, it's not your problem anymore. Hell, I have that many to go myself. BUT, I have kids, and they deserve a life.

Kersiste, some people can be so fuckin' selfish.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:01 PM

The sixe of the font has nothing to do with the accuracy of the article.

I just thought I'd mention that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:06 PM

". . . size. . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:09 PM

"..the real threat, which is India and China..." - but he missed out the next bit which should have been "if they copy the example set by the United States and Europe".

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 07:36 PM

He focused on fear. CO2 may make this change, but we'd like to be sure of that. And even if it does, he didn't offer any solution, and neither has anybody else. He ignored the real threat, which is India and China, and he ignored other more immediate environmental problems.

What this navel-gazing professor doesn't get, and what so many of the environmental philosophers I know don't seem to get is that if you can't get the attention of the average American and put it in terms they understand, you're just talking among yourselves and preaching to the choir.

That professor can continue to discuss it in the terms he wants, but in case he hasn't noticed, the attention span of the average American in their SUV with their cell phone up to their ear is pretty damned short. And thanks to the dumbing down of the American schools over the years and the inward versus outward looking nature of the American and his role in the world, he isn't going to notice India and China. Yes, they need to not get as bad as they can get, and they need to improve, but we need to improve now and we are bad now. So stop passing the buck to others and get to work here.

The "real threat" is here and it is us. Along with everyone else. (I wonder if this is a professor in an endowed chair--who paid for that position?)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

Well, the first thing I thought of tonight when I heard this on the news is just how differently the fortunes of the two principles in Bush v. Gore have gone...


Though he would never admit it, I'm sure that Bush would galdly trade places with Gore if he could...

Good job, Al, and keep on truckin' but...

...forget about being president 'cause it clearly would be a demotion...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John O'L
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:07 PM

Once again Peace has pipped me at the post. I too have heard enough of pedants insisting that global warming is a natural process, and should therefore be allowed to progress in its natural way until life on earth is extinguished.

Maybe this is an opportunity for us to show just how clever we have become.
So global warming is natural. So is are club feet, which are routinely treated and cured.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: astro
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 03:53 AM

It seems that stubbornness takes the place of common sense. Let's say for argument sake that global warming is a completely natural event, which the majority of the scientific community dissents with (speaking as one from that community), it still is true that most of the world views it as not.

Thus, governments are legislating the use of environmentally friendly materials, systems, and policy. It would be very bad policy on our part not to take part in this new economy.

Besides, what do we end up with: less environmental pollution, efficient energy systems thus leading to less dependence, and a show of prudence that would help our children and the world that they will inherit. Or, we can stupidly burn the resources that we are currently using regardless of the consequences. Only to win an argument.

Which is wiser? My bet and vote would be with Mr. Gore. Certainly not with those who are only concerned with that bet.

And besides, what if you are wrong and the effects of global warming are related to human interactions with the environment? It's time to be prudent and wise. Time to stop wanting to win just an argument and think better about the economies involved. Our children and their children's lives depend upon our wise decisions now.

Astro

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 09:25 AM

Giegengack is a very,very smart guy (and excellent sense of humor). He does not deny global warming, and does not deny a human contribution. His main, oft-repeated, point is that in the list of threats facing the human race, global warming is there, but probably does not make the top 10. Now *that* is a statement that ought to strike fear.

-change of subject-

When we first heard that Gore had won, the person I was travelling with said "watch: now that Gore has won this award, the right wing propaganda machine will turn and attack the Nobel Prize itself..."

I think we are seeing just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:12 AM

"watch: now that Gore has won this award, the right wing propaganda machine will turn and attack the Nobel Prize itself..."

That's not a prediction. (Though the right wing has no more of a "propaganda machine" than does the left) It has never been lost on those from a more conservative point of view that the FIRST prerequisite to winning a Nobel Peace Prize is that one MUST be from the left. Just try to find an exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: curmudgeon
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:15 AM

Theodore Roosevelt?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:22 AM

Au contraire; I think the prerequisite you are thinking of is a disposition towards humanity, which is of course something that makes you more liberal than not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:26 AM

Oh yeah, that's gotta be right, Amos. Conservatives wish to slaughter, Liberals love humanity.

Life never gets too confusing for you, does it? :^)

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:56 AM

Look around you, J.H.

Amos is closer to the truth than you are. It ain't liberals or democrats doing the slaughtering, it's concervative, corporate, republicans.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 11:18 AM

That's great. I'm sure Amos appreciates the support.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: curmudgeon
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 11:19 AM

No comment on TR, John?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 11:36 AM

"No comment on TR, John?"

Well, I think that though many make the obvious connection with Clarence White -- and surely without White he might never have headed the direction he did, without a doubt, Tony Rice is one of the most inventive, tasteful flatpickers to every put his arms around a D-28. There may only be three other guitarists in history who have even come close to inspiring more people to pick up acoustic guitar: Doc Watson, Norman Blake, and in good CYA fashion, one guitarist to be named later.

In my collection I have nearly everything the man has ever recorded. He is a guitar god.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 11:45 AM

John, I'll take that as "I don't understand, and it looks like I might have been wrong, so I'll just say something stupid."

Not that many Americans have won the prize period. If conservatives have done something to further the cause of peace, this would be a perfect opportunity to tell us about them. I'm guessing it's easier to find ones who are on someone else's bandwagon and/or much more fond of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 11:52 AM

"I'll just say something stupid."

Or, how about, "I'll say something in good humor so as to deflect needlessly escalating anger and vitriol and perhaps divert the thread in a more friendly direction."?

No, wait, I'm sure your interpretation is the more accurate one. It has to be. It couldn't possibly be that I'm just kidding around. That would be rare coming from me. Rare, indeed.

Thanks.

Okay, I'll ask. What's "TR"?

(Besides, I might point out that my comment on Tony Rice was not stupid. It is actually a brilliant and concise profile of the man.)

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 12:06 PM

Curmudgeon's last post was, "Theodore Roosevelt?"

"I'll say something in good humor so as to deflect needlessly escalating anger and vitriol and perhaps divert the thread in a more friendly direction?"

Sorry - that's not something I expected from you. It look more like sarcasm. (Would that be a 'sarchasm'?)

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 01:29 PM

It may be, John, that you are using the early 2000s definition of liberal; unfortunately that is a corrupt definition. The characteristics of liberalism traditionally are an interest in the betterment of humanity, a tolerance for individual differences and multicultural understandings, and a resistance to despots, fascists, dictatorial impulses of various sorts, and a regard for the well being of all strata of society, not just the high end, economically.

The neoconservative movement, which is speckled with some really nasty and unthinking rhetoric, decided to re-frame the word to imply weak-minded, spineless, bleeding-heart socialists and poor-mouth sympathy cases, none of which has anything t do with the actual meaning of the word.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 02:21 PM

Wow, just look at all the liberals in this list of previous Nobel Peace Prize winners:

    * 2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
    * 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
    * 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
    * 2004 - Wangari Maathai
    * 2003 - Shirin Ebadi
    * 2002 - Jimmy Carter
    * 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
    * 2000 - Kim Dae-jung
    * 1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
    * 1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
    * 1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
    * 1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
    * 1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
    * 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
    * 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
    * 1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
    * 1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
    * 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
    * 1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
    * 1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
    * 1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
    * 1986 - Elie Wiesel
    * 1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
    * 1984 - Desmond Tutu
    * 1983 - Lech Walesa
    * 1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
    * 1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    * 1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
    * 1979 - Mother Teresa
    * 1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
    * 1977 - Amnesty International
    * 1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
    * 1975 - Andrei Sakharov
    * 1974 - Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato
    * 1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
    * 1972 - The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
    * 1971 - Willy Brandt
    * 1970 - Norman Borlaug
    * 1969 - International Labour Organization
    * 1968 - René Cassin
    * 1967 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1966 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1965 - United Nations Children's Fund
    * 1964 - Martin Luther King
    * 1963 - International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
    * 1962 - Linus Pauling
    * 1961 - Dag Hammarskjöld
    * 1960 - Albert Lutuli
    * 1959 - Philip Noel-Baker
    * 1958 - Georges Pire
    * 1957 - Lester Bowles Pearson
    * 1956 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1955 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1954 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    * 1953 - George C. Marshall
    * 1952 - Albert Schweitzer
    * 1951 - Léon Jouhaux
    * 1950 - Ralph Bunche
    * 1949 - Lord Boyd Orr
    * 1948 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1947 - Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee
    * 1946 - Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott
    * 1945 - Cordell Hull
    * 1944 - International Committee of the Red Cross
    * 1943 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1942 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1941 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1940 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1939 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1938 - Nansen International Office for Refugees
    * 1937 - Robert Cecil
    * 1936 - Carlos Saavedra Lamas
    * 1935 - Carl von Ossietzky
    * 1934 - Arthur Henderson
    * 1933 - Sir Norman Angell
    * 1932 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1931 - Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler
    * 1930 - Nathan Söderblom
    * 1929 - Frank B. Kellogg
    * 1928 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1927 - Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde
    * 1926 - Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann
    * 1925 - Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes
    * 1924 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1923 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1922 - Fridtjof Nansen
    * 1921 - Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange
    * 1920 - Léon Bourgeois
    * 1919 - Woodrow Wilson
    * 1918 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1917 - International Committee of the Red Cross
    * 1916 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1915 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1914 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
    * 1913 - Henri La Fontaine
    * 1912 - Elihu Root
    * 1911 - Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried
    * 1910 - Permanent International Peace Bureau
    * 1909 - Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d'Estournelles de Constant
    * 1908 - Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
    * 1907 - Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault
    * 1906 - Theodore Roosevelt
    * 1905 - Bertha von Suttner
    * 1904 - Institute of International Law
    * 1903 - Randal Cremer
    * 1902 - Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat
    * 1901 - Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 02:37 PM

"It has never been lost on those from a more conservative point of view that the FIRST prerequisite to winning a Nobel Peace Prize is that one MUST be from the left. Just try to find an exception."

Biting one's tongue after the fact is painful. Thanks for posting the list, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 02:52 PM

Why? Who on that list is conservative?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 02:55 PM

ugly wizened gnomes

Watch it, bub! Some of my best friends are ugly wizened gnomes, and they're gonna get you for dissing them.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 05:12 PM

"Henry Kissinger" indeed... That was when Tom Lehrer announced that satire was dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 05:48 PM

Kissinger. Arafat. Gore. ...the company you keep.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: astro
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 08:39 PM

I think that all of this is besides the point, is global warming real or not. It's obvious something is warming sufficiently to cause the meltoff that we see.

So is it human caused or not. Perhaps. If so, isn't it sufficient to cause us to take action? It is. If not, the rest of the world will invest into the green revolution. Is it wise to take part in that? Yes, even to those who are only profit motivated.

So what do we do? We lead. We invest. With that, both sides will be happy, the liberal and the conservative. The better good and the better profits will both occur. Makes all happy.

I'm tired of the discussion of who is the most right. It can get in the way of doing what is right. Worse, it can make us do the wrong thing just so we won't agree with the other side. It's time to get pass this red-blue thing and do what is wise.

Astro in Tucson...

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 02:53 AM

Brian Williams, the NBC news chair, gave this bit of history on http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/:

"The FIRST American to win the Nobel Peace Prize was a sitting president: Theodore Roosevelt, in 1906. And here's where it gets interesting: Roosevelt's Secretary of State was a man named Elihu Root, who went on to get elected to a Senate seat as a Republican from New York. Root won the Nobel in 1912.
"He ran for president in 1916, but he lost the Republican nomination to Charles Evans Hughes, who in turn lost the general election to Woodrow Wilson. President Wilson, a Democrat, won the Nobel in 1919. Wilson's successor was Warren G. Harding, who died in office, elevating Vice President Calvin Coolidge."

"When Coolidge was elected president in his own right in 1924, his vice president was Charles G. Dawes, who like Coolidge was a Republican. Dawes won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925.

"Coolidge's Secretary of State was a man named Frank B. Kellogg, a former Republican Senator from Minnesota. And yes, he too won a Nobel -- in 1929.

"Cordell Hull won the prize in 1945; another Secretary of State (for 11 years under FDR) who was also a former Senator (a Democrat, from Tennessee). But he was the last American Nobel laureate who was also a politician -- someone who had at some point held elective office -- until 2002, when the Nobel Peace Prize went to former President Jimmy Carter. Now it's Al Gore's turn."

Flamin' bleedin' heart liberal leftists, one and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 03:21 AM

What did Teddy Roosevelt win the Nobel Prize for?

And who would describe him as a "liberal"? He seems to me to have been a very effective man and politician, but I should think that Republicans would like him, because he had all the "tough guy" and military credentials, after all. (?) So, John Hardly, does Teddy Roosevelt merit being listed among all these leftist-leaning liberals you are so concerned about? ;-) And what about the various Israeli leaders who've won it? And what about dear old Henry Kissinger? (He and Le Duc Tho won the Nobel mutually in '73 for having reached an agreement in Paris to officially end the American-North Vietnamese conflict in Vietnam). Kissinger is one of the biggest and most reliable hatchetmen that the neo-conservative movement has ever had in its lineup of heavy hitters. I believe they consider him quite indispensible. If there is any really dark and high level stuff going on, Mr Kissinger always has his finger on the pulse of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 02:42 PM

Hell, I imagine all your best friends are. But they're welcome to get me if they can. If they are of the Rovian ilk, I will use them for practicing my extra-points kicking.

He was wizened, short and bald,
And his attitude was bestial,
A nice gnome, a decent gnome,
But one of the Rovian kind...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 02:44 PM

Amos, that was singularly horrible! (You need to write the rest of it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 03:43 PM

I'm startin' to worry about that boy . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM

Flamin' bleedin' heart liberal leftists, one and all.

Wasn't that intended by Ebbie as irony, Little Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 06:03 PM

Yes, it clearly was, McGrath, but why are you asking me?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 06:36 PM

Because I missed the meta-ironic aspect of your affecting not to recognise the ironic nature of Ebbie's post...
.......................

This years Ig Nobel Peace Prize evidently was awarded to

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 06:43 PM

Oh, I see...

Well, it wasn't Ebbie I was responding to. It was John Hardly. He was bitching awhile back about how the Nobel Peace Prize only goes to liberals and darlings of the Left. Like Ebbie, I was responding to his view on that. I was in agreement with Ebbie's viewpoint, and adding further to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 06:46 PM

"how the Nobel Peace Prize only goes to liberals and darlings of the Left"

Interesting thought if there is truth to it. It prompts the question, "Why?" Is there a connection between 'leftishness' and creative thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

There may indeed be...but if so, I don't think that's an aspect that John Hardly would be very inclined to agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 07:37 PM

lol Could be.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 08:56 PM

"A liberal morality will encourage much greater creativity but will weaken social structure and deplete social capital," he said. "I am really glad we have New York and San Francisco — most of our creativity comes out of cities like these. But a nation that was just New York and San Francisco could not survive very long. Conservatives give more to charity and tend to be more supportive of essential institutions like the military and law enforcement."

From an article entitled Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? wherein the author Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia, posits that to a large extent our sense of morality has an evolutionary source rather than a religious or philosophical one. His research has found that liberals tended to attach greater weight to moral systems protective of individuals whereas conservatives favoured moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity.

A link takes you to the Moral Foundations Questionnaire which tells you where you fall on the liberal-conservative spectrum.

My scores of

Harm 4.9
Fairness 3.8
Loyalty 1.9
Authority 2.4
Purity 1.4

place me slightly more liberal than the average liberal, which I would agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 09:00 PM

I like John Hardly. His views differ from mine but he's a nice guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 10:15 PM

Oh, I know, Peace. He is, however, also a good man to tweak. One of these times I expect to hear a hearty guffaw from him. But evidently not yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 10:57 PM

"Is there a connection between 'leftishness' and creative thought?"


                Yes, definately. People who are addicted to ancient superstitions, and think they already know all the answers have no reason to look for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 12:20 AM

Question, Rig: So which side is the superstitious side? I suspect there is no definitive answer, because those who call all intangible, nebulous thought superstitution, those who dislike or are uncomfortable with ambiguity and mystery and relegate all such like to the dust bin will never be able to pigeonhole those of us who are of enquiring mind and spirit, who may not know much but are keenly aware of the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 06:14 AM

What on earth has "addicted to ancient superstitions" (or whatever the equivalent value-loaded expression would be for the reverse attitude) got to do with left or right in politics?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 06:50 AM

Congratulations to Al Gore! I think the list posted by Jeri should put to rest any charges that the Nobel prize committee has only awarded liberal to left persons, but...

I don't agree with the counter implication that conservatives haven't made much of a contribution to world peace. As a liberal Democrat, it's not every day I come to the defense of conservatives, but, how about Herbert Hoover's post-presidential life, and to risk heresy :-), let's remind ourselves that Ronald Reagan, late in his second term, had wanted to begin the process of reversing the arms race and abolish all nuclear weapons. Yes, I know, Iran-contra and the rest of it, but he was very bold in his vision of a nuclear weapons-free world.

One organization that deserves the prize, and will hopefully receive it at some point, is Rotary International. They have done tremendous work in world health, understanding, and peace. They are made up of people of varying political outlook. They all share a commitment to "service above self." Their worldwide efforts at polio immunization has been, and is, a shining example of their work.

Chanteyranger

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 08:06 AM

Probably the most impressive thing about Al Gore is, he is one of the few notable environmentalists with political connections who is willing to recognize in publice that "human migration" around the globe, and "immigration" into North America constitute a threat to the world's environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 09:03 AM

Jonathan Haidt is quite correct that a healthy society benefits by having about equal input from both the liberal and the conservative forms of thinking, because they complement each other perfectly. One is strong in all the areas where the other is weak, and vice versa. The liberal mentality is actually the "mothering" force in a society, whereas the conservative mentality is the "fathering" force. Each one is required, and an effective marriage of the two produces the best society.

Take the case of prewar Japan, where you had an intensely conservative, rigid, authoritative society...pretty much totally under the stern "father" mentality. They idolized patriotism, discipline, honor, sacrifice for the group identity, rules, duty, militarism, and extreme authority at every level. That's almost exclusively the energy of the father principle, with the mother not even making an appearance. It led them to utter disaster, because it was too extreme and too one-sided.

I think in prewar France, on the other hand, you had a strikingly liberal society...one which unconsciously, subliminally was manifesting primary the "mother" principle so typical in liberalism....flexibility, individuality, many shades of gray, subtlety, a multiplicity of opinions and views rather than a single doctrine....and that is an approach which also becomes fatally flawed when it is too dominant. It set the French up for defeat and collapse in 1940.

You see, if all the people in a boat move to one side of the boat and perch there on the rail, it's quite likely to tip over in rough waters!

Thus a society is healthiest when its liberal and conservative forces are engaged in approximately equal measure. When they can unite in common purpose, then that society is at its absolute peak of capability.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 09:57 AM

liberal mentality is actually the "mothering" force in a society, whereas the conservative mentality is the "fathering" force.

While I appreciate how neatly this assertion fits with cosmic dualistic models of Yin and Yang, yoni and lingam, and black and white, and therefore appears intellectually kinda trig, I have to add my opinion: this is complete codswallop, LH! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 10:37 AM

Here I was thinkin' that LIttle Hawk's thesis was making sense. Expand, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: bobad
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 01:28 PM

LH, why don't you do the questionnaire at my link, not only will you be advancing scientific knowledge but I think it would be interesting to see your outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 03:12 PM

/Expand On

Little Hawk's dichotomistic model, attributing parental archetypes to political persuasions, is sort of poetic and seems harmonious with some mythological constructs, but it has little bearing on the real factors which define these tendencies in people. There are plenty of mothers who are spiteful, who pinch pennies, and who tend to be fiscally cautious; and there are plenty of fathers who are compassionate, generous, communistic or downright wastrels economically.

Liberalism in the traditional sense draws it values from a sensibility that in the stormy seas of economic life, the overall progress of the race and the society can be improved by setting and adhering to certain minimal standards of tolerance, respect and support for others in the social frame as a basic principle. Competition and games of conquest are, in the liberal philosophy, constrained by this fundamental standard, and the structure of the law is intended to safeguard those courtesies by, for example, assuring the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom not to be bludgeoned by goons or heavy-handed agents sent by your competitors. This reduces the use and value of violence and raises the use and value of dialogue, good PR, competent rhetoric, and presumably thereby makes a better exchange between the minds at work in a given social arena.

It may be that these values are more feminine than they are masculine, in some vague sense. But they were orignally articulated in our heritage by folks of a testosterone persuasion, and they have repeatedly had to be defended against other folkls whose emotional lives have led them astray into the dark wings of fear or of hatred, and who then choose to act out those dreary tides in their thinking and acting, instead of climbing back out into the realm of reason.

So I see no reason to map conservatism and liberalism (in their traditional senses) to parental archetypes, which strikes me as a sort of Freudian effort, and one which does not open the door to any deeper understanding of the real dynamics of those persuasions.

/Expand off

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 03:25 PM

Darn. I agree with you, Amos.

(I am a prime example of someone needing amplification. A good many of the thoughts and actions of the American people - perhaps the human race? - afflict me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 05:43 PM

There's another way of looking at all this in which the essential thing from the "liberal" point of view is defending individual choice as the fundamental value, rather than seeing the essential thing as being ready to collaborate with other people for the common good.

See this thread

Of course this draws the battle lines in a rather different way, and people might find themselves with some rather unexpected allies and enemies. The point is, the assumption that people's views can be lined up in a simple left/right spectrum just doesn't reflect what's really going on. And trying to fit views about environmental into that simplistic spectrum is a bit laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 05:55 PM

I agree with both Amos and Little Hawk. I can do so because, being the creative type, I can see past their war of semantics, and see both the pragmatics and reality of what each is saying. That, and I just love the group hug notion of it all.

I disagree with LH when he says, "When they can unite in common purpose, then that society is at its absolute peak of capability.".

I think that the strength of having both sides is in good hard debate over issues that cannot be judged with 100% certainty. For instance:

...not only do the victors get to write history -- clouding the lessons we might have learned from objectivity...

...but each decision that is taken forever changes the ability to have ever properly, objectively judged the outcome, had the opposite side had its way.

So getting along and advancing government in the name of compromise -- uniting in common purpose -- is not in our best interest...

...but acknowledging that applications provided by the intellect of each side SEEMS to have its time and place. Sometimes government can do a task better than the private sector can. Sometimes the government is too weildy, cumbersome or even oppressive....

...and, of course, sometimes the big government we build for the purposes we agree with -- we think proper, acquires with that growth, the power to oppress us when it becomes the government of the opposite party.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 05:57 PM

I agree with both Amos and Little Hawk. I can do so because, being the creative type, I can see past their war of semantics, and see both the pragmatics and reality of what each is saying. That, and I just love the group hug notion of it all.

I disagree with LH when he says, "When they can unite in common purpose, then that society is at its absolute peak of capability.".

I think that the strength of having both sides is in good hard debate over issues that cannot be judged with 100% certainty. For instance:

...not only do the victors get to write history -- clouding the lessons we might have learned from objectivity...

...but each decision that is taken forever changes the ability to have ever properly, objectively judged the outcome, had the opposite side had its way.

So getting along and advancing government in the name of compromise -- uniting in common purpose -- is not in our best interest...

...but acknowledging that applications provided by the intellect of each side SEEMS to have its time and place. Sometimes government can do a task better than the private sector can. Sometimes the government is too weildy, cumbersome or even oppressive....

...and, of course, sometimes the big government we build for the purposes we agree with -- we think proper -- acquires with that growth, the power to oppress us when it becomes the government of the opposite party.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Fortunato
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

I like Al. I'm very glad he won.

the professor at Upenn quoted above made the telling comment: "when I first learned of global warming in 1957..."

This is the statement of an academic who has been bypassed and overlooked. "I knew it first, and he's getting all the credit", sour grapes in the face of the degradation of the planet. These nay-saying loonies would argue flyspecks while the planet burned.

chance

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 07:43 PM

Amos, if women were the exclusive bearers of the "mothering" principle that I speak of and if men were the exclusive bearers of the "fathering" principle that I speak of, then I would have to agree with your objections to my theory.

However, the two principles are powerfully at work in every individual, regardless of his or her gender, and they should best be equally at work in each individual for optimum result. Gender has little to do with it, ultimately. A female can choose to work primarily with the male archetypes, and some do. A man can choose to work primarily through the female archetypes, and some do. That doesn't mean you'll notice it by the clothes they wear. ;-) That doesn't mean they themselves will even have any notion they are doing it!

Souls do not have any gender, in my opinion. They encompass both principles (male and female) and they go totally beyond gender...but bodies do have gender. Bodies are temporary. Souls are eternal. The fact that you're a man right now, Amos, is temporary! The fact that I'm a man right now is temporary. Heh! (And I don't expect ANYONE out there to necessarily believe a word I just said in this paragraph...fine with me if you don't...but that's what I tend to believe. Why do I believe it? Who cares, really? Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter if you and I believe in some different stuff.)

I'm not talking about the obvious behavioral and cultural stuff that's visible on the outer surface of people, I'm not talking about their biological gender or what arises directly out of it! I'm talking about the underlying spiritual attitudes that govern their overall psychology. Is a person more passive or more aggressive? Are they more inclined to negotiate peacefully or to confront, demand, and attack when things aren't as they would like? Are they rigid or flexible? Are they straightforward or circumspect in their dealings with others? Are they shy or bold? These are NOT questions of gender at all, they are questions of individual attitude.

And what about a society? How does the society behave in those regards?

Now in the USA you have a society that has been besotted with the "tough guy" approach to domestic and international situations for a long, long time....and in my opinion that is a society that is primarily working through the masculine archetypes. It is outwardly expansive...the masculine force. Some societies tend to draw in, protectively toward the center. That's the feminine force. Either force is quite useful, as long as it stays in balance with its opposite...either is quite destructive if it becomes dominant to the detriment or exclusion of the opposite. Any society is an interplay of the two, but are they working together (as in a good marriage) or are they at odds (as in a not so good marriage).

It is possible to harmonize the two sides. But that requires mutual respect. It even requires love!

When will the conservatives and liberals in America learn mutual respect for one another? When do you think? Does anything in your national public dialogue or the dialogue on this forum encourage them to?

Someone has to start first... ;-) (And I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting for it to happen.)

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: TIA
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 12:56 PM

Kissinger is a lefty?
I have got to pay better attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 01:46 PM

Irony deficiency sydrome...

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:42 AM

Ya want irony? From the Borowitz Report, a humor column:

Supreme Court Gives Gore's Nobel to Bush

Stunning Reversal for Former Veep

Friday, October 12: Just hours after former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming, the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Nobel and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.

For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of the Nobel committee and the world, the high court's decision to give his prize to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least.

But in a 5-4 decision, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Nobel because President Bush deserved it more.

"It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. "But President Bush has actually helped create global warming."

Even as Mr. Gore was being stripped of his Nobel, he received strong words of support from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said that the former vice president's Nobel win "shows that he is devoting his life to the right thing and should definitely stay the course."

In an interview with reporters in Iowa, Sen. Clinton said that "Al Gore should remain dedicated to the cause of global climate change, at least through November of 2008."

Sen. Clinton suggested that Mr. Gore could further research the source of global warming by immediately boarding a rocket ship to the sun.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:43 AM

I wonder if Harriet Miers had been on the court, if she could have saved the prize for Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 11:34 AM

Dec 10, 8:23 PM EST


Gore Accepts Nobel Peace Prize

By DOUG MELLGREN
Associated Press Writer

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Saying it's "time to make peace with the planet," Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on Monday with a call for humanity to rise up against a looming climate crisis and stop waging war on the environment.

The United States and China - the world's leading emitters of greenhouse gases - will stand accountable before history if they don't take the lead in that global challenge, the former vice president said.

"Without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the Earth itself," Gore said in his acceptance speech. "Now, we and the Earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: 'Mutually assured destruction.' It is time to make peace with the planet."

Gore was awarded the prize for sounding the alarm over global warming and spreading awareness on how to counteract it. His co-winner, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was represented by the panel's leader, Rajendra Pachauri.

They received their Nobel gold medals and diplomas at a gala ceremony at Oslo's city hall, while the Nobel prizes for medicine, chemistry, physics, literature and economics were presented in a separate ceremony in Stockholm, Sweden.

Gore urged government officials at a U.N. climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, to prepare the ground for quick negotiations on an emissions-limitation treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Gore and Pachauri will leave for the U.N. meeting Wednesday. "I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty," Gore said.

In a speech that quoted Churchill, Gandhi and the Bible, Gore said the world's biggest producers of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases - the United States and China - must stop blaming each other for the stalemate over warming.

Instead, they should take the lead in solving a problem for which they bear a large responsibility, he said, or be "accountable before history for their failure to act."