1. pudge, "are they coming to take you away, haha?" as the old song used to say.

pudge, it is a good thing he won. It will expose the peace prize for what it is now- a sham to political correctness. Remember, Arafat won it.

Posted by: swatter on October 12, 2007 07:00 AM

2. The Pulitzer committee and the Nobel committee aren't
known for checking facts before handing out prizes.
Menchu, Marquez, Neruda and dozens of other leftist
propagandists are screened only for adhering to the
party line. To this day, the NYT likes to boast about
reporter Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer for
white-washing Stalin's brutal regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

In his New York Times articles (including one
published on March 31, 1933), Duranty repeatedly
denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932–33.
In a August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed "any
report of a famine is today an exaggeration or
malignant propaganda", but admitted privately to
William Strang (in the British Embassy in Moscow on
September 26, 1933) that "it is quite possible that as
many as ten million people may have died directly or
indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union
during the past year." [4]

American engineer Zara Witkin and UK intelligence have
shown that Duranty knowingly misrepresented this
well-documented event, known as the Holodomor in
Ukraine. Several organizations have called on the
Pulitzer Board to revoke his prize, but in 2003 the
Board issued a statement announcing its decision not
to revoke the prize, although it did state that "Mr.
Duranty's 1931 work, measured by today's standards for
foreign reporting, falls seriously short". Duranty was
also criticized for defending Stalin's notorious show
trials.

Posted by: JDH on October 12, 2007 08:05 AM

3. The Czech president is on record as questioning what Gore's award has to do with world peace.

Posted by: swatter on October 12, 2007 08:33 AM

4. swatter, excellent.

And yeah, Arafat won it, but at least that was an attempt (by the Nobel committee, not Arafat) to actually encourage actual peace. This is at best encouraging a completely hypothetical effect on peace, based on very questionable science.

Posted by: pudge on October 12, 2007 09:08 AM

5. When I read the headline, I had to check my calendar..."Nope, not April 1st. Dangit. Am I dreaming?" *pinch* "Nope. Crap. This can't be happening...can this PLEAAAAASSE not be real?"

I guess it is a "good" thing he won it (along with the UN panel for climate change) because as swatter said, it will expose the prize as "a sham to political correctness".

Posted by: Cydney on October 12, 2007 09:11 AM

6. The Nobel prize really IS a sham of political correctness and not much more. All you have to do is scream "I hate president Bush" and you win it.

Posted by: Misty on October 12, 2007 09:12 AM

7. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize makes you radioactive with real peace and freedom loving citizens of the world. Al Gore is not at all interested in anything peaceful. His methods are to use Progressivism and Collectivism and many other statist concepts that use government force to control men instead of allowing them the freedom of commerce, which always does a much better job of solving problems.

Al Gore's policies will lead to more war, not more peace. If you take a third world country, that desperately needs ideas, technology and democracy and saddle it with statist decrees that limit its ability to grow and innovate based on hypothetical 500 year fear models of global warming, then you leave its people with only force as a means to provide for themselves, and they will resort to violence.

Al Gore is an evil man. And he stands for everything but peace. Peace and honor are reserved for those who deal with their fellow man only by trying to persuade them rationally and through commerce, and not by emotion or government force.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 12, 2007 11:32 AM

8. "Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize"

BUT...

"Producers of Gore's Film Asked to Return Oscars"

Seriously INCONVENIENT!, but oh so delicious!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 02:04 PM

9. Ragnar, GREAT update on this story.

Posted by: Michele on October 12, 2007 02:39 PM

10. There's no WAY the Academy would rescind that award. If they did, they would have to go after Michael Moore too, and who knows how many others.

I think Gore got the award for Peace because obviously his work has nothing to do with the Science category, and they don't have a Science Fiction award ;)

Posted by: Palouse on October 12, 2007 03:19 PM

11. Al Gore should stick to Science Fiction. He will soon be writing children's Novels.

"20,000 Leagues over Miami"

"Riding on my Big Private White Co2 Spewing Gulf Stream G2"

Posted by: GS on October 13, 2007 09:50 PM

12. Al Gore is running for President.
He is not declared yet, but don't worry, he will soon.
He is saving his money for later battles.
Hillary is probably soiling her diapers.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 14, 2007 10:42 AM

13. I would rather the GOP candidate face Al than Hillary. They both have high negative, though Hillary's are higher, but the GOP base will come out hard against both, and Hillary has a strong ability to tack to the center and pick up conservative-moderate and moderate independents that Al completely lacks.

Posted by: pudge on October 14, 2007 11:17 AM

14. After the announcement of his Nobel Prize, Al Gore gave some comments to the press today….

"The life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa".

Oops, my bad. That was actually Osama bin Laden in one of his September rants against America

Posted by: Tonya on October 16, 2007 11:34 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?