Story here.
Ongoing MPSIMS thread.
I wonder if this will affect his decision whether to run for POTUS in '08. (Carter won the prize for something he did while president – Camp David – but no Nobel laureate has ever run for president, AFAIK. It can’t hurt his chances.)
Teddy Roosevelt won the Peace Prize in 1906 during his second term. (He was the first American to win.) He ran for a third term in 1912 but lost.
In further news, Rush Limbaugh has been nominated as well.
Personally, I’m against either man getting it. But that’s just me.
By whom? Or is this a whoosh?
It takes almost nothing to get nominated- the Nobel comittee will entertain almost any suggestion sent in. Being a nominee for the Nobel isn’t much of an honor in itself; lots of people get nominated.
The Landmark Legal Foundation nominated him.
I’ve looked, and I can’t find anything about this. Why did they nominate him? Can you post a link to a news story, or something, please?
I didn’t want to hijack the thread, just wanted to make the point (made also by appleciders) that a nomination doesn’t mean much in and of itself. Furthermore, there are lots of people who have done far more for world peace than Mr. Gore.
The Nobel committee does not release the names of people who are on its list for consideration. Being “nominated” isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
As for Al Gore, it’s way too early. Let’s wait and see what fruit his labors bring before we get carried away. Plus, we really need to see how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences weighs in on the issue before taking further action.
I respectfully request clarification. I think you were kidding, but: Do you feel that his picture winning (or not winning) an Oscar should be a factor in deciding whether or not he deserves a peace prize?
Based on info in this post, the Landmark Legal Foundation would not be one of the parties/organizations qualified to submit a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Gore, OTOH, was nominated by two members of the Norwegian parliament, who are so qualified.
No doubt.
Limbaugh is not one of them.
Yes, I was kidding. But somehow it seemed fitting-- the celebrity as Noble Prize Winner. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pit might was well be next.
Ayup.
If the movie can be proved to have been the pivotal event that motivated the world to change the way it industrialises (by enacting “greener” methods/laws), then I guess Mr. Gore (or am I supposed to call him “Former Vice President Gore”?) deserves a pat on the back.
From my limited perspective as a “regular joe”, I have not yet seen any such evidence.
As such, his nomination seems a tad premature, to me.
However, the Nobel Peace Prize belongs to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and they can award the prize however they please. Now, if they start awarding prizes to folks that the majority of the rest of the world don’t see as deserving, then they will only hurt thier own (prize’s) credibility. I suspect this will act as a brake on ‘getting too goofy’.
Standard American courtesy rules are to refer to a politician by the highest office they have ever attained. There is some debate as to whether this extends to the Presidency (and, therefore, the Vice-Presidency). So, by formal rules, he is addressed as either “Vice-President Gore” or “Senator Gore”. It is generally acceptable in an informative setting (such as journalism or in writing) to refer to him as “former Vice-President Gore”.
Anyways. Okay, can anyone actually defend this nomination as anything other than a political stunt akin to Limbaugh’s being nominated? Can anyone name one thing that Al Gore has done in the last four years that has in any way contributed to “World Peace”? Anything? Bueller?
Hey, great, he made an environmentalist movie that might be seen as raising public awareness of global warming. Props to him. Is there anyone here who can keep a straight face in defending this as a measure of “world peace”?
Woodrow Wilson got the prize in 1919 for helping to found the League of Nations and was re-elected in 1920. Charles Gate Dawes, then Vice-President under Coolidge, won it in 1925.
And though a laureate has not become President after winning, Lester B. Pearson won it in 1957 and became Prime Minister of Canada in 1963.
As for Gore’s title, a mock Seal of the “Former Vice-President of the United States” appears in A Terrifying Message from Al Gore (a promotion video for An Inconvenient Truth made by the producers of Futurama), suggesting that he’s okay being referred to as such.
During the eight years of the 1960s when the Trickster was unemployed, “former Vice-President Richard Nixon” was the usual way he was referred to in the media.
Yes.
Because if global warming continues apace, drought, famine, and violence will be among the consequences. When the world warms, we won’t have a “everyone peacefully move two steps to the north” scenario. People will be dying of hunger and thirst, and other people will be killing each other to protect what they have, or get what others have.
To the extent that effective education, propaganda, whatever you want to call it, can get people mobilized to change what we’re doing to the world, tens of millions of lives could potentially be saved.
I’d say that’s potentially worthy of a Peace Prize. Certainly more so than Kissinger was.
Coulda sworn Warren G. Harding got elected President that year.