Our quiz for the week: Who was Bertha von Suttner? Or Tobias Asser?
Don’t know? Let’s try a couple of easier names: Wangari Maathai? Shirin Ebadi?
Still stumped? Alright let’s make it easy: What do the four people I’ve mentioned so far have in common with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jane Addams?
Alright, then: These are seven of the 106 individuals who have won the Nobel Prize for Peace in the years since 1901, when it was first awarded to Henry Dunant, founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross and originator of the first Geneva Convention, and Frederic Passy, founder and president of the first French peace society.
What calls this roster to mind just now is, of course, the award of the 2007 prize to Al Gore — actually, to Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. The Gore award has, of course, given rise to all manner of speculation.
Will he or won’t he? If he does, will it be Gore-Obama or, perhaps enabling us to recycle old campaign buttons by merely affixing them upside down, Gore-Clinton? Or, as Scott Ott suggests on Scrappleface.com, will the Supreme Court now decide to award the Nobel medal, diploma and prize money to George W. Bush?
My own view is that Gore’s award is richly deserved. I have no idea whether the world in general or the United States in particular will rise to the awesome challenge of global warming, but if we somehow do, the persistence and intelligence of Al Gore will have been nothing less than a gift of life for generations to come.
That’s not always or even often been the case with regard to the Nobel Peace Prize. In medicine, physics, chemistry and even the dismal science of economics, the Nobel awards tend to recognize highly specific achievements: a vaccine, a formula, a technique. This year’s physics award, for example, was shared by Albert Fert and Peter Grunberg “for the discovery of giant magnetoresistance,” and last year’s in medicine went to Andrew Fire and Craig Mello “for their discover of RNA interference-gene slicing by double-stranded RNA.”
Where good science is inherently transnational and good scientists all speak the universal language of science, the literature price is multilingual; for some time now, the committee has actively sought to call attention to the lifetime work of writers often unknown in the West. In the last 40 years, recipients from 26 different countries have been named.
The peace award is a still wispier thing. It has recognized peace movements, general humanitarian efforts, advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts and arms control. There are Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa, Jimmy Carter and Elie Wiesel. There’s the International Peace Bureau in Switzerland, honored in four different years between 1902 and 1910, itself a recipient as were four laureates associated with it. There’s the International Committee for the Red Cross, honored as an institution in 1917, 1944 and 1963 and then, perhaps indicative of change in the human condition and even more, change in the modes of our response to that condition, there’s Doctors Without Borders in 1999.
There are people who’ve achieved their fame through addressing one specific conflict: Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk (South Africa), Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (Israel and the Palestinians), Anwar Sadat and Menahem Begin (Israel and Egypt), Ralph Bunch (Israel and the Arabs), Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (America and Vietnam), John Hume and David Trimble (Northern Ireland), Betty Williams and Malread Corrigan (also Northern Ireland), and lately there have been more grassroots type such as Wangari Muta Maathai of Kenya and Rigoberta Menchu Tum of Guatemala.
There is no need, faced with all these true worthies, to rank them. The work of some has been or may yet prove lasting, the work of others more time-bound or more reflective of abiding hope than of real achievement. There are some honorees whose names scarcely evoke thoughts of peace, such as Kissinger and Arafat, others whose contributions have proved so transient that they confirm that the prize committee is not endowed with prescience.
Still, it’s hard to resist personal favorites. For me, Doctors Without Borders is so profoundly heroic in its work that an oak leaf cluster should be added to its Nobel medal every year, and I am ever awed by Jody Williams, the founding coordinator of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Over a period of five years, this woman and her colleagues succeeded not only in forcing the land mines issue onto the international agenda, but in shepherding an international treaty banning antipersonnel land mines, approved in Oslo in 1992, where she and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines received the prize in 1997.
These days, we can only speculate on how different our nation — and the world — might be had the Supreme Court not elected Bush to the presidency in 2000. That time it was Gore, the man, who was putsched aside.
This time, we can do more than merely speculate on what our world, and our children’s, will look like a generation or two from now if Gore’s zeal and passion do not ignite our own. For the signs have been given us, and the data.
We knew, when Bush took office, that the Republic would withstand the damage he would do; we were confident the nation was blessed with adequate margin for error. But the environment? There can be no such certainty.
Nature is less forgiving, and each week of continuing delay will take a year of remedy to repair — if by the time we have mobilized the needed will and the needed resources, repair is still a possibility. The error is ongoing, the damage beyond measure.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I was not surprised that Gore was given the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize has been a joke for a very long time now and has become the "Most Popular Leftist Award". Gore is a fraud and a charlatan. His movie should be called A Convenient Lie. Recently in the UK a judge ruled Gore's movie to be propaganda and ordered that when his movie is shown in schools it has to be accompanied by a disclaimer pointing out 11 errors (or shall we say lies) in his movie. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth Schools are doing our children a disservice by showing them this fraudulent movie. This is all about indoctrination and certainly not even vaguely about education. So typical of liberals. Agenda trumps truth. Hysteria trumps reason. Censorship trumps the free exchange of ideas, especially in our schools and universities. If liberals really were even handed they would show the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is actually filled with facts after they show Gore's fiction. Gore's doomsday scenario is a lie. Fein states; "This time, we can do more than merely speculate on what our world, and our children’s, will look like a generation or two from now if Gore’s zeal and passion do not ignite our own. For the signs have been given us, and the data." I already knew Fein was a fool, but his adulation of Gore borders on insanity. This global warming hoax has become the religion of the left with Gore as it's savior. This is all about control not climate. The scientific data shows that man made carbon emissions have very little effect on climate change. Most of the warming in the last century occurred before 1940. That's before the increase in CO2 emissions. In fact the scientific data shows that temperature rise precedes higher CO2 levels. How inconvenient for Gore. If the temperature increases at the current rate the rise in sea levels may reach one foot over the next 100 years. Certainly not the doomsday figures that lunatic Gore promotes. You know that big round bright yellow thing in the sky? It's called the sun. The intensity of radiation emitted from the sun changes over time. The earth has been much warmer many times in it's history without any help from us. The fact is that the three biggest factors that contribute to climate change are solar energy levels, cosmic rays and clouds. I am no fan of Bush but thank G-d a psychologically disturbed man like Gore was not elected. A man who thinks global warming is the greatest threat to humanity rather then Islamic facism is not fit to lead our country.
Before commenting check your facts. Here's an example: "The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming." http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html Oh and your favourite movie: "It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change." Stop getting your opinions from Fox. It's embarrassing. There is an American who has shown great character, judgement and class. He's being lauded the world over. And you spray your posion on these pages like a scabrous skunk.
M&M, I realize that liberals don't like to cloud up their little minds with silly little things like facts, but it is a fact that there are at least 11 lies in that fraud's movie. How do you explain it? Why don't you address it? He's a liar and you know it. The more hysteria he creates with weak-minded people like yourself the more money he makes. He's laughing at you all the way to the bank. We know that the earth is warming very slowly, only 1 degree in the last 100 years and most of that before 1930. There is no impending disaster. There is not one piece of evidence that man made emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. Not one. If you have one then state it. Global warming is about control not climate. If the situation was so dire why doesn't Gore practice what he preaches. Gore doesn't have a carbon footprint, he has a carbon grand canyon! That hypocrite produced more carbon emissions on his roundtrip private jet ride to accept his award than the average person produces in a year of driving their car. Gore's mansion (one of four homes) uses about 20 times the amount of electricity than the average American. It has also been revealed that Gore's pool house alone runs up a $500 monthly electric bill, all the while preaching how everyone needs to cut their use of electricity. Gore has countered criticism by claiming that he purchases carbon offsets (a total scam that does nothing to reduce emissions). Maybe I shouldn't mention the fact (sorry that "F" word again) that the company he acquires these offsets from is a company he owns, and those offsets are provided to all of its 23 employees, including Gore, as a benefit. Maybe you should put your crayons down and try to get your facts from peer reviewed scientific papers by reputable scientists instead of the back of a cereal box.
CHICAGO, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On October 2, 2007 a British court found Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, to be politically biased, and it ruled teachers must warn students of that bias before showing the film. In the statement below, James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, elaborates on factual errors in the film identified by the court and comments on the ruling. You may quote from this statement or contact Taylor directly at 941/776-5690, taylor@heartland.org. "Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, represents 'partisan political views' and must be treated as such by teachers in British schools, a British High Court judge has indicated. "The British court was swayed by numerous factual inaccuracies portrayed in the movie. Among them: -- The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists. -- The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperature changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes. -- The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity. -- The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period. -- The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially. -- The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible. -- The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae. -- The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels. -- The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass. "Also highlighted in court arguments was Al Gore's admission in Grist Magazine that 'I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is.' "As a result of the partisan political nature of Gore's film, school teachers will not be allowed to show the movie without telling their students the film is scientifically controversial. "The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science. Virtually every assertion that Gore makes in the movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science. "The British court decision should guide teachers in the U.S. to similarly treat Gore's movie as the inaccurate and misleading propaganda tool that it is."
Sorry, Leonard, but the SCOTUS did NOT elect Bush. Gore lost, and thank G-d he did. Not that Bush was all that great in some areas, but at least he was not the deceitful fascist the Left accused him of being (and that Gore might well have been). Gore's Nobel Prize was a political endorsement of his lunatic self-serving scam in pursuit of power and money (mostly money)... http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/03/inconvenient-offset-quick-recap-records.html Remember, the psycopath mass murderer Arafat (y"sh) was also recognized for his "achievements" by the same partisan idiots who gave the prize to Gore. And it's not as if he didn't have any competition... http://www.red-alerts.com/comintern/al-gore-beats-out-woman-who-saved-2500-children-during-holocaust-for-peace-prize/ But what's real heroism when the Left has a lunatic narrative to sell? As wrong as you are, that's how right David Klinghoffer is... http://www.forward.com/articles/of-al-gore-global-warming-and-god/ Feel free to be embarrassed by your silly ideas. They really are utter nonsense.