RAGGED THOTS

Lose the Olympics, get the Nobel Peace Prize?

So, exactly one week after one communal world organization (the International Olympics Committee) delivered President Obama a personal snub by rejecting Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Games, another one (the Nobel Prize Committee) comes up with a "do-over"?

President Obama is now the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Obama, said the committee, has "given [the world's] people hope for a better future."

Huh?

In its own way, this is almost as embarrassing as Chicago getting dissed by the IOC in the opening round last week -- despite Obama's overtures. He's now been recognized internationally, even as he juggles with a struggling economy and a daunting agenda domestically.

With all due respect to the president, he hasn't done anything to earn such an award, even by the often-warped political messaging in which the Nobel Peace Prize Committee delves.

By contrast, Jimmy Carter didn't get the award when he brokered the 1978 Middle East peace accord between Israel and Egypt; he got it years later as sort of a Lifetime Achievement Award (that also served to poke the Bush administration that was ramping up the case for war with Iraq). Similarly, Bill Clinton never got an award despite his attempts to get a deal done between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the late-90s.

Al Gore got the prize a couple of years ago, but that was also another political statement that affirmed his years of lobbying to get the world to take on global warming.

But this one takes the cake. Talk about premature! The president has made several trips abroad and made many speeches declaring that America was putting aside its presumed belligerence of the last few years. Most notably, Obama spoke at Cairo University to deliver an address to the "Muslim World." These have been part of what presidential critics caustically refer to as Obama's "apology tour."

But, apropos of a charge that Hillary Clinton made during the campaign last year, these are just "words" -- a series of speeches. They are neither one seminal action that brings about peace or understanding between long-antagonistic peoples -- nor, at 48, has he managed to build a body of work worthy of a prestigious award. (Though his anti-Iraq War campaign rhetoric undoubtedly won him some points.)

In fact, given that the committee has a Feb. 1 deadline, Obama had only been in office less than two weeks before he was nominated. This is exactly the opposite of the Arizona State University farce earlier this year. Then, the university chose to snub the president who was delivering a commencement address by not giving him an honorary degree -- because his "body of work" was not yet complete. In fact, having been elected president was a worthy enough achievement to merit an honorary degree.

The Nobel Peace Prize supposedly once meant something, reserved for truly large achievements on the world stage. On that measure, the jury is still way out on President Obama's life and career.

On its face, skeptics could reasonably conclude that the Nobel committee became infatuated with the concept that the American people managed to elect a black man president -- and awarded him for that seminal moment.

Bu that accomplishment was as much about the nation as it was the man. It had nothing to do with the supposed criteria for earning a Nobel Peace Prize. The committee should be embarrassed.

Labels: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Nobel Peace Prize

# posted by Robert A. George @ 10:00 AM

Judge Michael Burton ruled at the High Court of London that the movie is biased
and contains "nine scientific errors."
The film depicts a bleak future in which the world is threatened by climate change, which it claims is already responsible for everything from Hurricane Katrina to the disappearance of snow from atop Mount Kilimanjaro.
But Burton said the scientific community doesn't buy those claims.
The film dramatically warns that polar bears are drowning as they try to swim up to 60 miles to find rapidly disappearing Arctic ice.
But the evidence that came out in court says it's just not true, said the judge.
"The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm," he said.
The film also claims the world's sea levels will rise up to 20 feet "in the near future."
The judge said scientists dispute this "Armageddon scenario" and say that the sea levels would rise that much "only after" thousands of years.

Labels: Al Gore, Global Warming, Nobel Peace Prize

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:38 AM

Labels: Al Gore, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:30 AM

Labels: Academy Awards, Al Gore, Ellen DeGeneres, Forest Whitaker, Jennifer Hudson, movies, Oscars

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:12 PM

He also gave an indication of who could capitalize on the current drama saying, "with this race getting so negative so early, it leaves an opening for someone like an Al Gore to come in very late when people are sour on all the candidates in the race."

All Team Barack needed to do was keep quiet and let Wolfson's bait remain hanging there. No serious person thinks Geffen speaks for Obama.

Instead, the Wolfson blast was met with an ugly Obama blast in response - which is the practice of any conventional campaign. Only Obama supposedly isn't running a conventional campaign.

He is supposed to transcend the normal rules of politics and sail sweetly through the Democratic primaries with his message of audacious hope, wonderful hope, glorious HOPE.

One night in Hollywood and it's all blasted to hell.

Labels: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Democratic 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton

# posted by Robert A. George @ 10:46 AM

U2 and Coldplay are among the rumored acts. With that much sanctimonious rock ego and hot air in one place, I think Global Warming may become MORE of a problem. Don't expect a diverse selection of music, as we all know that jazz musicians are responsible for Global Warming and would be persona non grata. What if it gets too hot and the protests get out of hand? Will there be Global Rioting?

Of course, there are many logistical problems that need to be worked out for a concert of this magnitude. Who will they get to sing the National Anthem? Who will Gore supporters get to spit on Cub Scouts DURING the National Anthem? What will extraterrestrial life forms observing from deep space think, when they see millions of people the world over joining Al Gore in his favorite dance of all time?

The only one of these charitable egofests that I ever wished to attend (but was too young at the time and lived on the wrong continent) was The Concerts for The People of Kampuchea. Now, if you had a time machine and could return to any of the big musical guiltfests of the past, which one would you attend? A concert with wankers like Lionel Richie, Sting, Springsteen, and Bono; or a kickass series with The Specials, Elvis Costello, Paul McCartney and Wings, The Who, Rockpile, The Clash and the Pretenders? In case you're wondering, Sherman, join Mr. Peabody in a trip backward nearly three decades (30 years? Wow, I'm getting old!):

Labels: Al Gore, Charity Concerts, Global Warming, Unnatural Disasters

# posted by Anonymous @ 6:15 AM