Subject: Re: Gore's Speech From: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (OSWELCH) Date: 14/11/03 13:09 GMT Standard Time Message-id:
Jimmy Carter? Nobel Prize winner. Enuf said.
With winners like Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter, it could be argued that the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize has diminished in recent years.
Without looking it up, anyone remember what JC did to merit award of the Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, besides 'not' being George W. Bush?
Still, JC probably makes the 'elder statesman' cut, as do the other ex-Presidents you've mentioned. Least effective of the lot IMO, but a decent enough chap who did a swell job with Habitat.
But Al Gore? An ex-Veep? Besides inventing the Internet, what's he done to merit consideration as an 'elder statesman'?
Sure- for decades of work on human rights and peace around the world. Its been in the papers for over 20 years.
Least effective as president or least effective as ex-president?
Gerald Ford was pretty ineffective in either catagory. Also never actually elected to either vice president or president offices. Nixon, Reagan and Bush didn't devote their lives to world peace or any other noble endevour after they left office. Go back several decades and retired presidents don't usually spend their golden years pursuing much but perfecting a golf game.
Depends on one's definition of elder statesman or if one actually is referring to elder statesman or some sort of most senior elder statesman.
Is that what really it was for? Lifetime achievement? I thought it was belated payback for getting pipped at the post for the Sinai deal, which I guess you could say he had a role in. But who here can't say why Teddy Roosevelt got his...100 years ago?
Which goes back to what I was saying earlier: Without looking it up, can you name the *specific* 'world peace' achievement for which JC won the Prize?
Let's sweeten the pot here and bring this back on-topic. I'm feeling saucy today. First RMS correspondent who can answer this one correctly WITHOUT PEEKING gets one free decal sheet of their choice from Hannants. (Under £15.00, please, Business isn't great lately.)
If you're a named RMS correspondent, I'll accept your word of honor you didn't peek...even if your name *is* Vess Irvine.
Least effective President. As I said, he did a swell job with Habitat. He's my number one, most admired do-gooder. And as you've said, he's been getting plenty of ink for a post White House lifetime's worth of it. Perhaps trying to make up for something?
Ford's a close call. As you said, he was never actually elected. IMO, where he gets the nod over JC is that he was, in his short unelected tenure, able to project power in support of US interests relatively effectively.
Which is something JC was unable to do. Under *his* tenure, we had to pimp the French Foreign Legion to get our people out of trouble overseas, and that's pretty low. Never mind the whole Iran hostage deal.
Besides, goofy as he looked on TV, I liked old Jerry--as much as I disliked holier than holy JC. Worse than Clinton, even. At least Clinton showed a certain ability to adapt his principles to meet circumstances. JC never mastered that.
My point here was not to compare the relative merits of the surviving Presidents or their post White House commitment to 'world peace,' the life ambition of every beauty contestant. I merely questioned whether Al Gore, as an ex-Vice President, belongs in the category of 'elder statesman' ex-Presidents.
But since you brought it up, it could be argued that the chaps you've mentioned did their bit when they had the chance, and so were entitled to play golf and enjoy themselves after leaving it. OTOH, JC's hobby is being an activist. More power to him. And if you can say specifically what JC did to merit the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded, there's a decal sheet with your name on it on offer.
Did I say "lifelong achievement"? No. I said "decades". I don't recall him doing any before his presidenc.
Well, lets look:
"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"
formatting link
Too late, and besides, to what end is a continuing discussion of history where the inclusion of research and factual information is prohibited?
Gunnar Berge: "Den Norske Nobelkomite har bestemt at Nobels fredspris for 2002 skal tildeles Jimmy Carter for hans iherdige innsats gjennom flere tiår for fredelig løsning av internasjonale konflikter, for demokrati og menneskerettigheter og for økonomisk og sosial utvikling."
Tom, You're not serious about criticizing Reagen, are you? How effective do you think anyone with advanced Alzheimer's can be? What he did to heighten awareness of this destructive disease is a noble endevour in my eyes! Rich
Not meant to be taken completely literally, but perhaps analogous to other 'lifetime achievement' awards. They're called 'lifetime achievement' Oscars, but they didn't give one to Kirk Douglas for his pre-Hollywood life. See what I mean?
But, as you've discovered, JC's decades of 'effort' were what he got the Prize for. Getting that prize in that way is, to me, kind of like the Duke getting an Oscar for True Grit. Now, I like a good John Wayne film, but Dustin Hoffman was, IMO, the better actor that year.
And, if you read further into the citation, you find the following summation....
"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."
In other words--as they see it--for not being George W. Bush. Or Ronald Reagan. Or any of those other 'trigger-happy' Yanks.
Too late, indeed. No one's prohibiting anything. It's my challenge and I can do what I want. It's your choice what you do. No one stopped you from posting your information. Or, incidentally, from spoiling my attempt to inject a bit of fun and modeling related interest into the discussion for a change. You'll recall that JC was nominated for 'elder statesman' on the basis of 'Nobel Peace Prize-nuff said.' I didn't disagree with that logic, but was curious to see if anyone could name JC's actual 'achievement.' Because I couldn't. You couldn't either, really.
Neither could the Prize Committee. After reading the citation, I still can't see what JC actually DID to merit the Nobel Peace Prize. Looks to me like he got an 'A for effort.' On that basis, every peace loving Miss America contestant oughtta have one.
I, nor apparently the Nobel people, considered it a lifetime award. You trying to distort it into something else doesn't change it.
And like with the oscars, its irrelevant what you think. The people who give out the awards decide.
You asked, I made a guess based on my memory of the announcement and his effort in the field, I was challenged, I looked it up, I felt I was on right on target, I presented the findings.
It wasn't "an" actual achievement, but decades of work in the endevour of peace, as they clearly stated.
My guess was right in line with the Nobel statement.
Apparently its not required.
merit the Nobel Peace Prize.
But you are one who confuses decades with lifetime, who thinks it matters who you think deserves awards, and that a singular event should be required for an award others give out.
Tom Hiett wrote: : : Nixon, Reagan and : Bush didn't devote their lives to world peace or any other noble endevour : after they left office. : Ol' Ron meant to, but he forgot... : : Go back several decades and retired presidents : don't usually spend their golden years pursuing much but perfecting a golf : game. : You mean, once they finish milking the lecture circuit. I suspect Slick is still pursuing the office staff...
Tap dancing in mine fields is not only hazardous but less than intelligent. Awards don't matter but accomplishments do. World Peace is way over the next horizon. In the mean time wake me up when your watch is over and I like my coffee strong but no sugar and just a taste of cream. Mike( have I been here before?) IPMS
You are having difficulty understanding the Nobel is neither a game nor a competition.
That you lump them in together, which skews the meaning before any result is introduced.
Like with it not being a competition, you have a hard time understanding a no particular singular achievement is required.
I have no guilt about anything in this regard, nor do I believe you are sorry about it.
In my 13 years here I have never heard the term "named RMS correspondent" before. But then neither had I heard anyone compare the Nobel to a game or imply that a singular event should be the criteria.
Am I really? I think you're the one who's having difficulty understanding this one, Tom.
See, I was referring here not to the Nobel Prize, but to the game *I* was playing: The challenge to describe from memory what JC actually *did* to merit the Nobel Peace Prize. A challenge meant in fun and certainly not intended to be taken as seriously as you seem to have done.
It's obvious you don't care about spoiling my fun, or the fun others might have had with this. I'm sorry that you feel that way.
I also regret that your sense of humor seems to have failed you on this occasion. I do mean that sincerely. Whether you choose to believe me is up to you. As I said earlier, I didn't mean to make your Wheaties soggy. I take it you've chosen not to accept that. That's your call.
If I understood your earlier posts correctly, those who sponsor the prize make the rules. The opinions of others are therefore irrelevant. Isn't that right?
That's just out of respect for the chap who contacted me off line. I don't have the winner's permission to post his name here.
But I assure you that he is a genuine contestant who met the criteria specified by the challenge sponsor (me) and offered a worthy 'A for effort' answer in the finest traditions of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I purchased a prize of his choosing today. It will be winging its way to the USA this week.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.