Friday, October 12, 2007

Nobel Peace



What are the qualms about Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize? An environmentalist doesn’t deserve recognition?

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

When the US declined full participation in the Tokyo protocol, we broke fraternization with other nations that believed so passionately in it. Al Gore as an environmentalist, doesn't deserve a Nobel PEACE prize? Then who does?

Here is a man whose only desire is to live life worthy of his principles, of his passions, not soliciting any type of rewards nor acknowledgment. The only recognition he importunes upon us is towards the cause he is fighting for, not to himself.

Let’s talk about the video, An Inconvenient Truth. Some would say that it is an educational documentary, not a political one. Hmm. What makes a political issue? Does ammunition need be present to consider anything political? Hasn’t global warming been a big political issue for the last 30 or so years? Hasn’t it been a central debate in the Senate and in the UN? The inconvenient truth is, global warming has been long ignored by the government and is way overdue of acknowledgment.

I don’t at all discredit those who argue that perhaps another deserving person should be awarded the prize. My problem is with those who easily discredit a person simply because they don’t like him. One’s feelings toward another have nothing to do with the person whose feelings are felt towards. If I hate Al Gore, my feelings don’t discredit his pursuits and accomplishments. If anything, my hatred towards him is more telling of who I am than who Gore is (not that I hate him of course).

For all its worth Mr. Gore, congratulations.

No comments: