It used to be that being a transparent fraud was a disqualifier for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. One had to be an actual humanitarian and actually done something to further the cause of peace to pick up the gold medallion and money in Oslo. Examples of deserving recipients include Martin Luther King, Albert Schweitzer, Norman Borlaug, and Mother Theresa.
Increasingly, though, a handful of people have won the prestigious award that no more deserve it than a baseball player on steroids deserves more valuable player award. Hitherto the most egregious example was Yasser Arafat, laureate for 1994 along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Giving Arafat the Peace Prize for pretending to work of Middle East peace was like giving it to Hitler for declaring that he had no more territorial demands after gobbling up Czechoslovakia.
But, really, what can one expect about an award handed out by a group of Scandinavian politicians. The Nobel Committee, selected by the Norwegian Parliament, consists in the main of retired members of the Norwegian Parliament, hence primarily left wing, hence somewhat clueless about who is actually furthering the cause of peace.
Which brings us to Al Gore, the 2007 laureate. Officially his prize, which is shared with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was awarded for, “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” If the Nobel Committee was being honest, it would have read, “for perpetuating the greatest fraud in modern history.” It was ironic that on the very week that former Vice President Gore was given this undeserved honor, a British court ruled that Gore’s movie, and Inconvenient Truth, was riddled with errors.
Indeed, among the testimony the court heard, was a year old interview in which Gore said, “In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is.”
In other words, we have to lie.
Even though this author is not allowed to offer actual nominations for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize, I will give out a few names who are far more deserving of it that the likes of Al Gore and especially Yasser Arafat.
General David Petraeus – In the space of a few short months, General Petraeus has reduced the terrorist violence taking place in Iraq and, given time and resources, is likely to bring actual peace to that troubled country. He has done this by an adroit combinations of military force and diplomacy.
Sir Arthur C. Clarke – About sixty years ago, Sir Arthur published a paper in which he postulated that satellites placed in geosynchronous orbit could be used to relay radio and other signals. This idea led to the communications satellite, which has bound the world together as no other technology has, furthering the free exchange of ideas.
President George W. Bush – for furthering the cause of human rights, freedom, and peace in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Dr. Peter Glaser, Dr. David Criswell (joint award) for research and development into space based solar power systems, which has the potential of benefiting the world with clean, limitless energy. (Also candidates for the Physics Prize.)
And finally, we’ve already covered Rush Limbaugh in a separate piece.
Any one of these names, though a couple might prove controversial, would nevertheless be less embarrassing than Al Gore and will help to restore the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize as an award given out for merit, not for political correctness.