J. Edgar Hoover was sick with anti-communist paranoia. It's eerie to read declassified FBI documents addressing "The Negro Question," and comparing Martin Luther King to Fidel Castro. The "anti-American" accusation is particularly infuriating, when you consider that the civil rights workers of the 1950's-1960's were among the finest Americans this country has ever seen.
 

Unlike the civil rights workers of today who'll do anything to get a bit of air time.

Anyways, Tim, Hoover wasn't sick with anti-communist paranoia, he had a real communist threat to his left, and a CIA that killed a sitting president on his right. He had more to contend with than you, in your perfect little wiki-world, will probably ever comprehend.

Sides... blog wasn't about racism or King... they were cited as examples to merely suggest that Gore's prize was being unfairly contested. Of course, what Jason fails to mention is that it was being unfairly contested by people who witnessed the declining prestige of the Nobel prize being awarded to the likes of Arafat, who diverted billions away from his people and into the hands arms dealers... and Kofi Annan, Mr "What Oil for Food Program?" himself who also did jack squat about an epidemic of UN soldiers raping Congolese refugees.

I'm not too surprised these days when a liberal trots out shoddy conclusions based on a mere scratching of the surface. It's like a lack of some kind of muscle prevents them from digging more deeply; especially in areas where they might uncover something that would destroy their victim-mindset fantasies.

You're an excellent example of that.
 

I like that because you can't refute anything in this blog with actual facts, you resort to name calling. I can see we are working with a high class individual. To say that this is scratching the surface is a lame attempt to undermine the actual facts and points brought up in this blog. I wish that there could be an actual adult conversation with people on opposing sides. But when the opposing side is full of people like you I realize this is impossible. It must be sad to live in such a delusional world as to fail to acknowledge when someone else is right and when the ideologies you believe in are crumbling right before you.
 

Your sounding like a 911 conspiracy theorist. The goverment killed JFK now? Turn off air america radio.
 

You seriously don't think that the CIA had anything to do with the assasination of JFK then you are lacking the benifit of much information.. There is substantial evidence to implicate the CIA.. DO you know about what Kennedy wanted to do... the things he was for and against they were a thorn in the side of the globalist.. He wanted to shut down the Fed, take the power and control out of the hands international banking cartel.. LBJ was hot to trot for the office.. George Bush senior was confirmed in Dallas that day.. E. Howard hunt gave a death bed confession of how it was planned..

I don't get why its so hard to think that the government ever would do any wrong.. thats what governments have done through out history... Look up the definition of Conspiracy.. conspiracies are occuring all the time.. Something can not be proven without a theory to go on first... I think it is odd that the NeoCons are not showing him some love..

I thinks its BS he gets a Peace Prize .. WTH.. its all about keeping his peace loving Hippie crowd.. nothing against them...

As far as Global warming.. have you seen Global Warming or Global Governance? - The Other Side of the Story

I give some insights into how the UN is connected to the whole thing..
 

What you seem to be overlooking is that the prize was not solely presented to Mr. Gore. He is only the most well spoken and publicized mouthpiece of climate change awareness. The greatest amount of credibility goes to the scientific panel which shares the prize. We are talking about hundreds of men and women of science from dozens of nations.
It is unfathomable that such a diverse group of professionals could be mistaken, bought out, or swayed by politics or industry. These people have devoted their lives to analytical thinking so as far as I'm concerned there is no "other side" to the climate change story. When hundreds of independently funded scientists reach unanimous agreement the world should listen.
I don't like Al Gore very much. He has a lot to answer for regarding his (and Tippers) attempts to censor music in the 80's. It was most definitely a conspiracy to cut off our access to free speech and information itself. Thankfully, all that resulted were stupid advisory stickers. That, however, does not negate the importance or truthiness (copyright Steven Colbert) of what he is doing now.
If it was just Gore, all by himself, there would be plenty of room for argument. As it stands now, the longer people deny the validity of his argument the more foolish they will appear as time passes, and the future of humanity will look all the more bleak.
 

You know things have really jumped the rails when your fellow right wingers are saying you're more whacked out than they are.
 

I'm a little confused by the folks on the right constantly attacking Kofi Annan for his nomination...He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, and the Oil-For-Food scandal broke in 2003. You are faulting them for something that was unknown at the time Annan was awarded the prize. That's foolish.

I have similar objections to the Yasser Arafat complaints...He wasn't the sole winner in 1994. He was granted the prize along with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East." Oslo Accords were completed the year earlier, and for the first time, Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, the right of Israel to secure her safety, and the need to address further issues through negotiation and discussion. These are all dramatic improvements, and everyone was under the belief that Arafat had abandoned his terrorist ways...The Oslo Accords were an impressive step at the time, and worthy of recognition.
 

Oh please. The House Select Committee on assassinations issued a report in 1979 critical of the FBI's reluctance to investigate the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. (Although, surprisingly, we agree on the CIA's role.)

Meanwhile, Hoover was looking for commies under Clyde Tolson's bed while the "nonexistent" Mafia carted the cash register out the back door.

Sam, are you ever NOT pissed off?
 

I say good for him! I would only have much of a beef with it if he had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Science... ;)
 

I wish one person who complains about Al Gore's "science" could show me science refuting his. Just saying it's bad science and putting it in quote marks does not make it any less factual.
 

His crap is not his crap his crap for one thins.. it was the brainchild of the UN pre 1988 when they formed IPCC and set out to prove that Global warming was caused by man kind.. They had no science about his.. they have spent billions funding science with the pure intent to prove man caused warming..

There are two toally different terms that pro globalist use interchangably and don't even realize thay have contradictory meaning.. Global (man made) warming is a flawed idea.. CLimate Change is real and it always has been!!

You think in the last 50 years of our industrialization and mass production of cars that we have casue millions of years of change... I'm not wasting my time with you .. continue to be fooled and sell your soul to the UN..

After all thats their plan.. control the world....
 

He'd actually have more basis for winning the one for Science. His shoddy science has,a t least, got the bigger conversation more publicity since scientists far more qualified than a politician make great cases for destroying his claims.

But peace? All he's done is promote divisive philosophy and acted like a big ol victim. Since when is promoting a victim mentality peaceful? He's fed all the young, dumb, impressionable liberals a bunch of bullshit that global warming is man-made and they don't have the critical thinking skills to take that info and proceed with their own objective investigation. They just believe it like its the gospel... and it is, the atheists gospel. .... that whatever created the vast universe is somehow usurped by man's dependence on fossil fuels, lol!
 

When's the last time you referred to the "vitriol" on the liberal blogs? Perhaps if you did a little more of that, you might have more credibility with those other than your usual suspects.

I also think your characterization of this issue as, yet another Bush-related problem, is characteristic of your bias. You just haven't connected the dots yet to see how Gore stands to benefit from all of his shoddy science. Try playing Devil's Advocate for all of 3 minutes and you might find a few diamonds just lying out in the open on the beach... like they are by the droves in South Africa.
 

This is neither here nor there...but an interesting article was printed in the NY Times regarding 'scientific consensus' on the 9th. It didn't address global warming at all, but it was interesting nonetheless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?ex=1349668800&en=67642ef2330f51af&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
 

Speaking of history, I can think of two Nobel Peace Prize omissions which in retrospect are appalling:

- Mahatma Ghandi
- Eleanor Roosevelt.

Racism and sexism, respectively?
 

Eisenhower and Nixon for going to China should be considered too
 

This wouldn't pass even as a first grade book report assignment. You're up in arms about people merely contesting a guy who not only has produced the shoddiest arguments that global warming is man-made, but who also IGNORES the fact that there are vast numbers of highly qualified scientists saying just the opposite, AND who stands to GAIN BOTH POLITICALLY AND MONETARILY by his shoddy conclusions and ignoring of his detractors....

...oh yes, regarding an AWARD which, though once prestigious, has fallen into the hands of those who saw fit to present it to Arafat and Annan.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you can't even present a balanced report? Must you always come down on the side of the losers?
 

on with that..

Al Gore is a UN Tool see my blog on Global warming or Global Governance..

For one it is not Al Gore science you sheeple. AL GORE is NOT a Scientist and actually he isn't even that smart.. He's C student..

It totally proves that you people know nothing when you say its Al Gore science.. Look into the history of it.. and Peace prize what a joke..
 

Up in arms? I feel like the only people 'up in arms' are the folks throwing a tantrum about Al Gore receiving international recognition. Paul Krugman in today's Times, I think hit the nail on the head:

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

I seriously doubt your apparent insinuation that there are a greater number of "highly qualified scientists" that are declaring that global warming is not man-made. Even if it were true, reality isn't a democratic organization. But if you are a follower of the democratic approach to science, then you must have some difficulty with the study of peer-reviewed articles on global warming since 1990 that found 0 articles from the sample size that claimed that it is not exacerbated by man, and is a serious problem. You must also have difficulty when a University of Washington climate researcher says things like "There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists." Or when you read in the paper that there is "a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process." Your democratic approach to science is interesting, but I disagree with its validity. It seems that your opposition to global warming is based entirely on your faulty perception of anti-global warming scientists and your hatred of Mr. Gore.

And come down on the side of the losers? I'm on Gore's side. The losers are the ones whining at the National Review, FOX, the Wall Street Journal, and right wing blogs everywhere that a Democrat won it. You, my friend, are clearly on the "side of the losers."
 

You are awesome.
 

I don't agree that this had "nothing to do with global peace." I think Joseph Romm described it well:

...climate change is a security issue because it will create millions of environmental refugees and will lead to water scarcity that can cause conflict. Conflicts like those in Darfur have environmental roots and need environmental solutions, along with political and economic solutions. Gore is trying to prevent a humanitarian crisis; he is trying to prevent regional wars that will be driven by resource scarcity. This isn’t the first time that a major environmental issue has won the peace prize. Winning this Prize proves this isn’t an ordinary environmental issue. It is one of the most important issues of our time.

Al Gore is fighting to prevent an increase in scarcity of resources, just as Norman Borlaugh was awarded the prize in 1970 for his work to combat scarcity of resources.
 

IMO, the problem lies within the whole "man-made" bit. As someone said early in the post that much of the scientific community believes that waters will rise, temperatures will increase, etc.; I don't think much of the scientific community believe it to be man-made. There are so many scientific studies about the NATURAL changes in climate that the earth has gone through over it's hundreds of thousands (or billions, if you belive the earth is that old) of years of existance. I remember reading an article (forgive me, but I can't remember where i read it, was a long time ago) that the NATURAL sources account for 95% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as opposed to the only 5% that is man-made. I've also read that in earth's history, the earth periodically goes through global warming followed by an ice age. That this ice age occurs about every 10,000 years. And that it's been 11,000 years since the last ice age. That would insist that we are over due for one. I do apologize that I don't have resources of where I read these things, I usually would use a reference. I'm sure I could look them up on google, but not much time atm.

Personally, I think the only reason why you are jumping up and down for joy is because your lib-boy won the peace prize. I don't think you actually care if there is (or isn't) a reason that he won it, just that he did.
 

Seriously though, do you believe global warming to be the apocalyptic picture he's painting?

I do believe that climate change is a threat to our way of life, and I think it is just as real as terrorism. Do I think that humanity will be wiped out? No. But I don't believe Al Gore believes that, either.

What I do believe, however, is that climate change will certainly have an adverse impact on our quality of life. I believe that parts of the world will no longer be able to sustain their existing populations. I also believe that scarcity of resources has been at the root of nearly every conflict in the history of man. Decreasing supplies of fresh water and decreasing amounts of fertile soil are not recipes for anything good.

The inhabitability of our planet isn't the only concern, it's the impact that changes to our climate are going to have on the political stability of the world.
 

I reckon I'll be writing a blog sometime soon about global warming, and I've saved your comments here so that I can integrate your concerns into that blog when it pops up. But for now, just a couple quick comments...

I think you're right, though, in that as global warming continues to climb (which I believe it probably will given historical records of climate changes) there will be changes to our way of life and particularly 3rd world populations. Humans, hell all life, will have to adapt to a new climate... but that's not anything new to this planet. In particular, when you consider what humans are capable of creating and sustaining, I think life stands a better chance now than it ever could have before.

While I always enjoy paragraphs that start off like that, it all goes downhill immediately thereafter. I don't doubt that humanity will adapt to the changes in the climate, but it will come at tremendous cost. The survival of the species is great and all, but I don't think that's enough to ignore the potential for the death of millions who can't "adapt" to the changes in the climate. America is generally great at taking preventative action when it comes to unnecessary deaths. We create crosswalks at intersections when they are created, as opposed to waiting for fifty people to get hit by cars first. If we can see there is going to be a problem, I think we have a moral obligation to do what we can to prevent it. This is the United States of America. Although we haven't been for a number of years, we do still have the ability to be a leader in the international community. I think the climate crisis is certainly an issue we can take the lead on.

And my rich-text editor has also been disabled for ages...I'm just dropping a bit of HTML in there from time to time. MySpace unreliability has forced it upon me. ;) Hyperlinks are incredibly easy, though.

I tried explaining how I did it, but it looked ridiculous because I don't know how to make MySpace just display the code, as opposed to the result. This page has a pretty easy explanation of how to do it, though. And if you ever want to put images in a comment, this page has the code for that.

Lemme know if it doesn't work!
 

"climate change is a security issue"...That's one hell of a stretch to promoting peace. Nice try though.
 

Ok, ya know what? There is some kind of curse on responses to your comments, I swear to God. Or perhaps you are the only one that I write long responses to, so I only ever notice when it's you...Regardless, I grow weary of my comments disappearing. Please remove your curse.

First, it seems a bit silly to say that Wilson's opponents criticized him and the League because it failed to prevent World War II...Wilson was given the Peace Prize in 1919, I believe, nearly twenty years before the first shots of World War II were fired. From The New York Times and The Washington Post (The only two newspapers of the day I'm able to access from the local library), the criticisms of Wilson's award and his work on the League were entirely centered around America's desire to return to isolationism and our weariness after World War I. They were arguing against any involvement in "the problems of Europe." When that philosophy was proven foolish twenty years later, I'd say that was certainly short-sighted.

And the German military was severely limited after the First World War. They weren't allowed to manufacture tanks, aircraft, subs, or poison gas. They military was capped at 100,000. They were forbidden from importing weapons. They sacrificed 13% of their territory. But to completely dismantle the military was not an option, precisely because of the critics of the League of Nations. You cannot forbid a nation from having a military, retreat back behind our borders, and then just trust that everything will be fine.

I also don't understand the argument on the right against the United Nations. I certainly understand that it is not a perfect organization, and there is definitely room for some dramatic improvements. But the right's solution to all these problems seems to be nothing more than to withdraw and wash our hands of it altogether. This, to me, is completely absurd. If I don't like the color of paint on my walls, I don't need to tear down my house.

(I am now copying this response, before clicking post!)
 

What Truman did was absolutely impossible for Woodrow Wilson to accomplish...That was absolutely contrary to the demands of the American people, the opposing Republican Party, as well as our allies. It was simply logistically impossible for him to "obliterate" the Japanese and Germans. It was difficult enough for Truman to accomplish, even with the example from World War I being available for the world. Congress wouldn't even ratify the Treaty of Versailles...To expect them to have supported any kind of prolonged reconstruction is unfathomable, and is unfairly applying our worldview, or even the worldview of the 1940s onto an earlier time. Wilson was president when Congress actually had some power. Had he lived today, all 14 Points certainly would have been integrated into the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations would have been useful.

Why can't a country handle it's own diplomatic relations with it's own choice of allies without interference from all the other countries of the globe?

I think this is one of the greatest lessons from World War I, and I think that is the cornerstone of Wilson's plan. That's why he made it the first of his Fourteen Points:

1. Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

World War I was the direct result of countries handling "it's own diplomatic relations with it's own choice of allies without interference..."

I think this nice little chart helps illustrate the complexities that arise from not having an entity like the LoN or the UN. The League of Nations was formed for the very purpose of preventing these secret alliances and treaties that caused the First World War, and was an attempt to create a platform for the ever-shrinking globe. A return to that kind of world seems inherently reckless. Our invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq could have resulted in a military conflict with China, Iran, India or Russia were the pre-League of Nations system still in effect. Everybody loses.

I have objection to the Security Council, as well as the Human Rights Council. I don't believe the organization is set up in a very democratic fashion, but I believe that the solution is not to withdraw from it, and ignore the world. The solution is to become an even more active member and try to remedy the problems experienced there. In spite of the hatred directed at Kofi Annan, I feel that the United Nations was reenergized under his leadership. Additionally, he outlined an amazing path forward and a comprehensive reform package to repair some of the problems that the United Nations has experienced.

Just as America abandoned our original confederacy and sacrificed additional sovereignty to the federal government, the time is approaching for nations to do the same to the United Nations. As of right now, it's precisely like the government established by America's Articles of Confederation. A governing body that makes demands, but is unable to enforce them. When our confederacy needed reforms and needed to be rebuilt from the ground up, our founding fathers didn't just decide it was too much trouble and create thirteen independent nations. They took the opportunity to maintain their ideals and resolve the situation, rather than simply going home.
 

Again, I contend that even if Woodrow Wilson had wanted to implement something similar to what Truman did later, it wouldn't have been possible. It's very noble to say that he should have done it even though the will of the people, Congress, and our Allies were opposed to such a premise, but in 1918, it simply wasn't possible. The President hadn't evolved into the powerhouse that he is today. He actually required Congressional approval in order to set up an occupational force. It's entirely unfair to apply War Powers Acts that hadn't been passed yet, or any of the powers of the modern presidency onto an executive office that effectively was a coequal branch of our government.

It would certainly be nice if all diplomacy were conducted out in the open, and there were no backroom deals. I'm not going to defend everything done at the United Nations. I don't believe it is a perfect organization, but I do believe it is dramatically better than the situation that the international community was in at the turn of the 19th century. I am wholeheartedly in support of transparency in government, and the United Nations is certainly no exception to that. There are corrupt individuals in the United Nations, just as in the American government, but I would no sooner abandon the UN than I would the Constitution.

Unfortunately, I think we are one of those nations that don't take the United Nations seriously. The reason I don't think we, and many other nations, take it seriously is because it has not been granted the ability to enforce its decisions. We test the waters to see if we can get the go ahead to invade another country, and when it seems like they aren't going to allow us, we simply go in without their approval and suffer no real consequences. I think the parallel to the Articles of Confederation are amazing. Just as our original states had no problem ignoring the demands of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation, nations have no problem ignoring the demands of the United Nations.

And I understand that the greatest fear of the first states was surrendering too much authority to the federal government. Just as is the case today, there was a considerable number of people who felt that sacrificing ANY sovereignty is too much. Just as they were proven wrong with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, I believe they continue to be wrong today. I feel a little dirty going all Hobbesian, but it seems relevant...

"[D]uring the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. . . . In such condition, there is no place for industry . . . no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation . . . no commodious Building; no instruments of moving . . . no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

It was a sacrifice of self-sovereignty that removed us from Hobbes' fictional 'State of Nature.' It was the sacrifice of sovereignty that allowed the states to enter into the United States Constitution. Why would it now be ridiculous to sacrifice national sovereignty to a global authority?
 

Correction...

By the time I wrote, "It was simply logistically impossible for him to "obliterate" the Japanese and Germans," I had already apparently confused the object of my pronouns. Instead, let's say:

"It was simply impossible for Wilson to "obliterate" the enemy as Truman did with the Japanese and Germans."

I apologize to any Japanese who are offended by my insinuation that Woodrow Wilson had any intent to obliterate you. He loved the Japanese.
 

I stand with you. John Bolten lit a fire under the UN and started moving in the right direction. Another missed oppertunity by the democrat party to let something good happen for America
 

Yahoo!
 

"Teddy Roosevelt, still with the Republican Party at the time, won the Nobel Prize in 1906. Woodrow Wilson also won. As did Martin Luther King, Jr. " I am glad you mentioned these men, because they actually deserved the award.

Woodrow Wilson and MLK Jr. especially dedicated their lives to achieving peace and equality throughout the world. What has Gore done to promote peace?
 

Finally a reasoneble voice among the liberal insanity
 

Even though today, you argue that these men deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, Wilson and MLK were attacked just as much by their critics. The Nobel Committee was attacked as "Un-American" for granting it to Martin Luther King, and Republicans did the same for granting it to Wilson in 1919. Perhaps you just need 40 years of perspective to come around...

As Vice President, he played a key role in bringing industrialized nations into the Kyoto Treaty with a global common concern. Helping spearhead treaties definitely qualifies as fostering "fraternity between nations." Traveling around the globe raising awareness about the climate crisis and spurring action among legislatures around the world, also apparently qualifies.
 

Didnt the goracles movie get banned in England for so many lies? There must have been a lot if just one poor guy can win a lawsuit against the whole country. Be careful with mlk because he was a cheater and you could get n some trouble for copying his views about the us military. People who called him unamerican probably were talking about that.
 

"Anybody Who Approves Of Al Gore Must Suck"

Tongue in cheek to be sure. I, for one, will wholeheartedly admit that I suck!
 

A man that has been so right about so many thing has got to be wrong
 

Interesting Blog. Come read my daily American Politics blog on my space. Search Derek Varsalona