Eric D. Snider

A Nobel Gesture

Snide Remarks #560

"A Nobel Gesture"

by Eric D. Snider

Published in EricDSnider.com on October 22, 2007

Between Al Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize and the Dalai Lama of Tibet winning a Congressional Gold Medal, it's been a big couple weeks in the field of Largely Symbolic Awards Bestowed Upon People Only Tangentially Related to Them. I suspect next we'll see the Pulitzer Prize for Drama given to an improv troupe.

Al Gore and the Dalai Lama of Tibet don't have much in common, of course. There is some dispute over Gore's worthiness for the Nobel Prize, but when it comes to the Dalai Lama, I think we can all agree that we don't even know where Tibet is.

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of five awards given in the name of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, who also invented dynamite. (It's true!) His will said the Peace Prize should go 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."

Gore angry! Gore smash!

Even as someone who supports Al Gore's campaign against global warming, I have to acknowledge that his efforts have nothing to do with Alfred Nobel's criteria. Of course, previous recipients include warmongers Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, in whose cases receiving the Nobel Peace Prize was not merely baffling, as with Gore, but actually ironic.

But hey, it's the Nobel committee's decision. If they want to reward Al Gore for work that's important but has nothing to do with world peace, that's their prerogative. Heck, give him a Tony for Best Featured Actress in a Musical for all I care. It's no skin off my nose.

But some conservatives were very angry when Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize. This is because some conservatives are very angry whenever anything good happens to Al Gore. If his daughter gave him a "World's Best Dad" coffee mug for Fathers Day, Rush Limbaugh would scream about it for weeks, in between fistfuls of narcotics and pie.

Many right-leaning editorialists made a point of listing other potential Nobel recipients who were surely more deserving of it than Gore was. And they may be right. I just think it's funny that Al Gore wins, and all of a sudden people are really, really concerned about the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize, which they'd never even thought about before. Did last year's winner deserve it? Nobody knows, and nobody cares. As a matter of fact, it was Jay Leno, and he beat Nelson Mandela. WHERE WAS YOUR OUTRAGE THEN?!

Word.

The Dalai Lama's Congressional Gold Medal is much less controversial, although I'm still not sure I "get" it. This award, which must be introduced as legislation and voted on by Congress, is to recognize distinguished contributions or achievements. You don't have to be an American to get it, though most of the recipients have been. Nelson Mandela got one; so did Frank Sinatra. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize (which the Dalai Lama got in 1989, by the way) the requirements for the Congressional Gold Medal are pretty vague. It seems to be for general awesomeness in the field of being excellent.

Apparently the U.S. has been wanting to give the Dalai Lama this award for a while but didn't want to upset China, which kind of hates His Holiness and is bitter about the whole Tibet thing, which is a very complicated and thorny issue that I don't feel like going to Wikipedia to learn more about.

The way I found out that the Dalai Lama was receiving the Congressional Gold Medal is that a Tibetan woman in downtown Portland handed me a flier. This flier congratulated His Holiness on the award and thanked the United States for the honor. To celebrate, the Portland/Vancouver chapter of the Regional Tibetan Youth Conference was giving out free pizza and soda at Portland's Pioneer Square. I'd like to think His Holiness is a fan of pizza and soda himself. Although he probably isn't, considering he's 72, and Tibetan.

I had a slice of free Dalai Lama pizza, even though I still didn't really know what was going on or why I should be interested. It was from Pizza Hut, which meant it was really, really greasy, because the way they make their pizza is, they dip it in grease, and then they bake it in the pizza oven, and then they dip it in grease again, and then they put it in a box that's been pre-coated with more grease. For this reason, I nominate Pizza Hut for the Nobel Grease Prize. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! But they'll probably give it to Al Gore instead.

Comments & Reaction:

Of course, I interviewed the Dalai Lama once. Good times, good times.

The scandal involving Rush Limbaugh's addiction to prescription painkillers happened four years ago, but I never got around to making an easy and obvious joke about it. What's the statute of limitations on that?

It's ironic (or something) that the namesake of the Nobel Peace Prize was the inventor of dynamite, but Alfred Nobel's work in explosives was actually a major reason for starting the award, or so the story goes. In 1888, a French newspaper erroneously reported that Nobel had died and called him "the merchant of death" for having invented (and gotten rich from) dynamite. Having one's death falsely reported is bound to make anyone stop and think about their life's work, and Nobel, appalled to realize that dynamite was going to be his legacy, set up the Nobel Prizes so he'd be remembered for something better instead.

And it worked. Everyone today has heard of the Nobel Peace Prize, and what was once his defining attribute has been reduced to a bit of trivia. Nice going, Alfred Nobel!

The Nobel Prizes are in the categories of peace, literature, medicine, chemistry, and physics. A sixth award for economics was established in 1969, called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and it is not, strictly speaking, a "Nobel Prize." Also, Jay Leno didn't really win one.

This item has 43 comments

Dave the Slave says:
October 21, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Man-o-MAN I want that picture of Al on a T-shirt! :-D
ClobberGirl says:
October 22, 2007 at 12:27 am
I'm going to teach my children that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for inventing the Internet.
sistokid says:
October 22, 2007 at 4:59 am
"...fistfuls of narcotics and pie."

You, Eric, truly are The Man.
Randy Tayler says:
October 22, 2007 at 6:00 am
Correction, ClobberGirl. The new truth is that Al Gore saved the internet from global warming.
Tyler! says:
October 22, 2007 at 6:29 am
Man, I was about to Wiki that bit of Leno trivia to see if it was true.

It was early when I read this Snide Remarks column and I got stuck in a kind of logical loop when I read that sentence. I would read it and then I would roll my eyes up and to the right in the standard, "What the...?" expression. Then I would read it again.

Thanks for saving me a trip to Wikipedia, Eric!
Tony says:
October 22, 2007 at 7:25 am
Al Gore wins a Nobel Prize?

Well, it makes me feel better.. I mean, maybe I could still get that Purple Heart I've always wanted. The fact that I've never served in the armed forces can't matter that much, right?
Justin says:
October 22, 2007 at 7:58 am
Al Gore is awesome. I congratulate him for his efforts to bring awareness to a very real and scientificly founded climate crisis. This is an issue, like most issues of any real importantance, that Americans seem to have great difficulty understanding or accepting. Gore has done a great job of presenting the facts to his audience without the fear tactics that I see used ad nauseum on FOX News.
Nate says:
October 22, 2007 at 8:17 am
Was comment 6 left by an internet roving robot? Not a shread of independent thought. And wouldn't you applaude someone's effort rather than congratulate it?

Eric, I think you're giving right-wingers a raw deal here. I haven't seen too many left-leaners, who constantly self-proclaim their intellectual superiority to right-wingers, try to reconcile how making a movie about global warming (not world peace related) merits the awarding of a peace prize.

I think the reactions to the award were predictably along party lines. Liberals, like my colleagues here in communist San Francisco, think that Al Gore should replace Jesus or perhaps God Himself due to Al Gore's infallability.

Great article though. I wish I was in Portland so I could have some Dalai Lama pizza.
Nate says:
October 22, 2007 at 8:18 am
Oops, I meant comment 7, left by "Justin"
Ryan says:
October 22, 2007 at 9:03 am
I am trying to decide whether comment #7 is meant to sarcastic or not.
Leah Jane says:
October 22, 2007 at 9:24 am
What is it about Al Gore that gets so many people foaming at the mouth whenever someone praises him? Eric is right. First time I heard about this, it was in an editorial, on people who deserved it more. Sure, there are people who deserve it more, but I'm not on the Nobel Committee (Or whoever choses the people to recieve it. I wouldn't know, I can't even speak Swedish) It's not a huge travesty to have him winning it though. Because he was right. Global Warming is a fact, it's happening. And he made a few more people think before they left their lamps on when they left. Al Gore is a very smart man. What harm is there in honoring him? If I were a conservative, I'd be jumping for joy, since the Nobel Prize more or less cements his promise not to run for president, and to continue to work on environmental efforts.
card says:
October 22, 2007 at 9:31 am
Great. Now I have the "First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence" song in my head.
Cat says:
October 22, 2007 at 9:38 am
"For this reason, I nominate Pizza Hut for the Nobel Grease Prize."

I laughed so hard. I would vote for that one.
Skenderberg says:
October 22, 2007 at 9:55 am
Why is that picture of the Dalai Lama flipping us the bird? (The British multi-finger bird, that is.) His hand's facing the wrong way for that to be the peace sign.
semco says:
October 22, 2007 at 10:30 am
I really wanted to have a chat with Al Gore about global warming on Saturday when I was sitting in a snow storm in the middle of October. But I doubted his private jet could make it through the blizzard...
Chuckwagon Breakfast says:
October 22, 2007 at 10:33 am
Clarification for Randy Tayler - Al Gore saved the Internet from global warming by inventing a lockbox for Social Security benefits. (see Presidential Debates in 2000)
dadeo says:
October 22, 2007 at 10:39 am
#14 Try to make your hand face the other way from that position. It hurts! Great article. Pizza Hut Grease FOREVER!
Justin says:
October 22, 2007 at 10:40 am
I like how my name is put in quotations marks - as though I might not be a real person. It merely underscores the idiocy of the those who deny the obvious (e.g. the affect human beings have on the global environment). Good job!
Commenty Commentenstein says:
October 22, 2007 at 10:47 am
"Did last year's winner deserve it? Nobody knows, and nobody cares. As a matter of fact, it was Jay Leno, and he beat Nelson Mandela. WHERE WAS YOUR OUTRAGE THEN?!"

Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
Ben C. says:
October 22, 2007 at 10:55 am
There are plenty of scientists out there that refute that global warming is happening. Or, at least that humans are the ONLY cause of it. We may have some part in it, but it could just be a natural change in the global climate that happens every so often (Ice Age anyone?). I'm not going to deny it's happening, because Justin (the one without quotations ;)) is right, from our limited knowledge of the Earth's climate history, there does seem to be an up trend in the temp., but it's not real obvious if it is wholly (sp?) our fault.
Pumpkin says:
October 22, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Al Gore is a hypocritical sleezebag, and now that he's won the Nobel Prize for putting out a documentary, that prize is officially meaningless now. It's obvious he's just doing what he's doing for the money and fame because last year he spent $30,000 in utilities in one his houses. I think he's just sick of getting rejected as President, so he decided to go into the environmental game. If global warming were such a big issue, why is it that only politicians and celebrities talk about it all the time instead of scientists? If you think about it logically, there's nothing we can do about it anyway because what got rid of the Ice Age? It wasn't SUVs and air conditioners. What Americans do won't have much effect anyway because China is the biggest polluter and destroyer of the environment, and their sales of cars have only gone up in the past few years. I'm not pessimistic, but resistance is pretty much futile. I'm just waiting for the Second Coming, and hoping it will come soon.
Eric's Brother Chris says:
October 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I think it's awesome that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for something that has nothing to do with peace. For one thing, it solidifies my opinion that the Nobel Peace prize is pretty much a joke, considering some of the people who have won it in the past, as Eric mentioned, so somebody winning it for something completely unrelated makes it even better.

Also, Al Gore's "science" of MAN-MADE global warming is suspect at best, and many portions of his movie itself have been refuted by many environmental scientists and a couple of films since then, too. It's pretty much accepted that the earth's temperature has risen about a degree in the last hundred years or so, but to say that man has caused this is a pretty big stretch at this point for a host of reasons that I don't have room to get into.

And sorry Eric, but as a right-leaning talk radio fan myself, I haven't heard anyone on the radio actually angry that Gore won the award. I've heard most just point out the absurdity and humor of it, that's all.
John Doe says:
October 22, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I have to agree with what Eric's Brother Chris said (#22). What Eric wrote here is similar to what Rush has said on his own show. And everything else.

That said, funny article, as usual. When Eric described the gold medal of honor, I also thought about "First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence".
B says:
October 23, 2007 at 11:58 am
The best explanation for why Al Gore won the Noble Peace prize I've heard is climate change causes war. How, you ask? When the climate changes, formerly areable or livable land is no longer useful, and people start fighting over the remaining land. Personally, this is a situation I'd like to avoid, and if the attention Gore has brought to global warming will help with this, than he deserves the award.
dadeo says:
October 23, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Hey #19. OUTRAGE? Idiocy maybe, but I don't see much here that comes close to outrage. If it keeps Gore from running for ANY office it's fine with me.
jds88 says:
October 24, 2007 at 8:06 am
Re #24:

The thing is, assuming for a moment that mankind is the primary cause of global warming then the only way to stop it permanently is to nuke all of the industrialized countries. Any other meaningful effort to stop global warming--international cooperation, treaties, or whatever--is subject to what is called in economics circles "the prisoner's dilemma": the noncooperation of a few makes the entire scheme noneffective. For example, my understanding is that China has shown little interest in the whole global warming discussion and is industrializing rapidly. If the US cut its emissions all the way back to zero, China would be picking up the slack in a matter of decades.

Even if--miracle of miracles--everyone did reduce their emissions, the climate would still change over time as it has for thousands of years. Sooner or later we're going to have to adapt.

It's not a bad thing to encourage citizens to make a reasonable effort to reduce their carbon footprints as part of a comprehensive climate-change policy, but it's a little silly to demand that citizens sacrifice their liberty, their prosperity, and their mobility solely to the insatiable god of "emissions reduction".

Gore would have done better to make a movie explaining how climate change will affect day-to-day life in the future, and advising us to devote some of our resources during these "years of plenty" to develop the infrastructure we're eventually going to need--stronger levees, better emergency response, more stringent building codes, new irrigation techniques, or whatever. Instead, he made a movie whose primary focus, as I understand it, is the apportionment of blame--making the international community hate America, and making America resent the fact that to a significant extent it has been turned into the whipping boy for even less environmentally-conscious third-world nations.

So, the end result of Gore's movie is that we all hate each other a little more, but we're no closer to adapting to global warming (let alone stopping it).
Lowdogg says:
October 24, 2007 at 8:34 am
That is a great picture of Alberto.

I like to blog about the Global Warmings.
Matt says:
October 24, 2007 at 9:35 am
#26: Things may not be so bleak. "Alternative energy" is becoming less expensive and more efficient as it gets more attention (e.g. money). The goal is not to just force people to stop burning coal and otherwise producing greenhouse gasses just for the sake of doing so, but to provide the financial incentive to develop cleaner fossil fuel processes and fossil fuel-free energy sources. If we find ways to produce large amounts of energy efficiently without using fossil fuels, China will use that technology as well. The investment in alternative energy is much more important than controls on traditional energy, but it's the latter the gets the people who have the money to invest in the former.
John Doe says:
October 24, 2007 at 11:12 am
I have a question:
Have there been any empirical numbers about global warming or anything besides the "in 10 years it will be too late to save the world" that Gore said about 3 years ago?

For example, how much CO2 do we put out a year? How much do we need to reduce it by to in order to stop global warming?

I watched on the news that if we spend tons of money and put solar panels all over this desert area, we can produce as much energy as 1 million barrels of oil a year. The problem is that the US uses 20 million barrels a day. So it seems to me that alternative fuel sounds good, but can anyone give us a real number of how much oil we need to reduce and how much CO2 production we need to reduce? Otherwise, it's just nice sounding phrases.

If people really cared about it, they be promoting nuclear energy. It is the cheapest and safest (today, unlike in the past). But people are too scared of it despite all the new regulations and advances in nuclear power.
Matt says:
October 24, 2007 at 12:37 pm
#29 Yes, there is specific science that makes specific predictions with stated degrees of confidence and margin of error. I'm not a climatologist so I don't read the primarily research and I'm not really an advocate for either side of the debate, so I don't read much of the popular reporting, though my impression is that the popular press tends to present a pretty crappy view of the science regardless of which side they are presenting. They like to go for the sensational stuff like oceans enveloping our coastal cities or fluff pieces about which environmental activists are driving SUVs.

Reaclimate.org seems to be the most reasonable source for the real skinny on the science regarding anthropogenic global warming. It's run by climate scientists, though it definitely is slanted towards the "it's happening" perspective, which makes sense since that's how the perspective of climate scientists at large slants.

Regarding solar cells - they have traditionally been pretty inefficient, but their efficiency have been going up, as has the efficiency of the devices we need to power with them (compact flourescents, anyone?) It is possible to have a household function, with existing technology, from the power available from a rooftop of solar panels. It's just too expensive to be practical at this point. But again, cost is going down and efficiency is going up.

I agree that we should promote nuclear energy. I think our best bet for "clean" energy and independence from foreign oil in the near- and mid- term. Nuclear waste is an issue, but less so (IMO) than the geopolitical risks of maintaining our dependence on Middle East oil.
Lynn says:
October 24, 2007 at 2:21 pm
#24 I like the connection to peace you make with the war theory, but what about all that land in Siberia and Canada and Greenland that will suddenly look a lot more habitable? I think the balance may be in favor of more land.
Matt says:
October 24, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Permafrost doesn't necessarily become "habitable" when it turns into a muddy bog.
jds88 says:
October 24, 2007 at 7:24 pm
True, but swamps can often be drained.
mommy says:
October 24, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I read a fascinating article about how much CO2 volcanoes put out. Somehow at the same time, the plants "know" to photosynthesize more and adapt for it. that is fascinating to me. Wouldn't it be interesting to somehow turn that switch and have plants help us out.

I'm completely for doing what we can and should whether or not global warming is man made. It just means being responsible.

As for Al Gore. He definitely brought attention to his cause. His movie wasn't accurate, his lifestyle doestn' reflect it, but he has over years of time brought attention to his cause. I'm not sure how that relates to peace...how I just described him it sounds more like the chinese water toorture prize.
Matt says:
October 25, 2007 at 12:08 am
Voncanos put out a lot of CO2 but nowhere near the quantity put out by man. In addition, they put out other chemicals (such as sulfur dioxide) which effectively cancel out their CO2 emissions. Volcanos actually have a net cooling effect on the climate.
Tern says:
October 25, 2007 at 9:05 am
I think that conservatives have been making fun of the Nobel Peace Prize for years, and pointing out that the recipients are generally undeserving one way or another, making the whole concept rather ridiculous. I suspect that they are frustrated that year after year, somebody gets the prize who probably shouldn't get it, and nobody listens.

OTO, the way I figure is that the prize has been proven worthless for many years now, and why not just take it as a big joke.

Anyway, all hail the Goracle Lama. Or something.
Rob says:
October 25, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I'm waiting for Michael Ramsay, inventor of TiVo to win the prize. Just think...no commercials, 2 shows recorded at the same time, uninterupted television programming = absolute world peace. Just read Infinite Jest.
Momma Snider says:
October 27, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I'm sure TiVo has kept the peace in a lot of families.
Greg says:
October 28, 2007 at 9:38 pm
They probably decided it was okay to annoy China because China tried to kill our pets and we Americans love our pets more than we love cheap crap from China, or something.
and_or says:
November 1, 2007 at 11:01 pm
-intermezzo-

-Now to go full geek on your hizzal-

Mr. Nobel actually invented TNT with the intent to save lives and money. More stable than straight nitro glycerine and more effetive than gunpowder, TNT facillitated many of the great civil engineering projects of the industrial age. True, he did get stinkin' rich selling the patent as a munition, but remember the machine gun was invented to prevent wars from ever starting. (Logic being that the weapon was so powerfull, no one would be foolish enough to use it. Soud familiar?)

-resume act-
RFS says:
November 2, 2007 at 9:13 am
I replaced a dozen 60 watt light bulbs in my home with 23 watt energy saving florescent bulbs. I don't like them. They are dull and don't work properly in my 3-way touch lamps (lamps that have 3 power levels). One of the bulbs is brighter than the others and I don't know why. It is the same brand and wattage. It also flickers after a while and gives me a headache. I also can't throw them away when I'm done with them because of the 5mgs of Mercury in each of them.

I live in southern California where the weather is wonderful eleven months out of the year, and marginally wonderful the remaining month. For crying out loud, I hang Christmas lights every December in a T-shirt and shorts! Anyway, I had been hoping that Global Warming would make the northern climates a little more hospitable for retirement, but it looks like estimates are that it's going to be 50 to 100 years before the temperature goes up another 1-3 degrees and I can't wait that long. Oh well. - RFS

PS. I would love to see the day when all new homes are built with solar roof panels.
Ronn! says:
November 4, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Minor nit to and_or (#40):

TNT is not the same thing as dynamite. Dynamite is made by absorbing glyceryl trinatrate (incorrectly but commonly called "nitroglycerine") in diatomaceous earth which does indeed make it more stable than it is in liquid form. TNT is trinitrotoluene, which is a solid at room temperature and unlike nitroglycerine is stable to shock and is also stable enough that it can be heated until it melts and then poured into a mold to make shaped charges.
Matt says:
January 3, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I was expecting partisan nonsense at the end of this column -- a humor column, mind you -- and you folks delivered.

Thanks for offering your expert opinions on something you don't understand! Huzzah!

This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.