Recent winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, dis-credited alarmist Al Gore in 2007 for his silly and mendacious documentary An Inconvenient Truth; and the hopeful President of the USA Barack Obama in 2009, soon after he took office may not have deserved their awards according to John O'Sullivan at Climate Realists.
Perhaps the Committee counted improvement at the time and future improvements in his golf score. The last will and testament of Alfred Nobel seems to be the reason for the investigation. Apparently Mr Nobel had a different definition of peace than what the Committee is using these days. I seem to remember other stooges like Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat winning the prize some years ago.
Nobel was born in 1833. He amassed a huge fortune from his many inventions, especially dynamite. The income from the fortune—or 94% of it, anyway—was supposed to be given to those who confer "the greatest benefit to mankind," as judged by various Swedish committees of high mucky-mucks.
This is a small experiment in the blogosphere. "If you have no interest in what it's like to grow old, what follows is not for you. However, if it's going to happen to you, and the outcome is ultimately going to be negative, then finding a way to make the process as bearable, even as enjoyable as possible, might be worth a little attention."—from John Jerome's On Turning Sixty-Five
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One could also add Amnesty International (1977), the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces (1988), Rigoberta Menchú Tum (the author of a fake autobiography - 1992), the United Nations and Kofi Annan (2001), and International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei (2005) to the list of bizarro choices. It seems being corrupt, a fake, or a mass murderer is a requirement for getting the award.
Thank you dear friend for reminding us of more silliness on the part of academic committees. I was surprised to learn that there is some opposition to this nonsense in Sweden.
Post a Comment