Apparantly, Saving 3,000 Jewish Prisoners, Mostly

[FirefightnRick]

....especially when "much" is less than Al Gore.

Life In A Jar: The Irena Sendler Project.

Rick

Edited September 25, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[meangreendork]

....especially when "much" is less than Al Gore.

Life In A Jar: The Irena Sendler Project.

Rick

It was a joint award, and the Nobel Peace Prize committee probably didn't set an appointment for Sendler to die. Actually they probably should've presented her with an award far prior. I would say her work deserved the prize long before Gore got into politics.

[Guest JohnDenver]

I dunno.. Gore may end up saving more than 3000 peeps. Well, if you believe in the whole global warming conspiracy.

[FirefightnRick]

It was a joint award, and the Nobel Peace Prize committee probably didn't set an appointment for Sendler to die.

Joint? Explain? You think maybe they thought she should have held out a bit longer for that 99th or 100th birthday?

Rick

Edited September 25, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[FirefightnRick]

I dunno.. Gore may end up saving more than 3000 peeps. Well, if you believe in the whole global warming conspiracy.

I'm looking for the (sick) sarcasm button but I don't see one? Surely you jest?

Rick

[meangreendork]

Joint? Explain? You think maybe they thought she should have held out a bit longer for that 99th or 100th birthday?

Rick

My bad. I thought it said something to the amount of the award being jointly awarded to her AND Gore. Actually, that year's award was jointly given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. So actually, the award was given to Gore and another organization. Sorry Rick, but it's more than just Al Gore this time. It's other people putting in time for something they really support.

But as for my comment:

the Nobel Peace Prize committee probably didn't set an appointment for Sendler to die

As in, they can't really turn around and give an award on a given year to someone simply because they died that year. It's something similar to some of the film and music awards where someone dies - they don't give them an award, they give them something else to honor their memory. So it's kind of hard to pre-emptively give someone an award, and it's even harder to turn around and give someone's award to another person like that.

Actually they probably should've presented her with an award far prior. I would say her work deserved the prize long before Gore got into politics.

They should've given her an award before her death. Probably sometime closely after her story became public, I would say.

And for global warming (here I go landing in the middle again), most of the evidence I see points to a cyclical warming trend that the Earth's climate undergoes at semi-regular intervals. The last "ice age" (for lack of a better term) happened prior to or around the 1250CE and up until like, 1500CE. Roughly. Basically, this sort of thing happens as the Earth's water supplies circulate in and out of the glaciers and ice floes of the world. Now, we haven't and probably won't hit anything like a major, worldwide ice age for another few hundred years. But seriously, global warming is more a cyclical occurrence of the climate. Same as the El Nino, same as the usual hurricane and rainy seasons, just with bigger spaces between. However, don't take that as an excuse to go throwing extraneous chemicals, hydrocarbons, smoke and whatnot into the air because that can and will harm us. That's increases in localized ozone (trapping heat), putting more chemicals in our own lungs, and damaging our environment in general.

[FirefightnRick]

But as for my comment:

As in, they can't really turn around and give an award on a given year to someone simply because they died that year.

Irena Sendler died a bit over 4 months ago, May 12, 2008. The Nobel prize was awarded to Gore and his gang on October 13, 2007.

Rick

Edited September 25, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[emmitt01]

I'm wondering Rick, is your beef with the Nobel Prize selection committee for not honoring this woman or is it somehow with Al Gore (who, while he is a dirty democrat) had nothing to do with her being snubbed?

Edited September 25, 2008 by emmitt01

[Censored by Laurie]

I'm wondering Rick, is your beef with the Nobel Prize selection committee for not honoring this woman or is it somehow with Al Gore (who, while he is a dirty democrat) had nothing to do with her being snubbed?

He's also angy at Martin Luther King, Jr. for beating her in 1964, Amnesty International in 1977, Mother Teressa in 1979, Desmond Tutu in 1984, Elie Wiesel in 1986, Nelson Mandela in 1993, and especially that bitch Wangari Maathai in 2004.

[JayDub]

I'm wondering Rick, is your beef with the Nobel Prize selection committee for not honoring this woman or is it somehow with Al Gore (who, while he is a dirty democrat) had nothing to do with her being snubbed?

Emmitt wins...thread over.

[KRAM1]

Some of the replies on here are really amazing, and it's why I enjoy GoMeanGreen.Com so much. For me, the beef is with the prize committee who overlooked this lady and he true compassion and heoric efforts while awarding the prize to "others". You pick "others"...your choice. For me, Al Gore being selected was the biggest joke ever. There have been many fine and deserving winners, however, overlooking Irena Sendler lessens the significance of the award a great deal for me.

Just a sign of the times....or so it seems. How soon "they" forget...or in many cases "re-write" history. SAD!

[FirefightnRick]

Why am I not shocked at the responses? She wasn't nominated until '07 for the Nobel prize. Why not before, I don't know. It seems though she was awarded for her efforts overseas prior to last year, her story didn't even become known to most(U.S.), according to the "Life In A Jar" website until the students in Kansas made a play about her life. It's very telling where this world is today when people can justify a woman who sacrificed so much for others losing out on an award to such a fruadulent idea that is Global Warming and that hack Al Gore.

Emmitt, your too smart to not answer that question yourself.

And Jay Dub, why does Emmitt win. Win what?

Not one, even one of you libs feel this was a huge slight on this woman's accomplishments by the Nobel folks?

Rick

Edited September 25, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[Quoner]

We need Cartman's help:

[Censored by Laurie]

Not one, even one of you libs feel this was a huge slight on this woman's accomplishments by the Nobel folks?

Rick

Obviously she was very deserving...but that is not how you're presenting the issue. You're directing your venom not at the Nobel Association and questioning their logic in the selection of Gore...you're turning it into yet another politically-motivated, the whole world is liberal conspiracy attack (see the thread right below this one for another pertinent example). Gore didn't campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize...I mean, hell, if he had campaigned he probably would've lost (or won...and the conceded).

And...again...just as Global Warming has not been proven...it also has not been disproven. Its a scientific theory...not a law...and it requires those way smarter than you and I to test and debate its merits.

[FirefightnRick]

Obviously she was very deserving...but that is not how you're presenting the issue. You're directing your venom not at the Nobel Association and questioning their logic in the selection of Gore...you're turning it into yet another politically-motivated, the whole world is liberal conspiracy attack (see the thread right below this one for another pertinent example). Gore didn't campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize...I mean, hell, if he had campaigned he probably would've lost (or won...and the conceded).

And...again...just as Global Warming has not been proven...it also has not been disproven. Its a scientific theory...not a law...and it requires those way smarter than you and I to test and debate its merits.

True, my venom is from the slight of someone so deserving. To me their logic should be questioned. True, Global Warming has yet to be proven or disproven, although it appears there are more disproving than proving. But Mrs. Sendler's efforts were not theory, but of the most selfless and kind and sacrificial acts man can ever do for one another. What an incredible, amazing story. Her sacrifices isn't up for debate, their facts. All I'm saying with this thread is, with all that was considered, WHAT AN INCREDIBLE SHAME? That's all.

And while I have your attention, may I ask when is your first full write up overview of our new women's basketball team due out?

Rick

Edited September 25, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[Green P1]

We need Cartman's help:

Perfect..... Just Perfect.

[Censored by Laurie]

I know you're baiting me...I just know it.

[JayDub]

Not one, even one of you libs feel this was a huge slight on this woman's accomplishments by the Nobel folks?

Rick...let's put it like this.

First and foremost, I agree with you that Irena Sendler was much more deserving than Al Gore. The fact that she has been passed over for her efforts during the Holocaust is nuts. God bless her and people like her during that ridiculous time in history. Something tells me she died at peace despite never having been given an award for doing what she knew was right.

That said, I say Emmitt "wins" because...if there were no mention of Al Gore...you would likely not have cared enough to share her story or publicly show your disgust toward the Nobel committee. You probably would have looked at the story, thought to yourself what an amazing lady she must have been, , maybe thanked God for people like her, and moved on. However, because you saw the name "Al Gore"...you made it your personal mission to rip on everything the man has done to bring the climate issue to the forefront (which, I must ask, if John McCain were the one who made "An Inconvenient Truth" and giving lectures about the "Climate Crisis", instead of Al Gore...would you hold such disdain for the subject and the messenger?).

And, let's face it, time will tell on Gore's theories (and, before you make assumptions just because I'm a "lib"...I'm not entirely convinced of a full-on change, either), but he had us thinking more about our impact on the Earth well before oil went through the roof.

[KRAM1]

If you would like an academic's thoughts on this "global warming" thing and how it is being politicized google "Richard S. Lindzen", Program in Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and see if you can find his recent (9-19-2008) paper entitled "Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions?".

You might find it interesting in what is said about the politics involved in Atmospheric Science these days and how folks with dissenting positions on global warming are treated in the academic and non-academic world these days.

It is about 35 pages long, including references, so it is a bit "challenging" to read for a non-scientific type like me, but it is well worth reading...from the abstract I quote, "When the issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accomodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of."

OK, I dare you to read this with an open mind...the guy is from MIT...not known for its conservative stance on many issues...so libs and conservatives...read this if you will with the mind open. Interesting to say the laest about how the global warming "issue" is handled by some in the name of political correctness and to keep those grant dollars flowing. I am 100% sure this guy will be "beaten up badly" by many who disagree with him. I just hope he hides his Hummer or Jeep from those who show their "disagreements" in "special" ways!

OK, can you take a DARE! Tough reading and not "light" at all...but.....do you dare?

[JayDub]

OK, I dare you to read this with an open mind...the guy is from MIT...not known for its conservative stance on many issues...so libs and conservatives...read this if you will with the mind open. Interesting to say the laest about how the global warming "issue" is handled by some in the name of political correctness and to keep those grant dollars flowing. I am 100% sure this guy will be "beaten up badly" by many who disagree with him. I just hope he hides his Hummer or Jeep from those who show their "disagreements" in "special" ways!

OK, can you take a DARE! Tough reading and not "light" at all...but.....do you dare?

I dare...as soon as I can get around to it. I'm open to just about anything...however, I tend to find myself on the liberal side of some things, conservative on others.

Here's the thing...what is your definition of "open mind"? Conservatives don't exactly have a great history of "open-mindedness".

[meangreendork]

True, my venom is from the slight of someone so deserving. To me their logic should be questioned.

That's what I've been getting at, despite not looking up nomination dates. But yes, they should've done this before. Why they didn't, I don't know. But maybe some people who buy into global warming think that the efforts of that environmental organization will eventually reap far greater benefits. I mean, let's separate the politics of global warming from this and make it a "saved 3000 Jewish" vs. "spreading the word en masse about global pollution and environmental issues".

Maybe you're okay with this, but I like the idea of breathing air that isn't polluted to crap and back.

I'm just gonna call you out and tell you that you posted this because Al Gore's attached to it. Had it just been the IPCC you probably wouldn't have paid any attention to this.

[FirefightnRick]

I'm just gonna call you out and tell you that you posted this because Al Gore's attached to it. Had it just been the IPCC you probably wouldn't have paid any attention to this.

No, I thought the Global Warming discussions were goofy before Al Gore had anyting to do with it. Are you young enough to remember Global Cooling? I remember teachers and adults making fun of this as well. People talking about the Ice Age was just around the corner and all? LOL!

And now 3 decades later, here we go again with the Global Cooling thing again?

Science does not support these and other scary predictions, which Gore and his allies repeatedly tout as a “scientific consensus.”

Global Warming May have stopped Temporarily?

Weather Channel Founder: John Coleman.

Rick

Edited September 26, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[drex]

I thought Al Gore died about 8 years ago.

[KRAM1]

drex, you were only dreaming. He is out campaigning for Al Franken in Minnesota. Was in St. paul for a wedding this last weekend and saw way too much of Al Franken and his ads on TV, etc. What a JOKE!