Weekly Weigh-in - Noble Monks, Bloodless Gore, Genocidal Neocons

So, Al Gore gets a vindication of sorts by winning the Nobel prize. The best thing about it, in my opinion, is that I'm sure it's got El Presidente feeling peevish in that spoiled-rich-kid way he so frequently displays. His old nemesis gets the Peace Prize and an Oscar while he looks destined to go down as one of the worst presidents in history. You'd almost think he'd want to take his ball and go home. (We should be so lucky.)

But let's put the schadenfreude aside for a moment. As for whether Gore actually deserves the prize...Well, that's another matter, and it kinda depends on how you look at it. Given that the prize is hugely politicized and has been given to such monstrous individuals as Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger (who, in light of the atrocities he helped commit in Timor, Cambodia, Chile, etc., etc., ad nauseam, is almost certainly America's worst living war criminal), the prize committee certainly could've picked a worse recipient. But I have to agree with those who find the link between Gore's global warming campaign and peace somewhat tenuous. I mean, sure, a warming planet might lead to drought, famine, competition for resources, and yes, war, but aren't there plenty of people out there whose actions are far more directly related to peace vis-a-vis war?

Consider those Burmese monks, for example. Here are people who just in the last weeks acted in the greatest traditions of non-violent protest, knowing full well that their courage might end in torture and death. Some of them were murdered in the streets, some are even now being beaten and interrogated in some hell-on-earth prison. Aren't they a little more deserving of the prize than some pudgy ex-vice president who jets around the world giving a bloodless, albeit worthwhile, PowerPoint presentation? The question answers itself. Of course, I'm sure the prize committee can hide behind the technicality that the monks' bravery came too late to be considered for this year's award, but frankly, when they've given the thing to rotten-to-the-core dirtbags like Kissinger, I think that bending the rules a bit would be far from the worst thing in the prize's long, not-always-so-illustrious history.

None of which is to suggest that a collective prize would do much for the dissidents currently suffering in Burma's gulags, but to the extent that the prize can do anything at all, it should be injected into conflicts like their struggle for freedom. Every bit of pressure on the junta would help, and indeed, if China and Russia and America and Europe and all the other nations of the earth were truly willing to force the generals out of power, I think they could do it. But, of course, Beijing, for example, can't exactly get on the generals' cases too much when they treat their own opposition exactly same...So, what're ya gonna do? Let's just use the prize to poke a finger in Bush's eye and have a grand old time at the Olympics next year...

Ah, well, bleak as some things seem, there's no reason to throw in the towel completely. Let's just work on those things we can control to some extent for now...like making sure that more genocidal leaders don't take power. To wit, have you been looking for a reason not to vote for Rudy "9/11" Giuliani? I mean, besides the apparently prick-ish personality that makes him more reminiscent of Bush, on that score at least, than anyone else in the race? Well look no further. A Newsweek article this week reports on how Giuliani is surrounding himself with neocons. That's bad enough after what these clowns got us into in Iraq, but it gets worse when you realize that one of these guys, at least, would be more suitable as an adviser to a Mussolini than an American president. I'm talking about Daniel Pipes, who, according to the article, has argued, for example, "that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was not the moral offense it's been portrayed as." Right, what could be wrong with forcing thousands of completely innocent people out of their homes solely because of their race? But it gets worse: we learn that Pipes has even "advocated 'razing [Palestinian] villages from which attacks are launched'" against Israel. Sure, why not? History has shown that the best way to solve racial and sectarian strife is by killing everyone on the other side and burning their houses to the ground. Oh, and then we could salt the earth. Yup, that's a great policy and has been heartily endorsed by such world leaders as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan.

Seriously, though, this is a guy the article describes as one of Giuliani's "core consultants." I.e., a racist crackpot who advocates war crimes has the ear of someone who may very well win the Republican nomination. That is seriously f'd up. Oh sure, I don't think a President Giuliani would actually listen (much) to such a lunatic, but the company you keep says a whole lot about you, and I say this alone should disqualify the pugnacious little a-hole from anyone's consideration. That said, I guess any country has a decent sized a-hole approving demographic (after all, they elected Bush), so I don't think we can count the guy out just yet, unfortunately.