Priceless commentary!

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 9:39:06 AM

  (0+)

How did The Onion miss this one? Can the Court retroactively void Carter's Nobel?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 10:10:03 AM

  (0+)

As a follow-up to our report earlier, TMZ.com, AOL's celebrity-gossip website, has posted images online that capture the informal party thrown by staffers in the wake of Al Gore;s receiving the Nobel prize for peace. Several of the pictures show a smiling Gore surfing the Internet, his past major accomplishment, and Googling his name opposite the phrase "climate change", while onlookers cheer and flip burgers on a nearby outdoor grill. Chili also appeared to be on the menu after a "sneak peek" at the curbside trash containers outside the Gore residence. When questioned about the use of the grill and its obvious carbon emissions, which some from (apparently) the Right may argue are needless and hypocritical of Gore, an unnamed staffer responded that, "Mr. Gore was naturally concerned about this and ordered that 'Benny', his prize Angus, be consumed to offset the grill's carbon footprint... [T]he G is me, dude!" Another reveler stated, "Al is constantly thinking of ways to improve our plan [sic], plant [sic] - planet. I mean, who but Al knew carbon-based life was so hurtful to Nature and who, but G, had the courage to say so in front of so many? He rocks!" Gore has promoted similar provocative and long-desired thinking before when his son was accosted earlier this year driving a Prius and inhaling Nature's beauty ( http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2627 ). When Mr. Gore was questioned as to how his work on climate change relates to the Nobel prize for peace, he explained the response in terms of his latest initiative. "It's, uh, titled Selective Carbon Assessment and Manipulation for the Masses or SCAMM." Apparently, the purpose of SCAMM is to get warring factions such as the United States and al-Qaeda to agree on the exclusive use of a carbon-neutral munitions. "Given the obsessive waste of organic material associated with exploded ordinance, I thought, uh, linking common enemies under a common cause was, uh, well, a common carbon strategy." And clearly what's good for the planet is good for peace! When prompted as to what he's going to do next, the former Vice President announced, "I'm going to Disney World!" And he can too with the Gulfstream G550 he intends to buy with his $750,000 share of the prize money after trading in his older (and less carbon friendly) Gulfstream V. "It's all about being retentive to the planet's needs," said the departing Gore as the celebration's chili appeared to kick in with a brief but vocal blast. A reddened Gore commented, "I'm not certain how I'll offset that one..."

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 10:37:50 AM

  (0+)

Very honorable mention, TNT-Tom...that was dynomite! 

Honestly, when I heard the news of Gore's win...it wasn't necessarily bad, like "Bush just stole yet another election," but it could have been much better. 

I was disappointed the Norwegians being decieved by Gore.  Of course I agree with Gore that we should drastically cut down on our carbon emissions...and  Gore has been exceptional to get that conversation started, but I think he has done that through the power/influence of some of the men behind the curtain that I have learned to distrust...a lot!  The new tax to keep warm and to go to work that is being developed through carbon credits...is VERY scary. 

That is where I don't want this Gore discussion to go as a solution...that solution can not help the peace/struggle of the common person.

by sherry clark (47 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 116 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 12:59:28 PM

  (0+)

In a similarly stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President George W Bush may instead accept the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize for his great contribution to peace, stability and happiness in Iraq.

White House Press Secretary expressed thanks to the Supreme Court and to the Nobel Committee on hehalf of the President and indicates that the President is prepared to carry out his God-given destiny of extending peace and stability to Iran.

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 330 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 2:13:15 PM

  (0+)

is better than the article !

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 3:14:29 PM

  (0+)

all the Iraqi kids who died becasue of 1992-2000 sanctions. Will someone please award him and Bill (and many others) the Butcher prize.

by .Dughman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 32 comments) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 3:11:20 PM

  (0+)

jim, your headline gave me my first smile of the day (and it's 4 pm - that's the kinda day i'm having). thanks for the comic relief. if only someone could have captured a photo of bush's face upon hearing the news.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 3:17:23 PM

  (0+)

when you consider that the average reading comprehension in the USA is 4th-grade level, I don't know that it's a good idea to use a serious information channel for jokes. I, personally, hadn't yet heard about yon nomination, and had to verify that that wasn't a joke. I know I'm suggesting a lack of "fun", but if all our sources were compromised, how would "truth" ever be verified.

The movie "Thank You For Smoking" explored the idea of the difference between an "argument" and a "negotiation", where an argument is just one side's POV, which can be continually repeated non-stop, via the notion that everything's just opinion and there is no reality.

If there's no place to find grounded descriptions of reality, "they" have succeeded in making all language meaningless and NewSpeak'ish.

- Lenny Gray -

by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 77 comments) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 7:08:59 PM

  (0+)

This is funny. You do have an excuse. It IS Friday. And... this nation is so effed up it just might be believable.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 8:21:12 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you...I didn't get it... i was expecting a report not jokes...

by MysticGem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 at 1:59:38 AM

  (0+)

If you would take the time to study the law, you would understand that the SC decision regarding the 2000 presidential election was 100 correct. I would have preferred if Gore had won, however we are supposed to be a nation of laws, and the degree to which we disregard the laws is the degree to which the USA is harmed.

So, the bottom line is that your attempt at humor is way off point.

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 8:47:40 PM

  (0+)

Which part of the constitution says "we don't need to count no stinking votes"?

- Lenny Gray -

by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 77 comments) on Friday, Oct 12, 2007 at 11:54:31 PM

  (0+)

Which of course is why the Court specified that the decision was not precedent-setting and why none of the justices would sign it.

All in all, that court decision has been worked over by the best and is considered a low point of the Court's long history.

But thanks for the (non) advice about law. Lighten up, dude.

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 at 3:54:43 AM

  (0+)

The court overruled the highest court in Florida on an issue of vote counting and you , in direct opposition to law and precedent, allow your personal political views to stand in direct opposition to both of the former.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 at 8:36:10 AM

  (0+)

What part of this do you find to be my personal political view?

Which of course is why the Court specified that the decision was not precedent-setting and why none of the justices would sign it.

That's the fact, pard. 

All in all, that court decision has been worked over by the best and is considered a low point of the Court's long history.

Have you read anything on this historic decision? If so, you would find it to be almost unanimously criticized by legal scholars. None of whom had a particular political purpose in their critique.

I find your criticism offensive in the extreme. Furthermore, it appears you wouldn't know satire if it ran you down at a streetcorner, but I find the interest in satire waned at about the halfway point in replies and folks started getting their feelings hurt and their facts wrong. 

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 6:03:11 PM

  (0+)

Gore's show has been sanctioned by UK High court because of bias.Gore has admitted that he only showed one side (interpretation) of the argument   because if he showed other if he showed other alternatives it could be interpreted as doubt or (words to that effect.)

The UK where the judge ruled that ‘An Inconvenient Truth needed to be viewed in schools by students under the supervision of a teacher because the science presented is only one interpretation….’  He went on to list the scientific contentious points.   This isn’t to say that global warming isn’t happening just that some of Gore’s ‘proofs’ aren’t exactly cut and dried.T

his raises the issue of Gore’s integrity or arrogance assuming that collectively we are as stupid as we can’t be trusted with the truth. Those who don’t believe won’t believe until the water is lapping under their chins anyway. In short he told us what would best make his point not necessarily the 'inconvenient truth'. 

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 at 2:52:11 AM

  (0+)

I can't believe those 5 justices could be so dense as to rule on something of which they apparently knew nothing, and their statements showed it!  They had to have been appointed by the Clown Prince George.  That slightly noticeable temperature those dunderheads don't seen to recognize is melting glaciers and ice packs farther north than Norway is a statistical average.  And who are they to tell a private citizen he of she can not accept an award from a NATO country?  It's not like Norway is one of the Clown Prince's rogue nations that supposedly support terror.  In real life, a person can usually only be promoted to their level of incompetency, but in politics you can not only be elected well beyond that threshold, you can nominate and appoint others well beyond their level of competency.  Just look at who and whatever Mad George picks.  And then there is that contradictory phrase "Bush leadership", apparently coined by someone without any concept of real leadership.  With him, it isn't leadership but blundership.

by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 315 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:08:56 PM

  (0+)

that joking about such things muddies the water. The reference to the Supreme Court saying he couldn't accept was a joke, guy. But don't feel too bad. My warning comment was that the joke was a bit confusing.

by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 77 comments) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 4:03:19 PM

  (0+)

One wonders how the Jon Stewart Daily Show survives. Apparently Bill Moyers and I are the only ones watching.

I must admit that I am somewhat dumbfounded that ANYONE could read that piece and not understand it was satire. The War of the Worlds all over again. It's discouraging that the readership is not quite up to the writing at OpEdNews, but never fear--I have learned my lesson.

Interestingly (perhaps only to me) those who understood wrote over 600 articles, those who didn't get it wrote only 9, but commented on 1,880. I guess it's easier to comment than write logically. 

No more satire. 

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 6:21:33 PM

  (0+)

The now-painful commentary on what I thought was a very funny piece reminds me of a scene from the movie "Roxanne", which was released (I think) in 1987...

[Having locked herself out of the house inadvertently, while trying to persuade her cat – Grover - inside, Roxanne Kowalski goes to the local fire house to seek assistance from C.D Bales, the Fire Chief. However, she lost her robe earlier with the cat scene and is forced to walk behind a hedge to hide from C.D. because she's nude,]

Roxanne (Daryl Hannah): Nobody had a coat?

C.D. (Steve Martin – Fire Chief): I thought you said you didn't want a coat...

Roxanne: Why would I not want a coat?

C.D.: You said you didn't want a coat!

Roxanne: I was being ironic.

C.D.: Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.

The moral of the story is not to worry about the stares. They're natural if you use humor to frame a point!  Some get it, while some smoke dope and ski topless.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 9:37:06 PM

  (0+)