TCS Daily


Gore and Peace

By Henry I. Miller - October 15, 2007 12:00 AM

Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for "his discovery of the therapeutic value of [prefrontal lobotomy] in certain psychoses," including depression and schizophrenia. The prefrontal lobotomy operation, in which the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobe with other parts of the brain were cut, and which often made patients zombie-like, would be repudiated by the medical community within a decade.

Al Gore, the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a similarly poor choice, one likely not to stand the test of time. Leaving aside the school-marmish, preachy, superior attitude that makes him such a magnet for parody, Gore is a phony. Consider that in 1996, he gave an impassioned address to the Democratic party convention, vowing to fight the tobacco industry to his last breath because twelve years earlier his sister had died from lung cancer. In 1988, however, while campaigning for the nomination for president, Mr. Gore had been telling tobacco farmers (in a Southern accent much thicker than was ever heard from him in Washington) that he was practically one of them, that he had tenderly held the young plants in his own two hands, had their interests at heart, and so on. And his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," which offers an exaggerated, one-sided, and often inaccurate view of global warming, is more propaganda than documentary.

Perhaps I can offer a medical explanation for what makes Al Gore tick. On the basis of his actions and writings over many years my guess is that Gore suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The criteria for this diagnosis, as described in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, include a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," as indicated by these manifestations:

O "a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)." Gore regularly demonstrates his grandiosity. Who can forget his notorious claim that he had been instrumental in creating the Internet? But far more serious and complex are Gore's delusions about issues of technology and environmentalism, such as his repeated endorsement of anti-technology tracts and criticism of technological advances while a congressman, senator and vice president. His writings generally place science and technology at odds with "the natural world" and by inference, with the well-being and progress of mankind. More on this below.

O "preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; believes that he or she is 'special' and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)." These sorts of fantasies run riot in Gore's Earth in the Balance, in which he assumes that he, alone, has divined the solutions to the world's problems and the bold and dramatic measures that await the education and enlightenment of the public. When he was vice president, Gore and his staff of true believers attempted to purge the federal government of any dissension or challenge to his view of policy, in a way reminiscent of the worst paranoid excesses of the Nixon administration. Vexed by people who weren't sufficiently "special," Gore simply got rid of them.

O "lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others...shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes." While a senator, Gore was notorious for his rudeness and insolence during hearings. A favorite trick was to pose a question and as the witness began to answer, Gore would begin a whispered conversation with another committee member or a staffer. If the witness paused in order that the senator not miss the response, Gore would instruct him to continue, then resume his private conversation, leaving no ambiguity: Not only is your testimony unimportant, I won't even pay you the courtesy of pretending to listen to it. Gore once accused his political enemies of possessing "an extra chromosome," a remark that infuriated the families of persons with Down Syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome.

Gore's patronizing, apocalyptic, and overwrought Earth in the Balance provides numerous illustrations of many of these diagnostic criteria, and thereby offers disturbing insights into its author. In it, Gore trashes the empirical nature of science for disconnecting man from nature. "But for the separation of science and religion," he laments, "we might not be pumping so much gaseous chemical waste into the atmosphere and threatening the destruction of the earth's climate balance." But for the separation of science and religion, we would still be burdened with the notion that the sun and the planets revolve around the Earth.

It gets worse. Throughout the book, Gore employs the metaphor that those who believe in technological advances are as sinister, and polluters are as evil, as the perpetrators of the World War II Holocaust. He accuses Americans of being dysfunctional because we've developed "an apparent obsession with inauthentic substitutes for direct experience with real life," such as "Astroturf, air conditioning and fluorescent lights . . . Walkman and Watchman, entertainment cocoons, frozen food for the microwave oven," and so on.

An example of Gore's bizarre thinking is his take on biotechnology. After campaigning tirelessly for years to over-regulate the most precise and predictable techniques of biotechnology applied to agriculture - ostensibly to ensure environmental safety - he changed his tack and came up with this doozy: "The most lasting impact of biotechnology on the food supply may come not from something going wrong, but from all going right. My biggest fear is not that by accident we will set loose some genetically defective Andromeda strain. Given our past record in dealing with agriculture, we're far more likely to accidentally drown ourselves in a sea of excess grain." Food prices are now under intense pressure because of the diversion of corn to the production of ethanol for fuel.

People who suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder are tough to be around. They make terrible bosses, unbearable in-laws and insufferable neighbors. That's why I don't want Al Gore to be president - or to live next door to me.

Dr. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, was at the NIH and FDA from 1977 to 1994.


Categories:

225 Comments

All hail the mighty Goracle!
Just further proof that the Nobel peace prize is a reward for the best America-bashing. Expect Moore to win one in the near future.

Truly this man has suffered and toiled far more than Irena Sendler or Stephen Lewis. When it all comes down to it, Gore has done far more for this world than save Jewish children in the Holocaust or fight AIDS in Africa.

Goregasmic....
HE PLAYS ON OUR FEARS!!!!!!

an amazing horse
While it is true that Albert Gore is the smartest and most intelligent person in the United States (therefore, the world)a la Nobel Laureate, it is also true that a horse that can talk is an amazing horse, but may not make sense.

ALL politicians play on our fears
ALL politicians play on our fears....it's one of the distinguishing characteristics.

You must fear terrorism.

You must fear a world without 100% health insurance coverage.

You must fear humans damaging the environment beyond repair.

You must fear big oil.

You must fear doing something/nothing about social security.

You must fear George W. Bush.

You must fear Hillary Clinton.

etc.

From Erjazz (incase my name doesn't show up on the post)

But not all fears are baseless...
Terrorism is a real danger and something to be fought.

Social Security is failing and needs to be privatized.

The enivornment does need protection but science should play a part in determining what those protections are.

Saying all these things are mere political tools is the height of cynicism. I agree that such fears can be used as political tools but your blanket statement is wrong.

How many more?
Certainly John Kerry suffers such a malady.

I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy!
I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy, than an Algore in front of me!

All you need is hate
And that's all you guys have. Get lives.

fears
What about the biggest fear? It should be fear of governments. In my life the only fearful things that have happened to me have been because of gerernment actions, not mafia, not terrororits, not skin-head, not crack-heads. It's governments that were responsible for all the hundreds of millions of murders in the 20th century, and continueing into this one.

re: hate
Do you think the British hate him? Remember last week when the govnmt there said that if they you his crappy movie in schools they have to use the disclaimer that it is just propaganda, and pointed out at least 11 lies? I wonder if Gore feels humiliated by that? No wait, how naive am I, politicians never feel shame or humiliation over lying, cheating or stealing.

If you love, you hate;
and we hate Gorey Al because we love truth.

He's white trash. And stupid. Really really really stupid.

Indeed.
Nail on the head sir.

Hate?
If one wishes to see hate all one needs to do is actually attend an "environmental" rally. Nothing but hate. Just check out your many postings on this topic. Basic, simplistic hatred at it's finest.

Hate, by your definition, is pointing out that Algore has done nothing to promote peace. Nor has he been as selfless as others in the pursuit of his goals.

The Nobel is supposed to 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."

In what way does this fraud fit this definition? The only positive that comes out of this is that the prize is not going to terrorists, totalitarians, and those who enable them.

thank you for confirming what I wrote
It's not about logic or right or wrong; it's just about hate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html

thank you for confirming what I wrote
It's not about logic or right or wrong; it's just about hate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html

thank you for confirming what I wrote
It's not about logic or right or wrong; it's just about hate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html

Thank you for confirming...
that you are an idiot.

That is proven by your desire to hitch your wagon to yet another idiot: Krugman.

What is funny about his opinion, devoid of actual facts about AGW, is that he takes Bush Derangement Syndrome, of which he is the poster child for, and twists it into Gore Derangement Syndrome. Considering the love the MSM and liberal establishment has shown Algore, how can he possibly say this is an actual condition?

Gore is just being harpooned for receiving an award he does not, according to the words of Nobel himself, deserve. Gore deserves the slings and arrows aimed at him for being a purveyor of a mere theory that does not exist outside of computer models. A theory that allows him to reap fame, fortune, and to jet-set across the world telling people that they should no longer live the very lifestyle he lives. Poor Algore.

But hey, keep reading Krugman. It won't increase your intelligence or knowledge but it will confirm what you already believe.

And another thing...
Thank you for posting the same response to three different posts. I can see that you are into engaging people instead of being a closed-minded Troll.

Thank you for confirming again what I wrote
Great argument " you are an idiot." Krugman's an idiot.
Can't put togehter an argument; but everyone's an idiot.

>Gore is just being harpooned for receiving an award he does not, according to the words of Nobel himself, deserve
And you're the top authority on this?? Give me a break.

All you have is hate. Admit it.

Thank you for confirming again what I wrote
do you really think you're worth more than a generalized response?

funny what one sees when that is all one wants to see
...

typical eric, he can't refute what you write, so he calls you evil, and pretends he's made a point
Anyone who disagrees with St. Gore, must be full of hate

Thank your for your confirmations, Lemeul. Three time's the charm
OK Lemeul, I went to the NYT essay by Krugman. I stopped reading when he brought up the 2000 election. Talk about folks not getting over Gore......

I find it astounding that the Left was so surprised to discover that winning the popular vote doesn't automatically win the election. Funny how the Left is often surprised by facts. And just can't get over those facts when they're staring them in the face.

As if they've forgotten (or never realized) that Nixon won the popular vote, yet Kennedy was elected.

Or that Vietnam was Johnson's baby, not Nixon's.

Or that Kennedy was a tax cut advocate.

I'm also amused by the recent attempt to resurrect the fairness doctrine. Politics must be fair. To me, that's one of the HUGE problems with the popular wisdom these days: that there is, or should be fairness.

What is fair? Who determines it? Isn't it a very subjective thing? Isn't it just another element of 'tyranny of the majority'?

Why doesn't the 'green' Left apply the 'fairness' to Mother Nature? Let the Left greeny-weenies ask the polar bear why it kills seals. It's not fair to the seals. But, maybe it's OK since the polar bear is on the verge of extinction -- or so the Left would have it.

Nature is far from fair. So, is living close to nature living a life tilted less in favor of fairness and more in the direction of 'survival of the fittest'? HMMMM. Can't a market-driven system be viewed as more in the survival of the fittest mold and less in the fairness mold?

Maybe we should call nature 'just' not fair, and seek more justice in our land, not fairness.

But justice is subjective, too. Isn't it?

It's complicated isn't it? Sure, politicians may highlight a real threat when they do their fearmongering. It's still fearmongering. Why? Because, save for some politicians of the Left, nuance doesn't play well. Things are complicated and interrelated. Climate, terrorism, social security, religion, etc. Human's haven't yet found a way to understand these problems and solve them.

So the real problem could be the lack of a moral compass that the majority buys into. We in the West no longer have a generally accepted idea of correct behavior, no agreement on what's fair, or what's just. Some of those in the East DO have an idea of what's just, but the problem with their solution is that it would mean the demise of our civilization.

That's not to say the previous, widely subscribed-to 'norms' were perfect, but they got us to where we are now.

How can we come to agreement on the best ways to move forward? Study nature and be OK with the bears eating the seals? Try to be fair and play nice and have those that don't play that way run over us?

I subscribe to the idea that the survival of the fittest is the only way to go, long-term. Anything else is 'wishful thinking' and ends up with some other culture, somehow fitter than ours, out-surviving us.

The Left has its feet in universal Socialistic brotherhood. Their unspoken assumption is that if we just make nice, we'll all get along. That is an illusion.

Better, in my opinion, to be a real student of nature, be in tune with nature, including Her survival techniques.

If we get past the make-nice period and get to where people really "grok" nature, they'll realize they have the power to succeed on their own and don't need government 'leveling the playing field'. They'll do just fine on their own.

We won't any longer have a victim class created and held captive by those at the top of government.

Nor will we bemoan success or failure. People will come to understand that, without government interference, they'll have a much better chance to have their own American Dream.

Sure, seals will still get eaten by polar bears. Real, results-based education, that eschews wishful thinking and make-nice, will instill in folks (the seals) the understanding of how to band against the 'polar bears' or seek new ground. They'll learn the efficacy of looking to themselves if the crutch of looking to government is taken away. Teaching self-reliance, weaning folks for government, is also getting them out of the habit of 'letting George do it'.

It was, afterall, mostly the 'seals' of Europe that came to north America to escape the entrenched 'polar bears' there. Those are, and should be, our role models.

Not hate...
just pity. Krugman, like you, misses the point.

Just because you can't refute an argument does not mean that an argument has not been made. Here try this:

The Nobel is supposed to 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".

Please inform me as to how Algore's work meets this standard.

>"All you have is hate. Admit it."

Considering that you can boil down my entire stance into this simplistic statement I don't believe you have the intellectual capacity to judge who can and cannot put together an argument.

By the way, anyone can argue but few can debate. You have long proven your inability to do the former coherently or the latter at all.

It really says...
more about you than it does about me. My worth does not center upon the words of a Troll.

Only a shallow, pitiful soul, who more than likely lives in the basement of their mothers, would place the measure of their worth, or the measure of their ideas, on the responses they receive from anonymous strangers. Such is the pathetic nature of the internet Troll.

Pitty the fools
Who likes Al Gore, or you for that matter, well enough to invest so much emotion to actually hate?

"Pity the fools", is a better description of what I feel for Al Gore and the Nobel committee.



Hate is an emotion.
It is very difficult to mix logical, rational thought and discussion with emotion.

And that is a primary distintion between the Republicans and Democrats, reason vs emotion.

Thank you for confirming again what I wrote
Who's talking about St.Gore, except cheapshot hate artists with a malignant agenda. Guy won a prize. Live with it.

how absurd
Yes, Tezcatlipoca deserves more than your generalized response. He rightly pointed out the neither Gor nor the IPCC meet the requirements for nomination for the Noble Peace Prize, but you call that hate.

If anything, the IPCC should have been nominated for a Noble Prize in Science; but it is unlikely they reach the requirements for that either. And Gore simply hasn't done anything to qualify him for a Noble Prize.

Look Lemuel, the Noble prizes have been questionable for a long time and the "Peace Prize" has been irrelavant hash for more than 30 years. The fact is, when the prize goes to dictators, terrorists and Al Gore it becomes a giant joke. It was weird when Jimmy Carter was nominated, but at least his nomination meet the established criteria.

Laughing at Gore and the Noble Peace Prize Committee is not hate, it is simply acknowledging what thinking people have known for decades: Noble prizes have become paper weights and toliet paper certificates. the only reason anyone wants to receive one is for the cash prize and press bump the worldwide announcement brings.

The prize itself is becoming all but meaningless and something of an embarrassment these days to a deserving scientist or diplomat who does get one. That fact is a sad one. The Noble Prize meant something a long time ago. But, especially since the late 70s to early 80s, that meaning has been completely lost.

That should be upsetting to all of us. When Carter got the award, I didn't think it could sink lower. Then came Arafat and now Gore (and several other bad choices as well). Anyone who finds joy in this really is crazy Lemuel. Even Arafat was more deserving, the reason for his nomination at least met the criteria. The fact he was a life-long terrorist and murderer should have negated his nomination without question, however.

For the committee to so completely ignore the established criteria and even consider the Gore/IPCC nomination now opens the door to a "Peace Prize" being awarded for anything.

Gee, I gave money to "Ducks Unlimited", do I deserve a Noble Peace Prize too?

I don't hate Algore, I do find him amusing and a bit off the wall.

Thank you for confirming again what I wrote
you really don't see impending climate change as a potential threat to world peace?? Please notify the Norwegian parliament and let them they got it all wrong. Be sure to let them know that you're not just saying this because it's Al Gore.

>>"All you have is hate. Admit it."

>Considering that you can boil down my entire stance into this simplistic statement I don't believe you have the intellectual capacity to judge who can and cannot put together an argument.

That is you entire stance. You find rationalizations for it, but that's the bottom line, In my opinion.

Regarding your scoring of my performance: there's no surer mark of insecuirty than having to keep score of discussions you're in and instead of just making your points, annoucing how dumb your opponent is. Again, all you have i hate.

Yes, it is a primary distinction, but it doesn't go the way you imply
Republicans seem to totally gone on the emotional kick. Just recently, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said he has "kind of a gut feeling that we are in a period of increased vulnerability." He's the head of an organization with a hundreds-of-billion dollar budget. Shouldn't he be finding facts instead of feelings?

Thank you for confirming again what I wrote
And I'm sure your words about a troll were written without any emotion.

Call me silly, but I don't think the Nobel people need his advice
There have been dozens of Nobel peace prizes awarded for achievements that didn't echo lockstep the the language. Why suddenly do we get this fretting over this one - paricularly since its obivous that drastic clmate change would have obvious effects on potential international conflict.

"orwegian Nobel Committee members, who have flatly denied they intended to criticize Bush by naming Gore a winner, don't believe they're watering down the meaning of the prize by widening the definition of peace.

"We know that there's a limit" to the definition, said committee secretary Geir Lundestad. He claimed the Nobel Peace Prize wouldn't become "a prize for the good cause," because there are so many "good causes" that will never win it.

"Up to now, the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize has only increased," Lundestad said. The Peace Prize will be awarded to Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on December 10 in Oslo.

Take it up with them.

It's not about polar bears.
This isn't about polar bears. Polar bears are a symptom, a canary in the mine. The climate's changing. You don't want to shed a tear for the polar bears? Don't. But if you have hundreds of millions of refugrees from rising water or missing rainfall, you'll have problems that you won't be able to ignore by makng lame jokes about cute seals.

And this isn't emotion. The IPCC, which shared the awared, is not socialist bleeding hearts club. It's a scientific body. Tell them they don't know what they're talking about.

Then why the huge fuss? Why the silly article
Why not just chill and relax. the reaction proves my point.

I agree
and since the 11 of the 13 populations of polar bears are stable of climbing in population, polar bears are a very effective way of proving that there is no problem, despite what the whiny left is so desperate to have us believe.

As to your claim that there is anything scientific about the IPCC. You will believe anything, won't you.

Obviously someone already did
And just as obviously they do need someone to explain to them the meaning of the words that describe what the prize is for ahd who should be nominated.

I don't believe this was some try to criticize Bush, but it does indeed water down the meaning of the prize. And it is the first time the Peace Prize Committee has stepped this far "out of Bounds" in awarding the prize.

I don't expect them to echo "lockstep" the language; but the Peace Prize winner should have somewhat been working towards inproving international relations and conflict resolution without war.

But, to me, it only shows just how far away from the real world the committee is where there spokesman, (after the award has obviously been criticized) states: "Up to now, the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize has only increased."

Proof positive that Lundestad is truely a legend in his own mind!

actually, your reaction proves our point
...

One feeling?
How about the torrent of 'feelings' gushing from the Democratically controlled Congress?

A Congress which people 'feel' is even worse than the President?

We can forgive democrats their 'feelings' because we expect them to be emotional and irrational?

The article does prove a point.
You suffer the same malady as Gore and Kerry.

That you are filled with hatred? Yes, it does
and does so more clearly than I could.

Thank you for confirming again what I wrote
So two former major party preseidential candidates don't have ideas (that would require thought to refute) instead they suffer a malady?

And you're going to say you don't feel hatred, not at all.

But you're not the keeper of those keys
And the criticism consistently aren't coming from the public in general, but from a recognizably partisan Republican ultraconservative noise machine.

What feelings are you talking about?
Who are yiou quoting?

>A Congress which people 'feel' is even worse than the President?

>We can forgive democrats their 'feelings' because we expect them to be emotional and irrational?
I see. You feel they are emotional. It must be a feeling because you can't back it up.

Amazingly enough, the Bush administration polar bear experts don't agree
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0210_060210_polar_bears.html
but what do they know??

>As to your claim that there is anything scientific about the IPCC. You will believe anything, won't you?

No. I don't believe anything you say. You're a proven serial liar.

Explain these things...
>"you really don't see impending climate change as a potential threat to world peace??"

Please explain how promoting a film that does not stand up to scientific or legal challenges does anything to promote peace. Then tell me why saving 2,500 Jewish children from extermination, and putting your life on the line for doing so, pales in comparison.

>"That is you entire stance. You find rationalizations for it, but that's the bottom line, In my opinion."

My entire stance is that Gore has now entered the ranks of such figures as Arafat and Carter. Good company to be sure.

But I don't hate Gore. I dislike the message he sends. That one does not need the support of science to promote an unproven theory that calls for the destruction of the American economy. No. All one needs is a PowerPoint presentation that depicts lies and exaggerations.

>"Regarding your scoring of my performance: there's no surer mark of insecuirty than having to keep score of discussions you're in and instead of just making your points, annoucing how dumb your opponent is. Again, all you have i hate."

Whatever. You are doing quite an excellent job of avoiding the topic and repeating the same thing over and over. Once again it seems you see in others what you possess within yourself.

Absolutely.
Simply a mere objective observation.

A troll is someone who has nothing to say but spends alot of time saying it. They thrive on knowing they have kicked up some dust. The topic at hand means nothing.

No hate for LeMule. Just pity that you can't even see the horrible parody that you have made of yourself and your many personalities.

Thank you for confirming again what I wrote
And if you think I'm a troll, ignore me, instead of firing off another round of yoiur self-congratulation delusins-of-grandeur lame-os about how dumb I am.

WRITE THE BUSH ADMIINISTRATION AND TELL THEM THE BEARS AREN'T ENDANGERED!!!
It seems to have this all wrong

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122601034.html

Misnformation and non-information
Hunh?

>Please explain how promoting a film that does not stand up to scientific or legal challenges does anything to promote peace.
It's stood up just fine. A British judge found a few things that were debatable but found most of the science was accurate. So have scientific organizations - except for the political ones. Note that Gore shared the prize with the IPCC - you think they're not scientists?

>Then tell me why saving 2,500 Jewish children from extermination, and putting your life on the line for doing so, pales in comparison.
Who are you talking about?

>My entire stance is that Gore has now entered the ranks of such figures as Arafat and Carter. Good company to be sure.
And Teddy Roosevelt. Then why kick up a fuss?

>But I don't hate Gore. I dislike the message he sends. That one does not need the support of science to promote an unproven theory that calls for the destruction of the American economy. No. All one needs is a PowerPoint presentation that depicts lies and exaggerations.
So you have an emotional response. Fine.
How do you feel about lying demonstration. demonstration that Iraq was a threat to the US that had to be invaded?

TCS Daily Archives