The Nobel Committee Cements Its Political Bent

I guess there can't be much claim that the Nobel Peace Prize is apolitical. When Arafat won in 1994, you could chalk it up as a fluke (perhaps saying that to award it to Perez and Rabin but not Top Dog Terrorist would make the prize look overly Israeli-friendly, that it takes both sides to move the peace process). When the Carter won in 2002, you could say coincidence. With Gore winning this year for a movie version of a hyperbole-laden Powerpoint slide deck...you'd have to say 3 data points makes a trend. I'm not sure what this does to merit the Peace Price. I can clearly see the case for past recipients -- Schweitzer worked for decades before getting it, and Mandela (despite his bad points) is an easy case to make as well. Heck, Mother Theresa would be another easy example. Those were all major efforts, sustained over long periods of time, often with great personal hardship or risk. Today, it's being awarded for the redemption of a failed politician for a really sweet (and blurry on the details, by his own admission) slide deck with movie distribution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/12cnd-gore.html

A falling camel attracts many knives?

I finished reading Mark Steyn's America Alone on the plane up to Detroit (kind of appropriate, eh?) tonight. It is a bit alarming, but not much that was 'new' information, so not really all that surprising. I'd seen bits and pieces of the same data in news stories over the years, but Steyn rolls it all up to paint a pretty depressing picture (one that I can't say I disagree with).

He spends plenty of time on immigrant birth rates in Europe as compared to the native population, discussing how he thinks this will change the makeup of Europe in decades to come. The one area he touches on (but doesn't delve into nearly enough,) is how he sees America being changed demographically during the same span -- and if this change allows American exceptionalism (one of the themes of the book) to persist.

The post's title is ripped off from one of the final chapters. He says that it is an old Arabic proverb taken from the opening of Prayers for the Assassin. It's another way of saying that 'the street' respects the strong and savages the weak (backing the strong horse, and all that...).

The book ends with a passage from a late 19th century Sir Arthur Conan Doyle book (The Tragedy of the Korosko). It's almost funny to read -- one of the characters lamenting how Great Britain is forced to be the policeman to the world...even conspiracy theories that Great Britain invented a threat! Echoes of the present...

I recommend the book.

Short takes on other recent reads:

• Sam Harris' A Letter To A Christian Nation was last (too short, too lightweight; I liked The End of Faith better).
• William Easterly's The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics: Thumbs Up - Funny, Sad
• Chris Anderson's The Long Tail: Why The Future of Business is Selling Less of More. 256 pages for something that could have been communicated in 10.