Excuse meeee for not spelling it out for you, but I guess it was too subtle a point when I outlined the timelessness of Conservative disdain for Nobel Peace Prize winners. Of course I'm aware that Conservatives have long criticized the process...see, it kinda connects back to that timelessness thing, ya see...and that's the point of course: Against a steady drone of complaining about the Nobel Peace Prize, the attack on it today after Al Gore has won it smells a lot more like a Conservative smear campaign than any thoughtful observation.

There is no universal disdain, and never was. I highly approved of last year's winner, and said so at the time. Jimmy Carter was another hack choice. The prize committee said in as many words that it was for political reasons, and if that doesn't bother you, fine. Arafat winning was an abomination. I read an article today where someone pointed out that apparently one of three ways to win the Peace Prize is to be a murderer who stops killing.

Which reminds me, yes, I am referring to Gorbachev as a dictator. If he won a free election to his position, I must have missed it.

Adopting Bowser's writing style as well as his thinking method doesn't look good on you. You sure I'm the one "losing it?"