I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.When in doubt, go with what you know.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
In Obama's remarks in the Rose Garden this morning, he said, surprise, surprise, it wasn't about him.
"But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. "
If Obama is the Affirmative Action president, and Bush the "legacy" president, (in the sense that Ivies call a child of a graduate a "legacy" and pretty much feel they have to take them, whether they are any good or not) then which would you rather have?
Which one could be Alan Grayson?
Dear Wingnuts: It's easier to pretend not to be a racist if you act as if you're aware that Obama has character traits other than the color of his skin. Just a tip.
They can't even imagine a different narrative.
The moment I heard the news I knew that some on the right would go there. As you said, they go with what they know. A very vocal segment of the right has become so bankrupt of actual ideas that they have nothing else left but the same tired rhetoric.
The moment I hear the news, I knew some on the left would lose all objectivity and defend the indefensible. To this point Obama has not accomplished anything that merits a Nobel Peace Prize. It is the ultimate style over substance choice.
Okay, so you know of someone who's done more towards world peace in the last year?
Care to name any names?
While he's not Gandhi... the last year or so hasn't really been overrun with peacemakers.
"While he's not Gandhi... "
Yep, if he were Gandhi he would not have won the prize. I think the fact that Gandhi was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is a testament to how much of a farce the award is.
(replying to Rillion)
> Yep, if he were Gandhi he would not have won the prize. I think the fact that Gandhi was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is a testament to how much of a farce the award is.
Gandhi was assassinated.
The Aceh rebels and the Indonesian government should have received the prize by now, for a very successful peace process. Not sure why they haven't.
cyd - It is hard to say that he would have won it if he had not been assassinated. The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke, it reflects a very Eurocentric point of view. They had plenty of opportunity to award it to Gandhi before his assassination.
***
winners:
1947
The prize was awarded jointly to:
THE FRIENDS SERVICE COUNCIL (The Quakers), London. Founded in 1647.
THE AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE (The Quakers), Washington. The society's first official meeting was held in 1672.
1946
The prize was divided equally between:
EMILY GREENE BALCH, former Professor of History and Sociology, Honorary International President Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
JOHN RALEIGH MOTT Chairman of the first International Missionary Council, President of the World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations .
1945
CORDELL HULL Former Secretary of State. One of the initiators of the United Nations.
1944
COMITÉ INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE (INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS)
1943-1939
The prize money was allocated to the Main Fund (1/3) and to the Special Fund (2/3) of this prize section.
***
Rillion - the International Committee of the Red Cross seems like a worthy organization to award the prize for peace.
It's easy to bash the peace prize committee, but looking through their past selections I think they've done a pretty good job, considering how much messier politics is than the sciences. Yes, they didn't give it to Gandhi, but they did recognize Gorbachev, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, Martin Luther King, etc.---and often within a few years of their significant works, rather than long afterwards as the science Nobels do (the point being that the award of the prize is also meant to push for peace). The peace prize is not perfect; but I think it's a very long way from a "joke".
defend the indefensible
The irony of this comment being posted here is pretty staggering.
Yeah. Speaking of which, thirty-some republican senators just had to choose between "Profits for Halliburton" and "Prosecution for rapists."
Or is that just us on the left losing all objectivity again?
There's something hysterical about hearing the right gas about objectivity and defending the indefensible. Hysterical as in crazy funny.
I like Shimon Peres' statement: “Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact."
Yeah...still doesn't make the affirmative action crack ok. I can't say that I'm thrilled PBO won, but let's not act as though he's the first questionable choice. Kissinger, anyone?
We're not "defending" Obama's Nobel Peace prize, we're calling out Erickson's race-baiting.
But don't let that stop you from conflating the two so you can have your straw man, vaildog. Distort, deny and deflect - it's what wingnuts do best.
Nah, I'll defend Obama's Peace Prize; seriously--how much competition for one has there been in the last year?
He won it legitimately, though almost "by default."
Eudaemonic wrote: "seriously--how much competition for one has there been in the last year?"
As an immigrant from another nation, I find that statement analogous to the "world series" tag attached to sporting encounters that are limited to the US. :-)
Please look up Wikipedia for details on Rebiya Kadeer, Morgan Tsvangirai, Dr. Sima Samar, Buddhist monks in Burma etc.
That said, the statement by Eric Erikson is idiotic. The Nobel peace prize has gone to many dubious recipients; Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin & Anwar Sadat, Mother Theresa...
Please look up Wikipedia for details on Rebiya Kadeer, Morgan Tsvangirai, Dr. Sima Samar, Buddhist monks in Burma etc.
Booo-ring!
Sorry I'm wearing my Homer Tshirt under my shirt today. Honestly, though: by replacing the Bush-Cheney Administration without accpeting their wirldview, by convincing the American electorate that there is value in multilateralism, promising to deal with Iran, and most importantly, by ending a torture regime in the most powerful (and influential) military in history, Obama has done plenty to earn the prize. Maybe Kadeer deserves it more; I would actually say that's true. But Obama has definitely done plenty for the cause of peace.
I stand slightly corrected. There is some competition, but I'd still put Obama ahead of any of those three. And way, way ahead of Kissinger and Carter.
Eudaemonic, I realized that my post came across as snarky and do apologize. But the Eurocentric-ness of the Literature prize had already raised my hackles yesterday.
Out of the many reasons why I think the other four should have been in contention is the fact that they are doing stellar work while being in actual danger. Also, there is very little awareness of their work. Just as the Nobel for Iranian Shirin Ebadi validated her cause for justice, human rights and activism and made her "untouchable" to the regime, the Nobel for one of the four could potentially save their lives and give legitimacy to their cause.
Obama can wait for 20 more years. After all one of the truly deserving recipients, Mr. Mandela, was given a prize after his 26 year jail term and he had to share it with De Klerk.
Hey, no harm done. If it's any consolation, calling it the "World Series" seems pretty stupid to me, too.
It's worth mentioning, again, how sad it is that replacing Bush and being less Bush-like wins you a Nobel. We forget, here, that, to the rest of the world, Bush really was that bad.
That's not what he said. He didn't defend the prize going to Obama he pointed out that the wingnut blogosphere would post racist, and Erickson's comments validate that. On the other hand, your comments, even if valid that he has not earned it, does nothing to refute TNC post.
Why don't you actually read the liberal blogs before posting? Such as, say, this one? Most liberals think this was a wrong-headed decision. We just don't use the opportunity to whine about reverse racism like the Right appears to be doing.
He absolutely did not deserve it (although I had definite reservations over giving it to Tsavangiri, considered the frontrunner, for forming a coalition with a murderous dictator like Mugabe). It probably should have gone to Chinese dissident Hu Jia, or I'm sure there were other deserving people on the list who have risked and suffered and achieved far more for peace than Obama has. If Obama had actually done something substantial towards nuclear disarmament a few years from now, he could reasonably get it then, but there's nothing to justify it at present - and I think he knows it.
However, saying Obama hasn't done anything to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize is very different from attributing him getting it to affirmative action. I'm more inclined to consider it the Not-George-Bush prize or the Hasn't-Been-Shot prize. Or even more likely, as a way of attracting public attention to the Nobel Prizes.
That statement shows you are completely unaware of the damage that the US has done to the world for - at least - the last 8 years.
The point of TNC's original post was Red State's accusation that the Nobel Prize was awarded to Pres. Obama because of affirmative action. Vaildog, I am interested in your thoughts on that particular point. No straw men allowed.
We all know black people have won a disproportionate number of Nobels over the years. This is just another case of black people taking over everything.
Sums it up for me. Someone had to say it; it was you. But it doesn't matter, you can lead a horse to water, but dang if you can make him drink, hooked as he is to the Koolaid of his own discontent.
CUT TO:
White hands in long flannel sleeves crumpling up letter from Nobel Committee
VOICEOVER:
You needed that Nobel Peace Prize. But the Committee had to give it to a ...
Wow. No kidding. That is...that is just ugly.
But pretty much the entire right's response has been ugly. I mean, Michael Steele wasn't as bad as Erickson, but as the leader of the opposition party it would have been nice if he'd had a moment of graciousness:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/rnc-response-sets-the-tone-what-has-obama-accomplished.php?ref=fpa
Unfortunately, Michael Steele is incapable of individual thought and must do what his masters tell him. [See: Last week's secret GOP meeting where he was told to STFU and stick to the script.]
Steele's capable of individual thoughts, they are just usually bad ones. He was a bad choice for RNC head.
Ah, yes. Michael Steele. Chairman of the RNC, who's not even allowed to sign on the organization's checks.
I think McCain's reply was fairly honorable and gracious.
I agree, Juba. I hadn't seen it yet when I wrote the above. Nor had I seen Pawlenty's comments, which were also very classy. Nice to know there are still some people capable of common civility.
This is a level of cattiness that I have not seen outside of 13 year old girls. Outstanding.
13 year old girls would sue you for slander but you're not cool enough for them to notice.
LOL! You're right. I wasn't cool enough for them even when I WAS a 13 year old girl...too busy doing lame stuff like reading books and doing homework. For the record I am totally not bitter. I'm a working professional and those catty tarts started getting knocked up when they were 17. Karmic justice for nerds all around the world!
It's just more red meat for the remaining base. Even people who AGREE with them that Obama doesn't deserve the "Thank You so much for not being the last guy" award will not want to be associated with this kind of asshattery.
GOP: Digging the grave deeper every day.
GOP: Digging the grave deeper every day.
oh funny, sad but true
Why not just call it the Liberal White Guilt Award?
Christ. Its embarrassing to everyone see a bunch of guilty patronizing liberals falling all over themselves to kiss up to a black guy in order to demonstrate how super not racist they are. Its so 1990's.
Am I allowed to say this? All my "black friends" have said it. IDK I'm a white liberal. I'm terrified that someone, somewhere will parse my comments and discover that I have the racism.
Is that really the best you've got?
Wait...isn't this the definition of a concern troll? Didn't we have this on another thread?
Ugh - always remember to preview. My post was not directed at you Persia, it was directed at Acromion's post...
Hah, I knew. That's still not true concern trolling, though, it's more "look at how edgy I am."
Your sensitivity to being called a racist for your interesting opinion says way more about you than it does about anyone else.
Well if you kept talking I'd eventually hit Bingo:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LYlUdXoq0nc/SW552Zm8QkI/AAAAAAAAADc/7sLEr9WFcfA/s1600-h/racist.jpg
...so it may be best to quit while you're behind.
Cute bingo.
That's just so awesome. Thank you!
Wow, that didn't take long you guys. I would add a little square on that Bingo card called: "I'm not a racist because I tell other white people they are racist."
Obama didn't deserve the award. He doesn't even think he deserved it. Its about some Norweigans who don't want to be out-liberaled.
Anyway. Another prime example of nothing to see here, everyone move along please.
And I'm not disagreeing with that. But when you go on some awkward, unnecessary tangent about "white lib'rul guilt" and then race-check the two black friends who happen to agree with you? C'mon, dude. You were asking for it.
Also, it's pretty presumptuous to believe that everyone giving you grief is white.
Well said, id. I think the timeworm black community motherwit "telling on yourself" applies to Acromion's unwarranted race-baiting.
Well, I was being sarcastic. I don't have the facebook.
I think the white liberal guilt thing is a valid line of inquiry for this topic, since it does exist and it is patronizing. Whether it was at play in this Nobel Prize decision is anyone's guess. But I guess Al Gore won it for a damn slide show so maybe its more about Europeans loving pretentious gasbags.
Also, what is a concern troll?
OK I just looked up concern troll on urban dictionary. I'm sorry for trolling.
I'll take the ban hammer for this, but it gets boring when you see the same predictable arguments over and over.
I'm not quite sure what Norwegians would have to feel guilty about on American race relations.
You know what? I would have accepted the argument if you said he won it because he's not Bush. It's a pretty good argument, although I'd argue trying to reverse Bush's legacy is valuable to peace.
I'm not quite sure what Norwegians would have to feel guilty about on American race relations.
For some reason this is the funniest thing I've read all day. Brings up the image of an army of Swedish chefs. Thank you.
"I'll take the ban hammer for this, but it gets boring when you see the same predictable arguments over and over."
"But I guess Al Gore won it for a damn slide show so maybe its more about Europeans loving pretentious gasbags'
Personal insults? Nice. You know, there are more "exciting" blogs to go to.
Dude. The Prince thing was bad enough.
OK OK You guys I'm really sorry for trolling. I know we have a certain decorum here. I was trying to provoke drama. Next time I feel like doing that I'll go over to Megan's blog :)
And silentbeep - I thought Prince looked fabulous!
Let's see: Ralph Bunche, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Anan and Desmond Tutu (and I may be forgetting somebody) have all won this award in the 100 years that it's been handed out. But you'd need to be able to see past your own nose to know that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given out to black people before today.
Ha! You're assuming that wingnut attacks should have some basis in fact! Where do you think we live, the United States of Reasonableness?
This is beautiful, as is the "What has he accomplished" reaction. They essentially blame him for winning without deserving it, when he had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection. So all he has to do in the short term media wankery period is just acknowledge genuine surprise and be gracious - hardly a stretch given how Obama acts, well, all the time. And all the bloviators and sputterers just look petty, overreactive, and clueless, again.
He could come right out and say, "You know, I don't feel I deserve this. But my goal is now, and always has been, to live up to it. Now our actions must validate this award, which is really for you. It is given to me as your representative. Let's go."
All the while, the GOP can commit demographic suicide.
Pretty much what he did! The man is sharp, son!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Building-a-World-that-Gives-Life-to-the-Promise-of-Our-Founding-Documents/
Obama got the prize for the same reason two white men got it, Carter and Gore. It wasn't about Obama's race, it was about giving an F You to Bush, and the aspects of America the Norwegians think he represents.
The biggest loser today is the Nobel Prize Committee. The longer Guantanamo stays open, the longer the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq go on -- in short, the more Obama's foreign policy continues to resemble Bush's -- the stupider those Norwegians will look.
Wait, you expect us to believe you cared with the Nobel Committee thought before all this? Pull the other one. It's got bells on it.
I'd just like to point out that unlike Jimmy Carter, Al Gore didn't actually win the prize by his pretty self... he shared it with the IPCC.
Of course, the IPCC comes under the UN umbrella so you could still frame it as an "F You to Bush".
Carter got the award for Camp David in the end.
Gore, who did not recieve the award by himself alone, got the award because he through the force of his presence, got the world to turn the corner and accept climate change as a world threatening phenomenon in real not just future time and connecting it to human practices so that all but those who were determined to keep their heads buried in sand and block the progress necessary to address a problem that even our own defense department since has reported to be a threat to our domestic security had to open our minds and accept.
It's hard to say for sure, but I do believe the way Obama has come into Europe and dealt with issues Europeans are concerned about along with the inspiration of his oratory is the underlying rationale (not affirmative action or liberal guilt--gawd, I mean really).
I think there were worthier recipients, and I agree with both you Dave and Esther that in several areas where this award is relevant Obama can be found as yet wanting; if the Nobel committee had focused in on his work on nuclear non proliferation, I would have found, even then, the prize more sensible. But all this phychologizing; it's so projective, so transparent, and undercuts real critique.
Global warming is a freakin scam based on crap science. The amount of warming due to CO2 emissions is negligible. Its become like a religion to some people. I really don't get it.
You're either ignorant, trolling, or both. Either way, you contribute nothing and in fact detract from the conversation.
Trolling, definitely. Go read the last 10 years of Science News for a quick overview, then come back.
Well if I'm ignorant, then you can count me in with the hundreds of other ignorant, credentialed scientists who think human caused climate change is bunk.
Mark my words, we will look back on this global warming craze like people do now with phrenology or mesmerism. And I'm not trolling. I'm serious about this. I don't know why climate change skepticism provokes this knee jerk accusation of ignorance or trolling.
Unlike in comments sections on other blogs, here blanket statements like "global warming is a freakin scam based on crap science" reguire some reasoned explanation and/or maybe a link or two with said explanation. Absent that kind of reasoned discourse, this comments section would be just like...RedStates'. But I bet you knew that.
I can't speak for my fellow commentors, but I like and usually learn from honest, rigorous, informed and reasoned debate. Talking points (from the left or the right) not so much.
The whole theory of anthropogenic global warming was based on flimsy computer models, which are coming under withering attack. The fact is, the Earth's climate has always changed, sometimes rapidly. CO2 levels have likewise fluctuated throughout geological history with no permanent effects on climate.
Unfortunately the whole enterprise has become so heavily politicized its tough to cut through the crap, so I don't blame anyone for freaking out after watching Inconvenient Truth. But what is frightening is that some are prepared to spend countless millions to reduce CO2 emissions by a couple percent without having any solid evidence that it will alter the global climate. This money would be put to much better use solving more concrete environmental problems that will better serve mankind, like protecting clean water sources or reducing heavy metal pollution.
Here are a couple links that will get you started.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Come to the Dark Side!!!!
Carter deserved the award, for Camp David and for all his humanitarian actions and support for peacemaking since his Presidency.
Gore didn't - it's not call the Nobel Prize for Environmentalism - and Obama doesn't. And your second paragraph is spot-on.
What exactly do you think causes wars? Wars are the symptoms of environmental imbalance. That people still don't get that--I'll say it again the Defense Department has made that very point about climate change--is what makes both Gore and the committee of scientists work so important.
What causes wars? Greed and ambition, primarily. The Gulf War and the Iraq War were about oil, but nobody forces people to fight wars over oil - people will still want control of important resources regardless of what the global climate does. The World Wars were about dominance and control of global affairs. The Civil War was about slavery. The war in Afghanistan was caused by religious fanaticism and American imperialism.
This was all announced not long ago and I'm already tired of this subject. He got the prize. I think he probably would have gotten it after his four years or a year after for sure. Nothing to be done about now. Republicans do not believe anyone who is a minority can do anything beyond breathing apparently. That is becoming obvious now.
Do you recall a lot of Republicans saying Desmond Tutu, for example, wasn't deserving of the award? People who focus on Obama's race in the context of the Nobel are stuck in a particularly American racial dynamic. They forget the prize is awarded by Norwegians.
Interesting citation of history.
Was not Republican President Ronald Reagan a strong supporter of the apartheid government in South Africa? Did not Republican President Ronald Reagan call Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress a “notorious terrorist organization”? And when a Democratic-controlled Congress finally took action and passed sanctions against South Africa, did not Republican President Ronald Reagan veto the bill? Which forced Congress to override the veto?
When he got his Nobel Prize, Desmond Tutu said this, "in my view, the Reagan administration's support and collaboration with it [the apartheid government in South Africa] is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian. . . . You are either for or against apartheid and not by rhetoric. You are either in favor of evil or you are in favor of good. You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You can't be neutral."
You rarely comment here, but every time you do, it's great. Thanks for the historical perspective
Thanks for this, Nuada. It had to be stated.
I guess the answer is no, then: you don't remember anyone saying Desmond Tutu didn't deserve the award because he was black.
There were legitimate concerns about the politics and tactics of the ANC, concerns that weren't alleviated by the organization's unfortunate practice of "necklacing" its opponents and dissenters.
As for the boycott of South Africa, there are different opinions about how effective that was in ending apartheid. I don't know enough to say one way or the other. In truth though, it's hard to imagine how South Africa could have moved past apartheid before the Cold War ended. The demise of the Soviet Union ameliorated concerns of the South African establishment that South Africa would become communist under a black-led government.
It's also worth remembering that the ANC was Mandela's organization. Tutu was (is, I still think) an Anglican Bishop.
Dave -
I am 30 years old. In 1984 I was 5. I don't remember anything about 1984. History is my game, by passion and by trade. I know about Reagan's strong support of Apartheid South Africa from study. It's a little more difficult to find offhand comments than records of actual governmental policies.
I never said that any Republicans claimed that Tutu's award was unjustified. Did I? I just wanted to add some context to a subject you brought up, namely the attitudes of Republicans regarding South Africa during the 1980's. Did you honestly expect to reference the Republican Party in America and Apartheid South Africa and yet have no one bring up Reagan's policies?
But you opened the door, not me. Would you like to argue that Ronald Reagan was a fan of Bishop Tutu, because the good bishop wasn't certainly not a fan of Reagan. And Reagan's GOP supporters, do you think that they were all fans of him? If not, do you think that they thought Bishop Tutu deserved the award? How about that other big supporter of South Africa in the 1980's, Republican Sen. Jesse Helms?
I also know about the ANC. I didn't say they were angels. But a man more sympathetic towards the plight of blacks in South Africa might have chosen his words a little more carefully, don't you think? Then again, he could have done the same when he spoke of "states-rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
Of course.....he didn't mind praising the Apartheid South African government though, as a long-time friend and partner.
Whether or not sanctions were effective against the Apartheid regime are beside the point, although I think that they were effective. If it was up to Ronald Reagan, there would have been no sanctions!
Regarding the fears of South Africa going Communist? Such fears do not justify, in my own opinion, Reagan's policies regarding South Africa. (Nor do similar fears regarding Argentina justify embracing a monster like Augusto Pinochet.) Those in power knew the decaying status of the Soviet Union by the early 1980s. Reagan even said as much in speeches.
Where does one draw the line in supporting brutal, non-democratic regimes against possible Communist take-over? If not in South Africa, then where?
"It's also worth remembering that the ANC was Mandela's organization. Tutu was (is, I still think) an Anglican Bishop."
Yes. I know all of this. (He's now Bishop Emeritus actually, he's retired.)
I'm sure you also understand the relevance of mentioning Apartheid South Africa, Nelson Mandela's ANC and the issue of sanctions, when we speak about Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the American Republican Party.
I swear to God, I'm not trying to be a wise-guy. I hope very much that you can see that. But this is getting just a bit too surreal for me here Dave.
Since you asked, Dave, I think most world opinion did agree with Tutu's award. The exceptions were, of course, the South African government, and curiously, Jerry Falwell, who called Tutu a "phony" and urged Americans to buy krugerrands to help SA's economy. Reagan didn't believe in sanctions or divestment, but I don't remember him publicly condemning Tutu for winning, either. But on your earlier point about Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, I feel that if this award acts as a push for the US to resolve those problems, then it's a good thing, because Obama has to deliver.
I just realized that my post could be read as an equivocation on Reagan's policies, so please allow me to state I agree with Nuada's summary. I'm definitely not neutral on that subject. I even remember writing an essay 25 years ago applauding Tutu's award.
"I never said that any Republicans claimed that Tutu's award was unjustified. Did I?"
That's what my exchange with Rainy was about -- remember, the one you inserted yourself into? So don't be puerile. And don't act all exasperated that I don't know you did a term paper about South Africa once in school. Moving on...
Wow, son, you got schooled that bad, at least have the good grace to slink out quietly.
Dave –
You have no business calling me puerile. If you know what the word really means, you know that it is an insult. Puerile means childish, even infintilsh. I won’t try to return the favor; because I strive to be polite as possible on-line and because I appreciate the effort Mr. Coates makes in trying to make his blog a civil environment for all.
Without speaking for Rainy, I’d basically say that she brought up the issue of Republicans and race.
You tried to refute this by bringing up the example of the Republican’s Desmond Tutu’s 1984 Nobel Prize win.
I bring up the fact that the Republicans, from the perspective of the black South Africans…..which was the perspective of the Archbishop after, don’t look all that great. Basically illustrating that the example you brought up isn’t exactly the best one to use if you want to redeem the Republicans over racial issues. That was it, I wasn’t trying to say all Republicans are racists.
You try to rule my entire post irrelevant on several different grounds.
I reply once more, addressing each one of your points, trying to argue the relevance of my original post.
Instead of addressing any of the points I made in rebuttal, you first insult me, saying that I’m being childish. Then you, for all intents and purposes, infer that if I don’t address the one specific point you made, I am rude and trespassing.
Nothing I’ve said is puerile. And you don’t get to have private conversations and set the rules of discussion here. “Inserting myself”? You have some nerve sir. No, you didn’t ask me to reply to you. And Rainy didn’t ask you to reply to her.
But if you wish to continue to insult me on-line, go ahead. Out of respect to Mr. Coates, I will not say another word in this thread, other than to say to Mr. Coates that if he’s feels that I have crossed a line with any of my posts in this thread, I do sincerely apologize.
The Peace and Literature prizes have been politicized for so long that I find them very hard to take seriously. I mean, Arafat? Harold Pinter? This is obviously a political award, so of course people will react to it according to their politics.
But I have been very pleased to see Americans still doing well in the science and medicine awards. Those still seem to be the real deal.
That's a good point about the literature prize being politicized frequently, though that prize is given out by the Swedes. Pinter was a joke, another F Bush prize. That lefty Italian playwright was a joke too. But occasionally they give it to a meritorious candidate, e.g., Naipaul.
I don't know; I've read both Pinter and Naipaul. Neither are in my top ten list, but Pinter's plays had a far greater impact on the English speaking world when they were first produced than Naipaul's prose.
Now Toni Morrison, there is a meritorius, if over time uneven, writer. But I am afraid you'll tell me they gave the award to her because hey, she's black and a woman.
I, of course, disagree with your invidious comparison of Naipaul to Pinter. It's amazing though that Naipaul got the award given his rather politically incorrect views.
@ Dave--invidious eh? had to look that one up cause it sounded as if you were making some sort of insidious comment about my comment, and given what a hard time I give you, I wanted to know if I were being bad or unfair, casting you into some unfavorable light. If so, I apologize; I have no idea if you have any opinion about Ms. Morrison or not, and I was merely responding to how you often bring up the reverse racism meme, which for me almost always sounds like a dodge, when you have more real and important things to say. However, it was smug, glib, and uncalled for.
My take was and is Pinter impacted the social fabric of the English speaking world, especially Great Britain, on a social level. Naipaul was appreciated by critics and readers.
However, just to assure you, one year the Nobel committee gave the award to that complete commie and the greatest poet of the 20th century, Pablo Neruda, and very year before, they had awarded it to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, perhaps communism's most profound literary critic and the world's greatest novelist of the post WW 2 period. Now you could stick both Pinter and Naipaul in either of those two gentlemen's change pockets and not distinguish them from the lint you might find inside.
To paraphrase the words of Bob Dylan, Gao Xingjian and Dario Fo once unwrapped a bedroll.
Republicans don't seem to think anyone will remember this. Or possibly they think they can just jettison minority voters and become the "white guy" party with a few Michael Steeles thrown into the mix to make the base feel like they're not raving racists.
All in all, I'm glad they're getting enough rope to hang themselves.
"There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period."
I don't think Obama did earn it in the nominations period (Feb 1st, I believe.) He earned the nomination in the nominations period.
TNC perfectly demonstrates that brevity is the soul of wit.
I'm embarassed for whoever calls himself or herself conservative. Including myself. I speak for all of us I think when I say, "Fuck you dude."
This is the definition of "class" (the good kind):
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
The criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize, as laid out in Alfred Nobel's will: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Peace is about a lot more than "absence of war." When my 13-year-old daughter asked me what President Obama had done to deserve the award, I told her that we live in a culture saturated with instant-gratification and desire for short-term gains, often at the expense of long-term vision. I talked about how the President has done a complete about-face in terms of engaging the rest of the world as peers, and not as subjects of our empire. I talked about how President Obama ran a campaign that empowered everyday people across our country, invigorating parts of the electorate that had been ignored, or taken for granted, for years.
I also used the metaphor of planting seeds, and how we may not have any visible yield from those seeds for years, but that the soil has been ignored for the past 8 years, so the soil and the seeds require a lot of nurturing. I think that's what this Prize is about: acknowledging that, from an international viewpoint, the seeds that President Obama has been planting are desperately needed as an investment by our country in the rest of the world. The notion that President Obama somehow doesn't deserve it is as myopic and cynical, to me, as former President Bush standing in front of an enormous "Mission Accomplished" banner wearing a crotch-enhancing flight suit.
Admittedly, I was a little shocked when I first heard that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, but when I heard the statement issued by the committee, it made some sense. Nonetheless, I think the real issue is this: the awarding of the Prize is done by the committee (whatever its called). Obviously, they felt the President deserved the honor. Its like me disputing the Academy Awards...Its not my award...The Academy is free to award their honor as they see fit.
With that said, I know that the "Right" is spinning like crazy! I am starting to think the President really is made of teflon!!!! No matter what happens, nothing stops this guy! LOL.
Coates,
they are who we thought they were.
watching Tweety tonight, and they did the polls of the feelings towards President's 43 and 44 in Europe; the turnaround is remarkable. Highest Bush 43 got at the end of his term was 18%, and Obama is hovering around mid 80's to 90's across Europe. I think we underestimated just how relieved the world is at the election in November 2008.
Thank you! I've been looking and listening to commentary all day today, and you are the first person (beat me to it) to mention Alfred Nobel's criteria for the Peace Prize. Many people seem to be basing their ideas about whether or not President Obama (or other recipients) deserve the prize based on their own ideas about what it should be for instead of the criteria it is actually based on. As to why the committee gave it to President Obama, see the Nobel Prize press release from today:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
So based on their criteria and reasoning, does he deserve it? I think so...
I think if you live in Europe, you feel much safer, much more hopeful about the future than you did a year ago. And that's entirely because of Barack Obama. Approaching problems with diplomacy rather than warmongering must feel especially wonderful to European people about now, and that's why he won.
That might well be. From the Middle East (where I'm sitting right now), it looks a little different. The Obama administration has made a real effort to improve the image of the US here, after years of negative Arabic-language media coverage of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, civilian deaths, etc.
And the speech he gave in Cairo was a great start. But the reaction on the street and in the press was, basically - great speech. Thanks. But please do something now to show us that it isn't just words - that your idea of improving the US image around here is more than saying something really nice.
In that respect, the Nobel may not play well. The speech and the administration's policy changes raised expectations so high. And today...the press is pointing to no Israeli settlement freeze, no progress towards Palestinian statehood, etc., and blaming a lack of US resolve. Saying it's all just words.
So now the Europeans give the President the Nobel Peace Prize, which a lot of people around here are reading as saying "Mission Accomplished."
That's not Obama's fault - he didn't ask for the Nobel. The perceived lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front isn't primarily the US's fault either. But the awarding of the prize could make it harder for him to navigate in this part of the world, as the reaction may be pretty sour.
Thanks for the international perspective. Anyone able to chime in from Europe on reaction?
One thing I notice having lived abroad is how extremely insular Americans are--we're used to being number one and not caring what the world thinks of us. Either they like us because we're nice people, or they are jealous because we're so cool. Look at the coverage of US affairs in any foreign paper, versus the coverage of world affairs in any US paper. I remember in the buildup to the Iraq War British support for the cause was characterized as "look, the Americans are going to do this whatever we do, but if we're involved we can influence them." Try to imagine the US using that as a criterion to get involved in a war Russia or Japan or Bolivia wanted to start. We're the only superpower--our leadership really does have the power to inspire and depress the world, because what we do will affect the rest of the world.
I still think the award is weird and likely not terribly helpful, but there's a little more than not being GWB involved. It's a window into how much the change in power changed our image abroad, and thereby changed the world's outlook for the future.
I am travelling through the Middle East myself right now. Muhammed said that urging others to do good is good in itself.
I think that Obama's pre-election speech on race was reason enough to give him the Peace Nobel. As Ta-Nahisi has often pointed out - Obama is unique in the way that he can see both sides due to his upbringing and kin. That speech was very different from Megan's (and Malcolm's) claim that liberals and conservatives are all the same... it was more than simple pattern recignition etc. It was great.
The GOP has morphed into something like a religious sect where the highest priority is saying the words the fellow sectarians approve of, rather than trying to be winsome to the "outside world". If you are a normal person who is offended by the 'affirmative action' comments, then you can be assured that the guy was not addressing you, he was addressing his fellow sect-members.
I'd say it's more accurate to say they're a ideological cult, not unlike the very same communists that they love to accuse non-conservatives of sympathizing with. And unlike communism, which at least is rooted in unrealistic idealism, American conservatism is essentially rooted in white rage.
David Brooks said on the News Hour that "nobody cares what five Norwegian guys" think.
*cringe*
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/reaction-to-president-oba_b_316385.html
I have read only 2 articles that point to the Nobel Prize's original intent to fund the future of the recipients as opposed to rewarding lifetime achievements. This seems to be the main fact that so many are ignoring.
Yeah, obviously.