Obama’s Nobel Prize brought to mind a vaguely remembered line in a novel by Thomas Bernhard (I think it was Wittgenstein’s Nephew but only because that is the only novel of his I remember reading) to the effect that nothing is as humiliating as being given a prize. Bernhard was famously splenetic, as were the anti-heroes of his novels, but that line stuck in my head because it had the ring of truth. Virtually everyone with any sense recognizes that Obama’s prize was an embarrassment, including Obama himself:
I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
It’s one thing to be modest about one’s accomplishments, but few people who win prizes actually say they don’t deserve them. In doing so, one casts doubt on the judgment of the prize committee and hence the merits of the other prize winners—which can only come across as a monstrous act of ingratitude—and diminishes oneself as well. But Obama had no alternative; he could not claim that he deserved the prize because no one outside the prize committee believes that his accomplishments compare with those who have won it. To accept the prize without qualification would come across as megalomania of the first order. (Just imagine the ridicule and incomprehension that would have greeted any suggestion that Obama deserved the prize if it had been made by anyone prior to the announcement of the award.)
Obama did not reject the prize, of course. His equivocal response—accepting the prize but declaring that he does not deserve to be in the company of the people who did deserve it, and treating it as a “call to action”—was bizarre in literal terms, but was politically a reasonable effort to squirm out of the dilemma imposed on him by the unworldly Norwegian politicians who put him to the choice of ingratitude or megalomania.
Few of us deserve prizes of any sort but we’re also spared the humiliation of having to announce our unworthiness to the world. In Obama’s case, a further complication is that he is the president of the United States and, both in official and popular mythology, he’s a great and world-historical figure. Just, by his own concession, not as great as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, or Jody Williams, it turns out.
ChrisTS says:
I don’t think this remark entails the claim that everyone who has received the prize is more worthy.
October 11, 2009, 6:04 pmBenjamin Davis says:
I love you guys. The Nobel Committee gives Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. He is humble in accepting it and tries to turn it into something that is not about him but about redirecting energy toward a call to action. Pretty normal stuff for big prize winners in politics (ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country – by a President at his first inaugural after winning the big prize).
But you guys have to chew on that bone and find something to complain about. I guess you guys can not see how transparent your sense of entitlement is and that he “can never be worthy” – its a variation on the white privilege trope that we have seen for 400 years in this country.
How about just a “Congratulations for winning?” or maybe that is just too hard.
Get a life.
Best,
October 11, 2009, 6:07 pmBen
Apperception says:
Boy, Ben is projecting. Yikes.
October 11, 2009, 6:13 pmU.Va. Grad says:
Just, by his own concession, not as great as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, or Jody Williams, it turns out.
Want to take a dump on Gore and Carter? Fine. And Kissinger (even though you didn’t)? Totally deserved. But Jody Williams? What? Say what you will about her cause, she actually got a landmine ban treaty put in place. That’s more than the rest of your backhanded compliment list did. She deserved her award.
October 11, 2009, 6:26 pmMark N. says:
I dunno, I wouldn’t put him at the bottom of the list, if I were ranking deservingness of the 96 individual Peace Prize recipients. In the lower half of the list, sure, but there are some much better contenders for the bottom spots.
October 11, 2009, 6:26 pmPeteP says:
Benny – “How about just a “Congratulations for winning?” or maybe that is just too hard. ”
How about ‘bullshit !’ ? When you get an award, you’re supposed to have DONE something to merit it. In this case, Obama’s carreer record of legislative acheivment is exactly ZERO. De nada. Zilch. Not just in the White House, but for his entire life.
The only thing he’s ever accomplished is getting elected – he has a nearly flawless record in that ( only lost once, to a Black Panther named Bobby Rush — the same convicted felon ( gun posession ) who now wants to ban guns.) He plays the the political game hard and well, back in Chicago ( in one case, he got every other candidate thrown off the ballot, leaving himself the only person anyone COULD vote for ), and nationally ( he gamed the Dem’s caucus sytem very well ).
These are not things one is supposed to get a Nobel Peace Prize for. He got his for being black, getting elected, and not being George Bush.
The prize is a bad joke, and the world knows it.
Now he’s right up there with Yasser Arafat, the founder of modern terrorism.
October 11, 2009, 6:31 pmChrisTS says:
PeteP:
Of course he has done something. If not, why would so many be so upset with him?
Isn’t he leading our nation into socialism – and/or fascism, I can’t quite figure out how these accusations for together. Hasn’t he gone crawling to evil dictators and …other icky people? Has he not shamed our great nation to bits by failing to win the Olympics for Chicago?
October 11, 2009, 6:43 pmDiana says:
Well, I’d rather Obama’s attitude than Bush in the flight suit with the “mission accomplished” banner strung across the background. The prize may or may not be a bad joke, but the useless war we inherited in Iraq is going to wind up costing us a lot more.
Yasser Arafat founded modern terrorism? Really?
that would be a big surprise to a whole lot of people.
October 11, 2009, 6:46 pmChrisTS says:
It’s probably worth noting again that the Nobel Committee is not required to make the award to those who have made great strides in achieving peace in the world. It has awarded the prize to those who have made efforts toward that end, and it has used the prize to acknowledge and ‘encourage’ those it thinks are on the right path.
The rage of people who probably do not give a hoot about the Nobel Prizes over the fact that one was given to our President says far more about them than about the prize or our President.
October 11, 2009, 6:49 pmGlenn Bowen says:
Then he should have handed it back- he didn’t recognize it enough.
Carter, too, given the statement made by the committee at the time, but then, as above, ego prevailed.
October 11, 2009, 6:50 pmDave N says:
Diana.
Are you referring to the useless war in Iraq that is winding down, with an elected government in place and the surge having worked? Or is there some other war in Iraq that I am unaware of?
And “we inherited”? Talk about arrogance. The implication is that the war was somehow not legitimate. Last time I looked, the war was approved by the Congress even if there were many on the left (I am not accusing you, but if it does include you, shame on you) who were actually hoping for American defeat.
October 11, 2009, 6:51 pmDave N says:
ChrisTS,
Query this. What if the Nobel Committee had given the award to George W. Bush–perhaps for his work on Africa, maybe with Bono as a co-recipient? Would you be saying the same thing?
No, I didn’t think so.
October 11, 2009, 6:53 pmDiana says:
I’ve never hoped for an American defeat (it’s conservatives who crow whenever America is defeated, as they just did with respect to the Olympics) … but I’d love to know when we can declare “victory” in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Both wars have now lasted longer than WWII, and if we are going to achieve victory, how and when will we know?
as for terrorism, I’m also wondering how many people here know the IRA was formed in 1919.
October 11, 2009, 6:57 pmjosh bornstein says:
What is Eric whining about? Obama was as gracious as he could have been in the circumstance. The Right was unable to criticize his actual words, so they instead are using the judgment of the awards committee as a way to beat up on Obama.
That’s fine. Politics is hard-ball, after all. But I think there is a real potential danger to Republicans. If I were a Democrat strategist, I would be trying to plant the seed of “Republicans hate Obama more than they love America.” That was my first response when I saw the cheering last week when Chicago did not get the Olympics. I don’t know if people will get this impression of the Republican party. But if they do, then that will influence how the public views *everything* Republicans say about Obama in the future–including even perfectly valid criticisms.
I hope that does not happen. A robust dissenting party helps the entire country. My hope is the Republicans, and conservatives, lose a bit of their poison, and instead focus on factual complaints. (And there are plenty of those available, IMO, based on Obama’s first year in office.) There’d be less red meat for your base. But tons more substance for independents, more-liberal Republicans, and more-conservative Dems.
October 11, 2009, 7:03 pmShelbyC says:
Boy are you critical. Only the first of those charges has any merit. And he’s doing it with good intentions
October 11, 2009, 7:05 pmChrisTS says:
Shelby: :-)
October 11, 2009, 7:11 pmgeokstr says:
What BS.
First of all, conservatives weren’t “crowing” about a “defeat” with respect to the Olympics. Many criticized him for going and personally lobbying for it, but I don’t recall this “crowing” for his “defeat”.
And let me say this – it was NOT the left that fought communism for decades, and it was NOT the right cheering for our defeat in Iraq. Of course, the left is still enamored with communism, and currently allied with many Muslim groups. To claim any conservative ever cheered the defeat of this country in my lifetime, which goes back a way, is slanderous. But then again, the left is good at slander.
October 11, 2009, 7:11 pmCrazyTrain says:
Eric — The end of the post is rather silly. To interpret the President’s statement as saying he is less worthy than anyone else who has ever won the prize is an utter failure of reading comprehension. A plain reading of what he said is that he is less worthy than many others who have won. I know your reading comprehension skills are better than this. A silly, silly ending.*
*I must say that the only people acting sillier than the Nobel committee in awarding the prize is the right-wing blogosphere with their predictable freak-out. This site usually doesn’t get that bad, and this post is hardly on par with some others (such as RedState calling the prize “affirmative action”), but it is odd that Eric would so blatantly misread Obama’s statement here.
October 11, 2009, 7:11 pmjosh bornstein says:
Dave N,
You actually make a good point about Bush and his work in Africa. I think he did more than just about any previous president in this area, and–if not for Bush’s other excursions abroad–he might well have received a Nobel. That would have been just fine with me. Alas, his involvement in the Middle East made this an impossibility. But liberals (at least, the liberals I know here in Los Angeles) give Bush tons of credit for his work in Africa, and will continue to do so into the future. (I point out that, as I traveled round the world, Bush’s work in Africa did have tangible results in how Africans look at America, and this is another more-subtle and non-quantifiable benefit.)
Good work here, Bush.
p.s. I think it’s a bit unfair of you Dave, to ask a question, and then provide your own answer. I get it as a rhetorical device. But it’s also fair for me to point it out, when the answer you give is most helpful to your position, and when that answer is not accurate.
October 11, 2009, 7:11 pmrace card says:
That’s actually a pretty acute analysis of the bind Obama was placed in. Why anyone thinks Eric is whining or criticizing Obama (he is doing neither) is a mystery to me.
October 11, 2009, 7:14 pmCrazyTrain says:
I noticed that too. It sort of reminds me of Eric’s weird obsession with hating on Dawn Johnsen.
October 11, 2009, 7:16 pmGordon Langston says:
CNN did a segment on Obama’s Peace Prize and compared him to 5 previous recipients, Bishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama. I though he would more favorably be compared to other winners who held elected office like Peres, Sadat, Arafat, Gorbachev, Rabin, or Sanchez. He certainly had no track record like the company they had chosen for him.
October 11, 2009, 7:21 pmChrisTS says:
If Bush had been given the prize (would the AIDS work fit the peace prize? I suppose it could) for that, I would have been delighted. Especially if he got it with Bono, who is hot in a kind of old-rocker way.
In fact, had Bush received the prize for whatever we can credit him for vis a vis Africa and AIDS, I would have been relieved: it would have suggested that he -and thus we – were not as despised as I suspected he, and thus we, were.
Really, who is displeased to have the President receive this prize, unless said President is being rewarded [so to speak] for what is clearly anti-peace activity?
By the way, David, while many of us are inclined, rudely enough, to suggest that we know what members of some group (‘they’) might think about something as yet unnoted, it is worse form to assume one knows what another individual thinks in the same circumstances.
October 11, 2009, 7:21 pmChrisTS says:
CrazyTrain:
He has this obsession? (Any ideas as to why?)
October 11, 2009, 7:23 pmShelbyC says:
I think that last part was a joke, no? A little friendly ribbing of Obama?
October 11, 2009, 7:25 pmShelbyC says:
Am I missing the whining? Doesn’t the OP say the same thing you did in this paragraph?
October 11, 2009, 7:26 pmFormer Chicagoan says:
I love you guys… But you guys… I guess you guys…”
“you guys” = whitey
October 11, 2009, 7:28 pmChrisTS says:
I think it is interesting that many of these luminaries are discredited by someone, somewhere.
Mandela? Commie! King? Racist/Socialist! Mother T? Catholic Oppressor of women! Dalai Lama? Manipulative promoter of a hierarchical theocracy!
Just goes to show ya: one person’s hero is another person’s villain. I believe some folks here on VC are nto so fond of Bishop Tutu.
October 11, 2009, 7:30 pmDave N says:
Josh Bornstein, ChrisTS,
I should have not have answered my own rhetorical question. That, in fact, was not fair. I should have asked the question and ended my comment with it.
My sincere apologies for presuming an answer.
October 11, 2009, 8:02 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I suspect most of us don’t give a rat’s sphincter about who wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Our feelings about my country have very little do do with whether a particular politician wins a particular award from a particular interest group. Did we all suddenly start admiring Mr. Peanut when he got a prize for his work in trying to get Israel exterminated?
Sorry, this is plain stupid. Not wanting to use American tax dollars to fund the show of a corrupt group of corporate money-grubbers like the IOC is a “defeat” for America? The leftist idea of “patriotism” isn’t supporting our allies, furthering democracy, honoring our exceptionalism, and promoting the country’s interests, but putting tax money in the pockes of Valerie Jarrett, Richard Daley, and a collection of international crooks.
Socialism involves government ownership of the means of production, which means they’re under government control. Fascism puts them under government control but leaves ownership (to a large extent) in private hands. That’s why German fascism was called “National Socialism.”
It’s an open question which one Obama prefers. It think it’s fascism, because it leaves rich people utterly dependent on the government who can contribute to your campaign.
October 11, 2009, 8:15 pmChrisTS says:
DaveN: Now I feel badly. I was not all that offended, really. Peace! :-)
October 11, 2009, 8:36 pmzuch says:
PeteP:
Don’t like it? Take it up with the Nobel Committee. Don’t reflexively and hatefully try and hang this decision you don’t agree with on Obama.
This is your opinion, of course, but it’s not true.
Oh. You get to speak for the world, do you? Pete, I’d like you to meet reality. Reality, this is Pete. Pete, this is reality.
Cheers,
October 11, 2009, 8:50 pmBob from Ohio says:
Peres, Rabin, and Sanchez have been elected, the others were not. Not as we in the west understand the term.
October 11, 2009, 8:51 pmChrisTS says:
Sandy:
Um. You know, I was being, like, sarcastic?
October 11, 2009, 8:51 pmjosh bornstein says:
Dave N: I have another complaint (joke) about your mea culpa. If we return civility and politeness to the Internet, where will all the extremists (on both sides) go? Please, please, Dangermouse, Borris, et al–we need your input here, to restore this blog to its expected level. :-)
October 11, 2009, 8:52 pmConstantin says:
Shouldn’t Ben Davis be spending his time investigating Barack for war crimes–for continuing the very same policies Mr. Davis wants Bush tried for–instead of pulling the race card to defend his Nobel Prize?
October 11, 2009, 8:57 pmArthurKirkland says:
not being George Bush.
That alone was an enormous service to our nation and our world.
If the Cheney fans and “Mission Accomplished” losers can’t recognize that, that’s their problem.
October 11, 2009, 8:59 pmzuch says:
geokstr:
Hard to deny this when we have screenscrapes and video.
As pointed out, the left wasn’t cheering for defeat in Iraq, except in the fevered imagination of RW foamers.
As for “f[ighting] communism”, that was stuff like putting in our dictators in Chile, South Vietnam, almost every single Central American country, Greece, anonanonanonanon…. See Stephen Kinzer’s “Overthrow” for the sangiunary history….
Cheers,
October 11, 2009, 9:00 pmShelbyC says:
Well, I’m sure Democrats kill puppies too, but do enough of them do it to generalize?
October 11, 2009, 9:20 pmPeteP says:
Zuch – go drink some more Kool-aid.
October 11, 2009, 9:22 pmJoe says:
It’s Glen Reynolds who kills puppies. And blends them.
October 11, 2009, 9:23 pmCrazyTrain says:
pwned.
October 11, 2009, 9:25 pmA. Zarkov says:
I can see why you take the name of the Communist “Benjamin Davis” because “white privilege” is typical of the kind of attack we see coming from this end of the political spectrum.
If anything Obama himself is the product of privilege. He attended elite private schools and enjoyed the benefits of affirmative action to advance his academic and professional career. He got to teach at the University of Chicago with a zero record of publications. How do you explain that without AA? Now he gets the Nobel Peace prize without having done anything to promote peace. How is this anything other than another form of AA? Martin Luther King Jr. (a fully black man) got the prize for a solid record of accomplishment, and he certainly deserved it. Lots of people who think Obama doesn’t deserve the prize, support giving it to King.
To be sure none of this is Obama’s fault. The Nobel Peace Committee put him into an embarrassing position, and he’s handled as best as anyone could in his position. It’s almost as if they were out to get him.
October 11, 2009, 9:25 pmegd says:
Fair enough. So then please accept that Liberals cheered at the prospect of American defeat in Iraq.
Conservatives cheer when a billion+ dollar sporting event goes to South America.
Liberals cheer when American soldiers are killed, and when America faces the prospect of losing a war.
If you can find moral equivalence between these two facts, please seek counseling.
October 11, 2009, 9:28 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Oh, sorry. People say such over-the-top things that it’s sometimes hard to tell sarcasm. Some folks really don’t know the connection between fascism and socialism; I apologize for thinking you were one of them. Mea culpa.
October 11, 2009, 9:50 pmDavid Nieporent says:
His comment is embarrassing, but I’m pretty sure his parents gave him the name, which is why he “took” it.
October 11, 2009, 9:54 pmA. Zarkov says:
I was thinking he took Benjamin J. Davis. But as “Davis” is an extremely common name you could be right. I was trying to link the content to the name.
October 11, 2009, 10:27 pmcorneille1640 says:
So anyone who expresses what the commenter Benjamin Davis said is sprouting Communist propaganda?
October 11, 2009, 10:38 pmCato The Elder says:
Using the term “white privilege” reeks of Marxist influence, yes. It’s a nonsensical paradigm of analysis, used only to browbeat others into thinking they don’t hold valid opinions.
October 11, 2009, 10:46 pmA. Zarkov says:
Not everyone of course, but many. If someone takes the handle of a well known Communist and then uses language from the Popular Front days, it certainly makes one suspicious. Of course it could really be his name.
October 11, 2009, 10:59 pmChrisTS says:
De nada.
October 11, 2009, 11:01 pm11-B/20.B4 says:
Look, Obama was in a bad spot, and there is literally nothing he could have said that wouldn’t have been criticized…but that kind of goes with the territory of being president. His acceptance was pretty much the best way to handle it politically, and his writers did a yeoman’s job on a quick draft. In the end, he’ll have a Nobel and his detractors won’t. Which will matter more in ten years?
That said, I reserve my criticism for the Nobel committee. I mean, I know the intelligentsia were pretty stoked about Obama, but seriously, a Nobel? Can’t they just stick to suppressing every negative story of him and rapturously fawning on the evening news? They should have invented the “Nobel Greatest Human/Demi-god EVAR and Supreme Potentate of Every Aspiration of Humanity” medal and given it to him, just to make it fair. Actually, no, I’m just surprised they crawled out from under his desk long enough to make the presentation.
October 11, 2009, 11:03 pmChrisTS says:
Because Marx and Engels were so concerned with white privilege?
October 11, 2009, 11:03 pmChrisTS says:
On the other hand, one might note that the ‘connection’ is highly abstract. Yes, Fascists and Socialists, of one kind, believe that some ‘elite’ should rule.
On the other hand, Fascists believe that this a very small elite that should rule primarily for its own interests, which it names The State (see Aristotle and oligarchy), whereas Socialists think that the majority [workers] should rule for the interests of the majority – ultimately, for the interests of all, once class divisions have bee eliminated – which they name The People.
I offer this not as an invitation to wild-eyed dispute, but as an important distinction that we do well to keep in mind.
October 11, 2009, 11:13 pmGene Madison says:
He didn’t say he didn’t deserve the award. He said he did not feel that he deserved to be in the company of all the others who received an award. I have to question the committees methodology though… Since Al Gore received the award for his work on Global Warming, and not for creating the internet. (or was that Dan Quayle?)
October 11, 2009, 11:14 pmAndy McGill says:
Yes, everyone should say congratulations on winning the award. Americans should be proud that another American won the award. But everyone, including liberals in Europe, gasped at the announcement. That reaction wasn’t against President Obama, but rather against the Nobel Committee.
This was such a naked political move by the Nobel Committee that everyone realizes how badly it damaged an important icon in World Academics. President Obama was badly damaged by it in the US, but it wasn’t his fault. I am sure he seriously thought about turning it down, but just understood that would make a bad situation worse.
Europe should seriously re-think its approach to the US, as it lost any pretense of nuance.
October 11, 2009, 11:14 pmdavod says:
“In this case, Obama’s carreer record of legislative acheivment is exactly ZERO.”
In the State legislature he was effective in refusing to let the Born Alive Infant Protection Act from seeing the light of day.
This is the law that even NARAL didn’t question.
October 12, 2009, 12:03 amdavod says:
“Isn’t he leading our nation into socialism – and/or fascism, I can’t quite figure out how these accusations for together”
Check the definitions.
Look at his administration and its actions to see Socialism (And who they are sucking up to internationally). Look at the Administrations collusion with big business for the fascism.
October 12, 2009, 12:07 amraoul says:
If a high school had given the award, no one would be complaining-so the problem lies with the critics of the prize and their expectations. Surely, these critics would have applauded a Bush award, so, in the end, is their fatuous inanity that comes to show. In this sense, this post must rank among most worthless post ever written.
October 12, 2009, 12:09 amzuch says:
ShelbyC:
Oh really? You got video?
But I’d note that geokstr’s claim was that he didn’t know of any such behaviour. Just trying to edjoomakate him (and anyone else in need of reminders) about what actually happened.
Cheers,
October 12, 2009, 1:03 amzuch says:
Sandy MacHoots:
You misspelled “difference”. No charge; glad to help.
Cheers,
October 12, 2009, 1:06 amzuch says:
Andy McGill:
Cites for these claims? Or are you just making it up? Or just wishful thinking….
Cheers,
October 12, 2009, 1:13 amJohn Fast says:
I didn’t vote for Obama. (I’m also proud that I didn’t vote for Junior Bush. Twice. And I didn’t vote for Daddy Bush, also twice.)
But I say congratulations to him for winning the prize. And I also say congratulations to us, the U.S., for having a chief of state who is a Nobel Prize winner!
How many other countries can say that, huh?
We’re number one! We’re number one!
October 12, 2009, 1:15 amCareless says:
ITT: Obama supporters get incensed at the idea that the Prize should not have been given to Obama and then blame a hatred of Obama instead of the really (really really really) obvious point that the selection committee made a stupid/crazy choice.
It’s not Obama’s fault he was selected or nominated. It’s slightly his fault that he accepted, but that’s a very minor consideration.
October 12, 2009, 1:42 amlolwut says:
The fatuous inanity is your own, since your claim — that said critics would have “surely” applauded a Nobel to Bush 10 months into his presidency — is unfounded.
October 12, 2009, 3:32 amPerseus says:
Talk about a trope.
Aristotle never talks about “The State” (which is a distinctly modern concept) and oligarchy is generally rule of the wealthy (though he defines variants). So fascism doesn’t fit neatly in Aristotle’s taxonomy of regimes. As for Socialists, they tend to think that the majority needs to be led by pointy-heads, so it’s not obvious that they are any less oligarchic.
October 12, 2009, 5:06 amGene Madison says:
How do you know that no one would be complaining? Somewhat presumptuous.
Okay, I am a critic of the principles and strict legal language in the Will that is very clear as to who is to be awarded. Again, you presume I would have applauded Bush? Absolutely not… He was more help to Terrorists than he was to the people in the US.
It has nothing to do with the illusion of the 2 party system, Bush should have been impeached, but there is a benefit to having the bad guy continue in office. They work very good at preventing people from having a civil discussion on their own.
October 12, 2009, 5:31 amEH says:
Yet nothing of the legitimacy of AA/socialist/not-enough-drops-of-blood commentary perpetually harangued.
October 12, 2009, 6:13 amdavod says:
The award of the Noble Peace Prize to Barack Obama is interesting, only in the fact that it is based upon fallacious reasoning.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee and many others around the world are victims of their own propaganda, and selective memory.
George Bush undertook extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. He also worked towards a world without nuclear weapons. Dialogue and negotiation was always the preferred instrument for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. Democracy and Human Rights were strengthened under Bush.
Deeds not words should be the watchword here.
October 12, 2009, 9:31 amChrisTS says:
Perseus:
a) Quite true and I did not intend to suggest otherwise.
b)Also true but not to my point.
c)No argument from me, as I was trying to make exactly the same point about fascists.
In other words, fascists are like oligarchs, only it is not simply a matter of money.
October 12, 2009, 10:17 amFloridan says:
I find it very interesting that with all the complaining about President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, no one has suggested the person to whom it should have been awarded.
October 12, 2009, 10:22 amSlippery Slope says:
Eric-
I think this is just a lazy post. You assert that “few people who win prizes actually say they don’t deserve them.” To the contrary, that is a very common reaction. I searched in the Westlaw news database and here are some examples from the past two months.
——-
His approach to philanthropy was a quiet one
Sarasota Herald Tribune (FL) Author: HALLE STOCKTON; Word Count: 665
9/19/09 SARHTRIB B06 2009 WLNR 18638629
…Salvation Army in March. “He was extremely gracious,” said Kitty Devine, a Salvation Army volunteer. ” I remember him saying, “I don’t deserve this award. I do this stuff because I want to do it.’” Sandefur was originally of Columbus, Ohio. He and Tana, who …
—–
Grateful dad honors those who rescued son
News Journal, The (Wilmington, DE) Author: N/A; Word Count: 994
8/28/09 NEWSJRNL (No Page) 2009 WLNR 16879131
…when she saw Marvin. The 54-year-old Newark resident is a mother, and she understood the situation immediately. “I don’t deserve this,” she said of the award. Brittingham did not agree. “They did not have to stop; they took time out of their day to stop and …
——————
QUILTS OF VALOR COMFORT COMPLEX WARTIME EMOTIONS
US Federal News Author: N/A; Word Count: 1853
8/24/09 USFEDNEWS (No Page) 2009 WLNR 16479242
…not just for the warriors, but for us, Ms. Roberts said. The most common statements made by Quilts of Valor award recipients are, “I don’t deserve this. Give it to my buddy,” or, “I was just doing my job,” or, “I didn’t think anyone cared,” Ms …
—————-
School named for reluctant David Suzuki
Markham Economist & Sun Author: KEELY GRASSER; Word Count: 621
8/17/09 MARKECON 61 2009 WLNR 16063911
…up to certain principles. Dr. Suzuki said he now realizes that it is not his responsibility. “It is a great honour that I feel I don’t deserve,” he said, adding that he has been privileged to have a program that has been on CBC so long (The …
——————–
Community nurse Jackie was ‘a tower of strength’
Leicester Mercury (UK) Author: Cathy Buss; Word Count: 494
8/12/09 LEICESTERM 12 2009 WLNR 15704665
…52, said she could not do her job without the help and support of health care colleagues. She said: “I don’t deserve any award at all. “My job is all about being the link bringing services together. “A lot of people give a lot …
————-
Citizen of the Year Jimmy Lowder’s life a legacy of giving back to community
Montgomery Advertiser (AL) Author: N/A; Word Count: 2169
…of the Year. He accepted the award Saturday at a presentation at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival. “Well, I’m sure I don’t deserve it,” he said before the ceremony. “But I appreciate it. I mean, what do you say about it? I’d like to thank the selection committee for the honor.” Lowder is being recognized both for his philanthropic and business-related contributions in Montgomery, Advertiser publisher Cheryl Lindus said.
October 12, 2009, 10:26 amFederal Farmer says:
I think Obama handled the prize very well. The error, if any, was committed by the Nobel Committee.
I suspect the reason many on the right are concerned with the prize is if it has any effect of legitimizing the foreign policy stance that they oppose.
Just to clear the air, the “Mission Accomplished” banner was for the ship and crew, who were returning to port, not for Bush.
October 12, 2009, 10:39 amShelbyC says:
Maybe someone can help me with the facts: Isn’t the worldwide consensus reaction, outside of the fringies on either side, kind of amused bemusement? I have to say, for all the talk of outrage and bitterness about this award, I haven’t seen much. Mostly just people joking and making fun of it.
Is my perception incorrect?
October 12, 2009, 10:56 amgeokstr says:
Curses! I’ve been pwned by links to Talking Points Memos and the HuffPo, two bastions of totally unbiased and objective reporting.
I followed those links, and wow, you guys are really grasping at lame straws to prove conservatives “cheer at American defeats”. You actually believe that Obama failing to get the Olympics for his cronies in the city that built him is a “defeat for America”? I knew, and have commented in the past, that in making their insane and inane moral equivalencies, the left has absolutely no sense of proportion or perspective, so this is just another proof.
I assume the new meme for the left will be that not only is anyone who criticizes Obama and his plans to radically restructure this country a racist, but a traitor as well.
If this is your entire case for how “…it’s conservatives who crow whenever America is defeated…” as baldly stated in the comment I was responding to, then you are being, as leftists always are, totally disingenuous, at best, but more likely, totally dishonest.
Please give us more insipid and stupid examples to show how conservatives “crow” for America’s defeats. I’m sure that you have lots more.
October 12, 2009, 11:20 amzuch says:
davod:
<*snicker*>
One word: “RRW”
One word: “Iraq”
ROFLMAO.
Cheers,
October 12, 2009, 11:31 amzuch says:
Federal Farmer says:
<*pssst!*> [sotto voce] I’ve got a bridge to sell you….
Cheers,
October 12, 2009, 11:34 amzuch says:
geokstr says:
They have links to the sources there. You don’t have to believe TPM and HuffPo, but you do yourself a disservice when you deny the reality of the links. You need to stop doing that. Really.
Cheers,
October 12, 2009, 11:37 amChrisTS says:
zuch: I thought Davod must have been speaking of Bush, pere. Still a stretch, but not entirely insane.
October 12, 2009, 11:37 amSeaDrive says:
You’re having a little trouble with your focus. From the Nobel committee to the intelligentsia to the media in two easy sentences.
October 12, 2009, 11:45 amChrisTS says:
Fits with what I have read elsewhere.
October 12, 2009, 12:20 pmegd says:
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest Michael Vick was a democrat. Prove me wrong.
October 12, 2009, 12:26 pmChrisTS says:
What makes you think so? Are most football players Democrats? Most animal abusers? What?
October 12, 2009, 12:34 pmBenjamin Davis says:
I love you guys! My name is my name. Usually people think I am a grandson of General Benjamin O Davis – no relation. Some think I am related to the Marxist Benjamin Davis – no relation. My parents chose my name for – guess what – personal reasons. So I am amused by the associations made by persons to my name. Have a nice day!
October 12, 2009, 1:02 pmBest,
Ben
Dave N says:
ChrisTS,
I am not sure egd was going too far out on a limb. While I can name prominent Black Republicans: Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Kenneth Blackwell, Gary Franks, and J.C. Watts (to name 6), there are many, many more prominent Black Democrats than Republicans.
When you add to that the overwhelming preference within the Black community for the Democratic Party (>90% for Democrats vs. <10% for Republicans), then speculating a Black man is a Democrat is doing nothing more than playing the odds.
I do not know Michael Vick's political leanings (if he has any at all) or policy preferences. I am just staying egd wasn't totally off the wall with his comment.
October 12, 2009, 1:43 pmFloridan says:
Benjamin Davis: “So I am amused by the associations made by persons to my name.”
Jumping to ill-founded conclusions is a hallmark of commenters here.
October 12, 2009, 3:17 pmfwb says:
Obtaining political office is NOT an achievement. From what I have read, Mr. Obama has achieved nothing in his life other than some political hackery.
The Nobel prizes, as well as every other award/honor, have been proven to be political rather than a measure of achievements. Nothing but Good Ol’ boys patting each other on the back!
Tiocfaidh ar la!
October 12, 2009, 3:41 pmZeno of Citium says:
To my ears, trying to defend the award to Obama is about as silly as trying to defend the way GW handled the first six months of the Iraq war…it sounds incredibly partisan and devoid of reason and good sense.
October 12, 2009, 4:31 pmbouilhet says:
For the record, here is the relevant paragraph from Bernhard’s Wittgenstein’s Nephew:
The humiliation of the award, in this context, has nothing to do with whether or not the recipient deserves it; rather Bernhard’s narrator calls into question the whole enterprise of giving and receiving prizes, suggesting that it actually performs a function very close to the opposite of the one it pretends to do. In the case of Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, this seems to sum up the embarrassment of the situation pretty well indeed.
October 12, 2009, 6:52 pmpot meet kettle says:
If Eric Posner had displayed such poor reading comprehension as a student, he probably would not be a professor at Chicago Law today. I do not know if he is suffering the ravages of old age or rabid partisanship. Worse, I do not know which I’d rather hope for since it doesn’t look like either of those conditions is reversible.
Signed,
October 13, 2009, 1:58 amSomebody who doesn’t think Obama deserved the Nobel.
zuch says:
egd:
1). Vick wasn’t killing puppies (albeit what he did was horrible).
2). You don’t have video.
3). Michael Vick is not a clearly recognised Democratic official, organizer, or supporter (and may not even be a Democrat, despite the stereotyping of others here). He is just one person. The HuffPo piece I linked to provided numerous examples for my claim.
4). The burden of proof is on you, as the proponent of the proposition.
Cheers,
October 13, 2009, 4:10 am