http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665505/#051212b

Hey authors, want to win the Nobel Prize? You can increase your odds by doing one thing: telling the world how much you hate America.

Men of average intellect in fields outside of literature also find their reputations burnished by the Nobel Committee in return for bashing George Bush and American foreign policy. Ask Jimmy Carter, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize a few years back for setting up a diplomatic framework that allowed North Korea to go nuclear.

Billy Carter couldn't have screwed that one up any more than his overmatched, self-righteous brother. Still, I guess we should thank our lucky stars that Billy's overtures to Libya were ignored by the Nobel Committee in the 70's.

But these days, the true anti-American haters seem to litter the literary awards category.

This year's winner, Harold Pinter, loathes America in a way that would make Hugo Chavez blush.
In his recent Nobel lecture, Pinter compared the United States to the Soviet Union-a regime that killed up to 40 million of its own people. Then Pinter took it a step further by lamenting the fall of that evil regime since Stalin and his type provided "constraint" against US policies.
Pinter then described America's foreign policy this way:

"It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed."

The author then cited "the tragedy of Nicaragua," mourning the fall of that "intelligent, rational and civilized" Marxist regime. Pinter placed the Sandinistas' downfall at the feet of the United States.
Funny, but I remembered the Nicaraguan people chasing those rational Marxists out of power in the 90s.

Ahh. But facts always bored Pinter and his type. Later in his lecture, this year's winner became unhinged, accusing American leaders of employing Jedi mind tricks on an unsuspecting world.
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

"I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. It's a scintillating stratagem."

Pinter blasted the system of "gulags" in the United States, as if letting murders, rapists and child molesters run free in the streets of American cities is a preferable option. He also used his Nobel platform to call George Bush and Tony Blair war criminals who should be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.

I could reprint more of his drivel in this space but you get the point. This bitter man, whose greatest contribution to literature involved his putting his pen down-the Pinter Pause-got a Nobel Prize because of how much he hated America.

The United States of America is the root of all that is evil in this world, according to Pinter. Never mind the fact that my country has spent the last century liberating the world from Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Milosevic's Serbia and Hussein's Iraq.

Forget also that we are spending our money and blood to kill al-Qaida terrorists who would blow up Pinter and his countrymen in a second if the author succeed in reversing US foreign policy.

But America will not surrender to terror.

We will not surrender to al-Qaida.

And we sure as hell will not be cowed by a diseased mind like Harold Pinter.

Joe Scarborough

Yeah, it's amazed me how rediculous the Nobel "peace" prize winners are.

To Mr. Scarbourgh

If the nobel is so anti-American then explain we so many Americans either are nominated for it or actually win it annually. To call the Nobel peace prize anti-american because of one particular book over one particular year is also dishonest journalism.

Here is a list of all the PEACE Prize winners.

http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/index.html

Mr Scarbourgh article is yet proof again about the far right's inability to tolerate any sort of criticism and to mislable it as anti-Americanism. Espically when that criticism is directed toward the conservative far right in particular. Had the book been on Clinton-Lewinsky or something else theat implicated democrats, I'm sure Mr Scarbourgh wouldnt have found it so objectionable.

Mr Scarbourgh is particulary foolish to criticize a book on Nigaragua as anti-American, because Reagans financing of Latin American Death Squads was not exactly America finest moment. I might remind Mr.Scarbourgh that several people went to jail and it nearly toppled a sitting American President because of the Nigaragua fiasco...

mmarsh

The Nobel Peace prize winners in recent years have all too often been outspoken critics of the United States and it's policies (foreign and domestic). This criticism has sometimes been very strident and wacko to the extreme.

I'm NOT saying ALL nominees are flakes, what I am saying is that the committee seems to be picking the people with the extremist view more often than not.

Blinders only allow you to see things directly in front of you - you need to see 360 degrees and with rose colored glasses everything looks rosy and fine.

You need to remove your blinders and take off your rose colored glasses and see the world as it really is.

Yeah mmarsh, you need to take a look at that list yourself, man.

Jimmy Carter - Arguably the worst US president in history and a guy who loves to criticise everything America has done since his presidentcy and hob-nob with Castro and other anti-Americans

Head of the IAEA - The guy that couldn't tell whether or not Iraq had nuclear weapons and has been letting Iran get closer and closer to going nuclear. This guy has been just like the 'Team America: World Police' parody, "we are very angry with you and if you don't let me see your nuclear facilities I will send you a letter telling you how angry we are."

Kofi Annan - Really? Do I even have to say anything?

Yasser Arafat - The man who did more to stop peace in Palestine and thwart American attempts to resolve the issue than any other single man in the history of the conflict

UN Peacekeeping forces (1988 ) - While Regan was finishing up his prolific carreer at hacking away at the USSR it's the "smurfs", the guys that have been the biggest joke army on the 20th centry that get the nod. Nice one.


So President Regan takes down communism, ushering in a decade of peace and prosperity the world over. A kind of international prosperity hardly ever seen in the history of mankind over such a broad geographical context. And who gets the nod durring this time? Mikel Gorbochov, the Dali Lama, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines(?)... okay, great.

Whispering Death and Bones

Both of you missed the point.

The nobel is given out for works promoting peace, not for being a bad president or an ineffective leader. Only for works done promoting peace...
I agree that some choices have been bad, but to claim its blantant anti-Americanism is a strech. Nor do certain winners criticize America indicate a anti-American bias.

Jimmy Carter- Wasnt a good president no doubt, (but compared to W he's a godsend). But Carter didnt get the Nobel because he was a bad president but because of activist work in Africa, Asia and the fact he negciated the Egypt-Isreal peace accords in 1979. The fact he was a bad US president has no bearing.

Arafat - (along with Rabin, and Peres) the commitee wanted to celebrate the improving relations between the two sides. Therefore the Nobel commitee didnt want to alienate the Palestineans at the peace table by only giving it to the Isrealis. They had to give it to both sides. Unfortunatly nobody knew that Rabin would be shot a month or so later, and the whole peace commitee would implode.

Kofi Annan/UN- He certainly tries to promote peace, he just didnt succeed. The fact he is up to his eyeball in a corruption scandal (which was after he won) has no bearing on the selection. I admit is was a unusual choice...

ElBaradaii, was involoved in the Nuclear disarming and Inspection of Iran, Iraq, and Libya. And in the case of Iran, it was his team that found the radioactive soil samples, proving that Iran was cheating.

Reagan, the GOP definition of the fall of communism is not even shared by the entire USA, let alone the rest of the of the world. Gorbachev, Lech Welsa, John Paul II, Thatcher, Mitterand (in that order) all played much larger roles than Reagan, thats why Gorby got the prize in 1990 and Reagan didnt. The 1980's 'prosperity' (minus the enormous deficiets he left) has no bearing on the Nobel Peace Prize selection, I would wager the funding of Nigeruguan Death squads most certainly did effect the commitee, but in the opposite direction...

Republican Foreign Policy is unlikely to win any Nobel Peace Prizes, but in many instances, it has proven far more effective. The International Community greatly prefers Democrats as Presidents of the United States because they can be counted on to not behave in an aggressive fashion internationally. Its understandable that a more passive approach will seem more appealing, but it also has been demonstrated to not work terribly well. Jimmy Carter's presidency is the best example I can think of to demonstrate this.

One editorial comment: I wouldn't give all the credit to Reagan for the fall of Communism in Europe, but his contribution is drastically understated by most people. One thing is clear: The fall of Communism was one of the most unexpected good things that ever happened in human history. Most of the credit would go to the right circumstances and the right people being in the right places at the right times.

Edit: MMarsh, of the people you listed, only one person was even capable of having a greater impact upon the fall of Communism, and that is Michael Gorbachev. Mainly, people (especially non-Americans) do not see how Reagan's drastic escalation of the arms race was at all helpful. More than that, most non-Americans have an extreme prejudice against any Republican President. Just remember that Mr Nobel himself believed that he had greatly promoted world peace with his invention of dynamite.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

The 1980's 'prosperity' (minus the enormous deficiets he left) has no bearing on the Nobel Peace Prize selection

I was refering to the boom in economic afluence the world over seen in the 90s after the fall of communism.

Godofthunder

I know that arguement, and I agree to some effect. But I think credit for it should be given to Harry Truman, as it was Truman who essentially started the arms race in 1948 and that policy continued until Carter. Reagan merely broke the SALT and SALT 2 accords and continued on the previous policy of economically wearing down the USSR. Remember the USSR didnt suddenly collapse in the 1980's, it was in steady decline ever since the end of WWII. From the 1960's the signs were showing. It just fell apart on Reagans watch. I forgot his name but but he was the head of the Soviet Army wrote that Reagan did speed up the fall but only to a degree, had he not the USSR's still would have collapsed at a slightly later date as the major damage was already done...

Thats why its so inaccurate for the GOP to claim it was Reagans doing...

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Yeah, it's amazed me how rediculous the Nobel "peace" prize winners are.

Indeed all you need to do to win the nobel peace prize is fight a destructive war, kill thousands of people and then negociate some kind of treaty.