The Nobel "Peace" Prize
So the Nobel Committee doesn’t like George W. Bush. We get it. In 2002 they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter, saying the award “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken … it’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.” Now they give it to President Obama for “creat[ing] a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.” It’s pretty clear the committee thinks of the Nobel Prize as a tool they use to conduct their own diplomacy, rather than an award for those who have actually achieved some, you know, peace.
In 2007, you might remember, the committee said “By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.” Now they say:
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”
It seems the Nobel Committee really thinks the award for promoting world peace should go to itself.
Glad tidings from the Norse!
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 9, 01:41 PM · #
i like obama
i voted for him and support many of his efforts
but this pick is pretty ridiculous
— Steve · Oct 9, 01:52 PM · #
I heard the news on NPR at 5AM and thought I was being punked. So I flipped on the netbook, saw it elsewhere, and left the comment on the below post here.
But it turns out not to be such a bad pick in that for the rest of the morning I got to listen to lots of commentators on NPR, all of whom clearly wanted to say, this is fucking ridiculous, but knew that that’s not really appropriate, so they kind of danced around it. Which was actually pretty funny morning radio.
Because I like and resprect Obama I like to imagine him being woken up and told the news, and sayingg something to the effect of, this sucks.
— Sanjay · Oct 9, 01:58 PM · #
I’m with Sanjay; this has to be a giant headache for Obama, personally and politically.
In America, when Norwegians administer fellatio both parties are demeaned.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 9, 02:09 PM · #
Is there a way Obama can decline it without pissing just as many people off? Instinctually, a respectful no feels like the right play here.
— salacious · Oct 9, 02:19 PM · #
I think y’all are being short-sighted — this is a great idea, and all the awards should use the same logic. E.g, they should give the Nobel in Chemistry to some newly-minted assistant professor and urge him/her to work on the problem they think is the most important, and also to not be such a stuck-up bastard like the current chairman of his department.
— kenB · Oct 9, 02:27 PM · #
Salacious, not a bad idea. At all.
It’s definitely doable. The ‘no’ would have to flatter and elevate the rejected, so if Obama preceded it with a reverential history of the prize, and a high-minded praise of past winners, and end with something like “I have yet to earn a place beside those men” yada yada. Could end up being lemonade after all.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 9, 02:31 PM · #
No conservative who gloated over Chicago losing the Olympics or has denied that Obama has actually improved the global standing and reputation of America has any business saying anything about this. Granting that, this is pretty silly and somewhat vulgar because there’s no way to interpret it as anything other than a big F-U to George W. Bush. That may not be undeserved, but it certainly is classless.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 9, 02:39 PM · #
The purpose of the nobel peace prize is probably—I may be wrong here, I’m just going by my instincts, I’m not a genius—to further the nobel prize committee’s program re world peace. If they think giving to Obama best helps their program, then probably they should give it to him, at least that’s what I think.
Unless there is some other purpose for giving out something called a “peace” prize. I’m trying to figure out what that might be, hmmmm…. Nope, can’t think of anything.
— cw · Oct 9, 02:44 PM · #
Ah, I knew someone would step up to defend it.
I think everyone might agree, at some level, that it’s valid to give it as a means to promote world peace rather than to recognize those who have (although I suspect that’s not what the bequest mandates, so, I hate that idea). But we all think that it requires massive dumb to have reached the conclusion that this will promote world peace.
Hell, I don’t even think it’ll help Obama: KVS is right (in the specific instance. I can think of other situations where he would definitely have been wrong).
— Sanjay · Oct 9, 02:55 PM · #
Heh — here’s to finding an exception that proves the rule.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 9, 03:03 PM · #
“But we all think that it requires massive dumb to have reached the conclusion that this will promote world peace.”
Becasue it infuriates republicans and the Jihadists?
— cw · Oct 9, 03:05 PM · #
And, so awesome to give it to the dude two days after he shafted the Dalai Lama.
— Sanjay · Oct 9, 03:16 PM · #
cw, this thing they award is called a “prize”. If you think someone’s moving in the right direction and you want to encourage him/her, then you might award a “grant”; but the expectation is that a “prize” is given to someone who has actually accomplished something, generally something difficult.
— kenB · Oct 9, 03:21 PM · #
I mean, you could’ve just said, “Any American who wants to, for the next year, can come to Stockholm and get a picture taken with the king and pick up a penny. Oh: but not you, George W. Bush.” That would’ve kind of worked. And I’d have totally gone for it, myself, and sprung for a nice frame and everything.
— Sanjay · Oct 9, 03:23 PM · #
I need a penny right about now. I put all my money on Cesar Millan, who clearly got overlooked by those anthropocentric assholes up there in “the land of the midnight sun.” Fuck meatballs too.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 9, 03:43 PM · #
It just cheapens the prize as a whole. IMHO, everyone who got the prize after crossing GWB (Carter, Gore, Krugman, that woman who got kicked off the bioethics counsel) should have an asterisk next to their name, just like Mark MacGuire’s home run stats.
— J Mann · Oct 9, 03:59 PM · #
From CNN.com: “Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1 — only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September — two months before Obama was elected president.”
Read that again. The committee began the nomination process two months before the election, and all nominations had to be in the mail less than two weeks into Obama’s presidency.
The man literally won the Nobel Prize for running and being elected.
kenB: “cw, this thing they award is called a “prize”. If you think someone’s moving in the right direction and you want to encourage him/her, then you might award a “grant”; but the expectation is that a “prize” is given to someone who has actually accomplished something, generally something difficult.”
Exactly.
— SDG · Oct 9, 04:09 PM · #
Here are my initial reactions, posted over at No Left Turns:
Utterly outrageous.
And, actually, quite embarassing for our president. What is he supposed to say?
With Carter, the prize was primarily a jibe at Bush, given its timing, but Carter actually had done something in days gone by as Prez to promote peace. And while I generally loathe Carter and agree with everything NRO’s Jay Nordlinger ever said about him, his work as ex-president had likewise knotched up accomplishments for peace. Now some of these were of questionable value, and yes, he was largely just a host for Sadat and Begin, but REAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS, you know, signed treaties and monitored elections, were at least plausibly attributable to the man.
Ten months in? (And Powerline reports that nominations for the prize were due back in January!) What the hell is our president supposed to say to this?
What he should say is: “I refuse to accept the prize—the committee is should not nominate an executive leader for campaign promises, nor award one only ten months into his term, except in extraordinary circumstances that permitted him or her to achieve something real for peace. I am grateful for the vote of confidence in my articulated policies so far, and hope the Iranians will vindicate the committee’s judgment, but I cannot accept the prize in these circumstances. The committee has failed to live up to its duty.”
…And through a back channel, perhaps through a Rahm Emanuel type, he should say to the committee, “F*&# you, you collection of idiots, racists, and America-haters, who in fact insult all blacks everywhere, and insult the dignity of America, by giving this prize to the first black president before he has even had an opportunity to actually achieve something tangible. You have degraded me, my race, the office of the presidency and America.”
Honestly, I cannot believe the Nobel Committee could be this dense and awful….this must be a false report, and all us angry ones will be the butt of a joke ten minutes from now…
— Carl Scott · Oct 9, 04:18 PM · #
Oh come on, how can you not be delighted? Funny Haha and Funny Queer had a baby, and it’s gigantic.
This whole thing is just grand. Like a new puppy before it starts to shit all over your house. Love it just a little?
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 9, 04:26 PM · #
“cw, this thing they award is called a “prize”.
Don’t you think you are being a little autistic, here? Pooping your pants over how some non-existant rules were broken? Like it’s election fraud, like the election is crooked?
You can make a legitimate argument that pissing off republicans and the jihadists is not productive towards promoting world peace. On the other hand the republicans and the jihasists are a very small majority in the world. They were also at the center of the last big eruptions in conflict. Maybe intentionally pissing them off sends these small belligerant minorities a message. Maybe the rest of the world will celebrate this and it will point out how small a minority republicans and jihadists are. And they will wince at the lash of the stinginess of the rebuke or something. I don’t know. That wasn’t my point.
My point was, this someone giving money to promote peace. It’s their money, they can spend it how they want. Period. Making argument based on absurd distinctions between the meaning “prize” and “grant” is pretty intellectually childish.
— cw · Oct 9, 04:48 PM · #
Conservatives don’t like the Nobel Peace Prize. Gosh, what the fuck else is new?
— Chet · Oct 9, 04:52 PM · #
My theory: the Nobel committee watched the VMAs and got nervous. (Sorry, I will desist now. I’m just giddy. I feel like a happy Dennis Green).
P.S. So I was looking for a video of Kanye at the VMAs, and I think I found the greatest anthropological artifact of all time. Seriously. That this wasn’t included on the Voyager Golden Record is a travesty of interstellar proportions. I’m going to be sad all day now.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 9, 05:12 PM · #
I’ve heard Obama is currently running third in Heisman balloting.
I must say I’m with KVS on this. I’ve been laughing all morning.
— Kate Marie · Oct 9, 05:14 PM · #
The man literally won the Nobel Prize for running and being elected.
Only good argument I’ve heard yet for giving it to him.
And let’s face it, I just found out that Marge Simpson is posing for Playboy, so this isn’t even the dumbest thing I’ve heard today.
— Bo · Oct 9, 05:24 PM · #
cw: “Don’t you think you are being a little autistic, here? Pooping your pants over how some non-existant rules were broken? … Making argument based on absurd distinctions between the meaning “prize” and “grant” is pretty intellectually childish.”
The foundation’s website states that “Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace.” The website further claims that Obama won the prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I think reading those two sentences will cause a lot of people the same sense of jarring intellectual disconnect that prompted kenB’s pointed distinction, and I don’t think sophistic insults are necessary to explain that perception of a disconnect.
Chet: “Conservatives don’t like the Nobel Peace Prize. Gosh, what the f—- else is new?”
Tribal thinking at its most naked. All that matters is polarity; never mind Carl Scott’s excellent (and non-tribal) distinction above between Jimmy Carter, who has actually accomplished something and is thus a non-embarrassing choice, and Obama. Saves so much time on interacting with ideas when you can just dismiss criticism as a knee jerk with another knee jerk.
— SDG · Oct 9, 05:49 PM · #
Times Online: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
— SDG · Oct 9, 05:52 PM · #
What’s a “sophistic” insult.
— cw · Oct 9, 05:55 PM · #
cw, my pants remain unsoiled, although had I had coffee in my mouth when I heard the report, the front of my shirt probably would have been stained.
Anyway, sorry for voicing my disagreement with you, I’ll not do so in the future.
— kenB · Oct 9, 06:04 PM · #
cw: “What’s a “sophistic” insult.”
Sophistry in general seeks to create an inflated impression of credibility for one’s position, usually through rhetorical conceits. “Sophistic insults” are the brand of sophistry that belittles one’s opponents in a supercilious, superior way, implying that they are not only wrong but deficient and thus <i>prima facie</i> not worth taking seriously (“autistic,” “pooping one’s pants,” “intellectually childish”).
— SDG · Oct 9, 06:08 PM · #
Liberal, pro-Obama criticism of the award at HuffPo and Salon.
— SDG · Oct 9, 07:01 PM · #
SDG, your post is conveniently self-refuting.
But conservatives were outraged when Jimmy Carter won, too. Oh, how they howled.
Here’s the point – no matter who won, conservatives would have been critical. No matter when Obama was awarded the prize, regardless of for which accomplishment, conservatives would have judged him unqualified to receive it – just as they judged a man with more than a decade of experience in elected office “unqualified” to be President. (Boy, haven’t heard much about that lately, have we.)
There’s a case to be made that Obama has not accomplished something worthy of the Nobel Peace prize. But conservatives cannot credibly make that case, not now, not after decades of open derision of the prize and what it stands for.
— Chet · Oct 9, 08:04 PM · #
SDG,
Why so thin-skinned? It’s exactly what Iwas talking about with the Obama thing. WHy the rightious tone, the bloated outrage, over a couple mild florishes re someone else, or a the nobel commitee’s desicion about how to best forward their aims? I mean, why appoint yourself the world’s stick-up-the-butt? Your all outraged over non-collegiality,but the very absuridity of your outraged posture basically demands mocture. It’s all so boring.
— cw · Oct 9, 08:28 PM · #
cw: “Why so thin-skinned?”
Thin-skinned? What I said was “I don’t think sophistic insults are necessary to explain that perception of a disconnect.” Then I defined sophistic insults. Where did you get the idea I was emotionally aggrieved?
Chet: “But conservatives were outraged when Jimmy Carter won, too. Oh, how they howled. … no matter who won, conservatives would have been critical.”
Some people are outraged and critical no matter what. Some of them are conservative, some of them are liberal. That doesn’t give anyone license to argue that everyone associated with a given polarity is ipso facto disqualified from credible commentary on a given subject. That’s another brand of sophistry, the ad hominem.
AFAICT, you appear to feel justified in resort to ad hominem in this case because it seems to you that “conservatism” per se is so entangled in “decades of open derision of the prize and what it stands for” that anyone claiming to be “conservative” in any sense is automatically implicated in these decades of open derision. That’s another fallacy, guilt by association.
If you can show that, say, Steven Menashi specifically or any other particular conservative has engaged in decades of open derision of the prize and what it stands for, then you can make (limited) hay by claiming with some credibility that he would have been critical no matter what.
Even then, your hay is limited because there’s a difference between being critical of a debatable choice (e.g., “Jimmy Carter is a terrible choice”) and being gobsmacked by an embarrassingly unqualified one (“Obama? WTF?”). Willingness to make the former argument does not undermine the credibility of the latter reaction.
If however Steven Menashi or any other particular conservative has not personally engaged in decades of open derision of the prize and what it stands for, then the fact that other conservatives have done so in no way undermines whatever credibility in general that individual personally may bring to the table.
— SDG · Oct 9, 08:37 PM · #
Ultimately I think it’s a lot of sound and fury, and will soon be forgotten by all except those who are upset by it. That said, anything that tweaks Republican noses in today’s climate is OK by me. But does it mean anything/will it result in anything? I don’t think so.
— bakum · Oct 9, 10:03 PM · #
Um, yes, it does. You can’t say “OMG, they picked Carter, how partisan and political!” and then, two years later, say “boy, the prize is so political these days, nothing at all like when they picked Carter!”
And you’ve completely missed, or ignored, my point – there was nobody they could have picked who conservatives would have liked, except maybe Rush Limbaugh; there was nothing Obama could achieve that conservatives would admit qualified him for the prize. You can’t deflect that point by just saying “guilt by association.” Your guilt is not by association, it’s by your ridiculous lack of credibility from which to criticize any of the decisions of the Nobel Committee.
As I said there’s a legitimate case to be made, here, that Obama does not deserve the prize on his merits. You can’t call yourself a “conservative”, have agreed with conservatives all this time, and then credibly make that case, now. You can’t just turn on a dime like that. It’s as ridiculous as conservatives criticizing Federal budget overruns – starting Jan. 20, 2009.
— Chet · Oct 9, 10:04 PM · #
“Um, yes, it does. You can’t say ‘OMG, they picked Carter, how partisan and political!’ and then, two years later, say ‘boy, the prize is so political these days, nothing at all like when they picked Carter!’”
Not in that form, no, but that’s not what I said. There are degrees of defensibility and of criticism, and one can legitimately object to the Carter award as political without undermining one’s ability to later say that the Carter award, though political, was not a transparently embarrassing “WTF?” moment like the Obama award.
“And you’ve completely missed, or ignored, my point – there was nobody they could have picked who conservatives would have liked, except maybe Rush Limbaugh”
But there were lots of candidates they could have picked that would not have caused both liberals and conservatives alike to be going “WTF?” How about Chinese dissidents Wei Jingsheng or Hu Kia? How about Afghan human-rights activist Seema Samar? Colombian crusaders Piedad Cordoba or Ingrid Betancourt? Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai?
BTW, most conservatives would agree that Mother Teresa was a pretty good pick. And at some point they should admit that they goofed in not giving the award to JP2 for his role in Polish Solidarity and the fall of the Soviet Union.
“there was nothing Obama could achieve that conservatives would admit qualified him for the prize.”
In the first 12 days of office, probably not. That doesn’t change the fact that after four or eight years he might not be a “WTF?” winner, and today he is.
“Your guilt is not by association, it’s by your ridiculous lack of credibility from which to criticize any of the decisions of the Nobel Committee.”
Because I think that Wei Jingsheng or Seema Samar or Morgan Tsvangirai would be a defensible choice, and Obama is not? Exactly what evidence formed or opinions about my “ridiculous lack of credibility”?
— SDG · Oct 9, 10:44 PM · #
Very well said, SDG.
— Tickletext · Oct 9, 11:39 PM · #
KVS, Kate Marie: I got it, it’s funny. I laugh HARD when NPR gets on another commentator trying not to call it ridiculous. Especially the former winners: since it’s de rigeur when you get this thing to say, I’m not worhty, they all have to approve it or look like egomaniacs (albeit egomaniacs who do good for society) (thus Lech Walesa’s reaction). I’d write it off as ridiculous suckuppery an a wasted opportunity.
EXCEPT it came just exactly as he was shafting the Dalai Lama. The day he sucked up to China in a way George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush all refused to. And that pisses me off, a lot: given that the WH telegraphed for weeks it’d do this it’s like the boobs on the Nobel comittee “took back” one very very deserved Prize at the same time as they gave a goofy one. The optics are terrible and Obama’s smart enough I figured for sure he’d recognize that and go Sartre. I didn’t even consider he wouldn’t.
So for the first time this evening I saw the guy on TV, and thought, you cocksucker. Nice to take the Peace Prize the day you screw over a man who lives Peace. I’m pretty pissed, and it makes the ridiculousness harder to relish. Granted I’ve been getting pretty disappointed with the guy over Afghanistan, but this is just…ugh.
— Sanjay · Oct 10, 12:31 AM · #
Although, shit, given that the White House just decided to start treating Aung San Suu Kyi’s jailers like they were a legitimate government, I suppose it’s not like he singled out His Holiness among ex-Peace Prize winners to screw over.
— Sanjay · Oct 10, 12:40 AM · #
Sanjay:
Obama pissed off China in the way that practically matters most for bilateral relations — with tariffs. That was a rash decision, and now he is pressured into a delimma. Meeting with the Dalai Lama at this point would be a further loss of face for Beijing right before his trip to convince Hu that Chinese people can’t do without US chicken feet and auto parts. So the decision to delay, not cancel, the meeting with HH is very pragmatic and could end up saving a lot of jobs in the US (and ultimately Tibet, ironically perhaps). The Obama administration made a similarly pragmatic response to the Green Dam software fiasco that turned out to be a home run.
I suspect personally he would love to again meet with the Dalai Lama — he kept a picture of the two arm in arm on his campaign website and allegedly had the Dalai Lama’s scarf in his pocket on inaguration. HH doesn’t seem too upset about the postponement, and probably recognizes that this will give Obama more room for leverage on a range of issues in Beijing.
Meeting with HH now would have been the Bush move, and I doubt Tibetians would be any better for it. This is a more complex example of what the Nobel was recognizing — that Obama is prioritizing pragmatic diplomacy over narcissistic, unbending idealism. Whether or not he is deservant of the prize, I don’t think the change in tone and soft power is trivial; neither do Chinese people nor a good deal of the world.
— wfrost · Oct 10, 01:51 PM · #
“Conservatives don’t like the Nobel Peace Prize. Gosh, what the fuck else is new?”
The Peace Prize does seem rather an ill-conceived exercise. Sometimes it has gone to folks engaged in corporal works of mercy (e.g. Mother Theresa), sometimes to politicians and diplomats who are out for the best deal they can get (Henry Kissinger), sometimes to degenerates and gangsters out for the best deal they can get for the time being (Yasser Arafat), sometimes to vocational motormouths whose concrete accomplishments in political life are obscure (Elie Wiesel), sometimes to the terminally fatuous whose concrete accomplishments in political life are obscure (Linus Pauling, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), and sometimes for reasons that are a puzzle (Eisaku Sato).
Political life is seldom an enterprise where altruistic motives are more than a weak vector and we might not be much better off if it was a strong vector. An absence of violence may be better advanced by equilibria than by contrived forebearance and concession, justice is not necessarily advanced by an absence of coercion, and the bien pensants’ wretched of the Earth are not the only ones who can legitimately use force.
Break up the endowment and distribute it to Nobel’s heirs, and discontinue the prize.
— Art Deco · Oct 10, 02:24 PM · #
I see that some of you, like I do, feel bad for Obama. I would feel used and abused and a little angry at being placed in a position of ridicule. It’s true that ten months is not enough time to make these kinds of judgements, but the prize accentuates his lack of accomplishment — something he doesn’t need since he’s finally under attack from both parties, although still mild from the left, and since he’s still floundering in two wars.
With friends like the Nobel committee….
— mike farmer · Oct 10, 03:42 PM · #
wfrost,
That’s a really shitty answer. For one thing it is highly unlikely the Chinese would take punitive measures regarding meeting the Dalai Lama besides a token bitching. We’ve done it forever, an besides I suspect the Chinese leadership wishes there were a way they could undo things and take His Holiness’ bargain, seeing as how he’s asking for very little autonomy nowadays, only they’ve demonized the hell out of him and can’t walk it back. Given events over the past year in Tibet it rather matters. Of course, I guess the SecState made it clear right up front that Obama isn’t going to press China on human rights, but still.
But the main reason your answer sucks is, you predicate it on something awful. Meeting with the Dalai Lama might piss the Chinese off a little — the tire tariff, as you point out, pisses them off a lot. And that tire tariff, as even left-leaning commentators point out, is ridiculous. No serious advisor can be telling Obama that it’s going to save one American job and even the tire makers know it won’t, which is why they didn’t lobby for the thing. It’s there because of a racist or xenophobic aversion to seeing items which are made in China and Obama’s willingness to feed that.
So if you’re right and Obama has to shaft His Holiness to pay for the tariff it doubly damns him. It’s clear what the choice he’s made is. Look, if he tells China, I’m going to meet the Dalai Lama and at the same time I’ll repeal the stupid tariff, they’ll be ecstatic, and throw in a meeting with Harry Wu and two dissidents yet to be named.
So, I quite agree that shafting the Dalai Lama to compensate for the stupid tariff is pragmatic. It’s fucking pragmatic as hell. But it’s not a pragmatism that’s aimed at improving relations with China, it’s screwing who you can for maximal electoral gain. Giving Obama the prize the day he does that, is an abomination.
— Sanjay · Oct 10, 03:54 PM · #
Actually let’s also weigh in on “meeting with HH now would’ve been the Bush move.” Yep, it would’ve.
In 2000 relations between the US and China were pretty much as bad as they’ve been, and a downed spy plane incident immediately made them worse. In his foreign-policy-disastrous first term, Bush nonetheless managed to end with pretty good relations with China! (in part because he showed that he wasn’t going to let Taiwan undermine the one China policy) In fact his foreign policy team pulled off the amazing trick of simultaneously improving relations with India, Pakistan and China from 2000-2004. I would suggest that, isamuch as China policy is concerned, it’s a vacuous argument that “the Bush thing to do” is all that bad.
Given that I’m pretty sympathetic to the idea that so far Obama foreign policy isn’t tremendously different from Bush’s second term — that the first term/second term break was bigger than the Bush second term/Obama break so far at least — one should be cautious about throwing stones here. Bush’s foreign policy was a disaster in need of mending. But our hopes for a Democratic president didn’t involve throwing out the few good parts of that policy!
— Sanjay · Oct 10, 05:15 PM · #
It’s amazing how five norwegians can get everybody in a tizzy. it’s an explicitly political prize, and has been for a very long time (see: the politics of why gandhi didn’t get it), and is a way for little norway to exert some soft power. viewed through that lens, i’m sure they’re quite happy with their decision. this is quite a headache for obama though.
— jackal · Oct 10, 06:27 PM · #
No sane person could look at Obama’s accomplishments and conclude that he’s achieved much in the way of bringing peace to the world. I don’t even think you could look at what he plans to do and decide that.
I think the committee gave Obama this award to motivate him to pursue humanitarian policies in the future. It’s no coincidence that this comes right before big decisions are due on Afghanistan and climate change.
— Clint · Oct 10, 07:47 PM · #
Almost 50 comments. No one bothers to read the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will. Very clever group here, as always. Let me help y’all out: The Peace prize is for whoever 5 exofficio Norwegians determine “shall have done the most or best work for fraternity among nations, abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.”
Not a damn thing about comparing Obama with Carter or other pleasant trivialities.
Usual poor work here.
— JohnMcC · Oct 10, 08:41 PM · #
Heres my email from O—
“to Me—
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I’d been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
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 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.
That is why I’ve said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won’t all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it’s recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award — and the call to action that comes with it — does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we’ve begun together. I’m grateful that you’ve stood with me thus far, and I’m honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama”
No matter how much the teabaggers, concerntrolls, and the Beck Butthurt Brigade try to spin this as a WTF moment….it simply isn’t.
It is a FTW (For The Win) moment.
For all of us.
— matoko_chan · Oct 10, 09:31 PM · #
JohnMcC:
“The Peace prize is for whoever 5 exofficio Norwegians determine “shall have done the most or best work for fraternity among nations, abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.”
“Ex officio” membership is membership by virtue of holding another office. For example, past presidents of Italy are ex officio members of the Italian Senate.
The Nobel Committee is “elected by the Norwegian Storting [Parliament].” In what sense is its membership “ex officio”?
The Committee is of course free to decide by its lights who has “done the most or best work for fraternity among nations, abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.” And the rest of the world is free to judge by its lights how plausibly or implausibly that description applies to the individual chosen.
It’s a little like the Academy choosing Best Picture: No one is going to agree on any one film, of course, but there are more plausible candidates (e.g., Master and Commander) and less plausible candidates (e.g., The Reader), as well as films that most would agree shouldn’t be candidates at all (e.g., The Time Traveler’s Wife).
Qualified candidates will always be overlooked (neither Gandhi nor John Paul II won the Nobel Peace Prize; Stanley Kubrick never won Best Director), but you hope that the winner is at least within the pale of plausibility. Every so often, though, one slips through the cracks (Around the World in Eighty Days? Really???). And then there’s this week’s news.
— SDG · Oct 10, 09:49 PM · #
matoko_chan:
“No matter how much the teabaggers, concerntrolls, and the Beck Butthurt Brigade try to spin this as a WTF moment….it simply isn’t.”
Where in your schema of “teabaggers, concerntrolls, and the Beck Butthurt Brigade” do WTF reactions from left-leaning commentators at the Huffington Post (Michael Russnow), Salon (Glenn Greenwald), Time (Mark Halperin) and the Times of London (Michael Binyon) belong?
— SDG · Oct 10, 10:06 PM · #
WTF reactions from left-leaning commentators
oh, yeah …I forgot the WATB (Whiny Ass Titty Babies)
also, too.
haha, yessss it is a Very Bad Thing to antagonize the crazipants because it makes them even crazier?
They are waay past 120db (where sound turns into sensation) already.
;)
Why so serious? (lol)
This is a good thing. Everyone should chillax.
Those old swedes can give that prize to whoever they want……their prize, their rules, their agenda.
Even the most hardcore bushies kinda have to admit what we were doing wasn’t worrrking.
Besides….. the humor opportunities are stellar.
Beck Butthurt Threat Level Monitor
— matoko_chan · Oct 10, 11:12 PM · #
Sanjay: you call it a shitty answer and then agree with 95pct of it. Unless you are maybe saying that Beijing doesn’t really care who meets with the Dalai Lama? It is a huge domestic issue for them.
The only difference seems to be that you think he is screwing the Dalai Lama for electoral gain? Please point me in the direction of the Buddhist clubbing constituents.
Yes, China was probably the highlight of Bush’s foreign policy. In so far as China is concerned, I too wish Obama would in many ways follow the path of his predecessor.
— wfrost · Oct 11, 12:13 AM · #
I’m just totally fucking outraged. This is an outrage. He totally fucking doesn’t deserve it. Those Norwiegins are retarded dumbasses. I am so pissed. They are just fucking with us. It’s all just a bunch political bs. They TOTALLY DIDN’T FOLLOW THE RULES! It’s like electing Gibert Arenas to the Hall of Fame. It is so fucking bogus and it makes me so mad. The nobel prize is just a joke. I’m outraged at this outrage, it’s so fucking outrageous. It’s a slap in the face of all rational americans. I’m got damn pant pooping mad! It doesn’t even make sense. I just can’t even understand how they could have done something so very WRONG! They are just WRONG! They made a huge outrageous MISTAKE! It’s insane! And IT MAKES ME SO MAD I“M ACTUALLY POOPING MY PANTS RIGHT NOW! Take that you got damn HONYAWKERS!
— cw · Oct 11, 12:45 AM · #
“Why so serious?”
Serious? I thought my query about your schema was couched pretty lightly and ironically. And I don’t think I take the Nobel Prizes even as seriously as the Academy Awards, although I think the Nobel committee probably ought to take it more seriously than they do.
But yeah, as silly as I can be at times, I am serious about some things, including preferring respect and courtesy rather than jeering and vituperation even for people I disagree with, preferring efforts at mutual understanding and dialogue to declarations of tribal affiliations and boundaries, and preferring intellectual humility to doctrinaire self-congratulation. Expressing differences of opinion frankly but without acrimony, seeking to elevate the level of disacussion, thinking the best of others, trying to find points of contact or common ground — principles that are ultimately rooted for me in what my background are called the Eighth Commandment and the Golden Rule.
I find sarcasm most often helpful in recalling to reason someone capable of being reasoned with and susceptible to a light but well-placed jab. If that fails, it sometimes helps to make a more straightforward appeal. Of course, there’s no lack of people who will rebuff any overture. I try not to let it stop me from making the effort.
So those are some things I’m serious about. I prefer to think that most people care about the same sorts of things.
— SDG · Oct 11, 01:53 AM · #
Why so serious.
I make fun because they are funnie.
Crazypants deserves neither respect or equal time.
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 02:19 AM · #
“Crazypants deserves neither respect or equal time.”
Not all ideas deserve respect, and not everyone deserves to be treated with the same level of respect, but there is a baseline respect that is due to every human being. And not everyone who disagrees with you — about the indefensibility of the Obama Nobel, for instance — is crazypants.
— SDG · Oct 11, 02:43 AM · #
“Serious? I thought my query about your schema was couched pretty lightly and ironically.”
The couching was—if I may be so bold—exquisite.
— cw · Oct 11, 04:31 AM · #
O Dark Sithlord of the Vast Conservative Intellectual Wasteland.
I used why-so-serious in the urban dictionary sense.
This blog, supposed to BE all about Teh Culture……is quite profoundly culture-deaf.
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 01:11 PM · #
hmm…disappearing comment.
i shall try again.
O cw, Dark Sith Lord of the Vast Conservative Intellectual Wasteland, I used why-so-serious in the urban dictionary sense. For a blog supposed to be All About Teh Culture, TAS is quite profoundly culture-deaf.
Why so serious is something people my age say to each other all the time, its dark mockery of people gettin’ bent over non-issues.
2. why so serious 66 up, 22 down
_The phrase the villain “The Joker” played by Heath Ledger uses in the new Batman movie, “The Dark Knight” when he asks his victims why they are always so serious and not smiling.
The Joker holds a knife up to Rachel Dawes mouth and tells her the story of how he got his scars. He says that one night when his parents were fighting as a young child and he was watching from the corner, his dad asked him “Why so serious?” and used a knife to cut into his cheeks so it looked like he was always smiling._
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 01:49 PM · #
Best thing I have read on this non-issue.
If we can have pre-emptive war, we can have pre-emptive peace.
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 01:57 PM · #
matoko_chan: I’m a film critic in the Newark, NJ area. I knew what you meant. Seems you’re a bit quick on the draw to pronounce yourself misunderstood. Cheers.
— SDG · Oct 11, 04:44 PM · #
m’toko
I was joking him. Mockture, pure mockture. Because he is way over-formal in his language to the degree of self-parody, right?
“Serious? I thought my query about your schema was couched pretty lightly and ironically.”
That sentence could be written by Martin on the Simpsons. His sober perturbitude at the very serious mistake the Nobel committee made is in the same vein. This is what makes me insane. That tone of rightious, mature, surety. No humor, no uncertainty, no perspective. THe pressure on the spine from big stick up the butt—which I guess is composed of delusional self-regard—restircts access to only the portentious segments of the persona, and thus they gift us with thier biblical proclamations. Bleech.
I got to stop reading blogs. It’s warping my brain.
— cw · Oct 11, 04:45 PM · #
CW,
Your comments here have been a FTW moment.
For all of us.
— Kate Marie · Oct 11, 04:53 PM · #
I’m glad you enjoyed them. You and I don’t usually see eye to eye, but it nice that you don’t hold a grudge.
— cw · Oct 11, 05:12 PM · #
No humor, no uncertainty, no perspective. THe pressure on the spine from big stick up the butt—which I guess is composed of delusional self-regard—restircts access to only the portentious segments of the persona, and thus they gift us with thier biblical proclamations. Bleech.
Indeeed….the same earnest clueless naivite that gives us product like this …..that we can satirize, like this.
Why should Teh Incorrigibly Stupid be immunized from mockery?
Why should stupid memes get equal time or equal respect?
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 05:34 PM · #
CW,
Your graciousness is a FTW moment.
For all of us.
— Kate Marie · Oct 11, 05:36 PM · #
CW,
Your comments here have been a FTW moment.
For all of us.
— Kate Marie · Oct 11, 12:53 PM · #
lulz.
Not for SDG i bet.
;)
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 05:38 PM · #
That art work is truly absurd.
This art, however, is a FTW moment.
For all of us.
— Kate Marie · Oct 11, 05:41 PM · #
I prefer this Art as an exemplar of a FTW moment.
rawr.
;)
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 05:46 PM · #
For all of us
— Kate Marie · Oct 11, 05:55 PM · #
I find KHatemaries crude attempts at mockery to be emblematic of the core theme of this instantiation of the New Evangelical Creationist Republican of the Confederacy. The only signifier that unites the conservative movement is hatred of Obama. The base has moved from 50% white evangelical christian in 2008 to 75% WEC, and the leadership is enslaved to a platform of evangelical christian doctrine, including homophobia, chattel slavery of women and children, and creationism.
The potential candidates are a Mormon and three WECs.
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 06:05 PM · #
I find KHatemaries crude attempts at mockery…
An LOL moment and a FTW moment of unintentional irony.
For all of us.
— Kate Marie · Oct 11, 06:11 PM · #
“I was joking him. Mockture, pure mockture. Because he is way over-formal in his language to the degree of self-parody, right?”
FWIW, cw, I didn’t think that needed explaining either. I thought you were both pretty clear, your subsequent explanations kind of detracted from whatever subtlety you originally brought to the table.
I’m sorry my verbal formality is such a burden for you. I’m pretty sure the rest of your impression of me is your own jaundiced projection, but it looks like you’re happy thinking of me that way, so.
— SDG · Oct 11, 06:29 PM · #
I was explaining to Matoko. It seemed like she thought I was criticizing her or didn’t get her joke or something.
And look, I’m sure you are a fine person, but I am serious in my critique of your tone. You are a film critic, critique of tone must be something you are comfortable with. ANd your tone, and the tone of a whole bunch of others here is one of absolute surety in outrage. It’s all just way overdone. It does not admit that maybe there is more here than Obama worship, is ignorant of how the Nobel comitee has worked in the past, is not proportionate to whatever sins the Nobel commettee could possibly commit, and is just plain aesthetically and intellectually weak. It’s reflexive, wanna be pundostrophy. It’s inartful and boring. It’s bad art. It’s Tom Clancy in all his virtuosity, humor, and self-knowledge. And if you are going to ponderously pontificate then I am going tend to mock your work product. Becasue it’s boring and screams out for mockture.
— cw · Oct 11, 07:18 PM · #
KM,
I am actully pleased to see you down here at my level.
— cw · Oct 11, 07:19 PM · #
When I look at all McNoughtons other art I don’t even feel like making fun of him. It doens’t seem fair. It’s like making fun of your grandma hair or something
— cw · Oct 11, 07:41 PM · #
cw….that is all is left of the GOP.
grandma hair.
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 07:51 PM · #
cw, thanks, I appreciate your directness.
Yes, as a film critic I’m quite comfortable with critique of tone, my own first of all. My readers keep me humble, and anyone who makes a practice of spending half a day critiquing a year or more in the lives of any number of filmmakers had better be humble about it.
I’ve also learned the hard way that critics make mistakes, and that criticism has to be secondary to receiving. The critic has to begin by putting himself aside and really hear what’s being said. Things don’t always come across as intended, and sometimes it’s on the sender, other times it’s on the receiver.
Whatever the reason in this case, and speaking for no one but myself, I can only tell you that “absolute surety in outrage” corresponds to nothing I’m aware of in my take on this subject. Nor do I think that anything I’ve written particularly warrants such a perception.
“Absolute surety” is inherently uncritical; only a stupid critic, an uncritical critic, could claim absolute certitude. A critic’s job, at least by one sort of criticism, involves taking an informed and responsible point of view on a subject and making as persuasive and compelling an account of the subject as he can from that point of view. I sometimes say that a critic is not a judge passing down a verdict that people are supposed to passively accept, a critic is a lawyer arguing a particular point of view, which is then submitted to the reader for a verdict.
As for “outrage,” I try to avoid it in general on principle, in part because I know from experience that outrage tends to make me stupid. I can think of things I’m outraged about right now, but I could no more be “outraged” by the Nobel Prizes than I could by the Oscars. There are outcomes I could welcome, outcomes I could understand, outcomes I would roll my eyes at and outcomes that leave my jaw in my lap, but the issue doesn’t remotely rise to the level of outrage for me.
In this combox, my burden has been basically (a) the proposal that Obama by day 12 of his presidency had made such outstanding contributions to world peace that he is a plausible candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize will strike a lot of people (including me) as absurd, and (b) dissing and dismissing everyone in that category as deficient (autistic, poopy-pants, teabaggers, concerntrolls, conservative and thus bound to criticize any choice) is unhelpful and implausible.
Those seem to me fairly modest claims, quite lacking in absolute surety or outrage. Verbal formality I cop to; it’s just how I am.
— SDG · Oct 11, 08:31 PM · #
Be honest…..that is the common denominator of modern conservatism.
Obama hatred.
It unites the Burkeans and the Hayekians, the neocon revanchists and the K-lo Catholics and the Mormons and the WECs and the Birthers and the 912 Project.
But it doesn’t unite the college-educated, minorities, or youth.
And finally the grouped minorities have have reached parity with white christians.
According to you, Obama can’t do anything right.
But….he just bitchslapped the crap out of the Israelis with Goldstone, and he didnt apparently lay a finger on them. And Iranians cheered him after the Cairo speech and hoped he and Mousavi would meet someday.
And the stealth (opt-out) public option is going to pass, and then we will be onto Immigration reform.
And the demographic timer is still running.
tick..tick….tick
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 08:32 PM · #
“Be honest…..that is the common denominator of modern conservatism. Obama hatred.”
“Modern conservatism” is a not topic about which I profess much knowledge or would venture many opinions. I’m not comfortable with “Obama hatred” and can’t say I share the hate myself.
The day Obama was elected I sat our kids down on our bed and gave them a long talk about the historical significance of Obama’s election and what a proud moment it was for our country in many ways. That doesn’t mean I don’t disagree profoundly with many of Obama’s guiding principles, but I’m certainly not knee-jerk anti-Obama in any way, shape or form.
Look. I think I have more hostility for, say, Ted Kennedy than for Obama — a lot more. And yet, I still think Ted Kennedy would have been a much more plausible contender for the Peace Prize than Obama. I’ve got a list of problems with Kennedy that goes up to the ceiling, but I don’t question that his legacy is something that people could plausibly consider worth honoring.
The reason I find Obama a laughable candidate isn’t because I hate him, and it’s not because I disagree with his policies — indeed, as I noted, quite a few Obama supporters feel the same way about this. Rather, it’s because it seems laughable to me to put this man at the dawn of his career on the worldwide stage in the same company as previous winners. Note that I say “seems to me” (not “absolute surety”) and “laughable” (not “outrageous”). And, again, I think a lot of people will agree whether or not they share my critique of Obama’s policies.
So if it makes you happy to project the meme of “Obama hatred” onto me, you’re free to do so, but you’re shadow-boxing, not engaging what I’ve said.
— SDG · Oct 11, 10:20 PM · #
Why isn’t it a good thing for the sitting American President to get the Nobel?
We had pre-emptive war….it is time for a pre-emptive stike on peace.
I think Obama-hatred is the common denominator…..YOU may not hate him, but you refuse to crit those that do.
— matoko_chan · Oct 11, 11:35 PM · #
Wait a minute, I thought Joe Biden had cornered the market on grandma hair.
As a matter of fact, I think his beautifully coiffed tresses are a FTW moment.
For all of us.
— Kate Marie · Oct 11, 11:40 PM · #
“Why isn’t it a good thing for the sitting American President to get the Nobel?”
Sitting isn’t the issue. If he were sitting on 12 days left in a brilliant term or two, instead of 12 days into a first term that might or might not turn out to be brilliant, I would have taken a completely different tack. Historically, the award has honored actual achievement, not hope and promise.
“YOU may not hate him, but you refuse to crit those that do.”
How the heck would you know? Did you bother asking? I have lots of criticism for lots of people and things I haven’t mentioned in this thread (I’m a critic). My best friend complains that I like nothing better than to criticize conservative talking heads. You sure do leap to a lot of conclusions about other people based on very little evidence.
— SDG · Oct 12, 01:47 AM · #
Matoko writes
bq.Beck Butthurt Brigade
Just for the record, Matoko, are you using a (1) gay slur; (2) a spanking reference that falls carelessly close to a gay slur; or (3) some obscure reference to a lesser-known Huffington post consipiracy theory?
— J Mann · Oct 12, 04:27 PM · #
cw,
Thinking about it a little bit, you are exactly right that it’s Nobel’s money, or the King of Norway’s, or somebody, and they can spend it however they like.
The award irritates me, though. I think here’s why, in no particular order:
1) I only pay attention to the Nobel prize because I think it’s selection follows some kind of procedure that makes it interesting to me. If I learned that Roger Ebert named Dreams from Our Fathers to his 10 best films of all times list, in the hope that the book would one day be made into a film, it would similarly disappoint me because it would offend my sense of order and because it would lower the overall value of Ebert’s picks to me.
2) The Nobel prize is commonly understood to convey a certain amount of authority. Kenneth Arrow, Paul Krugman, etc., are Nobel prize winning economists, so even when we disagree with them, it’s worth a second read. Like Supreme Court opinions, the Nobel Prize Committee can get away with a few clunkers as long as it has a certain number of winners, but the more obviously the prize becomes just “whatever 5 Norwegians feel like,” the less authority the prize grants on the other winners.
3) Lastly, to the extent that there is still some authority left in the prize, if you’re not down with Obama’s foriegn policy, it’s rankling that the Committee decided to use throw its weight, painstakingly built up from the various Ang San Soo Chee’s and Lech Walenza’s of the past, and throw it into Obama’s corner.
— J Mann · Oct 12, 05:25 PM · #
Like I said above, I think the a peace prize has got to be a tool to encourage peace, or what is the point? So, hopefully, the committee is thinking, who can we give this to to best engourage world peace. Obama’s not that bad a choice, if you look at it this way. He’s the person who has probably the single most ability to make the world more peaceful. He just replaced an administration and a party that definitly made the world less peacefull. I don’t know. My main point is that the outrage was way overblown and came from a stupid place in peoples minds. It engaged my misanthropia. I agree if it’s for acheivement he’s not the best choice, but if it’s for encouragement, then I can see. It is at least arguable.
— cw · Oct 13, 03:33 AM · #
butthurt n defn— perpetual sense of victimhood as exemplified by the New White Evangelical Christian Republican Party.
Another example of the ever widening crevasse between conservatives and contemporary culture.
— matoko_chan · Oct 13, 12:07 PM · #
Translation: It’s a gay slur.
Incidentally, the supplied definition, complete with example, is matoko_chan’s, not his source’s.
matoko_chan, you seem to invest quite a bit of energy into fabricating profiles of demographics opposed to you, and then either wedging everyone on the other side into the profile or else pretending that counter-examples don’t exist.
In another combox you seemed skeptical that there could be any conservatives sufficiently non-racist to embrace Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell while spurning Jimmy Carter and Harry Reid (though to your credit you admitted that if there were you would agree they weren’t racists).
Now you suggest that “perpetual sense of victimhood” is somehow the special sore tooth of something called “New White Evangelical Christian Republican Party.” Try Googling the phrase … you’ll find it applied far more liberally at all ends of the political spectrum.
— SDG · Oct 13, 01:35 PM · #
SDG, I am talking about teh BASE.
You persist in tryin’ to pretend that there is some sort of ideological coherence between the mostly WEC base of the GOP and the tattered remnants of the conservative intellectual class.
;)
— matoko_chan · Oct 13, 02:01 PM · #
also, too.
teabagging is a gay slur that got applied to the “grassroots” teaparty movement.
the “earnest clueless naivite” that is so emminently mockable, as evidenced in the mormon iconography I linked.
You are arguing these people deserve some modicum of civility and respect…..I disagree.
They only deserve mockery.
— matoko_chan · Oct 13, 02:06 PM · #
“You persist in tryin’ to pretend that there is some sort of ideological coherence between the mostly WEC base of the GOP and the tattered remnants of the conservative intellectual class.”
I haven’t said a word about “the base” or the “conservative intellectual class.” I did say that conservatism as a movement “is not a topic about which I profess much knowledge or would venture many opinions.”
It’s always easy to ridicule “the base.” Hannity, to whom I’ve occasionally been exposed against my will, does it every Thursday with his unbearable “man on the street” feature. Ho ho, listen to the liberal retards who voted for Obama but don’t know the first thing about American civics, and expect Obama to pull magic money out of his pocket and solve everybody’s problems.
Yes, I argue that everyone deserves a modicum of civility and respect. Ridicule is a perilous habit to get into. You think you can handle it, you can stop any time you want to, you don’t have a problem, other people have a problem. The more you get used to it, the easier it is to see how truly ridiculous other people are, how unworthy of consideration the things they think. Eventually you see more and more clearly that their views are not only ridiculous but contemptible, malicious, hateful. They stop being other people and become only the enemy, a blight to be exterminated.
That’s dangerous thinking, and no one is immune, liberal or conservative. I prefer to try to treat people with respect because I don’t like myself on ridicule, and I sure don’t trust other people with it. And sometimes, when you treat with respect people you would rather not, they pleasantly surprise you by turning out to be more human than you thought. Not always, but sometimes.
— SDG · Oct 13, 02:38 PM · #
You know, I don’t know much about Japan, but it continues to astound that people read the name “Matoko” and think it could possibly refer to a man. It’s not “Matoko Chan”, like “Jackie Chan”, it’s “Matoko-chan”, which even I know is a way to refer to women named “Matoko” in a familiar and diminutive way. I don’t speak a word of Japanese, even. (And, of course, there is all the times that Matoko has told us her gender.)
— Chet · Oct 13, 04:41 PM · #
Thanks for the correction, Chet, as well as the cultural lesson. Mea culpa and apologies to matoko_chan for the masculine pronoun.
— SDG · Oct 13, 04:46 PM · #
Slight correction to Chet – AFAIK, the Japanese language is gender neutral. The “-chan” suffix has a cutsie or twee connotation that means that it is more often used for women, but it can apply to men, boys, and pets as well. If your handle were “Little Jimmy,” you could translate it to Jimmy-kun or Jimmy-chan. Kun is more common for boys and chan for girls, but you can use either.
So Chet is right that Motoko has told us she is a she, and that even without that, -chan makes it significantly more likely that she is, but she could just be a playful male and still be grammatically correct.
See, e.g.;
http://www.jref.com/language/japanese_suffixes.shtml
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JapaneseHonorifics
— J Mann · Oct 13, 06:12 PM · #
Thanks, J Mann. I only knew about -san, not -chan or -kun. Googling all three turned up this helpful japanese.about.com page.
Apparently, the burbly connotation of -chan makes it appropriate not only for addressing children, but also for children addressing (either male or female) relations, e.g., ojii-chan for “grandpa.”
So there. I learned something new.
— SDG · Oct 13, 07:29 PM · #
I guess I was over-simplifying for clarity’s sake. Would you say, though, that someone introducing or referring to themselves among strangers with “-chan” is probably a woman? A man might be called “-chan” by his intimates, but I suspect he would not introduce himself that way. Is that more or less accurate?
— Chet · Oct 14, 04:49 PM · #
Do actual Japanese use honorifics at all when referring to themselves?
My guess is that using an honorific to refer to yourself is playful, which brings in additional levels of subtlety.
— J Mann · Oct 14, 08:11 PM · #
also, too……names ending in “o” in japanese are grrl names.
It is playful, self-mocking and designed to ameliorate the kind of mistake SDG made about my sex.
Too subtle?
— matoko_chan · Oct 15, 11:58 AM · #
“also, too……names ending in “o” in japanese are grrl names.”
Wait. What about Hayao Miyazaki — and his son Goro?
Hmm. Apparently “Goro” is a variant spelling of “Gorou” … and while there appear to be a lot of Japanese male names ending in “o,” many of them also seem to be variants of names also spelled with an “-ou” ending: Ichiro, Jiro, Juro, Kichiro, Sho, etc. There are also some that are “unisex,” like Hiro, Ko, Kyo, and Makoto.
OTOH, at least some male Japanese names ending in “-o” are listed without alternate spellings or unisex indications: Akihiro, Akio, Fumio, Hachiro, Haruo, Hideo, Hisao, Isao, Iwao, Katsuo, Katsuro, Kazuhiko, Kazuhiro, Kazuo, Kunio, Masahiro, Masato, Michio, Mikio, and Mitsuo (to go halfway through the English alphabet).
There are even a few “-ko” names: Akihiko, Kazuhiko, Masahiko, and Takehiko (all of which seem to get the “-hiko” ending from “prince”).
Bottom line, the “-o” ending by itself probably isn’t a giveaway. :)
— SDG · Oct 15, 02:31 PM · #
hmm..ok usually….a grrl name…or unisex…my japanese teacher said it is colloquial …matoko + the chan honorific announces to a japanese speaker that i am a “young lady” or pretending/attempting to be.
So it is also ironic.
But anyone familiar with anime and my blog know it is an otaku name referencing Major Motoko Kusanagi.
— matoko_chan · Oct 15, 03:02 PM · #
It was weird, but I got pointed to Wikipedia’s Abolition of slavery timeline page, and this line jumped out at me:
That made me think 2 things: 1) I wonder how closely the attitude in China towards Tibet parallels that of us in the Union states towards the Confederacy. and 2) Hey, that’s the same guy Obama won’t talk to.
— Bo · Oct 15, 03:14 PM · #
“But anyone familiar with anime and my blog know it is an otaku name referencing Major Motoko Kusanagi.”
To my shame, I know little anime outside of Studio Ghibli (Takahata as well as Miyazaki). Of course like everyone who went to art school in the 1980s I saw Akira, not my cuppa tho. I am interested in exploring more.
(On a side note, in my previous life as an illustrator I did some manga-style work for an ESL textbook aimed at Asian students.)
— SDG · Oct 15, 03:20 PM · #
-ko is typically a female name ending, but -o is unisex.
Makoto is a common japanese name, usually but not always male. Motoko is a japanese name, usually female.
Matoko is not, I believe, an actualy japanese name, and most often comes up in fanpages maintained by western otaku.
— J Mann · Oct 15, 03:34 PM · #
J Mann is correct, the Matoko corruption of Motoko is westernization as well.
I can’t steal the Major’s truename.
That would be disrespectful.
;)
— matoko_chan · Oct 15, 06:31 PM · #
P.s.: I declare that as of today, “J” stands for Jacobus.
— J Mann · Oct 15, 07:53 PM · #