No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.
Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?
However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.
No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.
Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?
However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.
That's simply a rationalization of how he can turn it down without it blowing up in his face. It says nothing about why turning it down is the preferable option.
No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.
Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?
However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.
I read that, it sounded pretty dumb both times.
Giving the Novel Committee a big Fuck You can really only be negative, and the up-swing of declining is that it's what his critics consider to be the" right thing"; chances are good declining the award isn't going to earn significant points with those people in the first place.
No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.
Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?
However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.
I read that, it sounded pretty dumb both times.
Giving the Novel Committee a big Fuck You can really only be negative, and the up-swing of declining is that it's what his critics consider to be the" right thing"; chances are good declining the award isn't going to earn significant points with those people in the first place.
yeah, it makes no sense to pander to the people that will hate him no matter what he does
"Politely declining" would be received that way by the Committee? Didn't know they were that sensitive.
Anyway, those arguments are mainly centered about how it will look to Average American Swing Voter. Not his supporters, not his critics, but those people who are swayed easily between Approve and Disapprove on polls.
"Politely declining" would be received that way by the Committee? Didn't know they were that sensitive.
Anyway, those arguments are mainly centered about how it will look to Average American Swing Voter. Not his supporters, not his critics, but those people who are swayed easily between Approve and Disapprove on polls.
I'm pretty sure if you lick these peoples' assholes the wrong way, they are going to be upset with you.
You don't turn down the Nobel Peace Prize. Best you can hope for is donating the money to something you think is worthwhile.
And focusing on the American Swing Voter, while certainly important for a variety of reasons, isn't exactly what I would describe as "looking at the bigger picture, which is something that I figure Obama's sort of got down-pat by this point.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that you're going to earn a significant number of those swing votes by turning down the Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm sure that could be considered fighting words...or at least it could be argued enough to the point where it could probably be taken down in lieu of a decision.
Ah, yes, the "Fighting Words" Act, banning the use of words that might hurt people's feelings.
Seriously, I certainly don't know the particulars about use of the N-word in public, certainly not in the State of Georgia, but I think you might be a little fuzzy on how Laws work.
No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...
Ok, but.
who are the people that think he should turn it down?
How many of them will ever like him? He could resign, somehow restructure the government so Beck, Palin, and Bush all served as co-presidents, and they would say that a million monkeys would pound out shakespeare eventually.
I mean what population of the people who are saying that he should refuse the prize would actually ever conceivably like him, while he remains a democrat? Versus how dickish would it look on the global stage if he was all "Fuck your Nobel Peace Prize!" The only pro of declining it would be that people who will never like him would have to find something else to complain about.
Ah, yes, the "Fighting Words" Act, banning the use of words that might hurt people's feelings.
Seriously, I certainly don't know the particulars about use of the N-word in public, certainly not in the State of Georgia, but I think you might be a little fuzzy on how Laws work.
No, it's the "fighting words" doctrine
The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
My concern has little to do with the legal aspect of this so much as it has to do with my disgust at the tought of a Black youth having to see a publicly displayed sign like that in 2009.
And yes, fighting words is a precedent, not an act, but I'm sure that was just a semantic slip up, so...
The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...
Ok, but.
who are the people that think he should turn it down?
How many of them will ever like him? He could resign, somehow restructure the government so Beck, Palin, and Bush all served as co-presidents, and they would say that a million monkeys would pound out shakespeare eventually.
I mean what population of the people who are saying that he should refuse the prize would actually ever conceivably like him, while he remains a democrat? Versus how dickish would it look on the global stage if he was all "Fuck your Nobel Peace Prize!" The only pro of declining it would be that people who will never like him would have to find something else to complain about.
I'm willing to bet many of the people who are suggesting he turn it down are the same people who heavily criticized him for even talking to international leaders because they felt Obama "made America seem weak"
My concern has little to do with the legal aspect of this so much as it has to do with my disgust at the tought of a Black youth having to see a publicly displayed sign like that in 2009.
And yes, fighting words is a precedent, not an act, but I'm sure that was just a semantic slip up, so...
No no, it turns out you were very right.
And don't go singling out Blacks, that sign is pretty offensive to basically anybody.
It's too bad our obscenity test is so specific (well, maybe not, but you know what I mean when it comes to incredibly hateful and bigoted speech), because this would otherwise appear to fit the bill.
No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...
Ok, but.
who are the people that think he should turn it down?
How many of them will ever like him? He could resign, somehow restructure the government so Beck, Palin, and Bush all served as co-presidents, and they would say that a million monkeys would pound out shakespeare eventually.
I mean what population of the people who are saying that he should refuse the prize would actually ever conceivably like him, while he remains a democrat? Versus how dickish would it look on the global stage if he was all "Fuck your Nobel Peace Prize!" The only pro of declining it would be that people who will never like him would have to find something else to complain about.
Again, this isn't my position so I'm not up-to-date on the full reasoning behind it, but nobody suggested he go to Oslo, recieve his award, then urinate on it and fling it back at the presenter. They're thinking instead of, "Thank you, I'm honored, but I haven't yet accomplished what I've set out to do, and hope that you give it to some other deserving candidate." Unaffiliated Voter out there isn't clamoring for him to do this, but they could look at it with, "Well, that was nice of him."
Ah, yes, the "Fighting Words" Act, banning the use of words that might hurt people's feelings.
Seriously, I certainly don't know the particulars about use of the N-word in public, certainly not in the State of Georgia, but I think you might be a little fuzzy on how Laws work.
No, it's the "fighting words" doctrine
The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Yeah, but the Supreme Court has also said that you can say pretty much whatever the hell you want about public officials and public figures, laws concerning defamation (New York Times v. Sullivan) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell) notwithstanding.
Posts
Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.
Stay classy, Georgia.
That's simply a rationalization of how he can turn it down without it blowing up in his face. It says nothing about why turning it down is the preferable option.
I read that, it sounded pretty dumb both times.
Giving the Novel Committee a big Fuck You can really only be negative, and the up-swing of declining is that it's what his critics consider to be the" right thing"; chances are good declining the award isn't going to earn significant points with those people in the first place.
that award show would take forever
Anyway, those arguments are mainly centered about how it will look to Average American Swing Voter. Not his supporters, not his critics, but those people who are swayed easily between Approve and Disapprove on polls.
I will have to show this to some people.
I think they will be disappointed with Georgia.
(They are from Georgia.)
Previous account
I'm pretty sure if you lick these peoples' assholes the wrong way, they are going to be upset with you.
You don't turn down the Nobel Peace Prize. Best you can hope for is donating the money to something you think is worthwhile.
And focusing on the American Swing Voter, while certainly important for a variety of reasons, isn't exactly what I would describe as "looking at the bigger picture, which is something that I figure Obama's sort of got down-pat by this point.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that you're going to earn a significant number of those swing votes by turning down the Nobel Peace Prize.
.... Why would you do that?
Isn't Obama's approval like 70% right now?
I'm telling you, there is little to be gained from declining the award.
And personally, I don't care whether or not he does. I was merely forwarding one of the arguments in favor of declination.
berlin wall, maybe
that's it though
I should probably look at some actual approval numbers.
Poland would probably have given him their vote, if they were on that panel to vote.
I think you're forgetting about "winning one for the Gipper".
JUST SAY NO
TO OBAMA
It is a Hallmark greeting card shop or something
I'm sure that could be considered fighting words...or at least it could be argued enough to the point where it could probably be taken down in lieu of a decision.
Previous account
I'd just firebomb them
I am a true american revolutionary
Ah, yes, the "Fighting Words" Act, banning the use of words that might hurt people's feelings.
Seriously, I certainly don't know the particulars about use of the N-word in public, certainly not in the State of Georgia, but I think you might be a little fuzzy on how Laws work.
Ok, but.
who are the people that think he should turn it down?
How many of them will ever like him? He could resign, somehow restructure the government so Beck, Palin, and Bush all served as co-presidents, and they would say that a million monkeys would pound out shakespeare eventually.
I mean what population of the people who are saying that he should refuse the prize would actually ever conceivably like him, while he remains a democrat? Versus how dickish would it look on the global stage if he was all "Fuck your Nobel Peace Prize!" The only pro of declining it would be that people who will never like him would have to find something else to complain about.
No, it's the "fighting words" doctrine
And yes, fighting words is a precedent, not an act, but I'm sure that was just a semantic slip up, so...
Previous account
Wow, this is fantastic.
I honestly had no idea about this. Many thanks.
I'm willing to bet many of the people who are suggesting he turn it down are the same people who heavily criticized him for even talking to international leaders because they felt Obama "made America seem weak"
No no, it turns out you were very right.
And don't go singling out Blacks, that sign is pretty offensive to basically anybody.
Previous account
Yeah, but the Supreme Court has also said that you can say pretty much whatever the hell you want about public officials and public figures, laws concerning defamation (New York Times v. Sullivan) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell) notwithstanding.
Uh - since he peacefully navigated a very tense historical period?
pretty impressive given all the things he did to try to fuck it up, too
I'm sure they wanted to be careful with setting that kind of precedent.