Noble Laureate Obama

Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize in a speech from the White House rose garden, Oct. 9.

This crown of laurels may be a heavy burden to the new president.

Sixty-one percent of Americans believed that President Barack Obama did not deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize according to a USA Today/Gallup poll taken one week after the award was announced October 9. When asked if they were personally glad he had won the Nobel, almost even numbers, 46 versus 47, said yes and no respectively.

When I heard the news of the prize that Friday morning on the radio I was surprised but when the political commentary commenced, I was not surprised at the questioning reaction.

“Why?” is the valid question. 

 “To Barack Obama for his efforts to strengthen cooperation between peoples to meet global challenges,” is the official statement of the Nobel committee in answer.

While there are no measurable foreign-policy achievements from Obama’s efforts in his first nine months in office, the ideals of global, peaceful coexistence are being served by the vision he is pursuing. The committee has been accused of representing a world view that is anti-American.  Obama’s international policy vision since his campaign for president is seen by his opponents as being flawed for his willingness to negotiate with some leaders and countries who are enemies of the U.S. 

The Gallup poll results, released Oct. 23, predictably show that political party affiliations were directly related to the reactions to the prize.  Only 10 percent of Republicans said it was deserved, 27 percent of independents and 59 percent of Democrats.  Notably, even those inclined favorably toward Obama and his policies were not completely in agreement that the peace prize was appropriate now.

The Nobel committee’s statements defend their selection; they maintain that they have followed the spirit and letter of Alfred Nobel’s directives.  His will dictates, “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” in the previous year shall be awarded the prize.

Since the first year of awards in 1901, 97 individuals and 20 organizations have won. Two previous U.S. presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize while in office, Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919; Jimmy Carter won in 2002 after his term.

The Nobel Peace committee of five members, selected by the Norwegian Storting, or parliament, invites nominations and its deliberation process is kept secret for 50 years, so we’ll have to wait to find out who the other candidates were. By then, Obama’s legacy will be a chapter in history books.

From what I can see now, the vote of confidence from the Nobel committee is good reason to say thank you and accept the Nobel Prize graciously as a nation. Obama set the tone in his speech that Friday morning, humbled and acknowledging the legacy of former laureates and the encouragement for U.S. efforts to build consensus and rebuild multi-lateral approaches to world problems.

The Nobel committee expressed a hope for cooperation among world leaders, aided and guided by the leader of the free world, our president. 

My surprise has settled into gladness because the Nobel Peace Prize stands for ideals we can all hope to realize and support and there’s no downside in that.

If the Nobel Peace Prize can be turned into a liability by cynics and detractors what else should we hope for?

 

This article also printed  in Puma Press for PVCC  Oct. 28, 2009

Strange Fruit

Hoskins Cemetery, Clay County, Kentucky

Almost three weeks ago, a U. S. census worker was found dead, hanging in a tree in a heavily-wooded area of Appalachian Kentucky. The word “fed” was written on his chest in red felt-tip marker and he was naked, bound with duct tape near a cemetery.

Stories of moonshiners outsmarting revenuers during prohibition in this region come to mind with images of fiercely independent, anti-government folks and tightly-knit clans.

Another image and melody that comes to mind is Billie Holiday singing “Strange Fruit.” The plaintive song tells of lynchings in the South that terrorized African-Americans in an effort to maintain segregation.

Clay County Kentucky, the site of Bill Sparkman’s death, is a rural area that now hosts marijuana crops and meth labs. Local journalists and a few law enforcement representatives have speculated that he may have been murdered for stumbling upon these illicit activities.

I used the term murder – but I spoke out of turn. His death is under investigation with no homicide yet determined. The Kentucky State Police are not releasing much information to the public, presumably to protect the investigation of a garish crime scene and death.

Bill Sparkman, subsitute teacher

I am intermittantly haunted by the manner and situation of Bill Sparkman’s death. He was an Eagle Scout, working for the Boy Scouts and also a substitute teacher who got his college degree later in life. The census job was another part-time endeavor for the 51-year-old single father. He was a cancer survivor.

The family who discovered his body don’t doubt he was murdered and anyone willing to speak off the record agrees, but his son and mother will have to wait for official answers.

Investigators just released Sparkman’s body to his son Josh Sparkman. According to a blog set up to raise financial support for Josh, http://www.wikio.com/themes/Bill+Sparkman,  a memorial march was held Sunday, October 11, in London, Kentucky where Bill Sparkman lived.

I didn’t believe census work for our government could be hazzardous duty, it seems an innocent job, inquiring for household factoids to create federal statistics. I know plenty of people don’t believe the government’s work is so innocent, collecting personal information for potentially “Big Brother” activities, but Sparkman and his fellow census workers are not doing espionage, they don’t get paid enough.

Any routine activity can put any of us in harm’s way. But a violent death with a cryptic message is strange fruit to bear.

Pseudo-apology

CSI: Late Show

I missed Letterman’s apology. Well, actually I watched him Thursday night, after the ten-o’-clock news which precedes his show blared the expose’ as the top story. I just didn’t catch the apology part.

His post-monologue story delivery was so subtle as to be disassociated from David Letterman, show host. Praised as a masterful stroke of public relations, the disclosure was a diffusion of facts and events. Letterman’s downplay of his actions and his “what’s a guy to do?” demeanor has been widely remarked.

Hypocricy is not the issue as with some politicians who make hay with “family values” rhetoric, but the facts are not attractive. We still value faithfulness and monogamy in our society. Workplace protections are expected of enlightened management.

So, what was he thinking? That he was well-protected and wouldn’t get caught. That it was easy, his due. He felt flattered, attractive and powerful…

And is it anybody’s business anyway? I’m not a fan and I don’t feel disappointed or disillusioned. But as a celebrity with lots of followers, Letterman’s got to be hurt by the seamy aspect of his sexploitations made public and the negative tinge on his career. I don’t blame him for trying to control the message and save his dignity.

Letterman made light enough of his revelations that his studio audience laughed at several of his statements and clapped when he concluded. It is good to applaud a man for acknowledging wrong-doing and comedians mine humor from misfortune, usually after the injured parties have had a chance to heal. Who was hurt by his actions? His wife, surely, and their marriage; the women staffers who were a party to his dalliances, perhaps.

We admire celebrity, giving them a pass on their hedonism that we don’t always extend to a co-worker or family member who strays. I think we all see the double standard in our culture; not just betweeen celebrities and the rest of us mere mortals. Maybe we have “goal” morals, what we say we want, and “operating” morals or standards, what we live with.

I don’t care what Letterman or any other adult does with another adult consensually. The trouble I see is in the pattern of powerful boss, or star, or politician manipulating their underlings for sex or other favors.

It is a human pitfall, power corrupts.