Scarborough

[briannell]

for you aspiring writers.


• December 12, 2005 | 4:31 p.m. ET

Hating America key to Nobel Prize (Joe Scarborough)

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.

Comments? Email JScarborough@msnbc.com

Watch Scarborough Country each weeknight at 10 p.m. ET


• December

[SonomaCat]

I actually like Scarborough -- he is my favorite guest when he's on Bill Maher's show, even when I don't agree with him. He's pretty rational. In this case, he may well be right -- hating America does get undue respect in the international community (the people who choose the Nobel prizes).

Unfortunately, I think that may be a symptom of the fact that so few countries outside of the U.S. currently have a lot of respect for our country. As a result, writings against America, especially those that may be over-the-top get praise for piling on whereas in the past people might have been more skeptical about what they were saying.

It's kind of like being a conservative writer hating liberals -- the more dramatic and hysterical they are, the more attention and praise and money they receive from their core audience.

If one's core audience is comprised of Europeans, writing dramatic and hysterical anti-American stuff is a great way to get praise and attention.

Instead of worrying about that symptom, however, we must focus our attention on correcting the reasons why we are so disrespected as a country. Even the most xenophobic of us has to admit that being disliked internationally isn't a good thing for us going-forward. We must have the respect of the international community is a must if we are to affect positive change in the world ... we can't kill'em all, even if we wanted to.

I'm not sure how he is supporting his thesis by using Jimmy Carter's dislike of Bush or his policies as an example of someone "hating America," however. I think it is possible to dislike Bush and still love America. 60% of the population agrees with me on that one.

[BobCatFan]

How can this world be so screwed up? American makes mistakes, but we are the driving force for peace and democracy in this world. I only wish we had finished WW2 when we had the chance. What a mistake it was not to take on Stalin.

[bozbobcat]

Strangely enough, the Soviet Union was our ally in World War II. They took a lot of the brunt of Hitler and the German attack, losing many millions of people. Stalin was a brutal and cruel dictator and was perhaps the most vicious and evil man that the world had ever seen. But we weren't fighting Stalin and the Soviets during World War II.

[SonomaCat]

Yeah, I'm not sure starting a war with the USSR right after the fall of Hitler would have been very practical. Sometimes, it's good to not have wars ... especially ones that we might have lost. How many people have invaded Russia and been successful? Not many. How many people have declared war on an ally right after defeating a common enemy? Even fewer. It might have made us look like foolish chickenhawks ... and maybe even destroyed our country. Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[catamaran]

It was that situation in WWII that caused the huge rift between Russia and the US. It was due to Stalin's insistence on the establishment of an "eastern front" that Roosevelt and Eisenhower felt would be detrimental to the overall goal. We instead engaged Rommel in Africa and stormed Normandy, leaving the USSR to take the fire from Hitler....sorry about the lecture, just my favorite subject

[bozbobcat]

Both Napoleon and Hitler failed in invasions of Russia. The USSR was too powerful at the time. The eastern front was the failings of the Yalta conference in February 1945, which essentially gave eastern Europe and Poland to the USSR. Later negotiations were harder because of the death of Roosevelt in April 1945 and Harry Truman took over as president. The US didn't want another war after finishing a complete and total war. Tensions early on over Poland, which the US felt would be best served by a democratic government and the split of Germany started off the Cold War. Excuse the lecturing, I'm studying to become a history teacher and I had a class that talked about this quite a bit this last semester. So I always like the chance to talk about history.

[catamaran]

Who's teaching that class this year (I'm a former MSU history/teaching student)

[bozbobcat]

The class I took was HIST 320, US since 1940. Tim LeCain taught it and he's a great professor. He knows his stuff and it was a fun class.

[Ponycat]

Strangely enough, the Soviet Union was our ally in World War II. They took a lot of the brunt of Hitler and the German attack, losing many millions of people. Stalin was a brutal and cruel dictator and was perhaps the most vicious and evil man that the world had ever seen. But we weren't fighting Stalin and the Soviets during World War II.

Not that I think we should have attacked the Soviet Union after WWII, but the Soviet Union was not our ally, even though they were a part of the "Allies". THey had a non aggression pact with Japan, and were in negotiation with the Emporer after the surrender of Germany to join forces and were negotiating how to share all of Asia. ONly after we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima did they stop all negotiations and declare war on Japan and then only did a quick land grab of Manchuria which was basically defenseless. NO shots were fired betweent he Japanese and Russia until Russia saw Japan could not win. Russia even held a crew of the Doolittle raiders as prisoners of war when they landed in Russia.

So even though we had a common enemy we were not allies and were not fighting for the same thing.

[bozbobcat]

Yeah, I suppose you're right. They didn't want into the war with Japan until after Germany surrendered so they could get their spoils. This whole thing is a surprisingly complex argument surrounding the bomb and all sorts of other ways to end the war with Japan, role of the Soviets, etc. But in reality, they were an ally only because the US and the USSR had a common enemy.