Nobel Peace Prize?

What the Fuck????
Nelson Mandela, Dr. King, Even Mother Teresa. I can see the justifications for them winning the Nobel peace prize. Barak Obama? the last time I saw anything about him in the news it was weighing the merits of sending 40 000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

Is the state of the world so far gone that an American president who goes 12 months without starting a new war or doing anything to end the two wars his country is already in deserves a prize for peace?

A preemptive award is another argument that I heard. Barak Obama is attempting to enter a nuclear disarmament deal with Russia, he is attempting to end the war in Iraq, give him the prize and he will live up to it. Fuck that! George Bush signed more treaties than Obama has so far and Bush was pure evil. Obama's government has not done anything for ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Following this preemptive line of argument give me the Nobel Prize for chemistry....it might motivate me to discover the cure for cancer.

My problem is not that this makes the Nobel peace prize look bad, the committee has done that for themselves. The problem is this cheapens all the previous winners including my buddy the 14th Dali Lama.

The Nobel piece prize has today entered into the realm of "American democracy", it is now nothing more than a sad joke that fools the ignorant!

quote of the day

"In capitalist democracies the people neither make the laws nor interpret them nor enforce them. They vote, and through their vote are supposed to exercise compete, if indirect control over legislation"

By Moore in "The critique of capitalist democracy"

Small Scale Government Possible in a Small World.

Large centrally planned states do not have a very positive history. Economic planning on a large scale in general does not.

Parliamentary democracy is doomed as the state organization of capitalism.

Democracy is ingrained as a positive in the American mind, and this is not wrong. What is wrong is that the important point of democracy for who? is not commonly asked

Is voting every few years really active enough to be successful politically? (Of course not Kautsky)

What was impossible in the past has now become a possibility. Proletarian democracy existing in small individual units. The soviets were originally conceived of in this way, but centralization followed. With email, texting, etc. the world of the blackberry may make localization of government into small workable groups possible (talk about capitalism bringing forth a condition of existence of socialism)

As the world becomes metaphorically smaller through technology, widespread coordination of small political units becomes increasingly feasible.

Many problems still remain, such as turning "Joe Sixpack" into a Gramscian intellectual who cares about politics, and is aware of exploitation, and destroying the dominance of finance capital to name just a couple.

Still one of the steps that moves us closer to my utopian vision, and could help give us market communism (as opposed to the state capitalisms of the past) is daily growing to be less of a burden.

Localization without efficiency loss would be a big hurt for big business, and be an important step in getting power into the hands of the masses.