Obama's Peace Prize
By Theodore Johnson at Oct 10, 2009 |
|
Only in an upside down world could the US president win the Noble peace prize. Only in an upside down world could a man presiding over two foreign occupations and controlling the largest military complex in the world win the peace prize. Only in an upside down world could Obama win the peace prize while simultaneously expanding the occupation in Afghanistan and the bombing in Pakistan. Only in an upside down world could Obama win the peace prize before actually bringing peace to the world. Only in an upside down world could recognition for acts come before the acts themselves.
Somewhat surprisingly, the reaction from world leaders has been cautiously optimistic at the announcement. I have to think the reaction from most of the people that these leaders represent is notably different. I know in my own little corner of the world everyone I have spoke with has been skeptical. It seems that the potential for a progressive change towards a more peaceful and safe world is what lies behind this reaction. Certainly the potential is there. Obama has perhaps a once in a generation opportunity to make huge strides on a range of issues from nuclear disarmament, environmental catastrophe, the military industrial complex, and ending embargos and trade sanctions against those countries that do not bend to the will of the imperium. The opportunity is only a fleeting one though and the impetus to grasp a hold of it will only come from genuine public pressure and outcry. It is naïve to think Obama will do it on his own. Regardless of the personal convictions and makeup of his character, Obama will be under the same pressure to keep the imperial ship afloat that all US presidents face. In order to do so he will have to turn to the same people and interest that helped formulate the state of affairs that we currently find ourselves in. One only has to look to the economic crisis to and the banking bailout under Bush II and Obama. Obama inherited a crisis in the process of unfolding, not caused by Bush II but certainly coming to the fore under his reign. In order to deal with the situation Obama appointed former Clinton era bureaucrats and other Wall Street insiders into positions of official influence and power. With all the rhetoric about change in the lead up to his election, Obama couldn't have done anything else than stick with the status quo. With the financial system in a mess he was forced to turn to the same people who helped create the bubble to fix it, that being the paradoxical logic behind the labyrinthine complexity of the financial system.
This same pattern will play itself out time and time again in all spheres of Obama's administration unless there is a substantial pressure from without that forces him to make changes. The imperial wars launched by Bush II and continued by Obama, via Robert Gates, are a case in point. Unless he is literally forced to change the status quo, Obama will be under intense pressure to maintain the imperium at a dear cost to all of us. Until he is forced by the US public to renounce pre-emptive strike and foreign occupation a legitimate means of promoting a safer and more peaceful world we will all be living under the spectre of impending war, oppression, immiseration, and alienation. In an upside down world our only chance for peace is to turn it right side up and demand the act of peace before the recognition of it.




Obama peace-Prize or Imprerium: the new-Rome
By Addison, "R" at Nov 06, 2009 18:14 PM
tO Theodore Johnson,
Your expression and definition of the "imperium" holds merit and meaning. I may add that there is reason to add "the new-Rome" is not the global-Village!
I read you positive. I adjunct that I may not be rapproachable, but until this point "With the financial system in a mess [i.e. the federal-Resreva Act of 1913 unpassed--dig this, yes] he was forced to [was he forced in not turning around to peace which is what 'democracy' offers or,] turn to the same people who helped create the bubble to fix [him, not the "it"] it [now, that's the Pentagons uses and abuses of "depleted-Uranium: 238", but u-S Congress' hegemony with those thermo-Nuclears not reduced since obliterations 1945 is not the same mess], that being the paradoxical logic behind the labyrinthine complexity of the financial system."
Weld. There are the loaded conditions of u-S diplomacy is the Imperium, for which Nobel Awards have now been granted, but military-Hegemony may also be diplomacy as is said that 737 military bases in 120 nations, as Chalmers Johnson states in Blowback, a quest to underscore meanings off Okinawa--37 bases on one island imperially held by Pentagons/Congress approval over that of 'sovereign-Nation'. The latter is diplomacy or the imperium, just to define peace dividend. However, is there yet a definition that you'd agree comes as close to "the New-Rome" as post-Colonialist: imperium i.e. capitalism, too--to get back the bubble syndrome?
In the Peace Nobel blog Ohh-bay-mah is recipient, but like Al Gore what did he do at all to get "off oil fuels" or why the geo-Ecologist Henry Pollack, PhD. the other 50% in 2007, really deserved the whole 'prize' is not as questionable. There are at least 1,200 others "peace-Makers" in the u-S, who deserved that “prize” and the money even moreso, than merely “status-Quo”? The peace-Prosaic: holdings of nGOS and institutes, where one maintains werking 10X harder for democracy in the progressive stances of anti-War getting “in-the-Weigh” as in us to maintain assurances for a tomorrow, we are not allowing to cowtow. As rhetoric is not in their demand of imperium "schema" may be. We may both have to assume, status-Quo to configure the definition, prize! But who could have faired as Henry Pollack also won 50% with Albert Gore? So who is Ooo-bomb-bah? Why be with Oooo-bomb-bah? Those elements seem to enterprise in an assailable displeasure? That 50% was peace or peace-Prize, may exist and for whom. So is your use of word "conscious" meaning not conscience? Why that brought me to focus on both blogs, then make hazard with one comment, i.e. not supposed to be "word conscience"-- as in a conscience my conscious disagrees to agree.
The words above may have been mixed... you do not hint-- you get with these definitions in great, good adequacy!
yours & my readership welcomes this blog,
the peace-Warrior, "R" Addison
Reply this comment