This is some ill foolishness, y'all...
Apparently 'The Internet' itself is up for the recently devalued and rendered meaningless Nobel Peace Prize this year. This is akin to TIME's Man of the Year going to 'You' recently, complete with a mirror on the magazine's cover. Gross.
They will argue that the internet has the power to "start a dialogue" or "give equal voice to the oppressed and censored" and they are a little bit right, but so why not just give it to Twitter and its founders? Twitter was ground zero for the citizens' fund raising activities for Haiti and it was also where the world heard about and discussed the Iranian fight for election freedom last year. The internet itself is only very partially meaningful to the cause of peace, but the majority of it is just useful for the viewing of pornography and the banner ad marketing of As Seen On TV products.
Anyway, we'll conclude with this silliness...
If Wired Magazine's (the nominator) campaign proves successful and 'The Internet' wins, who among us gets to accept the award? Below, some suggestions...
Choices to accept the Nobel Prize on behalf of 'The Internet':
a. Al Gore
c. Paris Hilton
e. Larry & Sergey
This is all foolish speculation, as we know damn well that should 'The Internet' be named the winner, Arianna Huffington must be chosen to accept the award according to Web Law, lest we find ourselves disconnected.
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.