The Nobel Committee gives Obama the Peace Prize !?

That doesn't make any sense. As far as I can tell, they gave it to him because he's Not George W. Bush.

The man hasn't done anything yet. He hasn't closed Guantanamo, or come clean on our government's use of torture, or prosecuted those who broke the law, or reduced the ongoing militarization of the police. He hasn't made any steps toward solving America's energy hunger, or our irresponsible farm subsidy policies. He hasn't shut down our wars of choice, nor made concrete steps toward alleviating the suffering we inflicted on countries. He hasn't dealt conclusively with our economic trouble, which inevitably strains our domestic peace.

"He inherited all those things." Sure, and it's his job to fix them. He hasn't done that yet. For what did he earn a Nobel?

The head of the Nobel committee lets the cat out of the bag

"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond – all of us."

Hmm. One can take that two different ways: first, that the Nobel committee wants to influence the world, and in three years they might have missed their opportunity. But if Obama is so fabulous, they'll have that opportunity anyway, won't they?

The other way is far more ominous. The Nobel is only ever awarded to living individuals. Perhaps the Nobel committee, reading the sheer raw hatred we've seen from the far right, doesn't think Obama will meet that condition three years from now. "It could be too late to respond."

Quote of the day, Liberal edition

As I was driving back from a school event late last night, I was flipping through the AM dial. Passing Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and James Dobson, I stopped at the one "liberal" channel. Randi Rhodes was talking about how the Republicans have tried to stall the defense appropriations bill because it contains a (unrelated to defense spending, and constitutionally dubious because it punishes thought and not action, but whatever) hate-crimes provision. In the midst of her "the Republicans hate gays more than they love troops" rant (probably true, but also, whatever), Rhodes played an audio clip from Representation Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) in which Gohmert did the usual song-and-dance about how "sexual orientation" means all sorts of things, many of which are criminal, and if we give civil rights to criminals where will it all end?

Rhode's reaction was priceless, though. "My God, what is it with these Republicans and their obsession with kinky sex? I'm starting to have respect for John Ensign, at least he had ordinary sex. Not with his spouse, but okay. It's like, you google for 'necrophilia' and 'bestiality' and you get more hits on Republican speeches than you do Japanese porn!"

I had to turn it off at that point or I was going to run off the road laughing.