Thanks for posting these things. I'll spread the word.

Sometimes when a group of people becomes untouchable, it takes an insider to effect change. On the few occasions Stewart has gotten serious, he's shown himself to be the hardest hitting host on the air today. He will weather this. Hell hath no fury like a comedian scorned.

It's a mistake to think of those in the center as being on the side of the other party. They stand in the center because that's where the profit is. These are the people with few convictions of their own. By standing in the middle, people like Graham and Leiberman can be the deciding vote and court both sides, as well as the special interests. They go with the highest bidder. These are the people who get all those last minute alterations that twist a bill into something counterproductive.

If you want to find the corruption in government, don't look to the wingnuts, look to the center.

A couple thoughts:

I can see the parallel being drawn with Reagan. I'm not sure I would have objected to giving him the peace prize, but it becomes once again a matter of whether the ends justify the means. Reagan may have been instrumental in the ending of the cold war, but he essentially did it by presiding over the biggest nuclear arms race in history.

Maybe they should just quit handing out peace prizes on a regular basis. Maybe they should wait until another Ghandi comes along. I'm really not sure where the line should be drawn. At the time he was nominated, Obama had just spent a year with stopping the Iraq war as a centerpiece of his campaign. So far he has been far from the most deserving recipient of the award, but I'm hoping he will consider it a mandate. The first thing on his peace agenda should be Israel. They've been acting like a spoiled child, and he should start treating them as such in future negotiations.

As for affirmative action in the prize, Bradlaugh has an <a href ="http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=2939">interesting analysis of it over at the Secular Right: