As we wrapped up the 90's, after a decade of bashing the supposed excesses of the 80's, we tried to distinguish that decade from it's predecessor in a way that now appears trivial. Eagan and Schaller seem intent on doing the same for the 00's relative to the 90's. We seem to like to divide time into useful chunks, sloppily apply some label or categorization, and then pretend we've learned something. To me, we are in a period of time that stretches back to the 80's and maybe further which can be categorized as follows: we have been experiencing a period of prosperity that is more limited than we think, while the growing prices and penalties are much larger than we think. This has been the key theme in our society for the past several decades and to believe that one decade has contributed any more or less is to miss the point. We are on a scary trajectory that will only be altered when we stop blaming some historic other and start blaming our present selves.

You wouldn't know it from reading (most of) the articles and comments on Salon but all of the same big-money interest groups often associated with Republicans are in the Democrats' pockets as well.

Democratic leaders don't want reasonable comprehensive reform for the same reason Republicans don't. Money. The industries that fund our Democratic representatives' campaigns, lifestyles and future lobbying careers are beneficiaries of the status quo and want to minimize any change.

The media seems to miss this. The Democrats were supposedly attacked at town halls all summer because of some alleged Republican plot to derail healthcare reform. But if the Democrats wanted reform, why were they holding these town halls in the first place? Can you think of another issue or debate where they have exposed themselves in this way? No. Why? They wanted to get the criticism out in the open so they would have cover to back off from the most daring parts of the proposed reform. This way, they can cave in to the wishes of their money base while telling their voting base that they did all they could in the face of strong public and Republican opposition.

Of course many of Obama's opponents will paint this as a failure and disgrace for the President. But Salon, let's get a little smarter about this. It was only four years ago when liberals in New York opposed its Olympic bid, relished the IOC's choice of London for the games and played up the defeat of Bloomberg and company.

The only difference here is the party affiliations and the fact that Obama holds national office and attracts that much more attention/criticism. I wonder where Obama was when left-leaning politicians and citizens in NY said the Olympics would only be good developers, corporations and the well-connected. I wonder how similar concerns were pushed aside for Chicago's bid once Obama's name was attached.

It seems that the Olympics and politics are always so tangled in an ugly mess. The sad thing is that when America, the world, liberals and conservatives alike had a chance to make a valuable political statement at the Beijing games, calling out China for its many transgressions, all parties were silent.

As for the 2016 Rio games we Americans can look forward to a manageable time zone differential but, as we did with Sydney in 2000, we may need to broaden our definition of "Summer."

It is astonishing that Congress' approval rating could be dropping because it's amazing that it was ever high enough to actually drop. The single biggest problem this country faces is Congress. If Americans would only open their eyes, realize that these people are not representing our interests and start voting them out of office, so many of our country's problems would start to finally be addressed.

Congressmen are more likely to die in office than to lose an election. We must stop electing these clowns and start cleaning up Washington ourselves. We are lulled into party allegiances thinking that we are voting for people aligned with our interests. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Republicans and Democrats alike are representing themselves, corporations and other special interests.

Several comments above declare that the Nobel prize means nothing now. It is important to note that the prize has meant nothing for a long time. The list of prize winners includes perpetrators of wars, terrorists, hate mongers and others whose contributions to violence were at least as great as their contributions to peace. Obama is none of these. There is little doubt that he envisions a safer and more peaceful world even while there is plenty of debate about his policies and whether they will bring us closer to this goal. But given his relatively young age and the brevity of his time on the world stage, he is in no way deserving of this award.

Listening to NPR's analysis this morning, one thing was clear: the various contributors were truly struggling to explain Obama's selection. I can think of only one explanation that makes sense: The Nobel Committee is neither biased nor politically motivated as has been postulated in the past. The Nobel Committee is simply clueless, lazy and unworthy of the attention that its decisions receive.