I'll be the first to argue that the Nobel committee has awarded the peace prize to some real questionalble characters and headscrachers (Kissenger and Arafat immediately come to mind), but the vast majority of winners were people who devoted their lives to the cause of human rights and the bettering of humanity. This is the main reason why I'm questioning the rational of awaring the prize to Obama at this point. It does seem painfully premature, nominating him after only a few months on the international stage and a few speeches made in Europe and awaring it less than a year into his presidency and without any of his lofty goals achieved. When I look at other winners of the past, Obama's prize seems particularly shallow.

Whether talking about an organization like Doctors Without Borders (who provide medical care in improvrished or wartorn areas) or individuals like Bishop Desmond Tutu (who fought against apartheid at risk of his life) or Aung San Suu Kyi (who has waged a peaceful struggle for human rights in Myanmar and has been under house arrest for years), Obama's accomplishments basically sum up as a bunch of speeches that make people feel good, but no real accomplishments to back up that lofty retoric. Giving an award based on potential is akin to getting a gold star from a teacher to encourage you to do a homework assignment that you haven't finished yet. It's an empty accolade.

It's nice to see Obama get the award, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that he was given the award for any other reason than the fact that Obama is not George W. Bush.

I've been a Citicard holder for several years, have never missed or been late on a payment and maintain a balance. The perfect credit card customer, you'd think, right?

Well, that was before Citibank decided to raise my interest rate to 22.99%. The reason I was told, when I got on the phone to complain, was that lending money cost Citibank more nowadays (ignoring the fact that the Fed has not raised interest rates at all) and that in order to keep up with their great customer service, they need to charge more. There was no option for appeal, just the option to close out my account.

Customer service, huh? Yeah, I've been "serviced" all right? The lease Citibank could have done was use a little lube when they decided to ass fuck the lot of us.

And then to read this self-serving whine that the American public just doesn't get how hard it is for the financial institution? Am ready to break out the guillotine now.

As someone who has attended more live shows of every kind than I could even begin to count, my biggest complaint regarding Lambert's performance was that he got a bit pitchy here and there (and I'm a huge fan of his so I'll know when his vocals aren't spot on). I'll chalk that up to nerves and the little stumble he took on the steps which kind of threw him off a bit.

As for the hip thrusting, you'd think we would have recovered from that after Elvis, but I suppose not. Boys kissing boys? Odd that when Madonna swapped spit with Britney Spears, it was considered titilating, but if it's two guys men (and some women) freak out completely. Crotch grabs? Didn't MJ (who was being honored postumously) offer a doctoral course in grabbing one's junk? The simulated BJ? After watching other performances where Shakira was spanked by a female dancer, where Rihanna showed all of her barely concealed goodies in a video clip was just not that big a deal. I was more offended by those granny panties Carrie Underwood was sporting more than anything else.

The fact that it was a gay man, acting in a sexually agressive manner, I'm really positive has a great deal to do with some of the negative commentary regarding his act. But give Adam Lambert credit for one thing - there just aren't pants big enough in the world to contain those balls of his. He wanted to get people talking, and by hell they are!