Well, well, well. President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize (because he is not President Bush?); Archbishop Williams gives a thoughtful exposition of Christian concerns about the war in Iraq and is rounded on (because he is not warlike enough?); Silvio Berlusconi announces that he is the most persecuted man in history and the world laughs because the notion is so preposterous. The media are having fun. They barrack Barack for "not having done anything yet to merit his prize" and pontificate about the archbishop's "lack of patriotism". True, Obama was only ten days into his presidency when nominations for the Nobel Prize closed, so the award can only have been made on the basis of hope/promise rather than achievement. True, Rowan Williams has a difficult role vis-à-vis the Establishment, but most of those kicking up a fuss will not have troubled to read the text of his sermon — or seen much of life in Iraq or Afghanistan. Only about Berlusconi can we all agree. When we have stopped shaking our heads/smiling over yesterday's headlines, we are left wondering what our own attitudes are, not just to big questions like war and peace and international order but also to "smaller" ones like our expectations of public figures and the lives they lead. Instant communications mean that we can know more, more quickly, than at any time in history; but we rarely have time to digest and reflect adequately (Colophon is guilty here, too). Opinions — even our own — can change overnight. It is fun being fickle, but not always wise or fair.