Comments Posted By Surabaya Stew
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 255 Comments


Found this quote from Mickey Kaus [h/t Balloon Juice] that sums up pretty well the real problem with FOX:

I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn’t bother me) but it’s also not independent (which does). This isn’t because it’s owned by Rupert Murdoch—moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It’s because it’s run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently—the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said “We don’t want so much coverage of X” it’s extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox.

Being "conservative" isn't the issue, the issue is that FOX news is in the pocket of the GOP in a blatant and direct manner. Don't tell me that any other MSM outlet is in the pocket of the Dems in the same way.

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 24.10.2009 @ 06:27



You and others of your persuasion cannot seem to figure out how an educated person can be anything but liberal conservative in his or her outlook on life? Liberals Conservatives make up no more than 40% of the population according to most surveys and only about have[sic] of that are leftwing rightwing radicals who are working hard to destroy the capitalist democratic system we have had since our inception as a country. This always surprises liberals conservatives who read only liberals conservatives publications, watch only liberals conservatives TV and usually have only liberals conservatives friends because these people truly believe they are the vast majority of Americans.

Reads the same both ways, is it not so?

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 19.10.2009 @ 07:19


Thanks for this series, Rick. You have given us a lot to think about, even if the GOP (and Dems) choose to ignore you. It would seem that Independents and other political free-thinkers are your best potential audience (even if many of them largely disagree with you), because there is a pent-up demand for a healthy mix of thoughtful and assertive writing that doesn't adhere to either party's line.

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 12.10.2009 @ 23:12


This is from the website:

September – Invitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate – members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year's discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.

February-March – Short list. The Committee assesses the candidates' work and prepares a short list.

March-August – Adviser review. The short list is reviewed by permanent advisers and advisers specially recruited for their knowledge of specific candidates. The advisers do not directly evaluate nominations nor give explicit recommendations.

October – Nobel Laureates are chosen. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced.

December – Nobel Laureates receive their prize. The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony takes place on 10 December in Oslo, Norway, where the Nobel Laureates receive their Nobel Prize, which consists of a Nobel Medal and Diploma, and a document confirming the prize amount.

Three things stand out if I'm reading this correctly:

1. Obama could in fact have been nominated as early as September of 2008. Truly, that doesn't make any sense at all were in fact that the case; however we may never know when his application was postmarked. So September 2008 or February 2009; either way, its still WAY premature!

2. Since the voting takes place in October and nothing is mentioned about not considering achievements of the nominee in the interim period, one must assume that the Nobel committee based its award on everything Obama has done up until just before they voted. Seen in this context, the Nobel prize now makes some sense, even as Obama's achievements up to date are debatable.

3. Considering all the time and work that goes into the Nobel awards selection process, why they hell did they give this to him now? There are at least 3 (and probably 7) more years of an Obama Presidency ahead of us; this part still makes no sense.

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 9.10.2009 @ 10:00

According to their own website, the deadline for the submission of names to be considered for the prize is February 1.

Obama was not nominated based on what he had accomplished as president because he had been in office for about 11 days.

I would add a simple, declarative WTF and leave it at that.

Wait a second here...who says that the Nobel Committee made its decision on February 1st? Wouldn't a decision like this be made some months later? (Sorta like how the Oscar nominees are chosen in January, voted upon in March, and awarded in April!) Still though, even if the Nobel people made their decision last week, choosing Obama wasn't the obvious thing to do.

Perhaps they were deadlocked and he was the compromise candidate. Or maybe they were bored and wanted to see right-wingers and insipid media talking heads explode! Because we all know that these folks will not "leave it at that"...

Please read what I wrote. "Obama was not nominated based on what he had accomplished as president." I didn;'t say he won back in Feb I said he was nominated. I said he was nominated based on what he had accomplished as of Feb.


Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 9.10.2009 @ 08:03


Sorry, that was me up there in comment #7; forgot to re-input my information after I reset my browser.

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 6.10.2009 @ 22:57



Well said! One could also point out the unfair IOC voting setup as a cause for Chicago's unsuccessful 2016 bid.

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 3.10.2009 @ 15:55


You're welcome, Todd... :)

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 3.10.2009 @ 11:42

Hey Todd, don't feel bad about Nagarajan Sivakumar; he's just showing off his charming personality. It means he's threatened enough with what you wrote to strike back with the Chewbacca defense..

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 3.10.2009 @ 04:34

You know the funny thing about this whole 2016 Olympic games competition? The President didn't have a choice in the matter! Before the start of voting today, not just President Obama, but the leaders of Brazil, Japan, and Spain made their personal pitch to the IOC. So imagine if Obama hadn't gone to Copenhagen, he'd be blamed for not going either!

Comment Posted By Surabaya Stew On 2.10.2009 @ 20:27

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (26) : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

«« Back To Stats Page