Slashdot Mirror


City Councilman Resigns Using Klingon

Virtucon writes "A city councilman in Indian Trail Town, North Carolina has resigned and opted to write his letter of resignation in Klingon. David Waddell is obviously a fan of Star Trek. I wonder if the other council members know what the hell he wrote? I'm sure a nice Qu'vatlh would have sufficed."

135 comments

  1. I'm guessing.. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 0

    that they kinda made him resign. Maybe with good reason. That's hardly professional or mature for an elected official, inside joke or not.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:I'm guessing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Especially for a Klingon. I would have expected a lot more blood and growling.

    2. Re:I'm guessing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. They should fire him.

    3. Re:I'm guessing.. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Informative

      It looks like he was a buffoon. He voted no on everything including adjournment of the meetings. To top it off, it looks like the only reason he resigned was because he got bored and wanted to perform one last stunt. No one was forcing him to resign.

      The icing on the cake being that the idiot still plans to attend the meetings.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    4. Re:I'm guessing.. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's hardly professional or mature for an elected official, inside joke or not.

      This is a mentality I just can't get down with.

      OK, so maybe resigning in Klingon wasn't the best decision he could have made; but, when you start pointing out a certain expectation for the 'professional or mature' attitude of elected officials, you're pretty much assuring that the only people who will fit the bill are the same kind of career politicians that have been fucking things up for your entire life.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:I'm guessing.. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      This guy hasn't contributed anything of value in his entire career(seriously zilch), and seems to only have gotten his office on account of the fact that the people of Indian Trail don't actually know what the Constitution Party is.

    6. Re:I'm guessing.. by dpilot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on, this is Klingon - they should execute him.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:I'm guessing.. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Again, I'm not saying this particular guy isn't a moron.

      What I'm saying is that when you state such a lofty expectation for behavior in politicians, you pretty much ensure that the only people who will ever qualify for said positions are people who spend their lives being groomed for it. Which leads to political dynasties. Which, IMO, generally suck for the people who aren't part of the aforementioned powerful families.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:I'm guessing.. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a contributing factor, but you'll never displace winner take all elections for causes of "2 terrible choices" situations.

    9. Re:I'm guessing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not professional unless you are a judge pulling Star Trek references in his decision against the Prenda trolls and then it's awesome. Is that weird or what?

    10. Re:I'm guessing.. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, we are FAR past expecting our elected officials to be either professional or mature.

      Have you seen any broadcast from Congress or the Senate? We had more reasoned debate in kindergarten school.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re:I'm guessing.. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I don't consider expecting a normally written resignation exactly lofty.. just normal.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  2. Good luck to him... by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or should I say Kapla?

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    1. Re:Good luck to him... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Qapla'

      Captcha: trilled

    2. Re:Good luck to him... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I watched an episode of the Star Trek animated series during the lunch break I just got back from. No Trills in it, but it did feature giant tribbles.

    3. Re:Good luck to him... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Cf. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Trill vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trill_consonant. Does Klingon have trills? Or is that not a sufficiently testosterone-fueled guttural sound?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:Good luck to him... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      No clue, I'm afraid. And sorry for any confusion. I had hoped that capitalizing it would make it clear I was speaking of the race and not the sound.

    5. Re:Good luck to him... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was kind of responding to both you and the original post. No snark inherent in it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:Good luck to him... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      None taken. I really just thought I had left people confused by my reference. :)

  3. saying it in style... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    post wa'DIch (first post).

    1. Re:saying it in style... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would have been first except my bat'leth got caught on my cat again. Off to find another cat...

    2. Re:saying it in style... by plover · · Score: 2

      Hey, at least slashdot got it right for once. This truly was "news for nerds".

      And nobody else.

      --
      John
  4. terrible article by schneidafunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where's a link to the actual resignation letter?

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  5. More informative article by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Informative

    This NY Daily article has much more info, including the resignation letter.

    My favorite part is the mayor's response: "I wish him the best, live long and prosper. I don't know what else to say."

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  6. Klingons do not resign. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does a Klingon resign from anything? This must be a hoax. The only reason the word "resign" would be in the Klingon language is to describe other weakling species. Doh!

    1. Re:Klingons do not resign. by isorox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since when does a Klingon resign from anything? This must be a hoax. The only reason the word "resign" would be in the Klingon language is to describe other weakling species. Doh!

      Sure, if they were signing a deed for a new ship, and then spilt bloodwine over the signature, they're have to re-sign it.

    2. Re:Klingons do not resign. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing a Klingon would've chosen to just walk into the council chambers and slaughter all the other members.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Klingons do not resign. by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right! From the nydailynews article:

      The language continues to evolve thanks to the Klingon Language Institute, a nonprofit that promotes the language and culture. KLI founder Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen told the News that there isn't really a word for "resignation" in Klingon so Waddell translated the English word with the language's orthography, "which really doesn't work."

      A true Klingon speaker would have simply said "pItlh," which translates to "done," in order to mark the end of an event.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Klingons do not resign. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Funny

      Klingons do not lease. Nor do they buy. Klingons take what they want, over the bodies of financiers and salespeople!

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:Klingons do not resign. by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Isn't Hegh'bat the equivalent of a Klingon Resignation?

    6. Re:Klingons do not resign. by JWW · · Score: 1

      It make me strangely happy to realize that there is a Klingon Language Institute.

    7. Re:Klingons do not resign. by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      It make me strangely happy to realize that there is a Klingon Language Institute.

      Yes, it means that Klingon is like French, a language defined by a committee.

    8. Re:Klingons do not resign. by JWW · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling a real Klingon would kill you where you stand for that statement.

    9. Re:Klingons do not resign. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I wondered about that. How can the Klingons have an economy if everyone is a soldier? Soldiers need to eat too. Don't they have farmers? Soldiers need weapons. Don't they have armorers? A spacefaring race would need engineers, navigators, mechanics, pilots, even more mundane things like meteorologists. You'd look real stupid as a spaceship captain if your ship crashed because you didn't go around a hurricane on your descent through the atmosphere.

      I thought the same thing about the Spartans after watching the movie 300. I found out later they kept slaves for the mundane labor. Do the Klingons keep other species slaves to grow their food?

      I'm thinking about this too much. I need to get back to bed.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re:Klingons do not resign. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Yes, Klingons have 'subject races.' Also, castes other than warrior.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  7. I wouldn't want him working for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no problem with people living out whatever fantasy life they want to on their own time but as long as you're on my time don't go out of your way to make it difficult for others. While some here might be saying "Wow. Neat!" how would they feel if co-workers just randomly started speaking another language that was as hip as Klingon just to draw attention to themselves?

    I call it asshattery. Plain and simple.

    1. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      He put the translation in with the letter, so it's not like he was requiring other people to learn the language or anything. He was just having fun.

      The main issue is resigning in the middle of your term, which he basically committed to doing when he got elected. As someone else said, "Klingons don't resign."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if it was good enough for Shakespear!

    3. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Context is important to whether a joke is funny, or just stupid. If this were a conscientious councilman who was forced by circumstance to resign, this story would be cute. But this is an egotistical blowhard who used his position as a platform for obstructive ass-hattery (e.g., voting "no" on everything, including motions to adjourn), quitting because even he'd got tired of the stupid game. See MrEricSir's link above.

      This guy was a disgrace to his office, and now he's brought disgrace on fan-dom.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by Quila · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If people can conduct public business in Spanish, he can do it in Klingon. If you don't like it, I urge you to support measures to make English the only legal language for official use in the country.

    5. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      You are making a false equivalency between people's right to do official business with the state and with a buffoon who handed in a resignation in a fake language.

      The "Preview" button is not a command, but it is a very strong suggestion.

    6. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Surely he's the first to disgrace fandom?

    7. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by Quila · · Score: 1

      In handing in his resignation, he was doing business with the government. Furthermore, Klingon is as real a language as any. People can write and converse in it, and some classics have even been translated to it. I recognize it is a stunt, but it is no more wrong than doing business with the government in any other non-English language.

    8. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      No one speaks Klingon natively. Ergo literally any other language is more useful.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    9. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by cdwiegand · · Score: 1
      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    10. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      1) The guy's wife was speaking to the kid in English so evidently this would be considered bilingualism.
      2) Obviously of the 2, English was the vastly more useful one to communicate with *literally anyone.*
      3) That's a horrible thing to do to your kid. Don't do experiments with extremely young children. Just don't.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      That's a horrible thing to do to your kid. Don't do experiments with extremely young children. Just don't.

      A lot of our understanding on how people learn is through experiments on extremely young children. Without it, rather than using the scientific method to figure out the best ways of teaching new things, we are left with randomly trying untested things out on large groups (ie: public school policy).

    12. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2
      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      You have insulted my councilman's honor, I challenge you to a death duel!

    14. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      No, we need to draw some lines. Klingon should not be recognized as a real language, and every municipality should be able to refuse to do any sort of business in it and to deny any accommodation to people who speak it. There is no comparison with Spanish in the U.S., and it's insulting to claim one.

      It is a fake language - the first cases of it were isolated words made up for a Star Trek movie (by James Doohan!), and it later was extended, but it's a fabricated language, no one depends on it as their first language, and we should take this mild step in order to protect legitimate languages.

      I'm pretty confident in stating that the U.S. would be better off if the amount of effort spent on Klingon were directed to improving English proficiency for native U.S. residents whose first language is English!

    15. Re:I wouldn't want him working for me. by Quila · · Score: 1

      No, we need to draw some lines

      I agree, English only, except in cases where we need to deal with foreign citizens and such.

      It is a fake language

      There is no such thing as a fake language. It is a constructed language, like many before it throughout history. You can think of French as partially constructed, since it has had an official group determining its vocabulary and evolution for over 300 years.

      Doohan made some first bits of Klingon, but after that it was completely created as a whole language by a known linguist. It has all the elements of a functional language, and people can write and converse in it. It is no more a "fake language" than Esperanto or Interlingua. Klingon even has its own ISO language code.

      I'm pretty confident in stating that the U.S. would be better off if the amount of effort spent on Klingon were directed to improving English proficiency for native U.S. residents whose first language is English!

      People learning Klingon are doing that on their own. Aside from that, I agree, we should work on improving English, but for everyone in the US, especially immigrants. I prefer the Swiss model where if you don't learn of of the local languages within a certain time, you get deported.

  8. Qapla'! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Today is a good day to resign!"

  9. He got the attention of the press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's what he wanted to kick off his (warrior) race.

  10. honorless weaklings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is since Klingon's are Honor based warriors, he resigned using this language as a guise to calling the other counsel members "honorless weaklings" also with the closing fighting words "Today is a good day to resign".

  11. Wrong tradition by bob_super · · Score: 1

    Someone resigning after being entrusted with power by the people should definitely go for seppuku instead.

    1. Re:Wrong tradition by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your sentiment, I have to point out that he was a city councilman. In Indian Trails. Which had a population of 33,518 in 2010.

      Okay, technically he had power, but it was just a *little* power, equivalent to the magical ability to pull a rabbit... out of a rabbit hutch.

  12. Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >> David Waddell is obviously a (nutjob)

    OK, so the guy resigned in Klingon - probably before his local constituency voted him out. However, if he'd run and won using Klingon, that would be news.

    Seriously, if you're going to learn a language, why not Spanish or Chinese something else you can use to communicate with and represent real people with real problems. (If you're a politician, that's really your only job.)

  13. He's Not Klingon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize he's human, not Klingon, right?

  14. Why not Congress? by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Funny

    It looks like he was a buffoon. He voted no on everything including adjournment of the meetings. To top it off, it looks like the only reason he resigned was because he got bored and wanted to perform one last stunt. No one was forcing him to resign.

    Nope. He's a conservative politician in a primarily progressive area whose main shtick (as you mentioned) was to simply vote "No" on everything regardless of sense or reason. So, naturally, he's resigning to campaign for the U.S. Senate where his skills are clearly in high demand right now.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Why not Congress? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's not republican.

      This guy is "constitution party" which is, essentially, a group of people who think the following:
      A. The republican party isn't "conservative enough"
      B. Why haven't we established a theocracy that forbids everything but evangelical Christianity yet?
      C. B is the true meaning of the constitution.

    2. Re:Why not Congress? by ApplePy · · Score: 0

      Oh well, at least they know there's a Constitution, and that it governs a Republic (not a democracy) unlike Republicans and Democrats.

      Kinda sad all around.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    3. Re:Why not Congress? by Libertarian001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow. Really? When was the last time you saw someone user the word 'libertarian' without adding some colorful adjectives to it? Let alone how Slashdot's increasingly leftist audience routinely refers to Republicans...

    4. Re:Why not Congress? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Please. Playing ignorant(or willfully disdainful) lip service to the constitution as if it's magical is #2 on standard politician processes, after pandering to the individual groups you are talking to today.

    5. Re:Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You did hear about the people who have a project to re-write the bible because it isn't conservative enough?

      http://www.alternet.org/belief/right-wing-group-seeks-help-rewriting-bible-because-its-not-conservative-enough

    6. Re:Why not Congress? by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow. Really? When was the last time you saw someone user the word 'libertarian' without adding some colorful adjectives to it? Let alone how Slashdot's increasingly leftist audience routinely refers to Republicans...

      I'm a socialist, I refer to Republicans the same as Democrats: Fucking twats that are working for the corporations.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re: Why not Congress? by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      Definitely have to get rid of that pesky Jesus character. Can't have someone going around providing free alcohol, food and healthcare.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    8. Re:Why not Congress? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      ..Slashdot's increasingly leftist audience..

      I've actually moved quite a bit from the left to the center over the years.

      And if asked, I say I'm a Libertarian Socialist. Keeps the scratching their heads for a moment while I run away from another useless political argument.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    9. Re: Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives don't have any problem with free alcohol, free food, or free health care. They do have a problem with "free" alcohol, "free" food, and "free" health care. Yes, Jesus & co. accepted donations and used those funds for the poor (according to Judas' statement), but the miracles weren't done by forcibly taking from others. Jesus didn't raise Lazarus by stabbing everyone present in the foot. He didn't turn water into wine by taking a little wine from everyone's glass (like the Chi-Chi's Salsa advertisement from the 90's) then dumping the water and filling the casks with his stolen wine. Even monetary donations were donations. Conservatives LOVE donations, because it fosters altruism, which gives joy to people on both the receiving and giving sides. Enforced taxes for public benefit gives the "givers" a feeling of loss and resentment, and the receivers a sense of privilege and entitlement. Anyone promoting a governmental entitlement program where private donations already work wants to destroy something wonderful in the hearts of the needy and the well-off.

    10. Re: Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They love donations because it give them a reason to feel smug about how charitable they are, in reality it is mostly a feel good group jerk and tax deductions ...

    11. Re:Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why I don't log in anymore. Slashdot has become a battle ground for politics, not for technology...an ex-slashdot user with a four digit ID.

    12. Re:Why not Congress? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Interesting. In common with most people, I've moved to the right as I got older, and saw the errors of left wing proposals. This, however, has not blinded me to the errors of right wing proposals.

      FWIW, I consider BOTH the Republicans AND the Democrats to posture in favor of the right wing. And I also consider them both to be liars, merely after increasing centralization of power. In ways that nobody would accept if they understood what was happening.

      FWIW, I do support national healthcare. I don't accept that the insurance companies should be able to take a cut. That rather defeats half the reason that I support it. But if I could opt out of the govt. collecting centralized information on it's citizens, I would readily accept that this meant they couldn't provide free health care. As it is, what I figure is that we might as well get *some* benefit from them collecting information on us. But to pay the insurance companies also is pure lunacy. Especially letting them decide what should be covered. They are the reason we pay more for poorer service than any other even approximately equivalently developed country. (Besides, why should the insurance companies be given access to the information the govt. collects on us.)

      The problem with government is that you really can't successfully get rid of it. So since you have a genuine monopoly, you might as well have it do the things that are best done by a national monopoly. And that includes health care. I'm not at all certain, however, that it includes highways. Or many other things it has expanded its way into. It certainly shouldn't include education. That should be a state perogative. It's not clear what rights should devolve on the states. One thing to consider is that states are more able to defend their rights against the feds than are individual citizens. So if the right is held by the state, it's less likely to be infringed by the feds.
      (N.B.: I'm not talking about what the constitution says. It has been so long disregarded, that it would need serious repair before it could be used in current society. The govt. just ignored the ammendment process, and did whatever it felt like to handle a current problem. Sometimes, however, it was a problem that really needed to be handled. So an ammendment was needed, but was not added, because the govt. was able to get away with just doing what it felt like.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be more accurate to use the word "slashtard"?

    14. Re:Why not Congress? by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      ..Slashdot's increasingly leftist audience..

      I've actually moved quite a bit from the left to the center over the years.

      And if asked, I say I'm a Libertarian Socialist. Keeps the scratching their heads for a moment while I run away from another useless political argument.

      I don't undestand. What's so strange about being a Libertarian Socialist? It's a perfectly understandable position, and a lot closer to the original sense of "libertarian" than the normal American usage, which is what most people in the world describe as "liberal".

    15. Re:Why not Congress? by Intron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please. Playing ignorant(or willfully disdainful) lip service to the constitution as if it's magical is #2 on standard politician processes, after pandering to the individual groups you are talking to today.

      Besides, the Constitution is better in the original Klingon.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    16. Re: Why not Congress? by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      You're projecting aspersions onto them to make yourself feel better because you don't give, nothing more.

    17. Re:Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Socially liberal but in favour of a universal basic income? Sounds good to me.

    18. Re:Why not Congress? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      See, I know what I'm saying.. but I live in 'merica. I really don't want to have to explain my view to most of the wingers around me. Like John Kerry's 2000 run, the message is just to nuanced for them.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    19. Re:Why not Congress? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      That can work.

      Live your life, help others where you can, don't be a dick.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    20. Re:Why not Congress? by Intron · · Score: 1

      Hillary championed a national healthcare system during Bill's first term and has been hated by the right ever since. The private insurance requirement was the only way to get it passed.

      Highways were almost entirely state and local until Eisenhower (R) created the Interstates, ostensibly to support military maneuvers. The cost has been enormous, but well worthwhile for travel and commerce.

      Federal contribution to primary education is around 8% of the total (and growing), the rest is local and state. The purpose of the Federal funding is supposedly to bring all education up to minimum standards, but Congress has been known to use any excuse to bring more Federal money to their districts.

      The chief benefit of a strong Conservative voice would be in curbing Federal power and spending, but they don't seem to be accomplishing that. Both parties are bent on increasing the Federal role,just in slightly different areas. The media portray them as liberal vs. conservative, but they are really both Centralist. We need a third party with some new ideas.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    21. Re:Why not Congress? by dkf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot's increasingly leftist audience

      Slashdot (which is overwhelmingly comprised of the comments made by its members) appears to have remained approximately static in terms of its politics, preferring to value people who can make a coherent argument backed by proper facts to favouring any particular party or political theory. If you're interpreting this as "increasingly leftist", that's probably due to your politics lurching rightwards far more rapidly than you think.

      Is this just the normal drift right that usually (but not always) comes with age? Or is someone in your environment encouraging this attitudinal shift for their own ends? (If the latter, are you sure they've got your best interests at heart? Chances are not, assuming my thesis has some weight...)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    22. Re:Why not Congress? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      Socialist is the original - and still global - meaning of the term Libertarian, before american anarcho-capitalists co-opted the term. Until the internet spread american right-wing libertarianism far and wide, 'lefty socialist anarchist' was how most of the world understood the term. Now there's confusion and you either have to avoid the term entirely or preface it with a qualifier like "US" or "right-wing"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

      one of the huge differences (compared to US libertarianism) is that libertarian socialists don't fetishise or worship private property as THE single most important foundational doctrine, transcending *everything* else.

    23. Re: Why not Congress? by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      Sorry, we all give in the form of taxes which, according to the Constitution, should be used to "promote the general Welfare" not be given to the increasingly-rich who sequester such public resource. Donations to PACs does nothing to help those in need. "Faith-based" groups and other charities are totally inadequate to meet the requirements. Government is the only public service organization capable of handling it which is why the Constitution includes that very statement (read some history on 18th C Britain for enlightenment).

    24. Re:Why not Congress? by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      Don't be dick includes not enslaving others under pretense of "greater good" propaganda...

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    25. Re:Why not Congress? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      "maH,, maq nuvpu' 'ej DIvI' cher vaj 'e' nItebHa' chaq net poQbej ruv cher, roj, tlhingan Hubbeq DuHIvDI',, 'ej taHtaHvIS tlhab 'ej puq num maH..."

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    26. Re:Why not Congress? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      one of the huge differences (compared to US libertarianism) is that libertarian socialists don't fetishise or worship private property as THE single most important foundational doctrine, transcending *everything* else.

      Of course not. Guns come first! Then God and Gay bashing.

      Kidding aside, you understand why in the US the term confuses people. It's the using of two terms they think they understand are opposites and joining them together to make what they think is an oxymoron. It's also useful as a tool to break, for a moment, the left/right winger "thinking" process and move to a more meaningful discussion.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    27. Re:Why not Congress? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't have taxes manditory. If you don't want to use civilized things like roads, fire response, police protection, and what not, feel free to move off-grid and live as you wish without paying for those services. Or you can buy them ala cart at an reasonably inflated price. There are some things groups can do better than single providers. I could build up power, water, sewage for my home but I find it better to pay a collective (a really good PUD in my case (snopud.org)), and not having to clear my own path to a road that I then need to pay a toll to get to work on is kind of nifty. I don't mind paying for a staffed fire and police department to protect mine because it's a lot cheaper than hiring my own just for me. Nor a health district, building inspectors, and courts to help keep me safe when I move about to transact with my community.

      If you want a good look at what off grid looks like, watch Railroading Alaska. Understand that most of those are collecting some type of Social Security to get by.

      Could some of the "greater good" be better managed? Sure. Is some if it being used for someone's power trip. Hell yeah. That's how we're wired as humans.

      Are you doing anything to help that get better, other than bitching into your mug of beer? It's just us chickens here, and if you're in the US you don't, day to day, have it that bad and are mostly left alone. If you don't like it, go off grid or work toward realistic change.

      We've come a long way in the last few hundred years. This society is still a work in progress and you're on the ground floor. With the richness that this civilization grants you at this time, you stand in a wonderful position to actually do something positive to effect countless future generations. Don't piss it away by just being pissed off.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    28. Re:Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the message is just to nuanced for them.

      Speaking of things that are too nuanced...

      ("to" is the opposite of "from". Always. If the question "From what?" makes no sense, then don't use that spelling.)

    29. Re:Why not Congress? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      One thing to consider is that states are more able to defend their rights against the feds than are individual citizens. So if the right is held by the state, it's less likely to be infringed by the feds.
      Maybe. States have some power from unified action, with advantages such as most state attny. generals being pretty damned good lawyers and having support teams already lined up for the specialty areas.
              I could make a counter-argument however: As you yourself put it "It's not clear what rights should devolve on the states.".
                A lot of the original constitutional rights that are actually written down or can be found in other writings of the founders are clearly individual rights (and then, there's those pesky unenumerated rights*). Take copyright, for example. It's clear from the way the constitution puts it that it's based on the individual physical capability to make a copy of something, and it's a pretty straight-forward argument that when the constitution talks about a limited time for the government to control copying, that's in relation to the time available to the individual (which makes "life plus" laws unconstitutional, as nobody can give up more of a right than they have). How could a state defend its 'right' to control copyright, when there's no way to claim the state ever had such a right? Could anyone seriously argue that "Nature and Nature's God" created a right to copy as having belonged to the state governments and not individuals, from the time it came to exist? In the same way, a "right to life", if such a thing exists, is a right of individuals - what would even be the point of claiming that the death penalty was unconstitutional for the federal government, but only because it was a right of the sovereign states?

      * I don't know of any good book on constitutional law that even trys to figure up what all the unenumerated rights actually being violated are, let alone how many of them derive from any natural law argument. Does the federal government usurp more rights of the states or of the people individually? How could we weigh the impact of federally mandated speed limits against the prohibition of pot and decide which of these, and a hundred other issues, actually involve an unenumerated right, and which are actually the more important violations?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    30. Re: Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives don't have any problem with free alcohol, free food, or free health care. They do have a problem with "free" alcohol, "free" food, and "free" health care. Yes, Jesus & co. accepted donations and used those funds for the poor (according to Judas' statement), but the miracles weren't done by forcibly taking from others. Jesus didn't raise Lazarus by stabbing everyone present in the foot. He didn't turn water into wine by taking a little wine from everyone's glass (like the Chi-Chi's Salsa advertisement from the 90's) then dumping the water and filling the casks with his stolen wine. Even monetary donations were donations. Conservatives LOVE donations, because it fosters altruism, which gives joy to people on both the receiving and giving sides. Enforced taxes for public benefit gives the "givers" a feeling of loss and resentment, and the receivers a sense of privilege and entitlement. Anyone promoting a governmental entitlement program where private donations already work wants to destroy something wonderful in the hearts of the needy and the well-off.

      A textbook example of the narcissistic.delusion that is conservatism.

    31. Re:Why not Congress? by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is left of center. Not consistently, and it can frequently tolerate a good argument. But it is left leaning.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    32. Re:Why not Congress? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I have the same view of the two major political parties. I also abhor socialism. I consider myself more of a libertarian or minarchist. Perhaps we have more that we agree upon than disagree upon.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    33. Re:Why not Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >increasingly leftist
      Funny, I've been lurking here on and off since the late '90s and the political change I notice is an increasing number of /pol/tards.

    34. Re:Why not Congress? by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      Paying for what one uses isn't the same as paying for what someone else uses, You self-righteous pychotic moron.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    35. Re:Why not Congress? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Well dear me. That kind of ends the discussion.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    36. Re:Why not Congress? by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      What discussion?

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    37. Re:Why not Congress? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Oh well, at least they know there's a Constitution, and that it governs a Republic (not a democracy) unlike Republicans and Democrats.

      What do you think that means, and what do you think isn't being respected about that right now?

      I'm always curious when people trot out that whole "Republic v. Democracy" bit, because it seems to be one of those commonly said phrases that means something completely different to most everyone who utters it.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  15. penciled-in by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, write-ins in NC are not automatically counted ( http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Feb97/write.html ). Maybe he can get the few hundred who voted him onto the council to petition for his name to be counted in his race against Hagan. If he's serious about getting some attention, he should get billboards with his photo and a quote in Klingon written underneath. Otherwise, he might as well borrow a cloaking device, because he's going to be invisible anyhow.

    Doesn't "inside joke" imply that someone else on the council understands why he'd do that or what's funny about it? Or maybe he's one of those people who smiles, and when asked why, answers "I think funny thoughts".

    1. Re:penciled-in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe he's one of those people who smiles, and when asked why, answers "I think funny thoughts".

      Oh, there's something funny going on in his head, but it might not be thoughts.

  16. Exactly by Inzkeeper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just what I was thinking.
    "Resign" in Klingon would have to be a polite way of saying "took a Bat'leth to the skull".
    He is definitely no Klingon.

  17. Klingons do not resign by russotto · · Score: 1

    Klingons simply announce that they are leaving, and fight to the death anyone who objects.

  18. He did it wrong by davidwr · · Score: 1

    When you resign in Klingon it only works if you go all-out Klingon: Either kill your opponent or kill yourself. ... unless ...
    Should Sen. Kay Hagan be worried?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  19. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because people are insane. They will learn Klingon or Elvish, or have heated arguments about which superhero would win in a fight, or finding continuity errors in star wars novels.

  20. What a petaQ! by mendax · · Score: 2

    As the subject says, he's a petaQ! However, it would have been more interesting if he had stood up in the council chambers, said "taH pagh taHbe' " (to be or not to be), and then disemboweled himself with a handy d'k tagh dagger was carrying. It would have been even better if appeared in Klingon warrior's armor.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:What a petaQ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just sounds like a To'Pah to me

  21. Spanish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd have no problem with someone conducting business in Spanish if the others involved spoke good Spanish. This guy was just a fool and he's making Trekkies look like low lives.

  22. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by zieroh · · Score: 1

    if you're going to learn a language, why not Spanish or Chinese something else you can use to communicate with and represent real people with real problems. (If you're a politician, that's really your only job.)

    Because, politician? I dunno, it seems like politicians haven't been interested in public service for a couple hundred years now. Maybe longer.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  23. not a legal language of government by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Thank God the US Constitution doesnt prescribe a legal language or there was a good chance it could have been German at that time. But there are defacto languages of government used in legal precedents and communicating legislation with citizens. Klingon is not one of them.

    1. Re:not a legal language of government by mendax · · Score: 1

      Thank God the US Constitution doesnt prescribe a legal language or there was a good chance it could have been German at that time.

      Well, maybe. The belief is that if the constitution had stated what the official languages would be, German might have been one of them. I don't think anyone doubted that English would remain the language of government given that English was the language of government and business then which is perhaps the reason one was not specified. But there were so many German speakers in the United States at the time, including one ancestor of mine, that if an official language or languages were specified, German would have been one of them out of necessity. I seem to recall that an official translation of the Declaration of Independence was created in 1776 in order to allow the German speakers, including that ancestor of mine, to understand it.

      But there are defacto languages of government used in legal precedents and communicating legislation with citizens.

      Quite true. In California, just about every governmental publication other than the acts of the legislature is published in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Where I live you will find city governmental publications in English, Spanish, and Russian. In Puerto Rico, the federal courts operate in English while the commonwealth courts operate in Spanish. The language of government there is Spanish. When Puerto Rico becomes the 51st state (it will happen eventually), it will be the only state where English won't get you very far when dealing with the government.

      Klingon is not one of them.

      Tell that to the Klingons in our midst! Qapla'!

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  24. He did it wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Klingons do not resign. What he should have done was the ritual of Hegh'bat which would have been more true to Klingon culture.

  25. ... and then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should write his resume for his next job in Klingon.

  26. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you're going to learn a language, why not Spanish or Chinese

    As someone who speaks Spanish and Chinese, I respect anyone who learns a language, for whatever reason.

    Most likely he just used an online translator though, he can't actually speak it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  27. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you're going to learn a language, why not Spanish or Chinese something else you can use to communicate with and represent real people with real problems.

    It would surprise me not-at-all if this is a setup.

    "See?", some other nutjob politician says, "English should be the official language, just to prevent this sort of stuff from happening."

  28. He shamed the entire race by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Klingons do not resign. They may be forced to accept discommendation, but they never, ever give up and 'resign'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by AlterEager · · Score: 1

    or finding continuity errors in star wars novels.

    Novels?

    What about the continuity errors in the Star Wars films!

  30. Subterranean by Yourself · · Score: 0

    And, now he can go back to living in his parents basement.

  31. Libertarian Socialist? by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    I don't undestand. What's so strange about being a Libertarian Socialist?

    I'm about to paint with a very broad brush. I mean no insult to anybody.

    Socialist generally try to create a utopia through targeted policies of taxation and welfare spending. In other words, they are for redistributing wealth and government intervention.

    Libertarians, on the other hand, generally believe they can create a utopia despite government intrusion... and the less of it, the better.

    These seem quite contradictory. To answer your question, this is why it seems strange. Ultimately, though, it depends on what you mean by the terms. There are all sorts of ideas that are called Socialist, and all sorts of ideas that are called Libertarian.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:Libertarian Socialist? by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Your problem comes from your rather limited definition of "Socialism".

      Libertarian Socialism existed long before the current American misunderstanding of "Libertarianism", which is closer to what the rest of the world calls "Liberalism".

    2. Re:Libertarian Socialist? by ian_billyboy_morris · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a libertarian socialist basically just be an anarcho-syndicalyst?

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

    3. Re:Libertarian Socialist? by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Intersecting sets.

      (Notice that the Wikipedia article on anarcho-syndicalism says "Part of a series on Libertarian socialism").

      Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, and mutualism) as well as autonomism, Communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism(*), and some versions of "utopian socialism" and individualist anarchism.

      (* After Rosa Luxemburg and not the smug little Duchy)

    4. Re:Libertarian Socialist? by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      No, that is not "my problem". I haven't "defined" anything. I've described the general behavior and some of the beliefs of people who typically fly those banners in the US.

      You're overreacting. Why don't you tell me what you mean?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    5. Re:Libertarian Socialist? by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Well that's a joke.

      Who defines themselves as "socialist" in the US?

      What do I "mean"?

      I mean get an clue about what the origins of these ideas before pontificating.

    6. Re:Libertarian Socialist? by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      What is your problem? You're acting like I insulted your mother.

      Dude, this is why people frequently don't want to talk about politics. I'd rather have a conversation about where I'm wrong, than exchange insults. It's not healthy. This is the Internet. You're going to be smarter than somebody here. Don't take it as a personal insult when we're not.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    7. Re:Libertarian Socialist? by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      What is your problem? You're acting like I insulted your mother.

      You're still alive? I guess I don't think you insulted my mother.

      Dude, this is why people frequently don't want to talk about politics. I'd rather have a conversation about where I'm wrong, than exchange insults. It's not healthy. This is the Internet. You're going to be smarter than somebody here. Don't take it as a personal insult when we're not.

      What insults? You're too dumb to use google and wikipedia. You're immune to insults.

  32. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present 'Figure A'.

  33. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

    That P'tach didn't even know Klingon. The coward used Bing.

  34. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by blindseer · · Score: 1

    A wookie? That doesn't even make sense!

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  35. Re:Not news. Getting elected with Klingon would be by Tom · · Score: 1

    I know nothing about this particular guy, but from what I learned about J.R.R. Tolkien, serious linguistics freaks often use invented languages to study patterns in language in a clearer form than available on living languages. Basically, it's a sandbox environment to play around with.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org