So far, with the possible exception of the "Christmas in Cambodia", most of the lies regarding war service have not come from either Kerry or Bush, but from those attacking them (the Swifties going after Kerry, Dan Rather and that guy from the Boston Globe going after Bush.)
So far, there has been no compelling evidence to show that Kerry did not earn his medals, nor has there been any compelling evidence to show that Bush did not complete his service to the satisfaction of his superiors.
Such a pity for your argument that there is no evidence whatsoever that supports it.
If he was doing coke at the time he was flying combat simulations, his remains would be in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico right now (assuming he was even let into the plane, which would not be very likely.)
To even qualify to fly those missions requires a very advanced knowledge of Aviation. He may have been a slacker in regard to his college classes, but he obviously applied himself when it came to his Guard training.
He moved to Georgia to work on a friend's political campaign, and had already earned more than enough points at that point to never have to fly again, so the military was more than happy to accommodate his desire to serve out his time in Georgia.
He didn't serve in combat, but he served, which is more than former President Clinton could say. Weren't you people saying that military service (or lack thereof) didn't matter? You know, back when Clinton was running against a war hero Senator?
Does anyone, regardless of what they believe about THESE documents, really think Bush honorably completed his service?
Yes. I do. He earned more than enough active duty points, in a program which was dangerous and did experience some deaths, to be honoraby discharged from the reserves a few months early. Especially considering that it was at a time when there were a glut of idle pilots and taking an early release was actually doing the military a favor by allowing them to stop paying officer salary to a pilot who has nothing to do but read technical spec documents all day.
Or did you think they just let people stroll into the airbase untrained and fly risky test-flight manuvers in expensive and dangerous jet aircrafts on the basis of their family connecitons?
If he had served his entire stint in a comfy desk job, or had simply joined the ROTC in college and then got permission to quit before he actually would have to serve, like a certain previous President, then I would say you have a point.
But he volunteered for a job which subjected him to years of training - raining which most of the people currently calling Bush "stupid" could not have completed. This training was followed by combat simulations which, while nowhere nearly as dangerous as what the "brown water" Navy men were doing in Vietnam, still occasionally resulted in pilots getting killed. In fact, Al Gore's unit, which was technically doing combat duty in Vietnam, actually had a lower casualty rate than the Texas Air Guard.
You misread my post. Go read it again. I said I was fine with what The West Virginian elector is doing.
Not that I'm not fine with the job Bush has done so far. I'm not going to bother with all your Carvellian spin on the economic record in this particular forum, because nobody who's looked at the remarkable turn-around since the disasterous Autumn of 1991 could possibly take what you are saying seriously anyway.
I don't agree with every policy of the Libertarian Party. Hence the use of the phrase "small-L" to emphasize that I believe in small government principles, but I'm not in lock-step with the LP.
I'm against some aspects of the PATRIOT Act, as well as several of the bi-partisan reccomendations of the 9/11 committee, as they do expand the Federal government's role in our lives, but Kerry voted for PATRIOT, and was actually quicker to adopt the 9/11 reccomendations than Bush was, so I consider the candidates a wash on this issue.
As for Bush's executive orders, they bother me less than the ones Clinton drafted while in office.
Not one, but at least two people have modded the parent post down as "Off-topic," even though it is extremely on-topic. This is the words of the opposition candidate on the topic of running people down for not entereing combat service during Vietnam. It's extremely relevant to the topic at hand.
What the hell, I've got Karma to burn.
Here it is again, in full, with the "Bully pulpet" of my bonus point thrown in. Feel free to mod me down as "-1, Redundant" as soon as the parent post is at "+5, Informative" where it belongs.
BY JOHN F. KERRY Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
(Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)
Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?
Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of ot
How many truly great Senators have there been last century?... In the latter half of the 20th century, I can think of only two I'd apply this label to: Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, and John C Stennis of Mississippi.
I can think of a couple dozen from both parties, and would not put either of the two you named on that list.
A couple "moderate" power brokers pissing in the pools of their own parties could not possibly shine as brightly as a Barry Goldwater or a Hubert H. Humphrey.
While I'm a Bush voter (this time around) and I'm fine with what this guy is doing. This is what the system is. If the people of West Virginia don't like it, it's up to them to change it.
I also think that the President should never be chosen by simple popular vote in a nation of almost 300 million people divided into 50 different states which each have interests that are sometimes in conflict with one another. Popular vote alone would produce a President of The Northeast and Southwest Coasts in charge of the whole nation, without the need for even a pretense of giving a crap about "fly-over" country.
So we've both proved that the grandparent poster is wrong. Some people form their opinions according to their basic principles, rather than partisan cheerleading.
People like to blame the electoral college system on the screwy mess of the previous election, but the truth is that Gore's lead in the nation-wide popular vote was even narrower than Bush's victory in Florida. Had we been using a popular-vote-only system in 2000, Bush would have been compelled by his party to call for a recount, and would be right to do so. For all we even know today (since no such massive event occurred), Gore's nation-wide "popular victory" could have been the result of counting errors, mishandled ballots, and voter fraud. (Note: I don't mean to imply that there were no errors, mishandling, and fraud that favored Bush... I'm simply saying that the results of a close election are mushy enough that almost anything could come out of such a recount.)
For that matter, if Gore's petition for an additional recount in Florida was successful, and somehow resulted in a Gore win (we now know it would have not done so, but just suppose), then Bush probably could have called for a recount in Wisconsin and several other close states which Gore marginally won by less than a percentage point.
Still, in the case of the elector thinking of going against the will of his State... The rules provide him the right to do so. It's up to the people of West Virginia do decide how this matter is handled. The President is elected by the States, and the States decide for themselves (as representatives of their residents) how they wish do go about casting votes for their state.
Dude. This is Slashdot. Just be glad his spelling was okay, and quit nit-picking about the misuse of an asterisk.
However, I agree with your point that neither of the major parties really have genuine radicals in them. I consider that a Good Thing. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, we will continue to have a fairly stable economy where a regular guy like me has a decent shot at a decent life. Also, whichever of them is elected, Social Security will either crumble or cost a fortune (or both) long before I reach retirement age, but that sort of fiasco is far preferable to the economic chaos that would be brought about if either socialist or libertarian major reforms were too abruptly thrust upon us.
I tend to sympathize with many of the more noble aims of both the radical left and the radical right, but God help us if either of those groups ever gets into power.
Disclaimer: I'm a "small-L" libertarian who plans on voting for Bush, but will be perfectly fine with it if Kerry happens to win. Anybody who thinks they are choosing between the "lesser of two evils" probably needs to stop listening to the idiotic attack ads from both sides and do a little more independent thinking.
The military uses a lot of non-standard terms which not used outside of the military. Most American troops call Greenwich Mean Time "Zulu." That doesn't mean it makes more sense for you to do so in a non-military forum.
"ChiComm" is an amusing, if derogatory, shorthand for "Chinese Communist," not the correct national identity for people from China.
I don't care what made-up non-word "makes sense" to you. The correct word is "American," and using something else makes you sound like a complete tool.
*shrug* If you want to sound like a complete tool, that's your call, but you can expect some people to not know what the hell you are talking about, and others to drag you into a pedantic argument about it.
Even if you had a two-digit UID, I would still point out that you are wrong. Why? Lots of down-time spent compiling and installing this week in which to argue over nerdy minutiae, that's why. Thanks for the diversion.
Once again, showing you are out of step with the world. People from the PRC are called "Chinese", not "ChiComms." People from the Republic of China (Taiwan) are "Taiwanese" not "RoCians."
"American" is not in the least bit ambiguous. In the context of people, "American" means somebody from the nation of America, not "somebody either the North American or South American continents."
Notice that we do not have a word for "somebody who is from either Europe or Africa" either. There is no need for such a word. Likewise, you can be absolutely certain that when anybody in the world speaks of "Americans", they are speaking of people from the United States of America. It's what people from that country are called. Period.
You also disproved your own point. People from the nation of Australia are still called Australians, even though the Island of New Zealand is considered to be part of the Continent (as England is considered part of Eurorpe.) I'm pretty sure that the Australians don't have to put up with a bunch of assholes calling them "CoAns." Most people have the rudimentary education to understand that the people from the Commonwealth of Australia are rightly called "Australians," which is understood as a term which does not include New Zealanders.
Oh, and people from Territory of American Samoa are called American Samoans. The "American" part of their name refers to the fact that they are a territory occupied and controlled by the United Stats of America. Please note that the country is not called "USian Samoa," and the people there are not called "USian Samoans."
Really, it's not hard if you paid any attention in Elementary geography class.
No. A Canadian using the term Canadian makes sense because he's a Canadian, not an American.
There is no such thing as a USian, because there is not such place as USia.
It's "the United States of America," like "the People's Republic of China." "America" is the name of the country, the words "United States" are there to describe our nation as a federation of separate states, bound together as Americans, just as "People's Republic" establishes China as a socialist nation which is (at least in principle, if not in practice) wholly owned by the people. You would not call the Chinese "PRians," nor should you call Americans "USians."
Even if they didn't, imagine a schoolchild in Malaysia, who just learned about the major continents, overhearing someone saying they were from "America." Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude that the person was saying they were from one of the two American continents?
No. A reasonable person would not expect anybody to identify themselves as a citizen of a continent. No Canadian or Mexian would introduce themselves to your hypothetical kid as a "North American" any more than an American would.
Columbus landed (or rather, thought he did) in "America."
Columbus thought he landed in the East Indies. He also never landed on the continent itself. The continents were called "The Americas" long after his mistake was discovered.
Anyway, bottom line is, you have your opinion, and I have mine, but most of the world, as well as common sense, would conclude that an "American" could mean any person from either of the two continents bearing that name.
I think you will find that most of the world calls us "Americans" (or some derivation thereof which suits the diction of their local language.) I have never once heard Tony Blair or any other European leader refer to us as "USians." Do do so would be completely absurd. Our country is called America, therefore we are called Americans, and there is no room for debate on the point.
If you insist on arguing the point, walk into a bar in Quebec sometime, and with your best French, ask the meanest-looking patron there how it feels to be an "American." I'm sure he will make his opinion of your choice of words very clear, without even saying a thing.
I absolutely worshipped his writing... when I was 14.
Looking back, he managed to write two-and-a-half oustanding books in his five-novel trilogy. The rest of his stuff was better than a lot of what's out there, but were kind of like the Sherlock Holmes stories Doyle wrote after "killing" Holmes off, only to find that popular demand compelled him to cash in... er... give in and write some new material.
In the end, Adams wound up being the sort of niche celebrity who actually thought the world gave a crap about his opinions on religion, politics, technology, and Dire Straits guitar solos. All I ever wanted out of him was some light chuckles about bureaucracy and Isaac Asimov novels, and when he was in his prime, that was what he delivered, with a style of prose which was often imitated, but never really duplicated.
But the brilliant punch of describing massive spaceships that hang in the air "exactly the same way that bricks don't," has been diluted slightly by a thousand posers (I'm looking in your direction, Mr. Pratchett) who were less adept at playing with the language yet still insisted on doing do.
The jokes have worn even thinner still from being quoted by college-aged nerds more often than the Knights Who Say Ni.
HHGTTG was the "Tom Swift" series of a whole generation, and we will see "the next Beatles" long before we ever see an author worthy of being called "the next Douglas Adams."
But yeah... I'm fucking sick of it too. I hope this new movie suffers a pre-natal death and is forgotten about.
I've always said that the iMacs/eMacs are the ultimate dorm room computers, especially when paired with a TV tuner. Set it on your desk, position the desk so you can see the screen from anywhere in the room, and you've got all of your school and entertainment needs in one little box, leaving you plenty of space for a full-size hand-me-down refrigerator. I wish they had em' back when I was in college. My TV and stereo dominated the room, while my poor 8086 just slouched in the corner whenever I wasn't actually working and/or BBS-ing on it.
Not to mention the 7200 RPM Serial ATA hard drive means that, unlike some of the previous iMacs (many models of which went with a 5400 RPM drive for cost and heat reasons), you can use this one for live audio and video recording/editing.
I still just love the fact that the original song Woodie wrote was a song protesting against land-owners enforcing property rights against vagrant trespassers, and then the "owners" of his song tried to sue somebody for violating their proprty.
I will readily admit that I haven't really gotten into the resistance side of the game, so it may be that all the rest is to try to force the player into becoming a rebel.
Actually, the point is to force the player to become just as corrupt as the system, and thrive on that corruption. Just as Wally in Dilbert comics has managed to "game" the corporate world for his own goals of laziness and confort, your best chance of survival is to become Part Of The Problem. Those who let go of such pre-Alpha concepts as "morals" and "honor" will usually be rising stars in Alpha Complex.
Usually, once one player in a gaming group figures this out, the rest of them quickly learn by his/her example. After that, survival is just a matter of making you don't get stabbed in the back by one of your teammates. (Which means you still have no chance, but at least it's fun.)
Becoming an outright and open traitor is another perfectly good way to go, because while the Computer and its minions are fantastic at keeping semi-honest citizens terrified, their system absolutely sucks at fighting real commies, terrorists, and traitors.
All this is, of course, what makes Paranoia such great parody. The social dynamics of the players teaches a great deal about why totalitarianism doesn't keep order nearly as well as one would think.
Back in college, I wrote a campaign for Paranoia, based on the idea that the "Trekkies" secret society managed to corrupt the government into building a real, working Enterprise starship.
I was able to re-use the campaign materials with the same group of players four times, because the first three times the whole party was dead (and out of clones) before reaching the briefing room.
For the record, players in my Paranoia games always had fun.
My favorite moment from that campaign: The "Captain" had not yet figured out the view-screen, and the ship was about to be attacked by a "Klingon Warbird" (a ship commissioned by a rival society). Since there were sensors at the Communication Officer's station, the ship tried to warn them...
GM: A light begins flashing on your console. Player: Uh... I start pushing some buttons. (roll) GM: It's still flashing. Player: Uh... I push some more buttons. (roll) GM: Now there are two lights flashing. Player: Hmmm... I unscrew the bulbs a little. GM: They are not flashing anymore. Player: I act like nothing is wrong.
A brilliant move on that player's part.
Of course, the Klingon thread (which went unheard) never really mattered. Between phasers constantly on overload, a murder-crazed robot on the ship, various societies (both within and outside of the party) working to sabotage the mission, and the Captain's discovery that the buttons on his seat release the remaining clones from cryo-storage, and the whole party was violently dead within hours.
Slashdot Mirror
So far, with the possible exception of the "Christmas in Cambodia", most of the lies regarding war service have not come from either Kerry or Bush, but from those attacking them (the Swifties going after Kerry, Dan Rather and that guy from the Boston Globe going after Bush.)
So far, there has been no compelling evidence to show that Kerry did not earn his medals, nor has there been any compelling evidence to show that Bush did not complete his service to the satisfaction of his superiors.
Such a pity for your argument that there is no evidence whatsoever that supports it.
If he was doing coke at the time he was flying combat simulations, his remains would be in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico right now (assuming he was even let into the plane, which would not be very likely.)
To even qualify to fly those missions requires a very advanced knowledge of Aviation. He may have been a slacker in regard to his college classes, but he obviously applied himself when it came to his Guard training.
He moved to Georgia to work on a friend's political campaign, and had already earned more than enough points at that point to never have to fly again, so the military was more than happy to accommodate his desire to serve out his time in Georgia.
He didn't serve in combat, but he served, which is more than former President Clinton could say. Weren't you people saying that military service (or lack thereof) didn't matter? You know, back when Clinton was running against a war hero Senator?
Does anyone, regardless of what they believe about THESE documents, really think Bush honorably completed his service?
Yes. I do. He earned more than enough active duty points, in a program which was dangerous and did experience some deaths, to be honoraby discharged from the reserves a few months early. Especially considering that it was at a time when there were a glut of idle pilots and taking an early release was actually doing the military a favor by allowing them to stop paying officer salary to a pilot who has nothing to do but read technical spec documents all day.
Or did you think they just let people stroll into the airbase untrained and fly risky test-flight manuvers in expensive and dangerous jet aircrafts on the basis of their family connecitons?
If he had served his entire stint in a comfy desk job, or had simply joined the ROTC in college and then got permission to quit before he actually would have to serve, like a certain previous President, then I would say you have a point.
But he volunteered for a job which subjected him to years of training - raining which most of the people currently calling Bush "stupid" could not have completed. This training was followed by combat simulations which, while nowhere nearly as dangerous as what the "brown water" Navy men were doing in Vietnam, still occasionally resulted in pilots getting killed. In fact, Al Gore's unit, which was technically doing combat duty in Vietnam, actually had a lower casualty rate than the Texas Air Guard.
Jimmy Carter was a remarkably deep thinker, but he wasn't a particularilly "great" president.
You misread my post. Go read it again. I said I was fine with what The West Virginian elector is doing.
Not that I'm not fine with the job Bush has done so far. I'm not going to bother with all your Carvellian spin on the economic record in this particular forum, because nobody who's looked at the remarkable turn-around since the disasterous Autumn of 1991 could possibly take what you are saying seriously anyway.
I don't agree with every policy of the Libertarian Party. Hence the use of the phrase "small-L" to emphasize that I believe in small government principles, but I'm not in lock-step with the LP.
I'm against some aspects of the PATRIOT Act, as well as several of the bi-partisan reccomendations of the 9/11 committee, as they do expand the Federal government's role in our lives, but Kerry voted for PATRIOT, and was actually quicker to adopt the 9/11 reccomendations than Bush was, so I consider the candidates a wash on this issue.
As for Bush's executive orders, they bother me less than the ones Clinton drafted while in office.
Not one, but at least two people have modded the parent post down as "Off-topic," even though it is extremely on-topic. This is the words of the opposition candidate on the topic of running people down for not entereing combat service during Vietnam. It's extremely relevant to the topic at hand.
What the hell, I've got Karma to burn.
Here it is again, in full, with the "Bully pulpet" of my bonus point thrown in. Feel free to mod me down as "-1, Redundant" as soon as the parent post is at "+5, Informative" where it belongs.
BY JOHN F. KERRY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
(Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)
Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?
Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of ot
Or, as the way P.J. O'Rourke put it, everywhere that had indoor toilets, but was not covered in graffiti, was carried by Bush.
How many truly great Senators have there been last century? ... In the latter half of the 20th century, I can think of only two I'd apply this label to: Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, and John C Stennis of Mississippi.
I can think of a couple dozen from both parties, and would not put either of the two you named on that list.
A couple "moderate" power brokers pissing in the pools of their own parties could not possibly shine as brightly as a Barry Goldwater or a Hubert H. Humphrey.
While I'm a Bush voter (this time around) and I'm fine with what this guy is doing. This is what the system is. If the people of West Virginia don't like it, it's up to them to change it.
I also think that the President should never be chosen by simple popular vote in a nation of almost 300 million people divided into 50 different states which each have interests that are sometimes in conflict with one another. Popular vote alone would produce a President of The Northeast and Southwest Coasts in charge of the whole nation, without the need for even a pretense of giving a crap about "fly-over" country.
So we've both proved that the grandparent poster is wrong. Some people form their opinions according to their basic principles, rather than partisan cheerleading.
People like to blame the electoral college system on the screwy mess of the previous election, but the truth is that Gore's lead in the nation-wide popular vote was even narrower than Bush's victory in Florida. Had we been using a popular-vote-only system in 2000, Bush would have been compelled by his party to call for a recount, and would be right to do so. For all we even know today (since no such massive event occurred), Gore's nation-wide "popular victory" could have been the result of counting errors, mishandled ballots, and voter fraud. (Note: I don't mean to imply that there were no errors, mishandling, and fraud that favored Bush... I'm simply saying that the results of a close election are mushy enough that almost anything could come out of such a recount.)
For that matter, if Gore's petition for an additional recount in Florida was successful, and somehow resulted in a Gore win (we now know it would have not done so, but just suppose), then Bush probably could have called for a recount in Wisconsin and several other close states which Gore marginally won by less than a percentage point.
Still, in the case of the elector thinking of going against the will of his State... The rules provide him the right to do so. It's up to the people of West Virginia do decide how this matter is handled. The President is elected by the States, and the States decide for themselves (as representatives of their residents) how they wish do go about casting votes for their state.
Dude. This is Slashdot. Just be glad his spelling was okay, and quit nit-picking about the misuse of an asterisk.
However, I agree with your point that neither of the major parties really have genuine radicals in them. I consider that a Good Thing. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, we will continue to have a fairly stable economy where a regular guy like me has a decent shot at a decent life. Also, whichever of them is elected, Social Security will either crumble or cost a fortune (or both) long before I reach retirement age, but that sort of fiasco is far preferable to the economic chaos that would be brought about if either socialist or libertarian major reforms were too abruptly thrust upon us.
I tend to sympathize with many of the more noble aims of both the radical left and the radical right, but God help us if either of those groups ever gets into power.
Disclaimer: I'm a "small-L" libertarian who plans on voting for Bush, but will be perfectly fine with it if Kerry happens to win. Anybody who thinks they are choosing between the "lesser of two evils" probably needs to stop listening to the idiotic attack ads from both sides and do a little more independent thinking.
The military uses a lot of non-standard terms which not used outside of the military. Most American troops call Greenwich Mean Time "Zulu." That doesn't mean it makes more sense for you to do so in a non-military forum.
"ChiComm" is an amusing, if derogatory, shorthand for "Chinese Communist," not the correct national identity for people from China.
I don't care what made-up non-word "makes sense" to you. The correct word is "American," and using something else makes you sound like a complete tool.
*shrug* If you want to sound like a complete tool, that's your call, but you can expect some people to not know what the hell you are talking about, and others to drag you into a pedantic argument about it.
Even if you had a two-digit UID, I would still point out that you are wrong. Why? Lots of down-time spent compiling and installing this week in which to argue over nerdy minutiae, that's why. Thanks for the diversion.
Once again, showing you are out of step with the world. People from the PRC are called "Chinese", not "ChiComms." People from the Republic of China (Taiwan) are "Taiwanese" not "RoCians."
"American" is not in the least bit ambiguous. In the context of people, "American" means somebody from the nation of America, not "somebody either the North American or South American continents."
Notice that we do not have a word for "somebody who is from either Europe or Africa" either. There is no need for such a word. Likewise, you can be absolutely certain that when anybody in the world speaks of "Americans", they are speaking of people from the United States of America. It's what people from that country are called. Period.
You also disproved your own point. People from the nation of Australia are still called Australians, even though the Island of New Zealand is considered to be part of the Continent (as England is considered part of Eurorpe.) I'm pretty sure that the Australians don't have to put up with a bunch of assholes calling them "CoAns." Most people have the rudimentary education to understand that the people from the Commonwealth of Australia are rightly called "Australians," which is understood as a term which does not include New Zealanders.
Oh, and people from Territory of American Samoa are called American Samoans. The "American" part of their name refers to the fact that they are a territory occupied and controlled by the United Stats of America. Please note that the country is not called "USian Samoa," and the people there are not called "USian Samoans."
Really, it's not hard if you paid any attention in Elementary geography class.
No. A Canadian using the term Canadian makes sense because he's a Canadian, not an American.
There is no such thing as a USian, because there is not such place as USia.
It's "the United States of America," like "the People's Republic of China." "America" is the name of the country, the words "United States" are there to describe our nation as a federation of separate states, bound together as Americans, just as "People's Republic" establishes China as a socialist nation which is (at least in principle, if not in practice) wholly owned by the people. You would not call the Chinese "PRians," nor should you call Americans "USians."
Even if they didn't, imagine a schoolchild in Malaysia, who just learned about the major continents, overhearing someone saying they were from "America." Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude that the person was saying they were from one of the two American continents?
No. A reasonable person would not expect anybody to identify themselves as a citizen of a continent. No Canadian or Mexian would introduce themselves to your hypothetical kid as a "North American" any more than an American would.
Columbus landed (or rather, thought he did) in "America."
Columbus thought he landed in the East Indies. He also never landed on the continent itself. The continents were called "The Americas" long after his mistake was discovered.
Anyway, bottom line is, you have your opinion, and I have mine, but most of the world, as well as common sense, would conclude that an "American" could mean any person from either of the two continents bearing that name.
I think you will find that most of the world calls us "Americans" (or some derivation thereof which suits the diction of their local language.) I have never once heard Tony Blair or any other European leader refer to us as "USians." Do do so would be completely absurd. Our country is called America, therefore we are called Americans, and there is no room for debate on the point.
If you insist on arguing the point, walk into a bar in Quebec sometime, and with your best French, ask the meanest-looking patron there how it feels to be an "American." I'm sure he will make his opinion of your choice of words very clear, without even saying a thing.
Here we go again.
There are zero continents called "America."
There is one called "North America", and another called "South America."
The word "American" can only be somebody who comes from the United States of America.
A "USian" would be somebody from someplace called "USia." It is never the correct term.
Mod
Everything
Funny
You might not be the only one.
I absolutely worshipped his writing... when I was 14.
Looking back, he managed to write two-and-a-half oustanding books in his five-novel trilogy. The rest of his stuff was better than a lot of what's out there, but were kind of like the Sherlock Holmes stories Doyle wrote after "killing" Holmes off, only to find that popular demand compelled him to cash in... er... give in and write some new material.
In the end, Adams wound up being the sort of niche celebrity who actually thought the world gave a crap about his opinions on religion, politics, technology, and Dire Straits guitar solos. All I ever wanted out of him was some light chuckles about bureaucracy and Isaac Asimov novels, and when he was in his prime, that was what he delivered, with a style of prose which was often imitated, but never really duplicated.
But the brilliant punch of describing massive spaceships that hang in the air "exactly the same way that bricks don't," has been diluted slightly by a thousand posers (I'm looking in your direction, Mr. Pratchett) who were less adept at playing with the language yet still insisted on doing do.
The jokes have worn even thinner still from being quoted by college-aged nerds more often than the Knights Who Say Ni.
HHGTTG was the "Tom Swift" series of a whole generation, and we will see "the next Beatles" long before we ever see an author worthy of being called "the next Douglas Adams."
But yeah... I'm fucking sick of it too. I hope this new movie suffers a pre-natal death and is forgotten about.
I've always said that the iMacs/eMacs are the ultimate dorm room computers, especially when paired with a TV tuner. Set it on your desk, position the desk so you can see the screen from anywhere in the room, and you've got all of your school and entertainment needs in one little box, leaving you plenty of space for a full-size hand-me-down refrigerator. I wish they had em' back when I was in college. My TV and stereo dominated the room, while my poor 8086 just slouched in the corner whenever I wasn't actually working and/or BBS-ing on it.
Not to mention the 7200 RPM Serial ATA hard drive means that, unlike some of the previous iMacs (many models of which went with a 5400 RPM drive for cost and heat reasons), you can use this one for live audio and video recording/editing.
For the record, Alanis: That is ironic.
Leisure Suit Larry
'Nuff said.
I will readily admit that I haven't really gotten into the resistance side of the game, so it may be that all the rest is to try to force the player into becoming a rebel.
Actually, the point is to force the player to become just as corrupt as the system, and thrive on that corruption. Just as Wally in Dilbert comics has managed to "game" the corporate world for his own goals of laziness and confort, your best chance of survival is to become Part Of The Problem. Those who let go of such pre-Alpha concepts as "morals" and "honor" will usually be rising stars in Alpha Complex.
Usually, once one player in a gaming group figures this out, the rest of them quickly learn by his/her example. After that, survival is just a matter of making you don't get stabbed in the back by one of your teammates. (Which means you still have no chance, but at least it's fun.)
Becoming an outright and open traitor is another perfectly good way to go, because while the Computer and its minions are fantastic at keeping semi-honest citizens terrified, their system absolutely sucks at fighting real commies, terrorists, and traitors.
All this is, of course, what makes Paranoia such great parody. The social dynamics of the players teaches a great deal about why totalitarianism doesn't keep order nearly as well as one would think.
Back in college, I wrote a campaign for Paranoia, based on the idea that the "Trekkies" secret society managed to corrupt the government into building a real, working Enterprise starship.
I was able to re-use the campaign materials with the same group of players four times, because the first three times the whole party was dead (and out of clones) before reaching the briefing room.
For the record, players in my Paranoia games always had fun.
My favorite moment from that campaign: The "Captain" had not yet figured out the view-screen, and the ship was about to be attacked by a "Klingon Warbird" (a ship commissioned by a rival society). Since there were sensors at the Communication Officer's station, the ship tried to warn them...
GM: A light begins flashing on your console.
Player: Uh... I start pushing some buttons.
(roll)
GM: It's still flashing.
Player: Uh... I push some more buttons.
(roll)
GM: Now there are two lights flashing.
Player: Hmmm... I unscrew the bulbs a little.
GM: They are not flashing anymore.
Player: I act like nothing is wrong.
A brilliant move on that player's part.
Of course, the Klingon thread (which went unheard) never really mattered. Between phasers constantly on overload, a murder-crazed robot on the ship, various societies (both within and outside of the party) working to sabotage the mission, and the Captain's discovery that the buttons on his seat release the remaining clones from cryo-storage, and the whole party was violently dead within hours.
Good times, good times.