This ties in to something that still makes me laugh when I think about it.
Me, my brother and a friend were in the tiny Liberty Theater in Seward, Alaska, to watch some Star Trek movie in the early 90s. We got there kind of late, and the theater was packed, so we had to sit down in the front, in the second row I think.
There was a furious windstorm outside, and while we were waiting for the movie to start the power went out. Emergency lights came on, but it was still nearly pitch dark.
So sitting there in near total darkness in the tiny but crowded theater, everyone murmuring and squirming and eating popcorn, my brother starts to whistle the theme from Star Trek. I joined in, and pretty soon this entire theater was whistling together, although by then it was kind of hard to whistle since we were all laughing so hard. It was one of the funniest damn things I've ever seen.
Alaska is seen as more outdoorsy than geeky, and it is (thank God). But if you find yourself up here, be sure to check out the Poker Flats rocket launching site. It's the only non-federal, university owned and operated range in the world and the only high-latitude, auroral-zone rocket launching facility in the U.S. You can find a launch schedule at the website, and the personnel are really into it and enthusiastic about what they do.
That said, few geeks are geekier than marine biology geeks, so if you fall into that category you'd probably like the Alaska SeaLife Center, where you can check out sea lions and puffins and things, and check out their research.
Finally, I want to give a shout out to one supergeeky site that someone else mentioned but was somewhat passed over: The Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. I visited it when I was just a little mini-Alaskan, and was blown away by all the buttons you get to push, levers to pull, etc. Plus, you get to tour a real German U-Boat. 31337! Or, as I would have said at the time, neato!
1. I could just grant you all this, because it obviously has nothing to do with my overall point. I was simply using McKinney as one example of a lone Democrat spouting off loony views. I could just as easily have chosen another example. The larger point of the post remains the same.
2. However, I don't grant you this. You noted Palast's "diatribic style." That's because he's a left-wing BBC reporter who's never sniffed an anti-American or anti-Israeli angle he didn't like. (For those who don't follow the media, the BBC is under unprecedented scrutiny in England for having fallen under the control of left-wing, bureaucratic hacks who use the tax-supported corporation to push their own views.) This site:
has a pretty good takedown of the Palast-McKinney thing. Also, here's a press release sent out by McKinney's own office:
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/CynthiaMcKin ne y/news/pr020412.htm
Finally, one must ask this: Why, after these charges surfaced in the media, didn't McKinney simply point out she never said all that stuff? That would seem to have been the logical course of action. But she didn't do that, because she couldn't -- everyone (except Greg Palast) would have called her on it.
Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, because your comments are fairly reasonable. But I stand by my point: Taken in context, what Bush quite obviously meant (i.e., you are against us if you provide haven and aid to violent terrorists) is a lot different than what the original post implied (i.e., Bush is a crazed imperialist who believes all them other countries, by golly, better be just like us, or else!).
Here's a simple restatement, as most Americans understand it: The world community can no longer afford to tolerate states that sponsor terrorism -- the threat of the proliferation of WMDs just makes that too big of a risk. And just because some countries feel they might have less to lose by appeasing terrorists, that does not abrogate our responsibilty (or theirs, for that matter). It might mean a difficult, sustained campaign with many setbacks, but in the long run the alternative is worse.
It's not that difficult of a concept. It doesn't mean that ol' bogeyman Bush is itchin' to invade Canada. I suppose he might if the Canadians started strapping dynamite to to their bodies, driving down to Newark and murdering bunches of civilians. But he's not going to do it 'cause they like Hockey, enjoy socialized medicine and pronounce "about" weird.
Finally, you seem to be fine with this, but say the problem is that the definition of terrorism is so nebulous. Huh? I mean, sure, there's a wide variety of things that could fall under the term terrorism, but it's still a fairly clear concept. Can you come up with even a single example of something that Bush would consider terrorism, and both houses of Congress would consider sufficient to authorize military action against, that you yourself would not consider terrorism?
Following are two responses to this. First, here is the answer I typed before I actually went to Congressional Record and read the bit in question:
MY FIRST RESPONSE:
I had the same reaction to this that the Anonymous Coward did (i.e., "That's funny, I don't remember any notable Republicans calling Clinton 'a coward and paranoid' about this").
I didn't think you'd be able to come up with any examples, so I wouldn't deny that you scored a point or two with your reply. But I should point out two things:
First, you didn't say "former Minnesota Senator Rod Grams." You said "all the Republicans," clearly suggesting that it represented some sort of cross-section of contemporary conservative thinking. But you've only cited one instance. Cynthia McKinney strongly implied that Bush knew beforehand about the impending slaughter of potentially 50,000 Americans on 9/11, but I certainly don't believe that represents a cross-section of Democratic thinking. Can you convince us that "all the Republicans" -- or at least a lot of them -- shared Grams' view, as you implied?
Second, you quite explicitly said all these Republicans "called Clinton a coward and paranoid." This could certainly be construed from former Sen. Gram's excerpted comments, and may even be what he meant, but that's not what you said. You said you remembered "all of them" that *called* him a coward and paranoid. I just think being imprecise isn't helpful in these matters.
BELAY THAT! MY SECOND RESPONSE
So I was all ready to submit the above when I noticed that for some reason you hadn't included a link to the Congressional Record. So, out of curiousity, I went there myself.
What I found is that, without that all important "snip," even the article to which you referred doesn't support your thesis very well. Sen. Gram is not criticizing the decision to close down Pennsylvania Avenue (made in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing). He is voicing his agreement with a widespread feeling among D.C. residents that the avenue shouldn't remain closed indefinitely.
Quote: Mr. President, the people of this city who depend on open access to Pennsylvania Avenue say they've accepted the present closure, but they're not going along with the idea that the avenue must be blockaded forever. That case has simply not been made, they say. And I agree.
He doesn't call the president a coward or paranoid. It would take a very strained interpretation to even construe that. Take this quote, for example:
Mr. President, all Americans are deeply concerned about the safety of their President. The security measures used to protect him must be well reasoned, appropriate, and thorough. I don't question the desire to afford him every ounce of security available, but I do question whether we can satisfy that desire without sacrificing the people's freedom.
FULL CIRCLE
Now, let's bring this thing around full circle. You said you "remembered all the Republicans who called Clinton a coward and paranoid," and asked if they were going to apologize. What we have instead is ONE Republican who did not object to the initial street closure, but felt it was appropriate to re-open it after one year.
Then you asked whether AC was "a liar or just ignorant."
Your point's well taken, but I didn't say "mid-line", as in: "Neutral between liberal and conservative." I said "mid-level," as in: "Perhaps not the Washington Post, but not the Weekly World News either; i.e., a respectable news source not known for making things up."
I probably wasn't clear on that.
Also, may I quibble with one of your terms? Neither TNR or NR are *-wing, which I take to mean extremist. They are publications of the mainstream left and right, respectively. I would use the term "left wing" to describe Mother Jones or The Nation. Finding an example of a "right wing" U.S. magazine is a little more problematic, because, though I'm sure there are many, they are mostly little-known rags. I've heard Pat Buchanan's new magazine described as right-wing, but I haven't read it, so I wouldn't know.
(And please, don't anyone respond by listing off the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, or anything like that. Those are all solid mainstream conservative publications, and not right-wing [unless you consider all conservatives to be right wing, which is a whole 'nother matter altogether].)
In the early nineties I worked for the Alaska State Legislature. That was in the early days of e-mail, so we didn't get e-mail messages very often. However, we did have something that sort of worked the same way.
Alaska's capitol is in Juneau, which is not accessible by road. During the legislative session, it is simply not possible for the average citizen to "pop in" to his or her legislators' offices (unless that citizen is a resident of Juneau, of course). So the legislature put up Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) all around the state. One thing people could do at these LIOs was compose and send Public Opinion Messages (POMs) using an LIO computer. These messages were then compiled and sent to the various offices.
One of the problems is that the senders could choose who they wanted their POMs to go to. They could send POMs to their own representatives, or to legislators working on a particular issue, or anyone else. So usually, they'd just send them to *every* legislator.
The problem is this: It quickly became apparent that, if we were going to read all the POMs people sent in, that's all we would ever have time to do. And this was in the second-least-populated state in the Union! We eventually settled on a system where we at least *read* all the POMs from our home district, and even managed to respond to a few. The ones that came in from LIOs outside our district? We didn't even read them. I feel guilty about it to this day--after all, these people had taken the time and energy to go down to their local LIO and compose a message -- but there just wasn't the time or manpower!
A couple of lessons:
1. Want to get a message to a legislator? I know a way that practically guarantees it will be read. Get a pen and piece of paper. Handwrite a short, polite and thoughtful note, using correct grammar and good handwriting. It's always a good idea to work a compliment in there somewhere.
2. I think I share with most/. readers a desire for small, limited government. However, I usually disagree with those who want to slash legislative staff (in all three senses of the word!). In our complex world, a legislator needs a good staff to be effective. In monetary terms it's just a drop in the bucket anyway, and it's money well spent.
3. Finally, let me clear up one misconception -- that legislators neglect their constituents to do... well, something else. This is rarely true. Elected officials know where their bread is buttered. It's far more common for them to focus so much on trying to please their constituents that other matters get neglected.
I would like to second Lexta2000's response to this. Links please! And not some ranting Chomsky fanboy's site either -- I would prefer NYT or WP (they both chronicle the government's every move, so finding these should be no problem), but will also accept CNN, The New Republic, National Review, the LA Times or some other such respectable mid-level source. Policy journals would also be acceptable, since they usually include the actual source of the quotes.
You supply a link, but it's not to the source material. It's just to another piece with the same quote, but again, no context.
The actual source is the first thing that came up when I Googled for the phrase. But's it's easy to see why you didn't provide that link: It completely discredits what you want us to believe.
For those too lazy to click through, here is the actual quote, in context. It's from Bush's address to a joint session of congress after the Sept. 11 attacks:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
In context, he is clearly addressing this to nations (read: Afghanistan) that provide aid or safe haven to terrorists. (Remember, the U.S. only invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to arrest and extradite Bin Laden and his cronies.)
All this is, needless to say, a long way from your "correction" ("If you're not with Bush, you are a terrorist"), and it's something with which the vast majority of reasonable Americans would agree.
There sure is a lot of nonsensical stuff getting modded up today.
Ah, the chickenhawk fallacy. Probably the most debunked logical error in the history of civilization, yet it never seems to die.
It's like saying that we shouldn't have policemen, because we haven't shown that we're willing to personally take the risks associated with fighting crime.
Also, in our case, it requires one to ignore that fact that we have an all-volunteer military, and the folks who sign on do so of their own free will and with a full understanding of the risks it entails.
Finally, a fact I would think would take some of the wind out of your sails is that this particular president, his defense secretary and his foreign policy are hugely popular within the military, the very people you seem to feel so sorry for.
Addendum: How did this get moderated up to insightful? All the succesful armies of history (the Greeks/Macedonians, the Romans, the French under Napolean, you name it) have realized it is tremendously self-defeating to have your leader out there hacking and slashing on the front lines. One of the key reasons for the success of the Mongols is that their field commanders would be perched up on a hill, relaying orders through couriers, while the other guy's leader would be down on the field heroically getting himself killed. Does this mean the Mongol leaders were cowards?
It's always seemed to me that using special open/save dialog boxes was redundant. I mean, what you are doing is trying to locate a specific file or location within the filesystem, right? But there is already a mechanism for doing this -- it's called the finder.
What about a system like this:
You're using a word processing progam. You select "Open." Immediately whatever open documents you are working on are minimized, and a small floating box appears in the corner of the screen. It says, "Please locate the file you would like to open." Perhaps there are buttons to open your docs folder, or the last folder used by that application. And there would be a "Show files of type:" drop-down menu. But otherwise, you would just use the finder to navigate to the file.
I think this would also work for saving. The floating box would have such things as a drop-down list for "Save As", but again, you would just navigate to wherever you wanted to save the file using the finder itself.
- Alaska Jack
Slashdot Mirror
This ties in to something that still makes me laugh when I think about it.
Me, my brother and a friend were in the tiny Liberty Theater in Seward, Alaska, to watch some Star Trek movie in the early 90s. We got there kind of late, and the theater was packed, so we had to sit down in the front, in the second row I think.
There was a furious windstorm outside, and while we were waiting for the movie to start the power went out. Emergency lights came on, but it was still nearly pitch dark.
So sitting there in near total darkness in the tiny but crowded theater, everyone murmuring and squirming and eating popcorn, my brother starts to whistle the theme from Star Trek. I joined in, and pretty soon this entire theater was whistling together, although by then it was kind of hard to whistle since we were all laughing so hard. It was one of the funniest damn things I've ever seen.
It strikes me as deeply meaningful that an anagram for "Flash Mobs" is "Lbs of Ham."
Alaska is seen as more outdoorsy than geeky, and it is (thank God). But if you find yourself up here, be sure to check out the Poker Flats rocket launching site. It's the only non-federal, university owned and operated range in the world and the only high-latitude, auroral-zone rocket launching facility in the U.S. You can find a launch schedule at the website, and the personnel are really into it and enthusiastic about what they do.
That said, few geeks are geekier than marine biology geeks, so if you fall into that category you'd probably like the Alaska SeaLife Center, where you can check out sea lions and puffins and things, and check out their research.
Finally, I want to give a shout out to one supergeeky site that someone else mentioned but was somewhat passed over: The Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. I visited it when I was just a little mini-Alaskan, and was blown away by all the buttons you get to push, levers to pull, etc. Plus, you get to tour a real German U-Boat. 31337! Or, as I would have said at the time, neato!
1. I could just grant you all this, because it obviously has nothing to do with my overall point. I was simply using McKinney as one example of a lone Democrat spouting off loony views. I could just as easily have chosen another example. The larger point of the post remains the same.
3 .h tml
n ne y/news/pr020412.htm
2. However, I don't grant you this. You noted Palast's "diatribic style." That's because he's a left-wing BBC reporter who's never sniffed an anti-American or anti-Israeli angle he didn't like. (For those who don't follow the media, the BBC is under unprecedented scrutiny in England for having fallen under the control of left-wing, bureaucratic hacks who use the tax-supported corporation to push their own views.) This site:
http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2003/06/00003
has a pretty good takedown of the Palast-McKinney thing. Also, here's a press release sent out by McKinney's own office:
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/CynthiaMcKi
Finally, one must ask this: Why, after these charges surfaced in the media, didn't McKinney simply point out she never said all that stuff? That would seem to have been the logical course of action. But she didn't do that, because she couldn't -- everyone (except Greg Palast) would have called her on it.
Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, because your comments are fairly reasonable. But I stand by my point: Taken in context, what Bush quite obviously meant (i.e., you are against us if you provide haven and aid to violent terrorists) is a lot different than what the original post implied (i.e., Bush is a crazed imperialist who believes all them other countries, by golly, better be just like us, or else!).
Here's a simple restatement, as most Americans understand it: The world community can no longer afford to tolerate states that sponsor terrorism -- the threat of the proliferation of WMDs just makes that too big of a risk. And just because some countries feel they might have less to lose by appeasing terrorists, that does not abrogate our responsibilty (or theirs, for that matter). It might mean a difficult, sustained campaign with many setbacks, but in the long run the alternative is worse.
It's not that difficult of a concept. It doesn't mean that ol' bogeyman Bush is itchin' to invade Canada. I suppose he might if the Canadians started strapping dynamite to to their bodies, driving down to Newark and murdering bunches of civilians. But he's not going to do it 'cause they like Hockey, enjoy socialized medicine and pronounce "about" weird.
Finally, you seem to be fine with this, but say the problem is that the definition of terrorism is so nebulous. Huh? I mean, sure, there's a wide variety of things that could fall under the term terrorism, but it's still a fairly clear concept. Can you come up with even a single example of something that Bush would consider terrorism, and both houses of Congress would consider sufficient to authorize military action against, that you yourself would not consider terrorism?
Following are two responses to this. First, here is the answer I typed before I actually went to Congressional Record and read the bit in question:
MY FIRST RESPONSE:
I had the same reaction to this that the Anonymous Coward did (i.e., "That's funny, I don't remember any notable Republicans calling Clinton 'a coward and paranoid' about this").
I didn't think you'd be able to come up with any examples, so I wouldn't deny that you scored a point or two with your reply. But I should point out two things:
First, you didn't say "former Minnesota Senator Rod Grams." You said "all the Republicans," clearly suggesting that it represented some sort of cross-section of contemporary conservative thinking. But you've only cited one instance. Cynthia McKinney strongly implied that Bush knew beforehand about the impending slaughter of potentially 50,000 Americans on 9/11, but I certainly don't believe that represents a cross-section of Democratic thinking. Can you convince us that "all the Republicans" -- or at least a lot of them -- shared Grams' view, as you implied?
Second, you quite explicitly said all these Republicans "called Clinton a coward and paranoid." This could certainly be construed from former Sen. Gram's excerpted comments, and may even be what he meant, but that's not what you said. You said you remembered "all of them" that *called* him a coward and paranoid. I just think being imprecise isn't helpful in these matters.
BELAY THAT! MY SECOND RESPONSE
So I was all ready to submit the above when I noticed that for some reason you hadn't included a link to the Congressional Record. So, out of curiousity, I went there myself.
What I found is that, without that all important "snip," even the article to which you referred doesn't support your thesis very well. Sen. Gram is not criticizing the decision to close down Pennsylvania Avenue (made in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing). He is voicing his agreement with a widespread feeling among D.C. residents that the avenue shouldn't remain closed indefinitely.
Quote: Mr. President, the people of this city who depend on open access to Pennsylvania Avenue say they've accepted the present closure, but they're not going along with the idea that the avenue must be blockaded forever. That case has simply not been made, they say. And I agree.
He doesn't call the president a coward or paranoid. It would take a very strained interpretation to even construe that. Take this quote, for example:
Mr. President, all Americans are deeply concerned about the safety of their President. The security measures used to protect him must be well reasoned, appropriate, and thorough. I don't question the desire to afford him every ounce of security available, but I do question whether we can satisfy that desire without sacrificing the people's freedom.
FULL CIRCLE
Now, let's bring this thing around full circle. You said you "remembered all the Republicans who called Clinton a coward and paranoid," and asked if they were going to apologize. What we have instead is ONE Republican who did not object to the initial street closure, but felt it was appropriate to re-open it after one year.
Then you asked whether AC was "a liar or just ignorant."
How do you respond to this?
Your point's well taken, but I didn't say "mid-line", as in: "Neutral between liberal and conservative." I said "mid-level," as in: "Perhaps not the Washington Post, but not the Weekly World News either; i.e., a respectable news source not known for making things up."
I probably wasn't clear on that.
Also, may I quibble with one of your terms? Neither TNR or NR are *-wing, which I take to mean extremist. They are publications of the mainstream left and right, respectively. I would use the term "left wing" to describe Mother Jones or The Nation. Finding an example of a "right wing" U.S. magazine is a little more problematic, because, though I'm sure there are many, they are mostly little-known rags. I've heard Pat Buchanan's new magazine described as right-wing, but I haven't read it, so I wouldn't know.
(And please, don't anyone respond by listing off the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, or anything like that. Those are all solid mainstream conservative publications, and not right-wing [unless you consider all conservatives to be right wing, which is a whole 'nother matter altogether].)
In the early nineties I worked for the Alaska State Legislature. That was in the early days of e-mail, so we didn't get e-mail messages very often. However, we did have something that sort of worked the same way.
Alaska's capitol is in Juneau, which is not accessible by road. During the legislative session, it is simply not possible for the average citizen to "pop in" to his or her legislators' offices (unless that citizen is a resident of Juneau, of course). So the legislature put up Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) all around the state. One thing people could do at these LIOs was compose and send Public Opinion Messages (POMs) using an LIO computer. These messages were then compiled and sent to the various offices.
One of the problems is that the senders could choose who they wanted their POMs to go to. They could send POMs to their own representatives, or to legislators working on a particular issue, or anyone else. So usually, they'd just send them to *every* legislator.
The problem is this: It quickly became apparent that, if we were going to read all the POMs people sent in, that's all we would ever have time to do. And this was in the second-least-populated state in the Union! We eventually settled on a system where we at least *read* all the POMs from our home district, and even managed to respond to a few. The ones that came in from LIOs outside our district? We didn't even read them. I feel guilty about it to this day--after all, these people had taken the time and energy to go down to their local LIO and compose a message -- but there just wasn't the time or manpower!
A couple of lessons:
1. Want to get a message to a legislator? I know a way that practically guarantees it will be read. Get a pen and piece of paper. Handwrite a short, polite and thoughtful note, using correct grammar and good handwriting. It's always a good idea to work a compliment in there somewhere.
2. I think I share with most /. readers a desire for small, limited government. However, I usually disagree with those who want to slash legislative staff (in all three senses of the word!). In our complex world, a legislator needs a good staff to be effective. In monetary terms it's just a drop in the bucket anyway, and it's money well spent.
3. Finally, let me clear up one misconception -- that legislators neglect their constituents to do ... well, something else. This is rarely true. Elected officials know where their bread is buttered. It's far more common for them to focus so much on trying to please their constituents that other matters get neglected.
I would like to second Lexta2000's response to this. Links please! And not some ranting Chomsky fanboy's site either -- I would prefer NYT or WP (they both chronicle the government's every move, so finding these should be no problem), but will also accept CNN, The New Republic, National Review, the LA Times or some other such respectable mid-level source. Policy journals would also be acceptable, since they usually include the actual source of the quotes.
Utterly, utterly fascinating.
You supply a link, but it's not to the source material. It's just to another piece with the same quote, but again, no context.
The actual source is the first thing that came up when I Googled for the phrase. But's it's easy to see why you didn't provide that link: It completely discredits what you want us to believe.
For those too lazy to click through, here is the actual quote, in context. It's from Bush's address to a joint session of congress after the Sept. 11 attacks:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
In context, he is clearly addressing this to nations (read: Afghanistan) that provide aid or safe haven to terrorists. (Remember, the U.S. only invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to arrest and extradite Bin Laden and his cronies.)
All this is, needless to say, a long way from your "correction" ("If you're not with Bush, you are a terrorist"), and it's something with which the vast majority of reasonable Americans would agree.
There sure is a lot of nonsensical stuff getting modded up today.
Ah, the chickenhawk fallacy. Probably the most debunked logical error in the history of civilization, yet it never seems to die.
It's like saying that we shouldn't have policemen, because we haven't shown that we're willing to personally take the risks associated with fighting crime.
Also, in our case, it requires one to ignore that fact that we have an all-volunteer military, and the folks who sign on do so of their own free will and with a full understanding of the risks it entails.
Finally, a fact I would think would take some of the wind out of your sails is that this particular president, his defense secretary and his foreign policy are hugely popular within the military, the very people you seem to feel so sorry for.
Addendum: How did this get moderated up to insightful? All the succesful armies of history (the Greeks/Macedonians, the Romans, the French under Napolean, you name it) have realized it is tremendously self-defeating to have your leader out there hacking and slashing on the front lines. One of the key reasons for the success of the Mongols is that their field commanders would be perched up on a hill, relaying orders through couriers, while the other guy's leader would be down on the field heroically getting himself killed. Does this mean the Mongol leaders were cowards?
Re your sig - You may find this helpful:
Volokh Archive Cheers.
It's always seemed to me that using special open/save dialog boxes was redundant. I mean, what you are doing is trying to locate a specific file or location within the filesystem, right? But there is already a mechanism for doing this -- it's called the finder. What about a system like this: You're using a word processing progam. You select "Open." Immediately whatever open documents you are working on are minimized, and a small floating box appears in the corner of the screen. It says, "Please locate the file you would like to open." Perhaps there are buttons to open your docs folder, or the last folder used by that application. And there would be a "Show files of type:" drop-down menu. But otherwise, you would just use the finder to navigate to the file. I think this would also work for saving. The floating box would have such things as a drop-down list for "Save As", but again, you would just navigate to wherever you wanted to save the file using the finder itself. - Alaska Jack