Damn, one of the many Republican criminals in the Alaska legislature got off with probation by pleading guilty to corruption charges, and another one who is already in prison is getting a new trial courtesy of the federal appeals court. This is all fallout from the VECO scandal that eventually cost Ted Stevens his seat in the US Senate. Five or six Pubs went to jail after it was all over, and the next election evened up the Senate to the point where it had to form a bipartisan coalition, which is working surprisingly well. At least their political careers are hopefully over.
In other news, Joe Miller, who challenged Lisa Murkowski in the last US Senate race, has been tied to the militia leader who was just arrested for murder conspiracy along with his brethren. Paling around with terrorists, Joe? What would Sarah say?
Nitpick: If you’re referring to the Roosevelt quote, it’s Speak softly and carry a big stick’, from the African proverb ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.’
I can’t help but think of the related quote by Yosemite Sam: ‘I speak loud and I carry a biiiiger stick! And I use it too!’
No no no, I was referring to the old Shaolin proverb, meaning walk softly to sneak up on the old man, then use a stick to beat him senseless so he can’t see the footprints on the rice paper and complain about me prying those damn beans out of his hand.
Sounds like many, many, many conversations I had with Democrats while growing up in Juneau. Usually these conversations came from state workers high on drink or drugs in local bars down on South Franklin Street. Are you posting from the Imperial or the Triangle? A better class of people post from the Triangle. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
I now have a glancing understanding of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, courtesy of Wikipedia, but I’m not crystal clear on what it’s reverse might be. The reverse of a fallacy might be taken to be a general truth. We could start a thread on whether stereotypes contain valid observations–you go first on that one.
I guess that you mean I assumed our interlocuter was a Juneauite and he turned out to be living in Anchorage, having been born in Juneau and escaped as a youth (unclear if he’s a state worker, raised by a Juneau Democrat family, or posting in a bar–I could still be right on one or more of these). It’s like hearing a Scottish brogue, and assuming its owner has a ruddy complexion, is standing in a pub wearing a kilt, and with pipe in hand: It cannot be counted on as literally true, but neither is it an unthinkable proposition in one particular or another. One might generalize for effect and hazard a small bet on it.
The POV in “Alaskan Crooks Update,” and the manner of expressing it, have an immediate familiarity. I could produce startling evidence for this in the form of emails from someone still living in Juneau and filling all of the qualifications I cited, were I willing to betray a trust, which I am not. No True Juneauite would likely differ much: I placed a bet. Was I wholly wrong, or only substantially wrong?
As in, you jumped to the conclusion that Chefguy was a Juneauite, then he corrected you, and then you said that he must still be a real Juneauite, anyway.
