Alaskan crooks update

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?

This, quite frankly, is a cheap shot. I can’t imagine that Miller is not as appalled by this as I am.

Here’s the quote which the author characterizes as the accused being friends with Miller:

Pretty weak, if you ask me.

It didn’t stop the other side from tying Obama to Ayers, so I guess somebody figured paybacks was okay. But yeah, it’s weak.

? What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Sounds like it’s intended to be a “walk softly but carry a big stick” sentiment.

“We don’t start anything, but we do finish it.”

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.

Or, the Roosevelt quote. :smiley:

I like the Schulz quote: “Speak softly, and carry a beagle.”

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.

Haven’t been to Juneau since about 2001. Prior to that, it was 40 years or so. I was born there, but we moved to Anchorage when I was 10.

You’re probably from one of the “old” Juneau Democrat families, like me. I got on the right meds and I’m better now.

What’s the reverse of the No True Scotsman fallacy? Is there a name for it? If not, I propose we call it the “All True Juneauan” fallacy.

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.