Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (Score 1) 346

by Alaska Jack (#47420915) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis


I have no dog in this fight -- I wouldn't know Watt from Adam. I'm only commenting because I'm curious -- you do realize, right, then when people talk about how the science gets drowned out by immature idiots spouting partisan garbage, that they're talking about people like you? Right?

lllll AJ

Comment: I don't believe a word of it. Here's why. (Score 1) 318

by Alaska Jack (#47420863) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere

If there's one thing the big Obamacare debates on Slashdot taught me, it's that the government CAN be trusted to faithfully and competently handle giant, complex projects. The government exists outside your petty notions of supply and demand. I am sure -- SURE -- that these problems must be imaginary.

lllll AJ

Comment: I, simply, don't believe it. (Score 1) 265

by Alaska Jack (#47327987) Attached to: Tech Workforce Diversity At Facebook Similar To Google And Yahoo

My entire life, I've been told diversity is a critical component of success -- building a robust and varied environment out of people from a range of different experiences, etc.

Now you're telling me that two of the most successful companies on the entire planet are, in fact, super homogeneous?

Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything I was indoctrinated to believe.

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:Not so fast, cowboy ... (Score 1) 723

by Alaska Jack (#46718045) Attached to: Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

Good point. It was also a little surreal to have the SC rule that the mandate was, in effect, a tax, when the official position of the administration -- i.e., the ones pushing the law in the first place -- was that it was NOT a tax.

See here, for just one of many examples:

"The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. " --

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:in other words... (Score 1) 341

by Alaska Jack (#45902379) Attached to: The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

You don't understand.

*I* was going to refer the the "fireman first" principle -- I just didn't think I needed to.

The fireman-first principle (Or Washington Monument syndrome) is a *conservative/libertarian* argument, not a progressive one. Notice how it is attributed to National Review? It basically states that when taxpayers express a wish to scale back the size or scope of government, politicians often fight to preserve it by threatening to cut, not areas that are wasteful or inessential, but essential or highly visible government services -- like firemen.

That this principle exists does not mean that National Review doesn't think the size or scope of government should be restrained. It doesn't mean "Oh well, politicians will threaten to cut the police force, so we should just keep feeding the beast." As even a moment's thought would make obvious, I would have thought.

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:Cranky for a military takeover, are we? (Score 1) 341

by Alaska Jack (#45901557) Attached to: The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

1. As demonlapin points out, you don't understand how tax brackets work.

2. Tax experts have pointed out, literally hundreds of times, that the attacks against Romney's income tax rate were politically motivated sound-bites meant to outrage people like you, who don't understand how taxes work. Here are just a couple of links:

It took me ten seconds to google "Romney tax myths"

3. Your source includes no claim or evidence that Romney "cheats on [his] taxes." The ones who decide whether or not a person is "cheating on his taxes" is the IRS. To my knowledge, the IRS has never accused or indicted Romney of tax fraud. Please tell us all how you know otherwise.

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:in other words... (Score 2, Insightful) 341

by Alaska Jack (#45901437) Attached to: The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

"Blindly "tightening the purse strings" leads to those parts of government that are good and useful to be sacrificed first, while the partisan and corrupt parts better defend themselves and their budgets. So, instead of a progressive nation of healthy, happy, nutritionally fed, employed, well educated citizens in a nation focused on freedom, scientific and technological advancement, we have become the secretive spymasters and bullies of the world, looking for the next war to line the pockets of the oligarchs, while the bigoted, ignorant masses fight from paycheck to paycheck, if they can find a job, until they die from easily preventable disease, if they survive the worst infant mortality rate of any first world nation."

There's no evidence for this, and a moment's thought will reveal that it flies in the face of common sense and historical evidence. As the federal government has grown, it has steadily expanded its scope far beyond what the framers seem to have intended... and it's consumed more money to do so.

"The worst infant mortality" part just shows your bias. It's been shown time and time again that this claim is misleading. (In a nutshell, it's because the US counts nearly every pregnancy, even those where the fetus is for various reasons given very little chance of survival. Other countries "write off" these problematic pregnancies and births. This is how Cuba, for example, claims to have a lower IM rate that the US, which is preposterous given the level of care available there.)

"Instead of demanding that the money be taken away, we should be demanding that the places where the money is being mis-spent be stopped"


lllll AJ

Comment: Re:Mob or no mob, this was DUMB (Score 1) 399

by Alaska Jack (#45770121) Attached to: Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, and the Dangers of a Righteous Mob

Erich -

These are good questions, but see my two other comments in this thread.

I could care less about defending this girl, and I can certainly agree it was stupid to send out any tweet about race or AIDS that could in any way be misconstrued.

But that doesn't change the fact (I believe) that people ARE misconstruing it.

As I've noted, the tweet makes far more sense if you read it as sarcasm, and imagine the girl giving an eye-roll as she says it.

Again, one can still say it was stupid, especially for a PR professional. But while that would suggest that she (at least occasionally) has bad professional judgement, having poor judgement is much less of a sexy crime than being a racist.

(And note that, if you read the tweet as sarcasm, it would in fact suggest she is anti-racism, since she was *parodying* what she sees as racist ideas).

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:What if she hates what is going on there? (Score 1) 399

by Alaska Jack (#45770085) Attached to: Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, and the Dangers of a Righteous Mob

SCHecklerX -

Actually, as I noted in my comment upthread, that's the only context in which the tweet itself makes any sense.

I have no interest in "spinning" it. I'm not a progressive, and I suspect this girl is. I think she expected that her "followers" all knew her to a certain degree, and would know she was being sarcastic.

People should try this: Read the tweet in question. Then, read it again, this time picturing the girl rolling her eyes as she says it. Takes on completely different meaning, doesn't it?

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? (Score 1) 399

by Alaska Jack (#45770023) Attached to: Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, and the Dangers of a Righteous Mob

Jah-Wren -

You are right, and 95 percent of the super-justified, self-righteous commenters on here are just making themselves sound foolish.

The tweet only makes sense as a work of sarcasm -- like walking outside during a rainstorm and saying "Wow -- great day!" In person, the way you convey sarcasm is with a turn of voice and an eyeroll. We all do things like this all the time. It's just that allowance for this type of expression don't exist on Twitter.

I am not a progressive and have little sympathy for that worldview. But it's relatively obvious to me that this girl is a progressive who was sarcastically *parodying* the white-privilege view put forth in her tweet. She obviously thought her "followers" would understand that.

This fact, which you've picked up on, has gone over the heads of nearly everyone else here. No one even wants to stop for a second and actually think about it.

lllll AJ

This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion of the contents may have occurred during shipment.