Comments by Ian_Dickson
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on March 30 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that this is a terrible editorial. I remember hearing about other cities targeting chronic inebriation through localized bans on high alcohol beers and wines. One would think that a newspaper would have the wherewithall to find out if those bans have helped. Prohibitionist initiatives have a poor track record. Is there any reason to think this will turn out differently? NEWS MINER EDITORIAL STAFF: Go ahead and research the issues you write about. It's part of your job.
Frankly, I'm much more worried about the drunks in cars, who will not be affected by this kind of ban. I, too, frequently drive late at night and early in the morning, and I'm always glad to see the police out there in force. I have never been pulled over (in Alaska), and if I ever am, I figure I'll just blow a .000 and be on my way.
Still, there's no getting around the fact that our DUI penalties are not preventing people from driving drunk. Jail time isn't the answer, because it's too expensive and too abstract to act as a deterrent. The mandatory class for offenders is, by all accounts, a joke (though it's a nice place to meet like-minded people). Why not just take their cars and permanently revoke their licenses? Harsh, but it beats them destroying my car and permanently revoking my life. And maybe we'd finally get some decent mass transit in this town.
Posted on March 29 at 3:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Griff: I put a fluorescent bulb in my driveway light, just to see if it would work. It does, even at 45 below. It takes a few seconds to get going, and it isn't very bright, but it's more than adequate to start my car, feed my dogs, etc. The snow reflects a lot light, so even a dim bulb is surprisingly effective.
If you need a lot of light outside, then yes, they're worthless. If you just need to find the dog bowls without stepping into a hole or something, then they're okay.
Posted on March 29 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
d_bones: I only started following this sport recently. Could you tell me more about King and his alleged trail marker stealing? I thought that he was playing a bit of dirty game against Mackey in the Iditarod (following, in plain sight, for several days when he clearly could have taken the lead), and I liked the way that Mackey finally burned him, so I'd love to hear more about this.
On Seavey dogs King in final miles of All Alaska Sweepstakes
Posted on March 26 at 1:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Forget this DUI stuff--what about that Verney guy punching that other guy for letting someone else play his hand? Totally justified, right?
Posted on March 25 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Brian. Do you think you could explain clearly your objection to this conference?
Posted on March 25 at 1:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gopking: So if your next door neighbor turned his yard into a gravel mine, you'd be cool with that?
Posted on March 24 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
> "Your previous posts lead me to believe that your comment is entirely tongue in cheek."
Yeah, I was just thinking that this could get ugly. I was a vegetarian for ten years, but I'm not now, and I really don't care what anybody else does or does not eat. (Unless it's people. I don't think we should eat people except in very special adrift-at-sea type circumstances.) That said, one can have an incredibly unhealthy vegetarian diet or an incredibly unhealthy non-vegetarian diet. I'm speaking from experience.
Posted on March 24 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, lord. This guy is writing to the wrong paper.
Posted on March 23 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
candikane: I'm sorry, you're right. I think I let my anger at Starman affect the way that I read your and gregg's comments. I thought that Ms. Schnichnes had written an excellent letter that included everything a reader needed to carry on, if they so desired. For future reference, if you have the number of a house or senate bill, there's a good chance that the state's newspapers have written about the bill and the associated issue. Just do a google search on the bill number with a relevant keyword of two. Example: sb 227 sudan alaska. In this case, it took maybe two or three minutes to find what I was looking for.
Ms. VanDam, nobody said that everything one reads in the news is credible. However, any competent critical thinker should be able to tell that Ms. Schniches is not a crackpot. She has the names of the house and senate bills, she offers verifiable background info, and she keeps the emotional aspect of her appeal to a minimum. Also, she has absolutely nothing to gain from this.
That doesn't mean that one should just bow down and do what she says, but it does mean that she has done her job, and the onus is on the reader to find out more if the reader wants to. Certainly there is nothing in her letter to justify dismissing her as someone "who reads a tidbit from the cover of a supermarket tabloid and takes it for Gospel," as Starman did.
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on March 30 at 3:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Groceries are bad for alcoholics. If they eat food, they can drink more. Sorry, citizen. Enjoy those weeds. It's for the greater good.
On Thanks for nothing