The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Tim Kyger:

#47: Sumner. Yep. He's got my vote. Good call.

Perhaps also, then, John Qunicy Adams. Or did he just go back to the House? I forget.

I guess I need a primer on what cursing is allowed here, or not. I didn't think that it was that complicated.

I am soooooo sorry for my thoughtcrimes. I won't let it happen again.

Of course, you all *will* take the opportunity to curse at me at will. So be it. Freedom of speech and all.

I just think it's tacky, is all, something that doesn't seem to bother some of you when it's *your* turn to do it.

Tom Whitmore:

You have it dead on right, as you almost always do.

I might pick as one of the greatest Senators of the 20th Century (something I haven't given much thought to, in case the rest of you don't read very carefully) Lyndon B. Johnson. The man got the 1957 Civil Rights Bill passed, against the sheer total objections and wall of solid opposition of the rest of the Democratic Party, opening the way for the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts.

I frankly think that's much more of an important event, in historical terms, than anything Ted Kennedy did in his legislative career.

That comment will be intrepreted as a slam against Ted Kennedy. It isn't. I just think that his accomplisments don't compare to the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act in terms of what it took to accomplish. YOUR MILAGE MAY VARY ON THIS OPINION -- I don't expect everyone, or even *anyone,* to necessairly agree.

And there is a point about Henry Clay being a slaveowner. I'd forgotten that. I retrack my mentioning of him, which was, after all, just a casual, off the top of my head instance. He's just this big name in American History, is all; he's in the history books as a major Senator, slaveowning and all.

As is George Washington, too, which doesn't absolve him. But better Washington than Ole' Massa Tom Jefferson, who didn't manumit at his death.

Just a passing opinion. I have it in for Jefferson.

OK, #52. Y'r fckng cnt.

There. Does that raise the tone of the argument here? I don't want to silence it, after all. I take it by the implications in your posting that it's OK to do this, to curse at others, as you do, y slly-ss shthd.

Either the discussion is civil, or it isn't. I'd prefer that it be civil.

Or is it that only that you* get to decide that?

Look, I don't have a problem with Ted Kennedy being thought of as a great senator. *He was.* What bothers me here is the lack of any historical distance of any sort whatsoever, due to all involved being so close in time to his life.

Re #49: (who I think is a sockpuppet. Hello, there, Teresa).

Ah, the vaunted calm, rational discussion of the Left.

I have a running battle with my 13 year old daugher, trying to keep her from using the verb "fucking" (or as an adjective). It's been a losing battle so far, alas. I see that it was also one for your parents, too.

We parents are such loooosers. *sigh*

Serge, at #34:

It's a silly place, isn't it? ("Its only a model." -- Patsy.)

All the rest: Sorry about the misspellings. Isn't there a spell checker around here somewhere?

(I'm typing this at work on a work computer (Social Security Administration, FWIW) and don't have access to one...)

How about, right off the top of my head, Harry Truman?

It's not that Ted Kenneddy wasn't a *good* senator, perhaps even a great one (that's a matter of opinon only), but he surely wasn't the GREATEST one in 200-plus years of history.

What about Henry Clay, again, off the top of my head?

As to reviewing his career...well, this man was one of the greatest foes of the space program there ever was. And he was *effective* at it, too.

Furthermore, the man got away with manslaughter. Why? Because he was rich. If I'd done what he'd done, I'd still be in prison, as I am poor, and always have been.

Despite all this, I got to work with EMK and his staff, and he *was* a geniually nice guy -- which can't be said of most of the folks in the Senate (or in the house). He could laugh at himself, and at jokes on "him."

He'd probably be very embarrassed at the lionization, nay, the very saint-hood-making process that is occuring.

Greatest senator in all of U.S. history? Again, I say, give me a break. Yep: Important one, no doubt. Perhaps the most important in the last couple of decades (again, that might be open to argument). But in all of U.S. history? C'mon.

The greatest senator in U.S. history?

Oh, give me a *break.*

Jim (63) ---

Most of the follks here (IHMO; YMMV), are deep in a monoculture of thought, and views like yours -- that perhaps there really *isn't* some vast consipiracy -- isn't one that is taken seriously. It violates The Narrative. And Story, as we are told, is much more important than Plot -- or facts that might also be on another side of the Story in addition to those that *are* on the side of the Story. One set is accepted; the others are dismissed. Despite both being true.

Jim, I would also note that most, if not all, of the folks commenting here don't seem (as far as I can see) to have had any real actual experience in politics as it is actually practiced in D.C., or elsewhere. I've been working as a political professional (i.e., paid to get actual *results*) for about 20 years now, so I think I'm entiled to some sort of opinion here. Even if it's wrong (which it may very well be.)

Teresa -- you go to Wikipedia (!!!) for *facts*?! Sheesh.

My wife (the *active*, walking-precints Democrat of 20 years), having looked at all of what is being said here, is appaled at the sheer Sillyness of the discussions, and wonders why I bother to pay any attention to any of this. So do I. But it's somehow sickly fascinating. It's like watching a train wreck to see the incredible amounts of posturing needed by everyone to fit Story to outside facts -- somewhat like the blog-political equalvalent of the movie "Saw."

I'm posting this at 2:22. I give it until 2:25 for disemvowellment. I haven't been personal or anything, I think, but this message *will* be eviscerated. So much for opposing viewpoints and their "tolerance." Can't rattle the Narrative/Story ya know...

No one thinks that "The Hill" is *the* big newspaper of Capitol Hill except the editors and publishers of "The Hill." "Roll Call" is, has, and will always be The One.

Amateur.

July 16th, to try to redeem the date a little bit, is also the launch date for Apollo 11.

I think the second most important thing Arthur C. Clarke ever did
with his life is going completely uncommented on. At least *I* haven't
seen any real mention of it yet.

First, of course, is his paper in "Wireless World" on geocomsats.
That was seminal, and ultimately changed the world for the better. An
*incredibly* positive change too (IMHO anyway). As Clarke himself has
it as the title of one of his books of non-fiction, "How The World Was
One."

But second, and mayhap just as important, was his proselytizing for
space throughout the 1950s. His book *Interplanetary Flight* was a Book
of the Month Club selection in 1950, and was the greatest sales job for
astronautics to that date reaching thousands of people who previously
had dismissed space travel as "just science fiction" (this sales job
was only eclipsed two years later by the von Braun articles in
*Colliers* magazine in 1952). He continued to write articles on
astronautics throughout the 1950s, placing them as well as he could in
magazines like "Holiday," "Harper's," and even "Seventeen" (!). (And
yes, I know that the sales to "Holiday" were made easier by Alfred
Bester being there. And I know about the BOTMC sf-world connection too.)

Great SF writer: Yep. 2001? Check. Clarke Orbit? Got it.

But he was also the man who sold the Moon.

There isn't going to be a draft. Period.

General Lute was shooting his mouth off. He's been sat on about it since.

All of us here in the (um, uh) are holding our hands to our heads and going, jeez, why did he *say* that and make everyone's life so much harder?!

There isn't going to be a draft. Fa ghu's sake, think instead of merely reacting. How, for example, would you get one enacted into law?! Think, people!

I'm at work, catching up on my surfing during a break. I came by Making Light, and I read Patrick's latest Particle. The last time I had a comment on a Particle, I did it in private email to pnh, and Patrick was emphatic that I should post here instead, in front of everyone.

Patrick, your comment about Ellen Tauscher shows how ignorant you are of how Washington works. *TAUSHER* didn't write that letter; some 19 or 20-year-old intern did (It's summer time and we flog the interns with having to do this crappy job). The issue isn't Tausher's intelligence (which I know nothing about one way or the other) but the operation of her office staff. Who is supervising the interns who are doing the mail-answering scut work? Anyone? Bueller?

Letters had to go through at least two other layers of scrutinity in the two Congessional offices I worked in -- and you can be sure that my principal -- the Senator or the Congressman I worked for -- had no idea of what letters I *ever* wrote.

Tauscher is guilty of having a problem on her staff, or with her staff, or with the organization of her office; a letter like that should have *never* been mailed out.

And until the blogosphere makes her staff aware of it, um, she won't be aware of it. Nor will her staff be.

Letters to Congresscritters don't mean much, folks -- not most of the time. (That's the subject of a couple of thousand words on techniques of what works and what doesn't...) And that's why the interns are doing it, when they're in the offices on the Hill during the summer. The LA's get to foist their letter-answering job (done in addition to their core job) off on the interns. A learning experience! Heh.

He lost.

Thank god.

It's got a great beat; it's easy to dance to -- I give it an "8."

I invite those two good doctors to come over to my house and stay for a day. They can take care of my two children, both with ADHD. They can take care of them without them having had their meds. Kathy and I, in the meantime, will go off and take a well-deserved day off somewhere else.

When we return, both those doctors will be drooling idiots.

Crap.

Why is every one around me dying?! (Yes, I do know why...)

Crap.

Yes, and hello there Ken also! Good to see, um, you.

Apologies to all in Michigan for getting the locations of towns and area codes mixed up. I *did* look at a map however. Obviously not closely enough.

Bill Higgins -- I need to give you a call...

I was -- and I am totally serious here -- under the impression that current scholarship, new documents, and better translations had determined that the number cited in "Revelations" was *actually* "616." Really.

Am I that naive? Or is this indeed the case?

This *is*, BTW, the area code for Hell, Michigan. Coincidence?

Connect the dots, people.

Comment statistics for Tim Kyger on the Making Light blog

Total: 83 comments. View all these comments on a single page.