The Straight Dope 08/26/2005

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 08/26/2005

Dear Cecil:

Exactly what was the deal with Operation Able Archer? I
was right smack in the middle of that whole thing (as a
soldier stationed in Germany), but I still don't know
what exactly happened except that a number of history
books hint that we were actually closer to war in October
1983 than we were during the Cuban missile crisis. 
--Bill Owen, Cincinnati

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday,
or bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing!
See http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

It's a stretch to say we were closer. The Cuban missile
crisis was a real showdown over a real issue, and many on
both sides feared--and a few hawks hoped--that the
confrontation would end in war. In contrast, the Able
Archer incident (the pivotal moment came in November,
incidentally, not October) was mainly a manifestation of
Soviet jitters during the regime's twilight years. U.S.
officials didn't know anything was up at first and were
surprised to learn of the frantic atmosphere in Moscow.
Still, the possibility that the world would be vaporized
over a misunderstanding was a constant fear during the
cold war (I won't claim the threat has entirely subsided
now), and in 1983 we drifted closer to the edge than one
likes to think.

According to a 1997 CIA analysis by Benjamin Fischer, the
incident had its roots in Soviet anxiety over the U.S.
defense buildup that began during the Carter
administration. The Russians knew they couldn't compete
and feared they would soon be outgunned. Possibly they
were also spooked by stepped-up probes of their
early-warning intelligence system and other mind games
played by the American military starting shortly after
Ronald Reagan took office. Whatever the impetus, Soviet
leaders persuaded themselves that the U.S. was planning a
sneak nuclear attack and in 1981 ordered their spies to
look for evidence in an effort incongruously code-named
RYAN, the Russian acronym for "nuclear missile
attack."

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050826.html

STAFF REPORT

Dear Straight Dope:

A legal story in the news stirred up a long-running
question of mine: What is the difference between pleading
"guilty" and "no contest"? Online research suggests the
line between the two is fairly thin--it seems that
pleading "no contest" provides some measure of insurance
against civil suits arising from a criminal conviction. I
still don't get it. If "no contest" is just "guilty" with
benefits, why bother to have "guilty" hanging around like
some second string quarterback? --Brian

Guest contributor Bricker replies:

There are some key differences between "no contest" (or
if you wish to be lawyerly, "nolo contendere") and
"guilty."

To begin with, it's important to understand the
requirements for a guilty plea. A court can't simply
accept a guilty plea from a defendant; the judge must be
convinced that the plea has a factual basis. Generally,
this means that when a guilty plea is entered, the state
must provide a summary of its case, telling the judge in
essence, "Had we gone to trial, the state would have
offered the following evidence." In addition, the
defendant is often required to admit, in his own words,
exactly what he did. This is called allocution, and is
part of the factual basis the judge needs to accept the
plea. In addition, the judge must engage the defendant in
a colloquy, a short discussion to ensure that the accused
understands the effects of his plea and the rights he's
giving up.

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnocontest.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC - 08/15/1986

Dear Cecil: 

This is entirely on the level. It is also the kind of
question only you can answer. What did people use before
toilet paper was invented? --Name withheld, Baltimore 

Cecil replies:  

You should thank your lucky stars you live in the twentieth
century, bucko. Let me tell you about ... corncobs. You
may not believe this, but it was once common practice in 
rural America to leave a corncob hanging from a string in the
outhouse for purposes of personal hygiene. The string, I 
gather, was to permit the cob to be reused. For those who
were punctilious in these matters, or else blessed with an
abundance of corncobs, a box of disposable cobs might be
provided instead. In coastal regions, the cob might be replaced
by a mussel shell.  For those who had access to it, paper from
discarded books or newspapers was often preferred to
either of the foregoing. The meteoric growth of the Sears
Roebuck company, for instance, is thought to be partly
attributable to the protean nature of its catalogs,
which, historians tells us, might serve a family of
regular habits for an entire season. As with the cob, the
catalog would be hung in the outhouse on a string and
pages torn off as needed. It is said the use of coated
stock, which was nonabsorbent, was a source of great
consternation to farm families when Sears began printing
color pictures in the catalog earlier in this century. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_373.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2005 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day
http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive
daily laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]