I don't have the words ...

[cosmolinguist]

An indefinite delay of this fall's elections is exactly the sort of thing about which I would usually yell, 'That's it, I'm moving to Canada!' ... except this time I realised that I'm out of the country already. Yay!

If they take away the election, though, I really will have all the more reason to want to stay here. The US may still have the people I know and all the things I remember, but if such a thing happens this fall it will no longer bear any resemblance to the country I know and call mine.

The resemblence has been growing steadily fainter as it is, but I've done what I can--ranting and signing petitions and protesting. I can hold off a total breakdown only because I remember some crucial points from my civics classes: there are checks and balances, there's the constitution to uphold, there are chances to elect new people every few years.

But after the presdient got elected in a court decision instead of by popular vote (not even electoral college vote), after the House, Senate, and Supreme Court and presidency all became full of Republicans who bully the pansy Democrats around, after the Patriot Act was passed, after the Homeland Security department was formed, after Bush beat up Afghanistan without catching Osama bin Laden and then never mentioned him again, after the claims of non-existent WMD as justification for the all-too-extant subsequent invasion of Iraq ...

And now this threat to delay the election indefinitely, due to yet another promise of vague terrorist action. This 'Homeland Security' department has repeatedly bothered US citizens with announcing their 'orange alerts', making the helpful suggestion of duct tape and plastic, saying that the terrorists are just dying to attack us during the Christmas season or on the next September 11 ... (Of course, every time we've been told that we should be especially scared for a while, it's come to naught.) Why do we put up with this?

I've heard that if you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water it'll jump right out. But if you put it in the pot when the water's cool and let it heat gradually, the frog will just sit there and it will die. Even if that's not true, I still think it is true that these things can sneak up on you, and the results can be deadly.

Comments

[kalieris.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think the whole "well, gee, that can't happen here" (in reference to the suspension of what we have come to believe are inviolable checks/balances and rights) is going to slow down a lot of people's reaction times. Like watching an avalanche.

*puts forehead against the ladies' room wall and whimpers quietly*

[cosmolinguist]

Yeah, I've gotten myself all worked up now ... so I'm going to go read a book about penises and forget about the dicks running my country. :-)

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

I saw this "plan" on the news yesterday and then heard some more about it this morning...and even though there's already such a plan--I think it falls under all that war powers act stuff...I think it is just another in a long line of political blunders that people have over-looked about Bush and friends...

Personally, I thought to myself, "Who thought this was a good idea to announce to the press?" All it does is feed the fires of "conspiracy" and "coup" which are already on the lips of people regarding this presidency.

Between this and the report that more conservatives are coming out from behind their woodsheds in support of the "anti-gay marriage admendment" being proposed by Bush, I figure the guy has already decided the November election is over and he lost.

It was stupid to announce such a plan regarding the election. But I'm damn glad Bush said it, it will force an otherwise non-voting public to rush to the polls and oust this lunatic.

[cosmolinguist]

Yeah, I think Bush has definitely done enough damage. It saddens me to think that, even if we got a new president who was dedicated to fixing Iraq and giving our supposedly-inalienable rights back and undoing everything else Bush has done, it would still take a very long time to make things better. It makes me tired just thinking about it.

[(Anonymous)]

The election isn't going to be postponed. Congress is just debating what to do in case of a massive terrorist attack on the eve on the election, and some congressmen are talking about postponing the election if that happens. Congress can debate anything...there's no law that says Congress can't debate bad ideas.

It's not going to happen, though. If the US could hold elections during the Civil War (1862, 1864), it can hold elections now. Contrary to what you probably think, Republicans aren't stupid.....they know that postponing an election is not good politics. And from a practical point-of-view, Republicans would *want* to hold an election right after a catastrophe, because Bush will likely be the beneficiary if that happens (voters rally around conservatives when they get scared, not liberals).

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

"...Republicans aren't stupid.....they know that postponing an election is not good politics. And from a practical point-of-view, Republicans would *want* to hold an election right after a catastrophe, because Bush will likely be the beneficiary if that happens (voters rally around conservatives when they get scared, not liberals). "

Well, I'd take exception to that first part--especially considering who the republican party annointed to the presidency.

And the comment further underscores my own personal theory that conservatives are actually sheep and so-called liberals actually think--especially in times of crisis--and act rationally.

[cosmolinguist]

Knock it off. Not all Republicans are stupid. I would've happily voted for one in the last election if he hadn't lost to Bush in the primaries. And again, you're making claims--this time about people's thinking habits--without any proof. I don't think the comment was particularly stupid... and s/he does have at least the precedent to point to: the US did indeed rally round their president after 9/11.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Well, goody for you for wanting to vote in a republican. Yip-fucking-pee. I didn't make a comment about people's personal "thinking" habits, just--as is my Constitionally protected (at least for the moment) right to do--voiced my own theory. Unfortuately for me, it doesn't square with your view of the world. Oh well.

[(Anonymous)]

Supposedly this election postponement thing came about when the head of the federal election commission contacted Homeland Security, and asked if anyone had the authority to postpone the election in the event of a catastrophe (like in New York in 2001, when the primary was postponed by a couple weeks due to 9/11). Apparently, *no one* has the authority to postpone a federal election, so the head of the commission asked Congress to write a law giving Homeland Security that power. That's where we stand right now....and some people in Congress are debating the idea. I'd be shocked if the election gets postponed for any reason though, barring a national catastrophe (such as a nuclear attack).

You have to remember, we have a constitution in the US. It's the law of the land. Yes, it can be interpreted in different ways, but no one debates that elections must be held on schedule, every 2 to 6 years (depending on the office). It's happened like clockwork for over 200 years now.....elections are at the very heart of what makes America work. It's not an institution you want to tamper with....the only way we've tampered with it over the years is to give more people the right to vote.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

"conservatives are actually sheep and so-called liberals actually think--especially in times of crisis--and act rationally."
"I didn't make a comment about people's personal "thinking" habits,"
I don't know about you, but to me that first comment looks a teensy, tiny, little bit like a comment on people's thinking...

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's just a theory.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

Actually it isn't, and that's one of the more egregious misuses of language that get my goat more than anything, because it allows creationists to say "Evolution is just a theory". It's a *hypothesis* - and what's more, a false one. If you are, as you claim, a writer, you really should pay more attention to the words you use:

`This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.


In science, a hypothesis can only attain the status of theory when it has been rigorously tested - a theory is a model, consistent with all known data, that explains an observable natural law and to which not one counterexample has been found. The misuse of this word tends to promote ignorance and misconception, and by promoting this misuse by example you are helping to strengthen the hand of those who wish to promote lies, superstition and ignorance in American schools. Evolution by natural selection is a theory, your idea is 'just a hypothesis'.

My own misuse of language

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

'"Evolution is just a theory". It's a *hypothesis* - and what's more, a false one. '

"It" here of course referring to gfjames' idea, rather than to evolution.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Since it's my idea, I'll call it whatever I want. When you have an "idea," you can call it whatever youwant. And if that don't satisfy ya, too damn bad.

That's the joy of being a cheeky American, I get to apply the language whatever way I see fit.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Quite frankly though, it doesn't make a lick of difference if it was a theory or not. It WAS a comment, and thus you were commenting on people's thinking.

QED

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

Apply language whichever way you want, just realise the effects you are having by so doing. Personally I choose not to use language in such a way as to play into the hands of the religious right and give ammunition to them in their asinine attempts to turn the clock back to the middle ages, and I also choose to use words according to their accepted meanings and so aid communication, but if you choose to do differently that's your right.

Just as I have the right to criticise your sloppy use of language, and the sloppy thinking that lies behind it.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Ooooooo...that's what I love about you Brits, you think you're sooooooo superior, like somehow you invented language in all its usable forms.

Go ahead, ask me what if I care what ya think. C'mon ask me.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

Yes, because obviously nationalistic bigotry is not an expression of feeling superior. And dismissing someone's opinions on the basis of their nationality is a rational debating tactic, as is insulting an entire nation because you dislike one member of it.

I don't know what your problem is with Holly or with myself, but you have repeatedly come to Holly's journal making frankly lunatic assertions, deliberately misreading posts (one can only hope you're misreading them deliberately, as the idea that someone could be both so stupid and so humourless is frankly inconceivable), and making huge, sweeping statements about entire groups (conservatives, the British). Then, when you're pulled up on the stupidity of your remarks, rather than say "Yeah, that was stupid" or even "that was just a joke", you decide to launch into attacks, not against the person that points out your errors, but against any groups to which you believe they belong.

I *could* point out how your own behaviour conforms almost exactly to the very worst stereotypes about Americans - arrogant, ignorant, using words without understanding them, making sweeping generalisations about whole groups, being violently aggressive towards anyone who disagrees with you even slightly, using ad hominem attacks rather than rational argument, and most of all being blissfully unaware of the existence of the concept of irony. But unlike you I am aware that just because one person fits into an easy stereotype, doesn't mean that everyone in the group to which they belong fits into the same neat little box.

It is literally impossible to have a rational argument with you, because rather than debate any facts you insist on acting like a monkey throwing faeces at your opponents. "Yah! You're *BRITISH*! That means you think you're superior to everyone else so I'm right! Hah!" is *not* a rational argument.

Incidentally, if you had ever bothered to read anything I've ever said, you would notice that I am not exactly noted for my feelings of superiority to anyone else - in fact I believe pretty much everyone else who has commented on this thread has told me in the past that one of my most annoying characteristics is my attitude of *inferiority*. I certainly don't believe myself to be superior to any group of people (political, national, geographical, social, sexual or racial). I *do* however believe myself to be superior to you as a thinking human being, because I have the basic ability to formulate a logical argument.

I can see why Holly is ashamed to be from the same country as you (contrary to your snide little remarks she is proud to be American, but she's still ashamed people like you come from there) because you perpetuate (note correct use of this word. Note that it is different from perpetrate. Learn the difference) every bad stereotype about USians. Since I am not from the US I must content myself with merely being ashamed we share a species.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Cowboy, I do believe you just insulted me.

For the record, I'm just havin' a little bit a fun. And, since you don;t really know me (and how fucking lucky am I?), you shouldn't be so dag blasted judgemtnal. Of course, maybe y'all just can't help yourself--I measn being a Brit and all.

[cosmolinguist]

Hey, if that's your fun, I'm sorry that your sense of humor is so inpenetrable.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Gosh Holly, I'm sorry you left your sense of humor back here in the states, 'cause I'm pratically rolling on the floor with laughter at your Brit friend.

[cosmolinguist]

I wasn't talking about my sense of humor. And I wasn't talking about Andrew's. Whether I find us funny or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that you are not funny.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Awwwwwwwe...that's a crying shame you feel that way. So, ya gonna ban me again? C'mon, I know you want to.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

She may have, but she picked up some humour on the way over. Much drier that.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

No, if anything I complimented you. Posting bigoted, abusive remarks against entire national groups is not 'havin' a little bit of fun', it's acting like a stupid arsehole. It's acceptable for me to tease Holly about being American, or her to do the same to me about being British, because we know each other very well. For you to make the kind of remarks you did is simply bigotry, and you must expect to be judged by your behaviour, and not later say "Well, you don't know me, and I'm only joking".

I could, using your argument, say that your mother is a whore and sucks the cocks of dead donkeys in front of a paying audience for ten cents a go in seedy dockside basements. This would clearly be just my bit of fun and since you don't know me you would have no right to take that as a personal insult or to think anything badly of me for it. Unless, that is, it *isn't* excusable to repeatedly insult someone you've never met and don't know and then claim it's just a joke...

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Well, sport, whatever floats your boat. Feel free to insult my mother. Since I never met her, she might very well been a whore and sucked the cocks of dead donkeys. It don't much matter to me what you say.

I hope that that material isn't your best insult.

And let me reiterate, how fucking lucky am I that we (that is, you and I) don't know one another. I don't think we'd get on very well at all--I mean you being so sensitive and all.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

you have repeatedly come to Holly's journal making frankly lunatic assertions, deliberately misreading posts

Doesn't he realize that this is MY job???

[cosmolinguist]

Good point! But you do it so much better...

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Exactly! People should leave things like this to the experts (and the expats)

[cosmolinguist]

I'm curious about rhis aura of superiority: does it also extend to the Canadian (angel_thane and the USian (me) who pointed out that your 'theory' is not a theory but in fact a statement about how you believe conservatives to think?

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Erm, Hol, I AM Superior.

It's just not only because of my Canuckinity.

[cosmolinguist]

Thanks, once again, for perpetuating the worst kind of thinking that the rest of the world has about USians. Thanks for helping to convince them it's all justified because 'cheeky Americans' think they can do whatever they want, even if it's demonstrably wrong and silly.

You can do whatever you want, of course, just don't expect other people to cater to it.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Uh huh. Maybe it's time to trade your American citizen card for a superior UK one...in case you've forgotten, the American language is full of and uses acceptable, common knowledge, multiple meanings for words and phrases, which differ somewhat from the limits the Brits practice...

And feel free to ban me again.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should learn to read. Note in my comment how I pointed out that the word is misued in *Britain* too. However the repercussions of that misuse are much worse in your country, because the very phrase you use - 'just a theory' - is used to deny children a decent education.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

But if instead they said "Just a hypothesis" you'd be okay with them denying children a decent education???

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

Of course not. The problem is by misusing the word 'theory' in a colloquial fashion, creationists can make people think that evolution is 'not proven'.
Of course it isn't - the concept of scientific proof is outdated and useless anyway - but it is as well-proven as any scientific idea ever, hence the term 'theory'.
If they said 'just a hypothesis' then you can counter with 'no, it's a theory' and go on to show it has been proved. While they say 'just a theory' then you're stuck with messy semantic explanations about what 'theory' means...

[cosmolinguist]

My native country, despite its flaws, is not a wholly bad place. I am visiting England nad enjoying it, but mostly for the company; I'd be just as happy if he lived in Iowa, though Manchester is considerably more fun than that.

However, were I to find the UK superior, I'd at least be glad that I'm intelligent enough to realize that the British are in fact not citizens, but subjects.

I also know well that the English language is powerfully expressive, and that includes its USian variant. I know that different words are used--or the same word is used differently--in the US and the UK (and were I to forget that the people here would and do gladly remind me with a torrent of good-natured teasing). However, I do not think that "theory" is one of those words. It means exactly the same thing to me as Andrew told you; that's what I was taught in the American schools I've attended.

[cosmolinguist]

I'm not expecting to be congratulated for my hypothetical votes. It's not an interesting subject, is it? I was merely making a point that you still fail to grasp: your attacks are misplaced. Attacking me will do no good because this is not about me, it's not about whether or not you're 'square with my view of the world.' It's about you making the unqualified statement that conservatives never think. I'm far from conservative myself, I have no great love for them, but this is a matter of principle, and I do like principles. In this case, the principle is simply that your statement was dangerously general, wildly inaccurate, irrelevant, and malicious.

[mllesarah.livejournal.com]

Hey Holly, are you getting an absentee ballot ready?

[cosmolinguist]

Actually, I'm planning on being back in the states in October, so I might be around for the election. If not, I'll definitely get one, I've been waiting four years to vote against Bush and I'm not going to let a little thing like the Atlantic Ocean get in my way.

[paninogirl.livejournal.com]

Isn't it horrible this year how more people will be voting AGAINST what they DON'T want as opposed to voting FOR what they WANT?

I know that's how my vote's gonna go. :-/

...and as for politics, I don't follow them because I don't really feel that they impact my life directly that much. If Bush's actions truly did cause the difficulty college graduates are having finding jobs, then that's the only major way the government has messed with my life.

[karaksindru.livejournal.com]

I was going to post a response here, but it became more of an entry than a comment even before I set hand to keyboard...

So, it's posted here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/karaksindru/166320.html

Damn you, don't make me get political here

[5-rings.livejournal.com]

God help us if, you know, there was a terrorist attack around election day and major US cities were shut down in the process. I can see Democrats howling about disenfranchisement of urban voters right now: "Bush didn't prepare us for this on purpose! He wanted chaos in the cities so that he could win the presidency with the rural vote!"

The discussion of postponing the elections, despite your reservations, is a prudent one. The government also needs to discuss what should happen if Congress were ever wiped out en masse. However, these radical yet important steps are not being taken.

The most depressing thing about post-9/11 changes isn't how many there have been, but how few. When Ridge announces that he's changing the terror alert colors this week or next, what he's really saying is that bureaucratic inertia is so slow that he can't do a real job. If the government is, as you say, scaring the American people, it's because Democrats and Republicans alike have colluded to avoid any real heavy lifting to make the country safer, post-9/11.

P.S. The notion that Democrats are being bullied in the House and Senate at present is fanciful to anyone who currently watches C-Span (or used to, in my case). On any issues where there's a significant partisan divide, there's gridlock, while issues with bipartisan support (like spending more tax dollars) sail through. It just so happens that the Patriot Act (co-authored by Democrats) had major bipartisan support the first time through.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's because I come from a country in which the PM can effectively call an election at will, anytime within a five year window, but it seems that peopel are making a mountain out of a molehill about this.

If a major terrorist attack occurs, the resources and manpower of all of the volunteers that would go to counting ballots, organizing polling stations etc, is going to be needed elsewhere. Gov't, first responders, and others will be very occupied. Some people may not be able (due to blackout, quarantine, or other) to even reach the polls.

Delaying the election for a month does not seem unreasonable in these circumstances, ESPECIALLY as the president-elect doesn't even become president until two months later. They could delay the election by 6 weeks, and still induct the new president on time.

[cosmolinguist]

Andrew says that only one word is needed to reply to this. Reichstag.

[cosmolinguist]

But what I really wanted to say about it is that I can see how you'd think that we're all just overreacting whiners. And I admit that the pragmatic issue of exactly which day the vote is held is not of great concern to me (within reason; if it really is postponed 'indefinitely' the chances get increasingly better as each day goes by that it'll never happen at all). The point to be made here is that the government is trying to sabotage the democratic process and give itself more power by taking it away from the people. I know some people are too sensitive on matters like this, but I do think that's better than not being sensitive at all. There are so many people in the country who seem to accept whatever happens and say that we should never question our leaders and support everything they do. USians are known for being apathetic (or, at best, easily distracted by cable TV), and those who aren't sometimes try to make up for it by being extra obnoxious and annoying.

[gentleman-lech.livejournal.com]

You're not alone. The very distinct possibility of martial law and no elections scares the hell out of me. I never would have believed it possible even as recently as two years ago.

Now, I don't give a flying fuck who winds up in the white house next, as long as it isn't Bush. Anybody would be better as far as our personal liberties are concerned.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Generally, all gov'ts will try to get power for themselves if they can manage it.

That said, it shocks me that Bush et al can call themselves conservatives with a straight face given how they're creating big gov't.

[gentleman-lech.livejournal.com]

They look like fascists to me. Complete with gestapo in the guise of Homeland Security.