?

Log in

No account? Create an account

I want to be wrong about this

« previous entry | next entry »
Jul. 11th, 2004 | 02:29 pm
mood: irritatedirritated

The upcoming issue of Newsweek reports that Homeland Security's Tom Ridge is looking into how he can call off the election in the event of a terrorist attack.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/11/homeland_security_fi.html

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {15}

(no subject)

from: vioxel
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 01:05 pm (UTC)
Link

When this rumor floated out a few weeks ago, the counter-rumor was that it was just a contingency plan, nothing more.

I share your fears, though. I'll ask you the same rhetorical I ask everybody who shows concern about stuff like this.

If something really bad happens, what are you willing to do, and are you prepared to do it? If it happened, right now could you act?

Reply | Thread

DeepTape

(no subject)

from: deeptape
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 01:46 pm (UTC)
Link

Here's another article with more info:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040711/ts_nm/politics_election_terror_dc_2

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

Contingent rhetoric

from: triple_entendre
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 04:43 pm (UTC)
Link

You did say it was a rhetorical, but I'll say this much:

I'm certainly willing to act within the law to uphold the rule of law wherever that has an effect I personally judge to be "good"...

and I will, at times, exercise random rights (in order to keep them in shape, ya know?)...

...but my focus is on offering pro-active, peaceful alternatives to the things I dislike. A whole, whole, whole lot has to go wrong before anything can interfere with that.

And I am stubborn. Hoo boy.


I had a looooong talk recently with a police officer who wanted to search my vehicle, mostly because I wouldn't casually consent to a search. He wasn't in the wrong -- I *was* worthy of suspicion, although I *wasn't* in fact doing anything that would be of interest to a search. He *did* have enough probable cause to work with, although not enough for us to "agree" on. But he wouldn't have actually wanted to search if I hadn't finally had to clarify (twice) "I do not consent to a warrantless search".

So we ran through the "just tell me what I'll find, if it's not that much, I can [use my discretion and take it easy on you]" - "no really, I don't have anything, it's just a matter of principle" pattern a few times, but eventually he listened to me talk, with me expressing my sincere concern that adhering to my admittedly quirky principles was resulting in the waste of his valuable time and resources, enough to convince him I was just a kook rather than a crook. :-)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Chef Monkey

Re: Contingent rhetoric

from: chefmonkey
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 08:36 pm (UTC)
Link

I just want to hug you.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

*giggle*

from: triple_entendre
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 11:31 pm (UTC)
Link

I just want to hug you.

For my principles, my expression of them, or for once again accidentally engaging a law enforcement officer in a debate on the metaphorical significance of a situation?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Mark Russell

Re: *giggle*

from: unatone
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 11:58 pm (UTC)
Link

If I may interject, all of the above.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

Perspective (no -ism)

from: triple_entendre
date: Jul. 12th, 2004 12:29 am (UTC)
Link

I was well into quickly and politely outlining the principles behind my refusal before it occurred to me that I was lecturing a black man on civil rights.

Luckily, I didn't flinch.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Chef Monkey

Re: *giggle*

from: chefmonkey
date: Jul. 12th, 2004 08:01 am (UTC)
Link

Yes.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Reese

(no subject)

from: ephemeral_ether
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 01:09 pm (UTC)
Link

You're the second person I've seen post about it. It makes me want to puke. I'm thinking it may be time to say goodbye to the good ol' US of A. It may very well just be time to fucking move on.

(ephemeral)

Reply | Thread

(no subject)

from: vioxel
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 03:44 pm (UTC)
Link

Get your passport in order now, then. Even if you don't need it, it's better to have it ready. It takes weeks to get, too, unless you want to pay through the nose for expedited service.

Seriously, do it. It's easy. Find out the closest place to do it here.

Consider carefully what else might happen. When popular dissatisfaction with government policy has happened before, in this country and others, it is typically marked by an increase in violence generally, and conflicts between citizens and LEOs or military in particular. Kent State , the Watts riots, Tienanmen Square... just a handful of fairly recent examples. Strongly consider buying an armored vest and/or a firearm. I don't own either one yet, but I'm saving up for them.

Reply | Parent | Thread

DeepTape

(no subject)

from: deeptape
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 08:47 pm (UTC)
Link

Maybe we need a Burner Escape Caravan!

Reply | Parent | Thread

John

Packin' Heat

from: xzombielordx
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 08:58 pm (UTC)
Link

I'll bring the guns, and my tool box!

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

Aw c'mon, you guys...

from: triple_entendre
date: Jul. 11th, 2004 10:57 pm (UTC)
Link

So I'm bein' all Gandhi over here, and now I've got the whole post-apocalyptic crew from Damnation Alley here in my journal, getting ready to rumble?

*snerk*

Reply | Parent | Thread

Reese

(no subject)

from: ephemeral_ether
date: Jul. 12th, 2004 12:31 pm (UTC)
Link

Guns and armored vests sound like a good backup plan. I should start looking into this . . . And thanks for the link. That was helpful!

(ephemeral)

Reply | Parent | Thread

expat or bust

from: witchety
date: Jul. 12th, 2004 04:15 pm (UTC)
Link

I'm proud of you for clarifying and insisting upon your civil liberties. You would be the perfect person to do it - calm and rational, and not at all irate and irritated the way I might be. Thought I think it may be time to get out of this country, too.

Reply | Thread