[links]

[wispfox]

rosefox has entertaining t-shirt designs. If I were a bigger fan of chocolate and/or less strongly against sticky on my skin, I might just get one of those. ;)

dr_memory has an amusing slightly not work-safe post.

And I've seen bunches and bunches of links about the possible postponement of the US November elections. On its face, if it's just a _postponement_ and not a canceling, I'm probably ok with it. If there is, in fact, another dramatic terrorist thing, people are likely to be too distracted/dismayed by it to remember to vote anyway. But I'm worried it'll turn into more than that... and I'm worried that the decision will be disorganized and confusing and/or that it'll end up _looking_ like a postponement and then actually counting. Or something. Doesn't look good from where I am. Lots of links/info about this all over the place on my friends list. The most recent example is here.

Comments

[beowabbit]

Think about it. There's a small bomb in New York City (or Dubuque, or, hey, Crawford, TX), or this hypothetical federal agency says there is. Therefore, the elections are postponed for several weeks. Do you think the Republican Party wouldn't stoop to using that power if the polls weren't looking good for them and they thought a few more weeks of working popular hysteria up to a fevered pitch would help them? Or worse yet, the terrorist attack occurs on the day of the election. That means all the people who've already voted get their votes thrown out, and have to come back later. Do you think they all will? And generally, high turnout benefits Democrats and low turnout benefits Republicans.

[ian-gunn.livejournal.com]

For an extra dose of caution and comment on media spin read editrx post here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/editrx/97476.html)