(Keeping in the promised theme of having rants on Fridays, here is rant number one. For those of you who are offended...well...I am going to have to say that it is Friday. The weekend is coming, and frankly I couldn't care less.)
I hate you Iowa. I hate your sprawling plains of uninterrupted nothingness that remind me why even the Mormons kept on trucking. I hate your obscenely well-mannered citizens that remind me why New Yorkers truly are bastards. Most of all, I hate the Iowa caucuses. (The only thing I like about Iowa is Tara. Tara is cool.)
The only part about the Iowa caucus that pisses me off more than the fact that people have been talking about it for a solid year is how astonishingly irrelevant it is to actually picking a President. Yes, I said it. Iowa, you are irrelevant.
"But wait Jake," says Iowa. "Our early place in the primary season allows us to showcase the candidates different views--"
No Iowa. Bad Iowa. (Hits Iowa on head with newspaper.)
While I recognize that the candidates showcase their ideas in Iowa, this serves only to highlight the utter irrelevance of that particular state in the primary process. If they weren't first, no one would give a shit. Iowa is utterly dispensable. Why not Hawaii? Why not Colorado? Why not anywhere but there?
"But our demographic represents what many Americans care about--"
No Iowa. Bad Iowa. (Hits Iowa on head with newspaper again.)
Your demographic represents Iowans, but Exhibit A for how Iowa is not a microcosm of America is that Mike Huckabee is polling first in Iowa! The notion that Mike Huckabee is capable of winning a national election is like suggesting that you should marry your first boyfriend Skeeter because he was the only male of similar age in your town who was moderately literate. If even a single other human being exists, Skeeter and Mike Huckabee are revealed for the "you know what would be just a hoot" candidates they truly are. I have my doubts that Mike Huckabee is even representative of most Republicans, much less most Americans.
In a way, Mike Huckabee is a lot like the state of Iowa. Iowa is like the prom date you accidentally say yes to because you think that the person you really like won't ask you. You made your "decision," but there is no way you are going to stick with it. Now all you have to do is weasel your way out with a minimum of crying, so that you can go with whom you really want.
The only circumstance under which what someone does in Iowa matters is when they do something so insanely retarded that they render themselves ineligible for public office. However, at this point in order to gain attention and carve a path through the Everglades of irrelevant commentary swamping the media, Barack Obama would have to literally bite the head off a puppy. Anything less obscene will be overwhelmed by continued discussions of the inane details in his personal life.
Here's a crazy idea that would save Americans a whole lot of time. Let's have all primaries for all states on the same day. That way the states will receive attention in proportion to the number of delegates they actually have -- and presumably in proportion to their population. No state would get the unjustified benefit of being early. In addition, because the candidates would be so busy racing around the country trying to visit all the states maybe a couple of them would get deep venous thrombi, and we could have a couple weekends of unmolested peace while they recuperate.
This is why in spite of the fact that it is today and in spite of the fact that it is a Presidential race, I am not paying attention to the results in Iowa. I don't care. Call me on Super-Tuesday when the actual results might be decided.
- Log in to post comments
Do commenters get to have rants?
Mine is about the strangely popular usage of "could care less". Presumably this is a contraction of "couldn't care less" based on the ineffectiveness of the "n't" when pronounced, but then it doesn't make sense any more!
When you (general "you", not you specifically) say "I couldn't care less", it means you care so little about an issue that it is not possible for you to care less than you already do about the issue. If you say you "could care less" then you're actually saying you do care about the issue, somewhat. So why do people use this phrase in a context that only makes sense if they don't care at all about an issue?
ARGH!!!!!!!! Worse, why does this seem to be catching on? Does nobody have any understanding of what they are saying when they use this phrase? ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (pedantic commenter runs from the web page frothing at the mouth)
You're right Sharon. I hadn't caught that error, so I fixed it. (Usually my rants are better edited.)
Anyway, it makes me crazy too because the phrase "could care less" means the exact opposite of what was intended.
There's nothing wrong with "could care less". Just imagine it being said in a sarcastic fashion, it makes perfect sense. Language changes and evolves, there's no point getting angry about it being supposedly "incorrect" even though in this case it isn't remotely incorrect.
I suggest you read this post: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001180.html
The original post should have "could care less" restored and not give in so easily to priggish prescriptivist bullies!
Please. Descriptive linguistics is, literally, killing me.
See? Descriptive linguistics erodes original meanings (e.g. literally) to the point of absurdity. And if you honestly think that people are using these words and phrases in an ironic fashion to express their true feelings, I have a bridge you may be interested in. People are, by and large, idiots who parrot words that sounds good to them, and only approximate the meaning from the context.
Arrrgh, I HATE DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS!!!!
"The only thing I like about Iowa is Tara"
Hey! What am I, chopped liver? See if you get a Christmas card this year. Oh wait...
Except that descriptive linguistics doesn't do anything except describe how people actually use words. Hence the "descriptive" bit. I'm a bit mystified as to why you hold it responsible for the sorts of changes that occurred regularly well before the advent of descriptive linguistics.
You are, of course, right.
That was a poorly constructed sentence in response to the "prescriptivist bullies" comment.
"The erosion of meaning that descriptive linguistics applies to..." There. Fixed. Deepest apologies.
Rotating regional super-primaries. Take 6 weeks, 6 regions, change who goes first every year. And make them end 6-8 weeks before the general election, please.
This prevents stupidness like Iowa being 'First!' but still gives underfunded dark horse challengers a chance. Win-win situation!
I've been toying with the idea of setting up a new system where the order of state primaries is randomly determined each year. Imagine how fun the Wyoming-Alaska year would be (although there is a high chance of candidates getting eaten by bears, for better or worse). At the least, it will shake things up so candidates would have to target campaigns differently each year, and at the best, it sets up for some great jokes on "The Daily Show".
lol Ø wrong w/ d-skriptiv lingwistix yo.
kthxbai
It's easy to criticize this Iowa-first setup, but it's important to remember that doing them all at the same time would result in a situation where a candidate that didn't have truly obscene amounts of money would stand no chance whatsoever. This way isn't fair, but what's neat about it is a lot of the people caucusing the other night have actually heard several of the candidates speak, and may have even met them. When you have a 300 million-person democracy, this is one way of making the decisions more close-up and personal. I like the rotating idea to make it more fair.
I just hate everything. It's easier that way.
As an Iowan, who has participated in plenty of caucuses, it wouldn't bother me a bit if first in the nation status was taken away from us, but I must correct you on the point that by doing so, Iowa becomes politically irrelevant. We're a swing state and candidates always come back on August and September to beg for our puny 5 electoral votes. If you truly hate Iowa, you'll have to eliminate the electoral college.
I hate Iowa (or at least the caucuses) AND the electoral college... AND the notion that the two-party system results in a fair and representative government. So there.
Thing I don't understand is how you can stand this stuff dragging on for so long. Can't the US just call an election and then vote a few weeks later like normal people?
(That second sentence is my contribution to the rant factor. ;) )
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind watching the parade from the other side of the pond, but it would drive me batty having to put up with the campaigning for a year or more. Really, how many times can you listen to the same slogans and soundbites?
(On second thought, maybe this whole passage is rant.)
By the way, regardless of how people actually use language, I fall on the side of "couldn't". When language changes in a way that reduces our ability to both express ourselves and comprehend others, it doesn't hurt to go against the flow. Language evolves, yes, and perhaps it doesn't really matter if people can't distinguish between words like can and may for example, but this one reverses meaning. It is undecipherable.
I've never understood...why don't some of the other states try to move ahead of Iowa to improve their own influence?
As far as Iowa... I see the benefit that some earlier posters mentioned (it gives a chance to those poor folks who can only invest one mill instead of ten). It does seem kinda stupid that it's the SAME state every year, though.
On a similar note, I hate the way the Democratic caucus is carried out in Iowa. If an individual isn't "viable" at one location, who cares?! Why should the people at that polling location not be allowed to vote for their first pick? When it's Kucinich or something it doesn't really affect the results... but there could be situations where it makes a difference. Beyond that, EVERYONE should have their vote. It's a fundamental right in the U.S. How is it that someone can say you can't vote for your first pick because they're not viable?! And WTF is the deal with viable anyways? What if I want to vote for some candidate I know has no chance of winning, but I want my vote to be counted anyways?
Leaving aside the (highly valid) unfairness arguments for a moment: Both the Iowa-first system and the electoral college seem to be based on the "It would be insane to do this across the entire nation, at the individual level, all at once" argument. But the faster and more reliable the Internet and polling methods become, the less that argument makes any sense. And grr, inertia.
@cerebralmum:
When language changes in a way that reduces our ability to both express ourselves and comprehend others, it doesn't hurt to go against the flow.
Changes that significantly impair communication won't last. Language doesn't just evolve in the sense of "change slowly over time", it also evolves in the sense of "has each change vetted by natural selection". Yes, there are mergers of various kinds that decrease specificity, but if they decrease it to the point of significantly impairing communication they will be reversed or otherwise fixed. If they don't significantly impair communication, then the change is a time- or effort-saver.
Language evolves, yes, and perhaps it doesn't really matter if people can't distinguish between words like can and may for example, but this one reverses meaning. It is undecipherable.
It is perfectly decipherable. No one actually thought the OP meant that he cared deeply about those who are offended by Friday rantage.
At least it's more interesting than Britney
This year's Iowa caucuses were draped in even more secrecy than usual. Who knows what kind of backroom dealings went on, what kind of favors were traded, how many bong hits offered by first-time college student caucus goers supporting Obama.
Well, the opinionated talking-head journalistic team of Hawke and Dove have the inside scoop. The latest episode of our political punditry podcast has us actually going undercover inside the Iowa caucuses to report on what actually happened. (Note: H&D is satire)
Hate the caucuses all you want, but:
There's more than plains.
What plains there are are not uninterrupted nothingness.
The proportion of Iowan assholes is about the same as anywhere else.
Tara is cool, but there are other cool Iowans, as you would have had a chance to know had you not just pissed them off.
Even those of us who go to the caucus don't necessarily believe that they're as important as all that. We don't actually control what the media say, and the media have their own reasons for making Iowa teh most important election ever!!!1!1!!11!!!!one!!1
None of the aforementioned reasons have anything to do with reality. (Which is, like everything else, good news for McCain.)
If you're interested in a solid six to twelve months of door-to-door visits, phone calls, junk mail, and TV commercials, I hope Santa brings you all of the above and then some for Christmas 2010.
Other states don't move ahead of Iowa because both national parties would dock them delegates.
The purpose of the Electoral College was to make the President more aristocratic. You couldn't vote for President, you'd vote for the guy who'd vote for President, and he'd probably be rich and famous. Now they minimize this by requiring delegates to be pledged to a particular candidate.
The reason the DNC has a viability standard is so that the candidate is more representative of what the voters want. If you can't get 15% in a precinct, you wouldn't be able to get a delegate, so you're given the opportunity to cast your vote for your second choice. You don't have to, but you can. This minimizes the chance of the Nader effect, where a candidate wins out not because they're the best, but because their opposition is split.
As for the rant itself - feel free to hate Iowa, but it matters. Obama just surged into the lead in New Hampshire by some polls. I tend to support a rotating lead state as well.
Nah, Ezzie,
EC is insulation against hoi polloi. Huck's rise reveals, yet again, the wisdom of the founders.
Finally, they "minimize this" is also misleading. Factions may choose candidates, but state legislatures have plenary power to choose electors, should they wish to do so. The FL legislature was always the backstop against error in the 2000 election. The FL supremes, misunderstanding their authority, were rebuffed by the Supremes, but the FL leg was prepared to select electors favoring Bush, should they have deemed it necessary.
A republic, if you can keep it, Ezzie. Have a nice day.
In regard to the 'could care less' grammatical error, I am in full agreement with Sharon and Jake - no amount of weaselling by vavatch will hide the fact that those employing the incorrect version of the phrase are ignorant yahoos.
Literally trillions of further examples of that sort of thing (including the very example discussed above!) can be found here, by the way.
P.S. Jake, I read your profile and was interested to learn that you enjoy watching ethnic food.
What does it do?
"Both the Iowa-first system and the electoral college seem to be based on the "It would be insane to do this across the entire nation, at the individual level, all at once" argument."
Actually, here in Brazil where we don't have EC but the system "one man, one vote" for presidential elections, we do it on a single voting day and know the name of the winner by night. And we have 125M people able to vote aprox. This is possible because for almost ten years now Brazil embraced electronic voting. So...no Iowa here (albeit one can make a case that we have the "Iowan spirit" hovering upon some places, also).
I'd like to know how the EC was intended as insulation against "hoi polloi." It allowed the electors - who would by and large be rich and famous people - to ignore what the voters wanted. The rise of Huckabee is simply because the EC has been neutered by forcing electors to pledge to a candidate, except to the extent it overrepresents small states. The point was to prevent creditor majorities from electing a populist President.
Nor is my statement about how pledging electors minimizes the aristocratic bias somehow misleading. The (seldom used) power to direct electors existed before electors were pledged. Therefore, the aristocratic bias was smaller once the electors had to be proxies for your vote. Especially since the power to control electors is extremely rarely used. Even if you were right, it almost meant something in one election.
And don't get me into Bush v. Gore. The conservative justices suddenly adopted an expansive vision of the Equal Protection Clause they'd previously ridiculed and ignored their jurisprudence on when you can overrule state supreme court interpretations of state law. To make things worse, they essentially said the rules were being changed only for this case, and that their regular decisional rules should be used everywhere else.
As an Iowan I think I speak for all when I say, "Stop hitting me with that newspaper! It's not my fault we have this!"
I also wanted to say that while I don't like your idea of having "all primaries for all states on the same day," I would have no problem with some sort of rotating or random system where all states get their chance at being first.
Iowa is not a swing state! Please! Democratic Governor, House & Senate....and don't even mention Senator Harkin. Now, there is Senator Grassley, but he has been in the Senate for a very long time and is hardly "right wing." The assertion that Iowa could be a swing state under those conditions is silly. You may attempt to cite the '04 election and how close it was between Kerry & Bush - but was Kerry much of a candidate (be honest here)? I rest my case.