You Lose: Patriot Act Renewed without Reforms

It's just a g.d. piece of paper, right?

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/patriot_act_may_be_renewed_without_reforms.htm

~Ulrika~

at least we are "secure"

and have those cool flag pins on our lapels to show we are true "Americans"

You may be right, but let's not jump the gun, shall we? This is just a proposal. Nothing has been set in stone yet. The title of the artical you linked is "Patriot Act may be renewed without reforms." That's MAY BE, not has been.

There's still a slim chance for hope that the constitution will prevail, as the artical points out:


Here's hoping.

A lot of stupid proposals go up against Congress every year.

This is news to mobilize on, not to despair against.

A-men. What we really need to focus on, now, is an audit trail for electronic balloting systems. They are rife with security holes, and can be easily manipulated by any DBA worth his or her salt.

I called Nancy and posted a motivational thread. What have you all done to make sure this doesn't happen?

~Ulrika~

The article made a mistake that is one of my big grammatical pet peeves. The present tense of the modal verb "may" implies permission, whereas the subjunctive mood of the same verb "might" implies a possibility.

Compare the two sentences:

She may go.
She might go.

The first gives the subject permission to leave. The second suggests there is a possibility that the subject will leave.

The same can be done for the other modals and some helping verbs (shall/should, can/could, will/would).

~Ulrika~

It's not a mistake. The word simply has more than one definition. If you say "It may rain this afternoon," you're not implying that any type of permission has been granted. You're acknowledging a possibility.

"It may rain," and "it might rain" are totally synonymous, just as "it may be renewed" is synonymous with "it might be renewed" in this particular case. "May" is just a little more formal than "might", so it's often the preferred word in publication.

Me? Not as much as I'd like, since I live in a heavy Bush-drone area and thus the reps are not, on the whole, mindful of the opinion of such as myself.

Well, at least, until November 2006 rolls around...

It's not the definition, it's the verb's mood. In this case the difference between permission and possibility is expressed by using either the indicative or conditional (subjunctive) mood. In English, the conditional (subjunctive) mood always accompanies a change in the verb or the addition of a helping verb in the subjunctive mood ("would".

As for your argument that one can use the indicative mood ("may" to represent the conditional (subjunctive) mood ("might", I would say that is possible but formally incorrect. It's the same with the confusion between the modal verbs "may" and "can". The verb "may" implies permission, while the verb "can" implies ability. Compare these sentences:

She may eat.
She can eat.

The first states that the subject has permission to eat. The second states that the subject has the ability to eat (perhaps she had recent dental work). While one can use "can" when they should use "may" ("Can I go to the bathroom", it is also formally incorrect.


So, let's review using "can" and "may" in both the indicative and conditional (subjunctive) mood:

She may eat. (She has permission to eat.)
She can eat. (She is able to eat.)
She might eat. (There is a possibility she will eat.)
She could eat. (There is a possibility that she will have the ability to eat.)

Anything else is just uncivilized.

~Ulrika~

I found this ACLU page to be an excellent reference. It's what motivated me to contact Nancy Pelosi to encourage her to participate in an upcoming filibuster.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/index.html

~Ulrika~

at least you have a congress person to call. try living in DC where we have nothing of the sort. at least i get to flick off the president's motorcade everytime it disrupts traffic.

Well all it does is gives the power to do to our own population what we have done to EVERY other country for the last 2 decades.

hehe, the best thing the last mayor did was to put "taxation without reprsentation" as the slogan on DC license plates. I love that.

True, and I'm so glad that our "commander" isn't in charge of a country that tortures people and imprisons for months without trial. I mean if its America, then the president is a good guy, even if he invades a country based on lies. This is why I'm so glad everyone in America is wearing the yellow ribbons that symbolize that they won't sleep with anybody but the soldiers till those soldiers come home. You aren't cheating on the soldiers now are you. I mean that is the point of the yellow ribbon you know. Your the wife remaining true while the soldier is "far, far away." Or is it just the new SUV's right to guzzle gas support ribbon. Its hard to keep up now adays.

True, and I'm so glad that our "commander" isn't in charge of a country that tortures people and imprisons for months without trial. I mean if its America, then the president is a good guy, even if he invades a country based on lies. This is why I'm so glad everyone in America is wearing the yellow ribbons that symbolize we want our troops home safe, but wait the SUV in front of me says "Support our troops." Sorry, reprogramming my mind. I'm glad we put yellow ribbons on our SUV's to show our support for troops taking over a country with oil. Go troops go, and if you loose an arm, go some more if your trigger finger is still there. You only need a stump to support the front of the rifle anyway. It's only a wimpy M-4 or M-16. Go troops go. Oh wait, get back to you later troops. I see fast food.

lol!

What an absolutely delicious post. It's a dark sarcastic rhetorical piece that discusses the relationship between our imperfect government, military, and citizenry in regards to war. It flirts with unpopular and controversial issues, mentioning presidential malfeasance, wounded soldiers, and ignorant consumers.

Congratulations. You just won my December Post of the Month!



~Ulrika~

Who put you in charge?

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

may 2. Possibility: It may rain this afternoon.

===

Sure, tell Nancy, but Dianne is the one who really needs to hear from you. She's still trying to offend as few people as possible in case she wants to run for President some day.

I was born in charge.


Anyways, going back to the grammatical subject at hand, from the Oxford American Dictionary one can see what I was stating above:

In formal usage there is a difference between may and might as well as may and can. Personally, it drives me nuts when people mix up modals or omit verb mood. It sounds like hillbilly talk to me.

~Ulrika~

One can see nothing of the sort. These examples have nothing to do with permission.

What they are trying to distinguish is between present possibility and past possibility, as the later counter-examples show. Since your authority herself provides an example of "may", expressing possibility, I will consider my point conceded.

--Allie

PS. Note that even this authority is careful to keep a distance from the "Traditionalists". One can read between the lines here.

Wow, thanks Ulrika.

That's correct. It's because the dictionary is simplifying the grammar. (It's scary when you can discuss the grammatical limitations of the American Heritage Dictionary.)

Verbs have mood, tense, and voice.

1. mood - indicative, imperative, conditional, subjunctive, ...
   
2. tense - simple present, present continuous, simple past, simple future, present perfect,
3. past perfect, future perfect
   
4. voice - passive, active, and rarely middle

Adding in conjugations a single verb can have hundreds of forms, of which only the single root is listed in the dictionary. Thus to avoid lauching into a discussion of advanced grammar, dictionaries phrase these complexities in terms of definitions.

In regards to our discussion, one would say that the modal verb "may" has two subjunctive forms, the casual and the formal. In casual usage, one may (expressing permission) use "may" for "might". Those who write formaly or exactingly would instead use the correct form "might".

Because the indicative and casual subjunctive form of "may" are identical, I would simply avoid the casual form in writing. Here's an example of the ambiguity.

He may leave. (Does he have permission or is he thinking of leaving?)
He might leave. (He clearly is thinking of leaving.)


I'll explain the difference between who and whom in another thread for fun.

~Ulrika~

I love to be surprised when I read the forums. Good stuff.

~Ulrika~

And you still live in the US... why exactly?