A Whole Nother Thing
Seldom at a loss for words.
ABOUT THE BLOGGER
Abode: Nine Forward
Interests: Writing, Singing, Working Out
Clickage Here Will Land You My Complete Profile
Thanks for stopping by! Your visit here isn't complete until you do the comment thing. Don't make me pull over, just do it! Click on the "reflections" link at the end of a post.
*A WHOLE NOTHER THING:
A selection of words from my vast vocabulary, including the ubiquitous "the," the always versatile "and," and the more obscure "incontrovertible," arranged in frequently meaningful, sometimes profound, yet often pedestrian sentences and statements, designed with one goal in mind-- that being, to communicate; keeping in mind the oft-used bromide, "Never use two words when one will do the same job as two or more words would have done, unless you just want to take up space and sound important," which is, I must concede, too often a secret objective of mine indeed. And yet, now, the secret is out.
Who ARE these women?
© MMX Mattquist. Some Rights Reserved
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Vote "Not" instead of "No"
With Oregon's double majority requirement for ballot measures, you might want to know that NOT VOTING might make a bigger impact than voting "No" for a given measure. Do you understand how this works?
Oregon law requires that at least half of registered voters turn out in order to pass any given ballot measure. Consequently, the following scenario might be helpful:
Let's say, for ease of understanding, that there are 100 registered voters in Oregon. In order for any ballot measure to pass, at least 50 of those registered voters need to turn out at the polls (or, at the mail box) for a measure to pass. So, in our illustration, 50 people need to turn out at an election for a measure to pass. Let's say that only 26 people turn out to vote YES on a measure, and 23 people turn out to vote NO. That makes only 49 voters that voted, and since 100 are registered, the measure will FAIL, even though the majority of those who DID vote, voted YES. You gotta have at least 50 people turning out to vote for it to pass.
Okay, now let's say that you are vehemently opposed to the given measure and you march down to the polls on voting day (or the mail box a few days prior) and cast your NO vote. Now, the scenario has changed. Now, 26 people have voted YES and 24 people have voted NO. NOW the total turnout is 50 out of the 100 registered voters, and consequently, because YOU cast your (NO) vote, the measure will PASS precisely because YOUR vote turned the tables to make it a 50% voter turnout. Your NO vote was the swing vote in making the measure PASS.
Sounds frustrating, doesn't it.
Keep the Earth clean...
...it's not Uranus.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The answer to my question
A week or so ago, I rhetorically asked myself if a person has to know english in order to pass the drivers' license test. Today, my question was answered, as I had this package to deliver.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Excuse me, but...
This is not news.
Channel 12 (KPTV.com) had a news story on their Ten O'Clock News tonight that told about high winds (38 mph?) that toppled trees today. If a tree falls down in the middle of a city and only a TV station notices, should anyone care?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
...going on here. Yeah, I'm taking part...
Friday, October 05, 2007
Interstate Avenue Name Change-- Portland
Please let me chime in on the Interstate Avenue name change debate.
It seems that now, the Polish community has voiced their opposition to renaming the thoroughfare "Cesar Chavez Avenue" (as has been suggested by someone high up in Portland Power-- and, by the way, has been resoundingly eschewed in polls) in favor of "Lech Walesa Avenue" seeing as how they say the street was built using a lot of Polish immigrant labor (btw, were they legal or illegal immigrants? Never mind.).
Well, I would like to suggest yet another name: "Leif Erikson Boulevard."
I mean, really. The Scandinavian population in Oregon is really big. Really big. Probably second only to that of Minnesota and other northern Midwest areas. And Leif was such an icon of goodness! In fact, according to Wikipedia (which, as everyone knows is the source for accurate and timely information), in 1964 Congress authorized and requested the President to proclaim every October 9th as "Leif Erikson Day." So, yeah. You KNOW he's gotta be big.
And as a person of Scandinavian heritage, I would like to enter the fray, and cry out that Interstate Avenue's name should be changed to "Leif Erikson Boulevard." Thank you.
Oh, and btw, October 9th is next Tuesday, so I expect to see some Norse flags a-flying, okay?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
I want one of those Illegal Licenses!
GOV. TED, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has come up with the great idea of issuing a special driver's license to illegal aliens. Well, he doesn’t actually put it in those terms, but that’s what the idea entails.
His reasoning baffles me. But, I guess when I stop being baffled by things like this, that’s when I’m in trouble.
According to the story @ Oregonlive.com, Governor Kulongoski has become convinced that tighter controls are needed for state-issued identification cards. “However, the governor is considering following the Utah model, which allows for the ‘driving only’ license to those who can’t prove they’re legal residents of the state.” (How, and why, in the world would a State issue official documents to those whom it can't prove are legal residents of said state?!)
According to the Governor’s spokesperson, “The issues that we’re trying to deal with are identity theft and security.” And yet, the connection between not being able to drive and identity theft (and security) were not made in this news story. Myself, I wonder how not being able to drive has anything to do with security and identity theft. Perhaps if more identity thieves had the ability to drive, we could all rest assured that our credit card purchases at Nordstrom were safe.
As a perfect example of dodging the issue and throwing in a red herring, the governor also adds, “I’m not trying to create a situation where we have all these people driving without insurance because they’re out there without a driver’s license.” What? And now, the issue is non-insured drivers? Can we please stick to your main points Mr. Governor?
The governor admits he wants to “allow driving privileges to people who can’t prove they’re in the country legally. Not doing so would create problems for workers who lack such proof and their employers,” the Oregonlive.com story said. (I am truly moved by the governor’s empathy for those employers who might suffer hardship if their illegal alien employees couldn’t drive.)
Okay, so there’s the backdrop for the story. Here’s my response:
What the ____?
And furthermore, if this non-identifiable driver’s license becomes law, I will be the first guy in line down at the DMV to get my own illegal license. I mean, heck! That way, if I ever get pulled over for speeding, DUI, etc., I’ll just present my illegal license to the officer, and my real record will remain clean! Seriously, what’s to prevent ME from getting one of these licenses? No identification will be required; no proof of address will be required (right now, I have to present the DMV worker with something that proves my residency, like an electric bill, etc.). All that’s required is that I pass the driver’s test. (Do you have to be able to read english to get a driver’s license? Prally not.) So what’s to prevent me from going down to DMV and telling them that I’m Leif Erickson, and that I refuse to present ID, so please let me take the test!? This is GREAT! What a boon this could be to chronic drunk drivers, speeders and red-light runners!
And please let me ask, in response to the governor’s red herring: What aspect of logic are you trying to assert in implying that those who are in this country ILLEGALLY would be MORE likely to buy auto insurance if they could get a driver’s license? If they know they are here illegally, what in heck would ever motivate them to buy auto insurance? A “non-ID” driver’s license? I doubt it, Mr. Governor.
If a person can’t, or refuses to hand over documentation verifying their legal residency, “Those people should still be able to have a driver’s license,” according to the governor’s spokesperson. Why?
“These people should be able to have a driver’s license.” Should? Are we making moralistic judgments here? Should? Why!
Driving is not a right; it is a privilege. You have to PROVE you are competent to handle the task. That’s why they have a test. Why should we eliminate the legal residency requirement and yet keep all the other requirements to obtain a driver’s license? Heck, let’s just throw out the driver’s test! Doesn’t this test put an undue burden on those people who can’t pass it, as well as their employers? As the governor’s spokesperson says, “These people should still be able to have a driver’s license”!
This is the most bass-ackwards idea I’ve heard in a long time.