Pound cake and punchlines


Today's entertainment included this bit of golden glory, a very splody war movie with aliens, and a Cajun boy who snapped and turned linebacker. Have to say I've had more laughs watching that Cajun boy's material than anything from the prompt for this post.


Maybe my view is biased by information on a country that's already tried mail-in ballots and banned them for some of the very issues that ended up causing such controversy here, or maybe by having received the ballot for the party I didn't choose, but I'm looking to stand among company that doesn't include a one-party trainwreck who speaks of disappointing people without the legal right to vote. (Using a baby in a political move rather opens the door to use of the movie reference, if ratings from peer comedians haven't already done so.)


There's a lot to comment on in here, but I'll stick with material related to a question I asked earlier.


Part of the (JFC that's a long) document reads like anyone can get (obtain) such a ballot with a signature confirmation, but it's at the other end (casting that ballot) where the bulk of the effort of confirming the voter's eligibility to vote is checked. (I haven't forgotten the need to ask for a replacement in my own case, for a start; and not everyone will be able to correct the issue as easily as I did, if there's such a concern about making such ballots available to those who have more onerous and burdensome impediments than I do in accessing a polling place.)


I've asked before, and I'll ask again - why is having voter ID such a problem here? (The standard excuse is racism, of course, but I thought you lot have access to more creativity than that, or at least to more creatives.) I used the term "sworn" to search the bill for this bit - "Permitting use of sworn written statement to meet identification requirements for voting." It seems a low bar for voter ID, something like writing one's own doctor's note. I think I mentioned in an earlier post about state-supplied ID cards for those who don't drive; and if there's already ID theft with official vaccination cards, it seems like the deed would be easier with a document produced through less official means.


However, looking at requirements for challenges by persons other than election officials - prove in writing and under oath that the person is ineligible to vote or to register to vote - it sounds like it's easier to access the vote than it is to police that access.


On "[permitting] the permanent denial of voting rights for individuals with felony convictions," it seems like comparison with other countries is acceptable in this case, but not so much mentioned in the case of mail-in ballots. Good thing there's a provision to study the effects of those ballots, a study to take place over what, 120 days after the election they're for? That's roughly four months to examine the effects - look at ballots invalidated by discrepancies, attempts to contact voters, et cetera; a news cycle that moves as quickly as it does can do a lot of damage in that time.


From what I see, there's erosion, all right, and it's within the bill itself.


- An aside, this: at the same time I learned about other attempts at mail-in ballots, I found a 'read aloud' function for PDFs. Handy for examining text while baking (unless the mixer's on, but I digress). Not so handy when documents hyphenate words that drop to the next line. (Carried is fine, but car- ried sounds like car read. Think human mishears might be an error to account for on the tech end, 微软?)


Yeesh. Another stumbling block with the read aloud function - line numbering in a document. The example I ran into is [case name] [case number] [line number] [year]. The line number isn't part of the case, but it's read as if it is. Thinking that's yours to fix as well, 微软.


- Speaking of substance over purses, Dorian... "introduced a total of 21 bills that the center defined as 'substantive'. But her legislation received no action in committees, no floor votes, and none ever became law."


And elsewhere in this article: "'But she wasn't as successful as some other members were - even among [other] freshmen - at getting people to pay attention to her legislation.'"


Given that ineffectiveness as a legislator, I'm not entirely keen on the proposal made here, especially when there's a considerable absence of new tears about the border issues only recently exposed under this administration. (Also considering that proposal in relation to a 国 that's built up military installations - talk about interventionism doesn't invalidate the need for the institution that caused it.)


I consider those on both sides who are more effective in their positions than one so visible. I also consider those skincare vids and playalongs when I say publicist might be a better position for such a one. There was debate earlier about defunding on that side of the aisle, that I think provides a clue to why that ineffectiveness is so. Of course, there's always bartending.


- Tyrants need no excuse. (There's material in the bill above regarding foreign influence and conflicts of interest. Just wondering, how's that laptop again?)


- Ending with a glass raised to the lady who didn't provide the meme of the moment.


Featured Posts
Recent Posts