[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] License plates and covers.

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> * Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-12-11 15:56]:
> > You think it's abusive to imply that the shape of a car is MUCH more
> > important than keeping the car legally compliant?
>
> No, I consider you implying that I have "fucked up" priorities to be
> abusive. Specifically, when using that combination of words.

Were those actually your priorities?

> > It DOES ID the owner of the car... AND it IDs the driver.  You wrote
> > that it does NOT ID the driver.  Both require the application of
> > additional information, of course.  That's the obvious bit that you
> > missed.
>
> The key word being "obvious" and hense, not needed for a full
> understanding.

Huh?  You wrote something that's incorrect.  You wrote that the license
plate is not part of identifying the driver.  It is as much part of
identifying the driver as it is identifying the vehicle's owner.

> However, I believe the reason the photo red lights are required to have
> a shot of the front of the car is because they lost the fight when they
> claimed having a shot of the license plate was enough. They needed a
> shot of the driver.

Correct.  You need BOTH.  The more evidence the better, really, but at
least those three pieces are essential.  You must show that it was a
particular car (which requires a picture of the plate and the vehicle) and
that a particular person was behind the wheel.  Lots of folks look alike,
but that combination (plate, vehicle, human appearance) should be pretty
strong.

> > > Have you seen some of this "art"? The entrance to Autzen Stadium in
> > > Eugene is an especially bad example of what "enforced art" can create.
> >
> > Art is a matter of taste.
>
> This "art" looked like it came from "Toys-r-Us" or should be give out
> with Happy Meals.

Again, quality is a matter of taste.

Usually, the problem is the way the public art is chosen for these
projects.  Oftentimes, those things are put up for committee review and
the committees go for lowest denominator work.

> > Personally, I think Autzen Stadium is a waste of public money.
> Here's the rub. The 1% law requires 1% of the construction cost, even if
> the costs are 99% privately funded.

Yay!

Don't want to play by the public's rules, don't use the public's money.

> > Art is always impractical.  It isn't necessary for function.
> > However, it makes functioning things BETTER.  You think public
> > buildings should just be poured concrete structures based on one
> > design with no ornament whatsoever?
>
> Why not? I see lots of private structures that are nothing but blank
> walls.

And you think that's a GOOD thing?  It's degrading to the whole fabric of
the neighborhood.  It's irresponsible building practice at the very least.

> I really have no problem with art. I have a problem requiring art.

Well, you'd be in the minority.  There are lots of good reasons for doing
so.  I expressed some of them.

Cultural development is at least as important as whatever other project
requires the rest of the building.  However, the practicality and greed of
those on the current project might cause the participants to fall into a
kind of myopia that prevents them from seeing that truth.  This law
counterbalances that force.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org