This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 29, 2007 5:22 PM.
The previous post in this blog was You know it's bad....
The next post in this blog is Google's got it right.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
The materials that have been sent out to the voters of Portland in connection with the four proposed city charter changes that are currently up for a vote are downright daffy. As we've already noted here, the factions for and against the changes have sent out some highly misleading glossy brochures, and that's disappointing. But even more deflating is the fact that neither the official Voter's Pamphlet nor the ballot materials themselves even bother to print out all the details of the changes that are in the measures! All we get are summaries, prepared by who-knows-who, with who-knows-what agenda. The actual texts of the laws on which we are voting are nowhere to be found.
Oh yeah, I'm sure they're buried on some website somewhere, and I've heard that they're 80 pages long and no one would be able to understand them even if they tried. But hey. There should have been a copy of the full glory of the full text of the actual language in every voter's mailbox, along with the hokum.
Now, there's a charter change that I could get behind -- rules that make sure we get to see what we're actually voting on.
But it gets goofier. It appears that a subliminal message may have been slipped into the Voter's Pamphlet as well. Let's see how good your eyes are. Here are the tops of the first pages of the Voter's Pamphlet sections on two of the ballot measures. See if you notice anything different between them:
Hmmmmm. Very subtle.
Comments (15)
I wasn't sure how week I'd do on this test, but as it turns out my eyes are pretty goob.
If someone can dig up an older pamphlet from a previous election, we'd know which one is the fluke. 26-89 is the only one without the "No." on it, the other three have it. I suspect the standard is to have the "No."
Ever wonder why many contracts, legal documents, ballot measures, etc. are convoluted and full of legalese? It is not because they want you to understand it. They are written that way purposely so you WON'T understand it. Because if you did understand it you would probably reject it.
Bah. They do this crap all the time. The ballot language for the Mult I-Tax promised restoration of elder services, mental health services and keeping crooks in jail, in addition to schools. It was a bald faced lie.
Ever wonder why many contracts, legal documents, ballot measures, etc. are convoluted and full of legalese? It is not because they want you to understand it. They are written that way purposely so you WON'T understand it. Because if you did understand it you would probably reject it.
For what it's worth, the Charter isn't difficult to understand, either in its current form or the proposed revision. They just won't publish the entire 80-page language of the proposal in the voters' pamphlet.
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
The Occasional Book
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 21
At this date last year: 52
Total run in 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (15)
I wasn't sure how week I'd do on this test, but as it turns out my eyes are pretty goob.
Posted by b!X | April 29, 2007 5:59 PM
ummm.
the second one says measure no 26-xx as opposed to just measure 26-xx.
The second one says "a survey of comparable sized cities" at the top right before the "what does the measure do" part.
I must be missing something.....
Posted by Mike | April 29, 2007 6:21 PM
No, you got it. There's a "No." on 26-91.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 6:27 PM
It tells you how to vote!
Posted by Allan L. | April 29, 2007 6:39 PM
Finally, a Voter's Pamphlet that does its job.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 6:40 PM
My experience in election law and my current level of cynicism leads me to believe this is purposeful. How sad.
Posted by Molly | April 29, 2007 8:53 PM
It may have been subconscious.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 9:15 PM
My experience in election law and my current level of cynicism leads me to believe this is purposeful. How sad.
An amusing glitch, but let's not get carried away. After all, the voters pamphlet is assembled by the County Elections office, right?
John Kauffman has previously been very transparent about responding to questions about the mechanics of voting here at bojack.org.
So, John, an explanation?
Posted by Kari Chisholm | April 29, 2007 9:22 PM
There's one here.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 9:33 PM
If someone can dig up an older pamphlet from a previous election, we'd know which one is the fluke. 26-89 is the only one without the "No." on it, the other three have it. I suspect the standard is to have the "No."
Posted by b!X | April 29, 2007 9:48 PM
Typical for the People's Republic of Oregon...
Posted by Michael | April 30, 2007 12:00 AM
Ever wonder why many contracts, legal documents, ballot measures, etc. are convoluted and full of legalese? It is not because they want you to understand it. They are written that way purposely so you WON'T understand it. Because if you did understand it you would probably reject it.
Posted by Britt Storkson | April 30, 2007 7:34 AM
Bah. They do this crap all the time. The ballot language for the Mult I-Tax promised restoration of elder services, mental health services and keeping crooks in jail, in addition to schools. It was a bald faced lie.
Posted by Dave Lister | April 30, 2007 9:14 AM
And don't forget the ballot-title howler from the '90s, describing how the proposed Metro charter would limit the powers of that layer of government.
Posted by Molly | April 30, 2007 9:25 AM
Ever wonder why many contracts, legal documents, ballot measures, etc. are convoluted and full of legalese? It is not because they want you to understand it. They are written that way purposely so you WON'T understand it. Because if you did understand it you would probably reject it.
For what it's worth, the Charter isn't difficult to understand, either in its current form or the proposed revision. They just won't publish the entire 80-page language of the proposal in the voters' pamphlet.
Posted by b!X | April 30, 2007 9:42 AM