Minor things that bother you

[Scott5114]

Reading Scott's tale of the hoops he had to jump through to be married in Oklahoma reminds me of what used to be a frequent occurrence in Kentucky. Kentucky used to require a blood test before marriage. I don't remember when that requirement was scrapped (or scraped, if you will, in accordance with a post upthread) but before it was removed, a whole lot of Kentuckians traveled to Tennessee to get married, where no such requirement existed.

A blood test? To ensure you weren't related to the person you were married to, or was there some other reason? (Also, I was of the impression that DNA tech to determine that sort of thing was only viable in the early 90s or so–what were they testing, exactly?)

All of this makes me wonder if it might not have been easier for Scott and his bride to get married in another state.

Traveling to another state for the wedding wasn't considered as an option, since we didn't really want to make a huge production out of our wedding–the ceremony was about 15 minutes long, at the duck pond on the OU campus. The only people there beside us was the "minister", best man, maid of honor, and our dog. We had a slightly larger reception afterward at the game store the best man owned, but if I remember correctly the guestbook only had about 20 names in it or so. We didn't have a honeymoon or anything; I don't remember if we even took off work afterward.

If this already sounds like an odd arrangement, consider the date we chose–February 29, 2016. We've been married for 6 years, but won't be celebrating our second anniversary until 2024. We felt like this would make the date more special, and there's practically no way to forget it's coming up, because it always takes place in the midst of presidential primaries.

[J N Winkler]

A blood test? To ensure you weren't related to the person you were married to, or was there some other reason? (Also, I was of the impression that DNA tech to determine that sort of thing was only viable in the early 90s or so–what were they testing, exactly?)

They were testing for the presence of STDs.  States started requiring blood tests during the Progressive Era (when eugenics was in fashion) and eventually about two-thirds had a blood test requirement.  They are now pretty much gone since it was realized very few people who would test positive for a STD look to get married (one statistic I've seen is $80 million spent on blood tests in one year to catch 425 cases).

Traveling to another state for the wedding wasn't considered as an option, since we didn't really want to make a huge production out of our wedding . . .

It is also, AIUI, not trivially simple to find a state that will permit nonresidents to apply for a marriage license, and in any event the marriage license has to be used in the issuing state.  Arkansas (which will issue to nonresidents) might have been an option, but I don't know if it would have been practical to do license issue and the ceremony in the same trip.

[hbelkins]

I don't know how residency requirements work today in Tennessee, but I do know that the wedding chapels in Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge are very popular among residents of this area.

[kphoger]

At work and many times socially, I write date - month in three letter abbreviation - year.
Makes it clear what's going on, no matter where you're from.

I do this too.  I recently typed some notes in a work order that included today's date–as 03-OCT-2022.

There are things the US does differently from the rest of the world that make little sense (i.e. imperial system, Fahrenheit), and one of them is how we write dates. The customary way of writing dates is MM/DD/YYYY, which goes medium size unit/small size unit/large size unit, which is dumb.

My preferred date format is that specified by ISO 8601, which is 2022-10-01 (YYYY-MM-DD). This date format is instantly recognizable as what it is (no other date format puts the year first; nobody uses YYYY-DD-MM), making it unambiguous, and because the units go large-medium-small, an alphabetical sort will also sort the dates. ISO 8601 also specifies formats for dates with no year (10-01) and weeks (2022-W39).

There is really no rational argument against ISO 8601 date formats other than "I just don't want to get with the program".

It's a minor thing that bothers me that the US way of writing dates isn't "in order", so I do slightly prefer day-month-year.  And, while I do use YYYY-MM-DD for filenames that I want to keep in chronological order, I don't find it at all useful in any spoken context.  When people say a date, it's pretty much never useful to know the year first.

For example, if I'm reading a dentist's reminder card out loud, I might say, "You have an appointment scheduled for March 16 2023 at 11:15".  Or I might say, "You have an appointment scheduled for 16 March 2023 at 11:15".  In both cases, the two most useful bits of information come first.  However, to say "You have an appointment scheduled for 2023 March 16 at 11:15" does manage to go "in order" but includes the most throwaway bit of information right at the beginning.  That seems dumb to me.

And so, if it's dumb to say things that way out loud, then I consider that to be a "rational argument against" using it in other contexts.

[Scott5114]

There's plenty of instances where something is perfectly acceptable to say out loud but awkward in text, and vice versa, so I consider them as two completely separate contexts. There's generally no confusion with capital I, lowercase l, and digit 1 in speech, but in writing there is; there is no confusion between the name of letters B and D in text but there is when spelling something aloud. And of course there's a plethora of words that aren't spelled how they're pronounced.

So if I'm reading a note of mine where I wrote "2022-10-03" aloud to someone, I'll pronounce it "October 3rd, 2022".

[kphoger]

So if I'm reading a note of mine where I wrote "2022-10-03" aloud to someone, I'll pronounce it "October 3rd, 2022".

And that's what doesn't make sense to me.

There is really no rational argument against writing something the same way you say it other than "this is my hill and I'm going to die on it".

[Scott5114]

There are plenty of Americans who write "10/03" and say it out loud as "the third of October".

Also, one of my reasons for writing it year-first in text format is to help eliminate ambiguity about which date format is being used. There is usually no such ambiguity in spoken word context because, in my experience, dates are usually never spoken as numbers, except for well-known dates like "nine eleven" (and sometimes not even then–it is nearly always "January 6th", not "one six").

[webny99]

There is really no rational argument against writing something the same way you say it other than "this is my hill and I'm going to die on it".

Other than, you know, the fact that it would call into question approximately 50% of the spellings in the entire English language...

[kphoger]

Other than, you know, the very trivial fact that it would call into question approximately 50% of the spellings in the entire English language...

that of but a Sorry, with lick the just order, not sentence read and of all I sense. out words made it

[Scott5114]

Other than, you know, the very trivial fact that it would call into question approximately 50% of the spellings in the entire English language...

that of but a Sorry, with lick the just order, not sentence read and of all I sense. out words made it

syntax error at post 5058 line 5, near 'that'
Execution of post 5058 aborted due to compilation errors.

[webny99]

Other than, you know, the very trivial fact that it would call into question approximately 50% of the spellings in the entire English language...

that of but a Sorry, with lick the just order, not sentence read and of all I sense. out words made it

Mmmhmm. Tough epitome of hyperbole gone awry colonel, need another psychology primer.

[abefroman329]

I don't have any interaction with the Oklahoma public school system anymore, but a pastor was leading prayers before football games as late as my senior year in 2007.

We were at a public high school basketball game in Arkansas in 2014 where a local clergyman launched into an explicitly Christian prayer with no notice during the usual pre-game announcements (granted, this was because some students had just been involved in a serious car accident, but, to your point, I can't see the fans tolerating an explicitly non-Christian prayer for non-Christian students who were hurt).

And my high school in suburban Atlanta had a youth minister from one of the local churches hang out in the lunchroom "just in case anyone needed to talk," which, again, can't see them tolerating a rabbi or imam doing the same thing.

[abefroman329]

With that in mind, though, it's also the case that one-third of all immigrants in Texas are undocumented (a.k.a. illegal aliens).

Are you including asylum-seekers in this figure, because (a) crossing the border to seek asylum isn't a crime (Abbott's deplorable stunts appear to be linked to the fact that the Remain In Mexico policy was eliminated and (b) a whole lot of elected officials and candidates for office are doing their best to redefine "legal immigration" as "immigration by white people" and "illegal immigration" as "immigration by non-white people."

It's pretty easy for me to understand, then, how Texas would be frustrated with federal immigration policies that seem to disproportionately affect that state–especially when it comes to unauthorized foreigners being 'released' into the state–even if the effects of that have been exaggerated and politicized.

It WOULD be, well, easier for me to understand if (a) this hadn't been going on for almost 30 years and (b) Texas wasn't already being compensated by the federal government for the influx of immigrants.

I do find it ironic that such busing is described in left-wing media as wreaking havoc on the northern and eastern cities to which the migrants are being bused.

It's being described as "wreaking havoc" because buses are just showing up in cities with no advance notice. 

For some reason, that shouldn't be those states' problem, but it should be Texas' problem.  WTF?  If Texas doesn't want the influx, then we're supposed to believe it's because of racism and xenophobia;  but, if New York or DC doesn't want them either, then we're supposed to be sympathetic.  Well, I guess, maybe Texas should have thought of that before they went and put their border next to Mexico...

Again, it's not that New York or DC don't want them, it's the fact that Texas (and, most recently, Florida) are making absolutely no effort whatsoever to coordinate these movements with the destinations.

[JoePCool14]

With that in mind, though, it's also the case that one-third of all immigrants in Texas are undocumented (a.k.a. illegal aliens).

Are you including asylum-seekers in this figure, because (a) crossing the border to seek asylum isn't a crime (Abbott's deplorable stunts appear to be linked to the fact that the Remain In Mexico policy was eliminated and (b) a whole lot of elected officials and candidates for office are doing their best to redefine "legal immigration" as "immigration by white people" and "illegal immigration" as "immigration by non-white people."

It's pretty easy for me to understand, then, how Texas would be frustrated with federal immigration policies that seem to disproportionately affect that state–especially when it comes to unauthorized foreigners being 'released' into the state–even if the effects of that have been exaggerated and politicized.

It WOULD be, well, easier for me to understand if (a) this hadn't been going on for almost 30 years and (b) Texas wasn't already being compensated by the federal government for the influx of immigrants.

I do find it ironic that such busing is described in left-wing media as wreaking havoc on the northern and eastern cities to which the migrants are being bused.

It's being described as "wreaking havoc" because buses are just showing up in cities with no advance notice. 

For some reason, that shouldn't be those states' problem, but it should be Texas' problem.  WTF?  If Texas doesn't want the influx, then we're supposed to believe it's because of racism and xenophobia;  but, if New York or DC doesn't want them either, then we're supposed to be sympathetic.  Well, I guess, maybe Texas should have thought of that before they went and put their border next to Mexico...

Again, it's not that New York or DC don't want them, it's the fact that Texas (and, most recently, Florida) are making absolutely no effort whatsoever to coordinate these movements with the destinations.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago bussed a few dozen illegal migrants to a hotel in the suburb of Burr Ridge, IL instead of finding a place to house them in Chicago.

Edit: The migrants were given legal refugee status.

[abefroman329]

Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago bussed a few dozen illegal migrants to a hotel in the suburb of Burr Ridge, IL instead of finding a place to house them in Chicago.

Come on man, even the mayor himself admits they're here legally:

https://cms5.revize.com/revize/burrridge/Document%20Center/Press%20Releases/Village%20Statement%20-%20Refugees.pdf

Thanks for proving my point about nativists doing their damndest to redefine "legal immigrant" as "white" and "illegal immigrant" as "non-white," though.

[kphoger]

With that in mind, though, it's also the case that one-third of all immigrants in Texas are undocumented (a.k.a. illegal aliens).

Are you including asylum-seekers in this figure, because (a) crossing the border to seek asylum isn't a crime (Abbott's deplorable stunts appear to be linked to the fact that the Remain In Mexico policy was eliminated and (b) a whole lot of elected officials and candidates for office are doing their best to redefine "legal immigration" as "immigration by white people" and "illegal immigration" as "immigration by non-white people."

I don't recall now where I got the statistics from, but I do specifically remember them being called "residents".  I have a hard time imagining that asylum seekers would be defined that way, but I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about that kind of thing than I am.

It's being described as "wreaking havoc" because buses are just showing up in cities with no advance notice.

Again, it's not that New York or DC don't want them, it's the fact that Texas (and, most recently, Florida) are making absolutely no effort whatsoever to coordinate these movements with the destinations.

So they just need to call ahead, and then no havoc is wreaked?  Would it be somehow more appropriate to bus them to Houston or Lubbock with no advance notice?  Again, the immigrants have to go somewhere, and I see no compelling reason that they should have to remain in Texas instead of being bused to a different state.  Does Texas receive some special sort of advance notice that no other states receive?

[JoePCool14]

Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago bussed a few dozen illegal migrants to a hotel in the suburb of Burr Ridge, IL instead of finding a place to house them in Chicago.

Come on man, even the mayor himself admits they're here legally:

https://cms5.revize.com/revize/burrridge/Document%20Center/Press%20Releases/Village%20Statement%20-%20Refugees.pdf

Thanks for proving my point about nativists doing their damndest to redefine "legal immigrant" as "white" and "illegal immigrant" as "non-white," though.

Original post has been edited. That being said, the point still sands about them being relocated outside of Chicago city limits.

[abefroman329]

So they just need to call ahead, and then no havoc is wreaked?

It looks like it's a 22-hour drive from a border town to Chicago (I checked the travel time from El Paso and from McAllen), so yeah, if someone had reached out to the Mayor's office (or the Governor's office, for that matter) and said "fyi a bus full of migrants is going to be there in 22 hours," then there would have been a hell of a lot more that could be done to prepare for their arrival, and, at minimum, less havoc would have been wreaked.

Would it be somehow more appropriate to bus them to Houston or Lubbock with no advance notice?

It wouldn't be appropriate to bus them anywhere with no advance notice. 

Again, the immigrants have to go somewhere, and I see no compelling reason that they should have to remain in Texas instead of being bused to a different state.

Other than the fact that their court appearances related to their petitions tend to be scheduled at courthouses in Texas, I don't either.  I also don't think they should be bussed anywhere under false pretenses, as was definitely the case with the infamous flight to Martha's Vineyard.

Does Texas receive some special sort of advance notice that no other states receive?/quote]They've...shared a border with Mexico for 150 years.  Migration from Mexico has been up since about five minutes after NAFTA was ratified, so they've had 30 years' notice in that regard as well.  What sort of "special sort of advance notice" does Texas deserve?  And why are New Mexico, Arizona, and California able to handle an influx of immigrants where Texas isn't?

[abefroman329]

Original post has been edited. That being said, the point still sands about them being relocated outside of Chicago city limits.

OK, fair.

If someone called the hotel in question and reserved X number of rooms, then that's still more notice than any city has received about migrants being relocated there. If not, then I'm not going to defend what Lightfoot did, either.

[kphoger]

I also don't think they should be bussed anywhere under false pretenses, as was definitely the case with the infamous flight to Martha's Vineyard.

Totally agree.  That was awful.

why are New Mexico, Arizona, and California able to handle an influx of immigrants where Texas isn't?

1.  I think Texas is able to handle the influx of immigrants.  They have historically shown that immigration is part of the fabric of their state.  They obviously didn't get to the level of immigrant and second-gen immigrant population that they have without being able to "handle" immigrants.

2.  I'm on the fence about whether I think a state should be able to say "no more, thanks" when it comes to putting up asylum seekers or immigrants in general, but I tend to lean on the "no they shouldn't" side of that question.  However, if immigration does spike, then that really does put a state like Texas at what seems like an unfair disadvantage–especially when the decisions that lead to such a spike come from the federal level.

3.  Pre-pandemic, Texas had a per-capita net foreign immigration figure that's 20% larger than California, more than twice that of Arizona, and three times that of New Mexico.  In 2020, they basically said "we're done for a while".  That is a bit ridiculous of a position to take (see point 2), but maybe we should ask why AZ and NM and CA can't take their turn this time.

[thenetwork]

Here's another that reared it's ugly head *again* today:

Seat belts that occasionally don't retract properly when you unbuckle and leave your car.

You close your car door assuming all is fine until....BANG!!!  The buckle part of the seat belt decided to get in between the door and the door jamb.

I have damaged more than my share of buckle housings, fortunately it is mostly cosmetic and no need to replace the belt.

[hbelkins]

When the price displayed on the shelf does not match what the item actually costs.

[Bruce]

When the price displayed on the shelf does not match what the item actually costs.

Worse yet is when there's no pricetag to be found and you have to do a pricecheck at the checkout.

I've lucked out with some unexpected savings but often it just goes in the take-back pile at the end of the conveyer belt.

[hotdogPi]

When the price displayed on the shelf does not match what the item actually costs.

Massachusetts has a law saying that if it's a grocery item (which also includes a few things that aren't food that are commonly found at grocery stores), and you're overcharged, you get one unit free (or $10 off if it's over $10), and any item past the first is for the labeled price. Does Kentucky have no similar law?

[jeffandnicole]

When the price displayed on the shelf does not match what the item actually costs.

Massachusetts has a law saying that if it's a grocery item (which also includes a few things that aren't food that are commonly found at grocery stores), and you're overcharged, you get one unit free (or $10 off if it's over $10), and any item past the first is for the labeled price. Does Kentucky have no similar law?

Most stores will at least sell it to you at the lowest posted price. 

But even with these laws, a store can pretty much ignore the law.  What are you going to do, file a lawsuit where the filing fee alone is more than what you stand to win?  As a consumer, the most you realistically can do is shop elsewhere.  And when every store will occasionally have this issue, you'll just be running around store to store dealing with the inevitable.