OzzyKP in the News

[GhengisFarb™]

So why are you on the file cabinet? Is that the only place in your office you can get cell phone reception?

[KrazyHorse]

He didn't want them to take a picture of him sitting in their office furniture.

[Wiglaf]

[Jon Miller]

I would be willing to move a lot of ages down to 16. I would also be willing to move a lot of ages up to 21 (or so).

I do tihnk that consistency would be nice. Not sure if it is expediant though.

JM

[Ming]

Nice story Ozzy... While I don't agree with you on some of your positions, it sure is good to see somebody attempting to change things. At least you fight for what you believe in. Thats FAR more than some people can say...

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Ming
Nice story Ozzy... While I don't agree with you on some of your positions, it sure is good to see somebody attempting to change things. At least you fight for what you believe in. Thats FAR more than some people can say...

I'm fighting for the status quo what the hell should I be doing? Any aggressive maneuver and I might inadvertently change things.

[OzzyKP]

KH, well I suppose we aren't arguing the merits of such a plan, just the practicality of it. I've never worked at a DMV so I can't directly refute your points, but as I doubt you've ever worked at a DMV or were a higher up official at a Department of Transportation you make many assumptions:

1. You assume a full psychiatric evaluation would be necessary to allow someone on the road. I doubt something that extreme would be necessary.

2. You assume whatever additional driver testing/regulation would be inordinately expensive. We currently have drivers training that covers many hours of class time, road training, and parking lot & orange cone training. Plus road and written testing at the DMV. Plus additional training by parents and family and many other resources for driver's training. If these costs are acceptable, I don't see how they would rise inordinately due to some quick psych evaluation or perhaps a written approval/testimony by the driver instructor and/or parents.

3. You assume that most 12 year olds don't understand right from wrong. In truth it is a very small minority. A smaller minority than that of 30 year olds, yes, but a very small minority still.

4. You assume that if we required stricter testing for all drivers that the cost of the testing would outweigh the benefit of safer drivers and less accidents.

5. You assume the increased risk of allowing 12 year olds to drive is somehow unusual or exceptional. Male drivers have significantly higher rates of fatal accidents than female drivers. Yet society seems to tolerate that with little fanfare or additional precautions.

6. You assume that a great number of younger kids will both desire to drive, have access to a car, and have the wherewithall to go through driver's training, licensing, and the rest. I think the most incompetent ones will self-select themselves out of the system altogether.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ming
Nice story Ozzy... While I don't agree with you on some of your positions, it sure is good to see somebody attempting to change things. At least you fight for what you believe in. Thats FAR more than some people can say...

Thanks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, that picture (in the article) does a disservice. Makes you look like some slacker kid instead of a serious crusader for civil rights. Did you know they were coming that day? I would have made sure to wear at least khakis and a polo shirt, if not a suit.

Oh, and on the subject of the article, I think your parents are right.

[Jon Miller]

I think the angle they were going for in the photo was revolutionary. It might have been better to put on a suit or something and go for 'serious business' instead.

JM

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, that picture (in the article) does a disservice. Makes you look like some slacker kid instead of a serious crusader for civil rights. Did you know they were coming that day? I would have made sure to wear at least khakis and a polo shirt, if not a suit.

Well I certainly didn't choose the pose myself. The photographer was getting all artsy.

As for my clothes... I kinda like the way it came across. That's my general work attire. Maybe it screams slacker kid to you, I hope it isn't the case with everyone. I think it makes this to be something fresh and different, but still professional. At least that is my take. Maybe I'm just clueless on that point.

I do always make sure to wear a suit for my TV gigs.

[self biased]

summary?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think the angle they were going for in the photo was revolutionary. It might have been better to put on a suit or something and go for 'serious business' instead.

JM

Yeah, I can see that... but I agree that suit may have been a better way to go. You could even do that pose and with a suit on, it'd look more serious.

I'd think that Ozzy has run into plenty of people who don't take him seriously on first hearing what he's advocating, so a picture that is more "serious" may have had better play with the general newspaper reading population.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by self biased
summary?

'bout time. Thanks self.

[Donegeal]

Way to go Ozzy!

Nice article and funny blog.

Great to hear 'Da Boat' is still chugging along (might have to go for a more feul efficent car soon though...)