sobo

OK, after hijacking TTK's thread for the past 2-1/2 pages (sorry, Pat), I'll paddle against the drift and return to the topic at hand... As I have said to Pat before, I do not have a dog in the I-502 fight, so I won't be signing any petitions (as if anyone has any doubt about that now, if they've been following along ). But my position on the issue of legalization is such that if I-502 comes up on the ballot, and the far right fundies haven't put some stupid restrictions in place that make no sense, I'll be in favor of passage. There, I said it! Discuss.

I grow my own greens, veggies, and herbs. No, Pat, not that herb...

Ewwwwwwwwww... A mental image I did not need to have...

Thank you. As have yours, suh. You might very well succeed. I would have to be on my guard, to be sure... Hydraulic leverage... gonna have to remember that one...

Agreed! Although I had no dog in that fight, I was pleased with my vote and the result of the process. Fuck all fundies...

The question was regarding the obvious, yet oratorical. That we are different. Regarding the more allusive, I do not seek, nor do I require, your approval. We're probably more alike than different, I'd wager. I would not presume to grant you my approval. I simply put forth my opinions for public caning, as required. I made that same observation to you several years ago, if you recall, Pat. Can't recall what the thread was about back then, but it got long-winded, as we did here in this thread, and concluded that we weren't very much different politically. Of course, public caning is always fun, and the norm around here, as rob points out above. Dog knows I've put enough out here in the last few weeks to be worthy of a few good swats meself...

Hmm, no, I get that. Bit I think you're missing the point, though. How do you know if somebody asking for the data has good intentions? Make them check a box promising not to use the data to harass? If I want to prevent people from checking on my petition, all I have to do is have a friend threaten to harass my signatories and now it's secret? Sounds too easy. Sometimes privacy is less important than transparency. That's why political donations beyond a certain limit are public. That's just it, rob, you don't know what their intentions are. And given the highly-charged political climate of the times, I'd take the safer bet and say that those intentions might be less than honorable. Is that an indictment of my fellow man? Yes, it is. But I think it's accurate. Just look at the shenanigans in the last three presidential elections... The last two WA gubernatorial elections... People are stooping to new lows just to garner more votes. So yes, I believe intentions may be less than honorable when a group wants access to the personal information of signers of an opposing petition. And therein lies my belief that the signer's privacy trumps the opposition's alleged "need to know" that personal information. I still support an independent verification of the electoral process, just not by either side of the legislation under discussion. Foxes and hens, you know... And I don't. So I think you and I are done here. Aww...don't be like that. I'm not being mean to you, I'm just discussing. I think you're doing the right thing: you want privacy, so you refuse to sign petitions. What's wrong with that? You vote just like everyone else. I think you took my closer the wrong way. I simply agreed with you on that point, and thought that part of the discussion was concluded. I did not think you were being mean to me. It seemed to me that we understood each other's positions on other aspects of the conversation, so I thought we were done. I'm certainly open to more discussion. After all, I'm only working less than half-time these days, so I've got a lot of time on my hands...

The question was regarding the obvious, yet oratorical. That we are different. Regarding the more allusive, I do not seek, nor do I require, your approval.

Thank you. Yet, it seems to me that you have been... That's your expectation, and it is right, or wrong. It depends upon the person to which you are directing your expectation, doesn't it? Not everyone believes as you do nor would act in a manner acceptable to you. We are all individuals, and different. Again, thank you. No, and how could there be? Those are your opinions. And I have mine. You may certainly hold opinions that differ from mine, but when one says that another's opinion is wrong, then there can be no further meaningful discussion.

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch. In general, I'm a very private person. Sure, I may have a few "Hey Sobo, what time is it?" threads floating around here, but for the most part, I mind my own business and let other mind theirs. I really hate telemarketing phone calls, spam emails, and fiercely loathe the door-to-door Krusaders that come around here pretty damn regularly... too damn regularly, in fact. So no, I do not even want to have to think aobut considering to deal with these types. That's just how far I want to remove myself from them. Yeah, me too. And petitions have nothing to do with all that. But I step up beyond my personal nature when required by things larger than myself. I simply don't buy the postmodern concept of 'no muss, no fuss, only if it suits me personally democracy'. Democracy requires action, participation, and, at times, being (slightly) inconvenienced. The alternative is: do nothing, and let the other side run rampant. Well, good for you, Pat. I'm different. Agreed?

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch. In general, I'm a very private person. Sure, I may have a few "Hey Sobo, what time is it?" threads floating around here, but for the most part, I mind my own business and let other mind theirs. I really hate telemarketing phone calls, spam emails, and fiercely loathe the door-to-door Krusaders that come around here pretty damn regularly... too damn regularly, in fact. So no, I do not even want to have to think about considering to deal with these types. That's just how far I want to remove myself from them. "I just want to be left alone..."

It's not about 'opposition groups' having access to signatures, it's about the public's access to same, per the PRA. It's a legislative process. PRA requires disclosure unless a competing harm resulting from disclosure or a reasonable expectation of privacy can be demonstrated. Neither was effectively by the plaintiffs in the case. Again, I remain on the fence about disclosure, siding slightly in favor (secretive government IS a HUGE problem, retribution is a non problem). I do feel strongly about people who don't sign petitions they strongly believe due to mythical fears of skulduggery, however. People all over the middle east are risking their lives just to vote...and we can't sign petitions because we're afraid of a credit card theft scheme that's never happened and probably couldn't, given the information that probably won't be disclosed anyway because no one will actually request it? That's some pussy shit right there, IMO. Sorry. Pat, go back and reread my very first post on this thread on Page 1. Yes, my post was about the same-sex marriage folks (a group opposed to PMW, therefore an opposition group by definition) threatening to acquire the personal information of the supporters of the PMW's petition to overturn the same-sex marriage law (via the PRA) in order to harrass and intimidate those supporters. They threatened to contact the supporters of PMW in order to have "uncomfortable conversations" with them. That is harrassment and voter intimidation, and what this whole thread has become about. As I have said at least three times already, I have no qualms about the need to verify the legitimacy of a political process through the review of personal information, but access to personal information by opponents to a particular piece of legislation becomes suspect when that opposition group threatens retaliation/intimidation to the supporters of that legislation. Why can you not see that? I completely support the GLBT community in the victory they enjoyed in acquiring marriage rights. That was a no-brainer of a vote for me. Are they not people, too? Who wouldn't want them to enjoy the same rights as everyone else? Closeted bigots is all I can figure. What I do not support is the tactics they threatened to use when an opposition group (PMW) took up a petition to reverse those rights. It is the tactics that I do not condone.

One of my many convictions is that I don't release personal information. Nor do I commit funds over the telephone. Are you now to be the arbiter of my convictions as well?? To judge what are, and are not, legitimate convictions? Ad hominem, blah blah, but Grandma's still got bigger ballz. She's willing to be active in an important process of reform, even at the risk of identity theft (which has, do date, never occurred with petition signatures). You've decided that your fear of identity theft trumps participating in the petition process. Grandma is simply braver in that regard. Them's just the facts, dood. Call it an attack. I call it an observation. Whut-evuh... I play my part in the process of reform, I just board the train at the next station. Do you have some sort of problem with the manner in which I participate in my government? Are you now to be the arbiter of how I discharge my citizenship, as well as what convictions I may be allowed to hold? Jeezus, Pat, get a hold of yourself! Not everyone practices their citizenship in the same manner as you. Allow for a difference of opinion, ferchrissakes.

We're not talking about verifying legitimacy. We're talking about data-mining for nefarious purposes. A non-governmental agency charged with verifying the accuracy of legitimacy of the electoral process is one thing, and a thing which I believe everyone can support. But when any opponent of a petition can summon the personal information of the supporters of that petition (by invoking the PRA), what other purpose would there be in that if not to attempt to change those supporters' minds? And just how do you think those opponents might go about doing that? Could that be by harrassment, intimidation, and "uncomfortable conversations"...?? Which "non-governmental agency" gets "charged" to verify legitimacy? ANYONE should be able to verify legitimacy. That's how public democracy and transparency works. You shouldn't have a closed list of people who are "allowed" to challenge authenticity. How do you propose deciding who has the right to look at the signatories, and who doesn't? Who gets that make THAT decision? You're missing the point, rob. Do you really think that a group opposed to a particular petition wants to verify the legitimacy of the petition process when they request the personal information of the signers? Or do you think they just want to get their hands on that personal information so that they can attempt to get the supporters to change their views? Exactly right. If you don't want people to know how you feel, then you shouldn't lobby a new ballot initiative by signing a petition. Or by donating more than $200. And I don't. So I think you and I are done here.

I have absolutely no problem with this, as I said before. You are talking about elected representatives in that case, which I addressed on the previous page. That's not the issue that we are talking about now, which is disseminating personal information of petition signers. Different animal... I know that, too. But tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum can acquire that information? Tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum would need the names and addresses of the signers? Tell me what possible use could that information be to the opponent other than to seek out and attempt to influence the signer to vote differently come election day? Does not the non-governmental verifying agency have the duty to confirm or refute the legitimacy of the petition? Isn't that the only group that needs access to the personal infomration? Tell me why the opposition would ever need access to that personal information? I thought campaign contributions entered into the discussion somewhere. You'd have to ask FW to look that shit up in his hypocrisy database, though. That came into the discussion when rob brought it up, but it is my sense that he extrapolated my discussion to include campaign contributions, which was not what we were discussing when he entered the conversation. We were only discussing the availability of personal information of petition signers to opposition groups. As I have said in this thread before, I agree with the public's right to know what its elected representatives are doing and from whom they are taking contributions. But what this discussion has been about for the past 25-odd posts is about the need, or lack thereof, of opposition groups having access to the personal information of signers of a petition which the group opposes, and why those groups should, or should not, be allowed access to that personal information.

Fine, glad you finally see my point. Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction. Conviction is nothing without action. Sorry...I've heard it all before. One of my many convictions is that I don't release personal information. Nor do I commit funds over the telephone. Are you now to be the arbiter of my convictions as well?? To judge what are, and are not, legitimate convictions?

Grandma probably doesn't know who is doing what with her personal information. But please, Pat, continue with the personal attacks. I would have put you on a higher plane than that...

Fine, glad you finally see my point. Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction.

I have a pair, thankyouverymuch. Have had them for a very long time. I still don't sign petitions. But by your own admission, it sounds to me like you do your own share of intimidation at the clipboard... It's not intimidation, it's an opportunity to man up and join the fight. I exercise my opportunities during the primaries and at the general elections. Thanks.

I vote in the primaries. I just don't sign petitions. Resorting to ad hominem attacks now, Pat? Tsk tsk tsk...

I have absolutely no problem with this, as I said before. You are talking about elected representatives in that case, which I addressed on the previous page. That's not the issue that we are talking about now, which is disseminating personal information of petition signers. Different animal... I know that, too. But tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum can acquire that information? Tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum would need the names and addresses of the signers? Tell me what possible use could that information be to the opponent other than to seek out and attempt to influence the signer to vote differently come election day? Does not the non-governmental verifying agency have the duty to confirm or refute the legitimacy of the petition? Isn't that the only group that needs access to the personal information? Tell me why the opposition would ever need access to that personal information?

I have a pair, thankyouverymuch. Have had them for a very long time. I still don't sign petitions. But by your own admission, it sounds to me like you do your own share of intimidation at the clipboard...

I disagree. I find signing a petition to be closer to voting than to lobbying, which is why I believe that personal information should not be disclosed to opponents. Would you not agree that the accuracy and legitimacy of the petition's signature count can be verified without the ability to disseminate personal information to opponents of the petition? Maybe it hasn't happened yet... But do we wait for it to eventually occur (which it will, eventually), and jeopardize the results of an election? Or do we prevent it from ever happening now, before the intimidation occurs and forfeits the result? Those gathering the signatures and those signing the petition can be said to be "on the same side" of the issue, so why would either of them care that they saw names and addresses? The "reasonable expectation of privacy" comes into play when opponents want to data-mine the personal information of supporters so that they can go forth and attempt to change people's minds through "uncomfortable conversations" or other means of harrassment and intimidation. Your choice, friend. I would have voted with your greater Board and gone with non-disclosure. This isn't Congress we're talking about here... It's John Q. Public's private information, and I can see why your board voted the way they did. No, it is not a simple issue, but I know where I stand upon it, and am not afraid to make my stance known.

Imagine how terrifying it would be if there were no non-government agency capable of verifying a petition's legitimacy, and therefore the legitimacy of the initiative on the ballot itself? Fucking terrifying. We're not talking about verifying legitimacy. We're talking about data-mining for nefarious purposes. A non-governmental agency charged with verifying the accuracy of legitimacy of the electoral process is one thing, and a thing which I believe everyone can support. But when any opponent of a petition can summon the personal information of the supporters of that petition (by invoking the PRA), what other purpose would there be in that if not to attempt to change those supporters' minds? And just how do you think those opponents might go about doing that? Could that be by harrassment, intimidation, and "uncomfortable conversations"...?? Personally, I prefer to be left alone about my voting decisions. Just one of the reasons I never sign petitions.

I'm aware it's not a new rule. I just don't like the rule as it currently exists. In my opinion, a petition is essentially a ballot, or rather an indication of how one will likely vote in the future. When you sign a petition, there's a resonable expectation of how you will vote upon that issue. Granted, a person may sign a petition for a particular cause, and then vote against that cause when the issue comes up in an election, but I suspect that doesn't happen very often. I think you may have extrapolated my meaning in my previous post, so allow me to clarify. I do indeed want to know who is sponsoring (sponsor, defined as who or what group put the legislation forward, not support, defined as who is voting in favor of it - these are two different things) a particular piece of legislation, be it a bill, a petition, or a referendum. And I want to know who the major contributors to that effort are. But I do not think it's necessary to seek out and destroy John Q. Public for his penny-ante donation or support of a petition, which is currently possible under the disclosure law in the Public Records Act. And your Huffington Post Fundrace search engine, which, BTW, I find to be a bit too intrusive, in an Orwellian sort of way... Nice going, Big Brother... Please tell me why, rob, it is any business of yours, or anyone else's, who or what causes or candidates I support and/or contribute to? I'm not Exxon, Monsanto, Enron, Microsoft, Cisco, etc., so pardon me if I don't see where my support or donations are your business. Just as I don't see where yours are any business of mine. I don't deny your right, and mine, to know who in Congress sponsored a bill. Those are elected representatives of the people and we should know what they're up to and from whom they're taking money. But we're not talking about Congressional legislation here (this is where I think you extrapolated my earlier post). We're talking about petitions. And I don't begrudge you your right, and mine, to know who sponsored a petition, by my earlier definition of sponsor. But when it comes to opponents data-mining the petition record to determine who among the general citizenry supported a petition, there can only be one reason for that, and that is to sally forth and harrass, intimidate, and otherwise violate that supporter's right to privacy. Welcome, Big Brother is watching you... Laugh it up, rob. In the current explosive, politically-charged atmosphere, with so much at stake in November 2012, I would not be surprised if we see the Black Panthers loitering outside polling stations again.