sobo

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.

dont we wish....but at the end of the day. Nothing would happen to them. You're awfully fuq'n jaded for being such a young man, 'bone...

HA, that's rich! Reminds me of a story from ice climbering many years ago. Four of us were on the Icefields Parkway screwing around on our first day of the trip. My buddy decided to have a warm-up at Tangle Creek before we were gonna do Weeping Wall or Polar Circus the next day. He leads up, placing a couple screws, then pitches off the goddamned thing (it's like WI-2), which surprised the fuck outta me. I catch his fall, and he comes to rest about 10-15 feet below his last screw, with one of his picks firmly implanted into the side of his boot at the ankle. I ask him if he's OK... Phil: Yeah, I think so, but my foot feels all warm and wettish... Sobo: Can you see any blood coming out? Phil: No, but it sure hurts like hell... Carl: Hold on, lemme get a picture of it! Sobo: (WTF???) Phil (holding his leg out so everyone can see the axe stuck in his boot): Well, get on with it! I'm not gonna do this again, ya know...

ivan, I present to you your anthem. Learn it... know it... live it... [video:youtube]

True, Anastasia, what with the name of the thread being "To the fathers", I suppose that might tend to dissuade you and other Mountain Goddesses from participation in this thread. But to an even greater extent, the SausageFactor of this entire board tends to scare most females away rather quickly...

Yikes! But that story still doesn't explain all the happy smiles at camp from you three, with Toni semi-conscious and bathed in blood... I mean, Black Hefty Bag looks like this was the mostest fun ever. Just sayin'...

Sometimes you just crack me up...

as an aside, i though i recall from my boy scout days that it is in fact disrespectful to turn a flag into a piece of apparel? Abby Hoffmann caught a lot of shit for his American flag shirt in the early 70s. sure did, and thus my confusion at how, since then, all super-duper patriotic americans gotta have a flag on their hat, beltbuckle, tit, whatever - especially the teaparty types who bring the total flag custom to its logical extreme. In 1968, as a response to flag-burning as a form of protest against the Vietnam War, Congress passed the first flag protection act. So Hoffman's "getting the business" in the early 70s was a direct result of the enforcement of this new (at the time) act. In the years since then, the country has seen a lapse in the legal protections for its standard, as the SCOTUS has moved towards allowing more expression of First Amendment rights in manners that would cause the more conservative to cringe. We must look at this progression in the context of time. What was the (patriotic/nationalistic) mood of the country in 1970? What is it today...??

What would ever... ...make you say that?

I've already thrown back several in your, and your crew's, honor.

And I disagree with you and the SCOTUS and side with TTK and the ACLU on this one. Disclosing a petition signer's name and address invites harrassment and intimidation of that signatory, just like that which (for example) the proponents of the same-sex marriage law threatened to visit upon signers of Protect Marriage Washington's (PMW) petition, as quoted in your link, above: Now, if that isn't a direct threat of harrassment and a blatant attempt at voter intimidation, then I don't know what is. If a party can't make its point without resorting to harrassment and intimidation, then it has no point to make. Mark me, Rob, this isn't about same-sex marriage rights (which I support, BTW), so let's not get distracted from the real issue we're discussing here, and the wormhole that this thread has gone down, which is the privacy of the ballot... Disclosing the petition signer's personal information removes his right to the "secret ballot" which has long been a hallmark of our society. If an opponent knows who signed a petition, then the opponent could be reasonably assured of how that signatory will vote upon the issue at the upcoming election, yes? Would not that knowledge make the potential of harrassment and intimidation of the signatory more likely? Might as well post a bunch of Black Panthers or some other such Sturmabteilung-esque group outside the polling booth and say "buh-bye" to the secret ballot... To be sure, this is a tough issue and I sympathize with the agonizing that Pat and his ACLU crew went through on this one, but I believe they made the right choice. Preventing voter fraud and preserving the integrity of the electoral process are certainly worthy objectives and are goals that we should strive to achieve, but do they trump the right of a citizen's privacy in the manner in which he casts his ballot? Given the recent trend of highly politicized elections (both state-wide and nationally), where both sides have resorted to extraordinary measures in attempts at siezing a victory, I can only conclude that allowing personal information on petitions to be publicly disclosed will invite voter intimidation and harrassment in this country on a scale which has not been seen since the end of the 19th century, when the secret ballot became the norm.

Nice, chirp! We need to hear the backstory on that one... Dru, Which one was yours? All winners and Honorable Mentions

It's 4:20... it's that time. :brew: So, 4:20 is the end of the day in Jim's part of the private sector? Boy, after all the posturing about his work ethics that guy obviously works very hard Wasn't speaking for Jim, I was speaking for myself. I've been on reduced hours since August, working less than half-time, since there isn't enough work in my sector for all of us to justify paying me my full salary (it's a lot like that "shared sacrifice" we were discussing in the Greeks Bearing Gifts thread as it applies to the Washington Federation of State Employees union and their intractability regarding having their union members pick up another $43/month in benefits costs). So I work, on average, only 3 or 4 hours a day and meet my financial obligations with money I've already saved for other purposes. So yes, 4:20 is plenty late enough for me to start the evening party. You got a problem with that?

sure. in a compulsory attendance environment, the #1 obligation of the state is safety. Tricky, tricky, tricky... Pulling the Safety Card to cover an unwillingness on the part of the school administration to face the larger, more difficult question of equal protection under the law, in this case the students' right to freedom of expression. Kowtowing to perceived pressure to avoid a confrontation and/or violence is not the answer. Therefore, I respectfully object to ivan's response, and submit that the school does not have the right to pre-emptively force the students wearing T-shirts with the American flag upon them to turn their shirts inside out. This is clearly an issue of freedom of expression, the exercise of which is granted by our Constitution to all Americans. The students wearing American flag T-shirts should have all of the same rights and privileges as the Latino students wearing whatever national heritage attire they were wearing, and vice-versa. I'll ask this question a second time: Did anyone force the Latino students to turn their shirts inside out? If the answer to that question is "no", then we have a clear case of discrimination against the American-flag-T-shirted students and the limiting of their First Amendment rights.

It's 4:20... it's that time. :brew:

So, by that logic, are you proposing that liberal arts degreed individuals should be teaching the sciences...?? Wow...

Sweet! Is that the first posting of kid pics by a female in this thread after 23 full pages...??

as an aside, i though i recall from my boy scout days that it is in fact disrespectful to turn a flag into a piece of apparel? in other words, wearing a flag patch on a uniform is cool, but making a shirt out a flag or of what appears to be a flag is not. Indeed, making a shirt out of a flag is certainly disrespectful. Wearing a shirt with a flag imprinted upon it is also considered disrepsectful according to the US Flag Code, but legal precedent upholding the right to free speech/freedom of expression has led to flag desecration being protected under the First Amendment, up to and including burning of the flag not for purposes of its disposal. Note that Paragraphs d) and i) of US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8 are regularly violated by members of the general citizenry and merchants/businesses with no consequence.

"Them" being the students? Or the school? Racial tensions aside, in my opinion this should be no different than allowing the WBC folks' the right to protest at funerals. This is still totally a free speech issue to me. The American-flag-wearing students should not have been forced to remove their shirts. Looks to me like the school administration kowtowed to the Latino student population in order to avoid an altercation. That's a pretty poor motivational basis, if you ask me. I know that the decisions reached in Snyder v Phelps and the CA high school flap were made by two different courts, but I see a distinct lack of consistency in these two rulings as they currently stand. It's OK for the WBC to drag out signs and banners and protest loudly, condemning GLBTs in a most flagrant and insensitive manner, in effect endorsing hate speech. Yet, it's not OK for students to wear a T-shirt with an imprint of an American flag upon it on a day wherein another culture celebrates its national heritage. The question to ask oneself here is this: "Were any Latino students who wore T-shirts espousing their national heritage also required to turn their shirts inside out?" If the answer to that question is "no", then this is a distinct case of discrimination and the court's decision is flawed.

Brother, how right you are! From Wikipedia: "In the Greek New Testament, Cain is referred to as (some Greek gobbledygook).[3] In at least one translation this is rendered "from the evil one",[4] while others have "of the evil one."[5] Some interpreters take this to mean that Cain was literally the son of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. A parallel idea can be found in Jewish tradition,[6] that the serpent (Hebrew nahash (hebrew gobbledygook)) from the Garden of Eden was father to firstborn Cain." Easy there, fellas... this bill looks to have bipartisan sponsorship to me. So you go on hatin' on McCain, but don't forget to disparage Levin some while you're at it... to be fair an' all, ya know...

Why would anyone praise a proposal such as this? This is ludicrous in the extreme, and I think I would find myself sorry to be an American if it passes. Can a return to Hitler's Third Reich of the early 1930s be very far behind? My, how far the mighty have fallen...

Yes, technically the original question may have been flawed, but what I think everyone understood the question to be was... "If you were a Supreme Court Justice, and this case was appealed up through the lower courts and is now before the SCOTUS for a decision, how would you rule upon it?"