Arkansas Blog

Phht.

There will be an election lost because the candidate did not sign the petition and their opponent did.

All of the lists oughta be open to the public. Doesn't matter if it is about gays or glocks.

Let us know if Randi decides to do a mass mailing -- not one of anger -- but maybe just some foster care facts and an invitation to adopt of foster a child since the petition signer really, really care about the children.

Let us know if Randi decides to do a mass mailing -- not one of anger -- but maybe just some foster care facts and an invitation to adopt or foster a child since the petition signees really, really care about the children.

From the article:

If the purpose was embarrassment or shame, then the purpose was surely unachieved. The main effect was to heighten the very thing, the often irrational thing, that had compelled licensees to buy guns and get permits to carry them around in the first place. That would be fear.
********
The same analogy will apply to the Act 1 petitioners. For many of the petition signers, publication of this list will galvanize their rational or irrational concern that the opponents of the measure will do anything, including trying to embarrass you or even harm you financially or physically, to accomplish their objective.

Publication is a great benefit for Act 1supporters - weed out those on the fence, motivate all of the others.

What a PR gift to the Act 1 advocates!

Were it left to The Brum we'd still be living in de facto segregation, it's not time to subject the country to all that disruption. Same to you Don, I am fed up with hearing how we have to cater to the sensibilities of racists and rednecks and pseudo Xtians, it's time the haters learned to live with the rest of us instead of us bowing before them.

I am fed up with hearing how we have to cater to the sensibilities of racists and rednecks and pseudo Xtians, it's time the haters learned to live with the rest of us instead of us bowing before them. Posted by: 70%er
********
Not sure how you got that from my comment - my point was that publication of this list was an inadvertent PR gift to the Act 1 advocates.

But, if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, that's your choice.

I have a question for Max and anyone else who might can answer: It is clear to me that the petition was either passed around in my hometown church or was put on a table and signed as folks left the church. All the signatures are dated the same Sunday. I suspect it was passed around because of the order of the signatures (families signing next to each other and people who have sat my each other for years signing one after the other). Does this rise to the level of forbidden politial activity? Could the church lose their tax exempt status?

This was not an independent thought of mine. Someone brought it up in the comments on the Fayetteville Flyer. No one answered so I thought I would post the question here.

FInally, someone has pinpointed exactly who it is to blame for all the problems liberals have had to endure: petition signers. Who would have thought? Taking out your frustrations on petition signers is a totally original and utterly brilliant political strategy. It beats the hell out of wasting valuable time in the months between the collection of signatures and election day selling nasty voters your side of the issue.

Fay, according to IRS regulations churches are allowed to advocate for issues, just not specific candidates. While I would never condone passing any petition around at church, it's not against IRS regs.

Perplexed: Thanks!

"It is clear to me that the petition was either passed around in my hometown church or was put on a table and signed as folks left the church."

Can you imagine the pressure to sign the damn thing? There it is, coming down the pew and if you don't sign the gossipy old biddy who sits next to you will tell everyone that you must be teh!ghay if you don't sign.
Horrors!
What do you do?

Clickee for a very rational discussion of both sides.

I thought Brantley did Brummett's column a disservice in his summation. Brummett attempted again to explain himself today on his arkansasnews.com blog, in case no one got the point the first time. Brummett is trying to educate his audience as to why outing the petition signers will have almost no impact. It's a pretty good analysis. As a public service, I've reproduced it below from his blog.

--------------------

Me, bad guy?
Posted on 30 April 2009

I get criticized a lot, legitimately one time in a dozen or thereabout.

This is not that time: At his vibrant and popular Arkansas Times blog, the inimitable Max Brantley kindly posts my morning column, as he generously does nearly every time I write a column, which is five occasions a week.

This column today simply observes and analyzes the state’s rural political culture to assert that there will be no shameful value out there — and probably the very opposite — in this Massachusetts group’s publishing the list of the names of people signing petitions to get the gay foster and adoptive parenting ban on the ballot last year.

Max goes on to say essentially that I’m comforting the bigots and condemning the oppressed.

By describing and analyzing the realities of remote rural Arkansas? By saying bigots won’t be shamed because they don’t know that they are bigots — this because their static and insular environments, associations and religions comfortably sustain and reinforce their view that homosexuality is a sinful perversion?

Education, exposure to those from whom they are alien and therefore fear from a lack of understanding . . . not shame — that is what will work with those who can be helped.

Last night, for example: A carload of guys of varied political and religions persuasions, joined in tennis enthusiasm and other friendly alliances ensuing therefrom, ventured due south to a catfish establishment of some insider renown. Somehow the gay marriage thing came up en route.

One of us — the most religiously conservative and generously nice among us — said that he and his wife had come around on the gay marriage issue. They once thought gayness was simply a sin. Now, from becoming acquainted with, and good friends of, gay people, they have changed their attitude. He said he and his wife had simply admitted as much to themselves not too very long ago.

That’s how it works. That’s how it has to work. You must find human decency. You must trust human decency. You must nurture human decency.

Trying to shame people out of their ignorance is a fool’s errand.

Arkansas needs, most of all, modernization — economically, culturally, politically. Failing that, it simply gets its back up over ridicule.

I thought Brantley did Brummett's column a disservice in his summation. Brummett attempted again to explain himself today on his arkansasnews.com blog, in case no one got the point the first time. Brummett is trying to educate his audience as to why outing the petition signers will have almost no impact. It's a pretty good analysis. As a public service, I've reproduced it below from his blog.

--------------------

Me, bad guy?
Posted on 30 April 2009

I get criticized a lot, legitimately one time in a dozen or thereabout.

This is not that time: At his vibrant and popular Arkansas Times blog, the inimitable Max Brantley kindly posts my morning column, as he generously does nearly every time I write a column, which is five occasions a week.

This column today simply observes and analyzes the state’s rural political culture to assert that there will be no shameful value out there — and probably the very opposite — in this Massachusetts group’s publishing the list of the names of people signing petitions to get the gay foster and adoptive parenting ban on the ballot last year.

Max goes on to say essentially that I’m comforting the bigots and condemning the oppressed.

By describing and analyzing the realities of remote rural Arkansas? By saying bigots won’t be shamed because they don’t know that they are bigots — this because their static and insular environments, associations and religions comfortably sustain and reinforce their view that homosexuality is a sinful perversion?

Education, exposure to those from whom they are alien and therefore fear from a lack of understanding . . . not shame — that is what will work with those who can be helped.

Last night, for example: A carload of guys of varied political and religions persuasions, joined in tennis enthusiasm and other friendly alliances ensuing therefrom, ventured due south to a catfish establishment of some insider renown. Somehow the gay marriage thing came up en route.

One of us — the most religiously conservative and generously nice among us — said that he and his wife had come around on the gay marriage issue. They once thought gayness was simply a sin. Now, from becoming acquainted with, and good friends of, gay people, they have changed their attitude. He said he and his wife had simply admitted as much to themselves not too very long ago.

That’s how it works. That’s how it has to work. You must find human decency. You must trust human decency. You must nurture human decency.

Trying to shame people out of their ignorance is a fool’s errand.

Arkansas needs, most of all, modernization — economically, culturally, politically. Failing that, it simply gets its back up over ridicule.

Let the light shine. Petitions have always been public. The internet is the new wrinkle. I signed it. I don't remember it, but I accept that I did. I didn't vote for it because it's purely a stupid, mean spirited waste of energy. I arrived at that conclusion well before I voted thanks in part to levelheaded posts on this blog. I'm sure there were some. I like to think I don't allow myself to be lead around by the nose. I suggest you adopt a similar approach. When your opinion leaders bait you to act against someone for participating in democracy it's time to stop and think.

John Brummett

Manly Vapors and Pearl Clutching his way to another paycheck.

>>oes this rise to the level of forbidden politial activity? Could the church lose their tax exempt status?

This was not an independent thought of mine. Someone brought it up in the comments on the Fayetteville Flyer. No one answered so I thought I would post the question here. <<

No it doesn't. Churches and other 501(c)(3) orgs are allowed to advocate or protest on ballot issues.

The tax rule says they cannot advocate, promote or be agin, candidates.

The last time Ark had a gambling amendment on the ballot the campaign against it was run
by Rev Phelps, president of Quacita Baptist College. He organized every Baptist and fundie church in Ark to get out and work against the amendment.

Likewise, recently a group of LR ministers were gathering petitions to get a raise in state minimum wage. Then Huckabuck stepped in and offered a watered-down version.

>>Publication is a great benefit for Act 1supporters - weed out those on the fence, motivate all of the others.

What a PR gift to the Act 1 advocates!<<
By DonKey

We can only suppose that you didn't read Jerry Cox-Family Council's protest yesterday about the outing of the huge list of Act 1 petition bigots.

Ignorance is bliss?

.

I always think about the fact that when I sign a petition others will see my signature, and only sign those that I agree with enough that I have no problem with everyone knowing about it.

Everyone should be aware that their signature carries this possibility. For them to have an issue with being outed is beyond silly.

If you're man enough to sign a public petition, you should be man enough to have your name on that petition brought to public attention. The evils in this world didn't come from too much information, ya know. Let the light of day shine on everything.....sunlight is a natural disinfectant.

I hope we get to see more list like this so DonKey can cheer about more PR bonuses for his shrinking side.

Brummett was wrong but didn't really seem "comforting" to the bigots.

It may take a while but with information flowing more freely from (using his example) MA to rural AR, it's a mirror in the face of those who, because of their relative isolation, have always known they can act and vote like a bigot without realizing how hateful it is and how there are real people on the other end of their pen.

No doubt there'll be some "gathering together," pride, and defensiveness but there will be some insight too.

Wonder why he posted the link if he thought it would lead to well-armed rally of bigots?