HorsesAss.Org

I’ll be in transit Saturday, returning from a week of Florida sunshine. So talk amongst yourselves.

Hubert G. Locke, former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the UW, has a guest column in the Seattle P-I, arguing that we have an “imperfect initiative system worth keeping.” He particularly singles out Tim Eyman for the way he has abused the process, turning it into a lucrative business.

Eyman’s hijinks are such that one is tempted to think about scuttling the entire business. While that would be a mistake, the larger one is allowing this political wild card to continue running amok, trumping the legislative process and, for all practical purposes, wielding a personal veto over well-considered government decisions.

Personally, I don’t share Prof. Locke’s faith in the initiative system, and remain convinced that it almost always results in language inferior to that produced by a deliberative, legislative process. But I’m enough of a pragmatist to understand that eliminating the initiative process entirely is simply not politically realistic.

So how do we stop “this political wild card” from “running amok,” short of taking Timmy out behind the wood shed and shooting him? (Also not a politically viable solution.) We need some initiative reforms to directly address the most blatant abuses of the last few years, and here’s a few suggestions in no particular order.

Ban paying per signature
The overwhelming majority of signatures are gathered by paid workers, who currently earn a street price of anywhere from $0.75 to $3.00 per signature, depending on the time of year and the competition. This not only encourages outright signature fraud, it discourages petitioners from actually taking the time to educate signers about the issues. (Most signature gatherers are paid mercenaries who carry petitions for several initiatives at once.)

I’d prefer to ban paid signature gathering entirely, but the courts have already said no. Oregon requires signature gatherers to be paid hourly, and so should we.

Restrict content on petitions
Tim Eyman is a liar, and his petitions are filled with lies. For example he once titled a 25% property tax cut initiative with the bold headline: “No New Income Tax!” That’s just plain wrong.

Since we surely don’t want government censures approving editorial content, the solution is to eliminate it entirely. The law already strictly lays out required elements, such as signature lines, ballot title, ballot summary, and certain notices. Those should be the only elements legally allowed on a petition.

The current mix of proscribed legalistic elements and lying, propagandist bullshit can only serve to confuse voters as to the actual intent of the initiative. Let’s just give potential signers what they’ll see on the ballot, and not leave room for any lies.

Allow legal challenges prior to the ballot
With the notable exception of my initiative to proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass, the general legal rule is that initiatives are not ripe for challenge until after they have been approved by voters. At the time of the AG’s humorless scope challenge of my initiative, I wrote that I wouldn’t have minded so much if such policy were applied uniformly. And that’s exactly what we need to do.

Citizens should have the right to challenge any initiative on grounds that it violates the constitution or federal law, and petition the courts to bar it from the ballot… and voters should have a right to know that when they approve an initiative it will actually become law. Our recent history of initiatives being tossed out by the courts after the fact, only serves to undermine public trust in politics; a little pre-ballot vetting would do the process good.

No, it wouldn’t necessarily prevent lying schemers like the EFF from running cynical, political stunts like their voter purge initiative, but it would force them to draft a measure that is at the very least, legal. Our supposedly hallowed system of “direct democracy” should require a little effort.

Create incentives for filing initiatives to the legislature
We should increase the number signatures required to file an initiative to people, and decrease the number required to file an initiative to the legislature, thus providing a substantial incentive for initiative sponsors to pursue the latter.

Of the two, initiatives to the legislature are by far the more reasoned and deliberative process, as they require the legislature to hold hearings and debate the initiative, or put it on the ballot… with or without a proposed alternative. This gives the average citizen (with half a million dollars to buy signatures) the opportunity to force the legislature to address an issue, but potentially gives voters more than just a simple up or down vote on a measure drafted entirely by some angry watch salesman sitting in the bonus room of his Mukilteo McMansion.

Charge a reasonable filing fee
Tim Eyman files dozens of initiatives a year, and while each one costs taxpayers thousands of dollars to process, Timmy only pays a $5.00 filing fee. That’s ridiculous.

The Sec. of State should be able to charge a reasonable fee — say, $150.00 — waived or refunded upon submission of a reasonable number of signatures. We charge candidates much more to file for office… I suppose to discourage frivolous filings. Well, in recent years the SOS’s office has been inundated with frivolous filings, and the best way to discourage this is to require sponsors to put a little bit of effort (or money) up front.

Anyway, those are a few of my suggestions for initiative reform. I’d love to hear yours.

In writing about the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s plan to file an initiative purging WA’s voter rolls, and forcing everybody to reregister, WashBlog’s Noemie Maxwell asks:

Why does the Evergreen Freedom Foundation pour probably hundreds of thousands of dollars – the talents and time of its staff members and dedicated citizen volunteers, into the project of convincing the voters of Washington State, despite all evidence to the contrary, that our government and our citizens cannot be trusted?

But to answer this and other questions about the EFF’s voter purge proposal, all one really needs to know about this initiative is that it is ILLEGAL… and they know it.

I’m no lawyer (much to my mother’s chagrin,) but most statutes really aren’t all that difficult to read, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 — commonly known as “Moter Voter” — lays down very clear guidelines governing the circumstances by which states can purge voters from the rolls… and pandering, partisan paranoia is not one of them.

Go ahead, argue the EFF’s case all you want, but Sec. 1973gg-6 (a) ensures that in the administration of voter registration for federal elections, states shall:

(3) provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except –

( A ) at the request of the registrant;
( B ) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity; or
( C ) as provided under paragraph (4);
(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of –
( A ) the death of the registrant; or
( B ) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections ( b ), ( c ), and ( d ) of this section;

That’s it. Once registered, a voter “may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except” at his own request, or due to felony conviction or mental incapacity, death, or change of address. There are absolutely no other circumstances under federal law that a registrant may be removed from the rolls. None. Nada. Bupkis.

There’s not much room for interpretation here, especially in light of the stated legislative intent:

The purposes of this subchapter are –

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

Clearly, purging the entire voter roll and forcing everybody to reregister could only achieve the opposite.

Which of course, the EFF wouldn’t mind. But they’re not stupid, and neither are their lawyers, so of course they understand at least as well as I do that their initiative cannot possibly achieve their stated objective. Which brings us back to Noemi’s question: why would the EFF pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into such a blatantly undemocratic, illegal, and ultimately futile initiative?

Hmm. Well… because this initiative has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of the voter rolls. No, this cynical little abuse of the initiative process is purely strategic, and is focused entirely on propping up the election prospects of Mike McGavick, Dave Reichert, and Republican state legislators.

You see, even a losing campaign can be a worthwhile investment if it pays collateral benefits on election day, and anybody who thinks initiatives are simply about passing laws, hasn’t been paying close attention to how the parties and their surrogates routinely use initiative campaigns to influence public opinion and strategically drive voter turnout. Indeed, some initiatives — like the EFF’s latest stinking pile of political bullshit — are entirely strategic, having absolutely no reasonably obtainable, direct legislative goals whatsoever.

So why would the EFF sponsor this initiative? Because they are a bunch of deceitful, manipulative, calculating liars, whose only goal is to seize political power for themselves and their right-wing fellow travelers, at any cost. It is fair to say that everything about this initiative is a lie, from their feigned concern over the cleanliness of our voter rolls (our Republican Secretary of State has found no evidence of illegal votes,) to their absolutely bizarre proposal to eliminate voter fraud by, um… eliminating voters.

I could spend pages refuting the EFF’s arguments, but to do so in the context of an initiative that clearly violates federal law is not only a waste of time, it’s exactly what the EFF wants. The entire purpose of this initiative is to rile up the paranoid Republican base enough to turn them out on election day, and I for one, am not interested in giving the EFF the bogus debate they want.

The EFF has proposed a laughable and illegal initiative, aimed at a problem that doesn’t exist… and it only deserves to be debated as such.

I guess one of the advantages of being Jewish is that no matter what I write, our local Nazis can’t exactly label me a “race traitor,” can they? Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Dave Niewert of Orcinus, who occasionally pisses off the right-wing extremists he covers.

Both of us were recently named “race traitors” at the Website of the regional National Socialist Movement outfit (sorry, I won’t link to it). There is an innate threat in such a listing, of course, but it’s one I’m accustomed to, not to mention well prepared to deal with.

Still, it underscores the potential problems that lie in wait for anyone publishing a blog like this. In addition to the harassment that comes with these things (the NSM folks kindly urged their followers to dump hate material in my comments, which I’ve been very easily deleting), there’s always the potential for these things to trickle over into your private life. The NSM is a tiny contingent, really, but all of these groups attract unstable and violent followers, and they are an actual threat.

Clearly, shit like this is meant to harass and intimidate — and I suppose, in their dreams, eventually eliminate. Yeah… they’re just a handful of pathetic wackos playing dress up, but as Dave points out, it only takes one unstable nut case to do some real damage.

So, what can we do about threats like this? Dave wants to turn it against them.

I recently wrapped up my regular fund-raiser (I raised over $2,000, and will report in a separate post on that). But I’ve decided to run a supplemental fund-raiser, based on a campaign of refutation for this kind of intimidation.

What I want is to be able to turn their campaign against them: For every post and threat they make, people can donate to the cause of keeping Orcinus afloat.

I’m asking folks to toss a fiver (or whatever amount you like) in the PayPal kitty at the upper corner (or write me at P.O. Box 17872, Seattle WA 99107), and designate it with the phrase, “Say No to Nazis”. I’ll report on the fund’s progress in the coming weeks.

Sounds good to me. I just made my contribution and I urge you to make yours.

After I lavished praise yesterday on King County Executive Ron Sims’ leadership skills, The Seattle Times reminds me today that leadership comes in different forms:

Gov. Christine Gregoire’s strong suit is getting feuding interests in a heated political fight together until they reach agreement. The latest example is her notable leadership on medical-malpractice law. […] Gregoire’s hard-nosed negotiating skills prove once again to be one of her most successful leadership traits.

While I’m a huge fan of Sims’ willingness to step up to the bully pulpit, take a stance (however unpopular,) and lead, Gov. Gregoire deserves a ton of credit for the quiet, methodical way she gets things done. The Times notes her accomplishments as the lead negotiator on the multibillion dollar tobacco lawsuit as Attorney General, and on the Hanford cleanup settlement as state ecology director. Just as impressive was the way she brokered a bipartisan deal last year on the transportation improvement package, even as the state GOP worked tirelessly to undermine her authority with their muck-strewn election contest lawsuit.

This compromise medical malpractice legislation — coming in the immediate wake of bitter, dueling initiatives — is yet another example of Gov. Gregoire’s talent at “herding cats”… a talent that has made her an extraordinarily effective governor. It is particularly impressive considering the classically partisan nature of this epic conflict between trial lawyers and the insurance industry.

The Republicans have never simply approached medical malpractice as an opportunity to enact good policy (though I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that that is at least part of their goal.) Indeed, some GOP leaders sounded downright disappointed at news of a compromise.

Senate Republican Leader Mike Hewitt of Walla Walla later said the measure fell so far short of a solution for the “med-mal” problem that it was really “mini-mal.” Hewitt’s caucus has long supported caps on damages.

Of course they do. That’s because trial lawyers generally give to Democrats, whereas the insurance industry on the other side of the table generally gives to Republicans. To the GOP, the enduring appeal of tort reform — just like so-called “right to work” legislation and its resulting blow to organized labor — has always been the opportunity to defund the Democratic Party. (Just take a look at the electoral shift in Texas for an example of how successful that strategy can be.)

That Gov. Gregoire was able to broker a deal in this context makes her feat all the more impressive. That’s leadership for you.

The good news is, our weekly podcasts from Drinking Liberally continue to improve. The bad news is, much of the improvement came this week… without me. Anyway, download the latest installment here.

Will did a great job subbing for me as host, and I’m cool with that. In fact, to show my appreciation, I’m taking him out for a little quail hunting.

UPDATE:
I just finished listening to the whole thing, I have to say it was thoroughly enjoyable. And I almost forgot… special thanks once again to Richard and Gavin for producing the show; I also highly recommend their own podcast, The Confab Show.

In the heat of last year’s King County executive race, somebody asked me what it was about Republican challenger David Irons that made me come down on him so hard, and I answered without hesitation, simply… that he wasn’t Ron Sims.

Sims is without a doubt my favorite politician in the state for any number of reasons, but mostly for a rare willingness to expend political capital. What some critics decry as arrogance, I applaud as leadership, even when I occasionally disagree with him on policy. Ron Sims clearly believes in what he is doing as county executive, and I believe in Ron Sims.

Apparently, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has become a bit of a believer as well.

Ron Sims, the county executive in Washington state’s King County, believes government’s job is “to help create wealth more efficiently.” That view comes naturally to a leader of the entrepreneurial Seattle region, which has improved the nation’s experience of everything from technology to coffee.

I can’t say that Dionne is one of my favorite writers, but he’s certainly one of the most experienced and best respected political columnists in the nation. In this capacity Dionne meets an awful lot of politicians, and for a local elected to draw such glowing coverage is truly a feather in Sims’ cap… though not surprising. Most people who have the opportunity to meet with Sims come away as impressed as Dionne by his passion and dedication.

Meeting Sims and reading the Urban Institute manuscript provided a bracing reminder that there is an authentic search going on outside of conventional politics for the new ideas to animate a new political era — precisely what Democrats are supposed to be seeking.

Sims is a bluff, warm man who gets excited about problem-solving. A Democrat, he will talk your ear off about the King County government’s effort to work with local employers in creating a new heath care delivery system. The idea is that government can be a catalyst for negotiation, research and reform and save both public and private employers money while producing better health outcomes for consumers.

It fits with Sims’s larger idea that government, far from being a drain on the nation’s wealth, ought to “provide the social infrastructure and the physical infrastructure to help wealth be created.” He said during lunch here the other day that Democrats should run under the slogan: “Rebuild America.”

Sims notes that after World War II, the federal government helped unleash an era of exceptional growth through investments in schools, interstate highways and higher education. Both India and China are “making intelligent moves for economic growth” and the United States cannot stand by and watch. “You need people and brains to create an economy,” he says. “You need transportation to move an economy. And you need an environmental policy to create clean air and clean water.”

Sims’s idea reminds Democrats that a commitment to active government is not simply about redistributing wealth. It is also rooted in the historically sound insight that effective government has always been essential to robust economic growth. Government, in the Sims formulation, should be a dynamic player in our nation’s economic life.

What Dionne describes — what Ron Sims embodies — is the very essence of American liberalism… a profound belief in the power of government to improve the lives of all its citizens. It is an optimistic political philosophy grounded in the American experience

While it has become fashionable for neo-conservative cynics to simply dismissively ridicule us liberals, I find their nearly blind, deterministic faith in the power of unfettered markets to be sad, simplistic, and willfully ignorant of history. It was under the sway of liberalism that America climbed out of the Great Depression, defeated the Axis powers, and grew into the greatest economic, military and political power in the history of the world. It is under the neo-con policies of the Bush administration and our Republican congress that America risks collapsing into a debtor nation and a failed empire.

Dionne concludes that Sims’ “practical focus on government’s role in wealth creation” is both “good public policy” and “good politics.” It also happens to be backed up by history.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Unfortunately, I’m stuck down here in Florida, forced to endure 80 degrees and sunshine, so I want be able to join you tonight.

And FYI, the first gathering of the Burien chapter meets tomorrow, 7PM at Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St. I promise to stop by the first chance I get.

According to the Palm Beach Post, it looks like Ann Coulter will be investigated for felony voter fraud after all.

Supervisor of Elections Arthur Anderson said on Friday that Coulter’s voting in the wrong precinct this month in a Palm Beach Town Council election was an isolated incident, one that will be referred to State Attorney Barry Krischer. When that happens, Democrat Krischer, who didn’t return calls for comment, will be investigating two White House cheerleaders based on The Island. The other one is radio talker Rush Limbaugh, subject of a doctor-shopping probe.

Both Coulter and Limbaugh under investigation? Hmm. Perhaps I should reconsider my support of restoring voting rights to convicted felons?

Carl doesn’t always have a lot to say, but he’s constantly pointing me towards interesting people who do. Like this nice, pithy piece from Washington Outsiders, a local blog I’d never even heard of.

Remember when the Washington State Republican Legislators announced they had a plan, a “Commitment to Washington”? Well they have a progress report on their plan. And it turns out their plan is to take credit for what the Democrats have done!

Apparently, House GOP Floor leader Doug Ericksen — the only Republican to join 30 Dems in co-sponsoring HB 2370 — now claims the bill’s passage as a GOP victory.

Hmm. Don’t know why they feel the need to pad their legislative accomplishments. For example, we’d never have that new bill banning fake sex offender notices, if not for the actions of the House GOP.

Today is blatherWatch‘s first blogoversary, and well… I feel somewhat ashamed. Michael Hood had asked me for a testimonial to join the many others he’s posted online, and well… I just plain forgot.

I may actually be blatherWatch’s most loyal reader, having “discovered” it on it’s 2nd day of life… after Michael sent me an email fishing for a link in my blogroll. I’ve been a regular reader ever since, not just because I’m fascinated by his subject matter, but because it happens to be one of best written and most entertaining blogs out there.

I also feel a touch of pride over blatherWatch’s success, and not just because of my early efforts to kick traffic its way. Looking back at our first email exchange, I see that I not only enthusiastically welcomed Michael’s efforts, I also discovered that I made a tiny contribution to blatherWatch’s unique personality:

I’ve actually imagined just such a blog, and would be happy to offer you my tagline: “Listening to talk radio, so you don’t have to.” Or something like that.

And the rest is history. Thanks Michael, for a great first year, for unselfishly taking this extraordinary burden upon yourself… and for giving that tagline a better home than I ever could have.

A couple weeks ago I criticized a Seattle Times editorial urging the state Supreme Court to force Sound Transit to pay off its bonds and stop collecting the car tabs that I-776 attempted to eliminate. I argued that the Times editorial board was wrong both on policy and on points of law.

But in closing, I also took a swipe at the Times’ penchant for instructing courts how to rule on the law:

The Times has an established history of attempting to influence the courts, but personally, I’ve always felt that judicial decisions should be based purely on statute and the constitution, free from the pressure generated by special interest groups like, you know… editorial boards.

Well, they’re at it again.

In a Sunday editorial the Times chides justices for ruling that property owners are “not entitled to actual individualized notice” of condemnation hearings. The Times admits that “the law is fuzzy on it,” but criticizes the court for siding with Sound Transit:

Notice of the property to be condemned should also have been delivered to the people who own it. “Due process of law” should require no less.

As a policy issue, I cannot argue with the Times’ conclusion. If it were my property being considered for condemnation, I would damn well expect to receive an official notice of the hearing.

But… courts don’t decide policy issues, they decide legal issues… so rather than berating justices for ruling based on the statute, the Times should be urging the Legislature to change it.

And I most emphatically object to the headline the Times affixed to the editorial: “More arbitrary taking of land by the court.”

Arbitrary or no, the court did not take anybody’s land… Sound Transit did. All the court did was rule that Sound Transit acted within the constraints of current law in doing so.

Such a grossly slanted headline is particularly irresponsible in the context of the looming battle over the Farm Bureau’s developer windfall initiative. At the very least, such misleading rhetoric fans the flames of the property rights folk. At its worse, one wonders if the Times is telegraphing an intention to aggressively support the Farm Bureau in its efforts?

I do not blame the Times for being disappointed by the court’s ruling, but reasonable people can disagree over the interpretation of “fuzzy” law. And to use this decision as an opportunity to label the court a bunch of arbitrary land stealers, adds nothing constructive to the public debate… and suggests ulterior motives. If Frank Blethen and his editorial board wish to advocate a particular policy position, they should at least be forthright in doing so.

To my friends in the traditional media: notice has been served:

1. The Washington Farm Bureau is shamelessly lying to you in support of their dangerous, land use initiative, and
2. Us bloggers are going to make you look awfully damn foolish if you repeat these lies unchallenged.

Noemie Maxwell has posted an absolute, must-read piece over on WashBlog, dissecting just some of the lies with which Washington Farm Bureau President Steve Appel peppered his initiative campaign kickoff speech. Noemie presents a solid bit of sleuthing that pulls the veil from the Farm Bureau’s efforts to mislead the public on this very important issue; it’s a tad wonkish, but a fascinating read.

And I especially encourage reporters and columnists who plan to cover this initiative to pay close attention, because I promise you that this is the type of relentless fact checking local bloggers will pursue throughout this initiative campaign… and if you fail to do same, we will do everything in our power to mercilessly expose your lack of professionalism.

In this particular instance, Noemie focuses on the claims of Bruce Ritter, a small landowner whose plight Appel highlights as typical of thousands of others across the state. That the head of the Farm Bureau could not find an actual farmer to serve as his property rights poster boy was the first thing to touch off Noemie’s suspicions. But …

Odder than this choice of a representative landowner, and more troubling, is the inaccuracy in Mr. Appels’ statement about the Ritter property. Half of the assertions made by Mr. Appel are easily debunked. The other half are not substantiated and are, in fact, shown by the public record to almost certainly be untrue.

Noemie then proceeds to debunk Appel’s assertion that under the proposed Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance, Appel would lose the use of 90% of two adjoining, 5-acre parcels, his “mobile home, horse barn, well, and septic system all regulated out of existence… his land would be virtually worthless.”

Yeah. Right.

In fact, as Noemie points out, the proposed regulations are public record, and they clearly state that not only are existing structures grandfathered, a “reasonable accommodation” of up to 5000 square feet is allowed per parcel.

Noemie then delves into testimony before the Thurston County Planning Commission, and other public records, and easily discovers further holes in the Ritter anecdote. In fact, a good portion of Ritter’s property is covered by wetlands, and thus development was already restricted under current regulations at the time Ritter purchased the properties in 1995. Thus the poster boy for the Farm Bureau’s initiative is a non-agricultural landowner who wants to obtain via initiative development rights on critical wetlands that he did not have at the time he purchased the property.

And how have these claims been reported in the press? Well, looking at an article in the Seattle P-I, exactly as the Farm Bureau cynically intended:

He points to people such as Bruce Ritter, who owns two adjacent 5-acre lots in Thurston County crisscrossed with wetlands and streams. Under proposed ordinances, he wouldn’t be able to build on 9 acres, Boyer said.

“When you draw all these buffers around these waterways, suddenly he’s left with no usable land, and the home and horse barn and well and septic system that he’s been sitting on for years are literally regulated out of existence,” he said.

This was a statement of fact, not of opinion, and thus the P-I had a professional obligation to fact check it before substantiating it in print. The fact that reporter Jennifer Langston cloaked the statement in attribution is no excuse, for it is demonstrably false, and thus should have been exposed as such, if repeated at all.

When Langston repeats such untruths, unchallenged, she becomes — willing or not — a collaborator with those who are trying to mislead the public for political gain. Indeed, our daily newspapers and other traditional media outlets are the essential cogs in the propaganda machine that transforms calculated lies into common knowledge: Ritter’s misleading testimony is cited by Appel who is cited by the P-I which is cited by others as an authoritative, objective source. This is the news equivalent of money-laundering, and it requires the passive assistance of professional journalists, if not their actual complicit cooperation.

Don’t get me wrong… I admire the profession. I am an avid news consumer, and I personally like and respect nearly every journalist I have met. I even consider some of them my friends. Hell… I’d kill for a shot as a paid columnist at a regional daily.

But this initiative is simply too important to hold my tongue when my friends and (gasp) colleagues screw up!

So notice has been served. Noemie and I and others will be scrutinizing every word you write on this subject between now and November, and I encourage all my fellow bloggers to link to Noemie’s post, and announce to your readers that you will be joining us in our campaign to keep this an honest debate.

Well, even if ignorance of the law was an excuse, Ann Coulter is going to have a tough time arguing it in her defense:

A Palm Beach poll worker says he tried to help GOP-loving pundit Ann Coulter vote in the right precinct last week. But, Jim Whited says, Coulter dashed out of the polling place when he told her she needed to file a change of address.

“I even ran out after her,” he says. “But she was fast.”

Later, elections records show, Coulter cast her ballot 2 miles up the road

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Don’t you people have anything better to do? Apparently not.