Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, August 4, 2009
Homo So Far, So Good?
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Election workers have recorded a greater percentage of invalid signatures for anti-gay Referendum 71 today than two previous days of counting, says secretary of state’s office spokesman David Ammons. “Today’s batch had an error rate of 14.4 percent so that is the highest we’ve seen to date,” he says. Elections workers checked 5,815 signatures and found 4,980 were valid. Most of the invalid signatures were disqualified because the signer's name did not appear on state voter rolls.
Ammons says that, according to election workers, the petition needs an invalid rate of 14 percent or less to qualify. “I asked my people again, 'Are we doing the math right"' and they said they believe we are,” he says.
Question number one: Given that referendum backers turned in 137,689 signatures, and they need 120,577 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, is that 14 percent figure correct? My unreliable calculations (I’m not very mathy) show that the petition’s invalid rate must be lower for it to qualify.
Question number two: What is the percentage of invalid signatures of all the signatures counted thus far? As of tonight, 17,317 signatures have been reviewed; only 15,067 have been found valid, according to Ammons.
Question number three: At this rate of validity, will Referendum 71 qualify for the ballot? There are many more signatures to count, so this is an academic question. But thus far, many have been speaking as if the petition was essentially certain to qualify for the ballot (including Dave Ross, when I was on his show this morning).
Advocates from both sides have been scrutinizing the signature-checking process. “It is like Florida redux,” Ammons says. “Our people have just never seen this before. They are going slow and steady on this instead of trying to zip it past.” He adds, “At this rate, they are still looking at taking all of August [to review signatures]. There is talk of adding three or four more checkers, and possibly starting to work on Saturdays.”
Meanwhile, people who were duped into signing the petition have been calling the secretary of state’s office asking if their names can be removed from the petition, Ammons says. The people calling say they “were misled by what the signature solicitor told them” and “that they signed it under false assumptions,” according to Ammons. But he says that the Washington Administrative Code prevents them from scrubbing names from a petition.
2
OK, for question1: They have 137,689 signatures, they need 120,577 to qualify, so they can have at most 17,112 signatures be invalidated for it to make the ballot. That means that if the total rejection rate is > 17112/137.689 = 12.43%, then they don't make the ballot. The 14% comes from dividing 17112 by 120,577, which doesn't mean anything really.
3
@1 It's good to see the unregistered troll contingent coming out in force for democracy. Go you!
Back to your questions Dominic,
The 14% figure doesn't match up with the number of signatures collected and the number needed to qualify.
It looks like the error rate for the signatures already counted is about 13% and the error rate for the total needed to qualify is more like 12.4%..
Do you have figures for each day? My estimate is that it will take them about 24 days total to complete the count (based on the current rate). If you have the daily totals, it would be really easy to create a predictive model that would help answer question 3.
Back to your questions Dominic,
The 14% figure doesn't match up with the number of signatures collected and the number needed to qualify.
It looks like the error rate for the signatures already counted is about 13% and the error rate for the total needed to qualify is more like 12.4%..
Do you have figures for each day? My estimate is that it will take them about 24 days total to complete the count (based on the current rate). If you have the daily totals, it would be really easy to create a predictive model that would help answer question 3.
4
For clarification. The error rate is currently 13%. In order to qualify, they would have to be less than 12.4% based on the number of signatures they turned in and the number needed to qualify.
5
Questions 2 & 3 : valid signatures. total counted is 17,317, total passed is 15,067, which means that 2250 have NOT passed. the rejection rate is 2250/17317 = 13%, i.e. they are not passing. If this rate stayed exactly the same, they'd have 17,890 rejected ballots which is ~ 778 too many to get on the ballot.
9
And for question 2, 15067 out of 17317 means 12.99% of the submitted signatires are valid.
So answer 3 is, at this rate, no, 12.99% is bigger than 12.43%, and it doesn't make it. You might say, then, "So Far So Good".
But, three points:
1. The number of sigs they've investigated so far is small enough that there is some "statistical noise" of about 0.3% on the invalid rate, and 0.3% is not comfortably less than 12.99-12.43=.56%, the current safety margin.
2. Bigger problem is if the early counts are in some way not representative of the whole sample. Like, say, the people doing the counting chose the tidiest (or the messiest) forms out of the heap to count first, and then say it turns out there is some correlation between tidiness and validity rate. So this is a potential systematic error that means the invalidity rate could be more uncertain that simple statistics predicts.
3. The more signatures they have already counted, the more likely new ones that they count to are going to be duplicates.
The thing to look for then is trends -- if you see the rate of invalid signature start to creep up, as the count progresses through the NEXT 17,000 signnatures that would be very reassuring.
So answer 3 is, at this rate, no, 12.99% is bigger than 12.43%, and it doesn't make it. You might say, then, "So Far So Good".
But, three points:
1. The number of sigs they've investigated so far is small enough that there is some "statistical noise" of about 0.3% on the invalid rate, and 0.3% is not comfortably less than 12.99-12.43=.56%, the current safety margin.
2. Bigger problem is if the early counts are in some way not representative of the whole sample. Like, say, the people doing the counting chose the tidiest (or the messiest) forms out of the heap to count first, and then say it turns out there is some correlation between tidiness and validity rate. So this is a potential systematic error that means the invalidity rate could be more uncertain that simple statistics predicts.
3. The more signatures they have already counted, the more likely new ones that they count to are going to be duplicates.
The thing to look for then is trends -- if you see the rate of invalid signature start to creep up, as the count progresses through the NEXT 17,000 signnatures that would be very reassuring.
10
I'm a math teacher, former actuary (insurance mathematician) and physicist, so I would love to go into the math really, really deeply, but that would probably put everybody to sleep (I've seen it happen!).
#2 has it perfectly correct. The error rate is the number of errors divided by the number checked. Right now, the error rate is (17317 - 15067) / 17317, or 12.99%, as compared the target rate of 12.4%.
The "14.19%" figure that people are throwing around is the extra signatures that were submitted, as a percentage of the number needed (not the number submitted).
Why is this different than the 12.42%? Same as a why after a 50% loss in the stock market, you need your stocks to double (gain 100%) to break even. Shifting bases for the percentage.
Oh, and don't be surprised if the error rate keeps going up. One of the things they are looking for is duplicate sigs. The more they've checked, the higher the likelihood that the next sig is a dup.
This thing is toast. Go to sleep, it ain't happening. And hopefully, it will get the politicians to see that WA is ready for full same sex marriage.
#2 has it perfectly correct. The error rate is the number of errors divided by the number checked. Right now, the error rate is (17317 - 15067) / 17317, or 12.99%, as compared the target rate of 12.4%.
The "14.19%" figure that people are throwing around is the extra signatures that were submitted, as a percentage of the number needed (not the number submitted).
Why is this different than the 12.42%? Same as a why after a 50% loss in the stock market, you need your stocks to double (gain 100%) to break even. Shifting bases for the percentage.
Oh, and don't be surprised if the error rate keeps going up. One of the things they are looking for is duplicate sigs. The more they've checked, the higher the likelihood that the next sig is a dup.
This thing is toast. Go to sleep, it ain't happening. And hopefully, it will get the politicians to see that WA is ready for full same sex marriage.
11
All this math makes my head hurt, but thanks to those whose brains work differently than mine for explaining it. Also, thanks Dominic for staying on this. Damn those bigots for ruining my August!
13
I think it is important that continue to assume that Referendum 71 will qualify. Each of us gay and straight needs to remind our friends, families and co-workers why these domestic partnership laws should be approved. By telling our stories we are changing hearts and minds and laying the groundwork for full marriage equity in the near future.
The time now is not for complacency but for organization. Keep in mind the old adage “prepare for the worst, hope for the best”. Get in touch with www.wafst.org for ways you can help.
@7&12 a little man on man hot for teacher…math addition…
The time now is not for complacency but for organization. Keep in mind the old adage “prepare for the worst, hope for the best”. Get in touch with www.wafst.org for ways you can help.
@7&12 a little man on man hot for teacher…math addition…
14
So far so good, but THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE CAN GET LAZY. Excuse my caps lock, but we simply cannot afford to become complacent. We are only 3 days into what will be a month or counting. Be happy for the early news, but please, don't be lulled by wishful thinking and results that are not final.
Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law.
PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE HANDOUTS AND PLACARDS !
More...
Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law.
REFERENDUM 71DONATE TO WASHINGTON FAMILIES STANDING TOGETHER !
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved ___
Rejected ___
Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.
PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE HANDOUTS AND PLACARDS !
15
1 Precisely.
But they need to disenfranchise WA voters at all cost and taint the petition count with the plants that they have embedded on this process to toss out as many signatures as they can get away with. I've seen this one coming since the original statements were made by the plants that have infiltrated the secretary of state's office. And as if that's not good enough (for them) they need to sabotage by setting up other plants to call up and whine that they were "duped" into signing. Which ever way these people mean business and are coming against the people and the democratic process in a cutthroat style.
If they do this to these brave petitioners then there's no telling what they'll do if they ever get more power than the one they have now.
But they need to disenfranchise WA voters at all cost and taint the petition count with the plants that they have embedded on this process to toss out as many signatures as they can get away with. I've seen this one coming since the original statements were made by the plants that have infiltrated the secretary of state's office. And as if that's not good enough (for them) they need to sabotage by setting up other plants to call up and whine that they were "duped" into signing. Which ever way these people mean business and are coming against the people and the democratic process in a cutthroat style.
If they do this to these brave petitioners then there's no telling what they'll do if they ever get more power than the one they have now.
16
I didn't sign it...but that's only because I didn't want to get curb kicked by angry queens walking down 4th avenue.
17
Loveschild, I'm with you. It's clear these plants have been in place for some time now. We know the gays have their tentacles in all sorts of nooks and crannies. I'm thinking we should probably challenge them based on eligibility to count signatures; one needs to be a natural born citizen. The sanctity of marriage demands longform birth certificates on all.
18
Make it easy on yourself with proportional reasoning!
15067 / 17317 = XXX/137689
(Fifteen thousand out of 17 thousand = how many out of 138 thousand?)
Multiply both sides by 138k:
XXX = 137689 * ( 15067 / 17317 )
XXX = 119,799
So, if the rest of the sigs were valid at the same rate, then they would end up with 119,799 valid sigs - not enough.
But @9, points 2 & 3 are a much more significant factor than this current slight margin of loss.
15067 / 17317 = XXX/137689
(Fifteen thousand out of 17 thousand = how many out of 138 thousand?)
Multiply both sides by 138k:
XXX = 137689 * ( 15067 / 17317 )
XXX = 119,799
So, if the rest of the sigs were valid at the same rate, then they would end up with 119,799 valid sigs - not enough.
But @9, points 2 & 3 are a much more significant factor than this current slight margin of loss.
19
Loveschild, it's completely standard for a bunch of signatures to be thrown out during the validation process. This happens for all iniatives of all political flavors. It's why one always collects way more petitions than are needed. Your guys may or may not have collected enough -- that's to be determined over the next few weeks. But it was clear from the beginning you didn't have what would usually be called a comfortable margin. That's due to the lack of diligence on your side, and to the basically good, one might be tempted to say Christ-like, nature of Washington voters, which makes mean-spirited stuff like yours a hard sell, unless, as we've learned, you lie to signers. The fault lies not in the "plants", but in yourselves. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept.
21
Lurleen, thanks so much. The graphics are shitty, lackluster and not professional.
Oh well, can I do red white and blue? Something you can see for a block ... those I live on Magnolia colors are so blah ...
And, isn't one of the first steps getting everyone rightly registered, big problem for just arrived, recently moved and felons who can now vote ... what can we do there Lurleen, after all, is is just one thing - an election campaign - all that counts in the end are the VOTES.
And how about making it just - VOTE YES, APPROVE REF. 7l CAMPAIGN - simple, bold, really targeted political voting message.
Oh well, can I do red white and blue? Something you can see for a block ... those I live on Magnolia colors are so blah ...
And, isn't one of the first steps getting everyone rightly registered, big problem for just arrived, recently moved and felons who can now vote ... what can we do there Lurleen, after all, is is just one thing - an election campaign - all that counts in the end are the VOTES.
And how about making it just - VOTE YES, APPROVE REF. 7l CAMPAIGN - simple, bold, really targeted political voting message.
22
MAKE THE NAMES PUBLIC so we can have those lied to by Talibangelists and their paid terrorist-supporting comrades removed from the list.
It's our Constitutional RIGHT!
It's our Constitutional RIGHT!
23
So, from the outset they needed 120,577/137,689 or 87.57%.
So far they have been getting 15,067/17,317 or 87.01%
So they are falling behind. Even if they got 87.57% from now on, that wouldn't be sufficient. Currently they need 105,510 of the 120,372 remaining signatures, or 87.65%. At this point, their error rate going forward would have to be below 12.35% to succeed.
If the error rate remains constant, then it will become mathematically impossible for them to succeed when 131,638 ballots are counted (131,638 times .13 = 17,113 invalid signatures, leaving only 120,576 possible valid signatures, one fewer than the number needed).
Anyway, still very close, but every day the error rate is above 12.35% is a day closer to failure (for them).
So far they have been getting 15,067/17,317 or 87.01%
So they are falling behind. Even if they got 87.57% from now on, that wouldn't be sufficient. Currently they need 105,510 of the 120,372 remaining signatures, or 87.65%. At this point, their error rate going forward would have to be below 12.35% to succeed.
If the error rate remains constant, then it will become mathematically impossible for them to succeed when 131,638 ballots are counted (131,638 times .13 = 17,113 invalid signatures, leaving only 120,576 possible valid signatures, one fewer than the number needed).
Anyway, still very close, but every day the error rate is above 12.35% is a day closer to failure (for them).
24
Sorry, not ballots counted, signatures verified. Still thinking the same way I did back in the good old days reading fivethirtyeight.com.
25
It's all part of the homosexual agenda to infect your kids with teh gay. We want to get into schools and church youth groups to teach proper oral sex techniques and rimming. We want your kids LOVESCHILD!! Nothing will stop us.
By the way, why do conservatives want to get rid of all gay people? It's not as if we were born via gay sex. Obviously the vast majority of LGBT's parents are straight or had straight sex. So even if you managed you get your way and eliminate all current homosexuals, new ones would be produced by straight people. The only way you can put an end to the "homosexual indentity" is to stop breeding! You fucking heterosexuals are the "problem".
By the way, why do conservatives want to get rid of all gay people? It's not as if we were born via gay sex. Obviously the vast majority of LGBT's parents are straight or had straight sex. So even if you managed you get your way and eliminate all current homosexuals, new ones would be produced by straight people. The only way you can put an end to the "homosexual indentity" is to stop breeding! You fucking heterosexuals are the "problem".
26
It's all part of the homosexual agenda to infect your kids with teh gay. We want to get into schools and church youth groups to teach proper oral sex techniques and rimming. We want your kids LOVESCHILD!! Nothing will stop us.
By the way, why do conservatives want to get rid of all gay people? It's not as if we were born via gay sex. Obviously the vast majority of LGBT's parents are straight or had straight sex. So even if you managed you get your way and eliminate all current homosexuals, new ones would be produced by straight people. The only way you can put an end to the "homosexual indentity" is to stop breeding! You fucking heterosexuals are the "problem".
By the way, why do conservatives want to get rid of all gay people? It's not as if we were born via gay sex. Obviously the vast majority of LGBT's parents are straight or had straight sex. So even if you managed you get your way and eliminate all current homosexuals, new ones would be produced by straight people. The only way you can put an end to the "homosexual indentity" is to stop breeding! You fucking heterosexuals are the "problem".
27
@26
Thanks. It is clearly God's plan, an infinite supply of queers into the world. Never ending and eternal, all done by breeders.
Thank God.... and enjoy.
Thanks. It is clearly God's plan, an infinite supply of queers into the world. Never ending and eternal, all done by breeders.
Thank God.... and enjoy.
28
The 14% means they had 14% more signatures than the bare minimum... i.e. 114% of what is needed if all signatures are valid.
That extra 14% amounts to 12% of the total (14/114 = 12%). That's where the 12% comes from. If more than 12% of the total signatures they turned in are invalid, they don't have enough.
I can think of no less confusing way to explain this.
That extra 14% amounts to 12% of the total (14/114 = 12%). That's where the 12% comes from. If more than 12% of the total signatures they turned in are invalid, they don't have enough.
I can think of no less confusing way to explain this.
29
Yeah, so... His math is wrong. Or confused. They need to have less than 12.43% of the signatures they turned in be invalid.
I'd expect the people whose job it has been for years to determine initiative and referendum eligibility would be able to do the math without second guessing.
Then again, the error rate is just a pretty metric. The total number of valid signatures is what counts at the end of the day, not the ratio. Maybe instead of covering the ambiguously confusing error rate you should cover the total number of validated signatures. Quick someone make a thermometer graphic!
I'd expect the people whose job it has been for years to determine initiative and referendum eligibility would be able to do the math without second guessing.
Then again, the error rate is just a pretty metric. The total number of valid signatures is what counts at the end of the day, not the ratio. Maybe instead of covering the ambiguously confusing error rate you should cover the total number of validated signatures. Quick someone make a thermometer graphic!
31
It must be because I really love lawyers, but even tho it's legal in Washington to lie in campaign material, it's not so clear that it's legal to lie on an actual petition. Don't think the courts have addressed this one. At any rate, if Sam Reed does certify, this is certainly worth a challenge. Seems to me a good argument that door-hanger puffery is not the same as a petition to the government. Making false statements to the government being illegal and all that.
32
Regarding the 14%:
He is wrong. He likely is arriving at that figure by dividing
137689 (the total)
by
120577 (The required # of valid sigs)
137689/120577 = 1.142
14% is meaningful if it refers o some portion of the 120577. A correct use would be to say "The backers turned in 14% more signatures than were needed."
The "error rate," though, should apply to the total submitted - the portion that are in error of the total submitted:
(137689 - 120577) [The maximum # of invalid sigs]
divided by
137689 [The total # of sigs]
17112 / 137689 = 12.43%
This is the allowable "error rate." Higher than that could only happen if more than 17112 were bunk, which would imply that fewer than 120577 were legit.
This is a common math error. Picture one person with 2 apples and one with 3.
Fourtran has 2/3 the number of apples that sixpack does - or 1/3 = 33% less.
On the other hand, Sixpack has 3/2 as many as Fourtran - or 50% more.
The above is a restatement of @28.
I stand by @18 as the easiest way to think about progress.
Multiply 137,689 by (Valid#Counted / Total#counted)
This gives Expected#Valid. If it is more than 120577, they are on track. If not, they are not on track.
Also keep in mind the important points 2&3 made by @9.
He is wrong. He likely is arriving at that figure by dividing
137689 (the total)
by
120577 (The required # of valid sigs)
137689/120577 = 1.142
14% is meaningful if it refers o some portion of the 120577. A correct use would be to say "The backers turned in 14% more signatures than were needed."
The "error rate," though, should apply to the total submitted - the portion that are in error of the total submitted:
(137689 - 120577) [The maximum # of invalid sigs]
divided by
137689 [The total # of sigs]
17112 / 137689 = 12.43%
This is the allowable "error rate." Higher than that could only happen if more than 17112 were bunk, which would imply that fewer than 120577 were legit.
This is a common math error. Picture one person with 2 apples and one with 3.
Fourtran has 2/3 the number of apples that sixpack does - or 1/3 = 33% less.
On the other hand, Sixpack has 3/2 as many as Fourtran - or 50% more.
The above is a restatement of @28.
I stand by @18 as the easiest way to think about progress.
Multiply 137,689 by (Valid#Counted / Total#counted)
This gives Expected#Valid. If it is more than 120577, they are on track. If not, they are not on track.
Also keep in mind the important points 2&3 made by @9.
33
#31
Well now - my age is showing. There has been a court case in King County.
HISTORY - Tim Hill was King County exec. -?? 1986- 24 years ago. Dems had finally taken control of the King County Council via the election of Cynthia Sullivan and Gary Grant ... Lois North chaired the council, liberal R. with a gay son ... at last the fair employment and fair housing ordinance was passed for the county protection gay and lesbians, amid great fan fare, and an unprecedented 14 hours of public testimony extended two days, with Lois North chairing the process. This is Dorian Group era stuff, Jim Holm at the helm of the group.
Then the bigots of the county acted to repeal the newly minted law. They mounted a petition drive and got the required signatures.BUT, they had printed their own form with a fold over flap full of distortions and lies. Two Seattle activists, Jan Denali and George Bakan proposed a law suit to stop the petitions from being counted and hence blocking the attempted repeal. Moderates, including the ACLU screamed bloody murder, don't do it, no, no, no.
The Lawyers Gild took the case, not the ACLU, Judge Dixon, a conservative on the King County bench had a full blown hearing, Jan Bianchi was the attorney for our side, and was flat out brilliant. Judge Dixon voided the whole petition drive, noting the deception boarded on fraud and lectured that folks could start over and do it correctly.
There was no appeal, with much pressure put on the King county exec. not to do so. The other side never gained any energy after the one attempt at repeal, and the ordinance went into law.
After that stunning success in the court, most ballot measure have had court action to challenge titles and wording, etc. In this round, Ref. 71, that has not happened, with no challenges in court about any piece of the bigots game.
Back then, the deception in King County was horrid, not simple deception. The famous flap folded down over the ballot title and thus obscured the truth. That was key in the stern lecture from Judge Dixon from the bench. There was no delay, the hearing ended and he ruled from the bench amid much cheering and clapping from our side.
So a bit of very proud activist history - George Bakan
More...
Well now - my age is showing. There has been a court case in King County.
HISTORY - Tim Hill was King County exec. -?? 1986- 24 years ago. Dems had finally taken control of the King County Council via the election of Cynthia Sullivan and Gary Grant ... Lois North chaired the council, liberal R. with a gay son ... at last the fair employment and fair housing ordinance was passed for the county protection gay and lesbians, amid great fan fare, and an unprecedented 14 hours of public testimony extended two days, with Lois North chairing the process. This is Dorian Group era stuff, Jim Holm at the helm of the group.
Then the bigots of the county acted to repeal the newly minted law. They mounted a petition drive and got the required signatures.BUT, they had printed their own form with a fold over flap full of distortions and lies. Two Seattle activists, Jan Denali and George Bakan proposed a law suit to stop the petitions from being counted and hence blocking the attempted repeal. Moderates, including the ACLU screamed bloody murder, don't do it, no, no, no.
The Lawyers Gild took the case, not the ACLU, Judge Dixon, a conservative on the King County bench had a full blown hearing, Jan Bianchi was the attorney for our side, and was flat out brilliant. Judge Dixon voided the whole petition drive, noting the deception boarded on fraud and lectured that folks could start over and do it correctly.
There was no appeal, with much pressure put on the King county exec. not to do so. The other side never gained any energy after the one attempt at repeal, and the ordinance went into law.
After that stunning success in the court, most ballot measure have had court action to challenge titles and wording, etc. In this round, Ref. 71, that has not happened, with no challenges in court about any piece of the bigots game.
Back then, the deception in King County was horrid, not simple deception. The famous flap folded down over the ballot title and thus obscured the truth. That was key in the stern lecture from Judge Dixon from the bench. There was no delay, the hearing ended and he ruled from the bench amid much cheering and clapping from our side.
So a bit of very proud activist history - George Bakan
34
This is very simple math. Are you telling me neither the secretary of state's office nor anyone at the Stranger could come up with a confident answer, so you just opened it up to the Slog masses? That is truly astounding.
35
Hey #15, I am sure your attitude would be different if we were voting to invalidate YOUR relationship. But keep posting your rants, they make us all laugh.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (36) RSS