why not ?

thats what people are doing against jrc

lets do it ^.^

yay!

How will this work, exactly?

well people just submit thier names and then we send it to authorities and then they get rid of autism speaks.. lol makes no sence but that is pretty much what i want to do

i think we should try to get at least 100,00 names

There are online petition websites that everyone uses, they have credibility. They work mostly for local (national) issues where an authority needs to be seen responding to an electorate. Like, who would you be presenting the petition to? The governments of each of our countries if they have links to Autism Speaks, I suppose. Maybe best to ignore Autism Speaks and petition governments directly to oppose a cure.

Write the blurb properly to get the widest support without alienating anyone, that's important. I think it's a good idea. Find out how they actually work.

Do as a former scientologist said: Look at both sides to see the clear picture.

how about making a fb hate page , or something like that . . . !!!

For 'look at both sides', I get stuck. It's our claim that Autism isn't a disease V Autism Speaks claiming it is. Presumably, there's no argument that you don't try to cure diseases?

Because online petitions aren't even worth the paper they're written on.

In other words, they're worthless.

I would like to see the US government petitioned. Something against AutSqueeks wont work because they are operating within the letter of the law. No matter if it is shameful.

A petition to change the rules on how much any nonprofit must give to its actual cause, should be considered.

It is quite obvious that the percentage is very low.

Also quite obvious that most of their collecting efforts , are just so they can keep their jobs and get paid very well.

That is what may bring them down, not exposing what their actual contribution to Autism is . But making the public aware of how little is being spent for the actual cause.

I know this has all been pointed out before.

But There. I just pointed it out again

There are other considerations.

Let us say that 1000 people sign a generic petition.  In doing so, they must not only sign their names, but also provide an address (and maybe age, gender and phone number) for the petition recipients to use for verification purposes.  All 1000 signatures are valid, and the recipient takes time to consider the merits of the petition itself.  Maybe they take action in favor of the signators, and maybe they don't.  It's entirely up to the recipients.  They may even decide to shred or burn the petition and forget about it, and there is nothing that anyone can do. (There is an exception, see below*)

But there is another possibility.

A list of 1000 people, complete with name, address, signature, and possibly other identifying items is now in circulation.  Do you know how valuable this list could be to someone who steals identities for a living?  This is the one major reason why I do not sign petitions that have nothing to do with ballot propositions, that have not been authorized by the Secretary of State, and that are not presented by a vetted pollster with picture I.D.

*A governmental body is usually required by law to consider -- and even act upon -- a written petition that have been physically signed by registered voters.  This is how many ballot proposals get placed onto the ballot.  This is also how many Legislators (and Members of Parliament) receive notice from their constituents that something needs to be acted upon.  Again, the petition must be in physical from, with each original signature in ink, and enough information given on each signator for the recipient to be able to verify the validity of the petition itself.

On-line petitions may allow for a larger volume of signatures, but they often do not allow verification of those who 'signed'.  Thus, an on-line petition could easily be 'spammed' with fake names (not true signatures), and a minimum quota could be reached in just a few microseconds.  This is why on-line petitions are worthless -- they are often filled with completely bogus names!

I wonder how much trouble it would be to form a lobby for the cause. Or is there one already.

To form a lobby, one needs lobbyists.  Lobbyists are people who 'haunt' the legislature for the sole purpose of presenting their cause to relevant law-makers.  Lobbyists rarely show up one day and are gone the next.  Instead, they use every opportunity over an extended period of time to perform their task.  They are often degreed professionals -- usually in the legal profession -- or former military and industrial giants.  Lobbyists often live in or near their national and state capitols.  If not, then they commute; sometimes cross-country several times a year.  Lobbyist thus have expenses for travel, lodging, meals and other necessities.

Therefore, lobbyists need to be paid, frequently and in large amounts.  We're talking in the range of a quarter-million U.S. dollars per year, at the minimum!

So, who is going to cut that cheque?

This post was last modified: 10-13-2010 08:38 PM by Fnord.

Ari Ne'eman should be our chief lobbiest, and already is in a way.

Has any AFF member contacted him to ask if he would be our advocate/lobbyist?

he is probably busy right now, but ASAN would be the most logical group to be our lobby

IMO

This post was last modified: 10-13-2010 11:09 PM by skyblue1 .