How many ounces in a pint of beer?

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

OK, that's a trick question. At least, if you're sitting in a pub in Oregon.

Because as everyone knows, a pint has 16 ounces. But in bars, taverns, and pubs across our fair state, there are pints that only have 14 ounces.

In fact, most bars serve "cheater pints" with only 14 ounces. And all this time, you've been getting ripped off - getting only 87.5% of the beer you've ordered and paid for.

Fortunately, BlueOregon co-founder and consumer advocate Jeff Alworth has launched a campaign to fix this. Over at his other blog, Beervana, he's launched the Honest Pint Project. It started by creating positive consumer pressure - rewarding pubs that serve an honest pint. Here's the current list of places that pour a pint that's at least 16 ounces:

Bailey's Taproom, Belmont Station, BridgePort, Clinton Street Brewpub, Concordia Alehouse, County Cork, Goose Hollow Inn, Higgins, Horse Brass, Laurelwood, Lucky Lab, Mash Tun, Moon and Sixpence, Pilsner Room, Rock Bottom, Roots Organic.

But the campaign has now moved beyond the consumer pressure stage. A Beervana reader noted that the state Department of Agriculture is responsible for regulating weights and measures in Oregon - and they're failing to enforce a 16 oz pint.

Here's the note from a "compliance specialist" at the Dept of Ag.

Thank you for your contact with us regarding your question about pint glasses in restaurants and bars. This issue does fall under Measurement Standards regulation, however, we do not currently have an active program for these types of issues and we are therefore unable to investigate it at this time. We have made a record of this complaint and will keep it on file to help provide data to legislation in hopes of gaining a more viable program in the future.

So, it's time for BlueOregon readers, beer lovers, and consumer activists to demand that the Department of Agriculture do its job and enforce the Honest Pint. Sign the petition now.

Head on over to Beervana for lots of in-depth discussion. And pick up a bit more context at Witigonen, where they've been beating the drum for the Honest Pint as well.

Seriously, go sign the petition now.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Is there somewhere I can sign for imperial pints? :-> (Best reason for the U.S. to join the Commonwealth)

  • (Show?)

    A pint's a pound the world around -- except in Oregon :-(

    • (Show?)

      Actually.. just because you've heard that saying doesn't make it true.

      1 IMPERIAL PINT (UK & OTHERS) = 20 fl.ozs.

      So if you want a real (20oz) pint, drink in Britain.

  • mrfearless47 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anyone who's ever purchased beer pint glasses on sale at brewpubs around the state knows that these are not true pint glasses. I've measured them at home and know that filled right to the absolute rim, they only hold 14 ounces. I'm surprised it has taken this long for someone to notice the lack of compliance. I never bothered because I always assumed that the term "pint" was used very loosely here in Oregon (as it obviously is) and bears no resemblance to the term in European pubs.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doesn't the Goose serve imperial pints? Or do their pint glasses seem so big because all the other places I frequent are serving 14-ouncers?

  • (Show?)

    Hey, thanks Kari! I try to keep my beer manias and my politics manias aside. But this will goose the signature numbers, which is the goal. Honest pints for all--to arms!

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I believe in government. It's great for doing those things which we do best collectively.

    But there are some things ....

    If your local tavern is cheating you out of 2 oz's of beer, don't go to that tavern. Why hire the Federal Government to enforce this?

    I don't drink beer, or anything else with alcohol in it. That puts me in a very large minority of Americans. Why should my tax dollars do the work you could do very simply by NOT BUYING BEER SOME PLACE WHERE THEY CHEAT YOU!

    This isn't like lead in children's toys, it isn't like auto safety regulations, it isn't like health care regulations, it isn't like the need for fire and police services, it isn't like the need for national defense, or good roads and bridges, or clean air/water, protection of wildlife, etc. etc. -- You are talking about 2 oz's of beer that is not needed to protect or enhance our society, and arguably is the opposite of this. Arguably, less beer consumption would make our State and our Nation a better place. Less health care issues, less auto accidents, less injuries, etc. etc.

    I would have expected this line of thinking here at Blue Oregon on or about April 1st.

  • (Show?)

    Steve,

    Who said anything about the federal government? Weights & measures reliability are a state function that even libertarians would agree to. It's an ancient role, the next step after the king guaranteeing the quality of the currency.

    Kari shows that the state admits it's its function but isn't performing it or planning to do so.

    Your advice might produce quicker results, however, provided one tells the business in question that you are moving and why. Boycotts notoriously don't work if the target doesn't know they're happening :->.

    Better still to organize. Jeff's taking the positive approach (what turn-of-the-century anti-sweatshop advocates trying to mobilize consumers to support exploited workers called a "white list"): encourage people to patronize the businesses that do the the right thing. Now that Jeff's created the resource, we should publicize it.

    If you want to go further than rewarding the honest, tell those you're leaving you're doing so.

  • Michael (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve Bucknum, Since you seem to be against your tax dollars being spent on anything related to alcohol, why don't you work towards reforming the OLCC to something that actually works, doesn't mess everything up, makes residents happy and isn't such a drain on our resources? This is a good project that would be extremely cheap to implement. "You are talking about 2 oz's of beer that is not needed to protect or enhance our society, and arguably is the opposite of this."

    It's not about the beer. It's about being lied to (most often unintentionally). It's about fairness in our daily lives. I'm sorry if that sounds like hyperbole, but I think everybody can agree that we need to be sure that a pound is a pound and a pint is a pint.

    I respect that your moral values are against drinking beer, but don't go bashing a good and progressive idea just because of that.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Actually, I am allergic to some ingredients in Beer, so I don't drink it. However, having a fuss over 2 oz. is petty, foolish, and a bit overreactive. How can you people be so insufferably uptight over this? I say the less alcohol, the better. There are more pressing issues to ponder out there in our world than how much buzz you can get for your dollar.

    Orange Juice is much better.

  • ECM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is ridiculous. Don't you have anything better to do? "getting only 87.5% of the beer you've ordered and paid for" is absurd - the pubs know how much brew actually goes into their glassware, and the drinks are priced accordingly. "Pint" glass refers to the shape and general size. To prevent spillage, the total volume of the glass must be more than what is poured. So to get 16 ounces, you would need a glass with total volume of 18-20 ounces. The pub would then raise the price because 16 ounces is actually being poured (in this case) vs. 14 ounces (approximately) for 'proper' pint glass. Are you then going to expand the argument to cocktails? Why are you only focusing on Oregon - shouldn't you launch a national initiative? Articles like damage the reputation of BlueOregon. Get a life.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We also need to stop being so Anal Retentive about things like this. We need to just live with it, go with the flow, and be less uptight about it. "Being Fair" is no excuse to be Anal.

  • (Show?)

    In Germany, all beer glasses are marked with a line near the top denoting the point at which the glass contains the specified amount of beer (0.5 liters, 1 liter, etc.). Perhaps, in the absence of regulatory enforcement of this issue, the Oregon Brewers Guild or someone could take the lead and start serving pints marked with such a line.

  • Dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's only "a fuss over 2 oz" if you're only having one beer!

    After 7 (or 8, depending on who's counting) it's a fuss over a whole pint!

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But, why would you want to have 7 beers in one outing? Isn't that defined as Alcohol Abuse? Are we saying that we want to be uptight over 2 oz because we want to encourage such destructive behavior?

  • jake (unverified)
    (Show?)

    eric... grow up...

  • (Show?)

    I notice that most of those on this thread who think this is unimportant are not beer drinkers. As one of those who thinks Oregon is close to heaven because it has such great beer, I treat those two ounces as precious gold.

    However, I will admit Blue Oregon is not where we should be discussing this. We should be at one of those pubs that serves a real pint.

    Merry Christmas to all.

  • dave3544 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I hope that all those chastising Kari and everyone else for publicizing/caring about this issue are joking.

    Of course there are more important issues in this world. BlueOregon deals with them every day. Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis probably spends a good portion of their day working to make the world a better place. We've marched at countless rallies, knocked on hundreds of doors, made thousands of phone calls, and some of us also enjoy a pint with our friends. So Jeff started a little side project, Kari spent 10 minutes writing up this post, I spent 5 minutes reading it and electronically signing a petition. Is it so horrible that we take our focus off the "important" issues for a few minutes and spend a couple of minutes discussing a less important issue?

    Sweet Jeebus, humorless liberals, indeed.

  • Dave O'Dell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This topic may sound a little silly, but it is actually vital for a strong economy. When I go to the butcher and buy a pound of (organic) top sirloin I expect it to weigh a pound. When I buy a pint of beer I expect to get 16 ounces. If I find that I'm getting cheated somewhere then I'm less likely to spend my money anywhere. That's a drag on the economy.

    One of the most basic government functions is to ensure that we will not be cheated at the grocery store, the gas pump or at the pub.

  • (Show?)

    Folks who drink orange juice, you forward a common argument heard on the right: since I don't use this service, why should (pick one) it exist; I have to pay for it; you whiners care; etc. The response is always the same. In a society, we all chip in for things that affect us collectively. I am childless, but am happy to have half my state taxes go to schools. I drive about 25% as much as the average Oregonian, but I'm willing to pony up a full share. And so it goes.

    Steve, you inadvertently also forward the righty argument: let the market decide. But think about what chaos your theory would reap elsewhere. What if you paid $3 for a gallon of gas and had to trust that the gas station wasn't underfilling? What about milk--or orange juice, say--sold by the bottle, but unlabled, so you just had to do an eyeball calculation about the container's size in the grocery store?

    Let's take it further. What about restaurant and pub owners--it's not only the customer who gets screwed. Many establishments do offer honest pints, but how can they fairly compete if they don't know what their competition is serving? The playing field isn't fair. Even to free-marketers, surely that's a compelling argument for government regulation. Commerce depends on it.

    What I'm requesting here is not a beer gestapo. In fact, my guess is that most folks haven't a clue that the standards vary--on either end of the transaction. This would just clarify it so everyone knows what's happening. It's a small act and would neither burden the state nor pub and restaurant owners--but would produce a substantial benefit.

    Chris--thanks for the nice words!

  • (Show?)

    I'd like to take what Eric first said and run in a different direction. People do have allergies to certain ingredients in some beers. By that same token, certain brews use fish biproducts and such, which sucks when you're a vegan.

    While we're reforming beer statutes, any support for regulating allergy/dietary information on bottles? Just say, right on the bottle: contains isinglass.

    Anyone?

  • MCT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A worthy cause indeed.

  • (Show?)

    And I should again emphasize that only some beers are not vegan-friendly. To my knowledge all of Rogue's brews are a-okay.

  • (Show?)

    someone mentioned it in passing, but I bet if you discovered you were only getting .85 of a gallon at the pump, you'd be rightfully pissed. A pint is a unit of measure, not a catchy name. It has a specific meaning in the a, and if you sell something according to a specified unit measure, they should be forced to adhere to that standard.

    Besides, everyone knows. REAL pint is 20 oz. :)

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    yeah, when i read the headline, i assumed he was referring to imperial pints.

    now there's a pint of beer. heh.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    to follow up, though, i have a hard time believing that this occurs only in oregon.

    that would mean that some beer glass manufacturer out there is manufacturing a special size glass (14oz to the rim, so really 12.5oz or so) that is sold EXCLUSIVELY to oregon pub owners.

    doesn't pass the smell test. what i'm saying is, i believe that the glasses are small here, but i'd be surprised if you don't find small glasses elsewher as well.

    (again with the imperial pints notwithstanding)

  • davidg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think this whole argument is just a tempest in a teapot.

    If you want more beer, do the sensible thing. Buy another round.

  • (Show?)

    If you want more beer, do the sensible thing. Buy another round.

    I smell the beverage industry here at BlueO.

  • davidg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Beverage industry? Whoa, Majority! Your paranoia may be showing.

    I actually don't drink beer. Why would I when there is so much good scotch available.

  • (Show?)

    But David, don't you get pissed (angry, not drunk) when some barkeep throws a whole mess of small, fast-melting ice cubes into your scotch rather than a block that won't water it down? It's an issue of getting what you pay for, not getting another beer.

  • mrfearless47 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Vegan friendly beer" -- make me gag. If you're worried about whether it passes the vegan test, drink grain alcohol. That should satisfy the requirement.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, excuse me, mrfearless, for practicing my convictions and a healthy diet in my daily life. I wasn't aware I was imposing on you so much. I'll be careful next time to not knock the glass of milk out of your hand.

    I'm not worried about it, I was making a point about people with food allergies and different diets. Many products now carry disclaimers at the end of their lists of ingredients that say, "contains soy" or "contains milk." Why not beer?

    It was just a thought. I didn't know I was going to make anyone gag. Sorry for so horribly crossing the line with my vitriol.

  • davidg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Andrew, yes, that issue with the ice makes me pissed.

    But I have solved that problem. I order my drinks straight up.

  • (Show?)

    Well played, David. Well played.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve, you inadvertently also forward the righty argument: let the market decide.

    Allowing as much personal freedom as possible (i.e., "the market") is not a righty argument. True progressives advocate for the greatest amount of liberty possible. Government power (i.e., "regulation") should only be used when the market has failed. Progressives disagree with conservatives because we recognize that market failure occurs frequently; conservatives have an almost religious faith in the infallability of markets.

    In this case, there's no real market failure -- for years I've been rewarding bars that serve full pints rather than something less. It's not hard to tell the difference. The government's only role should be to enforce the pint standard by ocassionally reminding bars and restaurants that they cannot call something a pint that is not 16 ounces. That doesn't cost much and the Dept. of Ag should just do it. After that, the market should be allowed to work.

  • Michael M. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ah, so now I see why the recent thread saying it's time to consider a sales tax in Oregon! It's so we can fund this all-important use of government power and resources. Your tax dollars at work, indeed.

    I guess the fact that I think this is too absurd to put on a blog anytime other than April Fool's Day, coupled with the fact that I don't drink, means I'm anything but "progressive." I couldn't be happier.

  • (Show?)

    Ouch! That internet-slap in the face sure stings!

    As for the question of regulation, I think beer's status as a "luxury" is what the rub is here. But, for me, that doesn't mean we should just "let the market sort it out." But I guess any money spent on perceived frivolity is a free-market crime in some people's eyes.

  • (Show?)

    Miles,

    Not all progressives agree that government power should only be used "when the market has failed."

    Markets are good at producing certain kinds of efficiencies and not others. Government is more efficient for some purposes. Non-market private relationships or non-state public ones may be best for others.

    Health care is a good example. Market-based health care may be more "economically efficient" from the point of view of accumulation of wealth in the whole economy. E.g. the invisible hand "rules" that money is "better used" to buy someone a hummer than to make sure someone else has adequate health care because the hummer purchase will create more wealth in the system.

    But that economic efficiency depends on health-inefficiency. It can't really be called a market failure, because markets work on a principle of exclusion in how they distribute scarce resources. Rather, the problem is that markets aren't efficient at achieving results in which exclusions aren't acceptable, or not beyond a certain point.

    Also, the formulation as you put it artificially separates markets from government or the state. Markets can't exist without government, or at least not beyond a very primitive form. Government is necessary to deter theft, fraud, and coercion, to enforce contracts, to guarantee the value of money; in more complex markets government through law creates the organizational structures of markets themselves and of entities operating in markets; and, for the last century or so, provides central banking institutions that regulate (in the original sense drawing on a metaphor from steam pressure in steam engines) the tendencies of completely free markets to gyrate widely in boom and bust cycles characterized by protracted depressions of low liquidity and low confidence, as well as massive periodic destructions of wealth associated with such depressions.

    If you go back to the classical political economists, they defined civil society as public society outside of the domestic realm, i.e. including state and market together, because they were closer to the foundational acts by which governments created the conditions for capitalist markets. The latter, far from being natural, are rare in human history until the last two centuries.

    Partly as a result, markets are not simply realms of freedom. One key foundational act in the creation of capitalist markets involves the expropriation of land previously held in common to the private (=exclusive=right to exclude) property of a person or legally recognized entity. The owner gains freedom over that property, everyone else loses freedoms to use commons that they used to have. "Free labor" presents interesting tensions within freedoms of contract. At one stage the U.S. tried to have a system in which property in persons (which sort of turns slaves into a combination of labor and capital) coexisted with a system that said persons could not be owned but that they had a property right in their labor that they could contract for sale. After contracts for sale of persons (including self-alienation) became illegal, contracts in which employers could make agreement not to join a union a condition of employment ("yellow dog contracts") were legal for a long while, restricting workers' freedom of association, even as government created legal instruments to facilitate associations of capitalists by limiting investors' liability and other means. Trade unions were often treated as combinations in restraint of trade, rather than free associations.

    Likewise current law forces workers to give up most of their civil liberties upon entering the workplace. There is no inherent reason this should be so, it is just that the state has sided with owners/employers in their freedom to determine workplace conditions over the freedoms of workers.

    Market ideology also exaggerates the freedom of choice within markets, obscuring constraints on choice that markets create and allowing various forms of economic coercion and legal extortion.

    Over time this picture has been modulated by other kinds of regulations, but those are not best understood as government responding to market failures. Rather, they are best understood as responses to economic relationships as sociological relationships involving power. Safety regulations in factories do not represent a response to market failure; they represent a response to economic calculus that treats workers as expendable and replaceable human machines, the costs of whose injuries may be either completely externalized (fire the injured) or penciled in as costs of doing business.

    Short version -- markets are creations of states and characteristics and distributions of freedoms within them are a function of the laws that create and govern them. And governments have legitimate functions that they inherently perform more efficiently and effectively than markets, not merely filling in for "market failures." The idea the markets should be the default option is an ideological proposition that is not obvious and should not be accepted uncritically by progressives. IMO.

  • (Show?)

    I don't drink beer at all, but I can definitely see the issue.

    A pint glass is called a pint glass because of how much liquid it holds. Anything else is false advertising, and I'd definitely be upset if I were buying them.

    From Wikipedia:

    A pint glass is a drinking vessel holding an imperial pint (568 ml/19.2 US fl oz) of liquid that is usually used for beer or cider.

    To me, this would be no different than buying a "gallon" jug of milk that only can hold 112 ounces in it (a gallon is 128 ounces, 112 ounces is 87.5% of a gallon).

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Having read in depth the 30+ comments above, I see that one point of view has been left out.

    Perhaps we should sent that underfilled 2 oz's to the starving children in Africa. Perhaps the government should take its shot glass to every tavern and collect each 2 oz not poured, but it in a golden vessel, and ship it to Africa where the calories can be put to good use.

    That's not my point of view, but it is the one left out.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Short version -- markets are creations of states. . . . And governments have legitimate functions that they inherently perform more efficiently and effectively than markets, not merely filling in for "market failures."

    I suspect we would agree in 95% of cases on when government regulation is warranted. But on issues of theory, we disagree. Markets do exist without government -- e.g., trading between primitive tribes -- but they are easily tainted by fraud, violence, manipulation, etc. Government's role, in fact, is to regulate the market in order to make it work more efficiently and effectively, and to skew the outcome towards one that is socially desirable (according to the majority).

    For functions that are primarily or wholly done by the state, I would argue that only occurs because of one kind of market failure or another. For example, the government is in charge of national defense because a free market would 1) be too decentralized (effective national defense is a natural monopoly) and 2) have major free rider problems. The government is in charge of education because the market outcome would violate our societal sense of equity and fairness. The only reason the government has to get involved in environmental regulation is because the market failed to fully account for the value of public goods.

    I always go back to Econ 101. The invisible hand only works perfectly in a perfect market. Perfect markets require the following: 1. All firms sell an identical product. 2. All firms are price-takers. 3. All firms have a relatively small market share. 4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm. (a.k.a. "perfect information") 5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

    It was in that class I realized one can be a true progressive and still believe in the awesome power of markets, because no market is perfect. The degree of market failure determines the required degree of government involvement.

    In the case of a pint of beer, we're pretty close to a perfect market. Hence my belief that government's role in this particular situation should be limited.

  • (Show?)

    Miles,

    I think we've got two different definitions of "market failure" going here. There is a difference between the kind of market failure of which a bank panic might be a simple example, and the spheres of life that markets cannot effectively address because the social relationships or social aims involved aren't compatible with inherent distributional characteristics of markets.

    You are counting the latter as market failures. I don't because the relationships involved historically precede markets.

    "Primitive" exchanges in the absence of states are only the crudest sort of market. What we mean by markets here cannot exist without states, and the conditions and institutional forms of the markets are created by laws made by states.

    Non-capitalist economies have limited markets, but mostly their economies are characterized by other kinds of relationships and transactions. See Marshall Sahlins Stone Age Economics for a useful discussion of a spectrum of forms of reciprocity, tied to kinship and related issues of trust and moral obligation. Market relations in his schema constitute "negative reciprocity," insofar as persons acting most purely in market terms seek only personal advantage. It just isn't true that "primitive" economies relied much on markets.

    Ancient Greek city-states give an interesting view. Early on markets (real physical spaces in almost all societies until very recently) were literally liminal -- set at the limits of the town. This is quite typical, early markets often are located at boundary points between polities. As ancient Greek poli evolved, and their markets, their political or public economies (as distinguished from their economies proper, the good ordering of households, from oikos, Greek for household) became more central and associated with the emergence of public political discourse (as distinct from private, covert palace politics).

    If you want to twist yourself into a mental pretzel like pre-Copernican astronomers trying to save the Ptolemaic theory of spheres you can sometimes make a case that non-capitalist economic relationships look something like what you might see in a market, if you squint and tilt your head just the right way, but to do that you have to ignore how the people involved actually think about what they are doing. Part of the reason we say we're in a market economy is because we are in one consciously and intentionally.

    It is exactly the Ptolemaic quality of too much economic reasoning, which does not use theory to understand the world and adjust it according to empirical evidence, that makes so much of it ideology rather than social science. This has bad policy consequences, such as prejudging debates in favor of market mechanisms to a degree not justified by their actual success. The parlous state of the U.S. healthcare system is an obvious salient example.

    With certain possible exceptions -- some scholars will argue that the economy of the Roman empire was one, and it may be that a similar case could be made for China at some periods, I'm not sure -- before the advent of modern capitalism, markets existed in varying degrees but were not the fundamental characteristic of the economy. That's why we distinguish feudalism from capitalism, for instance.

    Without government, there's no money, no neutral arbitration and enforcement of contracts, no punishment of fraud or restraint from coercion amongst traders, no financial instruments or rules governing their exchange, the list would get quite extensive if we followed it out.

    The market ideologues would have us believe that market relationships are the "natural" form of human economic relationship. That is anthropologically, historically and empirically false. But it is a very convenient ideology for restricting political debate in inegalitarian ways.

  • (Show?)

    P.S., Miles, I should also say that I've spent a considerable portion of my adult life studying the history of societies in Africa including their economic transformations both over millenia but more particularly in the past 500 or 600 years. Those histories involve situations in which the novelty and human institutional character of markets is more obvious than from inside a well-developed market economy where many things are naturalized to us. They also force one to confront the fact that people's actions can't very well be explained by markets in many instances.

    But it's not just Africa -- a historian of medieval or even early modern Europe or the ancient Mediterranean or classical India or China or the Near East would see the same things. Cf. Karl Polanyi The Great Transformation, e.g. or the work of Max Weber.

    Markets are very powerful but we should not mystify them, nor fail to recognize that like any other power, the fact of power says nothing about whether it's used for good or ill.

  • Edgar C (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps maybe some proactive lawsuits against restaurants and bars falsely serving the incorrect sized amount of beer would help. This has happened in other states, why not Oregon?

  • Chuck (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Better yet, since the quote says, "This issue does fall under Measurement Standards regulation, however, we do not currently have an active program for these types of issues and we are therefore unable to investigate it at this time," the state is admitting it has a responsibility to act. Citizens could sue the state to force it to act on these complaints.

  • Thaddeus Betz (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that you CANNOT sign the petition without PAYING!

    Progressive website? what. a. joke. pay as you go politics.

    Its unfortunate, because this really is a consumer fraud issue (albeit a silly one).

  • (Show?)

    I signed without paying. I don't know what you're talking about.

  • (Show?)

    Me too. No idea what Thaddeus is talking about.

  • DanS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff,

    Thanks for promoting a free market solution (promotion and reward of good service and product).

    You are proving the power of the informed consumer to change the very businesses that they frequent.

    The gov't employee you spoke with provided further proof that a concerned citizen such as yourself is a more potent force for eventual change than more gov't intervention in the economy.

    Too bad we can't apply this same principle to the education markets now dominated by the teachers union. Oops, we are. When I continually watch the teachers always take off a Friday (never a Wed., Tues., or Thurs) for a teacher conference/grading day/ skill improvement day, etc) and put together another 3 day weekend, it pushes me and others to start looking at the cost of a full pint, err..full education package, for my kids.

  • (Show?)

    Now, now... please stay on topic.

  • LARRY OGLASSER (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Would one of the folks who signed the petition without paying tell us how? When I went to sign the petition, it presented a PayPal page offering amounts to donate, the smallest of which was $2. They were radio buttons, and when I didn't click one but just tried the "Next>" button, I got a PayPal error message.

connect with blueoregon