[Lnc-business] Cuba proposal

Sat Feb 25 19:09:01 EST 2017

The subject of how to put into effect once passed is properly a different
subject - one you have attend ed before and was opposed.  Backdooring it in
this way is inappropriate gamesmanship when it can easily be divided.
Insisting on it in one swoop is not proper if the concern is to do actually
do something in way this body will be confuryabkd with.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:06 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Indeed, let's not play games with a real political situation.  Scrolling
> back a few emails, I see a back and forth about the word "demand."  To make
> demands upon those who will not learn of the demand, I consider to be
> game-playing.  I oppose this practice of adopting resolutions that contain
> no provision for addressing the situation.  It was asked earlier how we
> would deal with this resolution if it were our family or ourselves
> (possibly) unjustly detained.  I'll answer that one - I would have no
> interest in words from the LNC, no matter how strong or weak, whether
> phrased as a demand or a request, whether verifiable or not verifiable - if
> there were no hope of those words impacting the facts.  Such a resolution
> of condolences is appropriate for an ideological steering committee or
> other entity, but not for the board of a political party.  If the board of
> a political party wished to speak up for me, in that situation, I'd ask -
> perhaps demand - that they take steps that could spring me, or else,
> respectfully, leave me alone.  I cannot speak for these detainees, of
> course, but that is what I'd want in their shoes.
>
> Adopting pretty and ineffective language doesn't change the world.  If you
> want to make demands of the State Department, you need to go to the State
> Department and convey that demand.  While LNC-business is thrilling
> reading, I expect that no one at the State Department reads it - the NSA,
> maybe, but we're not making demands of them at the moment.  And, yes,
> people listen better if they first know who the hell you are, who you
> represent, and why you're talking to them.
>
> I will vote no on any resolution that amounts to, in my view, a shout in
> the wilderness, intended for no one but our own members to hear.  This
> party needs to speak with the intent of being heard, it needs to use its DC
> location to make its words relevant, or else we do a disservice even to
> those for whom we presume to speak.  Either we are dealing with this
> because we want these men freed, or because we want to be seen wanting
> these men freed.  If we are to speak, and I think we need to do so
> cautiously since, as has been freely discussed here, we don't know the
> facts, I prefer it be of the former type.
>
> That is, most likely, the last I will have to say on that subject unless
> and until I see another motion on the subject, unless I receive other edits
> or cosponsors.  I will, despite my misgivings, count myself as a potential
> "sponsor" on a motion that consists of the first paragraph of my proposal,
> if others wish to cosponsor that.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joshua to answer your specific question, I do not have specific language
> for that part, and I find that part completely mute unless a resolution
> passes, and I believe it properly the topic of discussion at an in-person
> LNC meeting as part of a larger discussion as has been debated before.  IF
> we were to do one for this resolution it would be very specific to this
> resolution and not involve this larger structuring of "developing
> relationships" etc which speaks of a larger term focus change which you
> have been advocating for, and multiple others have opposed and thus so out
> of step with the narrow purpose of speaking on the issue of these jailed
> men.
>
> I will vote no on any backdoor attempts.  Let's not play games with a real
> political situation. The lobbying question is an important one that must be
> had separately and apart and in the larger context of the purpose of our
> Party, what our relationships should be with the old parties on the hill
> etc.
>
> - Caryn Ann
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We do not have a structure in place to do so and said structure is
> properly the subject of a separate discussion - which discussion has been
> on - and removed from - two separate meeting agendas.  If such discussion
> and plans were important enough to be on two in-person meeting agendas that
> is where they belong - not backdoored in a resolution.
>
> There is no reason to shove it here.  It could very easily be divided.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> If a child went missing while walking home from school, what would be a
> more effective response by the parents:
>
> 1)  Write a strongly worded chest-pounding resolution demanding that the
> child re-appear on the doorstep.  Or,
>
> 2)  Enlist the help of others to search for the child.
>
> What is so offensive about suggesting we try to develop relationships that
> could potentially have real-world impact on the things we say are so
> important to us?
>
> It may give us an emotional buzz to make pretty speeches demanding change,
> but what about actually changing the process so there is no longer a need
> to make the pretty speeches?
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I will co-sponsor the resolution but not the directive which frankly is a
> back door attempt for your prior push for us to be a  DC lobbying group and
> an inappropriate insertion into this.  No bueno.
>
> Please divide this.
>
> I would support specific lobbyists my efforts for this IF it were clear
> that this is  specific to this and not your other refocusing efforts.
>
> - Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think there are very few circumstances where it makes sense for the LNC
> to make public policy resolutions.  However, such is appropriate when done
> in response to current events not addressed in our platform, and where
> there might be confusion as to whether or not our communications staff are
> empowered to express a position.  I think the Cuba situation qualifies but,
> as I said, I was concerned by the wording of the proposal.  I have made a
> new proposal below.  I seek either cosponsors or proposed edits.
>
> *Motion:*  The Libertarian National Committee expresses concern for the
> detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel
> Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose
> unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were
> targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free
> markets. We further ask the U.S. government's State Department to place
> diplomatic pressure on the Castro regime for information related to their
> detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for
> assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate
> charges.  We further ask that the State Department pressure for their
> immediate release should such information and assurances not be
> forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to
> contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the
> IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to
> release information related to their detention.
>
> Finally, staff is directed to make use of, and build, relationships with
> staff at the State Department, staff employed by the Foreign Relations
> Committee of the House and Senate, and staff of the members of said
> committees, in order to transmit and lobby for the above requests.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lnc-business mailing list
>
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Lnc-business mailing list
>
>
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lnc-business mailing list
>
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Lnc-business mailing list
>
>
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lnc-business mailing list
>
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170226/d5f94b21/attachment-0002.html>