[Lnc-business] Cuba proposal

Sat Feb 25 19:13:02 EST 2017

===his 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.  ===

Precisely my objection. You concede this is a backdoor into your vision
proposal.

Completely not appropriate for this motion.

I would reluctantly co-sponsor the first paragraph only.  It is too weak in
tone but better than nothing.

I am seeking an alternate wording from the Nevada friend and affiliate
board member who solicited my initial support.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:09 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20170226/69389239/attachment-0002.html>