[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors: Motion to set the September Meeting Location
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Thu Jul 19 07:51:12 EDT 2018
I fibbed. I have one more point to make. I wasn't sure I could find this
again.
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1469&context=risk
I don't need to prove that women have an entirely different view of risk
and security (in general, obviously individual women may feel
differently). It is akin to asking me to prove that water is wet.
There is many such bodies of work. It is in fact a big issue that comes up
in debates between feminists and anti-feminists with the latter thinking
that some of the workplace "demands" are just ridiculous.
They aren't.
I am feeling like this discussion has the same flavour as the discussion
where I (and others) tried to address the serious issue with the
temperature at convention and the way I felt that Arvin completely
dismissed it. And the blithe answer from some men to just "put more coats
on" ignores the fact that this is a competitive environment where women are
running against men for positions--- so the man can be comfortable looking
entirely professional but the woman needs to look like an arctic cruise
director.
As I pointed out privately to Richard, this comes up in an analogous
situation in law a lot - many many depositions take place in a court
reporters office even though both sides have posh offices. It is a neutral
ground.
Wherever else I may agree or disagree with Starchild, settings are not mere
personal preferences like clothing (or hair colour) - we are a professional
political party and the settings for business should be business
professional. I don't care when Starchild shows up in his adorable Daisy
Dukes. I do care when the setting is forced to be something out of the
ordinary (and that includes having business conventions in a field).
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> There is one strawman to burn:
>
> ==Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party got started in someone's
> living room. What if David Nolan had refused to host such a meeting due to
> concerns about liability?===
>
> Amongst people who knew each other. All men I believe as well. And 1972
> is not 2018. And they would have just met in Denny's or another public
> place.
>
> But again, what do I know. I am only an insurance defense paralegal that
> has dealt with hundreds of premises liability cases over two decades.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Copying Starchild's latest attempt to make me justify what is a common
>> and reasonable concern that would prevent SOME female members from
>> serving. Bottom line, Wayne does not want me to travel out of state and
>> stay days in people's homes that he does not know. Neither would my ex.
>> And I know other women in similar circumstances.
>>
>> Starchild *has no right* to think I need some kind reassurance classes
>> or other re-education he thinks is necessary. I signed up for this
>> position and the past under certain past history and that didn't include
>> travel for business meetings in homes. Full stop.
>>
>> But for the LNC I will BRIEFLY address this continuation:
>>
>> Caryn Ann,
>>
>> === It's very unfair to claim that for years I've just "brushed
>> off" or "ignored" your concerns. As you've alluded to, you and I have
>> talked multiple times – it's hardly as if I've ignored you or haven't
>> listened to you on the topic. We simply don't see eye to eye. You feel
>> frustrated? Me too! Crap like this is one reason I felt unmotivated to run
>> again for an LNC seat this year. It is more objectively accurate to
>> describe MY concerns as the ones that have been brushed off and ignored.
>> After all, the LNC has continued to schedule its meetings the way YOU
>> prefer, year after year paying for expensive hotel meeting rooms instead of
>> utilizing free meeting locations, during the entire time that either of us
>> have been on the committee. ===
>>
>> It is the way nearly the entire business world prefers. And my own state
>> party. You are pennywise and pound foolish sometimes.
>>
>>
>> == Your own personal feelings of safety in one location versus
>> another are what they are, and there's no debating feelings.===
>>
>> But that didn't stop you.
>>
>> ==But when you talk about this issue as "a real safety concern for
>> female members of our Party", I think that is presuming too much. While I'm
>> open to being shown to be wrong about this, I strongly question whether
>> most women in the LP would feel more concerned about their safety going to
>> a party member's home during the day for a business meeting, than going to
>> a member's home at night for a party where there's lots of booze! ===
>>
>> Addressed this already - preemptively. And what do I know. I have only
>> been a woman talking with other women as a woman for fifty years.
>>
>> ==Most sexual assaults, by the way, occur at the hands of someone the
>> victim knows, and a couple hours is plenty of time in which something could
>> happen, so there is *never* "zero chance for conflict". ===
>>
>> That is my personal choice - I thought you were not debating my
>> feelings?
>>
>> ==But I think an honest look at the situation shows the risks are very
>> low, and if you are, contra the statistical evidence, worried about random
>> strangers, you're far more likely to encounter them at a hotel than in an
>> LP member's home.===
>>
>> Where there is security and insurance. I thought you were not debating
>> my feelings?
>>
>> ===Except for LNC members, attendance is optional in both cases (and
>> unlike a party, you can usually catch an LNC meeting on livestream if you
>> can't be there in person), but obviously we want people to attend the
>> fundraiser parties, just as we want them to attend LNC meetings.===
>>
>> So you are fine with "well you can catch it online." Got it. I am not.
>> Business is much more important.
>>
>>
>> ===So if there really are widespread safety fears among our members
>> about attending events held in private homes in general, we should address
>> those fears.===
>>
>> Perhaps you should stop trying to force things on people who don't want
>> it.
>>
>> === Perhaps provide volunteer safety escorts and safety monitors at these
>> events===
>>
>> Yeah that's not uncomfortable in the slightest.
>>
>> ===perhaps offer self-defense classes===
>>
>> So now you presume that I need to take even more time to take classes? I
>> have physical limitations, and I am a pacifist. Not interested.
>>
>>
>> === and hand out mace, perhaps just reassure people with the facts====
>>
>> I don't need you to re-assure me or arm me.
>>
>> ===or if none of those things are deemed sufficient, perhaps even stop
>> doing home fundraisers altogether – not just say it doesn't matter because
>> attending our parties is optional.===
>>
>> It is optional. And I am not going to debate that with you. We are
>> talking about Party business. Have your rep bring a motion to stop doing
>> parties if that is what you wish.
>>
>>
>> ===But first I'd want to see evidence that such widespread safety fears
>> exist.===
>>
>> I don't owe you anything to prove that it does. It is often a very
>> embarrassing topic for women. But go ahead, force the issue.
>>
>> ===You're really worried that a party member might not want you to bring
>> a cooler of diet Mountain Dew into their home?===
>>
>> And where do I get a cooler in another state? And yes, that looks super
>> professional. It doesn't. And you don't know what a Party member prefers
>> or not.
>>
>> ===Not that I recall you (or anyone) ever bringing a big drink cooler to
>> one of our meetings===
>>
>> Because I go to the gift store. That. Is. The. Point.
>>
>> I have had enough, I am not addressing the rest....
>>
>> ====but surely bringing in outside food or beverages is much more likely
>> to be an issue at a hotel than at someone's home. And people use home
>> projectors all the time! One has to "make a big show" of getting an Uber?
>> Not where I'm from. These are very strange objections. And for the record,
>> I know Ernie and Donna have multiple discrete rooms in their home to which
>> non–committee members could undoubtedly retire during secret meetings, and
>> even multiple bathrooms. We're not talking about meeting in a refugee camp
>> (cue Tom Petty song, "You don't have to live like a refugee..." –
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc)!
>>
>> You write that "a business meeting should be something that
>> *everyone* is comfortable with", but then you go on to write that, " I
>> understand that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable in
>> traditional atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever." Now which is it?
>> That latter statement sure sounds like you are being dismissive of others'
>> concerns, instead of trying to find middle ground.
>>
>> In any case, although I do have issues with the sterile
>> aesthetics and controlled environment typical of hotels, the real issue
>> here is not about atmosphere, traditional or otherwise (a home is in fact a
>> much more *traditional* atmosphere than a hotel). It is about wasting
>> thousands of dollars on unnecessary frills when we could be putting those
>> resources toward advancing the cause of freedom!
>>
>> Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party got started in
>> someone's living room. What if David Nolan had refused to host such a
>> meeting due to concerns about liability? Pshaw!
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>> ((( starchild )))
>>
>> P.S. – Jeff, as my Region 2 LNC rep., I request you forward my message
>> above to the list if no one else does. Thank you!====
>>
>> I am not going to debate the same points over and over and over. I will
>> vote no on any such motion and there is a possibility that I would not be
>> able to attend any such meetings. That was not the deal for my time and
>> attendance which was discussed and agreed between myself and my husband
>> ahead of time.
>>
>> Neither myself, nor women with similar concerns, should be forced to lay
>> bare our souls to satisfy Starchild when all we are expecting is a typical
>> professional business requirement.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for considering my points.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Richard Longstreth <
>>> richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for the very reasonable argument! I hadn't considered that
>>>> viewpoint and completely understand not supporting this for those reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 22:10 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And there are liability concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> And to preempt Starchild's always rebuttal. "But what about those
>>>>> Friday night parties?" A party is a totally different context and is
>>>>> OPTIONAL. I go there were several members of the LNC that I know well,
>>>>> there is zero chance for conflict, and it is very very short term, a couple
>>>>> of hours at most. And each time so far, it has been someone I know.
>>>>> There may be a time where I don't go to the Friday party.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh my word, I can just see us setting up a projector in someone's
>>>>> house. Me dragging in a cooler of diet mountain dews and none of us
>>>>> wanting to snack for fear of being too messy. And if someone just wants to
>>>>> leave, rather than a polite excusal and out the door, one has to make a big
>>>>> show of it and get an uber. And what about executive session? We ban
>>>>> guests to the back yard? Stand in line for the toilet?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very very generous of the Hancock's to offer and NONE of this is
>>>>> about them. My frustration is how my concerns have gone ignored by
>>>>> Starchild for years and just brushed off. My frustration is that this a
>>>>> real safety concern for female members of our Party and it is treated by
>>>>> him like nothing. He knows my frustration at this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Business for most people requires a business atmosphere. I understand
>>>>> that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable in traditional
>>>>> atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever. But I don't think keeping
>>>>> a custom of business in a business conference room is so outrageous,
>>>>> particularly considering the safety concerns that ladies who know none of
>>>>> us will have.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh sorry I forgot I would be the one to start a ballot!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have fought with Starchild for two years on this. It is highly
>>>>>> prejudicial to female members of the party, and I personally am very
>>>>>> uncomfortable with a business meeting in these circumstances. *WE
>>>>>> ARE THE THIRD LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY IN THE COUNTRY.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's not make this look reasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-
>>>>>> of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Starchild sometimes just dismisses the concerns of others when he
>>>>>> doesn't understand them. I told him this so this criticism is no surprise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I vote no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have always been opposed to this and I will explain why. A
>>>>>>> business meeting should be something *everyone* is comfortable with.
>>>>>>> Women, in general, are not comfortable going to a home of someone they do
>>>>>>> not know -- I am not referring to committee members. I am referring to
>>>>>>> members outside of that. I *would never* travel elsewhere unaccompanied
>>>>>>> and my husband I would just be at so and so's house that he doesn't know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is very uncomfortable. And it is uncomfortable for business.
>>>>>>> You never know what can come up. And sometimes things get heated. Where
>>>>>>> do you storm off to? The back yard? I have never stormed off but it has
>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely not. What if someone gets ill? There are a WHOLE lot of
>>>>>>> unforseens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hell even in CO we knew not to have board meetings at people's homes
>>>>>>> for these reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Richard Longstreth via
>>>>>>> Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sam, thank you for your consideration and vote prior to getting
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> questions answered and a ballot declared. I would ask that if
>>>>>>>> you have
>>>>>>>> quesitons or concerns, please ask them so that we may get the
>>>>>>>> answers.
>>>>>>>> I also ask that you do not blankedtly dismiss this or any idea
>>>>>>>> prior to
>>>>>>>> having an opportunity to address the concerns and make a proper
>>>>>>>> determination as to whether this venue will suffice.
>>>>>>>> I believe many of these concerns are implicitly answered by
>>>>>>>> reading the
>>>>>>>> email Starchild copied us on where he laid out our requirements.
>>>>>>>> I have
>>>>>>>> also asked Mr Hancock Whitney's questions and will await his
>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>> before asking more.
>>>>>>>> Tim, Starchild did mention wifi in his initial inquiry and
>>>>>>>> because Mr
>>>>>>>> Hancock did not explicitly state his capabilities, I will be
>>>>>>>> asking
>>>>>>>> this question.
>>>>>>>> Hotels in Arizona are fairly cheap, in general and provided you
>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>> looking for 5 star. I regularly am staying in one throughough the
>>>>>>>> Phoenix area and find the price range to be slightly better than
>>>>>>>> average when compared to traveling outside of the state. The
>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>> Hampton Inn is right around $100-$110 as price point. I
>>>>>>>> typically stay
>>>>>>>> in Choice Brands and pay an average of $60 a night. I will
>>>>>>>> attempt to
>>>>>>>> find out the specific area and advise further. Remember, due to
>>>>>>>> temperatures, this is the tail end of our slow season.
>>>>>>>> The question of transport is fair, however, I note that many on
>>>>>>>> the LNC
>>>>>>>> will need to transport wherever we are meeting anyway. Whether
>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>> from the airport to the hotel and we meet in the hotel or
>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> else. If it could save our membership hundreds, if not
>>>>>>>> thousands, by
>>>>>>>> not renting out a space, I think it is worth at least a
>>>>>>>> consideration
>>>>>>>> before rejecting the idea completely and not rejecting on a free
>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>> at face value. I have a car and am willing to pack it like
>>>>>>>> sardines to
>>>>>>>> save you an uber or lyft, if that is your concern.
>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:57 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business
>>>>>>>> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Average high for September 29 & 30 is 95 degrees. Record high
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> September 29 was 107 degrees in 2003. September is the end of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> monsoon season, so the end of the month is less likely to have
>>>>>>>> thunderstorms or humidity.
>>>>>>>> Does the place have WiFi to live-stream the meeting? What are
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> room
>>>>>>>> rates for the hotels nearby or within walking distance?
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Tim Hagan
>>>>>>>> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>>> On 2018-07-18 20:09, Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Also, temperatures in Phoenix in September...75-100 on
>>>>>>>> average?
>>>>>>>> > Something to consider for the outdoor meeting proposal...
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:00 PM Whitney Bilyeu
>>>>>>>> > <[1][2]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > How far is this place from the airport? How far from the
>>>>>>>> nearest
>>>>>>>> > hotel?
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 9:49 PM Richard Longstreth via
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business
>>>>>>>> > <[2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Motion: In order to save the general membership
>>>>>>>> funds, I
>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>>> > set
>>>>>>>> > the September Meeting location at the home of Ernest
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Donna
>>>>>>>> > Hancock.
>>>>>>>> > ===
>>>>>>>> > Rationale: A member in the Phoenix area has
>>>>>>>> indicated that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> > have
>>>>>>>> > the space available, at no charge, to host our
>>>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> > meeting
>>>>>>>> > location has not currently been set and I am unaware
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>> > we
>>>>>>>> > are at
>>>>>>>> > as far as determining a location. After asking the
>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>> > last
>>>>>>>> > week
>>>>>>>> > and getting no official answer, I am now moving to
>>>>>>>> set the
>>>>>>>> > location
>>>>>>>> > ahead of any official announcement. I would encourage
>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>>> > review the email Starchild sent to us yesterday which
>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>> > comments
>>>>>>>> > from Ernie, the homeowner.
>>>>>>>> > Richard Longstreth
>>>>>>>> > Region 1 Representative
>>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>>> > Richard Longstreth
>>>>>>>> > Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR,
>>>>>>>> HI,
>>>>>>>> UT,
>>>>>>>> > WA,
>>>>>>>> > WY)
>>>>>>>> > Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>>> > [1][3][4]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> > [5]931.538.9300
>>>>>>>> > References
>>>>>>>> > 1. mailto:[4][6]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > References
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > 1. mailto:[7]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>>>>>>>> > 2. mailto:[8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> > 3. mailto:[9]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> > 4. mailto:[10]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard Longstreth
>>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA,
>>>>>>>> WY)
>>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>>> [11]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> 931.538.9300
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> References
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> 2. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>>>>>>>> 3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> 4. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> 5. tel:(931) 538-9300
>>>>>>>> 6. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> 7. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>>>>>>>> 8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> 9. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> 10. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>> 11. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
>>>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
>>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>>>>
>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Longstreth
>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>> richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>>> 931.538.9300
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>>
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> *We defend your rights*
>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> *We defend your rights*
>> *And oppose the use of force*
>> *Taxation is theft*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
I fibbed. I have one more point to make. I wasn't sure I could find
this again.
[1]https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1469&context=ri
sk
I don't need to prove that women have an entirely different view of
risk and security (in general, obviously individual women may feel
differently). It is akin to asking me to prove that water is wet.
There is many such bodies of work. It is in fact a big issue that
comes up in debates between feminists and anti-feminists with the
latter thinking that some of the workplace "demands" are just
ridiculous.
They aren't.
I am feeling like this discussion has the same flavour as the
discussion where I (and others) tried to address the serious issue with
the temperature at convention and the way I felt that Arvin completely
dismissed it. And the blithe answer from some men to just "put more
coats on" ignores the fact that this is a competitive environment where
women are running against men for positions--- so the man can be
comfortable looking entirely professional but the woman needs to look
like an arctic cruise director.
As I pointed out privately to Richard, this comes up in an analogous
situation in law a lot - many many depositions take place in a court
reporters office even though both sides have posh offices. It is a
neutral ground.
Wherever else I may agree or disagree with Starchild, settings are not
mere personal preferences like clothing (or hair colour) - we are a
professional political party and the settings for business should be
business professional. I don't care when Starchild shows up in his
adorable Daisy Dukes. I do care when the setting is forced to be
something out of the ordinary (and that includes having business
conventions in a field).
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
There is one strawman to burn:
==Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party got started in someone's
living room. What if David Nolan had refused to host such a meeting due
to concerns about liability?===
Amongst people who knew each other. All men I believe as well. And
1972 is not 2018. And they would have just met in Denny's or another
public place.
But again, what do I know. I am only an insurance defense paralegal
that has dealt with hundreds of premises liability cases over two
decades.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Copying Starchild's latest attempt to make me justify what is a common
and reasonable concern that would prevent SOME female members from
serving. Bottom line, Wayne does not want me to travel out of state
and stay days in people's homes that he does not know. Neither would
my ex. And I know other women in similar circumstances.
Starchild has no right to think I need some kind reassurance classes or
other re-education he thinks is necessary. I signed up for this
position and the past under certain past history and that didn't
include travel for business meetings in homes. Full stop.
But for the LNC I will BRIEFLY address this continuation:
Caryn Ann,
=== It's very unfair to claim that for years I've just "brushed
off" or "ignored" your concerns. As you've alluded to, you and I have
talked multiple times – it's hardly as if I've ignored you or haven't
listened to you on the topic. We simply don't see eye to eye. You feel
frustrated? Me too! Crap like this is one reason I felt unmotivated to
run again for an LNC seat this year. It is more objectively accurate to
describe MY concerns as the ones that have been brushed off and
ignored. After all, the LNC has continued to schedule its meetings the
way YOU prefer, year after year paying for expensive hotel meeting
rooms instead of utilizing free meeting locations, during the entire
time that either of us have been on the committee. ===
It is the way nearly the entire business world prefers. And my own
state party. You are pennywise and pound foolish sometimes.
== Your own personal feelings of safety in one location versus
another are what they are, and there's no debating feelings.===
But that didn't stop you.
==But when you talk about this issue as "a real safety concern for
female members of our Party", I think that is presuming too much. While
I'm open to being shown to be wrong about this, I strongly question
whether most women in the LP would feel more concerned about their
safety going to a party member's home during the day for a business
meeting, than going to a member's home at night for a party where
there's lots of booze! ===
Addressed this already - preemptively. And what do I know. I have
only been a woman talking with other women as a woman for fifty years.
==Most sexual assaults, by the way, occur at the hands of someone the
victim knows, and a couple hours is plenty of time in which something
could happen, so there is *never* "zero chance for conflict". ===
That is my personal choice - I thought you were not debating my
feelings?
==But I think an honest look at the situation shows the risks are very
low, and if you are, contra the statistical evidence, worried about
random strangers, you're far more likely to encounter them at a hotel
than in an LP member's home.===
Where there is security and insurance. I thought you were not debating
my feelings?
===Except for LNC members, attendance is optional in both cases (and
unlike a party, you can usually catch an LNC meeting on livestream if
you can't be there in person), but obviously we want people to attend
the fundraiser parties, just as we want them to attend LNC meetings.===
So you are fine with "well you can catch it online." Got it. I am
not. Business is much more important.
===So if there really are widespread safety fears among our members
about attending events held in private homes in general, we should
address those fears.===
Perhaps you should stop trying to force things on people who don't want
it.
=== Perhaps provide volunteer safety escorts and safety monitors at
these events===
Yeah that's not uncomfortable in the slightest.
===perhaps offer self-defense classes===
So now you presume that I need to take even more time to take classes?
I have physical limitations, and I am a pacifist. Not interested.
=== and hand out mace, perhaps just reassure people with the facts====
I don't need you to re-assure me or arm me.
===or if none of those things are deemed sufficient, perhaps even stop
doing home fundraisers altogether – not just say it doesn't matter
because attending our parties is optional.===
It is optional. And I am not going to debate that with you. We are
talking about Party business. Have your rep bring a motion to stop
doing parties if that is what you wish.
===But first I'd want to see evidence that such widespread safety
fears exist.===
I don't owe you anything to prove that it does. It is often a very
embarrassing topic for women. But go ahead, force the issue.
===You're really worried that a party member might not want you to
bring a cooler of diet Mountain Dew into their home?===
And where do I get a cooler in another state? And yes, that looks
super professional. It doesn't. And you don't know what a Party
member prefers or not.
===Not that I recall you (or anyone) ever bringing a big drink cooler
to one of our meetings===
Because I go to the gift store. That. Is. The. Point.
I have had enough, I am not addressing the rest....
====but surely bringing in outside food or beverages is much more
likely to be an issue at a hotel than at someone's home. And people use
home projectors all the time! One has to "make a big show" of getting
an Uber? Not where I'm from. These are very strange objections. And for
the record, I know Ernie and Donna have multiple discrete rooms in
their home to which non–committee members could undoubtedly retire
during secret meetings, and even multiple bathrooms. We're not talking
about meeting in a refugee camp (cue Tom Petty song, "You don't have to
live like a refugee..." – [4]https://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc)!
You write that "a business meeting should be something that
*everyone* is comfortable with", but then you go on to write that, " I
understand that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable in
traditional atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever." Now which is
it? That latter statement sure sounds like you are being dismissive of
others' concerns, instead of trying to find middle ground.
In any case, although I do have issues with the sterile
aesthetics and controlled environment typical of hotels, the real issue
here is not about atmosphere, traditional or otherwise (a home is in
fact a much more *traditional* atmosphere than a hotel). It is about
wasting thousands of dollars on unnecessary frills when we could be
putting those resources toward advancing the cause of freedom!
Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party got started in
someone's living room. What if David Nolan had refused to host such a
meeting due to concerns about liability? Pshaw!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. – Jeff, as my Region 2 LNC rep., I request you forward my message
above to the list if no one else does. Thank you!====
I am not going to debate the same points over and over and over. I
will vote no on any such motion and there is a possibility that I would
not be able to attend any such meetings. That was not the deal for my
time and attendance which was discussed and agreed between myself and
my husband ahead of time.
Neither myself, nor women with similar concerns, should be forced to
lay bare our souls to satisfy Starchild when all we are expecting is a
typical professional business requirement.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Thank you for considering my points.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Richard Longstreth
<[6]richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
Thank you for the very reasonable argument! I hadn't considered that
viewpoint and completely understand not supporting this for those
reasons.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 22:10 Caryn Ann Harlos
<[7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
And there are liability concerns.
-Caryn Ann
And to preempt Starchild's always rebuttal. "But what about those
Friday night parties?" A party is a totally different context and is
OPTIONAL. I go there were several members of the LNC that I know well,
there is zero chance for conflict, and it is very very short term, a
couple of hours at most. And each time so far, it has been someone
I know. There may be a time where I don't go to the Friday party.
Oh my word, I can just see us setting up a projector in someone's
house. Me dragging in a cooler of diet mountain dews and none of us
wanting to snack for fear of being too messy. And if someone just
wants to leave, rather than a polite excusal and out the door, one has
to make a big show of it and get an uber. And what about executive
session? We ban guests to the back yard? Stand in line for the
toilet?
It is very very generous of the Hancock's to offer and NONE of this is
about them. My frustration is how my concerns have gone ignored by
Starchild for years and just brushed off. My frustration is that this
a real safety concern for female members of our Party and it is treated
by him like nothing. He knows my frustration at this.
Business for most people requires a business atmosphere. I understand
that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable in traditional
atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever. But I don't think
keeping a custom of business in a business conference room is so
outrageous, particularly considering the safety concerns that ladies
who know none of us will have.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[8]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Oh sorry I forgot I would be the one to start a ballot!
I have fought with Starchild for two years on this. It is highly
prejudicial to female members of the party, and I personally am very
uncomfortable with a business meeting in these circumstances. WE ARE
THE THIRD LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY IN THE COUNTRY.
Let's not make this look reasonable.
[9]https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-
of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
Starchild sometimes just dismisses the concerns of others when he
doesn't understand them. I told him this so this criticism is no
surprise.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[10]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I vote no.
I have always been opposed to this and I will explain why. A business
meeting should be something *everyone* is comfortable with. Women, in
general, are not comfortable going to a home of someone they do not
know -- I am not referring to committee members. I am referring to
members outside of that. I *would never* travel elsewhere
unaccompanied and my husband I would just be at so and so's house that
he doesn't know.
It is very uncomfortable. And it is uncomfortable for business. You
never know what can come up. And sometimes things get heated. Where
do you storm off to? The back yard? I have never stormed off but it
has happened.
Absolutely not. What if someone gets ill? There are a WHOLE lot of
unforseens.
Hell even in CO we knew not to have board meetings at people's homes
for these reasons.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business
<[11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Sam, thank you for your consideration and vote prior to getting
the
questions answered and a ballot declared. I would ask that if
you have
quesitons or concerns, please ask them so that we may get the
answers.
I also ask that you do not blankedtly dismiss this or any idea
prior to
having an opportunity to address the concerns and make a proper
determination as to whether this venue will suffice.
I believe many of these concerns are implicitly answered by
reading the
email Starchild copied us on where he laid out our requirements.
I have
also asked Mr Hancock Whitney's questions and will await his
response
before asking more.
Tim, Starchild did mention wifi in his initial inquiry and
because Mr
Hancock did not explicitly state his capabilities, I will be
asking
this question.
Hotels in Arizona are fairly cheap, in general and provided you
aren't
looking for 5 star. I regularly am staying in one throughough the
Phoenix area and find the price range to be slightly better than
average when compared to traveling outside of the state. The
average
Hampton Inn is right around $100-$110 as price point. I typically
stay
in Choice Brands and pay an average of $60 a night. I will
attempt to
find out the specific area and advise further. Remember, due to
temperatures, this is the tail end of our slow season.
The question of transport is fair, however, I note that many on
the LNC
will need to transport wherever we are meeting anyway. Whether
that is
from the airport to the hotel and we meet in the hotel or
something
else. If it could save our membership hundreds, if not thousands,
by
not renting out a space, I think it is worth at least a
consideration
before rejecting the idea completely and not rejecting on a free
offer
at face value. I have a car and am willing to pack it like
sardines to
save you an uber or lyft, if that is your concern.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:57 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business
<[1][12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Average high for September 29 & 30 is 95 degrees. Record high
for
September 29 was 107 degrees in 2003. September is the end of
the
monsoon season, so the end of the month is less likely to have
thunderstorms or humidity.
Does the place have WiFi to live-stream the meeting? What are
the
room
rates for the hotels nearby or within walking distance?
---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2018-07-18 20:09, Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business wrote:
> Also, temperatures in Phoenix in September...75-100 on
average?
> Something to consider for the outdoor meeting proposal...
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:00 PM Whitney Bilyeu
> <[1][2][13]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
>
> How far is this place from the airport? How far from the
nearest
> hotel?
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 9:49 PM Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
> <[2][3][14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Motion: In order to save the general membership funds, I
move
> to
> set
> the September Meeting location at the home of Ernest and
Donna
> Hancock.
> ===
> Rationale: A member in the Phoenix area has indicated
that
they
> have
> the space available, at no charge, to host our meeting.
The
> meeting
> location has not currently been set and I am unaware of
where
> we
> are at
> as far as determining a location. After asking the
question
> last
> week
> and getting no official answer, I am now moving to set
the
> location
> ahead of any official announcement. I would encourage
everyone
> to
> review the email Starchild sent to us yesterday which
includes
> comments
> from Ernie, the homeowner.
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative
> --
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
UT,
> WA,
> WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> [1][3][4][15]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> [5]931.538.9300
> References
> 1. mailto:[4][6][16]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[7][17]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[8][18]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:[9][19]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[10][20]richard.longstreth at lp.org
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA,
WY)
Libertarian National Committee
[11][21]richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
References
1. mailto:[22]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[23]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
3. mailto:[24]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[25]richard.longstreth at lp.org
5. tel:(931) 538-9300
6. mailto:[26]richard.longstreth at lp.org
7. mailto:[27]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
8. mailto:[28]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:[29]richard.longstreth at lp.org
10. mailto:[30]richard.longstreth at lp.org
11. mailto:[31]richard.longstreth at lp.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [32]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [33]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [34]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
[35]richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [36]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [37]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [38]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [39]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1469&context=risk
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
16. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
17. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
18. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
20. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
21. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
22. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
24. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
25. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
26. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
27. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
28. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
29. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
30. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
31. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
32. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
33. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
34. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
35. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
36. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
37. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
38. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
39. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list