[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors: Motion to set the September Meeting Location

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Thu Jul 19 08:08:38 EDT 2018


Here is another study - now this has to do with violent crime and going out
at night, but it is just another example that risk and fear IS a gendered
issue.

https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-sociologie-1-2007-5-page-101.htm

When the sheer facts should be the opposite.  Men rather than women are
most often the target of public violent crime.

But it is more than just overt violence.  It is other pressures, and women
react differently which is why some workplaces are tailored differently to
take that into consideration.

and it doesn't help that in addition to the embarassment of having to
publicly air out my discomfort and that of at least the other women I have
spoken to - to then have to be called sexist over it.

Men and women are different.  I am not a feminist.  I am an egalitarian.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Elizabeth I was going to bring that up as well - there are health concerns
> that private homes bring variables in that people just may not want to
> discuss.  Thank you for discussing yours.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Susan, I already said that individual women may differ, but also cited
>> the study where it not disputed that women IN GENERAL have different and
>> heightened security concerns.  I cannot help if you think you are being
>> dragged into it - you are not.  But this concern has been addressed to me
>> also privately by other women both here and in CO where a similar issue
>> came up and I am not speaking simply for me.
>>
>> It is (in general) more of a woman's issue.  It is not sexist to point
>> that out any more than it is not sexist to point out that women (in
>> general) are more comfortable in social settings rather than a battlefield.
>>
>> I do not buy that there are no differences between men and women.
>>
>> (there is also a religious bias here - there are certain faiths where in
>> NO WAY would a woman spend that much time in a private home without her
>> husband)
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> *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 --------------
   Here is another study - now this has to do with violent crime and going
   out at night, but it is just another example that risk and fear IS a
   gendered issue.
   [1]https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-sociologie-1-2007-5-page-1
   01.htm
   When the sheer facts should be the opposite.  Men rather than women are
   most often the target of public violent crime.
   But it is more than just overt violence.  It is other pressures, and
   women react differently which is why some workplaces are tailored
   differently to take that into consideration.
   and it doesn't help that in addition to the embarassment of having to
   publicly air out my discomfort and that of at least the other women I
   have spoken to - to then have to be called sexist over it.
   Men and women are different.  I am not a feminist.  I am an
   egalitarian.
   -Caryn Ann

   On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   Elizabeth I was going to bring that up as well - there are health
   concerns that private homes bring variables in that people just may not
   want to discuss.  Thank you for discussing yours.
   -Caryn Ann

   On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   Susan, I already said that individual women may differ, but also cited
   the study where it not disputed that women IN GENERAL have different
   and heightened security concerns.  I cannot help if you think you are
   being dragged into it - you are not.  But this concern has been
   addressed to me also privately by other women both here and in CO where
   a similar issue came up and I am not speaking simply for me.
   It is (in general) more of a woman's issue.  It is not sexist to point
   that out any more than it is not sexist to point out that women (in
   general) are more comfortable in social settings rather than a
   battlefield.
   I do not buy that there are no differences between men and women.
   (there is also a religious bias here - there are certain faiths where
   in NO WAY would a woman spend that much time in a private home without
   her husband)
   -Caryn Ann

   On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   I fibbed.  I have one more point to make.  I wasn't sure I could find
   this again.
   [5]https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1469&co
   ntext=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
   <[6]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
   <[7]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..." – [8]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
   <[9]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
   <[10]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
   <[11]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
   <[12]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.
   [13]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
   <[14]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
   <[15]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][16]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][17]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][18]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][19]richard.longstreth at lp.org
          >         [5]931.538.9300
          >      References
          >         1. mailto:[4][6][20]richard.longstreth at lp.org
          >
          > References
          >
          >    1. mailto:[7][21]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
          >    2. mailto:[8][22]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
          >    3. mailto:[9][23]richard.longstreth at lp.org
          >    4. mailto:[10][24]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][25]richard.longstreth at lp.org
        931.538.9300
     References

      1. mailto:[26]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
      2. mailto:[27]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
      3. mailto:[28]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
      4. mailto:[29]richard.longstreth at lp.org
      5. tel:(931) 538-9300
      6. mailto:[30]richard.longstreth at lp.org
      7. mailto:[31]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
      8. mailto:[32]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
      9. mailto:[33]richard.longstreth at lp.org
     10. mailto:[34]richard.longstreth at lp.org
     11. mailto:[35]richard.longstreth at lp.org

   --
   --
   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

     --

   Richard Longstreth
   Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
   Libertarian National Committee
   [39]richard.longstreth at lp.org
   931.538.9300

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
   - [40]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
   - [41]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
   - [42]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
   - [43]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
   - [44]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
   - [45]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
   - [46]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://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-sociologie-1-2007-5-page-101.htm
   2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   5. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1469&context=risk
   6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc
   9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  10. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
  11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  12. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  13. https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
  14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  16. mailto:lnc-business at hq.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:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
  22. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  23. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
  24. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
  25. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
  26. mailto:lnc-business at hq.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:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
  32. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  33. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
  34. mailto:richard.longstreth 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:richard.longstreth at lp.org
  40. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  41. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  42. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  43. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  44. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  45. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  46. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list