[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Cuban Prisoner Resolution - Take 2- request for co-sponsors

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I took Joshua's new resolution to the author of the Nevada resolution for input.  He suggested some changes and agreed that the last paragraph should not be a part (in his non-LNC opinion).  IF this passes, specific direction we can give to the staff can be part of a separate motion (and one that does not require 3/4 btw).

I would like to offer this as a new resolution and ask for co-sponsors:

The Libertarian National Committee expresses shock and concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. The two men are believed to be political prisoners imprisoned in the infamous Melena II facility, known for appalling living and working conditions.  We further ask for an inquiry and response from the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges.  We further ask that the Cuban government for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention and call upon the national and international media to join us in these efforts.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I will co-sponsor.

 

Thanks to Caryn Ann, Joshua and the Nevada resolution author for this wordsmithing effort.

 

To those who might say that this motion will do little to help Messrs. Hernandez and Velasquez, you may be correct given the dysfunctional nature of the Cuban and U.S. governments. However, the other critical purpose of this motion is letting our audience know that the LNC stands in solidarity not only with Nevada and other affiliates who have courageously voiced their moral support but more importantly with the two Cuban Libertarian activist detainees.

 

Put yourselves in the shoes of the two detainees. Imagine how you would feel if the LNC refused to at least show moral support for your plight simply due to thinly-disguised, timid bureaucratic excuses.

 

Thoughts?

 

~David

  

Dec 10-13 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE

 

~David Pratt Demarest

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I will cosponsor.  I fail, however, to understand the following clause:

We further ask for an inquiry and response from the Castro regime for information related to their detention,

Are we asking the Cuban government, which is holding the people, to look into it?  Wouldn't they, presumably, already know the answer?  It's fully possible that I'm missing something, though.

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I took Joshua's new resolution to the author of the Nevada resolution for input.  He suggested some changes and agreed that the last paragraph should not be a part (in his non-LNC opinion).  IF this passes, specific direction we can give to the staff can be part of a separate motion (and one that does not require 3/4 btw).

I would like to offer this as a new resolution and ask for co-sponsors:

The Libertarian National Committee expresses shock and concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. The two men are believed to be political prisoners imprisoned in the infamous Melena II facility, known for appalling living and working conditions.  We further ask for an inquiry and response from the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges.  We further ask that the Cuban government for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention and call upon the national and international media to join us in these efforts.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Did the first motion fail?  Why are we wasting more time on this.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I voted no because it made, in my view, unfounded accusations against a foreign government, and because it contained no action other than 'calling up' and 'demanding.'  I suspect others may have voted no for the same reasons I did.  This alternative, in my mind, addresses the first concern, and at least contains some hints about the second.  I can't say I'm terribly enthusiastic, but since email ballots have no provision for amendment, I don't think it's unreasonable for a second motion to try to address concerns of those who voted no on the first.  

Joshua A. Katz

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Joshua - governments can often not even know between the left hand and right hand what they are doing.  Our own government often looks into activities if our own state or branches  - yes they would presumably know but not necessarily.

They should investigate how this was handled was the point by the NV author.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Sam it failed but several indicated they would entertain different wording.

Thank you Joshua for co-sponsoring.  We need one more.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Because e-mail ballots have no provision for amendment, I ask the sponsors to modify the resolution before it goes to a vote by spelling out instead of using the acronym IALP, so readers won't think the LNC is making a request to the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics.

Tim Hagan

---

From: Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Cuban Prisoner Resolution - Take 2- request for co-sponsors

I voted no because it made, in my view, unfounded accusations against a foreign government, and because it contained no action other than 'calling up' and 'demanding.'  I suspect others may have voted no for the same reasons I did.  This alternative, in my mind, addresses the first concern, and at least contains some hints about the second.  I can't say I'm terribly enthusiastic, but since email ballots have no provision for amendment, I don't think it's unreasonable for a second motion to try to address concerns of those who voted no on the first.  

Joshua A. Katz

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I have no objection - Joshua and David???

Tim will you co-sponsor with that change?

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

That's fine.

Joshua A. Katz

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thanks Tim. I have no objection to the change you suggested.

 

Thoughts?

 

~David

  

Dec 10-13 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE

 

~David Pratt Demarest

LNC Region 6 Representative

Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Starchild or anyone else, will you co-sponsor this amended resolution?

-Caryn Ann

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

The agreed to change is as follows:

I took Joshua's new resolution to the author of the Nevada resolution for input.  He suggested some changes and agreed that the last paragraph should not be a part (in his non-LNC opinion).  IF this passes, specific direction we can give to the staff can be part of a separate motion (and one that does not require 3/4 btw).

I would like to offer this as a new resolution and ask for co-sponsors:

The Libertarian National Committee expresses shock and concern for the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free markets. The two men are believed to be political prisoners imprisoned in the infamous Melena II facility, known for appalling living and working conditions.  We further ask for an inquiry and response from the Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges.  We further ask that the Cuban government for their immediate release should such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further ask that the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro regime to release information related to their detention and call upon the national and international media to join us in these efforts.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I think the fourth sentence has an extra "that" that doesn't belong. 


Tim Hagan

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

'Shock' and 'concern' are not words I want to use - subjective, emotional...

When I vote on a resolution, I cannot merely consider the spirit of the message.  I consider the depth of the language, the meaning behind each word, possible interpretations, pitfalls, and potential fallout.  I never want to publish something that winds up being a waste of words or that requires retraction.    

I also have to consider whether or not the statement sounds like something I would say, or something I could justify ever saying...I admit I struggle to adopt the words of others as my own....which is basically what we are being asked to do when we vote on resolutions.  

Whitney Bilyeu

_______________________________________________

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Part of our problem in Party image is that we don't use strong emotion enough.  Emotion is human and connects to people.  Our lack of it leads to the perjorative cartoon of Libertarians as having political autism.

When people are seized and thrown into a Cuban gulag - particularly our ideological brethren - in violation of basic principles - shock and concern is a mild form of what I would say.

What I personally would say would be NSFW.

--Caryn Ann 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree with the shock and concern as part of a press release, public statement, immediate reaction, informal comment, etc...and I don't think such a response should be downplayed at all.

However, as a standing formal resolution, I just prefer something less dramatic.

And....I totally agree with your very last statement...a great deal of what I want to say about many things is NSFW!!!    

It is true that we (LP) could do better at having/showing feelings ;).

However, I, personally, find emotionally charged statements off-putting as an initial engagement piece.

I guess I hope that an even-tempered, objective statement opens the door to the more emotional discussions that need to occur...

'Strongly opposed to...' has more meaning/bite than 'angry about...' or 'abhor...' (examples) to a left-brainer, like myself, at least :/.  

I prefer to use:

oppose

resist

reject

etc...

(imply action is to be taken, or would be taken)

I will probably reject the use of:

am angry about

am shocked by

am saddened over

etc...

(mere feelings without action, passive-aggressive implications)

I will consider:

regret

etc...

For the record, I don't wholly reject emotion or emotional language when it comes to making political statements...and I concede that there are gray areas.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

<I can't help myself>

My favour action verb of that type is ABOLISH!!!!

Okay I said.

I feel better.

- Caryn Ann

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

HELL, YES! 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'm down with that.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:08 PM, David Demarest <dprattd...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about "dismantle the evil empire"?

Oops - let my emotions get carried away with the moment. 😃

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

...

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.