[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
143 views
Skip to first unread message
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 20, 2018, 10:04:11 PM1/20/18
to Libertarian National Committee list
We have an electronic mail ballot.
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
Pacific time.*
*Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
*Motion:* to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
-Alicia
*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
Pacific time.*
*Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
*Motion:* to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
-Alicia
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 20, 2018, 10:33:46 PM1/20/18
to Libertarian National Committee list
Words matter, and this is a perfect example of someone who might support a
generic concept of censure having to oppose the details of the motion
wording.
Censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion
which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are
"libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win
hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a
different way.
Our platform says "consenting adults" and that our recognition of parental
roles does not condone abuse. Our platform does not say, "If your having
sex leads to kids that you can't afford, and we have to pay for, please
don't have sex. Else: not our business." Etc.
I still seek cosponsors for yesterday's proposed wording of a motion for
suspension.
I will formally cast my vote on this motion later, as timing may matter if
there is to be an electronic meeting.
-Alicia
generic concept of censure having to oppose the details of the motion
wording.
Censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion
which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are
"libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win
hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a
different way.
Our platform says "consenting adults" and that our recognition of parental
roles does not condone abuse. Our platform does not say, "If your having
sex leads to kids that you can't afford, and we have to pay for, please
don't have sex. Else: not our business." Etc.
I still seek cosponsors for yesterday's proposed wording of a motion for
suspension.
I will formally cast my vote on this motion later, as timing may matter if
there is to be an electronic meeting.
-Alicia
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 20, 2018, 10:43:02 PM1/20/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
I will figure out which email ballots to cosponsor (again, without saying
I'll vote for them) if it turns out there are no longer 6 members agreeing
to an electronic meeting. I much prefer to discuss this by electronic
meeting, and I think the email thread I am responding to demonstrates why.
Issues of wording can generate long threads without resolution (as we've
amply demonstrated) but be resolved in a few minutes through motions to
amend. A meeting will be more efficient, more focused, and more decisive,
in my view.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Words matter, and this is a perfect example of someone who might
> support a generic concept of censure having to oppose the details of
> the motion wording.
> Censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a
> motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr.
> Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are
> trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra,
> just stated in a different way.
> Our platform says "consenting adults" and that our recognition of
> parental roles does not condone abuse. Our platform does not say, "If
> your having sex leads to kids that you can't afford, and we have to pay
> for, please don't have sex. Else: not our business." Etc.
> I still seek cosponsors for yesterday's proposed wording of a motion
> for suspension.
> I will formally cast my vote on this motion later, as timing may matter
> if there is to be an electronic meeting.
> -Alicia
>
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
> <[1]agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
>
> 1. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
I'll vote for them) if it turns out there are no longer 6 members agreeing
to an electronic meeting. I much prefer to discuss this by electronic
meeting, and I think the email thread I am responding to demonstrates why.
Issues of wording can generate long threads without resolution (as we've
amply demonstrated) but be resolved in a few minutes through motions to
amend. A meeting will be more efficient, more focused, and more decisive,
in my view.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Words matter, and this is a perfect example of someone who might
> support a generic concept of censure having to oppose the details of
> the motion wording.
> Censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a
> motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr.
> Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are
> trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra,
> just stated in a different way.
> Our platform says "consenting adults" and that our recognition of
> parental roles does not condone abuse. Our platform does not say, "If
> your having sex leads to kids that you can't afford, and we have to pay
> for, please don't have sex. Else: not our business." Etc.
> I still seek cosponsors for yesterday's proposed wording of a motion
> for suspension.
> I will formally cast my vote on this motion later, as timing may matter
> if there is to be an electronic meeting.
> -Alicia
>
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
> <[1]agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
> -Alicia
>
> References
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
> -Alicia
>
>
> 1. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 22, 2018, 8:36:46 PM1/22/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
It appears this email ballot has replaced the drive for an electronic
meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal will not
end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming. In fact,
should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one.
I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points in
favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate develop
further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and intend
to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I remain strongly
inclined to vote no.
First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra has
presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts. This
motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I deny that
they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue in favor of a
large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the broad libertarian
tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion, while the
line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is not night despite
the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large area of actions so
contrary to developmental and societal norms as to be far outside
libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do not think that
criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other hand, the denial
that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view, utterly morally
indefensible and shocking to the conscience.
Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within our
libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to liberty, and we
must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it, or we can
simply speak words which make it harder to address. I believe Mr. Vohra's
recent actions fall into the latter category, and to that extent, and only
that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the motion.
Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words reason to
censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the Party. Even
when he speaks individually, he is perceived as speaking for us. He has
made it clear, both through his actions and his words, that he intends to
drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go, one I find utterly
unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in point of of fact, one in
which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in his project, it will be
without me. It is clear to me, though, from our members' reactions, that
he will not succeed. His remarks do make me less proud, perhaps even
ashamed, to present myself as a Libertarian, until I remember their low
reach among the general public. I am proud to stand for my notion of what
liberty means. I will not be forced to stand for a concept of liberty I
find detestable, unfree, and immoral. At the same time, I am concerned
about the consequences of this board choosing to monitor the off-work
statements of its members, and assign censure for them. Will we stick to
what I consider detestable - and, if we do, should that be enough to
reassure me that doing so is fine?
Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and prophesying
grave consequences if we do not. Some of these, particularly the internal,
I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before turning to those doubts, though,
I will weigh in on an issue which has been much discussed already here. In
keeping with every corporate code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our
bylaws, I believe we are here to be leaders, not in a purely representative
capacity. During region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision
making it easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate.
I explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the
organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form a part
of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own. Given that, I
wanted my region to have an easy solution if my actions did not comport
with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it would take less than
the regional agreement said to remove me, that I would resign if I felt
there was widespread dissatisfaction with my votes. I am no longer a
regional alternate, though - and now feel the same way about the national
party, except that "widespread" is obviously a higher threshold. Others
feel differently, and that is fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind
that we, and no one else, are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else,
will be held responsible for the Party's health.
Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation.
Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober
reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another reason,
perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we serve more than our
members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit corporation. It has
many stakeholders beyond its membership. Notably, it serves the voters.
67% of voters want a viable third party. It is a mistake to say they
should all vote Libertarian, of course, since many do not agree with our
views and values. However, the public desire for better candidates and a
better party does make it incumbent on us to try to provide one. We must
often look beyond our narrow interests and to the society in which we exist.
Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are, in my
view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I haven't
conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I polled random
voters, statistically none would know who our Vice Chair is - just as
statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other parties. If I
polled voters of a particular party, the results would vary. Statistically
no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically no
Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically, a rather
significant portion of our voters would know who our Vice Chair is. The
difference is that we are following a non-scalable model. We simply cannot
be successful at the polls and maintain that number, and we act far more
often in ways that maintain our closed-circle nature than that aim for
success at the polls. Ronna McDaniels says, in response to outrageous
tweets from a far more public figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an
organization to run and doesn't have time to comment. We exchange hundreds
of emails when our Vice Chair says something outrageous.
We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are doing
it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public. This is a
shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak about harming
our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can, right now, go walk
doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no doubt, of course,
that some of our candidates can be harmed, if their opponents take the time
to research our party, manage to find Mr. Vohra's comments which are not on
any of our accounts (of course, if our members, and our detractors, choose
to comment about them on our accounts, this will be far easier), and then
to link our candidates to them. This is a serious concern for some
candidates, and if I heard from those candidates that a motion like this
would help their campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have
heard nothing from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have
convinced us that the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual
concern is that candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave,
and so on, in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we
need candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be our
voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact, those
observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage candidates,
activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something, because
their candidates, activists, and donors are not running, being active, and
donating based on those sorts of internal concerns. Rather, their
candidates run for their electoral base. Their activists volunteer to
expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to make action happen, to
make laws change - because they have an electoral base to sweep them to
office, so long as work is done to fill the narrow gap remaining.
The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being upset.
We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the only concerns
to which we react.
Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to form a
board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences (within the
limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with those who say the
delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps as a factual matter
that is true, I can't say. But they could have, and should have, known
what they were getting, and I consider their vote to be expressing a
preference in that regard. It is not our role to reverse them or,
depending on how we see it, to save them. This Party is ultimately ruled
by the delegates, and we, should we choose to serve on this board, must
live within their decisions (as restricted by corporate codes and bylaws).
Censure is, in this regard, far different from removal, but arises from the
same place.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
> -Alicia
>
meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal will not
end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming. In fact,
should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one.
I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points in
favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate develop
further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and intend
to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I remain strongly
inclined to vote no.
First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra has
presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts. This
motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I deny that
they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue in favor of a
large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the broad libertarian
tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion, while the
line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is not night despite
the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large area of actions so
contrary to developmental and societal norms as to be far outside
libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do not think that
criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other hand, the denial
that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view, utterly morally
indefensible and shocking to the conscience.
Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within our
libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to liberty, and we
must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it, or we can
simply speak words which make it harder to address. I believe Mr. Vohra's
recent actions fall into the latter category, and to that extent, and only
that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the motion.
Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words reason to
censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the Party. Even
when he speaks individually, he is perceived as speaking for us. He has
made it clear, both through his actions and his words, that he intends to
drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go, one I find utterly
unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in point of of fact, one in
which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in his project, it will be
without me. It is clear to me, though, from our members' reactions, that
he will not succeed. His remarks do make me less proud, perhaps even
ashamed, to present myself as a Libertarian, until I remember their low
reach among the general public. I am proud to stand for my notion of what
liberty means. I will not be forced to stand for a concept of liberty I
find detestable, unfree, and immoral. At the same time, I am concerned
about the consequences of this board choosing to monitor the off-work
statements of its members, and assign censure for them. Will we stick to
what I consider detestable - and, if we do, should that be enough to
reassure me that doing so is fine?
Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and prophesying
grave consequences if we do not. Some of these, particularly the internal,
I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before turning to those doubts, though,
I will weigh in on an issue which has been much discussed already here. In
keeping with every corporate code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our
bylaws, I believe we are here to be leaders, not in a purely representative
capacity. During region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision
making it easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate.
I explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the
organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form a part
of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own. Given that, I
wanted my region to have an easy solution if my actions did not comport
with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it would take less than
the regional agreement said to remove me, that I would resign if I felt
there was widespread dissatisfaction with my votes. I am no longer a
regional alternate, though - and now feel the same way about the national
party, except that "widespread" is obviously a higher threshold. Others
feel differently, and that is fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind
that we, and no one else, are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else,
will be held responsible for the Party's health.
Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation.
Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober
reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another reason,
perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we serve more than our
members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit corporation. It has
many stakeholders beyond its membership. Notably, it serves the voters.
67% of voters want a viable third party. It is a mistake to say they
should all vote Libertarian, of course, since many do not agree with our
views and values. However, the public desire for better candidates and a
better party does make it incumbent on us to try to provide one. We must
often look beyond our narrow interests and to the society in which we exist.
Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are, in my
view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I haven't
conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I polled random
voters, statistically none would know who our Vice Chair is - just as
statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other parties. If I
polled voters of a particular party, the results would vary. Statistically
no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically no
Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically, a rather
significant portion of our voters would know who our Vice Chair is. The
difference is that we are following a non-scalable model. We simply cannot
be successful at the polls and maintain that number, and we act far more
often in ways that maintain our closed-circle nature than that aim for
success at the polls. Ronna McDaniels says, in response to outrageous
tweets from a far more public figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an
organization to run and doesn't have time to comment. We exchange hundreds
of emails when our Vice Chair says something outrageous.
We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are doing
it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public. This is a
shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak about harming
our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can, right now, go walk
doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no doubt, of course,
that some of our candidates can be harmed, if their opponents take the time
to research our party, manage to find Mr. Vohra's comments which are not on
any of our accounts (of course, if our members, and our detractors, choose
to comment about them on our accounts, this will be far easier), and then
to link our candidates to them. This is a serious concern for some
candidates, and if I heard from those candidates that a motion like this
would help their campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have
heard nothing from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have
convinced us that the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual
concern is that candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave,
and so on, in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we
need candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be our
voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact, those
observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage candidates,
activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something, because
their candidates, activists, and donors are not running, being active, and
donating based on those sorts of internal concerns. Rather, their
candidates run for their electoral base. Their activists volunteer to
expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to make action happen, to
make laws change - because they have an electoral base to sweep them to
office, so long as work is done to fill the narrow gap remaining.
The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being upset.
We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the only concerns
to which we react.
Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to form a
board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences (within the
limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with those who say the
delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps as a factual matter
that is true, I can't say. But they could have, and should have, known
what they were getting, and I consider their vote to be expressing a
preference in that regard. It is not our role to reverse them or,
depending on how we see it, to save them. This Party is ultimately ruled
by the delegates, and we, should we choose to serve on this board, must
live within their decisions (as restricted by corporate codes and bylaws).
Censure is, in this regard, far different from removal, but arises from the
same place.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
> -Alicia
>
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 22, 2018, 9:12:07 PM1/22/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Well said, Mr. Katz.
> Virus-free. [1]www.avast.com
> [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
> 2. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
> 3. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> Hidden links:
> 6. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
> 7. file://localhost/tmp/tmpoGaAKX.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-
> 40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
> <[2]agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
> public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
> inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders
> and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
> ideas.
> -Alicia
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [3]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
> <[2]agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
> public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
> inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders
> and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
> ideas.
> -Alicia
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
> 2. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
> 3. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> Hidden links:
> 6. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
> 7. file://localhost/tmp/tmpoGaAKX.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-
> 40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 23, 2018, 11:07:27 AM1/23/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
I vote "Yes" on the Vohra censure. Bill Redpath
On 2018-01-22 22:29, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
> I vote no.
> ----------------
>
> I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff
> Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I
> disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas.
> My objections are twofold:
>
> 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is
> caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free
> from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion,
> are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is
> libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the
> freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on
> him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than
> with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom.
> It's about yourself.
>
> Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of
> ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian
> anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an
> anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of
> libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility.
>
> 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping
> wound.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>
>
> On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>>
>> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
>> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory
>> and
>> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
>> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
>> ideas.
>> -Alicia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 29, 2018, 11:01:22 AM1/29/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Hi All - here's what I just sent to the LNC. You can follow the
conversation at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
Members of the Libertarian National Committee,
I have decided to respond to the motion for censure for "repeated public
political reality. This last election saw two things. The first was the
election of one of the most intentionally offensive people in the history
of human politics. The second, and perhaps by our standards more important:
the support of that person by many self-identifying anarcho-capitalists. In
other words, the most libertarian of the libertarians voted for a statist.
I do not believe this happened despite his offensiveness, but rather
because of it. Trumps policies have generally been statist. His main
campaign promises talked about increasing the scope of government. And yet
many ancaps proudly and openly supported him. They saw, in his rhetoric, a
rejection not only of political correctness, but of intersectionalism,
which, whatever its original intentions may have been, has come for many to
appear as a general vilification of all success. They saw a rejection of
"respectability" politics, which they have correctly intuited has
restricted American political and social growth.
Much of the libertarian movement has caught on to this change in value
dominance. The era of apple pie respectability, in which public school
teachers and military employees are worshipped against all sense, logic,
and evidence of their work, is ending. America is becoming saturated with
real information. We are growing out of our political childhood and into an
increasingly sophisticated awakening.
Have I made it harder to win hearts and minds? I don't think so. I have
made it harder to trick people out of their votes. I have monkey wrenched
the mental gymnastics that let candidates and leaders say, "Yes, we can
have taxation funded schools in a Libertarian world, don't worry." I have
made actually winning hearts and minds, rather than pretending you have, a
prerequisite for getting a vote. And it should be. People should actually
agree with us before voting for us. Otherwise, we face the moral issue of
building a movement on lies, and the worse issue of having those who bought
into a complete misrepresentation becoming our representatives and
missionaries.
I use the example of government schools because it is something that
infuriates people on my facebook page, as well as on the LP National
facebook page. It is, to me, clear evidence that the hearts and minds many
claim are "won" have clearly not been won. Getting someone to say, "Hey,
I'm a libertarian, but I believe in government funded schooling" is not
winning hearts and minds. It's just assaulting reality. It's setting the
bar at a laughably low level, and then declaring victory.
Have I made it harder to mislabel people as libertarians, count fake
successes as real ones? Sure. We are the spearhead of the Libertarian
movement. It is essential that we increase our number of actual
conversions, not delude ourselves about where we stand. If we can focus on
actual conversions rather than make-believe ones, we can then work on
developing, trying out, and experimenting with methods that will achieve
that worthwhile and vital goal. What does it take to show people that
government funded education is wrong in all forms? I don't know. I'd love
to find out. I believe that finding that out, and working on that, is
essential for our movement to grow.
Many argue that politeness can work. I have proof that it cannot. Your
polite intellectualism has not been heard. It hasn't been heard outside the
Libertarian movement. It hasn't even been heard inside the Libertarian
movement. You can post something like "Abolish all government funded
education, including charter schools and vouchers" right now on the
national facebook page, and you'll see how many people argue that they are
libertarians but don't agree, or even that such a position is not
libertarian.
It has been pointed out to me that communication isn't about what you
meant, but about what other people hear. I agree, and have frankly and
openly agreed that some of my phrasing could be improved.
But that rule goes both ways. We on the LNC may believe that government
funded schooling is wrong in all forms. We may think we've communicated it.
But I can guarantee it has not been heard, and prove it instantly with a
facebook post. It hasn't been heard by our members, our voters, and even
some of our candidates.
Some of that pushback you're seeing to my commentary is coming because
people are finally hearing our views. They are hearing it because they are
presented bluntly and inflammatorily.
In academics, grade inflation helps no one. It boosts fake self esteem for
a short amount of time, and robs a student of actual growth and improvement
permanently. Giving ourselves grade inflation by counting pro-government
school, pro-military overreach and overstaffing, pro-welfare state
"libertarians" is not helpful to our cause and growth.
The LP has made one error after another based on timidity. In 2008, we
nominated a candidate who, when asked point blank, rejected the
legalization of hard drugs. That candidate has drifted into obscurity,
attracted zero supporters, and has had only one significant public moment
in the last few years: endorsing Mitt Romney.
At the same time, Ron Paul advocated ending the drug war in the 1980s, when
it was hard to do. His statements were seen as outrageous, politically
inexpedient, and incredibly inflammatory. And that courage formed the
underpinning of the Ron Paul revolution, a political movement many times
the size of the LP.
In my view this censure motion is ill conceived, but its damage is minimal,
as it really affects only one person. But the underlying principle of
avoiding inflammatory and offensive commentary is an incredibly bad
strategy, one at odds with both recent and historical political reality,
one that provably has not worked, and one that has weakened our movement
and legitimate growth.
Respectfully,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee
<https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1781376111893874#>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>
wrote:
> Yes
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ed Marsh <[1]ed.m...@lp.org> wrote:
>
> I vote NO on e-mail 2018-3
> Ed Marsh
> Region 2 Rep (Florida,Georgia,
> Tennessee)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 23, 2018, at 11:07 AM, William Redpath
> >> [3]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> >>> [5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lnc-business mailing list
> >> [6]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> >> [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > [8]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> > [9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [10]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> [11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:ed.m...@lp.org
> 2. mailto:william...@lp.org
> 3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 4. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 6. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 8. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 10. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
Vote...@gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
conversation at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
Members of the Libertarian National Committee,
I have decided to respond to the motion for censure for "repeated public
comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas."
The talk of winning hearts and minds I consider to be frankly oblivious to
sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas."
political reality. This last election saw two things. The first was the
election of one of the most intentionally offensive people in the history
of human politics. The second, and perhaps by our standards more important:
the support of that person by many self-identifying anarcho-capitalists. In
other words, the most libertarian of the libertarians voted for a statist.
I do not believe this happened despite his offensiveness, but rather
because of it. Trumps policies have generally been statist. His main
campaign promises talked about increasing the scope of government. And yet
many ancaps proudly and openly supported him. They saw, in his rhetoric, a
rejection not only of political correctness, but of intersectionalism,
which, whatever its original intentions may have been, has come for many to
appear as a general vilification of all success. They saw a rejection of
"respectability" politics, which they have correctly intuited has
restricted American political and social growth.
Much of the libertarian movement has caught on to this change in value
dominance. The era of apple pie respectability, in which public school
teachers and military employees are worshipped against all sense, logic,
and evidence of their work, is ending. America is becoming saturated with
real information. We are growing out of our political childhood and into an
increasingly sophisticated awakening.
Have I made it harder to win hearts and minds? I don't think so. I have
made it harder to trick people out of their votes. I have monkey wrenched
the mental gymnastics that let candidates and leaders say, "Yes, we can
have taxation funded schools in a Libertarian world, don't worry." I have
made actually winning hearts and minds, rather than pretending you have, a
prerequisite for getting a vote. And it should be. People should actually
agree with us before voting for us. Otherwise, we face the moral issue of
building a movement on lies, and the worse issue of having those who bought
into a complete misrepresentation becoming our representatives and
missionaries.
I use the example of government schools because it is something that
infuriates people on my facebook page, as well as on the LP National
facebook page. It is, to me, clear evidence that the hearts and minds many
claim are "won" have clearly not been won. Getting someone to say, "Hey,
I'm a libertarian, but I believe in government funded schooling" is not
winning hearts and minds. It's just assaulting reality. It's setting the
bar at a laughably low level, and then declaring victory.
Have I made it harder to mislabel people as libertarians, count fake
successes as real ones? Sure. We are the spearhead of the Libertarian
movement. It is essential that we increase our number of actual
conversions, not delude ourselves about where we stand. If we can focus on
actual conversions rather than make-believe ones, we can then work on
developing, trying out, and experimenting with methods that will achieve
that worthwhile and vital goal. What does it take to show people that
government funded education is wrong in all forms? I don't know. I'd love
to find out. I believe that finding that out, and working on that, is
essential for our movement to grow.
Many argue that politeness can work. I have proof that it cannot. Your
polite intellectualism has not been heard. It hasn't been heard outside the
Libertarian movement. It hasn't even been heard inside the Libertarian
movement. You can post something like "Abolish all government funded
education, including charter schools and vouchers" right now on the
national facebook page, and you'll see how many people argue that they are
libertarians but don't agree, or even that such a position is not
libertarian.
It has been pointed out to me that communication isn't about what you
meant, but about what other people hear. I agree, and have frankly and
openly agreed that some of my phrasing could be improved.
But that rule goes both ways. We on the LNC may believe that government
funded schooling is wrong in all forms. We may think we've communicated it.
But I can guarantee it has not been heard, and prove it instantly with a
facebook post. It hasn't been heard by our members, our voters, and even
some of our candidates.
Some of that pushback you're seeing to my commentary is coming because
people are finally hearing our views. They are hearing it because they are
presented bluntly and inflammatorily.
In academics, grade inflation helps no one. It boosts fake self esteem for
a short amount of time, and robs a student of actual growth and improvement
permanently. Giving ourselves grade inflation by counting pro-government
school, pro-military overreach and overstaffing, pro-welfare state
"libertarians" is not helpful to our cause and growth.
The LP has made one error after another based on timidity. In 2008, we
nominated a candidate who, when asked point blank, rejected the
legalization of hard drugs. That candidate has drifted into obscurity,
attracted zero supporters, and has had only one significant public moment
in the last few years: endorsing Mitt Romney.
At the same time, Ron Paul advocated ending the drug war in the 1980s, when
it was hard to do. His statements were seen as outrageous, politically
inexpedient, and incredibly inflammatory. And that courage formed the
underpinning of the Ron Paul revolution, a political movement many times
the size of the LP.
In my view this censure motion is ill conceived, but its damage is minimal,
as it really affects only one person. But the underlying principle of
avoiding inflammatory and offensive commentary is an incredibly bad
strategy, one at odds with both recent and historical political reality,
one that provably has not worked, and one that has weakened our movement
and legitimate growth.
Respectfully,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee
<https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1781376111893874#>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>
wrote:
> Yes
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ed Marsh <[1]ed.m...@lp.org> wrote:
>
> I vote NO on e-mail 2018-3
> Ed Marsh
> Region 2 Rep (Florida,Georgia,
> Tennessee)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 23, 2018, at 11:07 AM, William Redpath
> >>> On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:
> >>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> >>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> >>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
> >>> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> >>> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
> public
> >>> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
> inflammatory and
> >>> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders
> and
> >>> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
> ideas.
> >>> -Alicia
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>> [4]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> >>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> >>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> >>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
> >>> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> >>> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
> public
> >>> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
> inflammatory and
> >>> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders
> and
> >>> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
> ideas.
> >>> -Alicia
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>> [5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lnc-business mailing list
> >> [6]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> >> [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > [8]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> > [9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [10]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> [11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:ed.m...@lp.org
> 2. mailto:william...@lp.org
> 3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 4. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 6. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 8. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 10. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
--
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
Vote...@gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 29, 2018, 11:54:29 AM1/29/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
I vote no.
To be clear, I am voting no despite nearly every argument made here for a
no vote. I disagree vehemently with Mr. Vohra's claims, with the notion
that they are somehow required by libertarian thought, and with the
approach to politics and the party that Mr. Vohra and his defenders have
elucidated during this debate. In fact, I believe that Mr. Vohra's notion
of how this party ought to act might well amount to a fiduciary breach, if
done with party resources or on party time. However, I maintain that he
has not used party resources, even if he stated the (true) fact that he is
the Vice Chair, and I do not wish to set the precedent of this board
policing its members' speech. Quite frankly, in addition, I think it has
done far less harm than claimed (as I argued before) because the percentage
of the voting population knowing who Mr. Vohra is, is quite small. I think
this board would do well to think more about winning over the voting
population, and less about these tempests in what, despite 40 years of
effort, remains hardly a teapot.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
> -Alicia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
To be clear, I am voting no despite nearly every argument made here for a
no vote. I disagree vehemently with Mr. Vohra's claims, with the notion
that they are somehow required by libertarian thought, and with the
approach to politics and the party that Mr. Vohra and his defenders have
elucidated during this debate. In fact, I believe that Mr. Vohra's notion
of how this party ought to act might well amount to a fiduciary breach, if
done with party resources or on party time. However, I maintain that he
has not used party resources, even if he stated the (true) fact that he is
the Vice Chair, and I do not wish to set the precedent of this board
policing its members' speech. Quite frankly, in addition, I think it has
done far less harm than claimed (as I argued before) because the percentage
of the voting population knowing who Mr. Vohra is, is quite small. I think
this board would do well to think more about winning over the voting
population, and less about these tempests in what, despite 40 years of
effort, remains hardly a teapot.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
> -Alicia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 29, 2018, 2:26:59 PM1/29/18
to Libertarian National Committee list
I have to vote no.
As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
>
As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I
cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which were
made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and
candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by
Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way.
-Alicia
made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and
candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by
Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
>
> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
> Pacific time.*
> *Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>
> *Motion:* to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> Pacific time.*
> *Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 29, 2018, 3:27:26 PM1/29/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
After giving this some thought, I will also change my vote to "No" on
this motion. Bill Redpath
this motion. Bill Redpath
On 2018-01-29 15:19, Sam Goldstein wrote:
> Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with
> those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to
> imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP.
>
> ---
> Sam Goldstein
> Libertarian National Committee
> 317-850-0726 Cell
>
> On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>> I have to vote no.
>> As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here,
>> however, I
>> cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which
>> were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our
>> leaders
>> and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas
>> espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way.
>> -Alicia
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
>> <[1]agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>>
>> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
>> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory
>> and
>> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
>> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
>> ideas.
>> -Alicia
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 29, 2018, 9:26:14 PM1/29/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Yes.
Whitney Bilyeu
On Jan 29, 2018 5:18 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on. He has presented
Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way. It doesn't claim all of
his ideas were. It says the one fact that we do have an authority to
say. That is why I say anything else is a purity test. In all
directions - radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or
whatever the factions de jeur are. This was never a PM issue and the
complaint that made it that way ironically sunk this whole effort. My
yes votes remain. I believe in them, and it is my position.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
Alicia--
== I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
this,
as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend
to
focus on and accomplish.==
I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response.
== However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
are
unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.==
I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME
PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations
can determine.
== Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
explain
their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
fair.===
It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents
who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind.
I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment
is pretty on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not
presumptuous, it is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one
is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1.
== A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option
of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).===
I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want
at least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority
that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And
disappointing.
== It is
the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to
broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas.
Even you, in today's postings, say you think some
were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
represent a purity test...?===
It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have
some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's
concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light,
that is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can
present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be
concerned about that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be
due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style.
He neglected to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance?
Or was he just a terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't
know. And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of
truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people
that it is inappropriate for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging
about his "white only" sign. Is that anti-libertarian qua
libertarian? No, he has the right to do that. But it is
anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it
unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone
else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No.
But it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to
parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests.
There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented
Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates
in Platform. Not us.
== There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension
or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the
end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you
to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
spite
your face.==
Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They
elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to
them to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs.
This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this
Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a
lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I
prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet
mastering of this body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how
high. I am tired of it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and
I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that.
You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen.
Can I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not
support suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month
with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the
affiliates need to take more control.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson
<[2]alicia....@lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
this,
as over in the real world there are productive things that I
intend to
focus on and accomplish.
However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
are
unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.
Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
explain
their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
fair.
A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of
censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).
It is
the rejection of this particular wording.
This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having
been
libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think
some
were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
represent
a purity test...?
There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
LNC
has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or
censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being
the
end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to
abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
options
will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
spite
your face.
-Alicia
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3]caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
This is what I sent to my region one chairs:
Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not
been
privy
to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this
because
it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution
this
weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia
which
obviously is in direct response to this situation.
The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have
changed
their
vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same
-
you
can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted
on the
state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an
asshole
works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I
suspect
that is not what many of you signed up for either.
My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons.
I
suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from
counsel
from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure
motion as
it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some
want
to
claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others
think
some
were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this
has
devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to
interpret
the
Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological
struggle.
Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an
ideological
dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and
proper
conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority
of
region
1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what
he
said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and -
that is
nakedly a factional issue.
The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region
1
will
come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my
instructions,
but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my
instructions.
My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand.
Issue
your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the
LNC
is
not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this
with
regret.
I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute
protest
and
for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the
national
party
too much, that has also been my position, and remains so.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2][4]erin....@lp.org>
wrote:
I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion
to
censure should have been made some time ago imo
On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act
horribly
and
we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his
fiduciary
duty HE
COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff
could
rise
to
the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke
their
legs.
My opinion.
I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.
I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way
works. I
do it
every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an
unempathic
edgelord.
And we bought it hook line and sinker.
Literally shaking my head.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2][3][5]caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional
Chairs
want.
I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate
those
to my
state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.
However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just
about
this
incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this
Party has
argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here
in
this
body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the
line
is
drawn and not the delegates.
This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s
reckless
behaviour and more and factional jockeying.
It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where
people
were
assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not
changed
- so
trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an
arbitrary
state
law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing
a
hand.
IMHO.
Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable
but
it’s
obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.
I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.
The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to
have
a
Libertarian Purity test.
Which I find so ironic.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein
<[2][3][4][6]sam.go...@lp.org>
> 1. mailto:[4][6][6][8]agma...@gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[7][7][9]caryn.an...@lp.org
2. mailto:[8][8][10]sam.go...@lp.org
3. mailto:[9][9][11]agma...@gmail.com
4. mailto:[10][10][12]agma...@gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[11][13]erin....@lp.org
2. mailto:[12][14]caryn.an...@lp.org
3. mailto:[13][15]sam.go...@lp.org
4. tel:[14]317-850-0726
5. mailto:[15][16]agma...@gmail.com
6. mailto:[16][17]agma...@gmail.com
7. mailto:[17][18]caryn.an...@lp.org
8. mailto:[18][19]sam.go...@lp.org
9. mailto:[19][20]agma...@gmail.com
10. mailto:[20][21]agma...@gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[22]caryn.an...@lp.org
2. mailto:[23]erin....@lp.org
3. mailto:[24]caryn.an...@lp.org
4. mailto:[25]sam.go...@lp.org
5. mailto:[26]agma...@gmail.com
6. mailto:[27]agma...@gmail.com
7. mailto:[28]caryn.an...@lp.org
8. mailto:[29]sam.go...@lp.org
9. mailto:[30]agma...@gmail.com
10. mailto:[31]agma...@gmail.com
11. mailto:[32]erin....@lp.org
12. mailto:[33]caryn.an...@lp.org
13. mailto:[34]sam.go...@lp.org
14. tel:[35]317-850-0726
15. mailto:[36]agma...@gmail.com
16. mailto:[37]agma...@gmail.com
17. mailto:[38]caryn.an...@lp.org
18. mailto:[39]sam.go...@lp.org
19. mailto:[40]agma...@gmail.com
20. mailto:[41]agma...@gmail.com
References
1. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
2. mailto:alicia....@lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
4. mailto:erin....@lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
6. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
7. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
8. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
9. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
10. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
11. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
12. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
13. mailto:erin....@lp.org
14. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
15. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
16. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
17. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
18. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
19. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
20. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
21. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
22. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
23. mailto:erin....@lp.org
24. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
25. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
26. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
27. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
28. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
29. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
30. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
31. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
32. mailto:erin....@lp.org
33. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
34. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
35. tel:317-850-0726
36. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
37. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
38. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
39. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
40. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
41. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
Whitney Bilyeu
On Jan 29, 2018 5:18 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on. He has presented
Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way. It doesn't claim all of
his ideas were. It says the one fact that we do have an authority to
say. That is why I say anything else is a purity test. In all
directions - radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or
whatever the factions de jeur are. This was never a PM issue and the
complaint that made it that way ironically sunk this whole effort. My
yes votes remain. I believe in them, and it is my position.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
Alicia--
== I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
this,
as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend
to
focus on and accomplish.==
I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response.
== However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
are
unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.==
I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME
PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations
can determine.
== Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
explain
their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
fair.===
It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents
who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind.
I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment
is pretty on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not
presumptuous, it is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one
is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1.
== A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option
of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).===
I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want
at least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority
that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And
disappointing.
== It is
the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to
broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas.
Even you, in today's postings, say you think some
were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
represent a purity test...?===
It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have
some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's
concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light,
that is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can
present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be
concerned about that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be
due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style.
He neglected to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance?
Or was he just a terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't
know. And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of
truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people
that it is inappropriate for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging
about his "white only" sign. Is that anti-libertarian qua
libertarian? No, he has the right to do that. But it is
anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it
unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone
else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No.
But it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to
parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests.
There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented
Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates
in Platform. Not us.
== There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension
or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the
end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you
to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
spite
your face.==
Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They
elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to
them to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs.
This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this
Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a
lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I
prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet
mastering of this body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how
high. I am tired of it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and
I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that.
You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen.
Can I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not
support suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month
with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the
affiliates need to take more control.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson
<[2]alicia....@lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
this,
as over in the real world there are productive things that I
intend to
focus on and accomplish.
However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
are
unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.
Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
explain
their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
fair.
A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of
censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).
It is
the rejection of this particular wording.
This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having
been
libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think
some
were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
represent
a purity test...?
There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
LNC
has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or
censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being
the
end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to
abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
options
will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
spite
your face.
-Alicia
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3]caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
This is what I sent to my region one chairs:
Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not
been
privy
to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this
because
it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution
this
weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia
which
obviously is in direct response to this situation.
The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have
changed
their
vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same
-
you
can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted
on the
state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an
asshole
works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I
suspect
that is not what many of you signed up for either.
My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons.
I
suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from
counsel
from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure
motion as
it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some
want
to
claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others
think
some
were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this
has
devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to
interpret
the
Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological
struggle.
Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an
ideological
dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and
proper
conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority
of
region
1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what
he
said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and -
that is
nakedly a factional issue.
The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region
1
will
come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my
instructions,
but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my
instructions.
My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand.
Issue
your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the
LNC
is
not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this
with
regret.
I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute
protest
and
for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the
national
party
too much, that has also been my position, and remains so.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2][4]erin....@lp.org>
wrote:
I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion
to
censure should have been made some time ago imo
On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act
horribly
and
we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his
fiduciary
duty HE
COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff
could
rise
to
the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke
their
legs.
My opinion.
I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.
I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way
works. I
do it
every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an
unempathic
edgelord.
And we bought it hook line and sinker.
Literally shaking my head.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2][3][5]caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional
Chairs
want.
I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate
those
to my
state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.
However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just
about
this
incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this
Party has
argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here
in
this
body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the
line
is
drawn and not the delegates.
This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s
reckless
behaviour and more and factional jockeying.
It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where
people
were
assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not
changed
- so
trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an
arbitrary
state
law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing
a
hand.
IMHO.
Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable
but
it’s
obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.
I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.
The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to
have
a
Libertarian Purity test.
Which I find so ironic.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein
<[2][3][4][6]sam.go...@lp.org>
wrote:
Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend
to
agree
with
those who have pointed out that the wording of the
censure
seems to
imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and
to
the LP.
---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
[4]317-850-0726 Cell
Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend
to
agree
with
those who have pointed out that the wording of the
censure
seems to
imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and
to
the LP.
---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
References
1. mailto:[7][7][9]caryn.an...@lp.org
2. mailto:[8][8][10]sam.go...@lp.org
3. mailto:[9][9][11]agma...@gmail.com
4. mailto:[10][10][12]agma...@gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[11][13]erin....@lp.org
2. mailto:[12][14]caryn.an...@lp.org
3. mailto:[13][15]sam.go...@lp.org
4. tel:[14]317-850-0726
5. mailto:[15][16]agma...@gmail.com
6. mailto:[16][17]agma...@gmail.com
7. mailto:[17][18]caryn.an...@lp.org
8. mailto:[18][19]sam.go...@lp.org
9. mailto:[19][20]agma...@gmail.com
10. mailto:[20][21]agma...@gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[22]caryn.an...@lp.org
2. mailto:[23]erin....@lp.org
3. mailto:[24]caryn.an...@lp.org
4. mailto:[25]sam.go...@lp.org
5. mailto:[26]agma...@gmail.com
6. mailto:[27]agma...@gmail.com
7. mailto:[28]caryn.an...@lp.org
8. mailto:[29]sam.go...@lp.org
9. mailto:[30]agma...@gmail.com
10. mailto:[31]agma...@gmail.com
11. mailto:[32]erin....@lp.org
12. mailto:[33]caryn.an...@lp.org
13. mailto:[34]sam.go...@lp.org
14. tel:[35]317-850-0726
15. mailto:[36]agma...@gmail.com
16. mailto:[37]agma...@gmail.com
17. mailto:[38]caryn.an...@lp.org
18. mailto:[39]sam.go...@lp.org
19. mailto:[40]agma...@gmail.com
20. mailto:[41]agma...@gmail.com
References
1. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
2. mailto:alicia....@lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
4. mailto:erin....@lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
6. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
7. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
8. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
9. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
10. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
11. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
12. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
13. mailto:erin....@lp.org
14. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
15. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
16. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
17. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
18. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
19. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
20. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
21. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
22. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
23. mailto:erin....@lp.org
24. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
25. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
26. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
27. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
28. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
29. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
30. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
31. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
32. mailto:erin....@lp.org
33. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
34. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
35. tel:317-850-0726
36. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
37. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
38. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
39. mailto:sam.go...@lp.org
40. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
41. mailto:agma...@gmail.com
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 30, 2018, 10:56:54 PM1/30/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart:
“If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party,
no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that
gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these
positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of
people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully
these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or
considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out.
It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners.
How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own
members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <david.d...@lp.org> wrote:
> I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote
> 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider
> suspension.
>
> Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in
> tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the
> fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and
> positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage
> and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom.
>
> It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly
> described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare
> of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of
> not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done
> enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of
> self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded
> censure motions.
>
> Good grief - enough already!
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
>
> On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>> I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am
>> disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully
>> inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all.
>> What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not
>> the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight
>> <[1]patrick....@lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look
>> forward to
>> the electronic meeting.
>> Thanks,
>> Patrick McKnight
>> Region 8 Rep
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan
>> <[1][2]tim....@lp.org>
>> wrote:
>> I vote yes.
>> ---
>> Tim Hagan
>> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> [2][3]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
>> [3][4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[5]tim....@lp.org
>>
>> 2. mailto:[6]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
>> 3. [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
>> 2. mailto:tim....@lp.org
>> 5. mailto:tim....@lp.org
“If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party,
no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that
gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these
positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of
people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully
these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or
considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out.
It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners.
How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own
members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <david.d...@lp.org> wrote:
> I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote
> 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider
> suspension.
>
> Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in
> tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the
> fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and
> positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage
> and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom.
>
> It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly
> described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare
> of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of
> not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done
> enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of
> self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded
> censure motions.
>
> Good grief - enough already!
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
>
> On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>> I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am
>> disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully
>> inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all.
>> What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not
>> the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight
>> <[1]patrick....@lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look
>> forward to
>> the electronic meeting.
>> Thanks,
>> Patrick McKnight
>> Region 8 Rep
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan
>> <[1][2]tim....@lp.org>
>> wrote:
>> I vote yes.
>> ---
>> Tim Hagan
>> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>> On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
>> public
>> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
>> inflammatory
>> and
>> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian
>> leaders and
>> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for
>> those
>> ideas.
>> -Alicia
>> _______________________________________________
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
>> public
>> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
>> inflammatory
>> and
>> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian
>> leaders and
>> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for
>> those
>> ideas.
>> -Alicia
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> [2][3]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
>> [3][4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[5]tim....@lp.org
>>
>> 2. mailto:[6]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
>> 3. [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
>> 2. mailto:tim....@lp.org
>> 5. mailto:tim....@lp.org
>> 6. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
>> 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>
>
>> 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>
>
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 31, 2018, 12:11:34 AM1/31/18
to lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
For those who haven't seen Dr. Ruwart's positions, which many would
classify as more extreme than mine:
http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/25/libertarian-presidential-front-runner-defends-child-porn/
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>
wrote:
> And of course that was not the point.
> I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The
> Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya
> know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a
> job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare.
> This is called using people.
> [2][3][4][5]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> [3][4][5][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin
> /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[5][6][7]tim....@lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6][7][8]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 3. [7][8][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma
> ilman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[9][10]patrick....@lp.org
> 2. mailto:[10][11]tim....@lp.org
> 3. mailto:[11][12]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 4. [12][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 5. mailto:[13][14]tim....@lp.org
> 6. mailto:[14][15]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 7. [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> --
> Arvin Vohra
> [16][17]www.VoteVohra.com
> [17][18]Vote...@gmail.com
> [19](301) 320-3634
> References
> 1. mailto:[20]david.d...@lp.org
> 2. mailto:[21]patrick....@lp.org
> 3. mailto:[22]tim....@lp.org
> 4. mailto:[23]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 5. [24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 6. mailto:[25]tim....@lp.org
> 7. mailto:[26]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 8. [27]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 9. mailto:[28]patrick....@lp.org
> 10. mailto:[29]tim....@lp.org
> 11. mailto:[30]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 12. [31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 13. mailto:[32]tim....@lp.org
> 14. mailto:[33]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 15. [34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 16. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 17. mailto:[36]Vote...@gmail.com
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:vote...@gmail.com
> 2. mailto:david.d...@lp.org
> 3. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 4. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 5. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin
> 7. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 10. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 11. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 12. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 14. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 15. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 18. mailto:Vote...@gmail.com
> 19. tel:(301) 320-3634
> 20. mailto:david.d...@lp.org
> 21. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 22. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 23. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 25. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 26. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 27. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 28. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 29. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 30. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 32. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 33. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 36. mailto:Vote...@gmail.com
classify as more extreme than mine:
http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/25/libertarian-presidential-front-runner-defends-child-porn/
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>
wrote:
> And of course that was not the point.
> I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The
> Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya
> know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a
> job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare.
> This is called using people.
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1]vote...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart:
> “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of
> our
> Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on
> Drugs,
> claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was
> theft.
> All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive
> to
> the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s,
> regardless
> of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are
> seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum
> precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious
> change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe
> that
> the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for
> engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2]david.d...@lp.org>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1]vote...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart:
> “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of
> our
> Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on
> Drugs,
> claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was
> theft.
> All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive
> to
> the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s,
> regardless
> of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are
> seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum
> precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious
> change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe
> that
> the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for
> engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart
>
> <[1][2][3]patrick....@lp.org> wrote:
> I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and
> look
> forward to
> the electronic meeting.
> Thanks,
> Patrick McKnight
> Region 8 Rep
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan
> <[1][2][3][4]tim....@lp.org>
> I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and
> look
> forward to
> the electronic meeting.
> Thanks,
> Patrick McKnight
> Region 8 Rep
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan
> [3][4][5][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin
> /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[5][6][7]tim....@lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6][7][8]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 3. [7][8][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma
> ilman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[9][10]patrick....@lp.org
> 2. mailto:[10][11]tim....@lp.org
> 3. mailto:[11][12]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 4. [12][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 5. mailto:[13][14]tim....@lp.org
> 6. mailto:[14][15]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 7. [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> --
> Arvin Vohra
> [16][17]www.VoteVohra.com
> [17][18]Vote...@gmail.com
> [19](301) 320-3634
> References
> 1. mailto:[20]david.d...@lp.org
> 2. mailto:[21]patrick....@lp.org
> 3. mailto:[22]tim....@lp.org
> 4. mailto:[23]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 5. [24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 6. mailto:[25]tim....@lp.org
> 7. mailto:[26]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 8. [27]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 9. mailto:[28]patrick....@lp.org
> 10. mailto:[29]tim....@lp.org
> 11. mailto:[30]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 12. [31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 13. mailto:[32]tim....@lp.org
> 14. mailto:[33]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 15. [34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 16. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 17. mailto:[36]Vote...@gmail.com
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:vote...@gmail.com
> 2. mailto:david.d...@lp.org
> 3. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 4. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 5. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin
> 7. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 10. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 11. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 12. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 14. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 15. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 18. mailto:Vote...@gmail.com
> 19. tel:(301) 320-3634
> 20. mailto:david.d...@lp.org
> 21. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 22. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 23. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 25. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 26. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 27. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 28. mailto:patrick....@lp.org
> 29. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 30. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 32. mailto:tim....@lp.org
> 33. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 36. mailto:Vote...@gmail.com
lnc-...@hq.lp.org
Jan 31, 2018, 4:40:29 AM1/31/18
to Libertarian National Committee list
Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below:
*Voting "aye":* Bilyeu, Demarest, Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, McKnight
*Voting "nay":* Goldstein, Hayes, Katz, Lark, Marsh, Mattson, Redpath, Van
Horn
With a final vote tally of 6-8, the motion FAILS.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
>
*Voting "aye":* Bilyeu, Demarest, Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, McKnight
*Voting "nay":* Goldstein, Hayes, Katz, Lark, Marsh, Mattson, Redpath, Van
Horn
With a final vote tally of 6-8, the motion FAILS.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
>
> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
> Pacific time.*
> *Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>
> *Motion:* to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> Pacific time.*
> *Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages