Steve G.

EXCLUSIVE: More LP Executive Session Info Leaked

In Activism, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Personal Responsibility, Politics, Protest on December 9, 2008 at 10:45 pm

This is the letter I just sent to the LNC.

*****

December 9, 2009.

To the LNC:

In open session on Sunday, December 7, LNC Region #7 Representative Rachel Hawkridge was observed inadvertently mentioning Executive Session material. She immediately realized her mistake and publicly apologized.

It is in the best interest of the LNC to not pursue any sanctions of any sort against Ms. Hawkridge in this matter, because it will open another can of worms the LNC does not want to deal with. Please remember that I was present, not only broadcasting the meeting over the Internet, but also recording the broadcast and Twittering it out as well, where the Twitters were captured and blogged. In terms of what happened, I am an expert witness, and the events in question are well-documented.

That recording indicates that while Ms. Hawkridge undoubtedly leaked Executive Session material, she was not the first to do so. That would be the Treasurer, Mr. Aaron Starr. I also noticed it myself and Twittered the event.

To quote myself directly from the Twitter feed, in chronological order, typographical errors and all:

Starr just leaked that ES was about “staffing changes”. You draw the conclusions. 11:20 AM Dec 7th from web

Hawkridge also leaks ES on “staff cuts.” Mea cupla for her. But Starr already did it earlier. 11:37 AM Dec 7th from web

The words on the Twitters are quoted accurately, and the taped evidence of the open session confirms it, and is easily available to the public for viewing.

The difference in the words is irrelevant, as anybody who watched the budgetary part of the open session could plainly deduce that the “staffing changes” Mr. Starr refers to is the “staffing cuts” that Ms. Hawkridge refers to—the worst-kept secret in the room, in any case.

The only other difference is that Ms. Hawkridge expressed remorse for her accident and immediately apologized. Mr. Starr neither indicated remorse nor apologized. The conclusion is easily drawn that Mr. Starr’s actions were intentional and contemptuous of the rules. If they were not intentional, then Mr. Starr’s lack of awareness of leaking Executive Session material indicates an incompetence level unworthy of the office of LP Treasurer, and Mr. Starr ought to consider resigning in favor of someone more aware.

If the LNC chooses to pursue action against Ms. Hawkridge for an accidental slip of the tongue, then it is obligated to pursue more severe action against Mr. Starr for a deliberate one—perhaps even the actions sought in the most recent deliberate instance, meaning those sought in the shameful kangaroo case brought against Ms. Keaton, which if I recall correctly, was suspension from the LNC.

So the LNC is faced with four options.

Should action be pursued against Ms. Hawkridge and not Mr. Starr, then the membership will conclude it to be further evidence of a “purge” within the LNC—the very thing that further erodes the credibility of the LNC as a leadership body.

Should action be pursued against Mr. Starr and not Ms. Hawkridge, then the membership will conclude it to be Justice for past issues which may or may not have any bearing on the current situation.

Should action be pursued against both Ms. Hawkridge and Mr. Starr, then the membership will conclude it to be consistent but evidence of further unproductiveness, further eroding credibility of the LNC as a leadership body.

The only tangible and credible option left is to drop both matters completely and move on to much more important matters, perhaps with an appropriate public apology by Mr. Starr for his transgression.

At the end of the public comments section that day, I warned the LNC that while videotaping the meetings could produce evidence of liability, it could also provide exculpatory evidence, and that it all depended on how the LNC conducts itself. Here we see a perfect example of what I was referring to in how the body conducts itself. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video is worth a million pictures.

I am very sure the LNC does not wish to further expand on its current public relations disaster by pursuing this now or any time in the future. It is in the best interest of the LNC to simply let both matters drop, and I strongly encourage that route of inaction. Discretion is the better part of valor, and sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Seebeck

*****

Ironic, though, it bounced on Sullentrup, who had his email changed recently.  They can’t seem to get contact info for the officers updated very fast, but they wasted no time at all in removing Ms. Keaton from the page…and Mr. Squyres, who has also resigned, remains up as well.  Nice priorities!

  1. Has there been any LNC interest in expelling either of these people? This seems to be a response when there was no question.

  2. Am I missing something Mike? Is there a movement afoot to punish Hawkridge for that small faux pas?

  3. There is the obvious alternative. If either of you guys are curious, call me during the day.

  4. Mr Seebeck’s letter implies that there is an issue regarding Ms Hawkridge when there clearly is none. I can’t imagine anyone even thinking about taking action for what was clearly an accidental and unintentional statement.

    Dr Phillies expressed it quite well when he said “This seems to be a response when there was no question.”

  5. Just as long as it stays a non-issue, Flood. The letter is meant to keep it that way.

    Call it what it is: a pre-emptive warning against more shenanigans.

    You’ve done enough damage to people for a while.

  6. Isn’t the purpose of an executive session public information? How is that a leak/faux pas/violation?

  7. George,

    Executive sessions generally mean (at least in my experience) confidential or sensitive information is to be discussed among those on a “need to know” basis.

    I was sitting about four feet from Rachael when she blurted out those words. She immediately threw her hands over her mouth and apologized profusely. If she treats it as a faux pas, then I will treat it as such as well.

    She seemed hard on herself. But hey: accidents happen. Live, learn and move on. : )

  8. Mike hits it on the head. The letter ensures that any attack on Mrs. Hawkridge has to include an attack on Mr. Starr for the same reason.

    Of course, many of us would have imagined that the letter LPNH sent Friday

    “Mr. Karlan:

    LPNH has no grievance against Angela Keaton.

    The preponderance of opinion among our officers and other active members is that this is foolish, petty, and true to form for LPN.

    The author of this did not consult with LPNH, and his attempt to embroil our party in this is contemptible.

    See to it that any reference to LPNH is removed from this resolution.

    – Philip Hodson, LPNH chair”

    to their Regional Representative, the National Chair, and a long list of others, would have ensured that the LPNH issue went away, but you can’t have everything.

  9. Can’t we move on from this petty bullshit? Years ago, there was a member of the LNC passing on info to the FBI, for goodness sakes, and it didn’t ruin the Party.

  10. Mr Seebeck,

    You clearly do not understand the difference between intentional acts and unintentional acts.

    Your “pre-emptive warning” is laughable. You obviously felt that you needed to create something to fill a slow news day on this site.

  11. Yes but doesn’t the motion to go into ES require stating what the purpose of the ES is?

    And isn’t the motion to go into ES NON-confidential?

    IOW, why is the topic of the ES confidential?

  12. This thread is incredibly petty. I urge closing this thread, as it elicits no light, just gas!

  13. Flood, I know the difference completely well, far more than the limited understanding you display here and displayed in San Diego in your complaints pre-meeting Sunday morning. I was in the room, remember? If anybody doesn’t seem to get it, it’s YOU. Let me explain something to you, and I’ll use short words so you can understand it:

    You hurt someone very badly. You did it on purpose. You showed no remorse for it. You acted very stupidly and created a monster pile of manure over nothing, because you don’t understand anything resembling as sense of humor or humility. People are angry at it you for making us all look bad as a party. You, and the people you were carrying the ball for, screwed up badly. You used a political body to wage a personal vendetta. That’s unethical and it’s wrong.

    It is *not* going to happen again, and even the slightest hint of it will not be tolerated. This LNC *will* behave itself.

    If you can’t get that any clearer, then perhaps you ought to consult with your state chairs.

  14. George D, the purpose of the Executive Session was not mentioned as staff cuts, only staffing. It was the worst kept secret in the room, but after Starr’s tantrum about decorum earlier in the meeting, some people were trying to maintain that.

    As I said before, it was a faux pas. The goal of the letter is to keep it treated that way, and to remind certain people to watch their step.

  15. Mike, to say it was the worst kept secret in the room is putting it lightly! LOL

  16. Btw, the staff cuts implicit in the budget provide the justification I alluded to earlier for classifying a budget under consideration as confidential.

    https://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/lnc-financial-report-leaked/#comment-32142

    Leaking possible staff changes/cuts early can lead to HR problems and possible legal issues.

  17. And for more non-secret information, go to http://LibertyForAll.net

    Sexual Harassment at National?
    by Sean Haugh

    Posted in Dangerous Politics by R Lee Wrights on December 10th, 2008

  18. Mike, where exactly is the “humor” in “thick legged hillbilly girl” and “Christian types married to their uncle cousins”? Those statements were made “on purpose”, with “no remorse”, and “made us all look bad as a party”. They were “unethical and wrong”. What if an LNC member decided to make equally vicious jokes about your wife and post them on the web? Are you declaring open season on Lidia?

    Good thing you strapped on your ‘S’ cape and saved Rachel’s LNC seat with your letter-writing powers.🙂

  19. I picture Angela lying half-conscious a la John Adams on 7/4/1826, mumbling, “Rachel Hawkridge survives.”

  20. Oh, Brian, you do not understand me. You’re assuming that I’d be prostrate on the floor dissolved in tears. It’s a bit more likely that I’d either be burning up the keyboard making replies or else dissolved on the floor… in laughter!

    “You can never drag our name through the mud… because it is already there!”

  21. Brian, different people have different levels and senses of humor and sarcasm. In all your incessant and inane blather about “knowing humans” you, of all people, should understand that, unless you’re just blowing smoke out of somewhere.

    If one gets offended over the things someone else says, then the one getting offended needs to reflect and ask why, since nobody else is responsible for that reaction. More then likely it is offensive to that person because it reflects their own insecurities, self-confidence, or some other internal hot button in the cadre of imperfections that makes us all human. Meaning, if it bugs you, ask yourself what it is about you that causes it to bug you. It’s a self-introspection opportunity for personal improvement, instead of falling for the ego blow of being offended.

    Your whole, “How would you like it if they did it to you?” argument is answered simply. I would just laugh. Why? Because nobody makes more fun of me than I do, period. It tends to avoid a lot of the bullshit like what you’re trying to rile up here. Plus I have enough self-confidence that most of it just rolls off of me. I’ve been called a lot of names in my life, and frankly very little in terms of personal insult bugs me anymore. I have little to apologize for, and when I do, as is the case recently with Mr. Garris, I “man up” and do so, publicly.

    I don’t need to worry about my wife. I have no say on whether it is “open season” on her. Our marriage is not some medieval exercise where the wife is the husband’s chattel or property to do as he pleases, despite your poorly-informed conclusion to the contrary. Ours is a modern marriage. She can speak for herself. She’s been through personal hells that no comments of yours or anyone else can ever top. Me too, because we’ve been through them together and emerged stronger from them on the other side. In the course of our marriage, only two people have ever given her more crap than me, and neither of them are in the LP or related circles. She’s tough as nails, just the way I like the women I consider my close friends. And she’s far tougher than is let on. All I can say in warning is, don’t piss her off, either.

    And that “S” stands for Seebeck, and don’t you forget it! 😛

    Judging by the private responses I have received from members of the LNC, the message of the letter was received and understood. Whatever you think of it is completely irrelevant.

  22. Lidia said:

    Oh, Brian, you do not understand me. You’re assuming that I’d be prostrate on the floor dissolved in tears. It’s a bit more likely that I’d either be burning up the keyboard making replies or else dissolved on the floor… in laughter!

    “You can never drag our name through the mud… because it is already there!”

    As I was saying…🙂

  23. So to summarize: because the Seebecks are so used to being insulted, it’s OK for an LNC rep who happens to be their friend to issue vicious group-deprecation insults against LP members, who should “man up”. And when another LNC rep compiles those insults and requests an apology, then suddenly he hurt your friend “very badly”, “did it on purpose”, “showed no remorse for it”, and “acted very stupidly”.

    Got it.

    As Susan Hogarth said: “I’m not sure why there seems to be this need by some folks to paint everything Angela said as some sort of heroic defense of liberty. I count myself as a friend of Angela. When she spoke up against bad things going on, I supported her. But I’m not going to participate in this rather weird sort of martyr-ization of her I see going on.”

  24. And Holtz wins another “Lost the Argument, so Change the Question” round of “Totally Missing The Point”, running his winning streak to 2,930, and he wins the bonus prize of the $1,329,063 bill…

  25. Mike: If one gets offended over the things someone else says, then the one getting offended needs to reflect and ask why, since nobody else is responsible for that reaction.

    Me: True enough. This is classic application of psychological projection. Still, it’s dysfunctional static-generation when personal barbs are flung around by children in the playground. So unseemly and unnecessary!

    Understanding the notion of psychological projection does not negate the Golden Rule. I submit it enhances it! Treat others with respect, and respect rules the roost. Treat others with contempt, if one must, but keep one’s head low for the bad-karma boomerang.

    Blowback’s a bitch!!!

  26. Mike, you said that Flood’s charges were “nothing”, and showed he had no “sense of humor”. If you don’t want to defend that statement, that’s fine with me.

  27. Holtz, I don’t need to defend anything to you. This is a blog, not a Lincoln-Douglas debate. Besides, you keep losing arguments and revert to your tired old mantra of changing the question, and frankly, it’s old, tired, and useless.

    Do us all a favor, Brian, quit making Jim Davidson and Jason Seagraves seem reasonable.

    And I have more important things to do than laugh at you getting shot down by my wife. Specifically several LNC information requests from persons much more highly respected than you. And the nature of those requests are none of your business either.

  28. I changed no question. I missed no point. I simply highlighted your hypocrisy. Here’s the replay:

    Because the Seebecks are so used to being insulted, it’s OK for an LNC rep who happens to be their friend to issue vicious group-deprecation insults against LP members, who should “man up”. And when another LNC rep compiles those insults and requests an apology, then suddenly he hurt your friend “very badly”, “did it on purpose”, “showed no remorse for it”, and “acted very stupidly”.

    Now let’s watch how this again “just rolls off of” you, as evidenced by more tiresome content-free vouching that I’ve “lost the argument”, “changed the question”, “missed the point”, been “shot down”, etc.

  29. Brian, your writing is the most confused I’ve ever seen. I have no idea how the fact that Mike and I do get our share of teasing and insults has anything to do with Angela’s snark. They are not that connected, Brian. People should “man up” when they have done something wrong. Now I happen to think that numerous LP types have insulted Angela and should make genuine apologies for that. It’s possible that Angela has insulted a few too although I didn’t really see any in the Flood resolution that were real issues. Most of it was harmless teasing, the sort I deal with all the time. If my feelings were hurt by “she’s an idiot who needs a frontal lobotomy” I’d be permanently depressed. As it is, that sort of obvious jest goes right past me and odds are I’ll forget completely that someone said that. I just don’t have time to analyze every hurt hurled my direction, and I save my energy for ones that are real and do need me to do something about it.

    And that’s another point. There’s a big difference between obvious snark and jest like “needs a lobotomy” or “so poor she can’t pay attention” versus real allegations of incompetence or actual wrongdoing. Calling someone a “b****” is probably snark. Saying that someone is an incompetent board member is different.

    Lastly there has been a lot of pain here on all sides. I think the very best thing we can all do is to quit microanalyzing all the minutiae and learn the bottom line lesson from all this which is we need to refocus on things other than internal disputes. We’ve got a lot of real situations that could lock us down to complete stasis in no time flat (like top-two laws). We really should be discussing who would be interested in legislative work in their state, so we can start catching these bills and defeating them before they become laws and require long litigation. Aside from top-two laws there are the perpetual ballot access issues which are not going to go away and we need to start formulating better ways to accumulate those resources. There are other legislative needs in every state and federally that in an ideal world we would have been talking about and taking action on. (like opposing the bailouts)

    Those are all real situations. We’ve been a pack of spider monkeys with PMS, fighting. What we’ve been denying is that the gorilla named Demopublican is about to fall on top of us unless we build some sort of solution and fast.

    If we can all please quit squabbling and just get working?!?

  30. Lidia wrote: LS) I have no idea how the fact that Mike and I do get our share of teasing and insults has anything to do with Angela’s snark. (LS

    I guess you missed where Mike wrote: “If one gets offended over the things someone else says, then the one getting offended needs to reflect and ask why, since nobody else is responsible for that reaction. […] I’ve been called a lot of names in my life, and frankly very little in terms of personal insult bugs me anymore. [Lidia’s] tough as nails…” His assertion that there’s no such thing as being offensive is just as addled as his claim that Angela’s employer setting conditions for her continued employment constitutes initiation of force. (And of course, his claim of thick skin is undermined every time he is overcome by the need to announce that he’s ignoring my criticisms of his statements.)

    You say that “numerous LP types have insulted Angela and should make genuine apologies for that”, but when LNC rep Keaton calls an LP member a “thick-legged hillbilly girl married to their uncle cousin”, that’s suddenly “harmless teasing” unworthy of an apology. I call that a hypocritical double-standard. I defy you to quote any comparable “insult” of Keaton by an LNC rep. Your comment that “It’s possible that Angela has insulted a few too” exhibits a deep and shocking disconnect from basic reality.

    I’ve never disputed Angela’s right to question the actions or “competence” of any LP official — and I don’t consider it an “insult” for other LNC reps to question Angela’s actions or competence. That’s a red herring. My complaint here is strictly about civility. You’re flat-out wrong that “the very best thing we can all do is to quit microanalyzing all the minutiae”. No, the very best thing we can all do here is STOP CALLING PEOPLE NAMES — as Flood asked Keaton to do. If you disagree, then at least have the honesty to say “it’s OK for LNC members to call each other names, and they shouldn’t apologize for it”. If you can’t say that, then you are not competently disagreeing with me.

  31. As for “microanalyzing all the minutiae”, um, maybe you should re-read the microanalysis blog posting at the top of this comments thread.

  32. As usual, Brian misses the point AGAIN and tries to reframe the issue to suit his view of things by offering summaries and rephrasing things in his own words because those of others do not suit his point of view.

    I didn’t say there was no such thing as being offended. Not at all. What I said is clear above: that people can get offended by someone’s comments. Most of your comments in themselves would be offensive if they weren’t so sincere in their cluelessness as to be boring. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

    But what I also said that a person is responsible for their own reactions. Maybe you ought to think about that some, Brian, because it is at the very core of personal responsibility. People are responsible for their own actions, period, and that includes the reactions in response to someone else’s actions, for nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to react the way you do–only you do–your choice, you responsibility. If you can’t understand that basic premise of personal responsibility, Brian, then you need to study up, quick, because these are the core fundamental issues, and it’s pretty pathetic of you if you don’t. It’s not about namecalling or any of that petty meaningless bullshit. It’s about how people act and react, and that is where the fundamental issue of ALL personality differences, and ultimately all conflict reside.

    For all your verbosity, you sure pull a lot of nonsense out of #2.

  33. So to put that in simple terms: if Flood or Mattson or Starr or Redpath or anyone else gets upset and offended at what was said, fine, they can be upset and offended, but they better take a look at themselves and ask the deep question of why.

    I’m happy to say I’ve done that many a time and used it to become a better person. Others, unfortunately, have not. Their loss.

  34. Mike, straight up: is it or is it not offensive to call someone a “thick-legged hillbilly girl married to their uncle cousin”? Is that an appropriate thing for an LNC rep to publicly write about an LP member? Yes or no? Man up. Stop fleeing. Answer the question.

    Just because I only think that Angela should apologize for a small subset of Flood’s laundry list of charges, that doesn’t mean I’m “missing the point” or “reframing the issue”. Stop whining, and start taking personal responsibility for your apparent position that Angela did nothing to apologize for. If that’s not your position, then just say so. Otherwise, stop whining that I disagree with it.

  35. By the way, it’s been said that Angela’s health suffered in response to the charges against her, and that at one point she was even vomiting blood. I wonder how that fits with your theory that: “People are responsible for their own actions, period, and that includes the reactions in response to someone else’s actions, for nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to react the way you do–only you do–your choice, you responsibility.”

  36. “thick-legged hillbilly girl married to their uncle cousin”

    Where did she actually say this exact quote, Brian?

  37. George, anyone who doubts whether my quote is fair can check the full quote on your blog at http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/keaton-lnc-brouhaha.

    It’s easy to find — it’s right before you wrote: “her use of the word ‘hillbilly’ is not for collective deprecation. She called someone a hillbilly, but she did not comment on the collective of hillbillies.”

    Substitute “nigger” for “hillbilly” in that sentence and see how well your logic holds up.

  38. George, it was in one of Angela’s many sarcastic lines in an email. You can find it in the charges document.

  39. ZZZZZZZ….huh? Holtz mumbled something? Oh, nevermind, thought it was relevant or important…ZZZZZZZ…

  40. Straight up? It’s not a question with a yes or no answer, so your basis in the question is invalid in the first place. The correct answer is that depends on the person who is the object of the comment, duh! See my previous statements on reactions and egos. No two reactions are ever the same. I know some people who would go ballistic, and others who would shrug and ask, “And yer point is whut, city slicker?”

    Is it apporpriate? Probably not, unless it was true, but you aren’t Angela’s keeper either, and neither am I. Your problem is that you keep confusing the actions of one person with the reactions of another to those actions–a very common mistake. But I never condoned her behavior, either, and you make the mistake of assuming I did, which undermined your whole argument from the beginning. My whole argument was based on the simple premise that the “charges” were a mountain made out of a molehill and based in personality differences that are best settled on the side away from a public meeting. You must have missed that along the way.

    As for Angela, it has to do with how one reacts to and manages stress. Some people handle it differently than others, and some handle a lot more than others. It’s called being human, and it fits in with my “theory” perfectly.

    And it is impossible to determine “whining” from mere text. That in itself merely illustrates a lot.

    And absolutely NONE of that has anything to do with the letter that started this thread in the first place, either, and it was you, Brian, who changed the subject in the first place.

  41. (Holtz) is it or is it not offensive to call someone a “thick-legged hillbilly girl married to their uncle cousin”? Is that an appropriate thing for an LNC rep to publicly write about an LP member?

    (Mike) George, it was in one of Angela’s many sarcastic lines in an email. You can find it in the charges document.

    I read the charges in detail, multiple times and wrote a detailed analysis. I know them backwards and forwards.

    I suppose this is the quote Brian and Mike are referring to?

    (Keaton) Read, digest and remember that if the party can survive Andre Marrou, it can survive a possible Root indictment*, our leadership’s male menopause and that thick legged hillbilly girl they tried to put on the LNC, Mattson, her name was or something. I don’t know. All those Christian types married to their uncle cousins look the same to me.

    Either I have the wrong source for Brian’s purported quote or Brian has created a straw man here and used it to attack Mike with.

    Brian? Do you have a source for this quote:

    “thick-legged hillbilly girl married to their uncle cousin”

    Or are you simply making up stuff again?

  42. Seebeck keeps breaking my irony meter. First he can’t resist the verbal tic of saying I’m to be ignored, but an hour later he’s again writing lengthy responses to my straightforward questions. He complains that my writing is incomprehensible, but he shucks and jives with endless paragraphs of psycho-babble and tedious truisms, never daring to address the actual text of what Angela actually wrote — like, wow, the actual facts of the case. So much for asking him to “man up”.

    Mike, you of course offer zero evidence that I have in this episode ever “confused the actions of one person with the reactions of another to those actions”. I defy you to quote anything you’ve written on this matter that even suggested the possibility that you don’t defend what Angela did. In this very thread you called all the charges “nothing”. You might want to look that word up.

    You need to pick a theory of personal responsibility and stick with it. Either “people are responsible for their own actions/reactions, period” or “it has to do with how one reacts to and manages stress”. When you’re done arguing with yourself on this one, let us know.

    I didn’t “change the subject”. My very first comment in this thread began with three sentences that each quoted you. I get to decide which statements of yours I disagree with, not you. Here’s a clue: if you don’t want to defend it, don’t say it. Or say it, and ignore my criticism of it. But spare us the incessant whining that I’m only disagreeing with parts of what you say. Even you are not capable of being wrong 100% of the time.

    George, it’s laughable for you to suggest that my quote of Angela’s “hillbilly” remark is misleading. In fact, by your own logic, her actual quote is far more damning, because it’s even more clearly group deprecation than my condensed version of her insult. Her full quote was: “All those Christian types married to their uncle cousins look the same to me.” Your comparison to “all blue idiots from Formalhaut [sic] look the same to me” is shockingly disingenuous. You could not possibly be so stupid as to not recognize that the insult here is in suggesting that “those Christian types” tend to marry their “uncle cousins”. When someone as smart as you must stoop to such obtuseness to defend Angela’s boorishness, it condemns her action more severely than I could ever do. (And when you vacuously claim I am “making up stuff again”, you surrender even more of your credibility in your apparent Ahab-like quest to avenge yourself for the outcome of one or two of our previous debates. Nobody can be right 100% of the time, either. As I said before, when you’re right 99.9% of the time, your character is exhibited more in the 0.1%.)

    Equally disingenuous is your comment that “her use of the word ‘hillbilly’ is not for collective deprecation. She called someone a hillbilly, but she did not comment on the collective of hillbillies.” Let’s see how well this artfully strained logic generalizes: “her use of the word ‘nigger’ is not for collective deprecation. She called someone a nigger, but she did not comment on the collective of niggers.”

  43. George, it’s laughable for you to suggest that my quote of Angela’s “hillbilly” remark is misleading

    It’s blatantly false, since you hooked together two different things she said – in the course of which changing a potential inference to a direct statement – and passed it off as an exact quote.

    You could not possibly be so stupid as to not recognize that the insult here is in suggesting that “those Christian types” tend to marry their “uncle cousins”.

    The group she is deprecating is not “Christian types” but “all those Christian types married to their uncle cousins”. This is simple grammar now.

    Find me a “Christian type” who is married to his or her “uncle cousin” and I’ll support the charge of group deprecation. Of course it’s all academic now.

    apparent Ahab-like quest to avenge yourself for the outcome of one or two of our previous debates

    hahahahahahaha. Brian, thank you for the comedic interlude.

    Why would I need to avenge myself when in one case you discredited yourself with your chameleon style of “debate” and in the other I roundly defeated you. I’m still waiting to hear you deny that you are a member of the Radical caucus.

    Let’s see how well this artfully strained logic generalizes

    The word you use by definition only applies only to members of (a) certain race(s).

    a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.

    However, hillbilly is defined as:

    person from a backwoods or other remote area, esp. from the mountains of the southern U.S.

    and therefore carries no inherent racial (group) connotation.

    Therefore, your comparison is invalid. A really nice try though.

  44. “Collective deprecation” to me means expressing something derogatory about a group of people.

    So if someone says “you’re an n…”. I do not think that meets my definition of “collective deprecation”.

    If someone says “All of you people are just dumb n…s”, then it would.

    If someone says “All n…s look the same to me,” it would again.

    You may have a different definition of “collective deprecation”.

    So I stand by my original thinking.

    The word “hillbilly” could indeed carry an inherent group connotation (correcting myself).

  45. Holtz blustered:

    You need to pick a theory of personal responsibility and stick with it. Either “people are responsible for their own actions/reactions, period” or “it has to do with how one reacts to and manages stress”. When you’re done arguing with yourself on this one, let us know.

    No argument with myself at all, and there never was, either; it’s completely consistent to the rest of the multiverse not named you. How one manages and controls their stress is taking personal responsibility for their actions, reactions, and health. One’s reaction to an outside action causes a stress, and the ability to control that reaction controls the stress. The more one learns to control their reactions and not let things stress them out, the better their health gets. The inability to manage that stress in a productive manner is what can cause adverse reactions, like “road rage” or “going postal,” for example.

    That’s why I laugh a lot, especially at you. It is one of my coping mechanisms for dealing with the utter insanity of the world. That and handing out $1,329,063 bills to those who deserve them, among other things…

  46. Holtz furthered blustered:

    My very first comment in this thread began with three sentences that each quoted you.

    Let’s look at that a moment, Brian.

    Your first comment in the thread:

    Mike, where exactly is the “humor” in “thick legged hillbilly girl” and “Christian types married to their uncle cousins”? Those statements were made “on purpose”, with “no remorse”, and “made us all look bad as a party”. They were “unethical and wrong”. What if an LNC member decided to make equally vicious jokes about your wife and post them on the web? Are you declaring open season on Lidia?

    Now, this is the very first reference to the “hillbilly girl” stuff, and YOU brought it up, Brian. Not me. That’s you changing the subject, which was originally about the LNC not pursuing any further action against anybody for an ES slip, and not anything opined by Angela during an open session months earlier–a point completely lost on you and only you.

    I suppose you’ll claim you were quoting me that it was “humor”. I did indeed say that, but guess what, that seems to be an opinion of many, judging from the chuckles that came from the gallery at the meeting when that quote was read aloud. You then do quote me again, but then take it out of context in a vacuous attempt to try to develop some consistency and build an argument to support your subject change. As for the rest, it has happened, even though it hasn’t been posted on the web, it has been said publicly by others. It’s not my role to deal with comments about Lidia, either–as my subsequent chattel comment explained rather clearly.

    So really, Brian, all you were doing was what you always do, which is quote out of context and create straw man arguments. You may not think so, but it’s laughably obvious to everyone else as your standard M.O.

  47. So have we decided yet if we are going to call for Starr’s resignation?

    Maybe it is time for “term limits” so to speak, or “take turns” or something. Maybe it is time for all of the current office holders to resign.

    How could anyone be bitter if we had a whole new crew?

  48. Daniel, I called for Starr, Sullentrup, and Redpath to resign before the convention when the whole Ruwart bullshit was going on. I also voted against two of them in Denver (not in the room when Sullentrup was re-elected).

    I’m of a mixed opinion on term limits, mainly because in the elected office world I’ve seen it toss super-morons and also toss decent people (for statists, that is).

    And yes, it is possible to be bitter if we had a whole new crew if that new crew was no better or even worse than the old ones. Considering that the LNC had three factions and only one of them is the problem, the focus should be on there if anywhere.

    I think that’s more of an issue for the Radicalz than the Transparencies, though (I’m both).

  49. Daniel

    You have an interesting idea there.

    We need to identify a slate of candidates, a platform for those candidates to run on, our desired bylaw and platform planks, and get people to attend the convention.

  50. Well, some of that is started. Trosper for LNC, for example.

  51. Good, but if it’s not well-organized it will all be for naught. IOW, at this point, either we go all out, or the result will be same-old same-old.

  52. It’s being worked on. Time is an ally for the moment.

  53. So a plan and organized people all on the same page will be handed down from on high?

    That’s not how successful grassroots efforts are built.

  54. I never said that it was being done “from on high”. I said it’s being worked on. The workers are activists who have come together and we are generating a plan. It has to start somewhere.

  55. George, I repeat: the insult in that sentence is in suggesting that “those Christian types” tend to marry their “uncle cousins”. I’m confident that not even a single lurker here would fail to recognize this, so I’m quite happy to leave you twisting in the wind with your ludicrous “Formalhaut” analogy.

    I’m equally confident that no lurker would agree I unfairly quoted Angela, and even the hyper-tendentious Mike here blandly affirmed that my quote “was in one of Angela’s many sarcastic lines in an email in the charges document”. (In the preceding quote I elided Mike’s connecting clause “you can find it” — now give us another laugh and claim I quoted Mike unfairly.)

    Your definition of “collective deprecation” is absurdly pinched. It is obviously collective deprecation to apply to someone a label that is an insulting way to identify members of a group, e.g. nigger, dyke, hillbilly. Your disingenuous denial of this is a handy gauge of your bias and desperation.

    Seebeck’s brand of Black Knight-style victory vouching is rubbing off on you. You have yet to address the asymmetry in your chiding that I shamed you about in the Davidson thread. Thank you for reminding me of your feeble point about my former monitoring of the Radical Caucus list. I answered it immediately at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/my-tactical-violation-of-commandment-11.html, but I waited a week to post it on that thread that I had declared had jumped the shark. Sorry, you’ll have to cancel your victory parade, but feel free to whine that I’m a “chameleon” because I debate against only what I disagree with.

    Mike, readers can decide for themselves if your pop-psychology ramblings successfully reconcile your statements that 1) “people are responsible for their own actions/reactions, period” and 2) “it has to do with how one reacts to and manages stress”. I guess your position is that “Alicia Mattson is responsible for her own actions/reactions, period” but “Angela Keaton is responsible for her own actions/reactions, comma”. That’s fine, you can hardly be expected to be completely objective or consistent while rising to the defense of your friend. I count both Alicia and Angela as friends, and that’s why I’m not arguing myself into a corner the way you have.

    Congratulations for anticipating my obvious answer to your tedious charge of “changing the subject”. Yes, what I have chosen to disagree with here is just your dismissal of Angela’s bigoted insults as mere “humor”. Again: spare us the incessant whining that I’m only disagreeing with part of what you say. Man up, and either defend your statement as it applies to this specific insult, or ignore my criticism.

    Thanks for not accepting my challenge to “quote anything you’ve written on this matter that even suggested the possibility that you don’t defend what Angela did”. I only started commenting on this thread to find out if you really consider “thick legged hillbilly girl”/”married to their uncle cousin” to be “humor”/”nothing” and thus not inappropriate for an LNC rep to have publicly written about an LP member. Either your “humor”/”nothing” statement applies to this bigoted insult, or it doesn’t. Either you condone this specific remark, or you don’t. Which is it?

    You are flat-out wrong that the “thick-legged hillbilly girl” remark generated any laughter in San Diego. Check the tape. Other comments did, but that one didn’t.

  56. [reposting without hyperlink to escape stalled LFV moderation queue]

    George, I repeat: the insult in that sentence is in suggesting that “those Christian types” tend to marry their “uncle cousins”. I’m confident that not even a single lurker here would fail to recognize this, so I’m quite happy to leave you twisting in the wind with your ludicrous “Formalhaut” analogy.

    I’m equally confident that no lurker would agree I unfairly quoted Angela, and even the hyper-tendentious Mike here blandly affirmed that my quote “was in one of Angela’s many sarcastic lines in an email in the charges document”. (In the preceding quote I elided Mike’s connecting clause “you can find it” — now give us another laugh and claim I quoted Mike unfairly.)

    Your definition of “collective deprecation” is absurdly pinched. It is obviously collective deprecation to apply to someone a label that is an insulting way to identify members of a group, e.g. nigger, dyke, hillbilly. Your disingenuous denial of this is a handy gauge of your bias and desperation.

    Seebeck’s brand of Black Knight-style victory vouching is rubbing off on you. You have yet to address the asymmetry in your chiding that I shamed you about in the Davidson thread. Thank you for reminding me of your feeble point about my former monitoring of the Radical Caucus list. I answered it immediately at more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/my-tactical-violation-of-commandment-11.html, but I waited a week to post it on that thread that I had declared had jumped the shark. Sorry, you’ll have to cancel your victory parade, but feel free to whine that I’m a “chameleon” because I debate against only what I disagree with.

    Mike, readers can decide for themselves if your pop-psychology ramblings successfully reconcile your statements that 1) “people are responsible for their own actions/reactions, period” and 2) “it has to do with how one reacts to and manages stress”. I guess your position is that “Alicia Mattson is responsible for her own actions/reactions, period” but “Angela Keaton is responsible for her own actions/reactions, comma”. That’s fine, you can hardly be expected to be completely objective or consistent while rising to the defense of your friend. I count both Alicia and Angela as friends, and that’s why I’m not arguing myself into a corner the way you have.

    Congratulations for anticipating my obvious answer to your tedious charge of “changing the subject”. Yes, what I have chosen to disagree with here is just your dismissal of Angela’s bigoted insults as mere “humor”. Again: spare us the incessant whining that I’m only disagreeing with part of what you say. Man up, and either defend your statement as it applies to this specific insult, or ignore my criticism.

    Thanks for not accepting my challenge to “quote anything you’ve written on this matter that even suggested the possibility that you don’t defend what Angela did”. I only started commenting on this thread to find out if you really consider “thick legged hillbilly girl”/”married to their uncle cousin” to be “humor”/”nothing” and thus not inappropriate for an LNC rep to have publicly written about an LP member. Either your “humor”/”nothing” statement applies to this bigoted insult, or it doesn’t. Either you condone this specific remark, or you don’t. Which is it?

    You are flat-out wrong that the “thick-legged hillbilly girl” remark generated any laughter in San Diego. Check the tape. Other comments did, but that one didn’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: