Sure, no problem Richard. Glad you can make it, look forward to meeting and hearing from you.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
I meant to say, thank you for extending the invite. I still haven't done
my homework on this one, so it will be great to hear both sides.
Nick
Sure, no problem Richard. Glad you can make it, look forward to
meeting and hearing from you.>
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))*From: *Richard Knee <rak0408@earthlink.net>
*Date: *August 13, 2018 4:56:07 PM PDT
*To: *Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
*Cc: *LPSF Activist List <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups..com[1]>
*Subject: **Re: Endorsements meeting*I expect to be available for that meeting. Thanks for your prompt
response.>>Hi Richard,
Thank you for writing. The Society of Professional Journalists is
*opposing* the proposed local SF Privacy First policy? That's
interesting and concerning to hear, and I'm sure we'd like to hear
your reasons for doing so. We haven't endorsed Prop. B, but
discussed it very briefly at our meeting on Saturday – comments were
along the lines that while we weren't necessarily excited about it,
the measure generally sounded good.>>>
The LPSF meets the second Saturday each month at the SF main library
in the 4th floor community meeting room, from 3-5pm, so our next
meeting will be at that time/place on Saturday, September 8. Would
you be available to come then and give us your perspective? Our
chair Nick Smith (copied on this message via our email list) should
be able to confirm and give you a specific time to talk if you do
not wish to stay for the whole meeting, which is always open to
members of the public.>>>
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
(415) 625-FREEPlease let me know when and where the Libertarian Party's ballot
endorsements meeting is to take place. I wish to speak there about
the Privacy Policy First ballot measure, Proposition B. I am active
with the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California
chapter, and the Pacific Media Workers Guild (The NewsGuild-CWA
Local 39521), which oppose the measure.>>>>
Regards,
Richard Knee
San Francisco
415 608 9363
Links:
1. mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
2. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/messages/14732;_ylc=X3oDMTJxcmo2aHRtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBG1zZ0lkAzE0NzMyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDY2OTMyMw--?act=reply&messageNum=14732
3. mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net?subject=Re%3A%20Endorsements-
%20meeting
4. mailto:lpsf-
activists@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Endorsements%20meeting
5. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNGZhNnM0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDY2OTMyMw--
6. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/topics/14701;_ylc=X3oDMTM2Z3UzcGgxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBG1zZ0lkAzE0NzMyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDY2OTMyMwR0cGNJZAMxNDcwMQ--
7. https://yho.com/1wwmgg
8. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYXJlOWIzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDY2OTMyMw--
9. https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
10. mailto:lpsf-activists-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
11. https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
No problem, Nick. I emailed the proponents an invite too, but haven't heard back. It's probably Aaron Peskin's office, so they might not bother responding (although they should, since there's a chance we might agree with them on the issue). I also asked Tracy Rosenberg of Media Alliance and Oakland Privacy, who had voiced supportive comments about the measure, but she thanked me for the invite and declined, saying she'd rather have the proponents do it. She's not a big fan of libertarianism either, so that may have been a factor.
I don't think we have any debate on the other local ballot measures this cycle, so that leaves the candidates. I do think we should have an event where we hear from as many of them as possible, which probably means not just at our meeting. It seems desirable to inform our readers/supporters about them, and be able to provide meaningful details that we may not be able to supply unless we hear from them directly ourselves, since the media typically fail to provide enough detailed issue coverage of these races or ask the right questions. In addition to letting the political class know that we are active and engaged in local politics.
I was thinking to hear from candidates as the featured event at the October 24th SF Liberty Coalition meetup, which will be our second one – I'd rather not do it for our very first event on Sept. 26 – but that will be right before the election, really too late for LPSF recommendations. I'm also thinking of trying a slightly different approach for that event: Invite candidates to come and speak, but be clear we ONLY want to hear about their pro-freedom stances and will cut them off if they start to advocate for more taxes, policing, government spending, civil liberties restrictions, surveillance, regulations, etc. When a candidate runs out of pro-freedom stuff to say about local issues is when they are done. 
Not sure how many of them will want to participate on such terms, but I think it could be an interesting and refreshing approach – part of the idea being to prompt them to reflect on how much of their agendas are pro-freedom, and what ideas or issues they might be able to add to their platforms to increase that percentage. On the other hand, it might give audience members an unduly favorable impression of some of them, and keep us from hearing about bad ideas they're pushing of which we'd want to be aware. Thoughts?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))