Ron,
Magnificent!
Best, Michael
Dear Dr. Mike;
Yes I am thank you!
BTW does that self-aggrandizement make me a candidate for some clinical sociopathic psychology??? Or is it just psychosis of the cerebellum?
Second BTW: Has anyone done a mental mapping of the kind of people who become Libertarians and what kinds of waco loco dreamer oners become Libertarians?
Third BTW: What is it with women and Libertarianism? It seems the Repubs and Demos have a lot more women attending almost but not quite equally in numbers to men. But Libertariansim and women???
Marcy maybe you could offer some insight???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
dredelstein@... wrote:
Ron,
Magnificent!
Best, Michael
Dear Ron,
Sorry for my delay in responding to your request that I "provide some
insight" into the scarcity of women Libertarians; I was too busy
empathizing 
OK, here goes:
1. First, go back to square one regarding the gender difference of
synthesizers vs empathizers. That does not holp up. There are
enough matriarchal societies (women are the system builders) to
support my assertion. So are the hundreds of women small business
owners (system builders), including myself. Also, given the sorry
state of the LP, it does not look to me that a lot of system building
has been going on here. So, the fact that there are no women
Libertarians because their emphathizing characteristics make them
better suited to be Dems or Greens does not ring true for me.
2. So, then why? It might just be a selective mechanism going on.
Perhaps the founding group preferred the confort that comes with
sticking with people who are most like you, and since the LP is
relatively new, that self selection is still strong, perhaps
unconsciously intimidating women that might want to join.
3. Assuming a change to a more diverse population is desired, which
I think it is, how do we achieve this? One way might be for the men
in the group to make a concerted effort to bring women in their lives
to meetings, socials, tabling, etc. I remember Mr. Rogers from PBS's
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood used to emphasize that little boys and girls
need to see people that look like them in gender, color, physical
attributes, etc. I think that goes for everybody.
I would be interested in hearing from others on this, since I
personally feel that the gender lopsidedness of the LP is not
conducive to its strengh.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Dr. Mike;
Yes I am thank you!
BTW does that self-aggrandizement make me a candidate for some
clinical sociopathic psychology??? Or is it just psychosis of the
cerebellum?
Second BTW: Has anyone done a mental mapping of the kind of
people who become Libertarians and what kinds of waco loco dreamer
oners become Libertarians?
Third BTW: What is it with women and Libertarianism? It seems the
Repubs and Demos have a lot more women attending almost but not quite
equally in numbers to men. But Libertariansim and women???
Marcy maybe you could offer some insight???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
dredelstein@... wrote:
Ron,
Magnificent!
Best, Michael
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner
Publishes My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
Dear Starchild;
Actually by defending our borders what I meant was building a 50"
tall wall around Washington DC.
Locking inside all members of the Executive and Congress and all
the people working at all the agencies.
Disconnect their telephones and internet.
Then use the military to patrol 24/7 around the wall.
From time to time toss food scraps over the wall to keep them
slightly ravenous.
Build a scaffold near the top so people could come and look down
at the Morons of Mordor.
Then force them to build bonfires of all the idiot regulations
Washington has issued since Washington became Washington.
Now that would be a border worth defending.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,I'll second Michael on both the congratulations and the comment
about
"defend America's borders." In the context of the controversy over
migration, talk about "defending the borders" could easily come
across
as anti-immigrant, although I'm sure you just meant have U.S.
government troops defend the U.S. rather than be deployed in other
countries.Also, please do not post to both the lpsf-discuss and lpsf-
activists
lists unless it's something *really* important; many people
subscribe
to both and will get such emails twice. The lpsf-discuss is
probably
the more appropriate list, as lpsf-activists is for core party
business.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Ron,
>
> Congratulations on your publication of another great LTE!
>
> Questions: You say: "defend America's borders." I haven't heard
> of anyone attacking the U.S. Govt's borders, have you? Is there
a "war
> on borders?"
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Ron Getty
> To: LPSF-ACTIVISTS ; Libertarian Yahoo Group ; CAL-LIBS
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:30 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner Publishes My Ant-War On
Terror
> LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> Yesterday Jay Ambrose a SF Examiner columnist had an article on
the
> War on Terror. I used the article to point out some important
> facts about the war on terror and why we had the fight and what
to do
> to stop it.
>
> The Ambrose column:
>
> http://www.examiner.com/a-
> 102579~U_S__must_stiffen_resolve_to_win_war_on_terror.html
>
> My LTE with Libertarian affiliation:
>
> http://www.examiner.com/a-103727~Letters__May_10th__2006.html
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> Letters: May 10th, 2006
>
> War on terror
>
>
> Jay Ambrose claims World War III is the war on terror ("U.S. must
> stiffen resolve to win war on terror," May 9). Attacking a
worldwide,
> multicause, religious-based ideology with technology will not win
this
> war. The reason for this mess is U.S. imperialism, forced regime
> changes and propping up dictators who support our policies while
> receiving America's largesse.
>
> One hundred fifty thousand U.S. soldiers are at 150 foreign
bases,
> with another 160,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does not
need to
> be a latter-day imperial Roman Empire.
>
> To win this war, bring home U.S. troops and defend America's
borders.
> Enact trade agreements instead of military agreements for a new
Pax
> Americana free from war.
>
> Ron Getty
> Libertarian Party San Francisco
> The City
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS>
>>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>>
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant U s government student loan
California politics
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Marcy;
Thanks for the response. Although Dr. Mike as to wine Mike and UCSF Mike was responding as a clinical psychologist and trying to adapt the psychology of personality types to Libertarianism.
I too feel there is a gender problem and what would it take for a program to not only attract women but also more members in all areas.
Not wanting to label - but how many Asian members do we have? Black members? Hispanic and so on??? Why this dearth in such a cosmopolitan City as San Francisco.
Way back in my old Republican party days we did have member diversity here in the City. If Republicans can do this why not Libertarians???
What is it - if there is an it - which can be done to increase our membership across spectrums of sex race creed color religion etc etc etc etc???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Dear Ron,
Sorry for my delay in responding to your request that I "provide some
insight" into the scarcity of women Libertarians; I was too busy
empathizing
OK, here goes:
1. First, go back to square one regarding the gender difference of
synthesizers vs empathizers. That does not holp up. There are
enough matriarchal societies (women are the system builders) to
support my assertion. So are the hundreds of women small business
owners (system builders), including myself. Also, given the sorry
state of the LP, it does not look to me that a lot of system building
has been going on here. So, the fact that there are no women
Libertarians because their emphathizing characteristics make them
better suited to be Dems or Greens does not ring true for me.
2. So, then why? It might just be a selective mechanism going on.
Perhaps the founding group preferred the confort that comes with
sticking with people who are most like you, and since the LP is
relatively new, that self selection is still strong, perhaps
unconsciously intimidating women that might want to join.
3. Assuming a change to a more diverse population is desired, which
I think it is, how do we achieve this? One way might be for the men
in the group to make a concerted effort to bring women in their lives
to meetings, socials, tabling, etc. I remember Mr. Rogers from PBS's
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood used to emphasize that little boys and girls
need to see people that look like them in gender, color, physical
attributes, etc. I think that goes for everybody.
I would be interested in hearing from others on this, since I
personally feel that the gender lopsidedness of the LP is not
conducive to its strengh.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Dr. Mike;
Yes I am thank you!
BTW does that self-aggrandizement make me a candidate for some
clinical sociopathic psychology??? Or is it just psychosis of the
cerebellum?
Second BTW: Has anyone done a mental mapping of the kind of
people who become Libertarians and what kinds of waco loco dreamer
oners become Libertarians?
Third BTW: What is it with women and Libertarianism? It seems the
Repubs and Demos have a lot more women attending almost but not quite
equally in numbers to men. But Libertariansim and women???
Marcy maybe you could offer some insight???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
dredelstein@... wrote:
Ron,
Magnificent!
Best, Michael
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner
Publishes My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
Dear Starchild;
Actually by defending our borders what I meant was building a 50"
tall wall around Washington DC.
Locking inside all members of the Executive and Congress and all
the people working at all the agencies.
Disconnect their telephones and internet.
Then use the military to patrol 24/7 around the wall.
From time to time toss food scraps over the wall to keep them
slightly ravenous.
Build a scaffold near the top so people could come and look down
at the Morons of Mordor.
Then force them to build bonfires of all the idiot regulations
Washington has issued since Washington became Washington.
Now that would be a border worth defending.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,I'll second Michael on both the congratulations and the comment
about
"defend America's borders." In the context of the controversy over
migration, talk about "defending the borders" could easily come
across
as anti-immigrant, although I'm sure you just meant have U.S.
government troops defend the U.S. rather than be deployed in other
countries.Also, please do not post to both the lpsf-discuss and lpsf-
activists
lists unless it's something *really* important; many people
subscribe
to both and will get such emails twice. The lpsf-discuss is
probably
the more appropriate list, as lpsf-activists is for core party
business.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Ron,
>
> Congratulations on your publication of another great LTE!
>
> Questions: You say: "defend America's borders." I haven't heard
> of anyone attacking the U.S. Govt's borders, have you? Is there
a "war
> on borders?"
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Ron Getty
> To: LPSF-ACTIVISTS ; Libertarian Yahoo Group ; CAL-LIBS
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:30 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner Publishes My Ant-War On
Terror
> LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> Yesterday Jay Ambrose a SF Examiner columnist had an article on
the
> War on Terror. I used the article to point out some important
> facts about the war on terror and why we had the fight and what
to do
> to stop it.
>
> The Ambrose column:
>
> http://www.examiner.com/a-
> 102579~U_S__must_stiffen_resolve_to_win_war_on_terror.html
>
> My LTE with Libertarian affiliation:
>
> http://www.examiner.com/a-103727~Letters__May_10th__2006.html
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> Letters: May 10th, 2006
>
> War on terror
>
>
> Jay Ambrose claims World War III is the war on terror ("U.S. must
> stiffen resolve to win war on terror," May 9). Attacking a
worldwide,
> multicause, religious-based ideology with technology will not win
this
> war. The reason for this mess is U.S. imperialism, forced regime
> changes and propping up dictators who support our policies while
> receiving America's largesse.
>
> One hundred fifty thousand U.S. soldiers are at 150 foreign
bases,
> with another 160,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does not
need to
> be a latter-day imperial Roman Empire.
>
> To win this war, bring home U.S. troops and defend America's
borders.
> Enact trade agreements instead of military agreements for a new
Pax
> Americana free from war.
>
> Ron Getty
> Libertarian Party San Francisco
> The City
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS>
>>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>>
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant U s government student loan
California politics
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Ron,
I gave you my answers to your questions. Although I was addressing
primarily gender, I believe the same would hold true for color or
culture. Your comment regarding the Replublican Party does not negate
my interpretation, since the RP is a lot older than the LP.
It takes time to achieve diversity in any group, I think. For the LP
to become diverse so soon would take a lot of effort.
Let's see how we do tomorrow if the kids from Galileo High School
show up at our meeting as planned. How welcoming of "strangers" will
we be? How willing to listen to their concerns? How attractive
to "outsiders" will our general demeanor be?
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Marcy;
Thanks for the response. Although Dr. Mike as to wine Mike and
UCSF Mike was responding as a clinical psychologist and trying to
adapt the psychology of personality types to Libertarianism.
I too feel there is a gender problem and what would it take for a
program to not only attract women but also more members in all areas.
Not wanting to label - but how many Asian members do we have?
Black members? Hispanic and so on??? Why this dearth in such a
cosmopolitan City as San Francisco.
Way back in my old Republican party days we did have member
diversity here in the City. If Republicans can do this why not
Libertarians???
What is it - if there is an it - which can be done to increase
our membership across spectrums of sex race creed color religion etc
etc etc etc???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Dear Ron,Sorry for my delay in responding to your request that I "provide
some
insight" into the scarcity of women Libertarians; I was too busy
empathizingOK, here goes:
1. First, go back to square one regarding the gender difference of
synthesizers vs empathizers. That does not holp up. There are
enough matriarchal societies (women are the system builders) to
support my assertion. So are the hundreds of women small business
owners (system builders), including myself. Also, given the sorry
state of the LP, it does not look to me that a lot of system
building
has been going on here. So, the fact that there are no women
Libertarians because their emphathizing characteristics make them
better suited to be Dems or Greens does not ring true for me.2. So, then why? It might just be a selective mechanism going on.
Perhaps the founding group preferred the confort that comes with
sticking with people who are most like you, and since the LP is
relatively new, that self selection is still strong, perhaps
unconsciously intimidating women that might want to join.3. Assuming a change to a more diverse population is desired,
which
I think it is, how do we achieve this? One way might be for the
men
in the group to make a concerted effort to bring women in their
lives
to meetings, socials, tabling, etc. I remember Mr. Rogers from
PBS's
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood used to emphasize that little boys and
girls
need to see people that look like them in gender, color, physical
attributes, etc. I think that goes for everybody.I would be interested in hearing from others on this, since I
personally feel that the gender lopsidedness of the LP is not
conducive to its strengh.Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Mike;
>
> Yes I am thank you!
>
> BTW does that self-aggrandizement make me a candidate for some
clinical sociopathic psychology??? Or is it just psychosis of the
cerebellum?
>
> Second BTW: Has anyone done a mental mapping of the kind of
people who become Libertarians and what kinds of waco loco dreamer
oners become Libertarians?
>
> Third BTW: What is it with women and Libertarianism? It seems
the
Repubs and Demos have a lot more women attending almost but not
quite
equally in numbers to men. But Libertariansim and women???
>
> Marcy maybe you could offer some insight???
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> dredelstein@ wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Magnificent!
>
> Best, Michael
>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner
Publishes My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
>
>
>
> Dear Starchild;
>
> Actually by defending our borders what I meant was building a
50"
tall wall around Washington DC.
>
> Locking inside all members of the Executive and Congress and
all
the people working at all the agencies.
>
> Disconnect their telephones and internet.
>
> Then use the military to patrol 24/7 around the wall.
>
> From time to time toss food scraps over the wall to keep them
slightly ravenous.
>
> Build a scaffold near the top so people could come and look
down
at the Morons of Mordor.
>
> Then force them to build bonfires of all the idiot regulations
Washington has issued since Washington became Washington.
>
> Now that would be a border worth defending.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> I'll second Michael on both the congratulations and the comment
about
> "defend America's borders." In the context of the controversy
over
> migration, talk about "defending the borders" could easily come
across
> as anti-immigrant, although I'm sure you just meant have U.S.
> government troops defend the U.S. rather than be deployed in
other
> countries.
>
> Also, please do not post to both the lpsf-discuss and lpsf-
activists
> lists unless it's something *really* important; many people
subscribe
> to both and will get such emails twice. The lpsf-discuss is
probably
> the more appropriate list, as lpsf-activists is for core party
business.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Ron,
> >
> > Congratulations on your publication of another great LTE!
> >
> > Questions: You say: "defend America's borders." I haven't heard
> > of anyone attacking the U.S. Govt's borders, have you? Is there
a "war
> > on borders?"
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > From: Ron Getty
> > To: LPSF-ACTIVISTS ; Libertarian Yahoo Group ; CAL-LIBS
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:30 AM
> > Subject: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner Publishes My Ant-War On
Terror
> > LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
> >
> > Dear Everyone;
> >
> > Yesterday Jay Ambrose a SF Examiner columnist had an article on
the
> > War on Terror. I used the article to point out some important
> > facts about the war on terror and why we had the fight and what
to do
> > to stop it.
> >
> > The Ambrose column:
> >
> > http://www.examiner.com/a-
> > 102579~U_S__must_stiffen_resolve_to_win_war_on_terror.html
> >
> > My LTE with Libertarian affiliation:
> >
> > http://www.examiner.com/a-103727~Letters__May_10th__2006.html
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> > Letters: May 10th, 2006
> >
> > War on terror
> >
> >
> > Jay Ambrose claims World War III is the war on terror ("U.S.
must
> > stiffen resolve to win war on terror," May 9). Attacking a
worldwide,
> > multicause, religious-based ideology with technology will not
win
this
> > war. The reason for this mess is U.S. imperialism, forced
regime
> > changes and propping up dictators who support our policies
while
> > receiving America's largesse.
> >
> > One hundred fifty thousand U.S. soldiers are at 150 foreign
bases,
> > with another 160,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does not
need to
> > be a latter-day imperial Roman Empire.
> >
> > To win this war, bring home U.S. troops and defend America's
borders.
> > Enact trade agreements instead of military agreements for a new
Pax
> > Americana free from war.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > Libertarian Party San Francisco
> > The City
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> U s government grant U s government student loan
California politics
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Marcy;
Only time will tell on that one and the reaction to us and who were are and how we are.
I'm guessing tomorrow would not be a good time for us to do the planned re-enactment of the Druid Summer Solstice Blood Sacrifices as we had planned so there will be a fruitful harvest in the Fall. Hunh?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Dear Ron,
I gave you my answers to your questions. Although I was addressing
primarily gender, I believe the same would hold true for color or
culture. Your comment regarding the Replublican Party does not negate
my interpretation, since the RP is a lot older than the LP.
It takes time to achieve diversity in any group, I think. For the LP
to become diverse so soon would take a lot of effort.
Let's see how we do tomorrow if the kids from Galileo High School
show up at our meeting as planned. How welcoming of "strangers" will
we be? How willing to listen to their concerns? How attractive
to "outsiders" will our general demeanor be?
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Marcy;
Thanks for the response. Although Dr. Mike as to wine Mike and
UCSF Mike was responding as a clinical psychologist and trying to
adapt the psychology of personality types to Libertarianism.
I too feel there is a gender problem and what would it take for a
program to not only attract women but also more members in all areas.
Not wanting to label - but how many Asian members do we have?
Black members? Hispanic and so on??? Why this dearth in such a
cosmopolitan City as San Francisco.
Way back in my old Republican party days we did have member
diversity here in the City. If Republicans can do this why not
Libertarians???
What is it - if there is an it - which can be done to increase
our membership across spectrums of sex race creed color religion etc
etc etc etc???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Dear Ron,Sorry for my delay in responding to your request that I "provide
some
insight" into the scarcity of women Libertarians; I was too busy
empathizingOK, here goes:
1. First, go back to square one regarding the gender difference of
synthesizers vs empathizers. That does not holp up. There are
enough matriarchal societies (women are the system builders) to
support my assertion. So are the hundreds of women small business
owners (system builders), including myself. Also, given the sorry
state of the LP, it does not look to me that a lot of system
building
has been going on here. So, the fact that there are no women
Libertarians because their emphathizing characteristics make them
better suited to be Dems or Greens does not ring true for me.2. So, then why? It might just be a selective mechanism going on.
Perhaps the founding group preferred the confort that comes with
sticking with people who are most like you, and since the LP is
relatively new, that self selection is still strong, perhaps
unconsciously intimidating women that might want to join.3. Assuming a change to a more diverse population is desired,
which
I think it is, how do we achieve this? One way might be for the
men
in the group to make a concerted effort to bring women in their
lives
to meetings, socials, tabling, etc. I remember Mr. Rogers from
PBS's
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood used to emphasize that little boys and
girls
need to see people that look like them in gender, color, physical
attributes, etc. I think that goes for everybody.I would be interested in hearing from others on this, since I
personally feel that the gender lopsidedness of the LP is not
conducive to its strengh.Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Mike;
>
> Yes I am thank you!
>
> BTW does that self-aggrandizement make me a candidate for some
clinical sociopathic psychology??? Or is it just psychosis of the
cerebellum?
>
> Second BTW: Has anyone done a mental mapping of the kind of
people who become Libertarians and what kinds of waco loco dreamer
oners become Libertarians?
>
> Third BTW: What is it with women and Libertarianism? It seems
the
Repubs and Demos have a lot more women attending almost but not
quite
equally in numbers to men. But Libertariansim and women???
>
> Marcy maybe you could offer some insight???
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> dredelstein@ wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Magnificent!
>
> Best, Michael
>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner
Publishes My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
>
>
>
> Dear Starchild;
>
> Actually by defending our borders what I meant was building a
50"
tall wall around Washington DC.
>
> Locking inside all members of the Executive and Congress and
all
the people working at all the agencies.
>
> Disconnect their telephones and internet.
>
> Then use the military to patrol 24/7 around the wall.
>
> From time to time toss food scraps over the wall to keep them
slightly ravenous.
>
> Build a scaffold near the top so people could come and look
down
at the Morons of Mordor.
>
> Then force them to build bonfires of all the idiot regulations
Washington has issued since Washington became Washington.
>
> Now that would be a border worth defending.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> I'll second Michael on both the congratulations and the comment
about
> "defend America's borders." In the context of the controversy
over
> migration, talk about "defending the borders" could easily come
across
> as anti-immigrant, although I'm sure you just meant have U.S.
> government troops defend the U.S. rather than be deployed in
other
> countries.
>
> Also, please do not post to both the lpsf-discuss and lpsf-
activists
> lists unless it's something *really* important; many people
subscribe
> to both and will get such emails twice. The lpsf-discuss is
probably
> the more appropriate list, as lpsf-activists is for core party
business.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Ron,
> >
> > Congratulations on your publication of another great LTE!
> >
> > Questions: You say: "defend America's borders." I haven't heard
> > of anyone attacking the U.S. Govt's borders, have you? Is there
a "war
> > on borders?"
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > From: Ron Getty
> > To: LPSF-ACTIVISTS ; Libertarian Yahoo Group ; CAL-LIBS
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:30 AM
> > Subject: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner Publishes My Ant-War On
Terror
> > LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
> >
> > Dear Everyone;
> >
> > Yesterday Jay Ambrose a SF Examiner columnist had an article on
the
> > War on Terror. I used the article to point out some important
> > facts about the war on terror and why we had the fight and what
to do
> > to stop it.
> >
> > The Ambrose column:
> >
> > http://www.examiner.com/a-
> > 102579~U_S__must_stiffen_resolve_to_win_war_on_terror.html
> >
> > My LTE with Libertarian affiliation:
> >
> > http://www.examiner.com/a-103727~Letters__May_10th__2006.html
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> > Letters: May 10th, 2006
> >
> > War on terror
> >
> >
> > Jay Ambrose claims World War III is the war on terror ("U.S.
must
> > stiffen resolve to win war on terror," May 9). Attacking a
worldwide,
> > multicause, religious-based ideology with technology will not
win
this
> > war. The reason for this mess is U.S. imperialism, forced
regime
> > changes and propping up dictators who support our policies
while
> > receiving America's largesse.
> >
> > One hundred fifty thousand U.S. soldiers are at 150 foreign
bases,
> > with another 160,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does not
need to
> > be a latter-day imperial Roman Empire.
> >
> > To win this war, bring home U.S. troops and defend America's
borders.
> > Enact trade agreements instead of military agreements for a new
Pax
> > Americana free from war.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > Libertarian Party San Francisco
> > The City
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> U s government grant U s government student loan
California politics
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Ron,
Nope. Yep, chicken today, feathers tomorrow.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Marcy;
Only time will tell on that one and the reaction to us and who
were are and how we are.
I'm guessing tomorrow would not be a good time for us to do the
planned re-enactment of the Druid Summer Solstice Blood Sacrifices as
we had planned so there will be a fruitful harvest in the Fall. Hunh?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Dear Ron,I gave you my answers to your questions. Although I was addressing
primarily gender, I believe the same would hold true for color or
culture. Your comment regarding the Replublican Party does not
negate
my interpretation, since the RP is a lot older than the LP.
It takes time to achieve diversity in any group, I think. For the
LP
to become diverse so soon would take a lot of effort.
Let's see how we do tomorrow if the kids from Galileo High School
show up at our meeting as planned. How welcoming of "strangers"
will
we be? How willing to listen to their concerns? How attractive
to "outsiders" will our general demeanor be?Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Marcy;
>
> Thanks for the response. Although Dr. Mike as to wine Mike and
UCSF Mike was responding as a clinical psychologist and trying to
adapt the psychology of personality types to Libertarianism.
>
> I too feel there is a gender problem and what would it take for
a
program to not only attract women but also more members in all
areas.
>
> Not wanting to label - but how many Asian members do we have?
Black members? Hispanic and so on??? Why this dearth in such a
cosmopolitan City as San Francisco.
>
> Way back in my old Republican party days we did have member
diversity here in the City. If Republicans can do this why not
Libertarians???
>
> What is it - if there is an it - which can be done to increase
our membership across spectrums of sex race creed color religion
etc
etc etc etc???
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@> wrote:
> Dear Ron,
>
> Sorry for my delay in responding to your request that I "provide
some
> insight" into the scarcity of women Libertarians; I was too busy
> empathizing
>
> OK, here goes:
>
> 1. First, go back to square one regarding the gender difference
of
> synthesizers vs empathizers. That does not holp up. There are
> enough matriarchal societies (women are the system builders) to
> support my assertion. So are the hundreds of women small
business
> owners (system builders), including myself. Also, given the
sorry
> state of the LP, it does not look to me that a lot of system
building
> has been going on here. So, the fact that there are no women
> Libertarians because their emphathizing characteristics make them
> better suited to be Dems or Greens does not ring true for me.
>
> 2. So, then why? It might just be a selective mechanism going
on.
> Perhaps the founding group preferred the confort that comes with
> sticking with people who are most like you, and since the LP is
> relatively new, that self selection is still strong, perhaps
> unconsciously intimidating women that might want to join.
>
> 3. Assuming a change to a more diverse population is desired,
which
> I think it is, how do we achieve this? One way might be for the
men
> in the group to make a concerted effort to bring women in their
lives
> to meetings, socials, tabling, etc. I remember Mr. Rogers from
PBS's
> Mr. Roger's Neighborhood used to emphasize that little boys and
girls
> need to see people that look like them in gender, color, physical
> attributes, etc. I think that goes for everybody.
>
> I would be interested in hearing from others on this, since I
> personally feel that the gender lopsidedness of the LP is not
> conducive to its strengh.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Dr. Mike;
> >
> > Yes I am thank you!
> >
> > BTW does that self-aggrandizement make me a candidate for
some
> clinical sociopathic psychology??? Or is it just psychosis of the
> cerebellum?
> >
> > Second BTW: Has anyone done a mental mapping of the kind of
> people who become Libertarians and what kinds of waco loco
dreamer
> oners become Libertarians?
> >
> > Third BTW: What is it with women and Libertarianism? It seems
the
> Repubs and Demos have a lot more women attending almost but not
quite
> equally in numbers to men. But Libertariansim and women???
> >
> > Marcy maybe you could offer some insight???
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > dredelstein@ wrote:
> > Ron,
> >
> > Magnificent!
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner
> Publishes My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Starchild;
> >
> > Actually by defending our borders what I meant was building a
50"
> tall wall around Washington DC.
> >
> > Locking inside all members of the Executive and Congress and
all
> the people working at all the agencies.
> >
> > Disconnect their telephones and internet.
> >
> > Then use the military to patrol 24/7 around the wall.
> >
> > From time to time toss food scraps over the wall to keep them
> slightly ravenous.
> >
> > Build a scaffold near the top so people could come and look
down
> at the Morons of Mordor.
> >
> > Then force them to build bonfires of all the idiot
regulations
> Washington has issued since Washington became Washington.
> >
> > Now that would be a border worth defending.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Starchild <sfdreamer@> wrote:
> > Ron,
> >
> > I'll second Michael on both the congratulations and the comment
> about
> > "defend America's borders." In the context of the controversy
over
> > migration, talk about "defending the borders" could easily come
> across
> > as anti-immigrant, although I'm sure you just meant have U.S.
> > government troops defend the U.S. rather than be deployed in
other
> > countries.
> >
> > Also, please do not post to both the lpsf-discuss and lpsf-
> activists
> > lists unless it's something *really* important; many people
> subscribe
> > to both and will get such emails twice. The lpsf-discuss is
> probably
> > the more appropriate list, as lpsf-activists is for core party
> business.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > Congratulations on your publication of another great LTE!
> > >
> > > Questions: You say: "defend America's borders." I haven't
heard
> > > of anyone attacking the U.S. Govt's borders, have you? Is
there
> a "war
> > > on borders?"
> > >
> > > Best, Michael
> > >
> > > From: Ron Getty
> > > To: LPSF-ACTIVISTS ; Libertarian Yahoo Group ; CAL-LIBS
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:30 AM
> > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner Publishes My Ant-War On
> Terror
> > > LTE With Libertarian Affiliation
> > >
> > > Dear Everyone;
> > >
> > > Yesterday Jay Ambrose a SF Examiner columnist had an article
on
> the
> > > War on Terror. I used the article to point out some important
> > > facts about the war on terror and why we had the fight and
what
> to do
> > > to stop it.
> > >
> > > The Ambrose column:
> > >
> > > http://www.examiner.com/a-
> > > 102579~U_S__must_stiffen_resolve_to_win_war_on_terror.html
> > >
> > > My LTE with Libertarian affiliation:
> > >
> > > http://www.examiner.com/a-103727~Letters__May_10th__2006.html
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > >
> > > Letters: May 10th, 2006
> > >
> > > War on terror
> > >
> > >
> > > Jay Ambrose claims World War III is the war on terror ("U.S.
must
> > > stiffen resolve to win war on terror," May 9). Attacking a
> worldwide,
> > > multicause, religious-based ideology with technology will not
win
> this
> > > war. The reason for this mess is U.S. imperialism, forced
regime
> > > changes and propping up dictators who support our policies
while
> > > receiving America's largesse.
> > >
> > > One hundred fifty thousand U.S. soldiers are at 150 foreign
> bases,
> > > with another 160,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does
not
> need to
> > > be a latter-day imperial Roman Empire.
> > >
> > > To win this war, bring home U.S. troops and defend America's
> borders.
> > > Enact trade agreements instead of military agreements for a
new
> Pax
> > > Americana free from war.
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > Libertarian Party San Francisco
> > > The City
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > U s government grant U s government student loan
> California politics
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.