SF Examiner Publishes My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation

Discussion
1

Marcy,

When you restate my hypothesis in absolute terms, then what you say makes sense.
However, I view it as tendencies, not all or none.

Best, Michael

2

Hi Mike,

Huuuummmm. I would have to measure the degree or scope of the
tendency and determine whether the tendency was sufficiently
significant to affect membership in the LP. Thus, I'll stick to my
idea that we are just too new to embrace diversity.

Marcy

Marcy,

When you restate my hypothesis in absolute terms, then what you say

makes sense.

However, I view it as tendencies, not all or none.

Best, Michael

From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 6:35 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner Publishes

My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation

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 :wink:

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

3

I am revising my opinion that the reason we see so few women in the
LP, at least in S.F., is because the LP was relatively recently
founded by men. From Wikipedia: "The Libertarian Party was formed in
the home of David Nolan on 11 December 1971...This group included
John Hospers, Edward Crane, Manual Kausner, Murray Rothbard, R.A.
Childs, THEODORA NATHAN, and Jim Dean." ... "In 1972...their
presidential ticket, John Hospers and THEODORA NATHAN, earned fewer
than 3,000 votes, but received the first and only electoral college
vote for a Libertarian ticket.."

So, go figure.

Marcy

Marcy,

When you restate my hypothesis in absolute terms, then what you say

makes sense.

However, I view it as tendencies, not all or none.

Best, Michael

From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 6:35 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [lpsf-activists] SF Examiner Publishes

My Ant-War On Terror LTE With Libertarian Affiliation

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 :wink:

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