May 2015 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

AOL is giving us email delivery problems again
by Alicia Mattson 09 May '15

09 May '15

Just FYI, we're again having email delivery problems for AOL users. Two of the COC members who use AOL were not receiving emails from the COC list. Also yesterday, the LNC-Business list let me know it was having delivery problems and had auto-removed Gary Johnson and Ron Windeler due to the number of times AOL has bounced their emails back. I reset their excessive bounce flags so the list will continue to send to them, but in the meantime those two might not have received all the messages, and it may well happen over and over again. Other AOL users may be having a problem also, but had not bounced enough messages to get punted from the list. Any AOL user on our email list should probably routinely check the online archive at: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/ to see if they are missing any messages. This is likely again a problem with AOL's DMARC policies as we have previously discussed. I see a configuration option in the email list that MIGHT help with this problem, but I want to find and speak with someone more knowledgeable about the impact and side effects of making that configuration change before I try it. I am not an expert in this territory, just have read about it on the internet. In the past, Eric Dixon would have been the guy I asked first, but since he's gone, we may need advice from outside the LNC. -Alicia

2 2

draft minutes of 5/3/15 LNC electronic meeting
by Alicia Mattson 09 May '15

09 May '15

Attached are the draft minutes of the 5/3/15 LNC electronic meeting. Any comments are due to the Secretary by May 20. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

2 4

Requested field change on report of related party transactions
by Alicia Mattson 05 May '15

05 May '15

LNC Colleagues, I wanted to draw your attention to a detail that might help you avoid a lapse in your sustaining membership. As a Life Member, I (and probably many of you who are also Life Members) have never thought too much about the "Expire Date" column on the Related Party Transactions report that is included as the last page of our monthly financial statements. I was using this data as a partial cross-check when I saw some other problems in monthly data dump files, and I noticed something that's important to point out to you. The "Expire Date" column on that report is not necessarily the date your sustaining membership lapses. It is the "expires" field of the database, which is your *benefits lapse date*, which is something completely different. See the policy manual for how and when the benefits lapse date is extended. I only noticed it because the monthly pledgers on that report all have expire dates on the last day of the year. Frankly, I don't see the benefits lapse date as being terribly useful information on this report, and it might confuse someone into thinking they've got more time renew than they really do. I would like to request that this report be modified for the future to show the sustaining membership lapse dates instead, so that LNC members can actually use it to track when they need to renew. -Alicia

1 0

Draft CPD Lawsuit Complaint
by Nicholas Sarwark 05 May '15

05 May '15

All, I have reviewed an early copy of the brief OAI intends to file in their lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates. It appears to be quite well-written and argued. I'm happy to answer questions about the content of the brief directly for LNC members, but probably not on this list. Email me at chair(a)lp.org if you have questions. There will be a conference call for plaintiffs on May 7th. I may not be on the call due to family obligations, but Ms. Howell and Mr. Vohra have indicated that they would be available. If you have questions or concerns that you'd like addressed, you could reply to this list and they would be able to ask them on your behalf. Yours in liberty, Nick

1 0

Rand Paul - best showing of GOP candidates against Hillary Clinton
by Scott L. 05 May '15

05 May '15

Whenever some of us mention that if Rand Paul gets the GOP pres. nomination next year it will suck all of the libertarian oxygen out of the room, we often hear Libertarians reply "But Rand Paul will never get the GOP nomination." http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-negatives-rise-in-wsj-poll-but-democrat s-stay-the-course-1430778624 "[In the poll] taken between April 26-30, 2015.In those matchups against four potential rivals, Mrs. Clinton topped Messrs. Bush and Rubio by 49% to 43%, and she topped Mr. Walker by 50% to 40%. The GOP candidate who came closest to Mrs. Clinton was Sen. Rand Paul, who trailed by 47%-44%. Unlike the other GOP candidates, Mr. Paul significantly outpolled Mrs. Clinton among independent voters, by 45%-37%, reinforcing his campaign's argument that his libertarian conservatism helps him reach beyond the party's traditional base." As we all know, a major consideration for many GOP Primary voters will be electability. Those primaries are still 9 months away, but at least right now, based on the above poll, I would not want to dismiss Senator Paul from consideration as possibly ending up as the GOP Presidential Nominee. I am not shilling for Senator Paul. I am just passing along poll results. Scott Lieberman

2 1

Parking garage collapses at Watergate in DC
by Daniel Wiener 04 May '15

04 May '15

Looks like we got out just in time... http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/28952312/watergate-parking-garage-collapse Dan Wiener -- *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)

2 1

Additional explanation of my ruling on Doug Craig
by Nicholas Sarwark 03 May '15

03 May '15

All, I wanted to briefly comment again on my ruling regarding whether Mr. Craig was a sustaining member under the Bylaws at the time of his election to the LNC. I don't know if it will persuade anyone to change their vote on sustaining my ruling, but I hope it addresses some of the points that have been made. There have been a number of comments from LNC members about whether purchasing a convention package "should" count toward a sustaining membership, whether one should "expect" that buying a convention package would count a s a membership contribution, and whether we "ought to" count the purchase of a package toward sustaining membership. These are all valid opinions that ought to be referred to the bylaws committee to resolve the ambiguity in the bylaws, but they are somewhat beside the point of whether the bylaws clearly prohibit Mr. Craig's purchase of a convention package from applying to sustaining membership. As I noted, there is nothing in the bylaws other than the phrase about giving $25 in the prior 12 months as it relates to sustaining membership, and the policy manual has no language that purports to add any other limitations or qualifications on to sustaining membership (as opposed to association levels, which convey other benefits). In resolving ambiguous language in statutes, courts are often guided by canons of statutory interpretation, one of which is the rule of lenity. In simple terms, when there is an ambiguity in a criminal statute, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant. This is not a criminal case, but the principle seems to apply that an ambiguity in how the bylaws can be read should be resolved in favor of the person who it would impact. In philosophical debate, there is an idea of construing the other person's argument in the best possible light, rather than assuming negative intent. Applying this principle to this ambiguous situation would also lead me to the same ruling. Lastly, for the baseball fans, there's the concept that the tie goes to the runner. If it's a toss-up whether he's safe as a sustaining member or out, I'm going to call him safe. If this persuades you and you have voted no on sustaining my ruling, I would ask you to change your vote. If it does not, thank you very much for considering my arguments. Yours in liberty, Nick P.S. To answer the other question, if the ballot is unresolved, Mr. Craig is eligible to vote this evening at the electronic meeting. That said, if everyone else has voted, I will vote on those ballots prior to our meeting tonight to complete them and avoid any further controversy.

4 3

Fwd: One more logo - Will Taylor's presentation
by Arvin Vohra 03 May '15

03 May '15

The new logo is lower down, near the bottom. You can see how it looks on a website and on merchandise. I think this is an excellent logo, and certainly in my top three. -Arvin

1 0

logos Fwd: Fwd: Re: UPDATED - logo picker
by Wes Benedict 03 May '15

03 May '15

Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314* (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Re: [Lnc-business] UPDATED - logo picker Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:37:11 -0400 From: Wes Benedict <wes.benedict(a)lp.org> To: Arthur DiBianca <arthur.dibianca(a)lp.org> fyi Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314* (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] UPDATED - logo picker Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:12:49 -0700 From: Daniel Wiener <wiener(a)alum.mit.edu> Reply-To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> CC: Aaron Starr <starrcpa(a)gmail.com> Thank you, Arvin.Â� Now that I can see the logo candidates side-by-side, here are my impressions: 1. "Torch Eagle" -- Not bad, and I could live with it.Â� But I'm not as enthusiastic as I was at the LNC meeting. 2. "Torch Flower" -- Meh.Â� I could tolerated it, just barely.Â� There are several better options. 3. "Liberty Bell L" -- No.Â� I'm not a fan of negative space, and if someone doesn't immediately recognize the bell portion it looks pretty stupid. 4. "1996 (prior) Logo" -- This would be my default choice if we can't agree on anything else. 5. "L-Looping-P" -- I can't make up my mind about this.Â� On the one hand I appreciate its clean form and simplicity, and the way it could lend itself to good branding.Â� On the other hand, it seems like it would only be effective if we spent $100 million on a marketing campaign to establish it as the LP symbol, similar to what giant corporations would have to do to re-brand themselves.Â� Plus it lacks any inherent meaning, which may not bother the general public but would matter to a lot of libertarians. 6. "Crown-in-Torch" -- I like it.Â� It has a touch of elegance and maintains the LP's torch of liberty theme.Â� I wouldn't necessarily put it in first place, but I'd classify it as one of the leading contenders. 7. "Stylized Lady Liberty" -- It's okay, but I think it's a bit inferior to #4. 8. "Old Logo" -- Too dark.Â� Not as good as #4. 9. "Rosie the Riveter" -- This has possibilities.Â� But this was a conceptual suggestion, and needs to be simplified and stylized a bit to make it more practical.Â� Aaron Starr had proposed this, and said he was going to follow up with the Texas LP and contact the designer to see if an improved version could be made.Â� I'm copying Aaron on this email, to see if he's made any progress along those lines. Dan Wiener -------------------- From: *Arvin Vohra* <arvin(a)arvinvohra.com <mailto:arvin@arvinvohra.com>> Date: Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:33 PM Subject: [Lnc-business] UPDATED - logo picker To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Hi guys - here is an updated image showing the logo options. -Arvin -- /"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, donât laugh, thatâs the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.*If it disagrees with experiment, itâs WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.* It doesnât make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesnât matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, itâs wrong. Thatâs all there is to it.â/ -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Fwd: May 3 LNC meeting via Adobe Connect to discuss logos
by doug＠vikingmetals.com 03 May '15

03 May '15

I was doing a test run...it ask for a user name and pass word...did someone provide that ...or do I need to set that up...thanks Doug Craig -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Lnc-business] Fwd: May 3 LNC meeting via Adobe Connect to discuss logos From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> Date: May 3, 2015 4:23 AM To: "lnc-business" <lnc-business(a)lp.org> CC: Re-sending last week's email. Meeting info is at the bottom of the message. -Alicia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:58 PM Subject: May 3 LNC meeting via Adobe Connect to discuss logos To: lnc-business <lnc-business(a)lp.org> As agreed during the LNC meeting in Phoenix, on May 3rd (6 p.m. Pacific / 9 p.m. Eastern) the LNC will be using Adobe Connect to again take up the discussion on logo redesign proposals. *At the bottom of this message you will find the information needed to join the meeting.* Please note that per our rules, only LNC members/alternates may use the backup telephone number, and not guests. Guests should connect via computer, which is free. Each of you should review the electronic meeting rules on pages 14-15 of the policy manual: http://www.lp.org/files/LNC_Policy_Manual_Adopted_2015_03_28.pdf If you intend to invite those outside the LNC to participate, please note that there are some rules that apply to guests. In a separate email, I will provide copy/paste quality material suitable for non-LNC guests, including excerpts of the rules that apply particularly to guests. The Adobe Connect system has been used a few times by other committees, and the following lecture is based on that experience. 1) Even though it is possible to use a mobile device to join one of these meetings, you are mistaken if you think you can participate meaningfully while driving down the road in your car and connecting with your iPhone/iPad. It's dangerous. You can't pay attention to anything shown on the screen, and even the audio won't have your full attention because you're driving. Raising your hand, or voting, or trying to adjust your microphone is the equivalent of texting while driving, which could earn you a ticket (and no points from the Secretary, though other points could accrue on your license). You're much more likely to lose your connection as your signal is transferred from one cell tower to another. Etc. 2) You should make arrangements to be in a reasonably quiet location with a decent-speed internet connection. If you have a slow connection (like a cell tower) the audio/video may cut in and out for you. Don't be in a bowling alley or a night club or a grocery store. Children should be supervised by someone else in another room. Barking dogs or other noise-producing pets should be put in another location where they won't be heard by the rest of us. 3) USE YOUR HEADPHONES OR EARBUDS. I use the same earbuds I use with my iPod. You can buy a pair for $5 in lots of places. Not using headphones/earbuds will cause echoes for other participants because the sound coming out of your speakers will feed back in through your microphone and get re-transmitted. The echoes are very distracting and maddening. 4) When this system is used with only a handful of people, participants can generally leave their microphones on and self-regulate if two people talk over each other. This meeting will be the largest we've ever used the system for, and I suspect it will be important for everyone to mute their microphones while they're not talking, and use the raise-hand feature to have the chair recognize you to speak, after which you can turn on your microphone. -Alicia ----------------------------- Meeting Name: Libertarian National Committee When: 05/03/2015 6:00 PM Pacific / 9:00 PM Eastern Purpose: Discussion of Logo Redesign To join the meeting: https://lp.adobeconnect.com/lnc/ Audio Conference Details: If you join by computer/webcam at the link above, you do NOT also need to dial into this teleconference, which is a backup audio-only option. Teleconference Number(s): 866-814-9555 Conference Code: 7509417927 If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before: Test your connection: https://lp.adobeconnect .com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm ---------------- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

3 2