It sounds to me, Jon, like the conference organizers sabotaged the platform. I don't know who the organizers were and don't know where they fell off the "reform" fence, but it sure seems like they greased the wheels for the gutting of the platform.
--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It amazes me how some members of this list cling to the proposition that > the deletion of most of the Platform was an act of deliberation. It was > not a conspiracy. There was no plan. It was just a cockup. It resulted > from these simple factors: > 1. Conference organizers neglected to print copies of the Platform and > distribute them with the conference packet. They explained that they > expected attendees to just download and print the Platform from the > lp.org website. That was expecting too much of them. > 2. Attendees weren't going to vote for what they didn't have in writing > in their hands. > 3. The Platform Committee didn't really get down to work until the > members actually arrived at the meeting two days before the convention, > and didn't allow enough time to agree of a list of planks to recommend > retaining. They got bogged down on consolidating planks. The result of > that work was presented to the conference and approved, because the > members could read it on the screen. But there wasn't time to print or > distribute copies of anything. > 4. Left with that, the majority of attendees voted not the retain most > of the remaining planks. I was one who so voted, because there was two > hours set aside on the agenda ("orders of the day") at the end of Sunday > to introduce any planks that needed to go back in. Many people had those > planks prepared and submitted them to the Secretary for presentation in > numbered order. > 5. Before we could get to those planks, one member (also a member of the > Platform Committee), Jim Duensing of Nevada, apparently for no other > reason than that he was pissed off at a motion just made and defeated by > Aaron Starr of California, moved to adjourn, and as a motion to adjourn > is not debatable, and the attendees were tired and didn't know what was > about to be introduced, other than stuff that was just going to take up > a lot of time, voted to adjourn. > 6. Immediately afterward there was a lot of remorse about the > adjournment. Jim Duensing admitted to me he screwed up. A lot of the > attendees, when I explained what was about to be introduced, admitted if > they had known they would not have voted to adjourn. > 7. It simply never occurred to most of the attendees how all this would > be misconstrued by the larger membership. Libertarians may include a lot > of computer professionals, but most are not adept at complex systems > analysis or long-term impact analysis. Like the public generally, they > tend to be impulsive and prefer not to think deeply about what they are > doing, or to spend a lot of effort preparing for anything. > 8. So we make mistakes, and hopefully learn from it. We can do better in > 2008 if we learn from this and don't engage in ridiculous accusations. > > -- Jon > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
