Shane,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think you missed the point of
my criticism, so I'll try to clarify that and a few other points.

First, though, I want to point out that responding to an activist with
either silence or insults is probably bad policy all around. I hope
that you will grow into your job and develop a more professional
manner. It will do the Party good for you to respond to criticism with
real thought and consideration rather than the defensiveness and
condescension you have shown here.

On 12/30/06, shane.cory@lp.org <shane.cory@lp.org> wrote:
> Wow, Susan. Now you're judging the websites that we link to? Regardless
> of content??

A link is one thing - and might (*might*) be appropriate for a more
informal setting such as the blog, but this was more than 'linking' -
it was featuring a story from a Republican website as if it was part
of the LP website. It was my hope that you could appreciate the fact
that such features make it difficult to interest Democrats in the LP,
as they quite naturally on a superficial reading of the first few
stories on the LP website will conclude that we are simply another
sort of Republican Party. This has in fact happened to me once this
week already, where a Democrat had 'read up on' the LP and felt we
were simply Republicans who weren't big on religion. After looking at
the LP website with a unprejudiced eye, possibly you can see his
point. I certainly can :-/

> I guess we should stop linking to WaPo, NYT, WT, WSJ and all others that
> aren't explicitly Libertarian. Or maybe you're saying that we should just
> rule out partisan sites. We could just live in our own little bubble and
> point fingers at everything else.

We should definitely rule out partisan sites. I have heard a lot of
concern expressed that we should do things 'like the big boys do
them'. But does the DP feature articles from the websites of avowed GP
activists? It strikes me as strictly amateur, as well as damaging to
the efforts of those of us actively working to recruit people from the
left who may be looking into the LP.

Let's look at the content of that piece:

The fellow is making the point that as someone who loves the RP, the
LP can be used as a tool to make the RP 'better'. He takes pains to
explain what a loyal Republican he is. The only connection to the LP
is that he suggests that conservative Republicans use the LP to
'punish' the RP and show it that it needs to be more conservative.
Now, as an aside, this is exactly what I think a major role of the LP
(and third parties in general) *is*, but do we really want some guy
blathering about how much he loves the 'real' RP to be featured on the
front page of our Party's website? It just doesn't make sense to me.

> Maybe that's too harsh. I think what you're saying is that we should only
> post articles written by our own members.

Yes, certainly that's what I am saying. Stuff under the main
front-page section "WhatsNew" on the *LP website* should be LP
content. In fact, except for a possible "LP in the news" section and
possibly a small section on organizations (NOT political parties) that
share our goals, I think all content on our website should be LP
generated.

Do we pass out flyers for Alan Keyes in our outreach booths? *I*
don't, though you may.

> Hmmm, when was the last time
> you submitted a column, Susan?

Since my last blog post was deleted and my offer of professional
proofreading was not even *answered*, I am naturally reluctant to
spend too much time laboring for the LNC. But this brings up an
interesting point: did the author of that Keyes-site piece *submit*
his article to you? Can you explain to me why it was chosen for
posting?

> I would be hesitant to do that as we may end up offending some group or
> member if the published views of the member submitted piece don't mesh
> with everyone else's.

Sarcasm isn't becoming in a professional reply to an activist Party
member. The point isn't to avoid offending people; it is to avoid
advertising for other political parties and their candidates and to
stick to advertising *our* platform and principles.

> How about we just run everything by you and you can
> be the judge of what is appropriate and what is not according to your
> vision of what a Libertarian is.

How about we simply publish platform and principle-compliant content
written by members of the LP on the LP website? But if you want help
in deciding what that content might be, I am by all means ready and
willing to help you with that editorial task. I can also work to
solicit content *from Libertarians* for the website. Thanks for
suggesting a fruitful way I could offer my volunteer services to the
LNC.

> Maybe we could pull it off with different sections for right-leaning,
> left-leaning, anarchist, minarchist and other Libertarians? If we do
> that, why don't we just give individual sections and posting authority to
> the people who complain the most. Forget the donors, the loudest and most
> obnoxious should get their way!
>
> Maybe we could just poll the entire membership before putting anything on
> LP.org. That would get expensive and would eventually lead to the site
> being shutdown due to a lack of funds, but that would solve the problem,
> right?

Again, this sarcasm helps no one and gets up no where. You are
supposed to be a professional; why don't you start acting like one? I
- a strong activist - have offered a serious criticism, and you
bluster and sputter like it's some sort of playground quarrel.

> Now, I'll stop being a smartass for a minute.

It's about time. If only you hadn't stopped being a smartass only to
be overtly rude, that would have been some progress. But, alas, it was
not to be.

> Susan, you complain way too
> damn much.

Your *opinion* of my criticisms is interesting to me, and I will in
the future try to take time to point out the positives (such as the
other featured frontpage content on the site), but as a professional
you might reflect that compliments are really dead time (though they
are of course pleasant to receive), while criticisms can help you make
the site - and the Party - better.

> For over a year you've sent your whines and moans about
> everything from press releases paragraph formatting to now, sites that we
> link to.

OK. So now I see that you do not view criticism as a way to make the
LP better, but simply as 'whines and moans'. Incidentally, my
criticism of the press release that you mention wasn't about
formatting (though I may have mentioned it) so much as about an
apparent lack of editing and proofreading revealed by some
embarrassing mistakes. And as *part of that criticism*, I offered to
volunteer my time as a proofreader. From you I got no word of thanks
or even acknowledgment. And you wonder why I do not 'submit articles'
for you to publish!

> On the positive side, my skin is rhino thick thanks to a people like you.

You have a hard and relatively thankless job; there is no doubt about
that. I hope that your skin hasn't become so thick that good ideas or
valid criticisms cannot penetrate it, but I fear that is exactly what
has happened.

> Live a week in my shoes and try to get something done. On day one you
> could issue a statement saying that peanut butter and jelly were a widely
> accepted mix and then be attacked by one faction for mentioning peanut
> butter and another for talking about jelly. A third faction would call
> for your firing for not giving consideration to the role of bread and
> crackers. After day two you would be paralyzed by fear.

I hardly think I would, but I certainly hope that has not been your response.

> Let me ask you this, aside from complaining and attempting to stir up
> controversy, what do you do for the Libertarian National Committee? What
> POSITIVE thing do you do for the LNC? How do you move the LP forward?

As I mentioned before, when I politely pointed out ongoing issues with
the evident lack of proofreading of LP releases, I offered my services
as a proofreader. And... let's see... your response was... dead
silence. I suppose that was better than a sarcastic tirade as I
received this time, but at least now I know you GOT both criticisms. I
just know you have a demonstrated unwillingness to accept help.

And then you have the nerve to berate me for not helping! If this is
the way you routinely treat party members, I am seriously concerned.

> Let me tell you what I do.
>
> - I work my tail off every day (except Sundays) for the LP for about us
> much money as I made when I was 24 years old.
>
> - On top of that, I donate at least $1,000 a year to the LP and then a bit
> more to LP candidates.
>
> - I then raise tens of thousands of dollars for the LP every single month.
> I also save them about ten thousand a month in professional fees by doing
> things myself. As far as cost savings, you can throw in a few thousand
> more for administrative services because I do everything from opening the
> mail to printing the membership cards.
>
> - I promote the party at every opportunity. Whether through the media or
> friends and family, I'm a living LP billboard.

Wonderful. Thank you for your efforts for the Party.

> The points above really aren't unique. Just about every staff member has
> significant commitments of time or money that go above a normal job.
> That's the life of an LPHQ staffer.

Of course; such is natural for political work.

> Another thing that I do is tolerate people like you.

If this is your idea of 'tolerate' - and if 'tolerate' and a string of
justifications is all that activists can expect when dealing with out
executive director - I am not happy with the way the LP is being run.

> People who seem to
> never be pleased and appear to be on a mission to hinder the LP simply
> because things may not be done in their preferred manner or according to
> their narrow ideological viewpoints and without respect for our broad
> Statement of Principles.

I am sorry if it seems to you that I am never pleased with the LP's
work, but that's rather beside the point. The more pertinent issue is
how you respond to perfectly legitimate critiques of how things get
done. You and I may disagree about what is right, but the fact that
you respond to suggestions not with thanks or even lively discussion
but with rationalizations, insults, and sarcasm is very disturbing. It
is extremely unprofessional.

> Susan, to be completely honest with you, you are nothing more than a
> critic. When it comes to the LNC, you do nothing and try nothing aside
> from criticize those of us who are actually getting things done.

Even if that were so (and it is not, as I explained earlier), there is
no reason for you not to welcome criticisms *if they are valid*. And
if they are not, there's no reason for you to respond with rudeness.

> Rather than offering suggestions or productive assistance, you spend your
> time and energy complaining . . . on the Internet.
>
> Unfortunately, even when I try to go above and beyond to listen to you . .
> . well you know how that goes. My ears are still ringing.

>From our phone call? No doubt they are; and I am still trying to
understand why you called me; as it was really the same sort of
rationalizing and attacking *me* as you've displayed here. Your call
accomplished *nothing* except to get Stewart Flood to write one civil
note asking what he could do to get my questions answered; only to
answer with nothing but more rudeness and non-answers when I asked the
questions.

> So, I'll leave you pooled with all of the other unproductive critics to
> the LP until you're ready to step up and do something positive for the LP.

OK; give me a subject and I will write about it. The war? The economy?

Also, I still am happy to offer (again) my services as a proofreader
and/or copyeditor.

> If you can't do that, move on and do something good for yourself or a
> neighbor. The next time you feel the urge to complain, go plant a tree or
> hit the gym. Do something positive regardless of its relation to the LP
> and I think we would be all better off.
>
> As for me, I'm going to take this Saturday afternoon off and spend it with
> my three beautiful children and my bride. Maybe I'll have them create a
> nice, happy card to send to you as an example on how to spend your extra
> time in a positive fashion. Heck, if it puts a smile on your face and
> gets you away from the keyboard for a moment, it's worth it.
>
> Happy New Year.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Shane

More rudeness and unprofessionalism on your part; capped by
'sincerely', of all things! Nice.

--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com

Labels: LP

¶ 8:52 PM