joelrosenberg (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} joelrosenberg) wrote,@ 2005-06-13 10:55:00 |
|
My email to Joe
The following is a private email, sent to Joe Olson this morning, in response to an email he'd cc'ed me on. The only changes have been the [marked] redaction of the other recipient's name -- it'll go back on if/when I'm given permission -- some other folks' identities, to avoid some possible embarrassment to them, some commentary to add clarification [also in brackets] and a couple of typoes.
Needless to say, I'm posting this with Joe's explicit permission. Wouldn't do it otherwise.
Comments solicited, encouraged. More commentary after the cut.
Joseph E. Olsonwrote:
I'm not surprised to hear that you were more heavily involved than I'd heard, although I didn't know the key points of it, and bet [deleted] hadn't heard them, either. (Hell, I haven't even compared the passed range protection bill with the previous drafts, and can't comment on the details of them without doing that.)
I didn't make it explicit in that essay on my livejournal, where I assume (possibly even correctly; such things happen) that you found [deleted]'s response, but I think it's implicit: this sort of multi-threaded independent activism has some unique issues, around communication, and they're not all strengths, and even the strengths have some real limitations and problems.
It may be -- and you clearly thought it was; I'm not second-guessing you on this, honest -- necessary to keep your own role, and that of GOCRA/CCRN, less than very visible on the range protection issue up until now, but that has the obvious and (IMHO) undesirable side effect of independent activists concluding that you were much less involved in range protection than in carry reform.
You obviously didn't need the people who read my livejournal immediately helping out on range protection -- the proof is in the pudding, after all -- but by not actively going out and telling them what you were doing, and when, it sure seemed like disinterest and/or inaction. I was asked, on several occasions, "what's CCRN doing on range protection?" I answered, every time, "I don't know -- ask Joe Olson; here's his email address." I wasn't involved in range protection at all, and kept my focus on what I was involved in. Obviously, each time that happened I could have gone to you and asked, but I assumed -- and assume -- that you'll be as public on this stuff as you think is wise; why waste your time and mine?
I think it's time to reconsider that. Not the going public as much as you think wise, but how much it would be wise to go public.
Which leads to an obvious suggestion: when you've done something private, and can go public with it after, going public, even if the issue has already been settled, in as much detail as you think you can share, might make a lot of sense. You and Tim have been pretty good on that on the CCRN website on the carry law issues generally, but I can tell you that people interested in this clamor for details, and eat them up -- look at all the entries from the day that we spent at the Senate, where many folks followed it, blow-by-blow, thanks to DDB and a half dozen others liveblogging it at my journal. The more details, in something well-written (and you're certainly capable of writing more than well), the better.
I can't tell you how many people read my livejournal (not because I'm unwilling to; I simply don't know), but it appears to be fairly widely read in the self-defense community locally (see Mitch Berg's blog, for example), as well as nationally (it's been Instalanched by Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit a few times, and some of the folks who have read it then have stuck around to comment; I know that at least one [deleted] reads it daily, and points out what he thinks is interesting to [also deleted]; Alphecca watches it, as does Kim du Toit, and [deleted] and I go back for a couple of decades, when he was [deleted]), and it's certainly a venue that's not only open to you, and to which you're welcome to contribute, but one to which you're very much invited to contribute. I don't know if you have a Livejournal account, but quite a few folks have opened one specifically to comment on my livejournal -- it's free, and will take you about five minutes to set up. See http://www.livejournal.com/create.bml.
There's lots of relevant issues that I'm not commenting on, simply because I don't know enough about them -- I don't have any details or insight into the BCA process on certifying instructors, for example, and when I get questions on what's going on now, about all I can say is that the BCA requirements take effect, by law, as of October 1, that the BCA is saying that they'll have them in place September 1, and that a draft is due for public comment on July 15. When will there be public hearings? I dunno. What does it look like the requirements will shape up to be? I dunno. Will POST certification be required, or will NRA Personal Protection be sufficient? I dunno. AACFI? I dunno. NRA Basic Pistol? I dunno.
If there's something that you can share on that, feel free -- hell, I'll strongly encourage you to share it as widely as you can... on the CCRN website, the CCRN yahoo group, my livejournal, your own... whatever. The more, the better.. If you can't, that's okay, too, but see above; there's aspects to this networked activism that require information to power it.
Up to you; I won't nag you again on this.
That said, fair warning: setting up a livejournal will cost you no money, and about five minutes of time, but that's just the downpayment. It's the other stuff that'll kill you. You know how much your activism generally has eaten into the rest of your life, but this online stuff is arguably worse, because there's no limit to it. None. It will suck up precisely as much time as you'll let it, and it'll keep begging for more. In my case, I think it's more useful than other activist things I can do -- I think I'm working more effectively by spending an additional three or four hours a month journaling than I would be attending CCRN meetings with that time, for example (yes, I know that they don't last that long, but if I go to a CCRN meeting, that kills an entire evening) -- but it doesn't stop there.
You, like all of us, have to decide how to spend your time. Hell, I'm doing it right now: I've made the call that it's worth my time to give one shot at persuading you to do more online writing, and give out more information publicly. This email has taken an hour out of my life that may or may not be wasted; it's a judgment call, and I'm rolling the dice that it's worth my time. (I think it is. Even if I haven't talked you into what I hope I've talked you into, and though I won't quote your email without permission, I think I've got a good start on another essay here. File off a few parts, add in an opening and smooth it out, and I'm there, I think.)
Meanwhile, orthogonally, I'm taking the day off in part to work on a longish essay -- first draft up right now at http://www.joel-rosenberg.com; there'll be more on it shortly -- on the KARE11 hatchet job, and if I had the time (I don't) I could easily spend twenty hours a week researching and writing pieces for the journal. And if I did that, the damn thing would clamor for more. (I'm hoping to spool off some of the work onto other folks -- "Matt Payne" has recently started a livejournal, and he's a very good writer, and a smart guy, as you might remember from his work on the 2004 Birthday Party. And if it sounds like I'm trying to dump some of the work on you, you're right: it's not laziness, though -- you've been involved in conversations and discussions on these issues, at the highest level, that I've not been privy to, and you've got insight into those that I obviously don't have.)
Up to you; you can decide what's worth your time.
best,
jr
Well, there you have it. I hope that Joe will find more time to let folks know what's going on, in as much detail as he can. And if he's accused of tooting his own horn -- and he will be, if he does (I get that all of the time) -- by doing so, the accusations won't be coming from me.
Over to all of you.
The following is a private email, sent to Joe Olson this morning, in response to an email he'd cc'ed me on. The only changes have been the [marked] redaction of the other recipient's name -- it'll go back on if/when I'm given permission -- some other folks' identities, to avoid some possible embarrassment to them, some commentary to add clarification [also in brackets] and a couple of typoes.
Needless to say, I'm posting this with Joe's explicit permission. Wouldn't do it otherwise.
Comments solicited, encouraged. More commentary after the cut.
Joseph E. Olsonwrote:
Firstly, thanks for sharing that. I won't publish this email on my livejournal without your permission, but I'd love to have that permission -- for why, see below. That's not the only thing I'm asking for -- again, see below.[deleted],You [somebody other than me. JR] recently wrote " But range protection passed this year, too. And CCRN had almost nothing to do with it."False. CCRN's parent, GOCRA, had everything to do with it.I conceived the idea and wrote the basic bill (the core of which never changed) several years ago, David Gross (GOCRA Director) and I (GOCRA President) lobbied for it and he and I kept the 2005 compromise with the local units of government and range owners on track (it was I who insisted that John Marty's amendment be greatly reduced in scope), and both of us were in the group of 5 people who could veto changes to that agreement.As a matter of political expediency, GOCRA (and thus CCRN) were the VISIBLE, lead organization on the CCW repassage while the Range Owners (through Les Bench) played that role on range protection. In fact, the LUG organizations played the most visible role after the agreement was negotiated by all. This was by design.Don't confuse deliberate strategy with disinterest or inaction.
I'm not surprised to hear that you were more heavily involved than I'd heard, although I didn't know the key points of it, and bet [deleted] hadn't heard them, either. (Hell, I haven't even compared the passed range protection bill with the previous drafts, and can't comment on the details of them without doing that.)
I didn't make it explicit in that essay on my livejournal, where I assume (possibly even correctly; such things happen) that you found [deleted]'s response, but I think it's implicit: this sort of multi-threaded independent activism has some unique issues, around communication, and they're not all strengths, and even the strengths have some real limitations and problems.
It may be -- and you clearly thought it was; I'm not second-guessing you on this, honest -- necessary to keep your own role, and that of GOCRA/CCRN, less than very visible on the range protection issue up until now, but that has the obvious and (IMHO) undesirable side effect of independent activists concluding that you were much less involved in range protection than in carry reform.
You obviously didn't need the people who read my livejournal immediately helping out on range protection -- the proof is in the pudding, after all -- but by not actively going out and telling them what you were doing, and when, it sure seemed like disinterest and/or inaction. I was asked, on several occasions, "what's CCRN doing on range protection?" I answered, every time, "I don't know -- ask Joe Olson; here's his email address." I wasn't involved in range protection at all, and kept my focus on what I was involved in. Obviously, each time that happened I could have gone to you and asked, but I assumed -- and assume -- that you'll be as public on this stuff as you think is wise; why waste your time and mine?
I think it's time to reconsider that. Not the going public as much as you think wise, but how much it would be wise to go public.
Which leads to an obvious suggestion: when you've done something private, and can go public with it after, going public, even if the issue has already been settled, in as much detail as you think you can share, might make a lot of sense. You and Tim have been pretty good on that on the CCRN website on the carry law issues generally, but I can tell you that people interested in this clamor for details, and eat them up -- look at all the entries from the day that we spent at the Senate, where many folks followed it, blow-by-blow, thanks to DDB and a half dozen others liveblogging it at my journal. The more details, in something well-written (and you're certainly capable of writing more than well), the better.
I can't tell you how many people read my livejournal (not because I'm unwilling to; I simply don't know), but it appears to be fairly widely read in the self-defense community locally (see Mitch Berg's blog, for example), as well as nationally (it's been Instalanched by Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit a few times, and some of the folks who have read it then have stuck around to comment; I know that at least one [deleted] reads it daily, and points out what he thinks is interesting to [also deleted]; Alphecca watches it, as does Kim du Toit, and [deleted] and I go back for a couple of decades, when he was [deleted]), and it's certainly a venue that's not only open to you, and to which you're welcome to contribute, but one to which you're very much invited to contribute. I don't know if you have a Livejournal account, but quite a few folks have opened one specifically to comment on my livejournal -- it's free, and will take you about five minutes to set up. See http://www.livejournal.com/create.bml.
There's lots of relevant issues that I'm not commenting on, simply because I don't know enough about them -- I don't have any details or insight into the BCA process on certifying instructors, for example, and when I get questions on what's going on now, about all I can say is that the BCA requirements take effect, by law, as of October 1, that the BCA is saying that they'll have them in place September 1, and that a draft is due for public comment on July 15. When will there be public hearings? I dunno. What does it look like the requirements will shape up to be? I dunno. Will POST certification be required, or will NRA Personal Protection be sufficient? I dunno. AACFI? I dunno. NRA Basic Pistol? I dunno.
If there's something that you can share on that, feel free -- hell, I'll strongly encourage you to share it as widely as you can... on the CCRN website, the CCRN yahoo group, my livejournal, your own... whatever. The more, the better.. If you can't, that's okay, too, but see above; there's aspects to this networked activism that require information to power it.
Up to you; I won't nag you again on this.
That said, fair warning: setting up a livejournal will cost you no money, and about five minutes of time, but that's just the downpayment. It's the other stuff that'll kill you. You know how much your activism generally has eaten into the rest of your life, but this online stuff is arguably worse, because there's no limit to it. None. It will suck up precisely as much time as you'll let it, and it'll keep begging for more. In my case, I think it's more useful than other activist things I can do -- I think I'm working more effectively by spending an additional three or four hours a month journaling than I would be attending CCRN meetings with that time, for example (yes, I know that they don't last that long, but if I go to a CCRN meeting, that kills an entire evening) -- but it doesn't stop there.
You, like all of us, have to decide how to spend your time. Hell, I'm doing it right now: I've made the call that it's worth my time to give one shot at persuading you to do more online writing, and give out more information publicly. This email has taken an hour out of my life that may or may not be wasted; it's a judgment call, and I'm rolling the dice that it's worth my time. (I think it is. Even if I haven't talked you into what I hope I've talked you into, and though I won't quote your email without permission, I think I've got a good start on another essay here. File off a few parts, add in an opening and smooth it out, and I'm there, I think.)
Meanwhile, orthogonally, I'm taking the day off in part to work on a longish essay -- first draft up right now at http://www.joel-rosenberg.com; there'll be more on it shortly -- on the KARE11 hatchet job, and if I had the time (I don't) I could easily spend twenty hours a week researching and writing pieces for the journal. And if I did that, the damn thing would clamor for more. (I'm hoping to spool off some of the work onto other folks -- "Matt Payne" has recently started a livejournal, and he's a very good writer, and a smart guy, as you might remember from his work on the 2004 Birthday Party. And if it sounds like I'm trying to dump some of the work on you, you're right: it's not laziness, though -- you've been involved in conversations and discussions on these issues, at the highest level, that I've not been privy to, and you've got insight into those that I obviously don't have.)
Up to you; you can decide what's worth your time.
best,
jr
Well, there you have it. I hope that Joe will find more time to let folks know what's going on, in as much detail as he can. And if he's accused of tooting his own horn -- and he will be, if he does (I get that all of the time) -- by doing so, the accusations won't be coming from me.
Over to all of you.
