Netizens-Digest Wednesday, March 5 2003 Volume 01 : Number 422 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policyon Iraq Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policyon Iraq [netz] Economic and content freedoms of net speech Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:51:45 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >I thought readers of the netizens list would find this article of > >interest. I realize there may be some thoughts it is not on topic > >for the Netizens list, but I propose that it is worth people knowing > >about considering the seriousness for the vision of netizens of > >not finding a way to intervene toward access for all rather than > >war. > > It's your list, Ronda. It isn't my list. Michael was originally the owner of the list and Jay took over to do the administrative work for the list. It is a list I care about though I don't get to post as often as I would want to to it. What is happening with the U.S. government and a war in Iraq is somehow critical to netizens around the world, whatever their views on the war. I feel it is important to see if the Internet can make it possible for people to have more control in their lives over their lives and their society. This translates for me into whether it is possible to have more control over the decisions made by governments, more control for the people of a country or region etc. That so many people around the world have gone out to demonstrate in a coordinated way, encouraged by the communication capability made possible via the Internet is something remarkable. What is needed for people to be able to affect what their governments do? I heard on a news program yesterday (Democracy Now) that the Turkish people saw cartoons on the Internet of their government officials portrayed as belly dancers with money being given to them and that helped people to challenge the issue when it came to Parliament for the vote. Turkish people oppose the war in great numbers and have lived in peace with the people in Iraq for years. That the Turkish people were able to get their Parliament to defeat the support for the agreement to let the U.S. government use their country as a staging ground for war against Iraq is an important event. Many people in other countries around the world are having trouble getting their governments to listen to them. > > I suggest that other people who consider themselves Netizens and have > records of Net participation might equally well believe that war is > very appropriate in this case. For the record, I am somewhat on the > middle on the war issue -- neither anti- nor pro-war. Well they may, but the issue is that people in massive numbers are protesting the war around the world. That is an important statement of opposition and it would be appreciated if governments paid attention to this opposition. In the U.S. the constitution provides that there is to be debate in the U.S. Congress about war, not that it is a decision of the President. In the U.S. even this obligation is ignored by the Congress. The debate and decussion needs to happen. It is from this debate and discussion that the issues get clarified. War is too serious an activity to be in the hands of a small group of officials in any country, let alone in a country which has such a substantial arsenal of weapons as the U.S. does. So the ability of people to communicate and discuss is critical in such a situation, and the U.S. government could be supporting such discussion and debate as there are now the means via the Internet to have such discussion. Instead the U.S. Congress abrogated its constitutional obligation. > > But the long lessons of history teach that there sometimes is no > alternative to war. And, until the shooting starts, bluffs and shows > of force are part of less-than-war international conduct, as > evidenced in the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. There was very > little bloodshed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but a massive show of > force converted the confrontation to something soluble through > diplomacy. My hope for now and the future is that the new means of communication will make it possible to have alternatives to war. There are now "weapons of mass destruction" which can destroy life on this planet. It is more dangerous than ever to have war. There are also means to support the communication across the boundaries of different societies and different interests, such as the Internet. So there is a contest. > > Netizenship != opposed to war. I don't disagree. But I do feel this threatened war against Iraq is a critical test for the Internet and for netizens. When I was at the demonstration in NYC on Feb. 15 I heard people say they had gotten email from demonstrators in Italy and other countries that morning before they came to the NYC demonstration. That the email from the demonstrators in other countries were encourging. People I asked about what they would want to say to people in Germany, as I was going to write an article about the demonstration for a German publication, said they wanted to thank Germany for opposing the war. This sentiment didn't appear in the US media as far as I know. Instead the US media was making fun of other countries that opposed war. The discussion over this issue is so important. And the US media has failed so in supporting the discussion. There was recently an article online looking at the Washington Post articles about the war. The authors said that they would call the Washington Post the mouthpiece of the U.S. Defense Department, however, there is more controversy in the Pentagon about the appropriateness of a war than there are in the pages of the Washington Post. Somehow this is a sign of the degeneracy of the offline media in the U.S. as it fails to encourage the public discussion that is needed, and which would be helpful for government officials to hear so they could consider what is desirable with regard to war in Iraq. The Internet and netizens help to support this discussion. This is very important in important issues like making war against a country. > > > > >Also it is interesting that online helps this to be available > >to people online who are interested in this issue. > > > >The Thirty Year Itch > >by Robert Dreyfuss > > > > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html > > > > > >It puts the current U.S. plans to start a war against Iraq in a > >larger context of geopolitical designs. > > More precisely, it states an interpretation of US plans and intent, > which may or may not be accurate. > Yes, but it provides a basis for discussion of the broad, underlying policy objectives that are at stake in this matter. There is a need for discussion on such a level and I hadn't seen it being proposed previously. There needs to be a public understanding of what is at stake for the different interests. The superficial discussion being promoted by the U.S. media doesn't help. They discourage the more serious discussion of the underlying issues. We very much need such discussion and to know how to support and encourage such discussion. I felt the article was a basis to begin such discussion. I am not proposing such discussion for the Netizens list, though if there are others who feel it would be good to have such discussion, we should figure out where and how online this would be possible. But I am proposing that the netizens list look for and encourage such discussion. Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:54:46 -0500 From: Philip Busey Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policyon Iraq It is a very informative article and it gives a longer term perspective on energy and the prospects of global domination by the U.S. Those in the U.S. who support global domination as part of their national interest may use the Mother Jones article as a rationale for initiating war in the Middle East (there is little chance, in my opinion that it will remain confined to Iraq), unilateral or otherwise. Those in the U.S. who consider such a goal as against the U.S. national interest, or likely to fail, may use the article as justification against the war. People of nations other than the U.S. may use this article in various ways depending on their alliances and moral beliefs. My understanding that the goals of this list are, "as a forum to bring people together to protect and advance the Net as a new public commons and global community." This statement does not indicate whether it envisions a future world in which there is a global national community, e.g., one-world government, or an expansion in the size and influence of a number of "public commons," in which there might be a "trade common," a "net common," multinational political parties, an "artistic commons," all of which exist and are growing. So whether or not one supports the idea of a one-world government, whether created militarily as a U.S. hegemony or by consensus of nations through the U.N. or some other force, the netizen community is certainly a layer of emerging global integration. The multinationalist idealists have long felt that global integration, by whatever peaceful means, is a step towards more peace and prosperity. Contrary voices have raised the concern over multinational corporations evading laws and moral codes and individual citizen participation. In any case, tyrannical regimes generally discourage free speech, discourage netizenship, and discourage meaningful civic involvement. I think that netizenship is basically a good thing because it can assist in a process of careful global integration, by supporting the sharing of goals and concerns on whether this is a good thing, by serving as an antidote to the lies and disinformation by tyrannical regimes, and by supporting participation by individual citizens in their planet Earth. While we may agree or disagree on the need for (near) unilateral military action by the U.S., such a war could cause an enormous effect on the alignment of international borders, the growth of national unity movements among and within individual countries, the survival of alliances such as NATO and the United Nations, and the list goes on. So I think in the context of potentially massive changes from a war started by the U.S. against Iraq with the newfound goal to democratize the Middle East, it's hard not to some connections with the public commons, the global community, and netizenship. Phil Philip Busey veld@veld.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:26:49 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policyon Iraq >It is a very informative article and it gives a longer term perspective >on energy and the prospects of global domination by the U.S. Those in >the U.S. who support global domination as part of their national >interest may use the Mother Jones article as a rationale for initiating >war in the Middle East (there is little chance, in my opinion that it >will remain confined to Iraq), unilateral or otherwise. Those in the >U.S. who consider such a goal as against the U.S. national interest, or >likely to fail, may use the article as justification against the war. >People of nations other than the U.S. may use this article in various >ways depending on their alliances and moral beliefs. > >My understanding that the goals of this list are, "as a forum to bring >people together to protect and advance the Net as a new public commons >and global community." This statement does not indicate whether it >envisions a future world in which there is a global national community, >e.g., one-world government, or an expansion in the size and influence of >a number of "public commons," in which there might be a "trade common," >a "net common," multinational political parties, an "artistic commons," >all of which exist and are growing. Fine. And there are crucial technical and policy issues in allowing the Internet to do that. I joined the list to discuss those, but I find that specific issue discussion seems more popular. > >So whether or not one supports the idea of a one-world government, >whether created militarily as a U.S. hegemony or by consensus of nations >through the U.N. or some other force, the netizen community is certainly >a layer of emerging global integration. The multinationalist idealists >have long felt that global integration, by whatever peaceful means, is a >step towards more peace and prosperity. Contrary voices have raised the >concern over multinational corporations evading laws and moral codes and >individual citizen participation. In any case, tyrannical regimes >generally discourage free speech, discourage netizenship, and discourage >meaningful civic involvement. > >I think that netizenship is basically a good thing because it can assist >in a process of careful global integration, by supporting the sharing of >goals and concerns on whether this is a good thing, by serving as an >antidote to the lies and disinformation by tyrannical regimes, and by >supporting participation by individual citizens in their planet Earth. >While we may agree or disagree on the need for (near) unilateral >military action by the U.S., such a war could cause an enormous effect >on the alignment of international borders, the growth of national unity >movements among and within individual countries, the survival of >alliances such as NATO and the United Nations, and the list goes on. So >I think in the context of potentially massive changes from a war started >by the U.S. against Iraq with the newfound goal to democratize the >Middle East, it's hard not to some connections with the public commons, >the global community, and netizenship. I don't dispute that such connections may exist -- but is this the place for them? Are they a distraction from a discussion of infrastructure and technical realities, and their interactions with participation? Unfortunately, it's far easier to generalize about political cause than it is to deal with these very specific interactions of technology and policy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:42:06 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Economic and content freedoms of net speech Recent US litigation involves the assertion that restrictions on telephone telemarketing are unconstitutional interference with corporate free speech. Other free-speech arguments are made in support of the right to send unsolicited email in support of an ideological or commercial objective. Net access, we are agreed, is desirable. An enabler of that goal is making access affordable, with the implication that unplanned and unfunded costs are not unreasonably imposed. Electronic speech differs from traditional speech in paper documents (including mail), demonstrations, etc., in that the recipient can choose to listen or not, and certainly is not forced to incur costs in listening to unsolicited speech. Jurisdictions vary as to the extent to which speech can be imposed on an unwilling recipient that incurs no costs (e.g., has to listen to a loudspeaker truck driving in the street). "Junk mail" imposes small costs of destruction, but only in extreme cases will represent a significant impact. Telephone marketing, however, can tie up the resources of a telephone paid for by the recipient, and also makes real-time demands on the recipient's time in a manner that postal mail does not. Many jurisdictions have recognized that the reception of facsimile has real recipient costs of paper, toner, wear on equipment and possibly line time. Line time is apt to be more significant if the recipient uses wireless connectivity. As a consequence, unsolicited fax advertising has been banned. One of the factors in interfering with fax communications is the recognition of asymmetry in cost. The cost per originated page is significantly less than the cost of a received page. The disparity between cost of sending and cost of receipt becomes even more dramatic with respect to unsolicited email (spam). Many commercial spam generators deliberately hide the originator. Is this legitimate as a protection of corporate privacy? The extreme problem, which is quite common, is that the spam software exploits intermediate network resources to amplify the volume of spam sent, arguably a theft of resources not intended to support spamming. When the recipient has a disk storage quota, large volumes of spam can deny the use of storage for invited mail. The aggregate disk volumes of spam to massive numbers of recipients also imposes significant storage and processing cost to service providers. What limits, if any, are appropriate and desirable on unsolicited electronic communication? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:43:39 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq - --part1_1cf.4674ace.2b97f3bb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/03 11:48:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes: Regarding "Thirty Year Itch" article: > Also it is interesting that online helps this to be available > to people online who are interested in this issue. > I totally agree Ronda. Larry - --part1_1cf.4674ace.2b97f3bb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/4/03 11:48:12 AM Eastern Standard= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

Regarding "Thirty Year Itch" article:

Also it is interesting that onl= ine helps this to be available
to people online who are interested in this issue.


I totally agree Ronda.

Larry - --part1_1cf.4674ace.2b97f3bb_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:55:46 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq - --part1_102.28348b9d.2b9812b2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/03 8:54:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > I am not proposing such discussion for the Netizens list, > though if there are others who feel it would be good to > have such discussion, we should figure out where and how > online this would be possible. > In my opinion, this discussion of Politics, wherever it is to occur, is meaningful only when you consider it within the context of Netizen constructive 'proactivity.' To clarify, 'What are Netizens going to do about present day issues i.e. fair political representation and civil liberties?' It would be interesting to see some solutions. We must, of course, first clearly define the problems. Here is a general statement of a 'problem' to start: If anything has been clearly demonstrated over the past few months, it has been that there is a lack of 'quality' communication between legislators and their constituencies, at least in the US. I argue that if there had been better communication between elected officials and 'the people,' there would have been no need for protests to begin with. Let us begin to talk about what steps that Netizens can take to make change as opposed to acting like victims. Analysis or discussion for any other purpose than to plan proactive strategy is really not going to help anyone. Let's talk about solutions. Many of us in this thread live in America. Here, we vote for people at various levels of government who represent us. To these people, called politicians, we have ceded our power. They make the laws. It seems to me that change begins there -- at the door of our local government officials. How can Netizens exploit the Internet to facilitate communication between government officials and their constituencies? In my opinion both sides, the government and the citizenry, are responsible for the current state of affairs. Let us try to understand where the injury began and meaningfully pursue an artful employment of suture to close the wound. What do you think? Would you like to inform, to complain, and to construct? Participants here are doing a truly laudable job of the first two, but the last choice is being sadly neglected. Larry - --part1_102.28348b9d.2b9812b2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/5/03 8:54:40 AM Eastern Standard=20= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

I am not proposing such discuss= ion for the Netizens list,
though if there are others who feel it would be good to
have such discussion, we should figure out where and how
online this would be possible.


In my opinion, this discussion of Politics, wherever it is to occur, is mean= ingful only when you consider it within the context of Netizen constructive=20= 'proactivity.'

To clarify, 'What are Netizens going to do about present day issues i= .e. fair political representation and civil liberties?'  It would be in= teresting to see some solutions.  We must, of course, first clearly def= ine the problems.  Here is a general statement of a 'problem' to start:=   If anything has been clearly demonstrated over the past few months, i= t has been that there is a lack of 'quality' communication between legislato= rs and their constituencies, at least in the US.  I argue that if there= had been better communication between elected officials and 'the people,' t= here would have been no need for protests to begin with. 

Let us begin to talk about what steps that Netizens can take to make change=20= as opposed to acting like victims.  Analysis or discussion for any othe= r purpose than to plan proactive strategy is really not going to help anyone= .  Let's talk about solutions. 

Many of us in this thread live in America.  Here, we vote for people at= various levels of government who represent us.  To these people, calle= d politicians, we have ceded our power.  They make the laws.  It s= eems to me that change begins there -- at the door of our local government o= fficials.

How can Netizens exploit the Internet to facilitate communication between go= vernment officials and their constituencies? 

In my opinion both sides, the government and the citizenry, are responsible=20= for the current state of affairs.  Let us try to understand where the i= njury began and meaningfully pursue an artful employment of suture to= close the wound.

What do you think? 

Would you like to inform, to complain, and to construct?  Partic= ipants here are doing a truly laudable job of the first two, but the last ch= oice is being sadly neglected.

Larry - --part1_102.28348b9d.2b9812b2_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #422 ******************************