Netizens-Digest Thursday, March 6 2003 Volume 01 : Number 423 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] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:04:47 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq >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. One of the realities -- and there is nothing evil in this -- is that the most effective communications go first to the appropriate staff people, who will eventually brief the relevant officials. In my experience, not necessarily network-enabled, the better you can identify the internal specialists and become known as credible, the better you will communicate. Recognize that staffers (and indeed policymakers) do specialize. Laundry lists of all manner of complaints to the same people may not be effective. Now, don't get me wrong. It's entirely possible that a long list of contacts might be needed, but there's certainly no reason why citizens can't coordinate their efforts. With the US Congress, you are most effective in approaching someone you vote for, or someone on whose constituency you can have an effect (e.g., your third cousin owns the largest employer in his district). A practical example might be that if I wanted to get input into the Joint Committee on Intelligence. My representative is not on that committee, but it's plausible I could talk to someone on that staff and get the name of another staffer whose member is on that committee. While I now have an introduction, my next step might be to use the Internet to find another concerned citizen who is in that legislator's district. We might jointly contact the staffer. Does everyone see the amount of enabling information, both on targets and on building very focused coalitions, that electronic communications can improve? > >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. Having an online "brokerage" to put together issue coalitions, with people that have constituent or other ties to the key decisionmakers, is a good start with respect to the US legislative branch. > >Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:36:40 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements - --part1_179.17172dcd.2b985488_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regarding Howard's "A Net Alternative?": H> H>A Net Alternative? H>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D H> H>I suggest that Netizenship may re-enable the individual. It isn't as=20 H>necessary to join the broad agenda.=A0 I see Larry's concern that=20 H>different groups could go in different directions to be good rather=20 H>than bad, IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT where people join multiple=20 H>coalitions on specific issues, each coalition providing specific=20 H>policy input, rather than being caught up in the charismatic parts of=20 H>a mass protest. H> First a clarification. By the way, I harbor no particular value judgment toward what the protesting= =20 groups do as long as it is civil. I was only attempting to express that as an aid to understanding the general= =20 feeling of a people, to get the pulse so to speak, perhaps it does make sens= e=20 to note the existence of a common purpose amongst groups with radically=20 diverse interests. I was trying to understand how we might get some insight= =20 as to the general geist of the people. L> L>Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note the existence of a=20 L>specific intersection or common purpose among a wide array of=20 L>protesting groups in the case that these same groups would otherwise=20 L>pursue radically disparate causes. L> My argument is that if these protesting groups, who do not have any other=20 'interest intersection,' nonetheless have this one issue that they all agree= =20 upon then what realization do we disinter when we extrapolate to the=20 interests of the general public? =20 Is it reasonable to conclude that 'the common view' of the protesters could=20 possibly be one that is shared by the greater 'nonprotesting' public? =20 The existence of a 'common view' makes the heterogeneous protesters in=20 aggregate appear more centrist. The more centrist the protesters become, th= e=20 more the protests have some sense of real relevance to legislators. The=20 event becomes less about a group of petulant adults whining like children. H>I suggest that Netizenship may re-enable the individual. I agree that this is a start. But Netizenship requires us to see democracy=20 as an ongoing active endeavor, not a passive activity. Netizenship is part=20 of the regimen of preventative medicine. Before the problems occur, why=20 don't we exploit technology to get to know our proxy to the government. I believe that Netizenship should be attempted within the context of our=20 extant political system to effect change. We have all the tools to make=20 democracy work for us. Sometimes when you are too close to a problem you=20 cannot adequately address it. You cannot see 'the forest through the trees,= '=20 so to speak. =20 It should be understood that upon voting, we have ceded our power to our=20 local government representatives. Let us exploit our ubiquitous technology=20 to more effectively reach our local government officials. We all have acces= s=20 to the Internet and computers; you don't have to go any further than your=20 local public library. The Federal government itself provided us with all of= =20 this access and yet the public still has cause to complain. Netizens must volunteer to organize and manage the communications portal of=20 their local government officials. What do you think? Perhaps it is just as= =20 simple as getting out the email addresses of our local politicians out to=20 every constituent and asking each person to at least write a hello, even if=20 they do not have a problem. Perhaps there could be an Internet chat=20 established an hour every evening. Constituents would be encouraged to drop= =20 by. Drop by like you drop by your local butcher down the block -- Just to=20 say hello. =20 The purpose is simply to let the local official know what the interests of=20 his or her constituents are independent of what might be proffered by an=20 externally commissioned survey, whose results will naturally be biased=20 according to the source of its sponsorship. Stop hiding and identify yourself. Let your local government official know=20 who you are. Then as you are recognized and volunteer of your services, you= =20 receive the benefits and spoils, the perquisites of liege.=20 When we complain about our 'woe was me' lot we ought to ask ourselves, when=20 was the last time that we communicated with our local government official? =20 And I mean before the problem occurred. You have to get to know the guy. =20 He's got to get to know you. It's no brain surgery. It's just plain common= =20 sense. Fact is, we do not try to communicate effectively with the people that we=20 have empowered by law to speak for us. =20 With this understanding, our recent gross loss of civil liberties is all our= =20 fault. We only have ourselves to blame for the civilian Iraqi populous that dies in= =20 the ensuing war. Let's take some personal responsibility for our present state and make=20 change. Let us revise our comportment and take back our civil liberties by=20 following some of the steps that I have articulated above. Get to know your= =20 local official. Volunteer your Netizen services to the local government=20 portal. It is not too late to reform. I hope this has been constructive. I am goin= g=20 to follow this advice myself. Larry - --part1_179.17172dcd.2b985488_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regarding Howard's "A Net Alternative?":

H>
H>A Net Alternative?
H>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
H>
H>I suggest that Netizenship may re-enable the individual. It isn't as H>necessary to join the broad agenda.=A0 I see Larry's concern that
H>different groups could go in different directions to be good rather H>than bad, IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT where people join multiple
H>coalitions on specific issues, each coalition providing specific
H>policy input, rather than being caught up in the charismatic parts of <= BR> H>a mass protest.
H>

First a clarification.

By the way, I harbor no particular value judgment toward what the protesting= groups do as long as it is civil.

I was only attempting to express that as an aid to understanding the general= feeling of a people, to get the pulse so to speak, perhaps it does make sen= se to note the existence of a common purpose amongst groups with radically d= iverse interests.  I was trying to understand how we might get some ins= ight as to the general geist of the people.

L>
L>Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note the existence of a
L>specific intersection or common purpose among a wide array of
L>protesting groups in the case that these same groups would otherwise L>pursue radically disparate causes.
L>

My argument is that if these protesting groups, who do not have any other 'i= nterest intersection,' nonetheless have this one issue that they all agree u= pon then what realization do we disinter when we extrapolate to the interest= s of the general public? 

Is it reasonable to conclude that 'the common view' of the protesters could=20= possibly be one that is shared by the greater 'nonprotesting' public? =20=

The existence of a 'common view' makes the heterogeneous protesters in aggre= gate appear more centrist.  The more centrist the protesters become, th= e more the protests have some sense of real relevance to legislators. =20= The event becomes less about a group of petulant adults whining like childre= n.

H>I suggest that Netizenship may re-enable the individual.

I agree that this is a start.  But Netizenship requires us to see democ= racy as an ongoing active endeavor, not a passive activity.  Netizenshi= p is part of the regimen of preventative medicine.  Before the problems= occur, why don't we exploit technology to get to know our proxy to the gove= rnment.

I believe that Netizenship should be attempted within the context of our ext= ant political system to effect change.  We have all the tools to make d= emocracy work for us.  Sometimes when you are too close to a problem yo= u cannot adequately address it.  You cannot see 'the forest through the= trees,' so to speak. 

It should be understood that upon voting, we have ceded our power to our loc= al government representatives.  Let us exploit our ubiquitous technolog= y to more effectively reach our local government officials.  We all hav= e access to the Internet and computers; you don't have to go any further tha= n your local public library.  The Federal government itself provided us= with all of this access and yet the public still has cause to complain.

Netizens must volunteer to organize and manage the communications portal of=20= their local government officials.  What do you think?  Perhaps it=20= is just as simple as getting out the email addresses of our local politician= s out to every constituent and asking each person to at least write a hello,= even if they do not have a problem.  Perhaps there could be an Interne= t chat established an hour every evening.  Constituents would be encour= aged to drop by.  Drop by like you drop by your local butcher down the=20= block -- Just to say hello. 

The purpose is simply to let the local official know what the interests of h= is or her constituents are independent of what might be proffered by an exte= rnally commissioned survey, whose results will naturally be biased according= to the source of its sponsorship.

Stop hiding and identify yourself.  Let your local government official=20= know who you are.  Then as you are recognized and volunteer of your ser= vices, you receive the benefits and spoils, the perquisites of liege.

When we complain about our 'woe was me' lot we ought to ask ourselves, when=20= was the last time that we communicated with our local government official?&n= bsp; And I mean before the problem occurred.  You have to get to know t= he guy.  He's got to get to know you.  It's no brain surgery. = ; It's just plain common sense.

Fact is, we do not try to communicate effectively with the people that we ha= ve empowered by law to speak for us. 

With this understanding, our recent gross loss of civil liberties is all our= fault.

We only have ourselves to blame for the civilian Iraqi populous that dies in= the ensuing war.

Let's take some personal responsibility for our present state and make chang= e.  Let us revise our comportment and take back our civil liberties by=20= following some of the steps that I have articulated above.  Get to know= your local official.  Volunteer your Netizen services to the local gov= ernment portal.

It is not too late to reform.  I hope this has been constructive. = I am going to follow this advice myself.

Larry

 - --part1_179.17172dcd.2b985488_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 03:33:34 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq - --part1_1a0.11a4ea64.2b9861de_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/03 11:07:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > Having an online "brokerage" to put together issue coalitions, with > people that have constituent or other ties to the key decisionmakers, > is a good start with respect to the US legislative branch. > This is interesting. Now we are talking about solutions. By 'people' you are referring to the identification of what might be practically called Lobbyists for the constituents so to speak? The only problem with this issue is that it perpetuates and encourages the discontinuity of communication between the people and their elected governmental agents. Why? Because people will think they can consult a database and find the appropriate efficacious agent at the last minute. Look. You cannot miss class all semester and expect an A. Still, only until time of peril will the people seek help. And then it is too late. The idea is for the populous to intercept the problems as they occur by staying in tune with what their local representatives are voting for on a daily basis. I believe that the Netizen must find a way to encourage the populous to develop a personal relationship with their local representatives. People have to be informed daily as to what is being voted on and get involved. Democracy is not a passive affair. The responsibility of the public does not end at the voting booth. You have to develop a relationship with people to expect to get something from them. This is just plain common sense. You cannot expect to do nothing for your representative and then all of a sudden expect him or her to respond positively to your efforts when the lobbyists of special interests before you who DO demonstrate appreciation of his power have held his ear as captive audience. What value can the citizen place as an offer on the table to establish an entree to their agent to the government? This is the question. You have to give something to get something. I reiterate that this is common sense. The role of the Netizen here might be to help facilitate the necessary communication at at least the local government level between the regional representatives and constituency. Once an entree has been established it must be managed and nurtured to be effective. The quality of the entree is dependent on communication; the information dissemination must be open in both directions. This is not going to be easy but Liberty is not exactly free. Speak to the lobbyists if you don't agree. You are going to have to fight for it. Larry - --part1_1a0.11a4ea64.2b9861de_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/5/03 11:07:33 PM Eastern Standard= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Having an online "brokerage" to= put together issue coalitions, with
people that have constituent or other ties to the key decisionmakers,
is a good start with respect to the US legislative branch.


This is interesting.  Now we are talking about solutions.  By 'peo= ple' you are referring to the identification of what might be practically= called Lobbyists for the constituents so to speak?

The only problem with this issue is that it perpetuates and encourages the d= iscontinuity of communication between the people and their elected governmen= tal agents.  Why?  Because people will think they can consult a da= tabase and find the appropriate efficacious agent at the last minute. =20= Look.  You cannot miss class all semester and expect an A.  Still,= only until time of peril will the people seek help.  And then it is to= o late.  The idea is for the populous to intercept the problems as they= occur by staying in tune with what their local representatives are voting f= or on a daily basis. 

I believe that the Netizen must find a way to encourage the populous to deve= lop a personal relationship with their local representatives.  People h= ave to be informed daily as to what is being voted on and get involved. = ;

Democracy is not a passive affair.  The responsibility of the public do= es not end at the voting booth.  You have to develop a relationship wit= h people to expect to get something from them.  This is just plain comm= on sense. 

You cannot expect to do nothing for your representative and then all of a su= dden expect him or her to respond positively to your efforts when the lobbyi= sts of special interests before you who DO demonstrate appreciation of his p= ower have held his ear as captive audience. 

What value can the citizen place as an offer on the table to establish an en= tree to their agent to the government?  This is the question.  You= have to give something to get something.  I reiterate that this is com= mon sense. 

The role of the Netizen here might be to help facilitate the necessary commu= nication at at least the local government level between the regional represe= ntatives and constituency.  Once an entree has been established it must= be managed and nurtured to be effective.  The quality of the entree is= dependent on communication; the information dissemination must be open in b= oth directions.  This is not going to be easy but Liberty is not exactl= y free.  Speak to the lobbyists if you don't agree. 

You are going to have to fight for it.

Larry - --part1_1a0.11a4ea64.2b9861de_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #423 ******************************