Netizens-Digest         Friday, March 7 2003         Volume 01 : Number 424

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: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:32:56 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq

>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?

More or less...another way of putting it might be to distribute the 
techniques of lobbying to a much wider base of participants.  One of 
the nice things about lobbying, especially with tools to empower, is 
that it is highly scalable.  Since lobby communication, to be 
effective, is carefully targeted, it's not overloading recipients 
that don't care about the subject. Rather, it's been my experience 
that even targets quite opposed to your position still appreciate 
receiving well-crafted analyses.  They may use it, THIS TIME, to draw 
up rebuttals...

>
>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 think we are in violent agreement. As I trailed off on my previous 
paragraph, I've also observed that people in office remember 
well-reasoned opposition. While it's certainly not universal, you can 
build credibility with information that doesn't help on a specific 
issue.  The next time, or the time after that, the policy staffer may 
remember that you've been coherent on the last couple of issues, and 
read much more carefully what you've written each time. The closer 
your desired goals get to theirs, the chances of favorable action 
increase when you try to influence each successive issue.

That the issues are not necessarily related isn't a problem, as long 
as you develop a reputation of making sense. I have, for example 
started out with communicating with my representative on some 
more-or-less-local issues of Federal taxation. I've then 
communicated, as a recognized expert [1], in communications policy. 
Now, if I were to communicate on military policy, I believe my 
arguments would be less likely to receive a form-letter response.

[Note 1] Creative database use can reveal that your locality may just 
happen to contain a recognized expert, who is willing to have their 
name and/or expertise used for a specific, not broad-front, position.

>
>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. 

Incidentally, that doesn't mean that each person has to do everything 
themselves.  In the US, there are some reasonably respected 
nonpartisan organizations involved in the process. Presidential 
debates started under the auspices of the League of Women Voters, a 
reasonably respected organization.  Perhaps we should be looking for 
nonpartisan people like that to form "independent" and focused news 
organizations.  I'd read, for example, a daily or weekly newsletter 
from my representative with some independent interpretation.

The reality is that my elected officials, at regional to state level, 
do put out newsletters at roughly quarterly issues, but using postal 
mail.  Whether or not they have the resources to create effective 
electronic communications is open to discussion, but they might be 
amenable to working with a -- dare I say collective -- organization 
that has objectivity as its core rule?

>
>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. 

I posted some recent experience, on a more or less neighborhood 
level, where the reaction of several members -- who happened to be 
hard-working at the very local level, like voluntarism in getting 
yards clean -- to withdraw from the local mailing list, because they 
felt "invaded" by a county-level gadfly's post.  Their withdrawal is 
maladaptive for the process.

I seem to be coming to the final days of resolving a personal crisis 
- -- do not get me started on terrible communications in the 
financial/real estate area. There's another, more economically 
focused discussion there for another time, on how we often are mired 
in 19th century procedures because industries have built up around 
that, industries that are financially threatened by change.

Anyway, I mention this because I had some private email with another 
local resident on fixing our neighborhood mailing system so only 
local people could post (but anyone could read).  Unfortunately, she 
didn't respond to my suggestions, and I haven't had time to follow 
up. I will in about 2 weeks.

>
>You are going to have to fight for it.
>
>Larry

Exactly.  I'm glad you posted this, because it is an excellent start 
to looking at solutions. I'd love to see this list coming up with 
guidance, in a style that is inclusive rather than exclusived. "An 
Activist's Guide to the Net," for example, is not inclusive, because 
a large part of the population doesn't think of itself as "activist." 
Coming closer is Robert Heinlein's essay, "Take Back you Government," 
discussing, in a pre-Net context, how citizens can better participate 
and be heard.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:49:16 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements

>Regarding Howard's "A Net Alternative?":
>
>H>
>H>A Net Alternative?
>H>==================
>H>
>H>I suggest that Netizenship may re-enable the individual. It isn't as
>H>necessary to join the broad agenda.  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
>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.

And I really don't either, in most cases. What I do object to is, 
say, joining people opposed to one action, and being assumed I 
support a different one. I definitely could support focused action on 
third world debt relief, without immediately leaping to a position 
that economic globalization is necessarily bad.

>
>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 sense to note the existence of a common purpose amongst 
>groups with radically diverse interests.  I was trying to understand 
>how we might get some insight as to the general geist of the people.

Again, useful point -- but let's not get caught in being so 
least-common-denominator inclusive such that the signal-to-noise 
ratio with respect to specific issues doesn't become so high as not 
to have specific recommendations come back to the decisionmakers du 
jour.

It's been suggested that it's useful for people to let insiders know 
they are disaffected and upset, and there are social values to doing 
that. But if the feedback to insiders is no more than broad-brush, it 
doesn't facilitate action.

At open meetings, I don't care what position someone espouses -- as 
long as they don't interfere with the presentation of those that have 
other views. Perhaps it's not been of the highest ethical level, but 
I must confess to occasions where I .....OOOPS..>...managed to get my 
foot into the way of screaming, disruptive people both from the 
American Nazi and Socialist Workers' parties.  I have no regrets, 
because the discussion returned to being open.

>
>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 'interest intersection,' nonetheless have this one issue that 
>they all agree upon then what realization do we disinter when we 
>extrapolate to the interests of the general public? 
>
>Is it reasonable to conclude that 'the common view' of the 
>protesters could possibly be one that is shared by the greater 
>'nonprotesting' public? 
>
>The existence of a 'common view' makes the heterogeneous protesters 
>in aggregate appear more centrist.  The more centrist the protesters 
>become, the more the protests have some sense of real relevance to 
>legislators.  The 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 as an ongoing active endeavor, not a passive activity. 
>Netizenship 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 government.


Absolute agreement. Netizenship is the antithesis of passive 
activities, or of activities triggering only in hot blood.

>
>I believe that Netizenship should be attempted within the context of 
>our extant political system to effect change.  We have all the tools 
>to make democracy work for us.  Sometimes when you are too close to 
>a problem you 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 local government representatives.  Let us exploit our ubiquitous 
>technology to more effectively reach our local government officials. 
>We all have access to the Internet and computers; you don't have to 
>go any further than 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 their local government officials.  What do you think? 
>Perhaps it is just as simple as getting out the email addresses of 
>our local politicians 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 Internet chat established an 
>hour every evening.  Constituents would be encouraged to drop by. 
>Drop by like you drop by your local butcher down the block -- Just 
>to say hello. 

Again, total agreement. I have a pending application to be named to 
the Arlington County Advisory Commission on Cable Television and 
Information Technology. As are many pending appointments, things have 
been delayed because a hard-working Board chairman literally died 
while presiding, of a sudden and apparently merciful stroke.  While 
the pronouncement of death was in the emergency room, there was 
obvious total loss of his higher brain after he moaned slightly and 
collapsed. A very honorable way for a public servant to meet his end.

The Commission itself may or may not be itself be able to create a 
political forum, but we are in a position to support nonpartisan 
groups doing so.

>
>The purpose is simply to let the local official know what the 
>interests of his or her constituents are independent of what might 
>be proffered by an externally 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 know who you are.  Then as you are recognized and volunteer 
>of your services, 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 was the last time that we communicated with our 
>local government official?  And I mean before the problem occurred. 
>You have to get to know the 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 have 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 change.  Let us revise our comportment and take back our civil 
>liberties by following some of the steps that I have articulated 
>above.  Get to know your local official.  Volunteer your Netizen 
>services to the local government portal.
>
>It is not too late to reform.  I hope this has been constructive.  I 
>am going to follow this advice myself.
>
>Larry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:46:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:

> 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

You might find it useful to look at the online version of Netizens
(http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/)

Some of Michael's insight was that representation was needed when there
weren't the online means of communication. But that now there are
means of communicating that make the old system of representation
outmoded.

It would be useful to explore this.

> 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.

That seems to assume that the legislators would respond to better
communication. When I gave a talk in Finland at an EU sponsored
conference on how citizens can have more of a part in the decision
making of government, Finishish researchers reported how all their
efforts at communication were stymed. One government official
explained that representatives feel that after they are elected
they can decide whatever they want. They can respond to whatever
interests they want. They are not obligated in any way to
respond to their constituents desires.

And in the circumstances where there are those who have money and
power, the legislators seem to have lots of pressure on them.

Under such a situation it doesn't seem to me that communication
with legislators is enough.

Before the Congress gave up its constitutional obligation to
hold onto the fact that has the obligation to debate any plan
of the US government to wage war, and the power resides with
Congress, many called or communicated with their legislators
asking them not to vote away their constitional obligation.

The legislators voted it away anyway.

>
> 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.

I agree that it is ok to discuss what people can do, but don't agree
that discussion or analysis in itself is useless. Actually discussion
or analysis is critical to be able to decided what to do. Otherwise
one doesn't know who are allies or foes, or even what the fight is
over.


>
> 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.

Actually in the US a very small percentage of the population votes.

That is because of a number of reason, but a main one is that the
two parties more and more act as the same party. In a one party
state there is no reason to vote. A vote does no good.

Also in the past election it was clear that the results were not
determined by anyone's vote.


We didn't cede power.

That is what we inherited.

What we do about it is indeed an important question.

This is an issue for citizens in the US or other countries where they
don't have the ability to affect decisions of government.

When I was at the EU conference in December 1999, just after the
Seattle protests, it was clear that in many countries around the
world the people do not have the ability to affect their government
based on how they vote.

What then can be done? This is an important question.

Some of what I have found is that with communication and collaboration
between netizens from different countries it is possible for each of
us to have more clout in dealing with our respective governments.

Also by understanding the situation and views of people around the
world (and around one's country) one is in a stronger position to
understand what activities are possible.

So discussion and communication among netizens is important. Not only
among citizens and their government officials.

>
> How can Netizens exploit the Internet to facilitate communication between
> government officials and their constituencies?

This is a helpful question to pose.

>
> 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.
>

I don't agree that the responsibility is totally the same on both sides.

Government is obligated to act according to the constitution setting it
up.

Citizens have to find a way to enforce that, but the government officials
who take up to act outside of their constraints also make it difficult
for citizens to act.

> What do you think?

It is worth discussing this.
>
> 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.
>

Informing and analyzing is necessary, and it didn't seem that
constructing was neglected, as the world wide demonstrations saying
something constructive.

The people demonstrating on Febuary 15 were in support of the international
law principle that it is illegal to declare war against another government
or country if there has not been an  attack by that other country on your
country.

The reasons that the US government gives for waging war against Iraq
are reasons contrary to international law.

There is no right under international law to go into another country
to wage war if there is no attack on your country.

The UN was formed to prevent such attacks. It can only harm the
UN to allow the US to act in a way contrary to international law.

There is no basis in international law for one country to decide what
is in its security interests and then to attack another on that basis.

This is contrary to international law.

And the US constitution requires that the US government act according
to the treaties it signs.

But the US press doesn't take up to raise any of these issues.

It seems there is a need for a press that does its work, not a press
of those who are egging on the government to ignore international and
constitutional law.

So it is helpful to say communicate with representatives. But also
unless there is a press watching what government does, and overseeing
it, government ends up corrupt. Michael wrote a chapter of Netizens
about this.

So the ability of the Internet to make a better press available to
people and to make it possible for people to discuss the issues
of the day is important.

> Larry
>
I wondered if anyone on the netizens list knows of Usenet newsgroups,
mailing lists, web sites, etc where valuable discussion is ongoing about
the issues in the US trying to wage war on Iraq.

Ronda

------------------------------

End of Netizens-Digest V1 #424
******************************