Netizens-Digest Sunday, March 16 2003 Volume 01 : Number 433 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Democracy and Persuasive Metric Design [netz] Forwarded mail.... [netz] "Like Online Dating, with a Political Spin" - NYT article Re: [netz] Forwarded mail.... [netz] What is the netizen attitude toward war against Iraq & democracy at home? Re: [netz] What is the netizen attitude toward war against Iraq & democracy at home? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:11:20 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Democracy and Persuasive Metric Design >In a message dated 3/11/03 12:19:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, >hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > >>L>I agree that, for example, Logistics is going to be a problem >>L>because I cannot envision any way that one can impose an >>L>architecture of communication uniformly and be equally efficacious >>L>in all constituent communities at any particular resolution were we >>L>able to design a metric and a canonical representation, just >>L>speaking 'offhand,' so that we could impose a method 'oranges to >>L>oranges.' >> >>H>Avoid the apples. Didn't work well as a decisionmaking technique in >>H>the Garden of Eden. :-) >> > > >I got a chuckle out of that. > >L>Case resolution, considered across 'oranges,' will be complicated by >L>issues like: >L> >L>i. Some elected representatives are more experienced and adept at >L>piping needs to appropriate committees and generally getting things >L>done and bartering 'support for support' at the legislative level >L>than others. Compromise and general politicking (between >L>politicians) takes talent and charisma always helps. Moreover this >L>disparity of talent will occur at varying levels of representation >L>from city government to state to federal. > >H>This also leads to scenarios where some elected representatives could >H>be extremely adept in working with alternative systems. Such people >H>could either become a new generation of responsive representative, >H>but there's also a danger they could co-opt the process. > >Is that a good or a bad thing? I'll answer indirectly and anecdotally, drawing from an exchange on another list. I might be against a specific war, but I am opposed to general disarmament. I generally support controlled fourth-world debt relief, but I don't automatically say multinational corporations are evil. Had I joined in recent in-person demonstrations in my local area (DC is a great place to find demonstrations), I would have been uncomfortable in the appearance of lending support to causes I oppose while demonstrating for causes I do support. > >L>ii. Consider, from the people side, that at each level of >L>'constituent resolution' you probably have to have a separate >L>'constituent lobbyist' on retainer -- that expert that knows not >L>only the topic, but has the utilitarian skill to traverse the >L>channels local to him to get the position seriously considered above >L>the fray. >L> >L>This series of 'constituent lobbyists' must be networked to be able >L>to communicate with agility across the 'constituent resolution' >L>levels from low to high to coordinate 'issue resolution.' > >H>I'm not visualizing what you have in mind as the "graph" of levels. >H>Are you thinking of experts at providing data and eliciting opinion >H>at various level of representation ("political/polemic/constituent >H>process consultants"), at different levels of specialized knowledge >H>("subject matter experts"), ad hoc teams of the two, or what? > >Please forgive me. By levels, I mean to refer to a particular >sequence K' of constituency sets meaningfully constructed in such a >way that each level is a proper subset of the next element of the >sequence such that C( i ) < C( j ) when i < j. C( x ), identified >with K', is a set, not a function; x is an index. Forgive me, there >is no mathematica here. This hastily made construction is meant to >provide a means of illustrating the architecture upon which we can >consider the trajectory of issue resolution from local government to >federal government. Each level or set C of a unique K' has >associated with it an elected official. C is the maximal set of >constituents that that official represents. That does help clarify for me. Frightening, isn't it? > >What I meant to say is that at each level there probably will have >to be a distinct expert (constituency lobbyist) on retainer to be a >liason to that elected official's office. Why? Because we are >dealing with people here, not machines. From my experience in life, >not everybody listens to reason and often it is not because your >reasoning is false but because of silly things like the recipient >does not like you (even when you are proven effective). Anyways, >the local expert at a particular level has to know how to massage >the right people in the office to get things done. Few people have >the talent to effectively blandish everyone they meet and definitely >not 'eggheads.' Like it or not, this describes many of the skills of the old-style political machine bosses, especially at the local level. > >H>One of the challenges -- or maybe it isn't!! -- is whether we are >H>creating a counterweight to the existing system, or if we are >H>creating a parallel government structure. I'm not necessarily for or >H>against either, but I'd like us to be more clear about the problem we >H>are trying to solve. > >I hope I am not intimating that we are to create a parallel >government structure as a solution. I guess I'm struggling with the >issue of how to make this (constituency lobbyist) idea meaningful. >I want to work within the system. Unfortunately, I see this as >solving some problems and creating others. My fear is that the >expert begins to look like he or she is acting alone because the >public will revert to the 'government on autopilot' state. How do >you make the 'constituency lobbyist' representation meaningful? By >far, the public prefers the 'government on autopilot after the >election' kind of participation, which of course is a nonexistent >participation. > >People fail to understand that their obligation does not end at the >voting booth. > >Given the way people are, you probably have to get them to buy into >the lobbyist as 'liberty insurance'. When you pay, you get your >major issues resolved before they become real problems. Payment is >a much simpler participation than going to town meetings; it >reflects the culture of a people (Americans) who prefer to be >detached from government -- from each other. Nice phrase. > >In this model, you have to demonstrate constituent participation in >some way to make the lobbyist legitimate to the local official. It >has to be clear that the expert is speaking on behalf of all of the >constituency. You are already considered illegitimate if the local >official has to ask, 'Are you really speaking for all of my people, >or are you speaking for yourself or maybe a radical segment of my >people, or are you being compensated by a phantom entity.' Alternatively, could the lobbyist show legitimacy by representing a verifiable and meaningful subset, clearly disclaiming he or she speaks for all? > >Make it clear. The way to do that is to demonstrate that you are >getting compensated in some way by all of the constituency. If >people are paying the lobbyist, that implies that what is being said >represents closely what the sponsors intend to say. The greater the >percentage return of 'contribution' from the constituency, the more >credible the lobbyist becomes to the elected official. > >I articulated this yesterday with: > >L>Although the issues of management of scale of constituent feedback >L>by the elected representative is confronted by the 'lobbyist,' we >L>still have to deal with constituent participation. Constituent >L>participation must be measured somehow so that the lobbyist is >L>perceived as legitimately representing the local constituency. >L>Otherwise we would have made the situation worse by effectively >L>creating fewer voices of dissent and there would be no means for the >L>public to remonstrate. >L> >L>Our representation metric would probably be based on a recognized >L>retainer payment schedule, where the lobbyist is getting financially >L>compensated by the constituency. Everyone knows how much the >L>retainer contract is potentially worth versus its present cash >L>value. That way when the lobbyist speaks, the words are truly >L>meaningful. >L> >L>The elected representative can assess the inverse ratio of >L>'potential retainer contract value' to 'present cash value' and know >L>whether or not to give him an ear as the ratio approaches unity. >L> >L>I know this sounds wrong, but what can you do? Liberty is not free. >L>Please come up with some other persuasive metric. It may sound >L>stupid. I am just musing extemporaneously. >L> >L>Larry > >Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:32:49 -0500 (EST) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Forwarded mail.... >From lgd1@columbia.edu Subject: "FRENCH IST VERBOTTEN EIN AMERIKA?" Those who are now re-naming everything french, "freedom", fries, toast, etc. in retaliation for the french government opposition to war against Iraq, are engaging in precisely the same thing regimes like Sadam Hussein engage in. "CENSORSHIP". Censorship no matter who imposes it, is an essential component of tyranny and especially my fellow americans everywhere should reject it and denounce it for what it really is, SHAMEFUL INTOLERANCE as practiced by Hitler, Stalin and others. In a true democracy one must be respectful of all opinions, ideas, etc. To attempt to censor the word "french" is not only discriminatory and bigoted but it is also right down the alley of all tyrants in the history of mankind. Therefore this netizen will continue to talk about and order "french toast", "french fries", "french wine", etc. and totally reject any "newspeak" being imposed by those who do not understand democracy and what it stands for and I urge all of my fellow netizens to do likewise. Sincerely, Luis de Quesada ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:51:37 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: [netz] "Like Online Dating, with a Political Spin" - NYT article - --part1_13.19923898.2ba22d39_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the following relevant article concerning how Democratic presidential candidate, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, is exploiting the Internet to campaign effectively. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/technology/circuits/13meet.html?ex=1048580997 & ei=1&en=bb127dfee34978bf Larry - --part1_13.19923898.2ba22d39_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please read the following relevant article concerning=20= how Democratic presidential candidate, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermon= t, is exploiting the Internet to campaign effectively. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0= 3/13/technology/circuits/13meet.html?ex=3D1048580997&ei=3D1&en=3Dbb1= 27dfee34978bf


Larry - --part1_13.19923898.2ba22d39_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:19:57 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Forwarded mail.... > >From lgd1@columbia.edu > >Subject: "FRENCH IST VERBOTTEN EIN AMERIKA?" > >Those who are now re-naming everything french, "freedom", fries, toast, >etc. in retaliation for the french government opposition to war against >Iraq, are engaging in precisely the same thing regimes like Sadam >Hussein engage in. "CENSORSHIP". Censorship no matter who imposes it, is >an essential component of tyranny and especially my fellow americans >everywhere should reject it and denounce it for what it really is, >SHAMEFUL INTOLERANCE as practiced by Hitler, Stalin and others. >In a true democracy one must be respectful of all opinions, ideas, etc. >To attempt to censor the word "french" is not only discriminatory and >bigoted but it is also right down the alley of all tyrants in the >history of mankind. Therefore this netizen will continue to talk about >and order "french toast", "french fries", "french wine", etc. and >totally reject any "newspeak" being imposed by those who do not >understand democracy and what it stands for and I urge all of my fellow >netizens to do likewise. >Sincerely, >Luis de Quesada I absolutely agree the US uproar about "French" is incredibly childish. I wouldn't necessarily say it is extremely widespread, but has gotten embarrassing exposure due to some specific publicity-minded politicians. "Censorship" is an awfully strong word, as there's been no effort to impose the "french block" on anything other than something under the protesters' direct control. In other words, if a restaurant wants to rename French Fries "Liberty Fries," that is quite within their freedom of speech. If, however, a governmental organization tried to ban the use of words or language, that would be quite another matter - -- as is the case in Quebec. That being said, a substantial number of Americans consider this so silly as to be beyond notice. It's one of those things where I feel getting involved would be a waste of effort, unless it interferes with my access to good Camembert. Don't assume this is only externally directed. Some of the same Congressmen have imposed unfunded mandates for very similar posturing. As an example, the close-in airport in the Washington, DC area has been "National Airport" since the 1930s. Not too long ago, some Republican congressmen, as part of an overall binge of deifying Ronald Reagan, insisted the airport be renamed Ronald Reagan National Airport. The airport, incidentally, is owned by a regional transportation authority, over which Congress doesn't have any real authority. Said congressmen then bullied local jurisdictions, and the regional Metro (subway/bus system) to change all of their signs, or face cutoff of other funding. I live in Arlington Virginia, where National Airport is actually located. In order to avoid the cutoff of millions in appropriated Federal funds for totally unrelated purposes, we incurred several hundred thousand dollars in expense for changing signs and maps, a cost that came out of local taxpayers -- and was extemely unpopular. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:13:52 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: [netz] What is the netizen attitude toward war against Iraq & democracy at home? A question has been raised on the netizens list of what is the attitude of netizens about the war on Iraq. It has been pointed out that there are people both against and in favor of the war on the mailing list and that the subject of the mailing list shouldn't be to debate about the war in Iraq. We haven't quite sorted this through but we have in general agreed that we want people on the list who are either anti or pro the war. However, it would be good to sort through what it is that Netizens agree to about this situation. I have written something I posted on a few other mailing lists that I will give the url for as it challenges some of the US press is doing with regard to acting as the public relations department for the US government, rather than having the needed debate and asking question of government officials as the press should be doing. The url for the article is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/misc/face_the_nation.txt I suggest that there is a need for the US government to recognize that there are protests within the US against the war, and in NYC as well. That it isn't appropriate to claim that people around the world protest because they haven't experienced 9-11. But how does this relate to the Netizens list? Having the press ask the hard questions of government officials is a challenge for the Internet. Having a press that is worthy of being protected by a constitutional amendment is a challenge for netizens. Michael wrote about the role of the press and the role of netizens with regard to the press. This is chapter 13 of Netizens Chapter 13 - The Effect of the Net on the Professional News Media: The Usenet News Collective and Man-Computer News Symbiosis The url is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x13 I apologize for not being able to stay in the discussion last week, but I appreciate that the discussion is ongoing whether or not I can contribute to it. It seems that there is a need to clarify what the role of the netizen is with regard to problems where citizens feel they have no ability to influence their governments, and that the representation role of government is only a barrier to any real representation, as calls or letters to government officials are ignored and people feel they have no choice but to demonstrate or march, and they are impeded from doing this as well. And then government officials act as if the citizens who are trying to be heard in the US are invisible. with best wishes Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:45:34 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] What is the netizen attitude toward war against Iraq & democracy at home? >A question has been raised on the netizens list of what is >the attitude of netizens about the war on Iraq. It has >been pointed out that there are people both against and in favor >of the war on the mailing list and that the subject of the mailing >list shouldn't be to debate about the war in Iraq. > >We haven't quite sorted this through but we have in general agreed >that we want people on the list who are either anti or pro the war. May I suggest, Ronda, that there may be additional categories? I'd categorize myself as supporting a massive show of force against Iraq, on the grounds that it just might be a short-of-war re-inforcement of diplomacy to force WMD disclosure and/or regime change? Of course, there is a risk that things will get to a combat situation. But I do not equate shows of force to war, and there is abundant discussion in the theoretical politicomilitary literature to support this. A good if dated reference is Hermann Kahn's _On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios_. > >However, it would be good to sort through what it is that Netizens >agree to about this situation. > >I have written something I posted on a few other mailing lists >that I will give the url for as it challenges some of the US >press is doing with regard to acting as the public relations >department for the US government, rather than having the needed >debate and asking question of government officials as the press >should be doing. I suppose I am failing to see where hard questions are not being asked. Unfortunately, I also see some real problems in questions and answers, especially when there are practical restrictions on full disclosure of intelligence information to the press and general public. Note: I am NOT saying the administration has or has not proven its case. > >The url for the article is > >http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/misc/face_the_nation.txt I don't think it's productive to engage in a point-by-point discussion of your post here. I will say, however, that the idea of Cheney getting into serious debate within the limited time format of a TV show is ludicrous. If you were to talk about getting a group of key people on all sides together for a moderated discussion at a major conference center, perhaps with the debate recorded, perhaps with certain discussions in executive session, I would see that as far more practical and productive. >I suggest that there is a need for the US government to recognize >that there are protests within the US against the war, and in NYC >as well. That it isn't appropriate to claim that people around the >world protest because they haven't experienced 9-11. > >But how does this relate to the Netizens list? > >Having the press ask the hard questions of government officials >is a challenge for the Internet. There is, in my mind, a fundamental difference between posing hard questions to make politicians uncomfortable, and posing hard questions to get input into a serious policy debate. The realities of military, intelligence and diplomatic operations are that a full public debate is not possible, but I am quite in favor of empowering proxies/representatives to get full access and have closed debate. The nature of the "press," especially the electronic media, is not to have reasoned debate or exploration, but to get sound bites. > >Having a press that is worthy of being protected by a constitutional >amendment is a challenge for netizens. I would very much agree with that statement. Indeed, from the particular standpoint of Netizens, I would encourage more debate not about the war or not-war, but at the very significant issues at the FCC and elsewhere regarding consolidation of media, the difficulty of supporting commercial and effective news organizations, etc. The unfortunate situation is that advertisers will pay for pseudo-journalists shouting at one another, or presenting self-described entertainers as Russ Limbaugh and Barbra Streisand becoming political authorities, or supporting extremely partisan attack journalists. (rhetorically) Where, oh where, is the spirit of Edward R. Murrow? > >Michael wrote about the role of the press and the role of netizens >with regard to the press. This is chapter 13 of Netizens > > >Chapter 13 - The Effect of the Net on the Professional News Media: The >Usenet News Collective and Man-Computer News Symbiosis > >The url is > >http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x13 > > >I apologize for not being able to stay in the discussion last week, >but I appreciate that the discussion is ongoing whether or not I >can contribute to it. > >It seems that there is a need to clarify what the role of the netizen >is with regard to problems where citizens feel they have no ability >to influence their governments, and that the representation role >of government is only a barrier to any real representation, as calls >or letters to government officials are ignored and people feel they >have no choice but to demonstrate or march, and they are impeded >from doing this as well. And then government officials act as if >the citizens who are trying to be heard in the US are invisible. > I am afraid, Ronda, that even at a time of huge personal difficulty, I simply don't feel as isolated or not-empowered as you do. Speaking of the hard questions, I would ask you if you would feel the same way if the government were producing positions with which you happened to agree, and whether you would want them cross-examined just as hard, say, on why they were NOT going to war. ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #433 ******************************