Netizens-Digest Monday, March 31 2003 Volume 01 : Number 448 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:57:03 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_27.3d2e83ae.2bb9870f_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_27.3d2e83ae.2bb9870f_alt_boundary" - --part1_27.3d2e83ae.2bb9870f_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know if this response to Ronda got onto the list last week or even got to Ronda. If yes, ignore. If no then please seriously consider -- If we, on this list, do not truly believe that Netizens have any real power to make political change, then why should we post here at all? I believe that citizens, hence Netizens, in countries like the United States do have true power, but we fail to assert the self-discipline necessary to harness it. Larry - --part1_27.3d2e83ae.2bb9870f_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't know if this response to Ronda got onto the li= st last week or even got to Ronda.  If yes, ignore.  If no then pl= ease seriously consider -- If we, on this list, do not truly believe that Ne= tizens have any real power to make political change, then why should we post= here at all?  I believe that citizens, hence Netizens, in countries li= ke the United States do have true power, but we fail to assert the self-disc= ipline necessary to harness it. 

Larry - --part1_27.3d2e83ae.2bb9870f_alt_boundary-- - --part1_27.3d2e83ae.2bb9870f_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Full-name: AGENTKUENSTLER Message-ID: <1ec.539bd1f.2bb4bd88@aol.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:48:08 EST Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off To: ronda@panix.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_27.3d2e83ae.2bb4bd88_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6014 - --part2_27.3d2e83ae.2bb4bd88_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/26/03 10:13:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust > actions of their government. > My God! I do so agree with you that there should be a vehicle of discourse, but this kind of expression should be exploited as the last resort effort after all legitimate means of communication have failed. The problem here is that honestly, we all have access and can influence government, even now. But we fail to, practically speaking, do what is necessary to keep our representatives on retainer. You can't get something for nothing. Ronda. You know that the people have power. The people just have to be more creative and crafty. Instead of focusing on the past and legislation that is too late to reverse, we should focus on the future -- how to acquire some real influence regarding the plan of occupation of post war Iraq. This means, let us meet our local representatives and (1) figure out what general help they need, (2) provide it and (3) then use that provision of service as capital that we can leverage to get him or her to do as we desire. This is not deep. Show me what politician does not need volunteer help and money? I don't understand the issue. Rational people will work for you if you work for them. But we all insist on getting something for nothing. R>I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations R>and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this R>march was a very special experience. R> R>There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and R>thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are R>portrayed by the American media. Ronda, I agree with this. I am sure that the march was a very special experience and moreover that the people were well-meaning. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that we all failed our country for not getting involved earlier. You have to get involved in the political process during the good times so that you have enough political clout to influence policy during the bad times. Sustained political involvement is tantamount to taking out an insurance policy. The marches are just not justified when there had been so many ways for us all to have indirectly participated in the decision making before the final legislation and "backdoor political agreements" had been committed. It truly makes me angry every time I see one of these protests. Perhaps if we were more involved, we could have forced the hand of the Bush Administration to have been more forthcoming regarding the proof we had regarding Saddam Hussein's arsenal of mass destruction and the asserted allusions to ties to Al-Qaeda. Even had the war result been the same, at least we could have talked about it. Perhaps we could have forced some kind of intelligent polemic. The public would have felt that they at least were involved in the decision making. We did not push hard enough by engaging at least our local officials. By we, I mean physically, every one of us as American citizens. This country is not perfect but I am indeed very proud of it. I am also very proud of our intricate system of government. Look. The government will only work as well as we demand it to work. But there are no demands from the people. Government remains on autopilot until it is much too late. As you know, development of governmental policy is incremental. Policy development is a social exercise. It takes time to build consensus and make things happen. There is much time for citizens to get involved during the consensus building. There are no excuses. We are to blame for any misunderstanding between us and our government. Deep inside we realize this. I am tired of assuaging the consciences of protesters through these cathartic events. Let us stop laying blame on the government; that is practically not going to improve issues. Let us be constructive here. I may not totally understand why we are going to war but that is the only reason why I do not fully support it. Nevertheless, I must trust that our government is acting on our behalf. I support President Bush even though I may not totally agree with his solution. We just don't have the information that he has to make any kind of judgment on the Iraq issue. I may even believe that there may have been many equivocations designed by the administration to politically facilitate the war. What does that matter? Accept that we, particularly the American people, are to blame and make adjustments. Again. How many ways can I say this? You can't miss chem lab all semester and expect an A. Netizens have the power. Why do we fail to see this? There is no reason to continue with this list if people believe otherwise. Empowerment starts with taking responsibility for what happens to us, firstly by realizing that the phrase, "what happens to us," is itself not quite an accurate statement. We are not passive participants here. Honestly in most cases, things don't just "happen to us." Larry - --part2_27.3d2e83ae.2bb4bd88_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/26/03 10:13:05 PM Eastern Standar= d Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

The basis of any democracy is t= he ability of people to protest the unjust
actions of their government.


My God!  I do so agree with you that there should be a vehicle of disco= urse, but this kind of expression should be exploited as the last resort eff= ort after all legitimate means of communication have failed.  The probl= em here is that honestly, we all have access and can influence government, e= ven now.  But we fail to, practically speaking, do what is necessary to= keep our representatives on retainer.  You can't get something for not= hing. 

Ronda.  You know that the people have power.  The people just have= to be more creative and crafty.

Instead of focusing on the past and legislation that is too late to reverse,= we should focus on the future -- how to acquire some real influence regardi= ng the plan of occupation of post war Iraq.

This means, let us meet our local representatives and (1) figure out what ge= neral help they need, (2) provide it and (3) then use that provision of serv= ice as capital that we can leverage to get him or her to do as we desire.&nb= sp; This is not deep.

Show me what politician does not need volunteer help and money?  I don'= t understand the issue.  Rational people will work for you if you work=20= for them. 

But we all insist on getting something for nothing.

R>I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situation= s
R>and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this R>march was a very special experience.
R>
R>There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and
R>thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are
R>portrayed by the American media.

Ronda, I agree with this.  I am sure that the march was a very special=20= experience and moreover that the people were well-meaning.

Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that we all failed our country for not g= etting involved earlier.  You have to get involved in the political pro= cess during the good times so that you have enough political clout to influe= nce policy during the bad times. 

Sustained political involvement is tantamount to taking out an insurance pol= icy. 

The marches are just not justified when there had been so many ways for us a= ll to have indirectly participated in the decision making before the final l= egislation and "backdoor political agreements" had been committed. 
It truly makes me angry every time I see one of these protests.

Perhaps if we were more involved, we could have forced the hand of the Bush=20= Administration to have been more forthcoming regarding the proof we had rega= rding Saddam Hussein's arsenal of mass destruction and the asserted allusion= s to ties to Al-Qaeda.  Even had the war result been the same, at least= we could have talked about it.  Perhaps we could have forced some kind= of intelligent polemic.  The public would have felt that they at least= were involved in the decision making.  We did not push hard enough by=20= engaging at least our local officials. 

By we, I mean physically, every one of us as American citizens.

This country is not perfect but I am indeed very proud of it.  I am als= o very proud of our intricate system of government.  Look.  The go= vernment will only work as well as we demand it to work.  But there are= no demands from the people.  Government remains on autopilot until it=20= is much too late.  As you know, development of governmental policy is i= ncremental.  Policy development is a social exercise.  It takes ti= me to build consensus and make things happen.  There is much time for c= itizens to get involved during the consensus building.

There are no excuses.  We are to blame for any misunderstanding between= us and our government.  Deep inside we realize this.  I am tired=20= of assuaging the consciences of protesters through these cathartic events.&n= bsp;

Let us stop laying blame on the government; that is practically not going to= improve issues.  Let us be constructive here. 

I may not totally understand why we are going to war but that is the only re= ason why I do not fully support it.  Nevertheless, I must trust that ou= r government is acting on our behalf.  I support President Bush even th= ough I may not totally agree with his solution.  We just don't have the= information that he has to make any kind of judgment on the Iraq issue.&nbs= p; I may even believe that there may have been many equivocations designed b= y the administration to politically facilitate the war. 

What does that matter? 

Accept that we, particularly the American people, are to blame and make adju= stments.  Again.  How many ways can I say this?  You can't mi= ss chem lab all semester and expect an A.

Netizens have the power.  Why do we fail to see this?  There is no= reason to continue with this list if people believe otherwise.  Empowe= rment starts with taking responsibility for what happens to us, firstly by r= ealizing that the phrase, "what happens to us," is itself not quite an accur= ate statement.  We are not passive participants here.  Honestly in= most cases, things don't just "happen to us."

Larry 
- --part2_27.3d2e83ae.2bb4bd88_boundary-- - --part1_27.3d2e83ae.2bb9870f_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:09:18 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off At 6:57 AM -0500 3/31/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: >I don't know if this response to Ronda got onto the list last week >or even got to Ronda. If yes, ignore. If no then please seriously >consider -- If we, on this list, do not truly believe that Netizens >have any real power to make political change, then why should we >post here at all? I believe that citizens, hence Netizens, in >countries like the United States do have true power, but we fail to >assert the self-discipline necessary to harness it. > >Larry I had not seen it previously. Larry, I do agree with you that US citizens have power and do exercise it. When I've cared significantly about an general political issue, I've never doubted that my views were heard and, as part of a broader part of the electorate, at least considered. Within the context of Internet governance, which was what initially what drew me to the list, there isn't the slightest question -- I both understand how to act within that quasi-political system, and it can be argued I either have power or am sufficiently well-known to decisionmakers to have appropriate access. That last, of course, came from many years of building a reputation as part of solutions. > >Return-path: >From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com >Full-name: AGENTKUENSTLER >Message-ID: <1ec.539bd1f.2bb4bd88@aol.com> >Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:48:08 EST >Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off >To: ronda@panix.com >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >boundary="part2_27.3d2e83ae.2bb4bd88_boundary" >X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6014 > >In a message dated 3/26/03 10:13:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, >ronda@panix.com writes: > >>The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust >>actions of their government. >> I didn't see the original post from Ronda here. I cringe a bit on seeing this and the ensuing quotes, as I have a sinking feeling that this relates to yet another single-issue discussion on Iraq. I cringe when I see "unjust". There is a difference between having the political process producing a result that one does not like, and the political process not having examined the issue. While I don't feel I personally had access to the underlying data, I have no question that the Iraq issue was debated thoroughly in the Congress -- and I again cringe to find myself drawn into another single-issue discussion of Netizenship. I have serious questions about the way the war is being prosecuted, but those questions apply to military matters that simply cannot be changed in real time. > >My God! I do so agree with you that there should be a vehicle of >discourse, but this kind of expression should be exploited as the >last resort effort after all legitimate means of communication have >failed. The problem here is that honestly, we all have access and >can influence government, even now. But we fail to, practically >speaking, do what is necessary to keep our representatives on >retainer. You can't get something for nothing. > >Ronda. You know that the people have power. The people just have >to be more creative and crafty. > >Instead of focusing on the past and legislation that is too late to >reverse, we should focus on the future -- how to acquire some real >influence regarding the plan of occupation of post war Iraq. > >This means, let us meet our local representatives and (1) figure out >what general help they need, (2) provide it and (3) then use that >provision of service as capital that we can leverage to get him or >her to do as we desire. This is not deep. > >Show me what politician does not need volunteer help and money? I >don't understand the issue. Rational people will work for you if >you work for them. > >But we all insist on getting something for nothing. > >R>I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations >R>and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this >R>march was a very special experience. >R> >R>There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and >R>thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are >R>portrayed by the American media. > >Ronda, I agree with this. I am sure that the march was a very >special experience and moreover that the people were well-meaning. > >Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that we all failed our country >for not getting involved earlier. You have to get involved in the >political process during the good times so that you have enough >political clout to influence policy during the bad times. The people have a right to assemble and present grievances. Also in the US First Amendment is the protection that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. If, however, anyone can show me a place in the Constitution where it requires either that owners of presses must publish things presented to them, or that the government must be responsive to expression other than through the electoral or judicial process, I'll eat it. My only request is for fat-free butter substitute. Marches and the like may be satisfying to the participants, but they simply do not have any established function in policy formation. For those who would suggest that massive civil rights and anti-Vietnam marches had a direct function, I would suggest that their role was indirect -- motivating people to get involved in working with incumbents, and with building credible opposition candidates to run at election. Going back to the Constitution, I would suggest people reexamine both the document, as well as contemporaneous political writings, and decide how responsive the Framers saw the Senate as responsive to public opinion. I will grant that technology makes it much faster to provide public opinion to lawmakers, but I still have grave reservations if non-electoral, non-deliberative input can or should be a real-time input to decisionmaking. > >Sustained political involvement is tantamount to taking out an >insurance policy. > >The marches are just not justified when there had been so many ways >for us all to have indirectly participated in the decision making >before the final legislation and "backdoor political agreements" had >been committed. > >It truly makes me angry every time I see one of these protests. Again, this is my reaction. On another list (paraphrasing extensively), I saw a perhaps apocryphal but relevant tale. An individual was leafletting in a Washington subway statement. The narrator politely refused the leaflet. The protester turned to another passerby, an elderly woman with an umbrella, who also declined the leaflet. For some reason, the protester touched the woman's arm and said "Don't you care, ma'am, about the children of Iraq?" She received the response "Honey, my first husband died in France in WWII so you could stand there bad-mouthing your country [which is her right--Howard]. But if you touch me again, I am going to shove this umbrella up your ass and open it.." I apologize for the language. But many current marchers seem to assume their actions will have no consequences to them, and present a demand that must be handled, in real time, outside the established system. > >Perhaps if we were more involved, we could have forced the hand of >the Bush Administration to have been more forthcoming regarding the >proof we had regarding Saddam Hussein's arsenal of mass destruction >and the asserted allusions to ties to Al-Qaeda. Even had the war >result been the same, at least we could have talked about it. >Perhaps we could have forced some kind of intelligent polemic. The >public would have felt that they at least were involved in the >decision making. We did not push hard enough by engaging at least >our local officials. > >By we, I mean physically, every one of us as American citizens. > >This country is not perfect but I am indeed very proud of it. I am >also very proud of our intricate system of government. Look. The >government will only work as well as we demand it to work. But >there are no demands from the people. Government remains on >autopilot until it is much too late. As you know, development of >governmental policy is incremental. Policy development is a social >exercise. It takes time to build consensus and make things happen. >There is much time for citizens to get involved during the consensus >building. > >There are no excuses. We are to blame for any misunderstanding >between us and our government. Deep inside we realize this. I am >tired of assuaging the consciences of protesters through these >cathartic events. > >Let us stop laying blame on the government; that is practically not >going to improve issues. Let us be constructive here. > >I may not totally understand why we are going to war but that is the >only reason why I do not fully support it. Nevertheless, I must >trust that our government is acting on our behalf. I support >President Bush even though I may not totally agree with his >solution. We just don't have the information that he has to make >any kind of judgment on the Iraq issue. I may even believe that >there may have been many equivocations designed by the >administration to politically facilitate the war. At the moment, my position is uncomfortable. As a trained intelligence analyst, on the one hand I know that I haven't seen smoking-gun information, but, on other hand, I recognize that short-of-smoking-gun information may be made available to legislators, but, for good reason, not to the general public. I supported a strong show of force, as a potential stronger than economic sanctions to induce regime change. The actual conduct of the war may not be as effective as it should be, although factors apply there from Rumsfeld's transformational initiatives to the negotiations with Turkey. Now, though, I support the troops as individuals -- and I have friends over there -- but also am utterly convinced the US has the capability to bring this to a conclusion, and also the imperative to do so if the US will ever again have credibility to raise a more necessary military threat. I apologize for being drawn even this far into a discussion of the war, and again plead that we get back to a more reasoned discussion of process. Larry has made good points to examine. Again, Ronda, I would encourage you to evaluate your protests in a larger context of what you want to achieve with this list. I have hesitated inviting several colleagues to join, even though they have excellent insights on Netizenship, because they would have even less patience and tolerance than my limited ability to sit through antiwar screeds I consider irrelevant to the scope of the list. > >What does that matter? > >Accept that we, particularly the American people, are to blame and >make adjustments. Again. How many ways can I say this? You can't >miss chem lab all semester and expect an A. > >Netizens have the power. Why do we fail to see this? There is no >reason to continue with this list if people believe otherwise. >Empowerment starts with taking responsibility for what happens to >us, firstly by realizing that the phrase, "what happens to us," is >itself not quite an accurate statement. We are not passive >participants here. Honestly in most cases, things don't just >"happen to us." > >Larry ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #448 ******************************