Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 3 2003 Volume 01 : Number 453 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship? Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:33:27 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off At 8:40 PM -0500 4/2/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 4/2/03 11:28:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, >hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > >>Exactly what do you mean by power? I'm being completely sincere as >>not following whether you are describing veto power on actions >>already taken, influencing the process of policy formation (and >>accepting, although continuing to comment, that the elected policy >>formers may make a decision that doesn't agree with yours), or >>influencing the election of representatives? All or some of the >>above? The veto/protest part is the only one that comes through. >> > > >Howard, you have to forgive me. I believe that Ronda was generally >responding to a post that I had sent to her and to this thread. > >Larry Sorry for any misunderstanding. If I can get synchronized to comment on the right point, fine. If not, I'll drop it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 07:23:16 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_121.206df3c4.2bbd81b4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/2/03 9:36:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > Sorry for any misunderstanding. If I can get synchronized to comment > on the right point, fine. If not, I'll drop it. > I believe that we all have differing expectations and standards of precision regarding the employment of language and persuasive argumentation to illustrate our points of view. Unfortunately, willful 'disjunctures' in understanding are created due to, i.e., our egos and we are tossed into meaninglessness. It would be greatly appreciated if we all worked a little harder to inform and argue dispassionately so that we can honestly see the possible truth beyond our otherwise myopic perspectives. I am not pointing fingers. Maybe we should just not talk about the war anymore; please forgive me. There is a lot of integrity here and I think that this war talk generally destroys thread credibility because we cannot all try to be as objective as Howard and others. Also, I know it is difficult but if we actually want someone to respond analytically, moreover constructively, we have to try to be as precise as is possible. Please refrain from masquerading political viewpoints as objective issues for Netizens to consider, unless you are fairly considering all viewpoints in your argument. It takes time to write. Let's respect each other's time. I will try to follow these guidelines myself. Larry - --part1_121.206df3c4.2bbd81b4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/2/03 9:36:11 PM Eastern Standard=20= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Sorry for any misunderstanding.= If I can get synchronized to comment
on the right point, fine. If not, I'll drop it.


I believe that we all have differing expectations and standards of precision= regarding the employment of language and persuasive argumentation to illust= rate our points of view.  

Unfortunately, willful 'disjunctures' in understanding are created due to, i= .e., our egos and we are tossed into meaninglessness.  It would be grea= tly appreciated if we all worked a little harder to inform and argue dispass= ionately so that we can honestly see the possible truth beyond our otherwise= myopic perspectives.

I am not pointing fingers.  Maybe we should just not talk about the war= anymore; please forgive me.  There is a lot of integrity here and I th= ink that this war talk generally destroys thread credibility because we cann= ot all try to be as objective as Howard and others.

Also, I know it is difficult but if we actually want someone to respond anal= ytically, moreover constructively, we have to try to be as precise as is pos= sible. 

Please refrain from masquerading political viewpoints as objective issues fo= r Netizens to consider, unless you are fairly considering all viewpoints in=20= your argument. 

It takes time to write.  Let's respect each other's time.  I will=20= try to follow these guidelines myself.

Larry - --part1_121.206df3c4.2bbd81b4_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 07:29:27 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off To Larry and the Netizens list >I don't know if this response to Ronda got onto the list last week or >even got to Ronda. If yes, ignore. Larry, your post came as an attachment rather than the text of an email message. Then it came double, once as a text and second as an html file. This all makes the message difficult to respond to. Larry writes responding to me: Ronda>> The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the Ronda>> unjust Ronda>> 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. Most of my life I have been trying to find some way that one can have an effect on government representatives in situations where there are problems that either government has created or that they could fix if they took the problems seriously. Many other people I know and also many people around the world I have learned of have made such efforts. And in my research online I saw various ways people on line hoped that the power of communication would help to make such efforts successful. >But we fail to, practically speaking, do what is necessary to keep our >representatives on retainer. You can't get something for nothing. Larry, I and many other people have tried in a number of ways to be able to communicate with our representatives. The problem is that they don't listen to us. They do listen to those with large funds who are the corporate magnates who want favors from them or laws that will benefit the corporations. This is a situation that needs to be changed, but it is not the fault of those who don't get treated seriously. >Ronda. You know that the people have power. The people just have to be >more creative and crafty. It is a struggle over power at this time. Those who have their hand on the weapons paid for by the American people, those who are in control of them are using them with no regard for the views or concerns of the American people. I wrote an article about this that was in Telepolis. It was about Dick Cheney's response to a question on "Meet the Press". He was asked his response to the fact that people around the world in the millions were protesting against the US threat to attack Iraq militarily. His response was that the people around the world hadn't experienced 9-11. That was a very strange response since the people in the US had experienced 9-11 and especially those in NYC. And yet the NYC and U.S. government wouldn't even give a permit for a march on February 15 2003 in NYC. Then they did give a permit for a demonstration. But the police wouldn't let most people get to the demonstration. There were upwards of 1/2 million or more people who either went to the demonstration or tried to go to it. Many were from NYC and most from the US. Neither Cheney nor the person asking the questions noted the vast numbers of people in the US who trying very hard to make their voices heard in order to stop the US govt march to war. The article is online at http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/14387/1.html Face the Nation and Dick Cheney : US anti-war demonstrators are invisible to the U.S. government >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. We should find a way to have the war stopped and the U.S. troops withdrawn, *not* help the propaganda efforts to claim that the war should go on. There should *not* be a plan of occupation for "post war Iraq" The Iraqi people are not to be recolonized in the name of "democracy". If the terms the US media and government use to cover their activities are adopted, then they take people along on what people have tried to stop. The efforts to stop an unjust war are important. Yesterday there was an interview on the radio with a journalist who had been embedded with the US troops. She said the troops wanted people to know that they didn't want to be doing the killing the situation they were in was making happen. This is a very serious situation. It requires some find of focus to figure it out. I am not proposing that the focus be on this list, but it is important that it be recognized on this list that there are many who oppose what is going on in the name of the American people. That the American people thus far have been powerless to stop this, but they have tried and will continue to try. That the standard media and government officials promoting this war like it was an advertising campaign are doing it against the objections of most of the American people. That the polls are taken by the same entities that are promoting the war This war is an attack on the Iraqi people and on the American people. The American soldiers are also in a most difficult situation as they shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place and should be brought home immediately. People who are protesting the war don't want the Americans soldiers to be killed. This means bringing them home from Iraq immediately. We are in a serious crisis in the US, a crisis likely to go on for some time. How we get out of it is difficult to image. That the most recent Presidential election could be the result of such fraudulent activity shows the breakdown of the US system. That the Supreme Court wrote an opinion saying all of the voting situations in the US are not overseen or legitimate, and then put one person into office, is a very serious crisis. Then for that person to be waging war in the name of the people who he abused by the election itself, that is an even more serious crime. (...) >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. There was an article in last weeks New Yorker about how the US government presented falsified information to the US Congress before they voted to give him his support for the war. It was about Iraq supposedly buying uranimum ore in Niger. The UN inspectors who were given this evidence much later revealed that the names of the government officials of Niger were not the people who were there at the dates in question. The US Congress was lied to. >What does that matter? Yes it does 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. We certainly didn't miss chem lab all semester. I and many others have been working all our lives for this situation to be changed with regard to the little effect American citizens have on their government officials. That was the hope of netizens and remains the hope. How to do that requires we realize that it is a very difficult task and that we learn from others around the world and work together with them. >Larry Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 07:50:59 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_78.3c478964.2bbd8833_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/03 7:29:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > Larry, your post came as an attachment rather than the text of an > email message. Then it came double, once as a text and second as > an html file. > > This all makes the message difficult to respond to. > I am sorry Ronda. Larry - --part1_78.3c478964.2bbd8833_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/3/03 7:29:56 AM Eastern Standard=20= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

Larry, your post came as an att= achment rather than the text of an
email message. Then it came double, once as a text and second as
an html file.

This all makes the message difficult to respond to.


I am sorry Ronda.

Larry - --part1_78.3c478964.2bbd8833_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off It's a very interesting thread for me, because I find myself agreeing substantially with all sides. Clearly it isn't just about the war in Iraq, but about how governments respond to or disregard various forms of public pressure, and how responsiveness might be improved (which would not simply mean "increased"). That formulation probably isn't perfect, but it will do for now. No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I think a wide range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I do think it's worth pondering Ronda's last post, and trying to generalize the systemic political analysis from the current issues. If we could lock Ronda and Howard in a room, it would be interesting to see what analytical points they could agree on, and whether they could agree on how to articulate their differences. The list shouldn't be in denial about these sorts of differences, but we're spending way too much time on them. So, I guess I'll have to stop now. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:27:34 -0500 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship? Hello Dan: I do not support hacktivism against anyone, because as a netizen I think my mission is to encourage and spread unimpaired communications, hacktivism attempts to disrupt communication. Once you resort to terrorism in any form expect it to be done to you. Its in the nature of totalitarian states to censor and therefore control communcations. Netizens by contrast should encourage and help spread communications, which the hacktivists and their friends the totalitarians try to disrupt. I am all for an honest game, even if my opponent plays dirty. Luis de Quesada Dan Duris wrote: > Hi, > > I support hacktivism in case of doing it against totalitarian > regimes. > > Check www.hacktivismo.org (or .com?) for hacktivismo declaration and > why open source is not so good. They have their own open source > declaration that explicitly forbids to use software released under > that licence by totalitarian states. The real effect is questionable though. > > dan > -------------------------- > email: dusoft@staznosti.sk > ICQ: 17932727 > > *- the way is: libertarianism -* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:10:42 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off At 9:07 AM -0500 4/3/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote: >It's a very interesting thread for me, because I find myself agreeing substantially with all sides. Clearly it isn't just about the war in Iraq, Agreed. I would be the last person to say that any position involving war as a matter of national policy is a simple pro or anti question. But, for me, if it comes to a decision to go in shooting or not go in shooting, I come down to "lock and load, ready on the right, ready on the left, the flag is flying, commence fire." So I resent the seemingly constant harping that "the American people" are against the war. War is an ugly and undesirable thing, but sometimes is the least bad of several bad choices. But to be told "the American people" consider it an illegal and unjust war, shall I say, creates a certain dissonance with my experience of my own position as an American citizen by birth---and by a history of participation in the political process? I'm perfectly willing, in the interest of Netizenship, to advise people with whom I disagree on policy how they might get across their positions more effectively. Such people do have to realize that the process sometimes will produce a decision they don't like, but was determined through due process. In other words, not liking the decision doesn't mean the people, as a whole, were disenfranchised. I'll take a good example of anarchy in action, the management, over the last few years, of my local professional football team, the Washington Redskins. They didn't get into the Super Bowl because the system was mean to them -- it was that their performance was inadequate to beat the teams that did get there. > but >about how governments respond to or disregard various forms of >public pressure, >and how responsiveness might be improved (which would not simply >mean "increased"). That formulation probably isn't perfect, but it >will do for >now. > >No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I think a wide >range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably >illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really >disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to >resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a >different result. > >I do think it's worth pondering Ronda's last post, and trying to >generalize the >systemic political analysis from the current issues. If we could lock Ronda >and Howard in a room, it would be interesting to see what analytical points >they could agree on, and whether they could agree on how to articulate their >differences. The list shouldn't be in denial about these sorts of >differences, >but we're spending way too much time on them. I would appreciate comment on what I see as one difference. Once a decision has been made by the policymaking apparatus, it becomes hard reality. Especially with matters of war, the cold, hard fact is that the conflict needs to be carried through to completion -- abrupt withdrawal is both militarily dangerous and has long-term considerations of realpolitik. The valuable contributions of dissent (note that I do not use "protest," but try to be inclusive of "loyal opposition") is to be able to formulate policy better the next time. Indeed, even in the strict military case, there is major evidence that the horrible experiences of Viet Nam were grounds for learning. This is drawing me far, too far, into a specific discussion of a specific war. In the broader case of conflict, I earlier posted information on how intelligence analysis works, and, for example, I would think of implementing network-enabled, collaborative, independent analysis could be a very useful manifestation of Netizenship. I also introduced issues of intellectual property controls in electronic media, of hacktivism, and of balancing privacy and accountability. All, in my opinion, worthy and appropriate points of discussion with respect to Netizenship. But there is still a frustrating amount of what I consider tactical and irrelevant anti-Iraq-war polemics. >So, I guess I'll have to stop now. > >Mark ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #453 ******************************