Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 3 2003 Volume 01 : Number 454 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:48:10 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not discuss the issue of the war on this list. So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the result of a deliberate procedure that has happened. This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- from Mark Lindeman Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST) 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 12:02:47 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) >This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not >discuss the issue of the war on this list. Please help me understand what might be a misunderstanding. Yes, I have asked the war not be discussed. Mark, however, posted a message to which you responded. Since the war discussion seemed to be back, I responded, with yet another attempt to deflect the discussion into other areas. My apologies to you and the list if this is a digression caused by out-of-sequence messages. > >So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the >result of a deliberate procedure that has happened. > >This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >from Mark Lindeman >Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST) > >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, 3 Apr 2003 12:28:18 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) > > [Ronda:] This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not > >discuss the issue of the war on this list. > > > [Howard:] Please help me understand what might be a misunderstanding. Yes, I > have asked the war not be discussed. Mark, however, posted a message > to which you responded. Since the war discussion seemed to be back, I > responded, with yet another attempt to deflect the discussion into > other areas. I probably contributed to the confusion by invoking Howard in my reaction to a subthread that featured Ronda and Larry. Whatever. I should perhaps clarify that neither my statement that Ronda's post was "worth pondering," nor my thought experiment of locking Ronda and Howard up in a room, was intended to lend encouragement to any further discussion of the war, or the merits of the U.S. government with respect to democratic theory, on the list at this time or in the foreseeable future. Howard has suggested what he considers to be a reasonable purpose and scope for the list. I've agreed with him, with the caveat that I don't mind some occasional tangents, especially for the purpose of illuminating underlying philosophical differences. I don't recall that either Ronda or Jay has responded to these views on purpose and scope. > >So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the > >result of a deliberate procedure that has happened. > > > >This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen. Ronda, I really don't know at all what you mean by this. What discussion hasn't happened? If it's the discussion about purpose and scope, I wish you would join it. How likely is it that continuing to argue about the political tactics of antiwar activists will lead us to a transformative insight into the nature of netizenship? At this point, I think not very. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:51:29 -0500 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Hello: I think Ronda has a valid point and increased government responses to the opinions and inquiries of common people, vs its usually favorable response to powerful and wealthy lobbies, would be a way to improve the communications of people with government. I do think government officials listen to common people, but like Howard says, many times the outcome or policy implemented maybe different from that expected by a particular segment of the population. So is creating more referendums the cure? I would defenitely help. Electoral referendums would give many people a clearer insight whether their opinions reflect those of the majority of their fellow citizens, instead of just relying on media and other polls, which are always suspect of manipulation. For example an excellent question on the ballot right now would be: Do you favor the war in Iraq? I also think netizens can help these communications precisely by bringing these issues and concerns to our list as a way of improving communications among the people with other people and their government, even if it brings debate on the issues. Luis de Quesada Ronda Hauben wrote: > This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not > discuss the issue of the war on this list. > > So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the > result of a deliberate procedure that has happened. > > This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > from Mark Lindeman > Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST) > > 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 12:54:00 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) >Hello: I think Ronda has a valid point and increased government >responses to the >opinions and inquiries of common people, vs its usually favorable response to >powerful and wealthy lobbies, would be a way to improve the communications of >people with government. I do think government officials listen to >common people, >but like Howard says, many times the outcome or policy implemented >maybe different >from that expected by a particular segment of the population. So is >creating more >referendums the cure? Let's switch the example to something silly-but-true: Dilbert (for those outside the US, Dilbert is a comic character that anyone dealing with technology should know -- he's an engineer, a cubicle denizen in an anonymous corporate environment with incredibly bad management). Dilbert brings up one of the pet peeves of engineers that upper management constantly changes directions, so projects never get completed. There is an indirect effect of proposed changes to a design that were not carefully considered within the overall architecture of what is to be built. They may have unintended consequences of cost or reliability. A silly example -- when I worked for Nortel Networks, somebody in "corporate image" decided that a very mundane communications device, which would normally be installed in unmanned back rooms of telephone companies, should have a brightly glowing corporate logo on the front. To make this happen, we had to stop using the standard sheet metal cases that we bought in quantity, so we could have a case with a cutout for the light. We had to have the plastic logo designed and made in quantity. The internal power supply for the working part of the device did not have the reserve power or separate voltage for the display lamp, so a new power supply had to be fitted into the case, causing a complete revision of the manufacturing process. Since this device was to be used in critical telephone buildings, the changes required several hundred thousand dollars' worth of new safety certification. Thankfully, the CEO, who at the time was an engineer, found out about this idiocy, obtained a prototype, and, in the presence of the people that came up with the idea, smashed it to the floor and jumped up and down on the case. Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their budgetary or operational ramifications. I'd rather see the effort on referenda devoted to getting better information to lawmakers and regulators. I don't see referenda as an efficient solution, although they do give the appearance of inviting mass participation. Unfortunately, many decisions involve technical or financial nuances that simply are not accessible to laymen, or, worse, are reduced to sound bites and propaganda. >I would defenitely help. Electoral referendums would give >many people a clearer insight whether their opinions reflect those >of the majority >of their fellow citizens, instead of just relying on media and other >polls, which >are always suspect of manipulation. For example an excellent >question on the ballot >right now would be: Do you favor the war in Iraq? But can that reasonably be answered "yes" or "no"? >I also think netizens can help >these communications precisely by bringing these issues and concerns >to our list as >a way of improving communications among the people with other people and their >government, even if it brings debate on the issues. >Luis de Quesada > >Ronda Hauben wrote: > >> This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not >> discuss the issue of the war on this list. >> >> So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the >> result of a deliberate procedure that has happened. >> >> This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen. >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> from Mark Lindeman >> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST) >> >> 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 14:33:13 -0500 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Hello Howard: How about a referendum that isn't about "technical and financial nuances?" Right now I believe that a referendum on the war would serve little or no purpose to change policy, but it would give a clearer picture to everyone as to who has a majority. It would also help the government to assess how popular its present policy really is. I do not advocate a referendum every time you want to deal with an issue, only on ones that are important enough to the people like war. On the overall I also think this issue has livened up our list and through intelligent, healthy and respectful debate, we have contributed to communications greatly. Luis de Quesada "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >Hello: I think Ronda has a valid point and increased government > >responses to the > >opinions and inquiries of common people, vs its usually favorable response to > >powerful and wealthy lobbies, would be a way to improve the communications of > >people with government. I do think government officials listen to > >common people, > >but like Howard says, many times the outcome or policy implemented > >maybe different > >from that expected by a particular segment of the population. So is > >creating more > >referendums the cure? > > Let's switch the example to something silly-but-true: Dilbert (for > those outside the US, Dilbert is a comic character that anyone > dealing with technology should know -- he's an engineer, a cubicle > denizen in an anonymous corporate environment with incredibly bad > management). Dilbert brings up one of the pet peeves of engineers > that upper management constantly changes directions, so projects > never get completed. > > There is an indirect effect of proposed changes to a design that were > not carefully considered within the overall architecture of what is > to be built. They may have unintended consequences of cost or > reliability. A silly example -- when I worked for Nortel Networks, > somebody in "corporate image" decided that a very mundane > communications device, which would normally be installed in unmanned > back rooms of telephone companies, should have a brightly glowing > corporate logo on the front. > > To make this happen, we had to stop using the standard sheet metal > cases that we bought in quantity, so we could have a case with a > cutout for the light. We had to have the plastic logo designed and > made in quantity. The internal power supply for the working part of > the device did not have the reserve power or separate voltage for the > display lamp, so a new power supply had to be fitted into the case, > causing a complete revision of the manufacturing process. Since this > device was to be used in critical telephone buildings, the changes > required several hundred thousand dollars' worth of new safety > certification. > > Thankfully, the CEO, who at the time was an engineer, found out about > this idiocy, obtained a prototype, and, in the presence of the people > that came up with the idea, smashed it to the floor and jumped up and > down on the case. > > Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying > to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their > budgetary or operational ramifications. > > I'd rather see the effort on referenda devoted to getting better > information to lawmakers and regulators. I don't see referenda as an > efficient solution, although they do give the appearance of inviting > mass participation. Unfortunately, many decisions involve technical > or financial nuances that simply are not accessible to laymen, or, > worse, are reduced to sound bites and propaganda. > > >I would defenitely help. Electoral referendums would give > >many people a clearer insight whether their opinions reflect those > >of the majority > >of their fellow citizens, instead of just relying on media and other > >polls, which > >are always suspect of manipulation. For example an excellent > >question on the ballot > >right now would be: Do you favor the war in Iraq? > > But can that reasonably be answered "yes" or "no"? > > >I also think netizens can help > >these communications precisely by bringing these issues and concerns > >to our list as > >a way of improving communications among the people with other people and their > >government, even if it brings debate on the issues. > >Luis de Quesada > > > >Ronda Hauben wrote: > > > >> This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not > >> discuss the issue of the war on this list. > >> > >> So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the > >> result of a deliberate procedure that has happened. > >> > >> This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen. > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> from Mark Lindeman > >> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST) > >> > >> 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 ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #454 ******************************