Netizens-Digest Friday, April 4 2003 Volume 01 : Number 458 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:39:47 -0500 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Hello Mark: You talk about renaming the list "co-dependents?" I thought our initial intention was to communicate in a respectful manner, but if you want a good example of co-dependency, read what you wrote in the last paragraph of your posting. Luis Mark Lindeman wrote: > Ronda Hauben wrote: > > >On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > > > >>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. > >> > >> > >The discussion over the view towards the war in Iraq for netizens. > > > >Howard asked that that happen elsewhere. > > > >It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists. > > > >It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious > >situation like the current attack on Iraq. > > > >Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't > >that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process. > > > >The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the > >discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to > >resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one > >can't claim that a deliberative process took place. > > > >Ronda > > > Ronda, what deliberative process? What are we deliberating about? "The > question of what netizens do when there is a serious situation like the > current attack on Iraq"? Evidently we do different things. But how is > that the topic of a deliberative process? How will we know whether the > deliberative process is succeeding? > > What makes this discussion a "netizens" discussion, other than the use > of the word "netizens"? Yes, it's been pointed out that people use the > Net to get information, that some use it to communicate and/or to > organize across great distances, and that it might be argued that a > march is in some way analogous to the Net. That seems like pretty slim > pickings for these dozens of posts. What are we deliberating about? We > don't seem to be deliberating about Howard's thoughts about the > appropriate purpose and scope of the list. We don't seem to be > deliberating much about Net design, or Net institutions. > > Howard isn't trying to end netizen discussion of the war, and surely > knows that he wouldn't stand a chance if he did try. I will amend my > question: How likely is it that continuing to argue about whatever we > are arguing about, and indeed to argue about what we are arguing about, > will lead us to a transformative insight into anything whatsoever? > > Time is finite. Howard does us a great courtesy by explaining the basis > of his dissatisfaction and putting it on the table for discussion. Of > course, he also allows himself to get sucked into the threads that he > says he wants to discourage. And as for me, let's not start. Maybe we > should rename this list "codependents". > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:49:41 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --part1_127.26771be9.2bbf0395_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/03 9:48:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes: > Hello: Although you've raised some valid points, I respectfully disagree on > the part "you cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues". The way I > understand democracy, it cannot be selective and bar from voting those who > may be regarded as ignorant or underqualified, that's a chance you have to > take or its not democracy. I still would not put an ignoramus in a > government cabinet post of course. You educate or attempt to educate, using > the media available, including on line communications, the electorate prior > to voting, explain what the issue is, etc. I am never afraid to hear the > voice of the majority, even though I must agree that several times > throughout history fatal errors have been made by it. > Luis de Quesada I believe I have been misunderstood. By employing the noun phrase 'ignorant people,' I am not being precise enough. I did not intend to make a gross generalization or reference to a nonexistent classification. It would be ignorant of me to use this phrase this way to describe any grouping of people without a well-defined context, simply because people cannot be meaningfully classified this way. I was just using 'ignorant people' as shorthand for 'people who are ignorant of a particular issue.' I did not intend to be disparaging. People who are ignorant of a particular issue should not be allowed to vote on that particular issue without some kind of demonstration that they actually understand the ramifications of their vote. For example, consider AMPAS and the Academy Awards: for some categories such as, I believe foreign films, academy members who did not appear for screenings were excluded from voting. Larry - --part1_127.26771be9.2bbf0395_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/4/03 9:48:53 AM Eastern Standard=20= Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:

Hello: Although you've raised s= ome valid points, I respectfully disagree on the part "you cannot have ignor= ant people deciding major issues". The way I understand democracy, it cannot= be selective and bar from voting those who may be regarded as ignorant or u= nderqualified, that's a chance you have to take or its not democracy. I stil= l would not put an ignoramus in a government cabinet post of course. You edu= cate or attempt to educate, using the media available, including on line com= munications, the electorate prior to voting, explain what the issue is, etc.= I am never afraid to hear the voice of the majority, even though  I mu= st agree that several times throughout history fatal errors have been made b= y it.
Luis de Quesada


I believe I have been misunderstood.  By employing the noun phrase 'ign= orant people,' I am not being precise enough.  I did not intend to make= a gross generalization or reference to a nonexistent classification. =20= It would be ignorant of me to use this phrase this way to describe any group= ing of people without a well-defined context, simply because people cannot b= e meaningfully classified this way. 

I was just using 'ignorant people' as shorthand for 'people who are ignorant= of a particular issue.'  I did not intend to be disparaging.

People who are ignorant of a particular issue should not be allowed to vote=20= on that particular issue without some kind of demonstration that they actual= ly understand the ramifications of their vote.  For example, consider A= MPAS and the Academy Awards: for some categories such as, I believe foreign=20= films, academy members who did not appear for screenings were excluded from=20= voting. 

Larry - --part1_127.26771be9.2bbf0395_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:07:50 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --part1_184.18f1bab9.2bbf07d6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>Howard asked that that happen elsewhere. > >> > >>It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists. > >> > >>It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious > >>situation like the current attack on Iraq. > >> > >>Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't > >>that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process. > >> > >>The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the > >>discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to > >>resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one > >>can't claim that a deliberative process took place. > >> > >>Ronda > Ronda is right about issues regarding 'the deliberative process,' introduced by Mark. I think that so many things are happening at once. We are presenting new issues and responding to old ones out of sequence. It is what will inevitably happen in this packet store and forwarding deal. Perhaps this is facilitating the confusion. I don't know. And don't be afraid of the confusion. Interesting ideas may yet evince themselves by virtue of the maelstrom. Larry - --part1_184.18f1bab9.2bbf07d6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>Howard asked that that=20= happen elsewhere.
>>
>>It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists.
>>
>>It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious
>>situation like the current attack on Iraq.
>>
>>Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't >>that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process.
>>
>>The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
>>discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
>>resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
>>can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
>>
>>Ronda


Ronda is right about issues regarding 'the deliberative process,' introduced= by Mark.  I think that so many things are happening at once.  We=20= are presenting new issues and responding to old ones out of sequence. =20= It is what will inevitably happen in this packet store and forwarding deal.&= nbsp; Perhaps this is facilitating the confusion.  I don't know. =20= And don't be afraid of the confusion.  Interesting ideas may yet evince= themselves by virtue of the maelstrom. 

Larry - --part1_184.18f1bab9.2bbf07d6_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:35:43 -0500 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --------------FAF878D895BDD1BFB75BE5B2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Larry: I perfectly understand about the exclusion of folks who do not know enough or didn't appear for screenings barred from voting on foreign or other films at Academy Awards. I was talking about an electoral referendum or question(s) in a voting ballot. I am glad that's not what you meant, although in a democracy you can express yourself freely. You can say you're for colonial restoration and I'll respect your right to say it, even though I might strongly disagree with it. What you are saying reminds me about the many times I've gotten ballots on the mail from institutions I am a member of like AAA, Tiaa Cref, etc. asking me to vote for so and so or so and so, for a position of leadership in that company or for example should the company or institution divest its interests or stop investing in Coca Cola or whatever, I usually toss the ballot in the garbage, because I think I'd be doing this outfit a disservice if I casted an uneducated vote, or a vote for the sake of voting. Take care, Lou D. AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/4/03 9:48:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, > lgd1@columbia.edu writes: > > >> Hello: Although you've raised some valid points, I respectfully >> disagree on the part "you cannot have ignorant people deciding major >> issues". The way I understand democracy, it cannot be selective and >> bar from voting those who may be regarded as ignorant or >> underqualified, that's a chance you have to take or its not >> democracy. I still would not put an ignoramus in a government >> cabinet post of course. You educate or attempt to educate, using the >> media available, including on line communications, the electorate >> prior to voting, explain what the issue is, etc. I am never afraid >> to hear the voice of the majority, even though I must agree that >> several times throughout history fatal errors have been made by it. >> Luis de Quesada > > I believe I have been misunderstood. By employing the noun phrase > 'ignorant people,' I am not being precise enough. I did not intend to > make a gross generalization or reference to a nonexistent > classification. It would be ignorant of me to use this phrase this > way to describe any grouping of people without a well-defined context, > simply because people cannot be meaningfully classified this way. > > I was just using 'ignorant people' as shorthand for 'people who are > ignorant of a particular issue.' I did not intend to be disparaging. > > People who are ignorant of a particular issue should not be allowed to > vote on that particular issue without some kind of demonstration that > they actually understand the ramifications of their vote. For > example, consider AMPAS and the Academy Awards: for some categories > such as, I believe foreign films, academy members who did not appear > for screenings were excluded from voting. > > Larry - --------------FAF878D895BDD1BFB75BE5B2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Larry: I perfectly understand about the exclusion of folks who do not know enough or didn't appear for screenings barred from voting on foreign or other films at Academy Awards. I was talking about an electoral referendum or question(s) in a voting ballot. I am glad that's not what you meant, although in a democracy you can express yourself  freely. You can say you're for colonial restoration and I'll respect your right to say it, even though I might strongly disagree with it. What you are saying reminds me about the many times I've gotten ballots on the mail from institutions I am a member of like AAA, Tiaa Cref, etc. asking me to vote for so and so or so and so, for a position of leadership in that company or for example should the company or institution divest its interests or stop investing in Coca Cola or whatever, I usually toss the ballot in the garbage, because I think I'd be doing this outfit  a disservice if I casted an uneducated vote, or a vote for the sake of voting.
Take care,
Lou D.

AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/4/03 9:48:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:
 
Hello: Although you've raised some valid points, I respectfully disagree on the part "you cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues". The way I understand democracy, it cannot be selective and bar from voting those who may be regarded as ignorant or underqualified, that's a chance you have to take or its not democracy. I still would not put an ignoramus in a government cabinet post of course. You educate or attempt to educate, using the media available, including on line communications, the electorate prior to voting, explain what the issue is, etc. I am never afraid to hear the voice of the majority, even though  I must agree that several times throughout history fatal errors have been made by it.
Luis de Quesada

I believe I have been misunderstood.  By employing the noun phrase 'ignorant people,' I am not being precise enough.  I did not intend to make a gross generalization or reference to a nonexistent classification.  It would be ignorant of me to use this phrase this way to describe any grouping of people without a well-defined context, simply because people cannot be meaningfully classified this way.

I was just using 'ignorant people' as shorthand for 'people who are ignorant of a particular issue.'  I did not intend to be disparaging.

People who are ignorant of a particular issue should not be allowed to vote on that particular issue without some kind of demonstration that they actually understand the ramifications of their vote.  For example, consider AMPAS and the Academy Awards: for some categories such as, I believe foreign films, academy members who did not appear for screenings were excluded from voting.

Larry

- --------------FAF878D895BDD1BFB75BE5B2-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:28:21 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) >Hello Howard: I am somewhat familiar with Otto Ohlendorf and his Inland >Intelligence, (was he a subordinate of Admiral Canaris or >Himmler?)and later on his >SS Einzatskommando, just another extermination unit. There wasn't >much or any room >at the top echelon of the Third Reich for any surveys,constructive >criticism,never >mind plain criticism, the only disagreement was on efficiency etc. Statistical >methods were always used as a way to more efficient and faster killings, >extermination at death camps, etc. When I spoke of Ohlendorf, who was a subordinate of Himmler, I was focusing on his role well before he was involved in extermination. Among the second-tier Nazis, he was notable for his substantial academic background (law and/or economics, etc.). Please don't misunderstand and assume I think he was some sort of hero. But he was internally called the "Crusty Knight of National Socialism," a reference to Gotz von Berlichingen (a Goethe character), in that he often criticized leaders for being opportunists and straying from the "Holy Grail" of Nazi ideologies. In other words, while he may have been an evil man, he was a principled evil man. Himmler, as head of security and the SS, reported to Hitler. Under Himmler were about 8 various-sized administrative directorate, of which a critical one was the Security Directorate (RSHA) under Heydrich and then Kaltenbrunner. Under the RSHA were two SD intelligence (as opposed to the Gestapo's operational secret police role) divisions, Inland SD under Ohlendorf and External SD under Schellenberger. Inland SD was concerned with public opinion and what I'll call the "long-term detection of dissent." as opposed to specific "anti-social" elements under the authority of the Gestapo. Canaris was in military intelligence, with a completely different reporting line that bypassed Himmler. "Inland SS" produced a series of "Reports from the Reich," which were highly secret opinion polls and other survey data. I have not read them personally, but I've been told they were as objective as the social science of the time knew how to do. They were also extremely unpopular with the top leadership, which put Ohlendorf in danger of being purged. Up to that point, Ohlendorf probably was not significantly involved in war crimes. In a misguided effort to restore their Party standing, Ohlendorf and Nebe (Criminal Police chief) volunteered to lead Einsatzgruppen. Nebe, incidentally, was active in the anti-Hitler plots and was later executed by the Nazis for his participation. Ohlendorf had little if anything to do with the concentration or extermination camps. He probably did report that the Einsatzgruppen, which worked by shooting, were not efficient. >I think Stalin did likewise,not much room for criticism, that is, >although ethnic >cleansing was not one of his top priorities. Stalin, as seen from the writings of several of his immediate associates, differed here from Hitler. Before Stalin made a decision, he was apparently quite permissive about frank and open discussion of alternatives within the top leadership circle, something Hitler never did. Of course, if a leader continued to argue after Stalin made the decision, said dissenter might be purged. The opportunity for dissent never went below the level of Stalin's inner circle, but it was slightly more evident than with Hitler. Hitler did have a few favorites that could criticize him without personal fear (e.g., Speer, Guderian), but their arguments seemed to have little impact. >I hope in this case we are not dealing with the likes of Hitler, >Heydrich, et al. >Just a simple electoral referendum here in a democracy, a republic >or a facsimile >thereof, the definitions of our present system of government are getting too >technical for me lately. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, life itself grows increasingly more technical. A personal perspective: my father died of heart disease at 42, and was severely disabled by it through his late thirties. I'm 54, but by aggressive use of medical techniques not dreamed of in his lifetime, I have no major cardiac limitations - -- although I've had two angioplasties, a quadruple bypass, a pacemaker, and daily handfuls of drugs. I'll happily take that additional complication. >Luis de Quesada > >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >> >Howard wrote, >> > >> >> Our social scientists can comment better than I, >> > >> >Looks like you have it covered. Carry on. >> > >> >I will add: Many people are allergic to the very thought of surveys, but if >> >we're thinking in terms of non-binding Internet 'referenda,' >>survey methods do >> >have some useful lessons. Of course I don't mean to imply that some such >> >referenda, by themselves, would constitute some apotheosis of democratic >> >process. But they could be a useful mechanism for publics to >>learn more about >> >their collective beliefs. >> > >> >Mark >> >> Again, we have the glimmerings of a proposal for something Netizens >> might do. Assume, for the sake of argument, that truly binding >> referenda have enough structural problems such that they are not >> viable as part of the decisionmaking process. Factors could involve >> accessibility with the digital divide, the need to reduce complex >> situations to propositions that can be voted on [1], and the >> susceptibility of the process to short-term, less than reflective >> thinking. >> >> To what extent would the existence of a trusted survey organization, >> whose outputs certainly will be considered -- if not agreed to -- by >> lawmakers, be useful as an adjunct to the political process? Is it >> feasible to create in a broad-based way that frees it from >> partisanship? >> >> Ironically, there have been some suboptimal historical examples of >> what happened when good survey data was produced. In Nazi Germany, >> the "Inland SD" intelligence agency, under Otto Ohlendorf, did what >> were generally considered very objective surveys of public opinion, >> whose results were circulated to perhaps 100 individuals in the >> leadership. The data produced was so in opposition to what the >> leadership wanted to hear that these "Reports from the Reich" were >> shut down. Ohlendorf, a Nazi intellectual reputed to have a degree of >> intellectual honesty, volunteered to lead an extermination force >> (Einsatzkommando) as penance and political rehabilitation. For that, >> he was executed by order of one of the later war crimes trials. It's >> entirely possible that if he had not made that choice, while he was >> an ideological Nazi, he might very well have come out with little or >> no punishment and perhaps a legitimate academic appointment. >> >> Ohlendorf's example is NOT the way to do things. ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #458 ******************************