Netizens-Digest Monday, April 7 2003 Volume 01 : Number 467 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] Many voices online and off ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:59:54 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Luis, > I did understood you perfectly well when you angrily snapped at Ronda for > her postings and made accusations against her and Jay about "destroying the > list". If you'd like to repost the comments that you're carrying a torch about, I can perhaps address them more constructively. The fact is that if Ronda and Jay do not intervene to persuade Howard that there is some useful purpose to him participating, he is likely to leave. By my observation, agree with him or not, Howard is one of the most prolific and constructive constributors across a wide range of threads. Objectively, ignoring his concerns, much less misrepresenting them as McCarthyism and censorship, is harmful to the list, whether you admit this or not. Last one out, please turn off the lights. > But I still > must point out to you, again, that any attempt on your part or any one > else's to > persuade or prevent me or any netizen to stop posting about the war or > anything > they want to post will be met with a reply. OK, now I get to ask you again, so what? The Apostle Paul said (depending on the translation), "All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." > I am not Jay, who kept quiet when you > and your confederates chose to insult him and shut him up by telling him he > was "demaning himself". Actually, my main gripe with Jay is that he is mostly keeping quiet, instead of addressing serious substantive concerns of list members. I have not tried to shut him or anyone else up. I don't believe I ever said that he was demeaning himself. And I have no "confederates" on the list. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:18:06 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] censorship Mark: Because like I told you, I know a censor when I see one and you fit that mold perfectly. I am not accusing anyone of disloyalty. I am just defending my right to post and to reply, which I felt were threatened on this list and still are. I say things the way I say it and I will clarify any word you or anyone else might misunderstand. However I strongly believe that up until now, there is nothing wrong with my english as it is plain as it can get. The problem with you is that from the very beginning you want to portray those who are contrary to your opinions as some sort of misinformed ignoramuses, destroyers of the list, demeaning themselves, etc. I reject what you say that I twist words around. You seem to be an expert in what you accuse me of. Now you're trying yet another form of censorship, which is disprove my interpretation of the word censorship. And I will keep telling you I know censorship when I see it, because unlike you I've lived under totalitarian regimes. And you will not manipulate this list as you will. You will be challenged. Luis lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > Luis, > > You think my posts are inappropriate, and say so; I think your posts are > inappropriate, and say so. Since neither of us is in a position to abuse state > power to ruin the other's life through egregious accusations of disloyalty, for > the apparent purpose of personal aggrandizement, I don't think either of us > bears any resemblance to McCarthy. > > You are at liberty to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean, without > being fettered by technical or dictionary meanings. But why do you expect > anyone to make the effort to understand your personal language? > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:25:38 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --------------229AD7EF5290A978244895C6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: I would like a clarification on the following in your posting: "Consider that it is not very constructive to express either overtly or ambigously that you do not trust the officials you voted for". Luis de Quesada AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/5/03 11:50:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, > ronda@panix.com writes: > > >> One of the slogans of the people in Eastern Germany when they fought >> >> to bring down the Berlin Wall was "We demand the right to criticize >> our government". That is a slogan that is at the essence of the >> development of how to make something better. >> >> This is at the essence of citizenship. >> >> I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of >> netizenship. >> >> As Michael pointed out in his Preface to the Netizens book, >> it isn't one then needs to say "good" netizen, because he >> intended the concept to express responsibility for actions >> and participation and taking on that responsibility. >> >> Similarly citizenship requires the responsibility to figure >> out what is being done in ones name and participating in the >> ways one can find that the activities of ones government are >> the activities that benefit people not harm them. > > This requirement of citizenship, to figure out what truly is being > done in one's name, requires information -- the kind of information > that is most likely held confidential. You're possibly going to have > to break into government databases and rescue reports and transcripts > of convening authorities to get at the real data. In lieu of this > kind of activity you're going to have to trust the officials that you > have empowered with your vote. > > What is wrong with that? -- A very good question. > > Paranoia or the expressed expectation of baneful behavior of your > adversary is not the beginning of a good diplomacy. Consider that it > is not very constructive to express either overtly or ambagiously that > you do not trust the elected officials that you voted for. > > To reiterate, within the your last statement about the requirement of > citizenship above is the assumption that the government cannot be > trusted. At which point that such a feeling has been expressed, one > is most likely not going to get a positive response from the agent(s) > or representative(s) of government that is being so described. > > Hopefully Ronda before getting to the 'test of trustworthiness,' we > should have already pursued a means of establishing a 'retainer > relationship' for our elected official. > > You 'participate,' just as you say, but not ostensibly out of > distrust; participate out of a feeling of civic obligation. No one > (politician) likes to feel as though he is being manipulated. > Nonetheless, if a large enough percentage of the constituency is > sharing the responsibility of local government administration > indirectly by supporting the local office or volunteering, they > naturally build a capital leverage that they can use to get the > representative to perform for them. This is equivalent to what a > lobbyist can do with money to influence policy and in some ways this > kind of participation is more effective. > > Consider that without particularly volunteer support, the official's > office would lose many services that affect many people. > > No politician wants to draw bad press. So here I have illustrated a > tacit yet real threat that the constituency can invoke. Simply, you > get a preponderant percentage of the constituency to volunteer > services to the office of the local elected official. The more the > volunteers are used, the more they are needed. People get used to the > new expanded level of services that are being provided. At which > point volunteers feel that they are being misrepresented, they can > always refuse to participate, effectively shutting the office down. > > This is an example of the power that I have been talking about. > > But more constructively speaking, the new 'volunteering constituency' > becomes a more informed constituency. It informs itself with greater > currency than a newsletter about the issues that affect them. > > The meaningful benefit of currency is particularly that the > constituency can employ their manipulative influences in a timely and > effective manner -- that is to say, BEFORE legislation. > > Like I have said repeatedly in earlier posts, effective participation > must be ongoing commencing at the 'swearing to office.' True > effective participation is like an insurance policy. You participate > during the good times so that you can effectively manage the bad > times. > > In this construction, where is the opportunity for there to be > mistrust? The constituency is involved in local administration. > There is no place to hide. > > Information about everything that the elected representative is > considering including upcoming legislation is disseminated > immediately. All behavior and appointments are chronicled with more > peering eyes -- including meetings with special interests. > > There is no place to hide. There is no opportunity for government to > harm the people because participation is no longer about 'a paranoid > discovery mission of the unhale' as is alluded by your semantics, > i.e., "participating in the ways one can find ..." The usage of > 'find' implies the existence of a miscommunication event between two > parties, i.e., asynchronism; there is a point where both sides do not > have the same information. > > But where is the 'information asynchronism' between two parties to > occur when both parties are at the same source? > > I conclude that if there has been true participation by citizens, > there is no need for discovery of harm; the elected official and the > citizenry are working together in 'synchrony.' > > There is no place to plot. There is no place to hide. > > Please provide an example where, what I call, 'true effective > participation' had honestly taken place and did not work. You know > what I mean. I understand that there are always people that > participate; and in most of these cases this construction does not > apply. > > I am talking about a situation where there is an overwhelming > percentage of the constituency that is involved with the management of > local governance. Show me one honest example in the United States > that proves my conjecture about the influence of local governance by > the 'volunteering constituency' wrong. > > Your demonstration will be clearly conveyed if you stuck to the United > States. > > Consider that it will be meaningful that you cannot find such an > example. What does that tell you about the necessity of protests as a > first, underline 'first,' effective and diplomatic means for making > change? Protests usually happen AFTER the legislation. They at least > tacitly purport that government is not to be trusted, perpetuating an > 'us' versus 'them' relationship, antithetical to diplomatic and > constructive discourse. > > Show me honestly where we are doing all we can do as citizens -- as > Netizens. This is where I have a problem with the protests. In some > ways the protests make the problem worse by perpetuating the myth that > the citizenry IS doing everything it can. > > And as I have illustrated, this is not entirely true. We are not > doing everything we can. > > Protests disrespect the efforts of those that are trying to work > within the system by tacitly calling these efforts ineffective without > even making an attempt to honestly evaluate these efforts themselves. > > Excuse my 'Jesse Jackson' here but -- 'Preparation before > expectation.' I think we have a theme here. > > Let us prepare by getting involved in government 'from the swearing in > to beyond' to agglomerate our influence capital. Only then can we > expect our intentions and rights to be adequately represented and > protected. > > I do not wish to ignore the value of protests when used appropriately, > but tools when unreasonably abused lose their efficacy. ...like > adding antibiotics in animal feed -- resistant strains will appear. > ...like using a flat blade when a phillips is the appropriate > screwdriver -- the head of the screw eventually disintegrates. > > To be responsible and constructive, citizens should properly exploit > the protests to motivate citizens to get involved in government rather > than use them to encourage further alienation from government. > > Larry - --------------229AD7EF5290A978244895C6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: I would like a clarification on the following in your posting: "Consider that it is not very constructive to express either overtly or ambigously that you do not trust the officials you voted for".
Luis de Quesada

AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/5/03 11:50:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes:
 
One of the slogans of the people in Eastern Germany when they fought
to bring down the Berlin Wall was "We demand the right to criticize
our government". That is a slogan that is at the essence of the
development of how to make something better.

This is at the essence of citizenship.

I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of netizenship.

As Michael pointed out in his Preface to the Netizens book,
it isn't one then needs to say "good" netizen, because he
intended the concept to express responsibility for actions
and participation and taking on that responsibility.

Similarly citizenship requires the responsibility to figure
out what is being done in ones name and participating in the
ways one can find that the activities of ones government are
the activities that benefit people not harm them.

This requirement of citizenship, to figure out what truly is being done in one's name, requires information - -- the kind of information that is most likely held confidential.  You're possibly going to have to break into government databases and rescue reports and transcripts of convening authorities to get at the real data.  In lieu of this kind of activity you're going to have to trust the officials that you have empowered with your vote.

What is wrong with that?  -- A very good question.

Paranoia or the expressed expectation of baneful behavior of your adversary is not the beginning of a good diplomacy.  Consider that it is not very constructive to express either overtly or ambagiously that you do not trust the elected officials that you voted for.

To reiterate, within the your last statement about the requirement of citizenship above is the assumption that the government cannot be trusted.  At which point that such a feeling has been expressed, one is most likely not going to get a positive response from the agent(s) or representative(s) of government that is being so described.

Hopefully Ronda before getting to the 'test of trustworthiness,' we should have already pursued a means of establishing a 'retainer relationship' for our elected official.

You 'participate,' just as you say, but not ostensibly out of distrust; participate out of a feeling of civic obligation.  No one (politician) likes to feel as though he is being manipulated.  Nonetheless, if a large enough percentage of the constituency is sharing the responsibility of local government administration indirectly by supporting the local office or volunteering, they naturally build a capital leverage that they can use to get the representative to perform for them.  This is equivalent to what a lobbyist can do with money to influence policy and in some ways this kind of participation is more effective.

Consider that without particularly volunteer support, the official's office would lose many services that affect many people.

No politician wants to draw bad press.  So here I have illustrated a tacit yet real threat that the constituency can invoke.  Simply, you get a preponderant percentage of the constituency to volunteer services to the office of the local elected official.  The more the volunteers are used, the more they are needed.  People get used to the new expanded level of services that are being provided.  At which point volunteers feel that they are being misrepresented, they can always refuse to participate, effectively shutting the office down.

This is an example of the power that I have been talking about.

But more constructively speaking, the new 'volunteering constituency' becomes a more informed constituency.  It informs itself with greater currency than a newsletter about the issues that affect them.

The meaningful benefit of currency is particularly that the constituency can employ their manipulative influences in a timely and effective manner -- that is to say, BEFORE legislation.

Like I have said repeatedly in earlier posts, effective participation must be ongoing commencing at the 'swearing to office.'  True effective participation is like an insurance policy.  You participate during the good times so that you can effectively manage the bad times.

In this construction, where is the opportunity for there to be mistrust?  The constituency is involved in local administration.  There is no place to hide.

Information about everything that the elected representative is considering including upcoming legislation is disseminated immediately.  All behavior and appointments are chronicled with more peering eyes -- including meetings with special interests.

There is no place to hide.  There is no opportunity for government to harm the people because participation is no longer about 'a paranoid discovery mission of the unhale' as is alluded by your semantics, i.e., "participating in the ways one can find ..."  The usage of 'find' implies the existence of a miscommunication event between two parties, i.e., asynchronism; there is a point where both sides do not have the same information.

But where is the 'information asynchronism' between two parties to occur when both parties are at the same source?

I conclude that if there has been true participation by citizens, there is no need for discovery of harm; the elected official and the citizenry are working together in 'synchrony.'

There is no place to plot.  There is no place to hide.

Please provide an example where, what I call, 'true effective participation' had honestly taken place and did not work.  You know what I mean.  I understand that there are always people that participate; and in most of these cases this construction does not apply.

I am talking about a situation where there is an overwhelming percentage of the constituency that is involved with the management of local governance.  Show me one honest example in the United States that proves my conjecture about the influence of local governance by the 'volunteering constituency' wrong.

Your demonstration will be clearly conveyed if you stuck to the United States.

Consider that it will be meaningful that you cannot find such an example.  What does that tell you about the necessity of protests as a first, underline 'first,' effective and diplomatic means for making change?  Protests usually happen AFTER the legislation.  They at least tacitly purport that government is not to be trusted, perpetuating an 'us' versus 'them' relationship, antithetical to diplomatic and constructive discourse.

Show me honestly where we are doing all we can do as citizens -- as Netizens.  This is where I have a problem with the protests.  In some ways the protests make the problem worse by perpetuating the myth that the citizenry IS doing everything it can.

And as I have illustrated, this is not entirely true.  We are not doing everything we can.

Protests disrespect the efforts of those that are trying to work within the system by tacitly calling these efforts ineffective without even making an attempt to honestly evaluate these efforts themselves.

Excuse my 'Jesse Jackson' here but - -- 'Preparation before expectation.'  I think we have a theme here.

Let us prepare by getting involved in government 'from the swearing in to beyond' to agglomerate our influence capital.  Only then can we expect our intentions and rights to be adequately represented and protected.

I do not wish to ignore the value of protests when used appropriately, but tools when unreasonably abused lose their efficacy.  ...like adding antibiotics in animal feed -- resistant strains will appear.  ...like using a flat blade when a phillips is the appropriate screwdriver -- the head of the screw eventually disintegrates.

To be responsible and constructive, citizens should properly exploit the protests to motivate citizens to get involved in government rather than use them to encourage further alienation from government.

Larry

- --------------229AD7EF5290A978244895C6-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #467 ******************************