Netizens-Digest         Monday, April 7 2003         Volume 01 : Number 468

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 (fwd)
       Re: [netz] Many voices online and off

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:36:42 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)

Mark: You mean "the last one out please turn on the light", because all you have
offered us with your postings is hateful darkness. You say you're angry at Jay
because of his silence? Well I admit that Jay should've participated more in the
present debate, but as I explained to you and others, he and Ronda have been very
depressed since Michael's untimely death. I have been with them, as much as I could
to help them during this terrible time in their lives. That's why Jay has been
silent and his postings are far and few between and whenever he did make a posting
he was virtually told to shut up, by you and members of your gang. You might not
have said he was demeaning himself, one of your buddies might have, you all sound
the same to me.
You keep saying to so what? So nothing. You said what you said and that's it and as
I said before, netizens being a democratic forum you can say whatever you like,
however when you resort to name calling censorship you are going to be replied to.

lindeman@bard.edu wrote:

> 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, 7 Apr 2003 12:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] censorship

Luis,

Wow, this is like Lay potato chips, it's hard to stop.

Quoting Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>:

> I am just defending my right to
> post and to reply, which I felt were threatened on this list and still are.

Luis, if you have lived under a totalitarian regime, how can you possibly 
believe that anything that has happened on this list constitutes a threat to 
your right to post and to reply?

> Now you're trying yet another form of censorship, which is disprove my
> interpretation of the word censorship.

I have tried to do you the honor of taking your words seriously.  But if you 
think that "censorship" includes any attempt to refute you....  <sputter>

Well, then I guess you're right.  If you can show me where I owe Jay or Ronda 
an apology, then I will gladly apologize to them.  But I will not accept your 
arguments(?), however "censorious" I may seem.  If you can't defend your 
statements on their merits, for heaven's sake don't whimper about being 
repressed.

Mark

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:20:32 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)

- --part1_a.2ef87a1c.2bc2ff50_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 4/6/03 3:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.ed=
u=20
writes:

> RH>It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as
> RH>I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that
> RH>support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the
> RH>war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen
> RH>expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings
> RH>online given the repression that is carried out against others
> RH>by the governments in question.
> RH>
> RH>This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.
> RH>
> M>If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that=20
> M>probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of=20
> M>us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals.  It=20
> M>doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad=20
> M>discussion of the war.  Is this distinction reasonable to you?
>=20

The fear of reprisals is not unfounded.  We have definitely seen our civil=20
liberties attacked in a very serious way since 9-11 and the advent of the=20
Patriot Act.  I definitely share this fear and had expressed such feelings=20
with Ronda a few months ago.  Nonetheless, I am more about finding solutions=
=20
to problems rather than complaining about them.  With regard to solutions an=
d=20
public policy, I find that it makes sense to work within the framework of an=
=20
overwhelming trend than overtly against it. =20

More specifically, it is a more practical employment of time and capital to=20
look constructively at what rights we do have left. =20

If we are to looking to find or pursue solutions that enhance the quality of=
=20
life of all citizens of the world as Netizens, I am all for that in this=20
list.


RH>At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize
RH>the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael
RH>opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.
RH>
RH>There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in
RH>influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in
RH>influencing how government makes policy.
RH>
RH>These are part of the concept that was being developed.
RH>
RH>I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.
RH>
RH>Do you agree or not?
RH>
M>Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online=20
M>forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single=20
M>list."=A0 I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is broader=
=20
M>than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal (if=20
M>I may call it that).

M>However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net in=20
M>influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the=20
M>role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy.=A0 It's not=20
M>clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are=20
M>too broad for the list.=A0 His desire to exclude specific debate about the=
=20
M>merits of the war is clearer to me.=A0 But Howard may be arguing, in=20
M>effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net=20
M>itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does=20
M>seem to exclude these discussions) -- which is plausible, although I=20
M>find your proposal equally plausible.

M>(The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, does=20
M>seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow=20
M>view of the list's scope.=A0 Howard, do you agree with me there?)

M>Mark

In the ways that Michael had specifically articulated, does it seem that thi=
s=20
list should progress.  We should be talking about privatization of the=20
Internet, and Internet governance here.  Any other discussion might provide=20
good flavoring, but let's at least understand and not forget what this thing=
=20
is supposed to taste like.=20
=20
Larry



- --part1_a.2ef87a1c.2bc2ff50_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/6/03 3:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight=20=
Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">RH&gt;It is interesting that in=
 NYC at least, and in general as far as<BR>
RH&gt;I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that<BR>
RH&gt;support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the<BR=
>
RH&gt;war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen<BR>
RH&gt;expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings<BR>
RH&gt;online given the repression that is carried out against others<BR>
RH&gt;by the governments in question.<BR>
RH&gt;<BR>
RH&gt;This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.<BR>
RH&gt;<BR>
M&gt;If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that=20=
<BR>
M&gt;probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of=20=
<BR>
M&gt;us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals.&nbsp;=
 It <BR>
M&gt;doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad=20=
<BR>
M&gt;discussion of the war.&nbsp; Is this distinction reasonable to you?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
The fear of reprisals is not unfounded.&nbsp; We have definitely seen our ci=
vil liberties attacked in a very serious way since 9-11 and the advent of th=
e Patriot Act.&nbsp; I definitely share this fear and had expressed such fee=
lings with Ronda a few months ago.&nbsp; Nonetheless, I am more about findin=
g solutions to problems rather than complaining about them.&nbsp; With regar=
d to solutions and public policy, I find that it makes sense to work within=20=
the framework of an overwhelming trend than overtly against it.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
More specifically, it is a more practical employment of time and capital to=20=
look constructively at what rights we do have left.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
If we are to looking to find or pursue solutions that enhance the quality of=
 life of all citizens of the world as Netizens, I am all for that in this li=
st.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
RH&gt;At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize<BR>
RH&gt;the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael<BR=
>
RH&gt;opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.<BR>
RH&gt;<BR>
RH&gt;There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in<BR>
RH&gt;influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in<BR>
RH&gt;influencing how government makes policy.<BR>
RH&gt;<BR>
RH&gt;These are part of the concept that was being developed.<BR>
RH&gt;<BR>
RH&gt;I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.<BR>
RH&gt;<BR>
RH&gt;Do you agree or not?<BR>
RH&gt;<BR>
M&gt;Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online <B=
R>
M&gt;forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single=20=
<BR>
M&gt;list."=A0 I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is broa=
der <BR>
M&gt;than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal (i=
f <BR>
M&gt;I may call it that).<BR>
<BR>
M&gt;However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net i=
n <BR>
M&gt;influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the=20=
<BR>
M&gt;role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy.=A0 It's not=
 <BR>
M&gt;clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are <=
BR>
M&gt;too broad for the list.=A0 His desire to exclude specific debate about=20=
the <BR>
M&gt;merits of the war is clearer to me.=A0 But Howard may be arguing, in <B=
R>
M&gt;effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net <BR=
>
M&gt;itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does <B=
R>
M&gt;seem to exclude these discussions) -- which is plausible, although I <B=
R>
M&gt;find your proposal equally plausible.<BR>
<BR>
M&gt;(The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, doe=
s <BR>
M&gt;seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow <=
BR>
M&gt;view of the list's scope.=A0 Howard, do you agree with me there?)<BR>
<BR>
M&gt;Mark<BR>
<BR>
In the ways that Michael had specifically articulated, does it seem that thi=
s list should progress.&nbsp; We should be talking about privatization of th=
e Internet, and Internet governance here.&nbsp; Any other discussion might p=
rovide good flavoring, but let's at least understand and not forget what thi=
s thing is supposed to taste like. <BR>
 <BR>
Larry<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_a.2ef87a1c.2bc2ff50_boundary--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:54:09 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off

- --------------1B0E1B8DAF5540D79FE99DA8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello: Thank you for your clarification.I respectfully disagree on your
statement, consider that it is not very constructive to express overtly
or ambigously that you do not trust the officials you voted for".
I reserve the right to publicly or privately criticize the officials I
voted for or I did not vote for. In fact I might have vehemently have
opposed that official when was running for office, or I might have voted
for him and become disenchanted with his lousy performance in office. If
he doesn't like it well that's his prerrogative. He does not own any
services or documents or data I may seek. He's just a temporary occupant
of that office, with my taxes I pay his salary and from me he's going to
hear if I disapprove of the job he's doing. He can stall my requests, he
could blackball me, etc. but sooner or later I will obtain the services
or document I'm looking for through the legal remedies available to me
in the sistem while exposing him for what he really is. Not all
officials are bad, but nowadays they're far and few between.
To keep silent or not to criticize or be mild in your criticism of an
elected official  invites abuses of power and infringements of rights by
elected officials, who by now act like landlords rather elected
officials who were elected to serve the public.
Luis de Quesada

Luis De Quesada wrote:

> 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
>

- --------------1B0E1B8DAF5540D79FE99DA8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hello: Thank you for your clarification.I respectfully disagree on your
statement, consider that it is not very constructive to express overtly
or ambigously that you do not trust the officials you voted for".
<br>I reserve the right to publicly or privately criticize the officials
I voted for or I did not vote for. In fact I might have vehemently have
opposed that official when was running for office, or I might have voted
for him and become disenchanted with his lousy performance in office. If
he doesn't like it well that's his prerrogative. He does not own any services
or documents or data I may seek. He's just a temporary occupant of that
office, with my taxes I pay his salary and from me he's going to hear if
I disapprove of the job he's doing. He can stall my requests, he could
blackball me, etc. but sooner or later I will obtain the services or document
I'm looking for through the legal remedies available to me in the sistem
while exposing him for what he really is. Not all officials are bad, but
nowadays they're far and few between.
<br>To keep silent or not to criticize or be mild in your criticism of
an elected official&nbsp; invites abuses of power and infringements of
rights by elected officials, who by now act like landlords rather elected
officials who were elected to serve the public.
<br>Luis de Quesada
<p>Luis De Quesada wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>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".
<br>Luis de Quesada
<p>AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In a message dated
4/5/03 11:50:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes:</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>One
of the slogans of the people in Eastern Germany when they fought</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>to bring down the Berlin Wall was
"We demand the right to criticize</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>our government". That is a slogan
that is at the essence of the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>development of how to make something
better.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>This is at the essence of citizenship.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I am proposing that this is also related
to the essence of netizenship.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>As Michael pointed out in his Preface
to the Netizens book,</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>it isn't one then needs to say "good"
netizen, because he</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>intended the concept to express responsibility
for actions</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>and participation and taking on that
responsibility.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Similarly citizenship requires the
responsibility to figure</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>out what is being done in ones name
and participating in the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>ways one can find that the activities
of ones government are</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>the activities that benefit people
not harm them.</font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-1>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
In lieu of this kind of activity you're going to have to trust the officials
that you have empowered with your vote.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>What is wrong with that?&nbsp; -- A
very good question.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Paranoia or the expressed expectation
of baneful behavior of your adversary is not the beginning of a good diplomacy.&nbsp;
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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>To reiterate, within the your last
statement about the requirement of citizenship above is the assumption
that the government cannot be trusted.&nbsp; 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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>You 'participate,' just as you say,
but not ostensibly out of distrust; participate out of a feeling of civic
obligation.&nbsp; No one (politician) likes to feel as though he is being
manipulated.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Consider that without particularly
volunteer support, the official's office would lose many services that
affect many people.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>No politician wants to draw bad press.&nbsp;
So here I have illustrated a tacit yet real threat that the constituency
can invoke.&nbsp; Simply, you get a preponderant percentage of the constituency
to volunteer services to the office of the local elected official.&nbsp;
The more the volunteers are used, the more they are needed.&nbsp; People
get used to the new expanded level of services that are being provided.&nbsp;
At which point volunteers feel that they are being misrepresented, they
can always refuse to participate, effectively shutting the office down.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>This is an example of the power that
I have been talking about.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>But more constructively speaking, the
new 'volunteering constituency' becomes a more informed constituency.&nbsp;
It informs itself with greater currency than a newsletter about the issues
that affect them.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Like I have said repeatedly in earlier
posts, effective participation must be ongoing commencing at the 'swearing
to office.'&nbsp; True effective participation is like an insurance policy.&nbsp;
You participate during the good times so that you can effectively manage
the bad times.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In this construction, where is the
opportunity for there to be mistrust?&nbsp; The constituency is involved
in local administration.&nbsp; There is no place to hide.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Information about everything that the
elected representative is considering including upcoming legislation is
disseminated immediately.&nbsp; All behavior and appointments are chronicled
with more peering eyes -- including meetings with special interests.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>There is no place to hide.&nbsp; 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 ..."&nbsp;
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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>But where is the 'information asynchronism'
between two parties to occur when both parties are at the same source?</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>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.'</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>There is no place to plot.&nbsp; There
is no place to hide.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Please provide an example where, what
I call, 'true effective participation' had honestly taken place and did
not work.&nbsp; You know what I mean.&nbsp; I understand that there are
always people that participate; and in most of these cases this construction
does not apply.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I am talking about a situation where
there is an overwhelming percentage of the constituency that is involved
with the management of local governance.&nbsp; Show me one honest example
in the United States that proves my conjecture about the influence of local
governance by the 'volunteering constituency' wrong.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Your demonstration will be clearly
conveyed if you stuck to the United States.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Consider that it will be meaningful
that you cannot find such an example.&nbsp; What does that tell you about
the necessity of protests as a first, underline 'first,' effective and
diplomatic means for making change?&nbsp; Protests usually happen AFTER
the legislation.&nbsp; They at least tacitly purport that government is
not to be trusted, perpetuating an 'us' versus 'them' relationship, antithetical
to diplomatic and constructive discourse.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Show me honestly where we are doing
all we can do as citizens -- as Netizens.&nbsp; This is where I have a
problem with the protests.&nbsp; In some ways the protests make the problem
worse by perpetuating the myth that the citizenry IS doing everything it
can.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>And as I have illustrated, this is
not entirely true.&nbsp; We are not doing everything we can.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Excuse my 'Jesse Jackson' here but
- -- 'Preparation before expectation.'&nbsp; I think we have a theme here.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Let us prepare by getting involved
in government 'from the swearing in to beyond' to agglomerate our influence
capital.&nbsp; Only then can we expect our intentions and rights to be
adequately represented and protected.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I do not wish to ignore the value of
protests when used appropriately, but tools when unreasonably abused lose
their efficacy.&nbsp; ...like adding antibiotics in animal feed -- resistant
strains will appear.&nbsp; ...like using a flat blade when a phillips is
the appropriate screwdriver -- the head of the screw eventually disintegrates.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>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.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Larry</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------1B0E1B8DAF5540D79FE99DA8--

------------------------------

End of Netizens-Digest V1 #468
******************************