Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 434
Netizens-Digest Monday, March 17 2003 Volume 01 : Number 434
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] What is the netizen attitude toward war against Iraq & democracy at home?
[netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:34:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is the netizen attitude toward war against Iraq & democracy at home?
Good to hear your response Howard, to my post on Netizens.
>
> May I suggest, Ronda, that there may be additional categories? I'd
> categorize myself as supporting a massive show of force against Iraq,
> on the grounds that it just might be a short-of-war re-inforcement of
> diplomacy to force WMD disclosure and/or regime change? Of course,
> there is a risk that things will get to a combat situation. But I do
> not equate shows of force to war, and there is abundant discussion in
> the theoretical politicomilitary literature to support this. A good
> if dated reference is Hermann Kahn's _On Escalation: Metaphors and
> Scenarios_.
And I heard an Iraqi dissident on BBC say that removing the sanctions
in Iraq would make it possible for the Iraqi people to be stronger
is fighting for a more democratic government.
So is it we agree that it is desirable to support the Iraqi people,
and the American people, etc. in having more democratic means to
affect government decisions?
And that the difference is with regard to how to bring this about?
>
> I suppose I am failing to see where hard questions are not being
> asked. Unfortunately, I also see some real problems in questions and
> answers, especially when there are practical restrictions on full
> disclosure of intelligence information to the press and general
> public. Note: I am NOT saying the administration has or has not
> proven its case.
But with a threatened war against a country that has not in any
way attacked one's own country, which is illegal as I understand
it under international law, it seems that "disclosure of
intelligence information to the press" or "to the general public"
or to the UN inspectors, needs to be made, not used as the excuse
for an action that is seriously in question by many around the world.
>
> >
> >The url for the article is
> >
> >http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/misc/face_the_nation.txt
>
> I don't think it's productive to engage in a point-by-point
> discussion of your post here. I will say, however, that the idea of
I wouldn't expect you to have such a discussion. That is why I
only gave the url not the post itself.
But I included the post on other mailing lists and have already
gotten back responses. And it is also on Telepolis, if anyone
wants to see it there.
The url is
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/14387/1.html
It seems important to find a way of discussing what is happening and
determining what we can agree about with regard to the concept of
netizen.
> Cheney getting into serious debate within the limited time format of
> a TV show is ludicrous.
I didn't think it is debate for the interviewer to respond to
Cheney's response that the people of the world are protesting
because they don't have the experience of 9-11, with the
reminder that there are many people in the US and in NYC
also protesting, and they do have the experience of 9-11.
This is the kind of thing a reporter is protected to do.
This helps the government officials, not harms them.
This shows them that they can't respond in a way that isn't
in line with the reality of the world.
Michael's article in netizens which I have referred to before,
in chapter 18 of Netizen
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x18
The Computer as a Democratizer
It points out the need for a press that is critical of government
and oversees government, if there is to be good government.
That government is doomed if it doesn't allow and encourage a
critical press.
That is my understanding of why the first amendment is in
the US Constitution, the provision protecting the press from
censorship by the government.
However, that provision seems to have very little effect on the
US press.
The Internet is a way to challenge this, which is an optimistic
sign.
> If you were to talk about getting a group of
> key people on all sides together for a moderated discussion at a
> major conference center, perhaps with the debate recorded, perhaps
> with certain discussions in executive session, I would see that as
> far more practical and productive.
>
The problem with the proposal of "key people" is if a government
administration only allows those to be "key people" who agree
with the plans and policies. There is no mechanism for feedback
from the public in this scenario.
A reason feedback from the public is so essential is that
it helps to point out the realities, the material conditions
of the society, as experienced by many different people.
This is different from the narrow view of the few key and isolated
individuals in government.
>
> There is, in my mind, a fundamental difference between posing hard
> questions to make politicians uncomfortable, and posing hard
> questions to get input into a serious policy debate. The realities
> of military, intelligence and diplomatic operations are that a full
> public debate is not possible, but I am quite in favor of empowering
> proxies/representatives to get full access and have closed debate.
I don't propose to ask the hard question to make the politicians
uncomfortable. But the reason to pose them is to help the politicians
recognize and acknowledge the reality of the world.
There are protests in the US against the war. How could Cheney
not recognize and acknowledge this?
But the interviewer from Meet the Press didn't help Cheney.
>
> The nature of the "press," especially the electronic media, is not to
> have reasoned debate or exploration, but to get sound bites.
I haven't seen that to be true with the electronic media (the Internet
media as it is with other media like tv or off line news.
>
> >
> >Having a press that is worthy of being protected by a constitutional
> >amendment is a challenge for netizens.
>
> I would very much agree with that statement. Indeed, from the
> particular standpoint of Netizens, I would encourage more debate not
> about the war or not-war, but at the very significant issues at the
> FCC and elsewhere regarding consolidation of media, the difficulty of
> supporting commercial and effective news organizations, etc.
>
Well I agree that the FCC efforts at media consolidation are a problem,
and are worth discussing. But if there were a way to deal with the
plans for the killing to civilians by one's government, it would
help there to be more discussion on other topics.
> The unfortunate situation is that advertisers will pay for
> pseudo-journalists shouting at one another, or presenting
> self-described entertainers as Russ Limbaugh and Barbra Streisand
> becoming political authorities, or supporting extremely partisan
> attack journalists.
>
> (rhetorically) Where, oh where, is the spirit of Edward R. Murrow?
I agree that consolidation of the media is a real problem.
In fact at least one administration policy maker is involved with
a company that owns various press organizations.
Perhaps this is also a matter for discussion and understanding.
>
> >
> >Michael wrote about the role of the press and the role of netizens
> >with regard to the press. This is chapter 13 of Netizens
> >
> >
> >Chapter 13 - The Effect of the Net on the Professional News Media: The
> >Usenet News Collective and Man-Computer News Symbiosis
> >
> >The url is
> >
> >http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x13
> >
> >
>
> I am afraid, Ronda, that even at a time of huge personal difficulty,
> I simply don't feel as isolated or not-empowered as you do.
> Speaking of the hard questions, I would ask you if you would feel the
> same way if the government were producing positions with which you
> happened to agree, and whether you would want them cross-examined
> just as hard, say, on why they were NOT going to war.
>
>
A good question to me.
No, if the US were not going to war, there would be a different
situation. Making a war is a serious issue. The US Constitution
has put this issue in the hands of Congress, not the President.
There is a reason for this.
It is a problem that needs discussion and debate.
The US constitution doesn't require that the US Congress have
debate and make a decision "not to go to war".
These are not equal issues.
So it sounds fair to ask the question, but in fact, it shows
that there is more of a need for citizen involvement when
a country is planning to go to a war, there is more of a need
for citizen participation in such decision. Hence there is
more of a need for netizenship.
with best wishes
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:23:27 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Hello: Since all netizens have been invited to post their views on
democracy and the very possible and looming war against Iraq I post the
following:
I favor diplomacy not war. I don't think the U.S. and Britain diplomatic
efforts have been totally exhausted with Iraq and I think that through
diplomacy an effective Iraqi discarding of all its WMD's can be
achieved. Effective plans such as Canada's have been written off as
"unworkable" and "more of the same" without even giving them serious
study or attempt to implement. Again my opposition to a military or
violent solution of the crisis against Iraq must never be interpreted as
an endorsement of Sadam Hussein and his regime.
On democracy I have serious concerns about the latest developments in
our nation, namely the incident at a mall near Albany, NY where a lawyer
was arrested for wearing a "give peace a chance" t-shirt. The charges
were dropped but the fact that it did happen, the initial overreaction
and blatant constitutional rights infringement on the part of the mall's
security guards and acquiescing local police is a matter to be taken
seriously and with great concern by those who truly believe in democracy
Luis de Quesada
netizen
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:40:19 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Luis De Quesada wrote in part:
>On democracy I have serious concerns about the latest developments in
>our nation, namely the incident at a mall near Albany, NY where a lawyer
>was arrested for wearing a "give peace a chance" t-shirt. The charges
>were dropped but the fact that it did happen, the initial overreaction
>and blatant constitutional rights infringement on the part of the mall's
>security guards and acquiescing local police is a matter to be taken
>seriously and with great concern by those who truly believe in democracy
>
For better or for worse, what happened at the Crossgates Mall wasn't a
_blatant_ constitutional violation. (There's a decent legal case
against what the mall did, but it isn't open-and-shut.) Malls are
private space that many people consider quasi-public; the owners do have
lots of discretion over how they treat people on their property.
I almost didn't post this, because a prolonged discussion of the
constitutional status of malls seems off-topic. But the issue of
private vs. public space probably is very pertinent to netizen themes.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:56:51 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
>Hello: Since all netizens have been invited to post their views on
>democracy and the very possible and looming war against Iraq I post the
>following:
Well, it is true that Ronda expressed this as something desirable,
but I found it something short of an invitation.
If you define "all netizens" as the membership of the list, you may
have some argument -- but if you generalize beyond that, you may very
well alienate potential allies. To be perfectly blunt, I find your
postings less and less credible because they tend to deal exclusively
or almost exclusively with ideology, in a way that is so far removed
from improing net communications as to be irrelevant. I regret it if
that is perceived as a personal attack, and I'm trying to be
objective. But, I feel I must make my point clear.
Luis, if you would want to create a list dealing with war issues, I'd
probably subscribe. But do _not_ imply I am endorsing a "Netizens on
War and Democracy" focus -- I reject that and will not be lumped into
that category. "Netizens on Network-Enabled Political Communications"
- -- sure. War is only one aspect of politics and governance.
I do not think, however, this is the place for it. This list can
fill a niche in dealing with Netizen/internet process well beyond the
issue of a specific war. There area other places for that discussion.
Should this list primarily get into politicomilitary issues that have
no obvious connection to improving network-enabled communication ---
which is a harder topic than saying "we sent out mail on XXX issue,"
I certainly will resign from the list and go somewhere else where I
actually might accomplish something long-lasting.
>I favor diplomacy not war. I don't think the U.S. and Britain diplomatic
>efforts have been totally exhausted with Iraq and I think that through
>diplomacy an effective Iraqi discarding of all its WMD's can be
>achieved. Effective plans such as Canada's have been written off as
>"unworkable" and "more of the same" without even giving them serious
>study or attempt to implement. Again my opposition to a military or
>violent solution of the crisis against Iraq must never be interpreted as
>an endorsement of Sadam Hussein and his regime.\
Look at your above paragraph. I can't see one word regarding how
network-enabled communication could facilitate the process.
>On democracy I have serious concerns about the latest developments in
>our nation, namely the incident at a mall near Albany, NY where a lawyer
>was arrested for wearing a "give peace a chance" t-shirt. The charges
>were dropped but the fact that it did happen, the initial overreaction
>and blatant constitutional rights infringement on the part of the mall's
>security guards and acquiescing local police is a matter to be taken
>seriously and with great concern by those who truly believe in democracy
To try to give you some perspective, I am absolutely appalled by the
behavior of the guards and police in this incident. That being said,
I see it in no way relevant to an effectively focused Netizen list.
>
>Luis de Quesada
>netizen
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:06:31 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
>Luis De Quesada wrote in part:
>
>>On democracy I have serious concerns about the latest developments in
>>our nation, namely the incident at a mall near Albany, NY where a lawyer
>>was arrested for wearing a "give peace a chance" t-shirt. The charges
>>were dropped but the fact that it did happen, the initial overreaction
>>and blatant constitutional rights infringement on the part of the mall's
>>security guards and acquiescing local police is a matter to be taken
>>seriously and with great concern by those who truly believe in democracy
>>
>For better or for worse, what happened at the Crossgates Mall wasn't
>a _blatant_ constitutional violation. (There's a decent legal case
>against what the mall did, but it isn't open-and-shut.) Malls are
>private space that many people consider quasi-public; the owners do
>have lots of discretion over how they treat people on their property.
I may regret my drifting marginally from my own rules, but I do
distastefully find the mall within its rights. My main objection is
to the police doing any more than escorting the individual from the
mall.
>
>I almost didn't post this, because a prolonged discussion of the
>constitutional status of malls seems off-topic. But the issue of
>private vs. public space probably is very pertinent to netizen
>themes.
>
>Mark
Thanks for that last comment -- it is enlightening and food for
thought dealing with the net as public space.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:07:14 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Hello: I consider what happened at that mall and democracy is very, very
much on topic. While I recognize that, unfortunately, there may be laws
allowing mall owners to treat people on their property, virtually as they
damn well please, one must recognize that people of many political points of
view will enter stores, malls, etc. and respect those opinions, even if
they're displayed on a t-shirt in bold letters.One must also recognize that
there are good laws and bad laws. The laws or laws that allowed that arrest
are clearly bad and should be changed or discarded, because they lead to
nowhere but dictatorship. These are the kind of laws people like Hitler took
advantage of, to get away with murder. Otherwise mall owners should post a
visible warning sign at the entrance(s) of their businesses, such as "people
wearing t-shirts and other regalia displaying political views, especially
those contrary to ours, not allowed". It would also be helpful if those
owners would instruct blank t-shirt merchants who do printing jobs inside
those malls, not to print anything they consider "inflammatory or contrary to
their views". The t-shirts and printing jobs on them were done at the mall. I
am convinced that what initially happened at that mall, current applicable
laws notwithstanding was the kind of stuff which should never happen in a
democracy.
Luis D.
Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Luis De Quesada wrote in part:
>
> >On democracy I have serious concerns about the latest developments in
> >our nation, namely the incident at a mall near Albany, NY where a lawyer
> >was arrested for wearing a "give peace a chance" t-shirt. The charges
> >were dropped but the fact that it did happen, the initial overreaction
> >and blatant constitutional rights infringement on the part of the mall's
> >security guards and acquiescing local police is a matter to be taken
> >seriously and with great concern by those who truly believe in democracy
> >
> For better or for worse, what happened at the Crossgates Mall wasn't a
> _blatant_ constitutional violation. (There's a decent legal case
> against what the mall did, but it isn't open-and-shut.) Malls are
> private space that many people consider quasi-public; the owners do have
> lots of discretion over how they treat people on their property.
>
> I almost didn't post this, because a prolonged discussion of the
> constitutional status of malls seems off-topic. But the issue of
> private vs. public space probably is very pertinent to netizen themes.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:27:49 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] NETIZENS ON WAR AND DEMOCRACY
Hello: When Ronda invited all netizens to post their views on the war and
demoracy, I took it as an invitation to everyone to do just that and post
their views, for or against the war. I posted my own and if you post yours I
will respect it, because I believe that's what democracy is all about. I did
not interpret Ronda's wishes as "short of an invitation". Furthermore I will
not fall short of expressing my views on the board since we were all invited
to do so by Ronda.
Luis de Quesada
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello: Since all netizens have been invited to post their views on
> >democracy and the very possible and looming war against Iraq I post the
> >following:
>
> Well, it is true that Ronda expressed this as something desirable,
> but I found it something short of an invitation.
>
> If you define "all netizens" as the membership of the list, you may
> have some argument -- but if you generalize beyond that, you may very
> well alienate potential allies. To be perfectly blunt, I find your
> postings less and less credible because they tend to deal exclusively
> or almost exclusively with ideology, in a way that is so far removed
> from improing net communications as to be irrelevant. I regret it if
> that is perceived as a personal attack, and I'm trying to be
> objective. But, I feel I must make my point clear.
>
> Luis, if you would want to create a list dealing with war issues, I'd
> probably subscribe. But do _not_ imply I am endorsing a "Netizens on
> War and Democracy" focus -- I reject that and will not be lumped into
> that category. "Netizens on Network-Enabled Political Communications"
> -- sure. War is only one aspect of politics and governance.
>
> I do not think, however, this is the place for it. This list can
> fill a niche in dealing with Netizen/internet process well beyond the
> issue of a specific war. There area other places for that discussion.
>
> Should this list primarily get into politicomilitary issues that have
> no obvious connection to improving network-enabled communication ---
> which is a harder topic than saying "we sent out mail on XXX issue,"
> I certainly will resign from the list and go somewhere else where I
> actually might accomplish something long-lasting.
>
> >I favor diplomacy not war. I don't think the U.S. and Britain diplomatic
> >efforts have been totally exhausted with Iraq and I think that through
> >diplomacy an effective Iraqi discarding of all its WMD's can be
> >achieved. Effective plans such as Canada's have been written off as
> >"unworkable" and "more of the same" without even giving them serious
> >study or attempt to implement. Again my opposition to a military or
> >violent solution of the crisis against Iraq must never be interpreted as
> >an endorsement of Sadam Hussein and his regime.\
>
> Look at your above paragraph. I can't see one word regarding how
> network-enabled communication could facilitate the process.
>
> >On democracy I have serious concerns about the latest developments in
> >our nation, namely the incident at a mall near Albany, NY where a lawyer
> >was arrested for wearing a "give peace a chance" t-shirt. The charges
> >were dropped but the fact that it did happen, the initial overreaction
> >and blatant constitutional rights infringement on the part of the mall's
> >security guards and acquiescing local police is a matter to be taken
> >seriously and with great concern by those who truly believe in democracy
>
> To try to give you some perspective, I am absolutely appalled by the
> behavior of the guards and police in this incident. That being said,
> I see it in no way relevant to an effectively focused Netizen list.
>
> >
> >Luis de Quesada
> >netizen
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #434
******************************
