Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 414
Netizens-Digest Sunday, February 16 2003 Volume 01 : Number 414
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] TELEPOLIS: Massive Anti-War Protest in New York Cit... (fwd)
[netz] Differing views and the Netizens list: Was "TELELPOLIS"...
Re: [netz] Netizens and the Feb 15, 2003 demonstration in NYC
[netz] demonstration
[netz] internet in totalitarian states - naivety or dumbness
[netz] Communication/lack thereof of interesting factoid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:53:37 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] TELEPOLIS: Massive Anti-War Protest in New York Cit... (fwd)
At 11:30 AM -0500 2/16/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>Here is an article I wrote for Telepolis about yesterday's demonstration
>in New York City. The sentiment of people supporting each other around
>the world for increased cmmunication and collaboration rather than
>war and violence is one of the promises that the Internet and the
>Netizens represent for the world.
>
[Quote of article containing not one word about the Internet snipped]
I joined this list with the intention of learning and encouraging
communications among people, using Internet media. I did not specify
a particular ideological position for those people.
Indeed, I'm in favor of hate material coming out from under its rocks
and being exposed to the sunshine of free discourse. I welcome
dialogue between people of widely varying ideological positions.
Yet Ronda's last two postings have been devoted to descriptions of
demonstrations, with no Internet content. Is this the trend to be
expected? I personally haven't made up my mind about dealing
militarily with Iraq, but I'll rely on what hard data I can collect
- -- frequently over the net -- than mass demonstrations.
Let us assume, hypothetically, that I was in favor, in the interest
of what I considered to be world peace, that intense bombing of Iraqi
leadership and military targets were warranted. Would that opinion
even be allowed on this list, or is it a requirement for a Netizen to
be politically correct by some standard of PC?
Howard Berkowitz
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:25:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Differing views and the Netizens list: Was "TELELPOLIS"...
I appreciate Howard's comments on this issue and feel it is an important
one for the Netizens list to take up.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> At 11:30 AM -0500 2/16/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >Here is an article I wrote for Telepolis about yesterday's demonstration
> >in New York City. The sentiment of people supporting each other around
> >the world for increased cmmunication and collaboration rather than
> >war and violence is one of the promises that the Internet and the
> >Netizens represent for the world.
> >
>
> [Quote of article containing not one word about the Internet snipped]
>
> I joined this list with the intention of learning and encouraging
> communications among people, using Internet media. I did not specify
> a particular ideological position for those people.
The earlier article I sent to the list included a leaflet handed out
to those at the rally about the connection of netizens and the Internet
and what is happening now with regard to the US govt and the ability
of people to discuss and disagree with the pro war policy the U.S.
government has adopted.
I welcome the discussion of these issues online and off line and
feel that the Internet has made it possible for people to have
substantial discussion over their disagreements and through
this process to sort out how to resolve these disagreements.
The last thing I want is the Internet to be part of support for
the particular ideolgoical positions of certain people.
The amazing thing about the size and global reach of the demonstrations
yesterday was that they were unprecedented and that they were made
possible by the communication made possible by the Internet. I didn't
take that up in my article. However, my article was written because
a German online magazine which has interesting articles in both
German and English, indicated that it would be ok to write an article
about the demonstration in NYC for the magazine.
I was surprised when I asked people at the demonstration what they
would want to say for an article for a German magazine, that they
indicated how they appreciated the German government and people's
support for peace, and opposition to war.
Yet what is reported in the US press and other presses is that
the American people are hostile to Germany because of its opposition
to the war.
Also I met someone from Germany who indicated that he was quite surprised
to see the nature of the police activity in blocking demonstrators to
get to an "officially sanctioned" rally. This needs to especially be
viewed in connection with the fact that there were millions of people
protesting at marches allowed in cities around the world. And yet
here in NYC, protesters were not allowed to march, and furthermore,
they were even prevented from getting to the rally they were being
allowed to have.
Also this allows the US to portray the anti-war sentiment in the US
as minimal. I have met people from Germany who can't understand
how there can be any opposition to a war against Iraq in the U.S.
if Bush is speaking so forcefully against such a war.
Probably the important aspect here is that you agree about the importance
of communication and it is good you are on this mailing list, and that
you post your responses, including this one, to the posts on this
mailing list.
It would help if more people on the list found the time and space
to contribute to it as well.
The online world welcomes differences. In the leaflet we gave out
at the demonstration and the slogan on the sign we brought we wrote
"Communication Not Annihilation, No War on Iraq, Netizens Unite"
This doesn't say that everyone who appreciates netizens has to
agree, but it does propose that the principle of communication is
a principle that we will agree on.
I posted this on a mailing list. Someone asked how much Internet
use is there in Iraq? This is a good question and would be a
good starting point to try to determine alternative means of
trying to sort out what would be helpful with regard to supporting
the people in Iraq to have more democracy.
A student I know from Central Asia who is in the US now said
that he didn't understand why the US didn't encourage all Iraqi's
to be able to have access to the Internet instead of threatening
to bomb them.
But not only is the US government threatening to massive bombing (and
already doing some bombing in Iraq), it is also severely erosing
the constitutional rights of the people in the US at a time
when it is exactly these constitutional rights that are so important
not only for the further development of technology like the Internet,
but also for the realization of a better means of solving the problems
of society which the Internet and the netizen make possible.
So these are some of the challenges of our times.
Not only did the people I spoke with at the demonstration express
a desire to communicate with the German people, but also there
is a serious discussion of the article I wrote on Telepolis and
it seems that there is a sense that there are lessons from the
rise of fascism in Germany that can help us to understand the
seriousness of the attack on the political rights of people in the
U.S. like the activity of the police at the recent demonstration
in NYC.
>
> Indeed, I'm in favor of hate material coming out from under its rocks
> and being exposed to the sunshine of free discourse. I welcome
> dialogue between people of widely varying ideological positions.
I am too. And I am glad you state this so clearly.
But some of this material is the fact that there was a significant
demonstration in NYC yesterday and that many many people were prevented
from getting to it.
And that this would be covered up if it were not for the Internet
and the collaboration it makes possible with people around the world.
Whether or not you agree that one should protest a war against Iraq,
I would hope you would agree that the right to protest and to disagree
with the US government is the right of US citizens. People around
the world see the US and NYC as the model for democracy and liberalness
(in the good sense of supporting people's rights). Yet that was
all trampled on yesterday by the NYC government activity and the
directions the police had to barricade people and prevent them from
being able to get to the rally.
>
> Yet Ronda's last two postings have been devoted to descriptions of
> demonstrations, with no Internet content. Is this the trend to be
> expected? I personally haven't made up my mind about dealing
> militarily with Iraq, but I'll rely on what hard data I can collect
> -- frequently over the net -- than mass demonstrations.
There was substantial Internet content in the posting last night,
where I included the leaflet we gave out at the demonstration.
We brought the concept of the Netizen and support for the Internet
to the demonstration. If any one wants me to resend the leaflet
I will be glad to do so.
I would have appreciated discussion about it on the Netizens List.
I do agree that I didn't include discussion of the Internet in the
article I wrote for Telepolis, but I did do the article because
of the online magazine the Intenret makes possible, and there is
a serious online discussion of it now (though the discussion is
in German and i can only get an idea of it from machine translations
that I am able to do because of the Internet.)
Yet the collaboation to discuss the importance of democratic rights
among people online is in fact some of what I feel is the wonder
of the netizen and netizens and this is a precious time that this
is being taken seriously.
>
> Let us assume, hypothetically, that I was in favor, in the interest
> of what I considered to be world peace, that intense bombing of Iraqi
> leadership and military targets were warranted. Would that opinion
> even be allowed on this list, or is it a requirement for a Netizen to
> be politically correct by some standard of PC?
>
That opinion would be welcome on this list.
It is very important that there be a serious discussion of
diverse opinions. The Voltaire principle which I found supported
on Usenet in my research, was "I may disagree with what you say,
but I will duel to the death for your right to say it" is in fact
what I hold most dear about my experience on Usenet and the Internet.
And the support by people for what may be an unpopular or minority
opinions is crucial, whether one agrees with the opinion or not.
That is what was violated yesterday by the NYC government and what
the US government now seems to feel they have a free hand to abolish.
That there could be marches around the world, but NOT in New York City
and that people coming to an officially sanctioned demonstration
were prevented from getting to it or to moving freely as part of it,
this is a very serious turning point for both the continued development
of the Internet and of democracy in America.
The Internet needs open discussion and support for the diversity of
opinions. Open architecture provided for the communication among
networks that were different technically, administratively and
politically.
Those who oppose this diversity also oppose the Internet and its
continued development.
So yes unpopular opinions are welcome, and I hope the people on
this list will welcome them and contribute to the discussion over
them.
We are all busy and sometimes one or the other of us can't answer,
but hopefully someone else will accept the gift of diverse opinions.
Please let me know if this clarifies at all.
I am glad you spoke up and hope we can come to some understanding
of the difference represented and the implications of that difference
for the further development of the Internet and the netizens list.
> Howard Berkowitz
>
With best wishes
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:50:19 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Netizens and the Feb 15, 2003 demonstration in NYC
rpc> the Internet pioneers and users a reality. We don't want war in Iraq. We
rpc> don't want war in North Korea or Iran. We don't want war against the
rpc> Palestinians. We want to communicate with each other and collaborate
I don't want war with Iraq either, but as you don't seem to get it,
this is something inevitable and it's certainly good. I spent my
childhood years during communism and don't want to experience it
anymore. And I don't want Iraqis to experience that bastard
dictator they have there either anymore. I understand pacifistic
demonstrations since this is fine and it's the belief of the persons.
But it seems very strange seeing other people who demonstrate for
peaceful solution. KNOCK, KNOCK... WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? I have been on
this planet and I read about that bastard Saddam killing innocent
people living in his country, testing chemical and biological weapons
on them. I have also read about killing Kurds (what about minority
rights?) and prosecuting everyone against him (eventually killing all
opposition leaders and his counsin, too).
This is not about peaceful solutions anymore, Saddam have been
shitting on everyone for past 10 years. This is the crime that history
will remember and not the war, it's just last possible reaction to
this dictator killing his own people.
When Hitler came to power Chamberlain and Stalin even signed treaties
with him and Chamberlain celebrated it when he came back to Britain
telling waiting spectators "to go home and sleep peacefully in their
beds". Nobody cared about Jews, Romas, homosexuals or even native
inhabitants of countries under German-fascist military power, although
this changed when Churchill got to power. And also this changed
because (those war-pigs) Americans came to our defense. Europeans are
sometimes too blind to see what's going on and thus I am proud to be a
citizen of one of the countries in transition and not of "Old Europe".
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- this is cookie. good cookie, sweet cookie, email cookie. -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:25:18 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] demonstration
Of course I don't agree with limiting your right to demonstrate in any
case. Just don't let them to take it from you.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- "shutdown windows, open the gates" vlad. s. -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:19:57 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] internet in totalitarian states - naivety or dumbness
>A student I know from Central Asia who is in the US now said
>that he didn't understand why the US didn't encourage all Iraqi's
>to be able to have access to the Internet instead of threatening
>to bomb them.
Either someone is clearly blind here or totally naive. Just see what is
China doing with Internet or read more about internet in Cuba (it's
not really internet, maybe a few networks inside the country) and you
could know how internet in Iraq could look like.
Do you really people believe that internet is going to change the
world so much? I don't want to take you your beliefs (I have eventually
had the same belief before), but now I am doing my master thesis on
internet and its influence on democratization of poltiical systems and
I have to tell you that fact is internet is helping countries on their
way to democracy only in relatively democratic countries. It works for
Estonia and Serbia, for Japan, too, but it clearly DOES NOT work for
China. China officials handle internet very well in favour of their
propaganda.
Internet in Iraq? Just tell me how many phone lines they have. Or have
you ever non-intentionally bumped to Iraqi domain? I haven't and of
course that doesn't mean Iraqi servers doesn't exist. It's just that
there is hardly any possibility for normal Iraqi citizen to get
online. And I can tell you it's not so easy here in Slovakia either.
Not because of technology itself, we have plenty of it, but because
the costs. And dial-up (still the most widely used method) is pretty
expensive here in comparison with other countries around us. And now
we are supposed to be democratic country, so what about Iraq?
Totalitarian state with access to internet? So, was that student
really so naive or just flat dumb? Now, I don't really know what's
better for him to be.
Other thing is that peaceful solutions work in my opinion only in
more-less democratic countries, just check the example of Gandhi. I
even wrote about his satjagraha and non-violent approach, but from
what I have found it's clearly visible that his approach would not
work in totalitarian state. He would be imprisoned in a moment or two
and then likely sentenced to death.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- little brother says: "minimal state!" -*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:35:39 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Communication/lack thereof of interesting factoid
Thanks for the response, Ronda. I'm writing a longer response about
Internet access in countries that may be restrictive about making
communications widely available.
But a stray personal observation may be of interest, and I can't say
it's terribly complementary to the mass media.
Some of you may remember that an American, Jack McGeorge, was
nominated to the UN inspection task force, and the Washington Post
(one of the more reputable papers in the US) "broke" the story that
he was "involved in sadomasochistic activities" and was
"unqualified." It spread to other news media.
Jack happens to be a personal and professional friend. Indeed, he has
been involved in consensual and alternate sexuality, and has been a
national speaker on it. In other words, he's completely open about it
and there is no danger of blackmail.
According to the Washington Post's own ombudsman, in an editorial
page column a week or two later, the Post had been sensationalizing
his sexual preferences, and the issue of his qualifications came from
one anonymous prior inspector who was not invited onto the team.
This source objected that Jack had no advanced academic degree in a
field such as microbiology, nuclear physics, chemical engineering,
etc.
Jack, indeed, does not. What he does have is about 30 years
experience as a bomb/explosives safety technician -- the sort of
person you want to check a pile of shells before the scientists get
near it (he has a T-shirt with the legend on the back, "I am a bomb
technician. If you see me running, try to keep up."
In any event, he immediately offered his resignation to Blix at the
UN, saying he didn't want to compromise the integrity of the mission.
Blix refused it, and that was the last heard for a while. There were
informal reports that Europeans, in particular, objected to bringing
his personal life into the discussion. Incidentally, the US
government remained neutral; the fuss was in the media.
A few weeks ago, I looked at CNN on my monitor and did a doubletake
to see Jack in the middle of the lead photograph. It turned out he
was on the team that discovered the empty chemical shells, and was in
process of inspecting one (presumably checking that it wouldn't go
BOOM). I will freely admit it was a rather unflattering picture...he
was clearly hot, dirty, tired, and the Iraqi photographer caught him
at an angle where his jowls hung down -- perhaps appropriately, he
looked like a bloodhound.
There are several lessons in this. The problem arose not from US
government action -- indeed, the US government nominated him. The
problem came from US media, who, other than the Post ombudsman, gave
very limited coverage after Blix accepted him. I have seen no news
media coverage indicating that he has, in fact, played a valuable
role.
While many criticisms are aimed at government, there is a need to
counterbalance media driven by sensationalism. In a case like this,
the story was dropped after it was no longer titillating.
So, as we discuss communication among Netizens, consider not just
government policy concerns, but policy concerns about other actors:
media, activist groups at all ends of the spectrum, multinationals,
etc.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #414
******************************
