Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 428
Netizens-Digest Sunday, March 9 2003 Volume 01 : Number 428
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Ensuring the right questions are asked
Re: [netz] Ensuring the right questions are asked
Re: [netz] Ensuring the right questions are asked
[netz] CNN.com - 'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested - Mar. 6, 2003
[netz] CNN.com - Hong Kong detains Falun Gong arrivals - May 7, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 11:49:39 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Ensuring the right questions are asked
On another mailing list (well, actually, the alt.books.tom-clancy
newsgroup), we've been struggling with discussion that endures
political stereotyping. Both here and there, I consider myself a
centrist.
I will make the strong caveat here that I am NOT proposing a
discussion of the merits of involvement in Iraq, but simply using it
as a template on how netizens might communicate with political
leaders. In particular, this communication would be appropriate for
situations where sheer volume of information, its complexity, or
legitimate security considerations may interfere with full
information flow. I do assume that government is not monolithic, and
that representatives can provide checks and balances.
"I support the massive show of force, without necessarily committing
to go in. The show of force may be enough.
"I simply don't have enough hard data to judge the real threat, and
will accept that data does exist. In a perfect world, I might come
up with a list of what, depending on the vintage of your intelligence
terms of art, are variously called Essential Elements of Information
or Key Intelligence Questions, and pass them to a congressman with
appropriate access. My charge to the independent observer with access
is 'have these been answered.'"
The model I suggest is that Netizens may be able to contribute
expertise to be sure the right people ask the right questions, and,
if they get full answers, make appropriate decisions. Said people
also should scream loudly if they don't get information they
reasonably should receive on a no-distribution basis.
I may be getting out of my depth on practice in parliamentary
systems, but I'm thinking that Netizens could help a "shadow
government" or other opposition ensure that the right things are
being explored. While the US system really doesn't have a
well-structured opposition, there can be leadership coalitions that
are both trusted by the executive and a significant base of electors.
Comments?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:35:20 -0500
From: Philip Busey <veld@veld.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Ensuring the right questions are asked
Any orderly system of communication can break down when there is the
perception that those entrusted with the facts have forged documents,
e.g., intended purchase of uranium materials from Niger, or at least
have failed to acknowledge that their case was based on a forgery. It
is likely that the lack of trust between the government and its
opposition is mutual. Some level of trust is necessary for any
negotiation. A parliamentary system of government would be helpful in
this case, because if the U.S. had a parliamentary form of government,
there might be a greater likelihood that the government would listen to
the concerns of citizens, at various intervals, and for the citizens to
trust their government. What I don't understand is where netizens get
into the picture, because the long-established idea of political parties
has been very effective means of building concensus through levels of
negotiation, therefore I don't quite see netizens operating in a
separate realm.
Phil
Philip Busey
veld@veld.com
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
> On another mailing list (well, actually, the alt.books.tom-clancy
> newsgroup), we've been struggling with discussion that endures
> political stereotyping. Both here and there, I consider myself a
> centrist.
>
> I will make the strong caveat here that I am NOT proposing a
> discussion of the merits of involvement in Iraq, but simply using it
> as a template on how netizens might communicate with political
> leaders. In particular, this communication would be appropriate for
> situations where sheer volume of information, its complexity, or
> legitimate security considerations may interfere with full
> information flow. I do assume that government is not monolithic, and
> that representatives can provide checks and balances.
>
> "I support the massive show of force, without necessarily committing
> to go in. The show of force may be enough.
>
> "I simply don't have enough hard data to judge the real threat, and
> will accept that data does exist. In a perfect world, I might come
> up with a list of what, depending on the vintage of your intelligence
> terms of art, are variously called Essential Elements of Information
> or Key Intelligence Questions, and pass them to a congressman with
> appropriate access. My charge to the independent observer with access
> is 'have these been answered.'"
>
> The model I suggest is that Netizens may be able to contribute
> expertise to be sure the right people ask the right questions, and,
> if they get full answers, make appropriate decisions. Said people
> also should scream loudly if they don't get information they
> reasonably should receive on a no-distribution basis.
>
> I may be getting out of my depth on practice in parliamentary
> systems, but I'm thinking that Netizens could help a "shadow
> government" or other opposition ensure that the right things are
> being explored. While the US system really doesn't have a
> well-structured opposition, there can be leadership coalitions that
> are both trusted by the executive and a significant base of electors.
>
> Comments?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:52:30 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Ensuring the right questions are asked
At 12:35 AM -0500 3/10/03, Philip Busey wrote:
>Any orderly system of communication can break down when there is the
>perception that those entrusted with the facts have forged documents,
>e.g., intended purchase of uranium materials from Niger, or at least
>have failed to acknowledge that their case was based on a forgery. It
>is likely that the lack of trust between the government and its
>opposition is mutual. Some level of trust is necessary for any
>negotiation. A parliamentary system of government would be helpful in
>this case, because if the U.S. had a parliamentary form of government,
>there might be a greater likelihood that the government would listen to
>the concerns of citizens, at various intervals, and for the citizens to
>trust their government. What I don't understand is where netizens get
>into the picture, because the long-established idea of political parties
>has been very effective means of building concensus through levels of
>negotiation, therefore I don't quite see netizens operating in a
>separate realm.
>
>Phil
I think, Phil, we are in violent agreement. Occasionally, I see
suggestions that _could_ be interpreted as having netizenship as an
alternate form of government, which appalls me. To draw a medical
analogy, you don't go transplanting odd organs from other species
because they might do some good. There's a vast gap between what we
call conservatism in engineering and in politics.
I do see the idea of netizenship as an important ADJUNCT to existing
governmental processes, but absolutely not having much meaning if
they operate in a separate realm.
As far as parliamentary versus US republican government, each has
advantages. In a parliamentary system, party discipline may prevent
a member from supporting a constituent proposal of which he actively
approves, because the consequences of crossing the aisle are the
political equivalent of crossing the nuclear line (unless party
leadership has freed members to vote their consciences).
Personally, I've never felt all that alienated from the US
government, but I recognize I have the skills to make my position
heard -- not necessarily implenented -- but heard -- by appropriate
people. There are times that given not much more than a contact or
two and an organization chart, I've managed to reach people in
intelligence agencies. I've simply said "you might want to consider
looking at XXX if you haven't done so," and I recognize I don't have
the need to know to see your final conclusions. That, to me, is
effective participation.
In privacy, network technology, or medical issues, I am in a much
stronger position to ask their opinion later in the process.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:56:39 -0800 (PST)
From: lgd42@hotmail.com
Subject: [netz] CNN.com - 'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested - Mar. 6, 2003
While in Boston I saw and heard about this dictatorial outrage on
television. I am posting it
on our list for those around the world to know, in case some of you missed it.
Title: CNN.com - 'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested - Mar. 6, 2003
CNN.com will expire this article on 03/19/2003.
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1784875584&pt=Y
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to SAVE THIS link:
http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=saveFromET&partnerID=2004&etMailToID=1784875584&pt=Y
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to forward this link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&etMailToID=1784875584&partnerID=2004&pt=Y
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #428
******************************
