Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 454
Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 3 2003 Volume 01 : Number 454
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:48:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not
discuss the issue of the war on this list.
So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the
result of a deliberate procedure that has happened.
This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen.
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
from Mark Lindeman
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST)
It's a very interesting thread for me, because I find myself agreeing
substantially with all sides. Clearly it isn't just about the war in Iraq, but
about how governments respond to or disregard various forms of public pressure,
and how responsiveness might be improved (which would not simply
mean "increased"). That formulation probably isn't perfect, but it will do for
now.
No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I think a wide
range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably
illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really
disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to
resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a
different result.
I do think it's worth pondering Ronda's last post, and trying to generalize the
systemic political analysis from the current issues. If we could lock Ronda
and Howard in a room, it would be interesting to see what analytical points
they could agree on, and whether they could agree on how to articulate their
differences. The list shouldn't be in denial about these sorts of differences,
but we're spending way too much time on them.
So, I guess I'll have to stop now.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:02:47 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
>This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not
>discuss the issue of the war on this list.
Please help me understand what might be a misunderstanding. Yes, I
have asked the war not be discussed. Mark, however, posted a message
to which you responded. Since the war discussion seemed to be back, I
responded, with yet another attempt to deflect the discussion into
other areas.
My apologies to you and the list if this is a digression caused by
out-of-sequence messages.
>
>So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the
>result of a deliberate procedure that has happened.
>
>This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>from Mark Lindeman
>Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST)
>
>It's a very interesting thread for me, because I find myself agreeing
>substantially with all sides. Clearly it isn't just about the war
>in Iraq, but
>about how governments respond to or disregard various forms of
>public pressure,
>and how responsiveness might be improved (which would not simply
>mean "increased"). That formulation probably isn't perfect, but it
>will do for
>now.
>
>No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I think a wide
>range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably
>illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really
>disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to
>resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a
>different result.
>
>I do think it's worth pondering Ronda's last post, and trying to
>generalize the
>systemic political analysis from the current issues. If we could lock Ronda
>and Howard in a room, it would be interesting to see what analytical points
>they could agree on, and whether they could agree on how to articulate their
>differences. The list shouldn't be in denial about these sorts of
>differences,
>but we're spending way too much time on them.
>
>So, I guess I'll have to stop now.
>
>Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:28:18 -0500 (EST)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
> > [Ronda:] This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not
> >discuss the issue of the war on this list.
>
>
> [Howard:] Please help me understand what might be a misunderstanding. Yes, I
> have asked the war not be discussed. Mark, however, posted a message
> to which you responded. Since the war discussion seemed to be back, I
> responded, with yet another attempt to deflect the discussion into
> other areas.
I probably contributed to the confusion by invoking Howard in my reaction to a
subthread that featured Ronda and Larry. Whatever.
I should perhaps clarify that neither my statement that Ronda's post was "worth
pondering," nor my thought experiment of locking Ronda and Howard up in a room,
was intended to lend encouragement to any further discussion of the war, or the
merits of the U.S. government with respect to democratic theory, on the list at
this time or in the foreseeable future.
Howard has suggested what he considers to be a reasonable purpose and scope for
the list. I've agreed with him, with the caveat that I don't mind some
occasional tangents, especially for the purpose of illuminating underlying
philosophical differences. I don't recall that either Ronda or Jay has
responded to these views on purpose and scope.
> >So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the
> >result of a deliberate procedure that has happened.
> >
> >This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen.
Ronda, I really don't know at all what you mean by this. What discussion
hasn't happened? If it's the discussion about purpose and scope, I wish you
would join it. How likely is it that continuing to argue about the political
tactics of antiwar activists will lead us to a transformative insight into the
nature of netizenship? At this point, I think not very.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:51:29 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Hello: I think Ronda has a valid point and increased government responses to the
opinions and inquiries of common people, vs its usually favorable response to
powerful and wealthy lobbies, would be a way to improve the communications of
people with government. I do think government officials listen to common people,
but like Howard says, many times the outcome or policy implemented maybe different
from that expected by a particular segment of the population. So is creating more
referendums the cure? I would defenitely help. Electoral referendums would give
many people a clearer insight whether their opinions reflect those of the majority
of their fellow citizens, instead of just relying on media and other polls, which
are always suspect of manipulation. For example an excellent question on the ballot
right now would be: Do you favor the war in Iraq? I also think netizens can help
these communications precisely by bringing these issues and concerns to our list as
a way of improving communications among the people with other people and their
government, even if it brings debate on the issues.
Luis de Quesada
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not
> discuss the issue of the war on this list.
>
> So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the
> result of a deliberate procedure that has happened.
>
> This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> from Mark Lindeman
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST)
>
> It's a very interesting thread for me, because I find myself agreeing
> substantially with all sides. Clearly it isn't just about the war in Iraq, but
> about how governments respond to or disregard various forms of public pressure,
> and how responsiveness might be improved (which would not simply
> mean "increased"). That formulation probably isn't perfect, but it will do for
> now.
>
> No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I think a wide
> range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably
> illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really
> disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to
> resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a
> different result.
>
> I do think it's worth pondering Ronda's last post, and trying to generalize the
> systemic political analysis from the current issues. If we could lock Ronda
> and Howard in a room, it would be interesting to see what analytical points
> they could agree on, and whether they could agree on how to articulate their
> differences. The list shouldn't be in denial about these sorts of differences,
> but we're spending way too much time on them.
>
> So, I guess I'll have to stop now.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:54:00 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
>Hello: I think Ronda has a valid point and increased government
>responses to the
>opinions and inquiries of common people, vs its usually favorable response to
>powerful and wealthy lobbies, would be a way to improve the communications of
>people with government. I do think government officials listen to
>common people,
>but like Howard says, many times the outcome or policy implemented
>maybe different
>from that expected by a particular segment of the population. So is
>creating more
>referendums the cure?
Let's switch the example to something silly-but-true: Dilbert (for
those outside the US, Dilbert is a comic character that anyone
dealing with technology should know -- he's an engineer, a cubicle
denizen in an anonymous corporate environment with incredibly bad
management). Dilbert brings up one of the pet peeves of engineers
that upper management constantly changes directions, so projects
never get completed.
There is an indirect effect of proposed changes to a design that were
not carefully considered within the overall architecture of what is
to be built. They may have unintended consequences of cost or
reliability. A silly example -- when I worked for Nortel Networks,
somebody in "corporate image" decided that a very mundane
communications device, which would normally be installed in unmanned
back rooms of telephone companies, should have a brightly glowing
corporate logo on the front.
To make this happen, we had to stop using the standard sheet metal
cases that we bought in quantity, so we could have a case with a
cutout for the light. We had to have the plastic logo designed and
made in quantity. The internal power supply for the working part of
the device did not have the reserve power or separate voltage for the
display lamp, so a new power supply had to be fitted into the case,
causing a complete revision of the manufacturing process. Since this
device was to be used in critical telephone buildings, the changes
required several hundred thousand dollars' worth of new safety
certification.
Thankfully, the CEO, who at the time was an engineer, found out about
this idiocy, obtained a prototype, and, in the presence of the people
that came up with the idea, smashed it to the floor and jumped up and
down on the case.
Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying
to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their
budgetary or operational ramifications.
I'd rather see the effort on referenda devoted to getting better
information to lawmakers and regulators. I don't see referenda as an
efficient solution, although they do give the appearance of inviting
mass participation. Unfortunately, many decisions involve technical
or financial nuances that simply are not accessible to laymen, or,
worse, are reduced to sound bites and propaganda.
>I would defenitely help. Electoral referendums would give
>many people a clearer insight whether their opinions reflect those
>of the majority
>of their fellow citizens, instead of just relying on media and other
>polls, which
>are always suspect of manipulation. For example an excellent
>question on the ballot
>right now would be: Do you favor the war in Iraq?
But can that reasonably be answered "yes" or "no"?
>I also think netizens can help
>these communications precisely by bringing these issues and concerns
>to our list as
>a way of improving communications among the people with other people and their
>government, even if it brings debate on the issues.
>Luis de Quesada
>
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
>> This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not
>> discuss the issue of the war on this list.
>>
>> So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the
>> result of a deliberate procedure that has happened.
>>
>> This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> from Mark Lindeman
>> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST)
>>
>> It's a very interesting thread for me, because I find myself agreeing
> > substantially with all sides. Clearly it isn't just about the
>war in Iraq, but
>> about how governments respond to or disregard various forms of
>>public pressure,
>> and how responsiveness might be improved (which would not simply
>> mean "increased"). That formulation probably isn't perfect, but
>>it will do for
>> now.
>>
>> No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I
>>think a wide
>> range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably
>> illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really
>> disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to
>> resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a
>> different result.
>>
>> I do think it's worth pondering Ronda's last post, and trying to
>>generalize the
>> systemic political analysis from the current issues. If we could lock Ronda
>> and Howard in a room, it would be interesting to see what analytical points
>> they could agree on, and whether they could agree on how to articulate their
>> differences. The list shouldn't be in denial about these sorts of
>>differences,
>> but we're spending way too much time on them.
>>
>> So, I guess I'll have to stop now.
>>
>> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 14:33:13 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Hello Howard: How about a referendum that isn't about "technical and financial
nuances?" Right now I believe that a referendum on the war would serve little or no
purpose to change policy, but it would give a clearer picture to everyone as to who
has a majority. It would also help the government to assess how popular its present
policy really is. I do not advocate a referendum every time you want to deal with an
issue, only on ones that are important enough to the people like war.
On the overall I also think this issue has livened up our list and through
intelligent, healthy and respectful debate, we have contributed to communications
greatly.
Luis de Quesada
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello: I think Ronda has a valid point and increased government
> >responses to the
> >opinions and inquiries of common people, vs its usually favorable response to
> >powerful and wealthy lobbies, would be a way to improve the communications of
> >people with government. I do think government officials listen to
> >common people,
> >but like Howard says, many times the outcome or policy implemented
> >maybe different
> >from that expected by a particular segment of the population. So is
> >creating more
> >referendums the cure?
>
> Let's switch the example to something silly-but-true: Dilbert (for
> those outside the US, Dilbert is a comic character that anyone
> dealing with technology should know -- he's an engineer, a cubicle
> denizen in an anonymous corporate environment with incredibly bad
> management). Dilbert brings up one of the pet peeves of engineers
> that upper management constantly changes directions, so projects
> never get completed.
>
> There is an indirect effect of proposed changes to a design that were
> not carefully considered within the overall architecture of what is
> to be built. They may have unintended consequences of cost or
> reliability. A silly example -- when I worked for Nortel Networks,
> somebody in "corporate image" decided that a very mundane
> communications device, which would normally be installed in unmanned
> back rooms of telephone companies, should have a brightly glowing
> corporate logo on the front.
>
> To make this happen, we had to stop using the standard sheet metal
> cases that we bought in quantity, so we could have a case with a
> cutout for the light. We had to have the plastic logo designed and
> made in quantity. The internal power supply for the working part of
> the device did not have the reserve power or separate voltage for the
> display lamp, so a new power supply had to be fitted into the case,
> causing a complete revision of the manufacturing process. Since this
> device was to be used in critical telephone buildings, the changes
> required several hundred thousand dollars' worth of new safety
> certification.
>
> Thankfully, the CEO, who at the time was an engineer, found out about
> this idiocy, obtained a prototype, and, in the presence of the people
> that came up with the idea, smashed it to the floor and jumped up and
> down on the case.
>
> Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying
> to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their
> budgetary or operational ramifications.
>
> I'd rather see the effort on referenda devoted to getting better
> information to lawmakers and regulators. I don't see referenda as an
> efficient solution, although they do give the appearance of inviting
> mass participation. Unfortunately, many decisions involve technical
> or financial nuances that simply are not accessible to laymen, or,
> worse, are reduced to sound bites and propaganda.
>
> >I would defenitely help. Electoral referendums would give
> >many people a clearer insight whether their opinions reflect those
> >of the majority
> >of their fellow citizens, instead of just relying on media and other
> >polls, which
> >are always suspect of manipulation. For example an excellent
> >question on the ballot
> >right now would be: Do you favor the war in Iraq?
>
> But can that reasonably be answered "yes" or "no"?
>
> >I also think netizens can help
> >these communications precisely by bringing these issues and concerns
> >to our list as
> >a way of improving communications among the people with other people and their
> >government, even if it brings debate on the issues.
> >Luis de Quesada
> >
> >Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >
> >> This is interesting Mark since Howard has asked we not
> >> discuss the issue of the war on this list.
> >>
> >> So it is the opposite of a deliberative procedure, not the
> >> result of a deliberate procedure that has happened.
> >>
> >> This is what happens when the discussion doesn't happen.
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> from Mark Lindeman
> >> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:07:22 -0500 (EST)
> >>
> >> It's a very interesting thread for me, because I find myself agreeing
> > > substantially with all sides. Clearly it isn't just about the
> >war in Iraq, but
> >> about how governments respond to or disregard various forms of
> >>public pressure,
> >> and how responsiveness might be improved (which would not simply
> >> mean "increased"). That formulation probably isn't perfect, but
> >>it will do for
> >> now.
> >>
> >> No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I
> >>think a wide
> >> range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably
> >> illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really
> >> disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to
> >> resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a
> >> different result.
> >>
> >> I do think it's worth pondering Ronda's last post, and trying to
> >>generalize the
> >> systemic political analysis from the current issues. If we could lock Ronda
> >> and Howard in a room, it would be interesting to see what analytical points
> >> they could agree on, and whether they could agree on how to articulate their
> >> differences. The list shouldn't be in denial about these sorts of
> >>differences,
> >> but we're spending way too much time on them.
> >>
> >> So, I guess I'll have to stop now.
> >>
> >> Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #454
******************************
