Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 455
Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 3 2003 Volume 01 : Number 455
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 14:53:03 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
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.
Seriously, how would such a referendum be worded? Are you assuming
that, as opposed to selecting between candidates, that the positions
being voted upon in the referendum can be reduced to "for" or
"against" something?
>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
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:31:41 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Hello Howard: The referendum would ask the people "Are you for or against the war
in Iraq". As I said, the referendum wouldn't change the present policy, but at
least it would give the government a clearer picture of how many people do support
their policy, since they took the trouble of going all the way to the voting booth
to express an opinion, without having to rely on network and other polls which are
always suspect of manipulation. I think it would be good for informational
purposes, even though it would not change a thing at this point.
Luis de Quesada
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >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.
>
> Seriously, how would such a referendum be worded? Are you assuming
> that, as opposed to selecting between candidates, that the positions
> being voted upon in the referendum can be reduced to "for" or
> "against" something?
>
> >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
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:23:08 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
>Hello Howard: The referendum would ask the people "Are you for or
>against the war
>in Iraq".
I would be unable to answer that with a yes or no, if for no other
reason that a very wide range of activities fall under "war."
>As I said, the referendum wouldn't change the present policy, but at
>least it would give the government a clearer picture of how many
>people do support
>their policy, since they took the trouble of going all the way to
>the voting booth
>to express an opinion, without having to rely on network and other
>polls which are
>always suspect of manipulation. I think it would be good for informational
>purposes, even though it would not change a thing at this point.
>Luis de Quesada
>
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
>> >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.
>>
>> Seriously, how would such a referendum be worded? Are you assuming
>> that, as opposed to selecting between candidates, that the positions
>> being voted upon in the referendum can be reduced to "for" or
>> "against" something?
>>
>> >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 #455
******************************
