Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 459
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 4 2003 Volume 01 : Number 459
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:53:04 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
- --------------90848CEC1B056D120BBD2DA6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Larry: I think you're absolutely right on this one. Good things
will come out of it and I think by this deliberative process we are
helping on line communications. Many others if not all netizens should
join the discussions. Come in! The water's fine!
Talk about films, I once saw and heard the great Charles Coburn say that
in a Hollywood Golden Era film, the title eludes me right now.
Luis
AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> >>Howard asked that that happen elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >>It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists.
>> >>
>> >>It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious
>> >>situation like the current attack on Iraq.
>> >>
>> >>Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't
>> >>that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process.
>> >>
>> >>The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
>> >>discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
>> >>resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
>> >>can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
>> >>
>> >>Ronda
>
> Ronda is right about issues regarding 'the deliberative process,'
> introduced by Mark. I think that so many things are happening at
> once. We are presenting new issues and responding to old ones out of
> sequence. It is what will inevitably happen in this packet store and
> forwarding deal. Perhaps this is facilitating the confusion. I don't
> know. And don't be afraid of the confusion. Interesting ideas may
> yet evince themselves by virtue of the maelstrom.
>
> Larry
- --------------90848CEC1B056D120BBD2DA6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hello Larry: I think you're absolutely right on this one. Good things will
come out of it and I think by this deliberative process we are helping
on line communications. Many others if not all netizens should join the
discussions. Come in! The water's fine!
<br>Talk about films, I once saw and heard the great Charles Coburn say
that in a Hollywood Golden Era film, the title eludes me right now.
<br>Luis
<p>AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>Howard
asked that that happen elsewhere.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>It is not a question of tactics
of antiwar activists.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>It is the question of what netizens
do when there is a serious</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>situation like the current attack
on Iraq.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>Unless that is discussed, and the
discussion is welcome, it isn't</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>that one can claim there has been
a failed deliberative process.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>The discussion is what helps the
deliberative process. If the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>discussion is discouraged or there
are threats by people to</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>resign from the list if there is
the discussion, then one</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>can't claim that a deliberative
process took place.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>>>Ronda</font></font></blockquote>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Ronda is right about issues regarding
'the deliberative process,' introduced by Mark. I think that so many
things are happening at once. We are presenting new issues and responding
to old ones out of sequence. It is what will inevitably happen in
this packet store and forwarding deal. Perhaps this is facilitating
the confusion. I don't know. And don't be afraid of the confusion.
Interesting ideas may yet evince themselves by virtue of the maelstrom.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Larry</font></font></blockquote>
</html>
- --------------90848CEC1B056D120BBD2DA6--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:37:44 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
>Hello: Although you've raised some valid points, I respectfully
>disagree on the part "you cannot have ignorant people deciding major
>issues". The way I understand democracy, it cannot be selective and
>bar from voting those who may be regarded as ignorant or
>underqualified, that's a chance you have to take or its not
>democracy. I still would not put an ignoramus in a government
>cabinet post of course. You educate or attempt to educate, using the
>media available, including on line communications, the electorate
>prior to voting, explain what the issue is, etc. I am never afraid
>to hear the voice of the majority, even though I must agree that
>several times throughout history fatal errors have been made by it.
>Luis de Quesada
There is a difference between direct and representative democracy,
and, indeed, in most fields where learning is practiced. It is the
job of the representative both to solicit broad-based opinion, but
also, perhaps in a committee structure, to obtain expert input -- and
then the representative votes his conscience.
Medicine, certainly, is one area where it's always been accepted that
there is a necessary body of knowledge one must have before being
entitled to plan treatment. While I'm not a degreed physician, I have
enough formal background that I can argue at this level and make
meaningful observations.
But let me put it on the level of netizenship. My latest Internet
Draft, which I really hope will be approved as RFC in the next couple
of weeks (there are outstanding administrative but not technical
matters), is at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt.
As the lead author, I will be delighted to consider any external
suggestions, as will my colleagues. But I'll give fair warning that
this document deals with a topic that both is critical to the
operation of the net, but requires substatial education -- and not
just a short-term mass education process -- to understand the
implications of its ideas.
Government in a technological society, unfortunately, has reached the
point that expertise is necessary for detailed decisionmaking. What
the "average person" can plausible comment on, or vote on a
referendum, has to be more focused.
Consider, for that matter, what legislators actually vote on. They
frequently vote to accept or reject bills that are thousands of pages
in length, relying on the committee process to have covered the
necessary level of detail. No one representative possibly could have
intimate familiarity with the range of budgetary bills, the latest
tax code, the military technology and doctrine approvals, and the
strategy for medical research funding.
>
>AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>Luis>So is
>>>Luis>creating more
>>>Luis>referendums the cure?
>>>
>>It requires a lot of discipline to adequately understand an issue
>>under referendum. Honestly, the masses do not have discipline. A
>>true understanding requires a fervor for the pursuit of truth via
>>the fair processing of all opposing sides of an issue, but people
>>are too easily seduced.
>>
>>In a referendum, a major decision is made by a hell of a lot of
>>people who really should have the opportunity to officially
>>persuade each other, like jurists, so that a well-reasoned decision
>>is made via consultation with others who each have a piece of the
>>issue puzzle. It should not be the case that, a person can vote
>>about an issue and this person is not adequately educated about
>>this issue -- particularly with regard to how the decision will
>>practically affect all segments of the constituency.
>>
>>Nevertheless, this is the case.
>>
>>You cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues. You might
>>minimally want to test prospective voters first to make sure that
>>they understand the basic underlying concepts. A passing score
>>authorizes them to cast a vote.
>>
>>Howrd>Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying
>>Howrd>to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their
>>Howrd>budgetary or operational ramifications.
>>
>>I can definitely see this happening. As I said, people are easily
>>seduced -- meaning that they zone into or immediately respond to
>>that which resonates within them about an issue before considering
>>the bigger picture.
>>
>>Regarding access to information: Everyone has to have access to all
>>relevant information and the same information with real time
>>updates -- right up to the time of voting. You need to build some
>>universally accessible "intelligent agents" with data mining
>>features.
>>
>>Larry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 12:35:46 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Hello Howard: Thank you for enlightening me on some of the organizational aspects of
the Third Reich. I thought of Ohlendorf being a subbordinate of Himmler, rather than
Canaris, but sometimes the word "intelligence", pertaining to things of the Third
Reich makes me automatically think of Canaris. I didn't realize Fieldmarshall or was
it Reichmarshall H.Guderian "The Panzer King" was among Hitler's "court favorites",
like Albert Speer was.
Was Nebe part of the "Red Orchestra" conspiracy , the bombing at the Wolf's Lair on
7/20/44?
You're right about Stalin, he was milder than Hitler, but there wasn't much room in
there either. Everything was Da,Da, Da, or else.
I am sorry to hear about your heart condition and your dad's early demise. I lost my
dad to a cerebral hemorrage when he was 46, I was 19 at the time. You're absolutely
right when you say everything's getting more technical, but sometimes I dislike
dealing with technicalities, but I realize they're a must.
Luis de Quesada
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Howard: I am somewhat familiar with Otto Ohlendorf and his Inland
> >Intelligence, (was he a subordinate of Admiral Canaris or
> >Himmler?)and later on his
> >SS Einzatskommando, just another extermination unit. There wasn't
> >much or any room
> >at the top echelon of the Third Reich for any surveys,constructive
> >criticism,never
> >mind plain criticism, the only disagreement was on efficiency etc. Statistical
> >methods were always used as a way to more efficient and faster killings,
> >extermination at death camps, etc.
>
> When I spoke of Ohlendorf, who was a subordinate of Himmler, I was
> focusing on his role well before he was involved in extermination.
> Among the second-tier Nazis, he was notable for his substantial
> academic background (law and/or economics, etc.).
>
> Please don't misunderstand and assume I think he was some sort of
> hero. But he was internally called the "Crusty Knight of National
> Socialism," a reference to Gotz von Berlichingen (a Goethe
> character), in that he often criticized leaders for being
> opportunists and straying from the "Holy Grail" of Nazi ideologies.
> In other words, while he may have been an evil man, he was a
> principled evil man.
>
> Himmler, as head of security and the SS, reported to Hitler. Under
> Himmler were about 8 various-sized administrative directorate, of
> which a critical one was the Security Directorate (RSHA) under
> Heydrich and then Kaltenbrunner. Under the RSHA were two SD
> intelligence (as opposed to the Gestapo's operational secret police
> role) divisions, Inland SD under Ohlendorf and External SD under
> Schellenberger. Inland SD was concerned with public opinion and what
> I'll call the "long-term detection of dissent." as opposed to
> specific "anti-social" elements under the authority of the Gestapo.
>
> Canaris was in military intelligence, with a completely different
> reporting line that bypassed Himmler.
>
> "Inland SS" produced a series of "Reports from the Reich," which were
> highly secret opinion polls and other survey data. I have not read
> them personally, but I've been told they were as objective as the
> social science of the time knew how to do. They were also extremely
> unpopular with the top leadership, which put Ohlendorf in danger of
> being purged.
>
> Up to that point, Ohlendorf probably was not significantly involved
> in war crimes. In a misguided effort to restore their Party
> standing, Ohlendorf and Nebe (Criminal Police chief) volunteered to
> lead Einsatzgruppen. Nebe, incidentally, was active in the
> anti-Hitler plots and was later executed by the Nazis for his
> participation.
>
> Ohlendorf had little if anything to do with the concentration or
> extermination camps. He probably did report that the Einsatzgruppen,
> which worked by shooting, were not efficient.
>
> >I think Stalin did likewise,not much room for criticism, that is,
> >although ethnic
> >cleansing was not one of his top priorities.
>
> Stalin, as seen from the writings of several of his immediate
> associates, differed here from Hitler. Before Stalin made a
> decision, he was apparently quite permissive about frank and open
> discussion of alternatives within the top leadership circle,
> something Hitler never did. Of course, if a leader continued to
> argue after Stalin made the decision, said dissenter might be purged.
>
> The opportunity for dissent never went below the level of Stalin's
> inner circle, but it was slightly more evident than with Hitler.
> Hitler did have a few favorites that could criticize him without
> personal fear (e.g., Speer, Guderian), but their arguments seemed to
> have little impact.
>
> >I hope in this case we are not dealing with the likes of Hitler,
> >Heydrich, et al.
> >Just a simple electoral referendum here in a democracy, a republic
> >or a facsimile
> >thereof, the definitions of our present system of government are getting too
> >technical for me lately.
>
> Unfortunately, and with all due respect, life itself grows
> increasingly more technical. A personal perspective: my father died
> of heart disease at 42, and was severely disabled by it through his
> late thirties. I'm 54, but by aggressive use of medical techniques
> not dreamed of in his lifetime, I have no major cardiac limitations
> -- although I've had two angioplasties, a quadruple bypass, a
> pacemaker, and daily handfuls of drugs.
>
> I'll happily take that additional complication.
>
> >Luis de Quesada
> >
> >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >
> >> >Howard wrote,
> >> >
> >> >> Our social scientists can comment better than I,
> >> >
> >> >Looks like you have it covered. Carry on. <grin>
> >> >
> >> >I will add: Many people are allergic to the very thought of surveys, but if
> >> >we're thinking in terms of non-binding Internet 'referenda,'
> >>survey methods do
> >> >have some useful lessons. Of course I don't mean to imply that some such
> >> >referenda, by themselves, would constitute some apotheosis of democratic
> >> >process. But they could be a useful mechanism for publics to
> >>learn more about
> >> >their collective beliefs.
> >> >
> >> >Mark
> >>
> >> Again, we have the glimmerings of a proposal for something Netizens
> >> might do. Assume, for the sake of argument, that truly binding
> >> referenda have enough structural problems such that they are not
> >> viable as part of the decisionmaking process. Factors could involve
> >> accessibility with the digital divide, the need to reduce complex
> >> situations to propositions that can be voted on [1], and the
> >> susceptibility of the process to short-term, less than reflective
> >> thinking.
> >>
> >> To what extent would the existence of a trusted survey organization,
> >> whose outputs certainly will be considered -- if not agreed to -- by
> >> lawmakers, be useful as an adjunct to the political process? Is it
> >> feasible to create in a broad-based way that frees it from
> >> partisanship?
> >>
> >> Ironically, there have been some suboptimal historical examples of
> >> what happened when good survey data was produced. In Nazi Germany,
> >> the "Inland SD" intelligence agency, under Otto Ohlendorf, did what
> >> were generally considered very objective surveys of public opinion,
> >> whose results were circulated to perhaps 100 individuals in the
> >> leadership. The data produced was so in opposition to what the
> >> leadership wanted to hear that these "Reports from the Reich" were
> >> shut down. Ohlendorf, a Nazi intellectual reputed to have a degree of
> >> intellectual honesty, volunteered to lead an extermination force
> >> (Einsatzkommando) as penance and political rehabilitation. For that,
> >> he was executed by order of one of the later war crimes trials. It's
> >> entirely possible that if he had not made that choice, while he was
> >> an ideological Nazi, he might very well have come out with little or
> >> no punishment and perhaps a legitimate academic appointment.
> >>
> >> Ohlendorf's example is NOT the way to do things.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 12:26:55 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
At 11:07 AM -0500 4/4/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>> >>Howard asked that that happen elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists.
>>>>
>>>>It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious
>>>>situation like the current attack on Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't
>>>>that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process.
>>>>
>>>>The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
>>>>discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
>>>>resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
>>>>can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
>>>>
>>>>Ronda
>>
>
>
>Ronda is right about issues regarding 'the deliberative process,'
>introduced by Mark. I think that so many things are happening at
>once. We are presenting new issues and responding to old ones out
>of sequence. It is what will inevitably happen in this packet store
>and forwarding deal. Perhaps this is facilitating the confusion. I
>don't know. And don't be afraid of the confusion. Interesting
>ideas may yet evince themselves by virtue of the maelstrom.
>
>Larry
Consider that I come from an engineering philosophy. I really do
believe in brainstorming, but, again and again, you'll see me keep
asking the question, "OK, this is a good idea. Should it be
implemented, even as a prototype? Who, then, should build it? Is it
within the resources available to informal groupings of netizens?"
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #459
******************************
