MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-09-04 |
| FROM | Steve Milo
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Interesting article on Valenti in this months Business2.0.
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Joe Grastara wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, September 4, 2003 5:21 PM -0400 Steve Milo
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Joe Grastara wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --On Wednesday, September 3, 2003 11:11 PM -0400 Steve Milo
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Steve Milo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Joe Grastara wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --On Tuesday, September 2, 2003 7:19 PM -0400 Steve Milo
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joe Grastara wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> --On Friday, August 29, 2003 6:24 PM -0400 Steve Milo
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > The article is titled Who Speaks for Tech.
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Valenti is quoted as saying: "No Kingdom, no empire, no
> >> >> > >> > monarchy, no republic will endure unless its citizens are
> >> >> > >> > under a canopy of a sturdy moral compact -- and history is
> >> >> > >> > replete with the dry bleached bones of prior enterprises that
> >> >> > >> > have neglected that lesson".
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > First, I thought this country was a democracy? Or am I wrong?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> You are wrong. The U.S. Government on some level a Republic
> >> >> > >> with some democratically elected public representation. These
> >> >> > >> days we are in fact more like an empire.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > No I'm not and you just proved so yourself that on some level we
> >> >> > > are still a democracy. Unlike plenty of wanna be empires that
> >> >> > > were not democratic on any level.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > History is replete with governments that failed because of the
> >> >> > > chokehold self-interested parties had on it. Even communist
> >> >> > > russia is an example of how it was manipulated by selfinterested
> >> >> > > parties. Everyone in that system wanted a piece of that action so
> >> >> > > much that it stifled innovation. Or atleast the proliferation of
> >> >> > > it. In the 60's they laughed at the US for attempting to create
> >> >> > > what we today call the internet. Shit, they even lauged at the
> >> >> > > US for trying to put men on the moon and bringing them back. But
> >> >> > > its obvious who won in the end.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Second, the first three examples do not belong in the same
> >> >> > >> > league as the last one he cited.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Nearly all governments responsible for a sufficiently large
> >> >> > >> amount of people end up converging in their appearance over
> >> >> > >> time.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yes, but a monarchy is not a republic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Don't get caught up in technical definitions. You can call
> >> >> > anything by any name you wish, but it doesn't change what the
> >> >> > thing is.
> >> >
> >> > Right, a rose by any other name...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Third, there is a reason those three examples he used have not
> >> >> > >> > survived to this day.
> >> >> > >> > Because they all were designed to keep the citizens under the
> >> >> > >> > thumb of a single ruler that was chosen arbitrarily.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Rulers were never and are not chosen arbitrarily.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Youre right, even communist russia had a system for choosing their
> >> >> > > leaders. But it wasn't by, for or with the people.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dude, are you kidding. Do you really think our leaders are chosen
> >> >> > by, for or with the people; certainly not the president. Our
> >> >> > Presidential electoral system was blatantly designed to minimize the
> >> >> > weight of the people's preference in the overall outcome of the
> >> >> > election. Forget the actually election, you only need to look at
> >> >> > the corrupt primary system to see that electing a president is not
> >> >> > about accurately capturing public choice, but about a battle
> >> >> > between two parties more interested in furthering their own power
> >> >> > not for the sake of representing the public but for multiplying
> >> >> > their personal wealth.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, its called the collegate electoral vote, something I learned in
> >> > Junior High School. It is a system that is designed to simplify the
> >> > election process while at the same time maintain somekind of integirty.
> >> > Yes, I used the clause 'somekind of integrity' because in real world
> >> > choices arent as binary as computers. Its a system that was designed
> >> > from the start to offer the 'best possible choice' or 'the least
> >> > worst'. More so to minimize the strain on the system that is created
> >> > by the choice afforded to the American people than to minimize it.
> >> > The system allows the growth and prosperity that this
> >> > country has enjoyed for the last 200 years.
> >> > It works, despite what cynics would have people believe.
> >>
> >> Just because the means are effective doesn't make the ends desirable.
> >> That is you're right, our presidential electoral system does "work".
> >> It's just that it isn't designed to accurately capture the preferences
> >> of the voters. It works to keep the people out of the equation as much
> >> as possible while still making them feel like real participants. In fact
> >> the people are more like spectators at a sporting event. Despite the
> >> propaganda that you were spoon fed in Junior High School, (which is
> >> obvious based on your "Great Man" History Textbook definition of the
> >> Electoral College) there are plenty of data to suggest that the
> >> electoral system does a poor job of capturing public choice. Take the
> >> 2000 election as an example; Polls taken during the Primaries indicated
> >> that McCain was the most favored candidate of something like 60% of the
> >> people, when pitted against both Bush and Gore. Of course the events of
> >> the actual election demonstrated that neither Bush nor Gore had the
> >> overwhelming support of the voters. What ended up happening in Florida
> >> was probably a genuine coup. But it was the result of system failure.
> >> This is of course only one example there are plenty more. There more you
> >> study our electoral system the more you realize how inadequate it is.
> >
> > No, the system works the means are effective the information is flawed.
> > Bush was able to gain the upper hand over McCain because the Bush camp
> > floated a rumor that McCain was anti-womens rights. Despite McCains
> > efforts to overcome that propoganda popular opinion was swayed into the
> > Bush camp. Further Bush capitalized on that by persuading McCain to walk
> > away and for his effforts McCain would be given what he really wanted. A
> > chance to 'clean up the system'. Had McCain stayed in and fought it out
> > it would have cost him millions more in money to counter the propoganda.
> > By the way it wasnt Bush personally who was responsible for that
> > propoganda. You can thank the 'genious' of Karl Rove for that.
> > Further, the 2000 elections show what happens when a third party is
> > introduced. Which is just popular enough to sway a percentage of the
> > voters from Democratic camp. Then use the fallout as an attempt to call
> > the system a 'failure', but not enough to actually win the presidential
> > election. That isnt to say that the system doesnt need 'tweaking', but
> > radical calls for change rarely work.
> >
> > If anything failed it is the media, at the same time we were too
> > complacent. We bought into the propoganda thanks in large part to the
> > media. But thats the media and they were 'just doing their job'. The job
> > of the American people is to be able to take a step back
> > from the propoganda and make an intelligent decision.
> > Even though we are given that opportunity we have become too complacent to
> > actually excersize it.
> > Thats not to say that the American people arent capable of making an
> > intelligent choice. That is to say that media failed to provide the
> > public with 'e*en $nd bala#ced r3porting'.
> >
> > And I dont need no Junior High School text book to tell me that.
> > By the same token, perhaps you should stop believing everything the news
> > tells you.
>
> I am not regurgitating the news. The news is the last place in this
> country to look for reliable information or analysis.
You had brought up the 2000 election as an example. The 2000 election was
the poster child of people who complained about how 'Bush
won/lost/stole/earned/' the election. The bottom line is shit happens and
then you move on. For all intents and purposes Bush will probably win in
2004 too. In fact I'll wager that Hillary will run in 2008 and probably
win. She wont run in 2004 because the odds are too great, her camp will
also try to derail the democratic candidate in 2004. She will probably
use the current war against Bush/Repbulicans. All of this will
further(/strengthen) the 'illusion' that the people have a choice.
Is there a thing I can do about it, probably not. Am I going
to use it as an example of how the system is 'failing' the citizens of this
country? Nope. It will be a waste of my time and energy. Instead I'm
going to focus on what I think I can make a difference in. Work with the
system instead of against it. I've worked against and it hasnt
served me, now I'll try working with the system.
> The American News
> Media offer nothing but speculation and uniformed opinions.
Thats all the media does anywhere in the world is offer speculation. No
matter where you go. The gods honest truth is that humans are capable of
destruction that is unfathomable to 'civilized' people.
Pick a side and stick to it, sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt.
You can probably espouse a more eloquent philosphy that I can agree with.
>I think I have
> failed to explain what I mean. In a rigorous study of Politics as apposed
> to just watching the news one will learn that there are numerous kinds of
> electoral systems. The most ubiquitous one in use in this country is
> commonly called "First Past the Post", which just means that the candidate
> with the most (note, this means a plurality but not necessarily a majority)
> of votes wins. This mechanism is perfectly adequate to make binary
> decisions in a single issue space.
Right, and here is where the system is based on the 'integrity' of the
individuals. What is lacking is a way to determine that integrity, or
more to the point the responsibility that is required to have integrity.
> By definition the candidate with the
> most votes will also have a majority. But, in a multidimensional issue
> space or in an election with more than two candidates our electoral system
> is grossly inadequate. I doubt you heard anybody making this point on the
> news.
I've heard it before (thought not on the news), and I still dont buy it.
Further, I dont watch the news.
> If you did, I would love to see the reference.
I dont have a reference handy, you will have to take my word when I tell
you I've heard it before. I can thank the exchange of information we have
available to us for that.
> You're right in
> pointing out that a third party can cause a fallout under our electoral
> system. But you're missing the point. The third party isn't the
> problem; the system is the problem. Continuing to work within the
> system currently in place is like putting a band-aid on a gun-shot wound.
> The American Public currently enjoys only the illusion of having a saying in their
> Government.
If I'm mistaken the way the system is designed was how it was designed
from the very start. Oddly the only thing lacking is education of the
system.
Still, its not a band-aid as much as it is a system that provides
stability while at the same time allowing for change.
If you think I'm too idealistic you are entitled to that and to an
extent I wont dispute it. I'm not out to change the system as much as
I am out to protect what we have and illustrate the dangerous track
that Congress has taken in terms of the most basic and important civil rights.
If you can change the system for the better that suits me fine. But
can we focus on the task at hand?
> This will continue to be the case until enough people
> recognize that there are other ways of designing electoral systems (we only
> need to look across the Atlantic for many fine examples) which are far
> better in accurately capturing group choice.
Historical evidence points to that being too risky an example to
follow (Stalin, Hitler, Musollini, tell me if I'm
forgetting anyone).
I've heard from a few people who study at UNM that they enjoy a greater
freedom here than they did when they were in Germany/France.
> Again, I agree with you in your statement that the media have failed the
> Public, but not for the same reasons. The media failed because they are
> presenting the information that the politicians want them to.
The media presents information that suits them.
> So when you
> go on about this personality in politics or whatever bullshit leverage one
> guy used to get the other guy to drop out of a race you're getting caught
> up in the unimportant details. This level of conversation has about as
> much substance as the entertainment tabloids. What makes the reporting
> shoddy is their failure to genuinely educate the public. Instead every
> page of the paper reads like the gossip column.
Right, lets not talk about how one group of people try to use their own
hidden political agenda to derail another.
> >
> >>
> >> By, the way I think you are oversimplifying just a bit and just flat
> >> wrong when you say that the electoral college is responsible for the
> >> "growth and prosperity that this country has enjoyed for the last 200
> >> years".
> >
> > That may be and I dont mean to imply that the electoral college is what
> > has given us the means for growth and prosperity. What I am trying to
> > illustrate is railing against a system that is clearly out of our reach is
> > a waste of time. Instead we should concentrate on what we can change.
> > Which brings me to the next point. Everyone is allowed to run for
> > president in this country. The only stipulation I believe is that they
> > have to be a natural born citizen here. Whether Jack down the block will
> > actually win is a different story entirely. Whether I want jack down the
> > block to run is still another matter.
> >
>
> Just as a technical point in order to run for the office of President of
> the United States a candidate must also be at least 35 years of age.
>
> You're point about anybody being able run for president is meaningless.
> All that matters is who can win.
So lets dig up (insert the worst public figure in
American history during the 18th cnetury) maybe he can win.
Put him throught the wash cycle on CNN and he's brand new again.
>
> >> >
> >> > Why am I supposed to care about how someone else gets rich?
> >>
> >> If someone else is getting rich at your expense I would expect that you
> >> would care. But hey, there's no accounting for taste.
> >
> > No thats more up to left up to interpretation. This country still allows
> > the means for me to acquire wealth for how I see fit. At the same time I
> > am afforded the protection of the law that prevents the theft of my
> > property. As well as being given the opportunity to be a part of change.
> > However there are glaring flaws that are continually circumventing not
> > only our rights but also the law. Thats the problem I have.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> A country where every citizen is still afforded the right for self
> >> >> determination.
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Atleast this country still promises a voice for its citizens.
> >> >> > > Too bad many citizens surrender that right for complacency or are
> >> >> > > worse still silenced by cynics.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> > Those systems were designed to keep the citizens ignorant, ill
> >> >> > >> > and dependant on a welfare system that was distributed as
> >> >> > >> > deemed fit by the ruler. Not unlike socialism/communism.
> >> >> > >> > Or am I wrong?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> You are wrong. Don't be so idealistic. Take a look at what is
> >> >> > >> happening in this country.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Right, atleast there is some sembelence of information exchange in
> >> >> > > this country as opposed to other countries that hold information
> >> >> > > completely ransom.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Instead of defending what we have you should be concerned with what
> >> >> > we're losing rapidly. The RIAA and the MPAA and Disney and hosts
> >> >> > of other media companies are working very hard to severely
> >> >> > restrict the flows of information in this country.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Isnt that why I brought up this article about Valenti?
> >>
> >>
> >> Right and I commend you for it. I'm just making the point that saying
> >> "At least we have this" doesn't get us anywhere.
> >
> > The parrallel I was trying to make is this: 'Popular opinion' and the
> > people which I believe we will be doing battle with will themselves be
> > misinformed of what happens when control of information is
> > misappropriated.
> > We have to be able to clearly draw a picture for them of what happens when
> > such controls are imposed. We have available a most recent example in
> > history that we can draw from. I am of the opinion that we should use
> > that example relentlessly but practically.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Even in current day russia people who aspire to more than is
> >> >> > > allowed to them are 'silenced'.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut if I ever want to get anywhere
> >> >> > > in this world.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Is it my imagination or is Valenti a seriously mentally
> >> >> > >> > disturbed indiviudual?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> It's your imagination.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I was probably a little harsh on him, he does have a right to
> >> >> > > voice his opinion on important matters. Actually I was probably
> >> >> > > completely wrong about him. If he was able to make the kind of
> >> >> > > headway he has in Congress I shouldnt have any doubt he is a very
> >> >> > > intelligent man.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's not a matter of being harsh, the man is evil but as you
> >> >> > pointed out not stupid.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Steve M
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > ____________________________
> >> >> > >> > NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> >> >> > >> > Fair Use -
> >> >> > >> > because it's either fair use or useless....
> >> >> > >> > NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Joe Grastara
> >> >> > >> Systems Administrator
> >> >> > >> NYU School of Medicine
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Joe Grastara
> >> >> > Systems Administrator
> >> >> > NYU School of Medicine
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe Grastara
> >> Systems Administrator
> >> NYU School of Medicine
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> Joe Grastara
> Systems Administrator
> NYU School of Medicine
>
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
