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 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.
>
> 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.
> >
> > 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
>
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
