MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-09-11 |
| FROM | Joe Grastara
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Interesting article on Valenti in this months
|
--On Thursday, September 4, 2003 8:37 PM -0400 Steve Milo
wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 have no philosophy and therefore try not to espouse any.
>
>> 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.
You are simply wrong. It has nothing to do with integrity of the
individual or the "the responsibility that is required to have integrity"
whatever that is supposed to mean. See my next comment.
>
>> 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.
Whether or not you "buy it" is irrelevant. It is verifiable scientific
observation. It would be like saying you "don't buy" gravity or you "don't
buy" evolution. Do a Google search on "Duverger's Law". Of course in the
tradition of Modern Western Science you are invited to offer a model which
better fits the empirical data.
>
> 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.
>
I only wanted the reference if you saw it on the news.
>> 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.
I agree that we aren't properly educated in the system. As to your first
statement, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
> 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?
>
That is what I am trying to do.
>> 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).
Please don't take this as being condescending, but you are obviously
either completely ignorant of how electoral systems/governments in other
countries operate or you are simply try to associate my suggestions which
either way you obviously don't understand with failed totalitarian regimes.
What I am trying to point out is that in countries that you may have heard
of such as France, Germany, or Italy as well as many other countries in
Europe and the entire World electoral systems different from ours are
currently used. The French for example, to elect their President have what
is called a Run-off Election. Basically this means that there are several
several rounds to the election, with candidates eliminated in each
successive round until they have a winner. Anyway this is only one of the
many, many alternative voting systems we could choose from. Our system
which tries to use the Party Primaries to reduce the number of candidates
to two often fails in doing so, as was evident in the previous Presidential
Election and many others throughout our history. When this happens as it
did in 1992 (just so you don't think I can only cite our previous election
as evidence) it often results in election results which are rather
ambiguous. In that election Bill Clinton was elected with less than a
majority of the votes. That disturbs me because we don't really know if
all things considered that's what people wanted. For example, would he
have really beat Bush (the elder) had Perot not run? Would more people have
been in support of Perot if they didn't suffer from the "Throw Away Vote"
syndrome observed in first past the post electoral systems. We don't really
know the answers to any of these questions, because our electoral systems
lacks the sophistication to convey this information.
Just to be clear, I want to re-iterate that really not much of what I am
saying is very original. It's just that none of this kind of discussion
has made it's way into mainstream media or education. You have to major in
Politics to learn any of this and even a lot of Politics programs don't
address these issues. Anyway my point is that you should do yourself a
favor and really educate yourself. The resources are there.
>
> 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.
Freedom in terms of what? In and of itself that is a meaningless
statement because it is devoid of context. Please be more specific.
>
>> 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.
Sorry, but again I don't know what you are trying to say here.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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
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
|
|
