MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-09-11 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Interesting article on Valenti in this months Business2.0.
|
OK I pushed this through hangout because the email address is not on the
hangout roster... but is there a message in here?
Ruben
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:19:22PM -0400, Joe Grastara wrote:
>
>
>
> --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
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
