Interview: The Internet Political Experts Respond

Monday we asked Jonah Seiger and Shabbir Safdar of Mindshare Internet Campaigns a bunch of questions about effective online political activism. Here are their answers. (They skipped two questions. Perhaps they'll explain why on the message boards later today.)

Antizeus asks: While not everyone on the net shares a common political philosophy, there are some very common tendencies, such a strong libertarian undercurrent. Do you guys think the net could be used as an important tool in bringing together freedom-loving people to form a third party to represent the interests of liberty that so often get stepped on by the two major political parties in the USA? And could such a party have a chance of winning a significant number of elections, unlike (apparently) other third parties such as the lamented Libertarian Party?

Shabbir and Jonah answer: There's literally no other medium in existence today that has the potential for jump-starting a new political party *except* the Net. The open, decentralized nature of the Net naturally facilitates organizing and sharing ideas. The challege, of course, is finding issues and ideas around which people are willing to rally.

Also, the Net alone is not enough. Politics happens in the real world -- at the ballot box and the halls of Congress. While the Net does have the potential to grease the wheels of the third party movement, it alone is not enough to change our politics.

GuySmiley asks: For over a year, we have been told to either vote for Bush or Gore in 2000. The mainstream media does not let anyone else get air time.

How can you bypass the networks and use the internet to publicize a candidate that actually has a brain and a flying chance in hell of getting elected?

Shabbir and Jonah answer: The same way that /. gained notice and an audience -- word of mouse. If a candidate has a compelling message and people who are willing to carry it, the Net is in many ways more powerful than TV or other traditional media. Since the net has no gatekeepres (like tv does), spreading a message is much easier.

What does this mean? Talk to your friends. Do interesting things with the net that get positive press attention, buy banners ads, anything that will help generate positive attention for a candidate's message. But first and formost, have a good message (and never SPAM).

kmj9907 asks: UCITA is a pretty big issue among /.ers, I'd think. Are there any major efforts to fight this act? If so, how or where can I (we) find them? I personally think it would be a crime to allow this to pass.

Shabbir and Jonah answer: We're not closely following UCITA and therefore don't have much to say about it.

xmedar asks: There is strong advocacy within the geek population as epitomised by the Linux Advocacy How To, ways of increasing debate, and providing good quality information rather than FUD, therefore increasingeveryones understanding of the situation rather than polarising arguements and ending up in irrational finger pointing. Do you think this ethos can be translated to the world of politics, and what effect do you think it might have?

Shabbir and Jonah answer: (no answer - R)

Hobbex asks: Is it, as many like to believe, the NSA and the rest of the Intelligence community still running the show like puppet masters with absolutely no resistance, or is there in Washington a deep, pessimistic belief that freedom must truly be fought with all means possible because we the lesser people of the earth cannot handle it?

Shabbir and Jonah answer: (no answer -R)

Signal 11 asks: How does one organize a group of people entirely online? I have seen several attempts at getting a movement off the ground - setting up a listserv, website, discussing the issues.. but that's usually all the farther it goes, and then the whole thing sinks.

What's the best way to get in touch with people and get something off the ground?

Shabbir and Jonah answer: It's a hard combination of good leadership, a receptive audience, and the right moment in time. Without any real cohesive issue to keep people focused, or the right moment where a group identifies with itself, it's hard to coalesce.

Once you've built a group, I think the trick to avoid burnout is to stay focused on your issue, set small realistic goals initially, and don't try and take on everything yourself; spread out the work.

Mr. Slippery asks: Citizens who find themselves in the minority on many political issues have found the Internet a very valuable tool to organize, share information, and make their views known to the mainstream.

Now it seems that the federal government is trying to censor such discussion. For example, we have the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999", which would criminalize many discussions of drug policy.

I believe that you can't have a meaningful discussion on, for instance, the sentancing guidelines for possession of crack vs. powder cocaine without an understanding of how crack is made. Thus, my drug policy site has such information.

Trying to censor "dirty" bits is bad enough, but to censor political discussion is utterly abhorant. Political censorship is a life-and-death issue - people will fight, kill, and die for free speech. What, short of bullets, is it going to take to stop the cybercensors? (Or should I just go buy more bullets while I still can?)

Shabbir and Jonah answer: As you probably already know, we cut our teeth on the defense of free speech of the net during the CDA battle in Congress and through the Supreme Court. We have since then seen many many attempts at suppressing speech on the net, and though we never take these lightly, we have faith in two things:

1. The hope that people like yourself will never stop telling their members of Congress that you don't like it when they play the censor, and that 2. The system we have in this country will continue to balance the whims of ill-thought-out legislation with the values in the Bill of Rights.

Since we don't live in a direct democracy, citizens input isn't always a "silver bullet" to making stuff happen. But it helps, and it's the first step.

dattaway asks: I would imagine the problems we have with the conflicting and silly laws we have is the low voter turnout and research on a bill's viability is based on polls. Statistics, not for love of the country.

So, my question is, if better than 95% of eligible voters had their voice punched on the ballot, would it be the end all of obscure laws, mudslinging, and corruption? Eligible voters should be based on age only (18) and nothing else. Having a disagreement with the law and getting a felony, etc, should be no excuse for silence. I feel it is everyone's duty to participate. Is this unreasonable?

Shabbir and Jonah answer: It is indeed everyones duty to participate, and if you don't vote you've got no right to complain.

PD asks: Al Gore offends Open Source fans by mocking the concept on his campaign web page. He offends internet users by claiming that he invented the internet.

On the other hand, G.W. Bush offends free thinkers by announcing that he wants religous organizations to take a larger part in government programs, and might directly tax dollars to those programs.

What is the best way to let these candidates know that their current positions are counter-productive? I want someone to say clearly that they will increase NASA's budget over the next 4 years.

Shabbir and Jonah answer: I'd definately focus on telling the campaigns directly, and then use the net to *organize*! Put up a site with a statement of what you want candidates to do (more $ for NASA), what people visiting the site can do to make it happen (write a letter to the campaign, or get on the mailing list) and then keep up with them.

Whenever a candidate is going to be somewhere online (like Gore's interactive town hall meeting this week) tell your mailing list to go and submit pro-NASA-funding questions!

There are also ways you can donate to the campaigns, as a group through online means as well.

Finally, check out the the Center for Responsive Politics database of contributors to the presidential campaigns (http://www.crp.org/) Some (but not all) of the contributions of the candidates are there. You can look through them to find donors who may already be supporters of the space program, and try to enlist them in your cause, either as supporters or spokespeople.

Stonehand asks: Arguably, the Internet can be used as a tool for the dissemination of propaganda -- including outright lies. This is at least partly due to

• The availability of free Web hosting.
• The difficulty of confirming the identity and credentials of 'net publishers/speakers.
• The occasional strange credulity of people...

An organized effort by any reasonably large group, be it a fringe, partisan group of people out to "get" somebody; or an activist group that does not bother with checking its "facts" can rapidly evangelize a cause with nonsense -- such as blatantly questionable statistics, out-of-context quotes, and so forth.

Is there any reason that the people *should* view the 'Net as a medium for information and activism, given all this? That is, why -- and how -- should people write or listen?

Shabbir and Jonah answer: Indeed, even outside politics, the rule of this medium is the reader's equivalent of "buyer beware". There isn't another medium where so many have had so much potential to speak so broadly.

But the medium can self-correct. Look at Slashdot! A perfect example. Many of these questions were selected because several moderators rated them highly, and even without the rating, anyone (even an Anonymous Coward) has the ability to reply and post a message correcting or clarifying a mistake in the message being followed up to.

Certainly, the medium has potential for abuse, but then so does every other. And I'd rather be in a medium where the power is spread out.

Comments

Re: dattaway (Age restrictions on voting)

[Anonymous Cow]

So, voting ability should only be granted to those who're 18 and older -- and to *everyone* who is 18 and older? So you're saying felons and the insane -- as long as they're over the age of 18 -- are better suited for making a rational descision than people under the age of 18? That's just not how things work.

I'll be 20 this October, so I have a group of friends that ranges a good deal between the ages of about 16 and 24. At least in my opinion, a hefty number of them who are under 18 are far more able to go through the thought process involved in voting than many older people I've met.

Age restrictions are about the most insane thing I've seen in this country. Uncle Sam says you're old enough to drive a car when you're 16, but good luck trying to vote, drink, or even find a rental car (the rental thing is a nightmare if your car needs repairs, which just happened to me about a month ago). Think about it. This is the same as saying you're not responsible enough to influence your government's direction, consume alcohol, use a credit card, gamble, and a few other things, but you are responsible enough to control something that's involved in a hideous amount of deaths in this country. Speaking of something that's instrumental in a horrifying amount of deaths, think about guns for a second. I don't know the exact age you need to be to own/operate a gun, but I'm fairly sure it's less than 16. I'll uphold our right to bear arms, but it makes no sense to say that somebody's responsible enough to handle a tool designed to kill (legitimate uses included -- like hunting and self-defense) without also saying that person's responsible enough to handle a tool designed for transportation. Then, once you finally turn 18, you can vote. As an added bonus, Uncle Sam says you can even go sign up to risk your life for your country. In fact, if you're male, you're *required* to sign up for the draft (*cough* blatant sexism *cough*). But don't you dare go near that beer bottle for another three years.

The biggest problem with this is that age restrictions are the only *practical* way to handle these things (that is, of course, if you're under the impression that things like this should be restricted at all). So, as I don my asbestos suit, let me just say that if age restrictions must be put on things like this, they should at least be done in some sort of logical progression.

It was a good question, after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you were misquoted. :( The full text of your question sounds much more reasonable.

I would like to know if they, while up there rubbing elbows with the powerful and incompetent, have gotten some sort of feeling for where the rabid Crypto-phobia of Washington is stemming from?

I don't know the real answer to this, however, one plausible explanation that I have heard is that if strong encryption were in widespread use, it would increase the amount of processor time needed for NSA computers to crack messages. Even if they can crack really strong encryption using unpublished mathematical methods, it still might require the use of some formidable hardware. So if they can somehow reduce the strength of encryption in general usage, then, in general, the more stuff they can crack in a given amount of time.

It makes perfect sense, from the point of view of a government spook. They want to limit the use of strong encryption *even though* they can actually crack it.

I am speculating here. This is pure fantasy. But you asked an excellent question. Too bad Slashdot's mammals nibbled so much of it away.

felons

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't have any problems with preventing prisoners from voting, I feel that once a person has paid his debt to society he should be allowed to participate in the democratic process again. Laws taking rights away from felons are known as "disenfranchisement" laws and are beginning to be recognized as a serious problem.

Roughly 25% of black men are convicted felons. In some states, this number is much higher, as high as 40%. Convicted felons cannot, depending on the state: vote; own property; drive a car; and more. Gee, this is beginning to sound like slavery all over again. Not to mention that prisons are a growth industry in the US, and with the increasing privatization of prisons we can expect this problem to get worse. (The companies running these private prisons want to make more money. It's just that simple.)

Liberals have a tendency to regard racially biased outcomes as the product of racism, and this issue is no exception; the way it is publicized will no doubt alienate many conservatives and libertarians. That's too bad... disenfranchisement laws should be recognized as unjust, no matter which race they affect most.

Window managers: Attacking personal liberties?

[Ptolemarch]

You know, I'm not so sure that you necessarily need to correct "CDE" to "CDA". I mean, sure, the CDA was terrible, and I was gleeful when it was struck down, but after having used Enlightenment, I personally find CDE to be pretty darned oppressive, too.

<Chuckle.>

Re:Tracking vote histories, and representative gov

[PrettyGeeklette]

Way to say it, Your_Name. I think it's high time the people took responsibility for their own political views. All day long, anywhere you go, you'll hear people whining and carrying on about how 'The Government' sucks, and how 'The Government' doesn't care what 'the People' want/need/etc. Remember "We the People"...? Where did we lose sight of it? Or did we even mean it then? Sure it'll take a ton of work to get people to actually *gasp* learn about the issues that effect them -- but it's high time we stop complaining about how other people are running our lives and making the important decisions for us. Go, go, go! :)

World Wide Web, USA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm struck by the extreme narrowness questions and answers here. While questions about encryption policy, spook snooping, and censorship are certainly important, the issues identified by readers seem rather self-serving... as does the self-promotion of the respondents. There are civil wars raging across Africa and South America, U.S. corporations are ravaging the planet... Perhaps we should be concerned about more than just our own individual freedom, and use that freedom to move the federal government to a more responsible domestic and foreign policy. Funding for NASA? Perhaps the federal government could reallocate the millions of your tax dollars it spends on arming and training foreign militaries to murder their own citizens.

The "internet political experts" don't seem to care much about these things either. The internet is a global medium occupied by more than just geeks in the United States that speak English. There are international grassroots movements underway...

Granted this is news for nerds... but there's a lot more stuff that matters.

"If you don't vote..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"...you have no right to complain." Well, what if you don't regard electoral politics as the correct medium through which to effect change? Are you still allowed to complain about the untoward effects of government or simply bad culture-software on our civilization? Or is this a "my way or the highway" kind of remark? If you don't buy into the party-politics, electoral-representative-government, democratic-Statist "solution" to the problem of solving social issues, you're not taken seriously if you express an opinion on them... Who do these crypto-fascist clowns think they are, anyway?

Re:"If you don't vote..."

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, when I was working as a pollster, I used to believe the "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain" line. I've since modified it as such:

"If you don't do anything, your discontent should not be respected. Subtle ridicule optional."

If you don't believe in voting, chances are you're out of luck (within our system). But you might be plotting violent revolution or engaging in a massive industrial bribery campaign -- both of which are highly effective methods of governmental change. Thus "voting," while it remains the most popular method of affecting change, is not the only one, and thus we can open the definition a little more.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, regardless of whether you're doing anything to achieve a given set of ends. Thus "right" is probably not the correct word. You should have the "right" to complain, but your complaints shouldn't be taken seriously. If you have a serious complaint, you should be doing something about it. I like my laundry room metaphor:

Let's say Bob doesn't have any clean clothes. There's a coin operated washing machine in his apartment complex, but he refuses to use it on moral grounds. It's understandable if you think about it, and hey, if he doesn't wanna use it that's up to him. But when he starts complaining every day about not having any clean clothes, you want to smack him. If you opt to take a position that far from consensus reality, you're going to have to live with the concequences. He could try to organize a co-op of tenants who pool their money to get their own washer and dryer, or he could buy new clothes, the possibilities are endless. But he just sits there and whines.

And sure enough, most people are just discontented with the government. They don't think voting's effective, don't like it, whatever, but they can't come up with anything better. So tough beans for them, I say!

Alternatively, there's a lot of armchair-fuhers out there. They think they have _the plan_. I've heard a lot of plans during my short life. Please, get someone else from a violently opposing viewpoint to go over your plan and point out the problems with it. Because there will be problems.

Damnit I'm tired and rambling. Stop now

Re:"If you don't vote..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the above comments are quite reasonable, given the ambiguous nature of the original post, but they do seem to make a number of misleading assumptions about the nature of a political economy. The "bad culture-software on [sic - of?] our civilization" seems to refer to the collection of habits, official rules, responses to incentive structures, etc. which determine how our decisions get made. What the poster is saying is that if we question these attitudes and rules, in other words, questioning the structure of the system itself, is seen - unfortunately - as in itself illegitimate. In other words, (s)he is complaining that only superficial questions are seen as legitimate subjects of discussion, while deeper issues about the nature of society, the State, and how these can or should be used to solve "real" problems like poverty, are ignored. This seems reasonable to me: as in software development, an approach which says "focus on the REAL problems, and forget about process" invariably ends up thrashing and producing poor product. Our tendency to ignore the process questions of this "bad culture-software" appears to be doing the same thing.

The massive apathy in the voting public, for instance, is a response to an incentive structure which makes one's own vote have a very limited degree of probable influence over one's own situation. A strategy of shifting as many of the policy decisions which matter to individuals onto local, community-oriented groups as possible is one possible response to this. "Downsize America", in the words of a headline I noticed in the Utne Reader the other day. It went on to advocate the secession of large states from the Union and their participation in a much less centrally-directed economic partnership. (I don't know the original source of the article).

This is a very good idea, IMHO, and in principle is a good first step towards a completely Stateless society - an intermediate step might resemble the anarcho-capitalist ideas of David Friedmann...

The post seems to take the anarchist view (correct me if I'm wrong here) that monopolistic government is itself a social problem, and not a means for effecting solutions to them. This is somewhat reasonable, if we are to accept diversity of opinion and value-systems as a positive value in itself (cf. "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill in which he expounds on the value, not only of freedom of speech, but of people willing to take and defend unpopular viewpoints). This is a reasonable position to take, especially since we all know the drawbacks of monoculture in ecosystems - why not political economies as well?

If we do accept diversity as a positive value, then the whole concept of "social policy-making" as a role for central leadership becomes counterproductive. When there are substantive differences of opinion within a community, that community DOESN'T HAVE TO STAY TOGETHER. In fact, its members will probably live together more peaceably if they don't have to live according to the same policies, when their individual interests conflict.

Obviously much consideration would have to be given to the details of such a scheme - but much thought has already been put into this question, e.g. by the aforementioned David Friedmann. One shouldn't dismiss apparent crackpot comments like this one out of hand, because any view which doesn't rely on the mainstream system of implicit assumptions always sounds crazy without a lot of supporting fact and argument which there usually isn't time or space to present.

UCSB's research

[Anonymous Coward]

a UCSB group is currently doing research on the effectiveness of the net and soforth. they've got a few papers up and such at http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/~bimber/res earch/. Worth checking out.

Re:Three- four-party systems...

[Stalky]

> So how does one organize real political parties
> when the traditional electoral system is
> demarcated by physical borders whereas the
> issues /.ers are interested in are culture,
> nation and planet wide.

The same way, I imagine, that the current political parties organize their state or provincial bodies into a national party.

Also, in a sense, organizations like Greenpeace are already political parties that span international boundaries. They certainly pursue political remedies to the problems they see. They just don't put forward candidates for election under the organization's name. It really wouldn't take much for them to do so, though.

Do the various Green parties coordinate their activities?

History also gives us examples like the Wobblies.

Re:Wow!(Offtopic)

[Uart]

Roblimo is pissing me off with all of his "interviews" lately

Re:Tracking vote histories, and representative gov

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we're ready to be done with the representative democracy and start in with a direct (athenian) democracy.

I wholeheartedly disagree, especially if you want to keep a constitutional premise. Most people -- when thinking about the government -- think of the big, mediapathic issues that are being bludgeoned to death on the TV, etc. Social Security, medicare, abortion, the defense budget, UN/NATO issues, etc. These items are sensationalized by the media because they either involve large sums of money or touch on a moral principle unresolved within society.

But this isn't what most of government is about. It's about what kind of filter system to use in treating the raw sewage. Which contractor to hire to build the new overpass. How much of the canyon to sell off to the developers.

Most people will be familar with a couple issues. Your average geek might understand tech issues better than the committee that was designated to research crypto export, sure. But damned if I want Joe Linux picking my filtration system, or Joe Sixpack voting on my crypto laws.

I mean shit, the vast majority of the american public thinks that the gov't isn't limiting the media (inc. internet) enough (gallup, 6/23/99). Do you want THEM deciding what you see, hear, and read? Eeek, I say.

True enough, politicians obviously don't have enough time to research all the issues thoroughly either. That's why we give them money to create research groups and hire aides. On any issue, you can be sure that *someone* understands the impact, and has relayed the facts to the politician at hand. The politician in question examines the facts, looks at the party line, looks at what the public says, examines their own opinions, looks at what other issues this issue will impact, and then makes a decision. It may not be the "best" decision, but politics has always been a balancing act. The "best" decision is usually unfeasable for a variety of reasons, so it gets tapered and politik'd.

I mentioned the constitution in the first paragraph. Think about how many laws get pushed through congress now that get voted unconstitutional. The people making them are mostly lawyers -- they know darn well they're unconstitutional, but wind up passing them to satiate whatever external issues need to be dealt with. Now look at any slashdot discussion on constitutional issues. The people here are pretty bright overall, and they're obviously genuinely clueless when it comes to the law in many cases. Do we bog down the courts with even more dumb laws that need to get nixed? Or would this be the task of the quorum?

I think a decent argument could be made for more ballot measures, but calling for a bona fide direct democracy strikes me as counter intuitive.

Re:Where are you?

[Wah]

Coupla points...
1) It caused the impeachment of a president

I could have sworn it was our "old" media that wouldn't let this entire issue die. Oh, and the Republicans who could smell bood (or was it semen)
The only website that I saw dedicated to this was "Censure and Move On" (now just MoveOn.org) dedicated to letting that non-issue die before it left egg on the collective face of the country. Alas, it didn't work and we got a farce of a trial and a total waste of taxpayer money.

2) The trouble is, /. is 18 to 25, a group that has a voting rate of only 20%. With a voting rate that low, you don't matter.

The thing is, most politicians also believe this. Perhaps the constant lying and related politics have soured the demo (in which I belong) and contributed to a overwhelming cynicism, maybe we're too happy living of the fat of the land to notice, I don't know what the real reason is, but that doens't mean it can't change. Two people who have felt our wrath, if you will, Norm Coleman and Skip Humphrey, who both played the fool as Jesse walked off with the prize. What was the deciding factor you ask? 18-24 yr olds who flocked to make a change. /. (in particular and the 'Net in general) is doing a great deal to educate those folks, like myself, how to make a change or take a stand. Issues like the CDA and UCITA exemplify the importance of getting your voice heard.

3)The liberal sites aren't doing well, Salon has taken another pasting. The conservative sites, however, are doing quite well

More info would be nice... To sterotype hugely..
Have you seen the mean demo for the 'Net. White, educated, +$50,000/yr, pretty much screams conservative don't it? Perhaps it will shift as a wider variety of political views stake thier claim, we'll have to wait and see. Not that this was a valid point anyway, but there ya go.

I apoligize for the long winded ness (and the atrosious spelling), but it's Friday...

AC, I await your retort.

BTW, 'round here we call it Earth, come visit sometime ;-)

Looking for constructive suggestions!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm helping construct the http://www.iglou.com/kentuckybottlebill website. It's exactly what folks are discussing in this thread. We're trying to pass a container deposit/ anti-litter bill in the 2000 session in Kentucky. I'd ask folks to review the site, and email me at bottlebill.telebot.com, or post your critiques and suggestions here. Thanks for your time and help.

Re:Looking for constructive suggestions!

[Anonymous Coward]

oops: please reply to bottlebill@telebot.com sorreee!

Re:Re My Advocacy question

[Hobbex]

Hey, they didn't answer my question either. But I think I know why: They spent to much time in Washington - The NSA got them too...

Their the Second Foundation... no mistake...

I second that

[the_tsi]

Screw the negative moderation. This doesn't feel like news. If I wanted to ask people questions, or read other people's questions being answered by them, I'd find dialogs from AOL chats.

-Chris

Re:Something I've thought about.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can debate a lot about the LP being too extreme, but it really comes down to the LP is the only party pushing for most of the freeoms that the first poster listed. The LP is being more mainstream as the party expands.

I'm one of the handful of elected local officials and I'm also from Vermont where we elected a Libertarian to the Vermont House last year. We ran 40 candidates last year and we hope to run 100 in 200 in VT. Hopefully, we'll elect more people to the VT House then. What it takes is people who are interested in freedom to step forward and get involved.

Even on the internet you can get involved without much work. If you are working the RC5-64 contest and are on the Slashdot.org team think about switching to the Libertarians for Privacy team.

Also, if you want to see someone stand up for more freedom in the 2000 Presidential election then we need to start now. We could start a new party, but the LP is already organized in all 50 states and you probably agree with 80-95% of what the LP is pushing for anyway. We need to increase the size to become more of a player. Join the LP today.

Hardy Macia
politics@catamount.com
Vermont LP

Re:NSA and black helicopters?

[Hobbex]

My question was missquoted here, they only cut in the last part. The part that was cut was:

I would like to know if they, while up there rubbing elbows with the powerful and incompetent, have gotten some sort of feeling for where the rabid Crypto-phobia of Washington is stemming from?

Certainly, most free thinkers of the world recognize the importance of free and strong crypto in the information society, yet in Washington, which as I understand and hope is still a collection of moderately intelligent and educated people, it seems no one supports the issue. Even our friends (SAFE etc) are just less destructive enemies.

I do not believe that the NSA runs the entire show in Washington, but the fact that NO ONE there seems to step out in support of something so blatantly important for freedom as Strong Crypto is extremely suspisious to me.

To me this leaves only the two options in the question as quoted. Either the poletitians in Washington are afraid of Freedom or they are the puppets of others who are.

I see no Helecopters, I have no congressman, and if I speak up it is in a language you do not understand. But who am I turn to when I see the American government trying to force its preposterous laws on us as well? And do I not have the right to at least try to understand what is going on in Washington?

If not by elections, then how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody is allowed to complain, regardless of whether they vote. I think the common saying "If you don't vote, don't complain," is meant to be sarcastic. Nobody actually wants anyone to stop complaining. The point is, if you have a complaint, and you are not actually participating in the political process, then something is wrong. You're using the wrong tactics. There's not much point in complaining everywhere except in the forum where your complaints actually matter.

Well, what if you don't regard electoral politics as the correct medium through which to effect change? ... If you don't buy into the party-politics, electoral-representative-government, democratic-Statist "solution" to the problem of solving social issues,...

If electoral politics is not the correct medium, then what is the correct medium? Have you lost faith in democracy? Should we just have a National CEO who makes all our decisions for us? I'm only being half-facetious here... just what *do* you think is the best way for us to make decisions? What is your alternative to electoral politics? I'm curious to hear this.

In one breath, you expressed skepticism about whether electoral politics is the correct medium for making decisions, but then you go and accuse someone else (it's not clear who) of being a crypto-facist. I don't get it. Do you support democracy, or not? Who is the facist here?

I don't like our current method of electing policticians either. I think that there is too much money involved in campaigns, and I think that we need term limits on certain legislative offices. I think the media brings the debate down to a sort of lowest-common-denominator spectacle, almost like a sporting event. But I would never dream of neglecting to vote. Choosing not to vote is about the worst solution I can think of.

If you don't like so-called "democratic-Statist" policies, then you should vote for politicians who will vote against them. Such politicians are not hard to find nowadays. Washington is full of them.

Re:If not by elections, then how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people don't support democracy but are not fascists. We're called individualists. We don't believe in voting, because we see it as a form of authoritarian control.

There aren't just two poles of "democratic" and "fascist" -- from our point of view, neither of those is a good thing, because neither one respects the freedom of the individual.

Does that make sense?

Re:If not by elections, then how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does questioning electoral politics amount to fascism? Is direct democracy fascist?

You are an unfortunate victim of the propaganda and lies designed to support a "democratic" system which imposes its structure on all policy, no matter what the wishes of the individuals.

No matter who you vote for, the government gets in power.

Re:NSA, CIA and covert ops

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they are a shady organization that has way too much investigative latitude, and too little oversight.

Right.

But to claim that the NSA is "running the show like puppet masters with absolutely no resistance" is just a fantasy.

Well, it's not just NSA, the CIA, DIA, FBI, DEA, and a few others are in on it too. It is important to distinguish between the organization and the individual agents who make up the organization, however. There are some freedom-loving true Americans in there with all the Fascists. There are several lawsuits pending about who has control over some of these organizations, for instance over the issue of the CIA's practice of eavesdropping on and placing undercover agents in the FBI and DEA. At the moment, the fascists have control over the intelligence community. There is some resistance, but the NSA and their ilk are doing their damnedest to squash it.

The NSA and private companies like TRW have exactly as much power as our couch-potato & mouse-potato citizens let them have.

Bullsh*t. Does the NSA ask your permission before enacting a new policy? Does the CIA? They have exactly as much power as they can take without getting noticed, no less. (I don't know what TRW is, but there are a lot of private companies started by members of the intelligence community that routinely operate ouside the law.) The "intelligence" community's real function is covert policy making.

Want a good example? Our war on drugs. Why are we not winning it? Because the fascists in the intelligence community and other govt. positions need the illegal drug trade to achieve their policy goals - among other things, domination in S. America, scaring the citizens of the USA into giving up their freedoms, destabilizing the inner cities, and jailing an entire generation of black men.

Want proof? Visit the site of a narcotics cop who was kicked out of LAPD for doing his job too well, CopvCia.com. He found out who the drug dealers really are.

Re My Advocacy question

[xmedar]

Ok, so they have choosen not to answer, I'm not going to flame them as I'm sure they had their own reasons. So I'll give my take on the situation. It is becoming increasingly important for people to think for themselves with the increase in information, disinformation, corporate and political spin. Advocacy is important in showing what is positive while at the same time being able to admit failings and highlight them so the community can grapple with them. This can be seen in the Linux Advocacy Mini How Too in the first line of the introduction "The Linux community has known for some time that for many applications, Linux is a stable, reliable, robust (although not perfect) product.", Advocacy is about being able to make a contribution to the community in which you live, without the huge ego that seems to be a requirement in the mainstream corporate and political world, its about an even handed, fair and honest approach. Signs of this are appearing in different forms, if you take a look at the Cluetrain Manifesto ( http://www.cluetrain.com/ ), its a humble document, calling for dialogue and understanding between consumers and producers to build more effective relationships between the two, i.e. its advocacy in the marketing arena, and it seems to me it is only a matter of time before politics goes the same way. I'm not talking about the odd focus group, but continuous dialogues between those that hold the power to govern and those that put them in that position, with a new willingness to listen, even when it does not agree with our own world view. I beleive this can aid in greater understanding and allow us all to have new insights into how we deal with the problems we face on this planet. I hope I am right, and that this has given some food for thought.

Wow!(Offtopic)

[seanb]

No "first post" crap! Today must be friday the 13 or something (or /. is totally messed up).

Something I've thought about.

[TGmentor]

This is indeed something I have thought about. I think the internet would be great at cultivating a personal freedoms party. Where they stand to the left on social issues. On economic issues they are either dead center, or just whatever individual candidates would like. We should all be free to speak what we want, sleep with who we want, code what we want, and smoke what we want!

Re:Something I've thought about.

[TheSync]

There is the Libertarian Party (infact, I worked on their first web site). Despite electing a handful of people to local positions and getting nationwide ballot access for President, the party is in general of no influence in electoral politics. They have had a great influence on fighting ballot measures for bonds to build stadiums and such.

The LP also has a very extreme position on freedom, the theory being that everybody else talks about freedom, then votes for the CDA. However I do believe that there is a place for a more moderate and acceptable freedom-oriented party. But it would have to deal with the meme of extreme Libertarianism which has already been put out there.

The funny thing is that being part of the global marketplace depends on maximum freedom for citizens, combined with effective justice to avoid corruption and fraud. Up until now, the US has been the leaders in globalism because of our reasonable justice system and reasonable freedom. However other countries are catching up to us, and we will have to become more free in the future to stay ahead.

Re:where . . .

[Disco Stu]

Oops. That funny article is here. Should've used preview.

where . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

does Al Gore claim to have "invented the internet" as PD asked? Anybody have a link?

Re:where . . .

[Disco Stu]

At an interview on CNN. Here is a Wired article about it. Here is a really funny site about it.

Three- four-party systems...

[celtic heretic]

Some pretty good, common sense-type answers there. I don't know how the US system works regarding parties other than the traditional big-two but in Canada it makes election time quite interesting (and sometimes the results maddening.)

So how does one organize real political parties when the traditional electoral system is demarcated by physical borders whereas the issues /.ers are interested in are culture, nation and planet wide.


If what I said is nonsense,
I'm making a point with it.
If what I said makes perfect sense,
you obviously missed the point.

Common sense and business opps.

[Wah]

Well, thanks for the answers guys. I didn't see anything earth shattering, or even mango crushing, but that just shows where we are on the path to political influence (as a geek community). Maybe I just had my hopes up that somebody had already taken it upon themselves to provide the tools to be effective "internet lobbyists", but that doesn't seem to be the case.
The tools I am thinking of would have to be up-to-the minute Congress trackers and very simple and organized ways to contact lawmakers (e-mail is great, but how about a form letter that surfers can print, sign, stamp, and put in the mail. E-mail is great, but if you turn off your machine (or if the power goes out *cough*) it simply ceases to exist. It's much more difficult to ignore physical paper. The impact, because of the additional effort, is also much greater. A database of congressmen and how they voted on particular issues would also be useful. Think about it... You (being a busy professional) don't have time to constantly follow how your reps are voting, but come election time you want to make an informed decision. How nice would it be to able to say click *(state), then *(city), then *(Your reps name) and see a complete voting history. If you really want to be nasty, er, honest you could also include major contributors to their campaign and all the other factors in how they vote (i.e. demographic % for their district, who is blackmailing them, etc.)
(BTW I've visited a U.S. Congress legislattion site and quickly ran away screaming after dealing with it's interface, if you know of others please post 'em)

Anyway, I don't think political advocacy has even reached the Internet yet, at least not to the extent of e-commerce (which is still making baby steps IMHO). I think there is a grand opportunity for anyone who would like to start such a site (or give me 2 mil. to do it :-), and it would be welcome by all those people who feel our government doesn't listen to them. 100,000 voices singing in unison WILL be heard.

Re:Common sense and business opps.

[Mr. Slippery]

I think there is a grand opportunity for anyone who would like to start such a site (or give me 2 mil. to do it :-),

Maybe you should post the idea over at Cosource and see if anyone's interested in funding it?

Re:Common sense and business opps.

[wakebrdr]

Here's a couple sites that you might find interesting:

Project Vote Smart

Democracy Network

I believe Project Vote Smart lets you review your legislators by issue if they've answered a survey.

Re:Common sense and business opps.

[lordsutch]

At least some of you want is available at CQ's Campaigns and Elections site. Their "rate your rep" feature does a good job, though a bigger cross-section of votes would be nice.

NSA and black helicopters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it, as many like to believe, the NSA and the rest of the Intelligence community still running the show like puppet masters with absolutely no resistance, or is there in Washington a deep, pessimistic belief that freedom must truly be fought with all means possible because we the lesser people of the earth cannot handle it?

I can't believe that there are people out there who actually think this way. I mean, do you peek out your windows every now and then, looking for black helicopters? Who selected these questions?

Hey, I'm no fan of the NSA, I think they are a shady organization that has way too much investigative latitude, and too little oversight. But to claim that the NSA is "running the show like puppet masters with absolutely no resistance" is just a fantasy. Most government actions which limit liberty come as a result of grassroots actions, by the citizens. The CDE is a perfect example.

The NSA and private companies like TRW have exactly as much power as our couch-potato & mouse-potato citizens let them have. If you don't like things, then write to your congressperson. Don't fantasize that you live in a dictatorship. You don't.

If you don't like our government's policies, then maybe the problem is that you haven't been speaking up often enough. So speak up!

Re:NSA and black helicopters?

[jafac]

If you've never SEEN a black helicopter, then you wouldn't understand.

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law

Re:NSA and black helicopters?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/CDE/CDA/

Tracking vote histories, and representative govt.

[Your_name_here]

The above (tracking all the votes of all the reps on a site) is something I've recently been thinking hard about. I've become more and more disheartened with each story I read. I think a site like that would be glorious. It would also be a great help if the various candidates for various positions were also outlined in the same way.

On another note, with the incredible increase in communications over the last couple hundred years, I think we're ready to be done with the representative democracy and start in with a direct (athenian) democracy. All issues should be voted on by the public at large. The issue of a qourum (sp?) would have to be addressed, but I think it would work well.

People will say that it's far too much work to learn the issues and vote on them, etc etc.. I agree that it will take considerable effort, but we'd also have a much more effective (IMO) government if people were aware of what was going on, and were able to -directly- influence it.

I actually had an experience with the NSA...

[the_tsi]

[Commented deleted.]

Where are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

..I don't think political advocacy has even reached the Internet yet... Uh, what planet are you on? Political advocacy is alive and well on the net. It caused the impeachment of a president. Did you know AlGore used $50 million of water in the drought stricken northeast for a photo op in a canoe? Did you miss the laughter and ridicule? The trouble is, /. is 18 to 25, a group that has a voting rate of only 20%. With a voting rate that low, you don't matter. The other thing, these two writers are far out on the left wing fringe. They don't reason, they feel, and feelings don't work well on the net. The liberal sites aren't doing well, Salon has taken another pasting. The conservative sites, however, are doing quite well. The web is having a strong impact on politics, just not the impact you want.

Where's the /. code dev mailing list

[cynicthe]

As a guy who does speak even when the issue doesn't even remotely affect him but still counts as worthy of speaking up, I can tell you you are in lala land.

People have been speaking up. The FCC gets its own /. effect when people are worried.

And you know what? Given the fact we're the last place on Earth that still has one toe out of the grave, I'd be making plans just to get things ready for 2001.

2000 is only a test of Emergency Broadcasting System. Anybody notice that doesn't happen anymore.

I do agree that the real Big Brother is the redneck next door who doesn't have a powerful position and is too scared or lazy to educate himself.

However, given the outrage over the CDA how come they keep coming back with more crap?

My question is how come more people aren't modifying the slashdot code more often for these political uptisings everybody wants to see happenning.

BTW, If the NSA got power from me how come on /. carries news on them.

Re:Tracking vote histories, and representative gov

[Brant]

Nice site. Anyone know if there's something like this for Canada? I did a quick Google search but couldn't find anything.

Brant

Where are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

..I don't think political advocacy has even reached the Internet yet...

Uh, what planet are you on? Political advocacy is alive and well on the net. It caused the impeachment of a president. Did you know AlGore used $50 million of water in the drought stricken northeast for a photo op in a canoe? Did you miss the laughter and ridicule?

The trouble is, /. is 18 to 25, a group that has a voting rate of only 20%. With a voting rate that low, you don't matter.

The other thing, these two writers are far out on the left wing fringe. They don't reason, they feel, and feelings don't work well on the net.

The liberal sites aren't doing well, Salon has taken another pasting. The conservative sites, however, are doing quite well.

Sorry about the double post, I didn't realize that /. now _requires_ HTML tags. The web is having a strong impact on politics, just not the impact you want.

Interesting & Informative

[Rod Amis]

I think if the commentators come back to "/," I'd be tempted to ask them why they never directly addressed the fact that the WWW is only one of many organizing mediums --- in the USA or abroad --- and that it is definitely the LEAST EFFECTIVE.

Only 1% of the world's population has Internet access. Too many people here and abroad are much more affected (brain-washed?) by Hollywood and Madison Avenue, yet this was not addressed seriously, either.

While most of our fellow /.ers believe they are the center of the world, most people on the street would ask: "Slash what? Is that a punk band?"

RA

Re:Tracking vote histories, and representative gov

[Thalia]

Check out Project Vote-Smart

It includes voting records, approval/disapproval percentage by various organizations (from the NRA to NOW), and other useful info.

They are not biased, nor do they accept money from anyone who might want to influence them. This is their statement of purpose:

THROUGH A CITIZENS' TOOLKIT OF FREE SERVICES, programs and materials, this national non-partisan, non-profit effort researches, tracks and provides to the public independent factual information on over 13,000 candidates and elected officials. Voting records, campaign issue positions, performance evaluations by special interests, campaign contributions, backgrounds, previous experience, and contact information are available, over a toll-free Voter's Research Hotline, manuals and other publications, and the Vote Smart Web site. The whole system provides a powerful tool for accountability. It allows citizens to look over the shoulders of their elected representatives daily, to monitor and supervise them, and to compare their campaign promises with their actual job performance once in office.

This is their statement of integrity:

THE INTEGRITY OF THE INFORMATION system is scrupulously protected in several crucial ways. The Founding Board, balanced across the political spectrum, includes prominent national leaders like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, Geraldine Ferraro and Newt Gingrich, Mark Hatfield and Bill Bradley. The Project is funded entirely by foundation grants and the individual contributions of over 50,000 members. Our members contribute what they can, to ensure the system survives to help all citizens. The average contribution is $35. We refuse donations from corporate and special interests--from any group that lobbies government at any level.

Intelligence on the Web

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fas.org/irp/intelwww.html

Intelligence on the Web This metapage is the most comprehensive guide to intelligence-related resources on the Web.

Including:

Metapages
Major Resources
General Resources
History
Cultural Resources
Other Resource Directories at this Site
Economic Intelligence and Open Source Collection
Human Intelligence and Covert Operations -- CIA Imagery Intelligence and Mapping -- NRO, CIO, DMA & NIMA
Information Warfare
Signals Intelligence and Communications Security -- NSA
Other Resources, by Agency

Metapages
AJAX - U.S. & International Government and Military Agency Access
A jump page without native value-added content. Crime Net Connection
A nicely done metapage with brief reviews of a variety of resources.
Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence
The Korea WebWeekly hosts a very good jump page.
Intelligence Resources
A metapage from Infomanage, which also includes some native content, such as a US intelligence budget breakdown.
Links Related to Terrorism, Intelligence, and Crime
Presented by Weekly Terrorism Profile by Victor Biro "These are some of the sites that I have found interesting and useful. If you think that your link, or someone else's link should be included, drop me a line. I hope to be expanding this list on a regular basis, so check it frequently."
Netsurfer Focus on Cryptography and Privacy Lots and lotsa links!!
Open Source Links
Maintained by the Open Source Professional List. Other intelligence and security related sites on the web
Some links done by the Security and Intelligence Studies Group of the UK Political Studies Association.
Pat's Crypto Sources
A unique list of links to cryptographic information.
Virtual World of Spies and Intelligence
This site's lists relate to Spies, Information Warfare, Government Secrecy, Covert Activities, Political Investigations, Terrorists Profiles, UFO's, Intelligence Reports, Privacy on the Internet, Citizen Militias, the Most Wanted and Rewards. On the lighter side, Home Pages are listed for TV and Movie techno-thrillers. [a major resource indeed]

and more...

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

White, educated, +$50,000/yr, pretty much screams conservative don't it? It pretty much screams public schoolteacher, social worker, lawyer, AMA doctor, all demographically straight ticket Democrats. Catholics tend to be social justice voters, and a majority vote democratic, as do most other Christians.

This is the dirty little secret of politics. Liberals scream about those filthy dirty Right Wing Christian Religious Gun Toting Fanatics, but without them, there wouldn't be a Democratic Party. And almost all Christians consider themselves pro-life.

Republican voters tend to be police officers with a beat, dentists who aren't Libertarian, rank and file trade unionists but not their leaders, and not too much else. NRA members vote mostly Demo, Gun Owners of America tend to the Libertarian side, they don't like either party.

The 94 elections were a fluke, mostly based on Gingrich's promises. If you know of political sites, you'll know about his impending divorce, his affair with a choir girl, and his trampling of everything he allegedly stood for.

By the way, if the only political site you know of is move-on, you're not trying. Move-on is as lame as Windoze.

Window managers: Attacking personal liberties?

[Ptolemarch]

You know, I'm not so sure that you necessarily need to correct "CDE" to "CDA". I mean, sure, the CDA was terrible, and I was gleeful when it was struck down, but after having used Enlightenment, I personally find CDE to be pretty darned oppressive, too.

Know the "enemy"

[Anonymous Coward]

However, given the outrage over the CDA how come they keep coming back with more crap?

Who is "they"? It's not some shadowy group of secret agents in suits. It's your fellow citizens. Some of them think that indecency is more immoral than censorship. I don't agree with them, but... they are very vocal. They believe that the CDA is the right thing to do.

There is no secret machiavellian conspiracy here, it's all completely open. Politicians who voted for CDA were responding to what their constituents were telling them. It's sad, but true.

The NSA's power comes from us because the NSA's budget comes from our taxes. Whoever controls the purse strings, controls the bureaucrats. Congress controls the purse strings. And we voters control the Congresspeople. Congress can only get away with what we let them get away with.

I think U.S. voters, in general, are not vigilant enough. I don't agree with your opinion that people speak up, but they are being ignored. I think that when people raise enough of a fuss, it makes a difference. American voters are too complacent. They don't inform themselves enough to even know what's going on. If the NSA abuses its powers, it's because we have a lazy electorate.

As the saying goes, "You get what you settle for."

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Only /. carries NSA activities.

[cynicthe]

I don't see NSA on NBC, CNN, etc.