This Class

This class was structured unlike any other class I've ever taken. I have had three other classes, now four, with Jodi Dean and enjoyed her other class structures much better. However, the content and discussions in this class fostered much intellectual curiosity in my brain. I remember continually leaving her other classes with a firm grasp on Rousseau's paradox of founding or Locke's notions of property because there were firm concepts. I always left this class with more questions than answers, (which I think may have been the point in a lot of cases). There was a very serious and scholarly atmosphere in modern political philosophy in which all students were expected to come prepared and participate, this class was more laid back and easy-going. Of course she expected us to be prepared and participate, but it was easier in this course. First, she was generally a more understanding and open teacher throughout this experience which, I hope, will continue on to her understanding of my final project. I find it funny that I just labeled this course as an experience, rather than a class, which I think says something. This class didn't really have to be as prepared because most of the subjects we were discussing were well known to everyone already. You couldn't really ‘jump’ into a discussion of Kant or Nietzsche without reading the previous night because it would be obvious to everyone (especially professor Dean) that you were just making statements without regard to the text. In Internet & Politics it was easy for any student to jump into a discussion of internet privacy, ethics, media technology in the presidential campaign and everything else because we are inclined to have some knowledge of it already as we are all avid internet users. I think that really added a lot to the class because people were interested in most of the topics. I also think it took away from the class because students didn’t feel compelled to read because they knew they wouldn’t ‘get caught’ if they didn’t. Most students don't read if they don't have any immediate consequences. I felt that there was a real lack of reading and utilizing the sources she provided, which she ended up catching on to (see the poll “how many sources have you used?” for evidence of this). The tone of the class was set the first day when she wasn’t there and guided it through the blog. I enjoyed this class a lot, and would take it again if I had to do this semester over, but think a little bit more structure would have been helpful.
Matt

Man's reach exceeds his grasp

The internet, in theory, is without functional limits. It provides some sort of benefit for literally everything that we do. There are few things, if any, which cannot derive even a menial benefit from the internet. One may find love, receive an education, reconnect with lost friends, get the daily news, voice an opinion and learn how to do just about anything that is capable of being learned by using the internet. Many perceive the advancement of the internet in the last decade and get a sort of ‘anything is possible’ outlook on the future of the internet. This sense of ‘limitlessness' spawns truly grand and noble ambitions for the future role of the internet in our society. Innovative ideas coupled with a sense of limitlessness, in theory, comes beyond belief yet feasible possibilities. I believe the most widespread of these feasible possibilities is the manifestation of the true will of the American people through the internet. Granted, this is a sort of utopian aspiration, but it is none the less a feasible one. Obviously, the main barrier to the emergence of this forum is a logistical one, yet I ask the reader to momentarily forget logistical barriers (internet prevalence, literacy), and accept the inevitability of an internet forum which provides the capability to project the true will of the people. This utopian forum will allow for a truly collective voice, comprised of all Americans, centralized in an easy to understand graph or pie chart. When it is accomplished it will have the potential to immensely influence countless decisions in a hyper-democratic way. It will allow for Congressional and Presidential decisions to be greatly persuaded by the straightforward and easy to understand projection of the people’s will. The internet then, in theory, can provide the most important tool to our elected policy makers: the voice of the people.

Unfortunately, too often an idea in theory misleads perceivers into believing that the ‘idea in theory’ will eventually become an idea manifested in reality because of the clearly logical steps laid out (the logical steps here are: the idea that we will soon have the capable technology because of exponential innovation and that a collective voice is nothing but beneficial). Moreover, it provides the expectation that not only will it become a reality, but that the change to the status quo will be equal to the change in technology. Better said, revolutionary technology should provide revolutionary change. In regards to an idea in theory, in this case, the idea is the internet and the theory is the utopian political device made possible by the internet.

It has been said that man’s grasp exceeds his reach, which is meant to illustrate man’s ability to think beyond what he is capable of actually achieving. The potential of the internet is, more and more, equated to the potential of humanity: as limitless. This likening of potentialities generates a grandiose expectation of the role of the internet in our future society. People not only understand the internet as limitless, but expect it to advance in the same way that it has over the last decade, and it will. What will lag behind is its counterpart in limitlessness: humanity. The internet is growing and adapting faster than humans are capable. The internet will eventually provide the possibility for a collective voice to be utilized by elected officials, but like the right to vote not everyone will participate. Its emergence will illustrate a society unwilling to utilize a revolutionary forum which allows the true will of the people to impose weekly influence upon elected policy makers. Proponents of the internet as a utopian political device will be dejected when it enters reality, as it will go immensely underused and thus underappreciated. The collective will of the people, enabled by the use of the internet, will fatally rely on wide-spread participation. It will require a dedication that is plainly not there. Perhaps on matters of vital national importance (which are rare) participation will be high, but the people will remain drastically underrepresented on the majority of issues at the federal level, and almost all of the issues at the state and lower levels. I don’t believe that I am being too extreme. The American people are too often an apathetic people, and I don’t see that changing. Of course it would be foolish to say that even a few million voices are better than none, but what is truly foolish is the inability to achieve widespread and consistent participation in a forum that will greatly improve democracy. I predict that the average American will not fully appreciate the revolutionary benefits that this forum will provide until long after its creation. It will be a sad day indeed when a simple lack of participation from a desktop is the difference between the manifestation of the will of the people and business as usual. Man’s reach, as far as this is concerned, exceeds his grasp.

The 4th

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How can this amendment protect your internet activity?

I wrote the following in an e-mail to myself

*I did this because I have heard that HWS has software that picks out key 'danger' words. If there are enough, then it flags the e-mail and it is reviewed. So I wrote this, and sent it to myself*:

If any of the words at the bottom triggered your software to flag this email, and you are reading this then:

GO $#%& @#$%^$&*, this is none of your business




Pain, hazing, death, bombs, drugs, weed, cocaine, sell, punch, fight, hit, kick, destroy, kill, blow up, pipe bomb, AK-47, submachine gun, reloadable clips, anthrax, blood, guts, inevitable, deserve, rape, gang rape, abuse, porn ring, strippers, prostitutes, sorry, surprise attack, sniper, scope, .50 cal, vantage point, heroine, morphine, opium, pounds, smallpox, the notebook, meth, pipe, smoke, snort, inject, needle, suicide, beat up, mob, gang, hidden weapon, knife, bazooka, shotgun, 12 gauge, gun holster.


My intentions were not to upset the person (possibly) reading on a personal level, but just to get a reaction.
*think itll work?*

Sarah Palin and Dinosaurs

ANCHORAGE -- Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss

AT&T Censors Criticism of Bush

AT&T Censors Criticism of Bush
When Pearl Jam was performing the song "Daughter" during the Lollapalooza festival in Chicago, the band broke into a version of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall." Reworking the lyrics of the classic rock song, Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush, find yourself another home."
The lyrics that criticized Bush were muted in the webcast.
Coincidence? Not at all.
AT&T admits that the censorship occurred. The company describes the muting of Vedder's references to a president who appoints Federal Communications Commissioners -- and, thus, has a major role in deciding whether AT&T gets what it wants -- as "a mistake by a webcast vendor."
Then, in a nice Orwellian twist, the company declares, "We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not censor performances."
In fact, "editing excessive profanity" is censorship.
And, of course, Vedder's lyrics about Bush, which were not profane, did in fact get censored.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/10/3097

4 chapters due thursday 10/9

Killer App
People are publicly (on the internet) expressing their opinions like never before. Public opinion polls/ blogs and emails/ eBay and Amazon feedback and rating professionals online (rate a lawyer) are all applications of public participation. The “Killer App” is a forum (not yet created) which will allow individuals to become more engaged with their government. The author claims that this application could become as widespread as Facebook or MySpace. The Killer App could arrive in many ways for a variety of different reasons. Citizens will need to trust that their opinions will be counted and reported fairly. They will need to know that their collective opinions have the possibility of being heard by the higher powers and that that will result in a direct change. Elected officials will need to know that the fee back is not only accurate, but accounts for total opinion and the opinions of those directly affected by the topic at hand. The author says that somewhere soon this Killer App will emerge, it is only a matter of time.

Citizen 2.0
Redesigning U.S. democracy for the internet age has endless possibilities. But what people mean by “democracy” varies. Some apply it simply to the election process itself. Others apply it to the way our three branches of government conduct themselves. The most significant changes will be the ones that change the way ordinary Americans perceive and interact with government officials and institutions. The internet expands the types of roles an individual can play in politics and government. Historically, citizens have been observers in the civic sphere, periodically becoming involved and letting their opinions known by voting and petitioning. Individuals have traditionally relied on government officials for a wealth of information that is now at their fingertips. A “Right To Know” thought process is taking over, and the internet is the catalyst. A fear of this is the distancing from person to person. People who once meet face to face now sit at their computers. The authors disagree. They feel this connects people even more because there are plenty of ways (going door to door for voting, town hall meetings and rallies) that people still interact.

The Last Top Down Campaign
Politics have drastically changed since 2004. Top-down big money methods or organizing and winning campaigns is now extinct. Bottom up strategies are now the way to win campaigns (as Hilary Clinton learned). Clinton should have not received money from lobbyists and special interest groups, nor should she have accepted more than $250 from each individual contribution.

Tangled Signals of Democracy
Author asks if voting helps us signal what we want from our representatives in a meaningful way. Were using a voting system developed in the 18th century.
5 Proposals for new systems:
1. Put NOTA (none of the above) on a ballot. If NOTA gets more votes then any of the candidates then a special election will be held with new candidates nominated. (In Egypt and other places, voters mark an X on their ballot as a sign that they came out to vote yet decided to mark an X as a sign of state corruption or their dissatisfaction with any of the candidates)
2. Give voters the ability to vote ‘No’ to a candidate. ( The No takes away a yes vote in the election) Let people take away a vote from someone. The person with the most net positive votes wins.
3. Release early voting results. Campaigns would put efforts in areas that haven’t voted as much which would increase turnout.
4. Embrace instant-runoff voting, or ranked balloting. Most elections have 2 clear candidates since most voters don’t want to risk ‘wasting’ their vote. This system allows you to rank your choices for candidates in order. If your candidate didn’t win a majority on the first, multi candidate ballot, your vote would be instantly transferred to your second choice etc…
5. Let voters add a comment explaining their vote. Then aggregate those comments to build a richer picture of people’s voting decisions.