textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0930.txt

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Apr 16, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 30
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
       News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #9.30 (Wed, Apr 16, 1997)

File 1--Responses to Cokie Roberts' column on the Net and government
File 2--Re: CuD, #9.29 - More Responses to Cokie Roberts
File 3--Internet, Telephones, and Duct Tape (More on Roberts)
File 4--Re: CuD, #9.29, Sun 13 Apr 97, Cokie Roberts, et al.
File 5--Brock Meeks vs. Cokie Roberts (fwd)
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 15 Apr, 1997)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 12:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 1--Responses to Cokie Roberts' column on the Net and government

Source -  fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

[Hayek has it right -- we shouldn't fetishize democracy. Democracy is at
best a means to a freer society, not a guarantee of one. Under the weight
of a homogenous majority, a democracy can be more oppressive than a benign
dictatorship. Instead, we should pursue liberty as a goal. -Declan]

*******************

Date--Fri, 11 Apr 97 20:08:00 DST
From--"Halpert, James - DC" <jhalpert@pipermar.com>

This column is remarkably unfair -- at its core an elaborate bait and
switch.  Petitioning the government over the Net has nothing to do with
cyber-stalking or cyberporn -- and is a considerable leap away from
electronic town hall referenda.

Whatever the merits of instant electronic referenda, giving the public an
opportunity to comment on federal agency decisions is what agency
rulemaking is supposed to be all about -- only until recently, such
organizing efforts have required significant resources.  The Net has
helped to change that.

The logical extension of the Roberts' position is to call for
congressional offices to disconnect their telephones so that mass call-in
campaigns by the Christian Coalition, AARP and other well-funded, highly
disciplined grassroots groups are not heard.  Are these troops more
reflective than Net users.  Hardly (remember the CDA juggernaut).

But the Roberts wouldn't dream of closing the doors of power to that sort
of campaign.  They attack the Net because it is new, scary to them and
some of their readers, and therefore an easier target.

                    -- Jim Halpert

*******************

Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:47:03 -0400
From--Theodore Baar <tedbar@omegacom.com>
To--"'declan@well.com'" <declan@well.com>

Declan - regardings Roberts whining diatribe.......

I have an interesting point you might consider. The philosophical keystone
of the Protestant Reformation rested on the concept that man deals
directly with God and did not require a priest to stand between or mediate
for him.

Likewise we now have an alledgedly "representative" government that, at
least according to Ms. Roberts, stands between us and governance to
protect us from ourselves and teach us our "place". No doubt she includes
herself in this "protector" class as a jo urnalist to help we poor
peasants "understand" our appropriate relationship to governance.

I suggest she brush up on democracy real soon or start reading books on
Oliver Cromwell. Her points on the dangers of direct democracy are of
course true with one small caveat, direct involvment is the last hope we
have because their is no representative government.

I have no representation in Washington. For 30 adult years I've watched
the democratic led permanent government, including their journalistic
water carriers, represent everyone but the people who really make this
country work. Government by special inetre st and whining is not
representative government, don't kid yourself.

Now the, so to speak, first representative is Bill Clinton. I am quite
certain he represents the the embodiment of the permanent government and
every belief Cokie & her ilk hold privately dear, otherwise why would the
press be so supportive. Based on that
 I dare say that representative government has failed miserably.

If representative government is foiled by nonsense like the last two years
of democratic party nonsense and direct government is then blocked (all in
our best interests of course) it will then mark the end of our democracy.
The remaining moderates (check out the blue dog democrats and Ben Campbell
of Colorado) will be forced to extremes to seek redress, thus my reference
to Cromwell.

What Ms. Roberts, like so many, does not understand is that Gingrich and
his people are not the rabid attack dogs of facism they alledge but in
fact the last reasonable men. If things get ugly I suspect none of us will
like who leads the next wave.

                          Ted Baar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            http://www.omegacom.com
Omegacom, Inc. Providence, RI 02906
Boston, Providence (RI), Saco (ME) and St. Croix (USVI)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

******************

Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
From--Anthony Jankowski <anjank@iquest.net>
To--declan@well.com

 thanks for sharing the Cokie and Mr. Cokie column! the whole thing is
laughable, and I'm sending a note to her via All Things Considered...

 Cokie and her ilk, i.e. the other talking head pundits, are deathly afraid
of the Net, NOT because it's "anti" democratic, but for the very reason that
IT IS DEMOCRATIC AND MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE than those that allegedly
represent us!

 I don't know what Internet she's using, but from my travels, I've seen
everyone represented on the Net quite well, straight, queer, liberal, con-
servative, radical, anarchist, skin-heads, nazi-lovers, black, white, rich,
poor, etc.. the Forum is wide open, the very opposite of what goes on in
the "halls of Congress".

 Her and hubby open the column with the standard scare tactic that phoney-
baloney moralists use-- the "kids get porn on the Net" ploy... their
implication that "parents have no control over what their kids are seeing" is
a flat out LIE. there are now dozens of software packages available to
parents that want to screen what their kids are seeing.

 but then they move right into their real concern--- politics, and their
ability to make money off of politics. They wax eloquently about what the
Founding Fathers wanted in terms of representative government. Please, let's
get REAL, here! Did the Founders advocate career politicians? Did the Founders
advocate a system where large corporations make campaign contributions, and
get tax breaks, tax subsidies (corporate welfare) from the government in
return? While the Roberts' comment on stopping the  "money chase", we ALL
KNOW very well
that is NOT going to happen under the status quo!

 The People have spoken. As author and film maker Michael Moore (Downsize This)
pointed out, "less than 50% of the eligible voters voting is an act of civil
disobediance!" The People NO LONGER BELIEVE IN THE SYSTEM for good reason.
The average person's needs are NOT being met by the current system, and under
the Constitution it is our complete right to creat a new system, in fact, it is
our civic duty to do so.

 Now we have a tool at hand which allows for every voice to be heard, the Net.
Computers and the Internet were not even conceivable to the Founding Fathers,
so naturally it made more sense to advocate a "representative" speaking
collectively for the People. But given the proven capabilities of the Net,
would they still feel that way, or would they conceive a different system?

 I agree totally with Ms. Vincent. Important issues should, MUST be put on
national referendums. ONLY THEN will everyone have their input taken seriously.
The silly notion that "all we have to do is fix the current system and all
will be well" is just that: SILLY and laughable. The problems we have now
have been building for the last 100 years! Our elected representatives (some
of them in office for almost that long) have had every oppportunity to fix
the system, and show that it is democratic. THEY HAVE MISERABLY FAILED!!!!!

 It's time for the corruption to END, plain and simple. The People are
finally wising up, and the Net can be thanked for that. Ms. Roberts' will soon
be out of a job, and that's what really concerns her... with many more Voices
available on the Net, we no longer need the likes of Ms. Roberts, with her
self-serving agenda. Like the dinosaurs, there kind is about to become extinct.

 A centralized, representative system will always be corruptible by monied
interests. However, a de-centralized system, with only 85% participation, using
the Net as a vote-collecting tool, would totally shift the power back to where
it needs to be: The Average Citizen. The lobbyists cannot BRIBE US ALL-- it
wouldn't be "cost effective".

 Anthony Jankowski

 "A conservative government is a hypocrisy." Benjamin Disraeli, former Prime
Minister of England... will the U.S. ever have a Jewish president? a woman?
a Black? an Oriental?
Sudden Impact Graphics
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6645


"Who cares for the Heart?" Shri P. Rajagoplachari

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: George J Kamenz <z005318b@BC.SEFLIN.ORG>
Subject: File 2--Re: CuD, #9.29 - More Responses to Cokie Roberts

I really felt it necessary to respond, almost as if my words might have a
positive impact.  The quoted material is in each case attributed, I hope
correctly.

But first:  Kookie Roberts' editorial was laughable.  Totally off the
mark.  Second, sober reflection is a good thing!  Take a deep breath and
try to calm down!  (I suppose that applies to everyone except Declan who
usually appears more rational than the rest. ;-)

On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Cu Digest is was written:

> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:31:21 -0600
> From: Sue Ashdown <zero@xmission.com>

> 	Personally my blood runs cold when I think of the representative
> democracy Cokie has in mind.  Her brother, Tommy Boggs, of the Washington
> law firm Patton, Boggs & Blow made quite a name for himself as a lobbyist
> arguing strenuously on behalf of erstwhile Guatemalan dictators and death
> squad financiers in the 1980's and early 1990's.

First, what is to prevent "erstwhile Guatemalan dictators and death
squad financiers" from getting email accounts?

Second, one lobbyist takes money from sleazes and that weakens Kookie's
argument?  Hey! Wake up! There *is* porn on the 'net. Pedophiles and
murderers *do* use the 'net.  Why doesn't that weaken yours?

Third, her brother is a lobbyist?  Well, what do you know.  I suppose that
you've never heard the story of Cain and Abel?  Ms. Roberts is as
responsible for her brother as Seth (the rumored third son) was
responsible for Cain.

Fourth, your choice of lobbying firm is a *cowardly* ad hominem attack,
you pathetic pinhead.

> Date--Fri, 11 Apr 97 20:08:00 DST
> From--"Halpert, James - DC" <jhalpert@pipermar.com>

> disciplined grassroots groups are not heard.  Are these troops more
> reflective than Net users.  Hardly (remember the CDA juggernaut).

First, some sarcasm:  And as we all know there are no juggernauts on the
'net.  Don't we?

Second, I suspect the a fairer view would see the various email virus
warnings and "make money fast" spams as being as reflective of 'net users
as the CDA is of the "Telecom Reform" thingy *that was passed all at
once*, and those who crafted it.

> Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:47:03 -0400
> From--Theodore Baar <tedbar@omegacom.com>

> Likewise we now have an alledgedly "representative" government that, at
> least according to Ms. Roberts, stands between us and governance to
> protect us from ourselves and teach us our "place". No doubt she includes
> herself in this "protector" class as a journalist to help we poor
> peasants "understand" our appropriate relationship to governance.

Finally something I almost agree with.  I used to view (you guys sure the
editorial was written by NPR's Cokie Roberts?) NPR and especially the
slightly humorous commentators as a source of a more balanced view.  That
was before they started letting people who know nothing about it comment
on the 'net.  Then I knew they were.  It is good to know what it looks
like from the outside.

> Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From--Anthony Jankowski <anjank@iquest.net>

>  Cokie and her ilk, i.e. the other talking head pundits, are deathly afraid
> of the Net, NOT because it's "anti" democratic, but for the very reason that
> IT IS DEMOCRATIC AND MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE than those that allegedly
> represent us!

I don't know who said it, and it has probably been abused quite a bit, but
it is said that the masses would vote for free bread and daily circuses.
The problem with democracy is that the world is full of idiots, thiefs,
and liars.  The good guys are greatly outnumbered.  Caution is indicated.

------------------------------

Date:Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:26:54 -0400
From: "Webb, Dean" <DWebb@CAPGEMINI.COM>
Subject: File 3--Internet, Telephones, and Duct Tape (More on Roberts)

	This is in regards to the Cokie Robert's article in issue 9.29.
	When I read her article, I became outraged. How dare she, a
privileged member of the journocrats, dare attack a form of
communication freer than she ever dreamed imaginable? Normally,
journalists are the first to holler when 1st Amendment rights are
threatened, as it presents to them what seems to be a slippery slope.
Banning porn on the 'net would eventually lead to swastikas on your
local rags as they shut down their news bureaus and stick to reporting
on flower-arranging parties and our victories overseas, right? That's
the way it seemed whenever someone or some group tried to get newspapers
to quit carrying ads for topless, nude, or strip clubs, seeing as how
they can tempt our children into evil ways. Now, the source of free
speech is being gagged by its own bedfellows. To be precise, *attempted*
to be gagged, as it certainly is not only alive and well, but at full
volume to boot.
	
	When I read the responses to the article, I became proud once
again to be an American. We still have the freedom not only to express
ourselves, for good or for ill, but we also have the ability to voice
our dissenting opinions as loudly and as strongly as we choose in as
direct a manner to our leaders as we can find. Democracy is not
threatened by lively public debate. There will be no mob rule because of
the Internet. If anything, our society will break off into niche groups
(as it is doing so now), where people of differing interests will find
themselves banding together to support a common cause, while still
opposing each other on other issues. Such is the stuff of politics, and
thus it ever was and thus it ever shall be.

	I would like Ms. Roberts and others of her ilk to apply their
logic evenly or *not at all.* To illustrate this, let us consider the
Internet as it compares to our telephone system and why all our
telephones need extensive security devices attached to protect the
innocent if such devices should apply to the Internet.

	Telephones allow free access to congresspeople. This access is
even more insidious than email. Phone access allows direct voice contact
to those in power, which email does not. Should the congressperson
choose to disregard either email or telephony, all that need be done is
delete the email or ignore the call. The catch is that the phone call
ties up much more in the way of communications resources than does the
email: it shuts down a precious phone line. Therefore, if emailing our
congresspeople en masse would be a bad thing, calling them would be even
worse. Congresspeople need to be insulated from those they represent, so
their phone numbers should be unpublished and secured by the appropriate
agencies. These phone numbers should be made available only to lobbyists
and journalists who wish to take advantage of their access, rather than
serve as governmental watchdogs. Similar restrictions should apply to
their email addresses.

	Telephones allow access to pornographic materials and other
unpleasantries. Our innocent children could dial a 1-800 number at
random, using phrases to provide guidance as to what numbers to dial. My
own daughter yesterday suggested 1-800-SPANK ME as a possible number for
kids who had parents too busy to discipline them properly. I dialed the
number just to see if it worked and who would answer. I was neither
surprised nor pleased when it turned out to be a phone-sex line. What if
my daughter, in her unsuspecting innocence, dialed that number? We have
programs to protect us on the Internet, but do I really need to get
clearance from a parental approval box on my phone just to dial
1-800-FLOWERS? If Ms. Roberts is right, then the answer is a yes. I
would also, according to the logic of Ms. Roberts, need a device to
prohibit calling or being called from anyone someone else decided was
"kooky" (pun only slightly intended). That would be nice, actually, if I
could program it myself, but it would also cut out lots of potentially
legitimate callers. What if a blocked number changes hands without my
knowledge and gets assigned to a dear friend of mine? What if I block
all pay phone numbers and I get stranded one night with only a pay phone
to call home? I cannot accept such stringencies on either phone line or
Internet line, and neither would Ms. Roberts, if I am permitted to think
on her behalf. I think she understands the telephone as well as she
needs to and loves it dearly. I think she would scream murder at the
thought of someone putting a clamp on her ability to dial out and answer
calls as a responsible adult all in the name of curbing the activities
of the irresponsible.

	What can be said for the Internet can be said for practically
any media, all the way down to simple grunting. (I certainly don't want
any sicko making simple grunts near *my* children!) Let us then,
therefore, put duct tape across all our mouths and bind our hands that
we might never hurt anyone ever again. Let us also fill our ears with
wax and bury ourselves in lead coffins that we might be protected
against those who find ways to break their bonds and strip themselves of
their muzzles, who would do such things only to create mischief and
inflict mayhem, right? Ms. Roberts certainly found an inviting target in
the Internet, but the gun she is firing can be used on herself just as
easily.

	I am a responsible parent because I do not delegate my
responsiblities as a parent to any other caretaker. I and my wife set
the rules in our house, and we enforce them. We spend time with our
children teaching them the difference between good and evil, right and
wrong. I do not need any government-imposed stumbling blocks to be
placed in my path: I can navigate these difficult channels of parenthood
on my own, thank you very much. It's obvious that Ms. Roberts detects a
threat to those of her ilk from the Internet, but her attacking, rather
than embracing, this new media reveals not only her ignorance, but also
her fear. Shame on her for using the media to recruit others to her
evil, closed-minded, Internet-hating cult! I should have my newspapers
filtered so her offensive ideas do not infect the impressionable minds
that live in my house...

	Ms. Roberts represents a shameful part of our society. It is
that part that uses government, media, and networks of special interests
as a bully pulpit to crusade against anyone else gaining access to it
and/or threatening their own grip on it. This part of society is losing
its control and it will fight tooth and nail, possibly even down and
dirty, to preserve its control. This, too, will pass. The Greeks had a
word to describe this sort of person: hubris, one who challenges even
the gods. Ms. Roberts would do well to brush up on her Greek, as well as
her Latin, for there is the saying, *vox populi, vox dei.* (The voice of
the people is the voice of God.) The Internet, more than any other mode
of communication, is the *vox populi.*

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jack <jack@LINUX.COWLAND.COM>
Subject: File 4--Re: CuD, #9.29, Sun 13 Apr 97, Cokie Roberts, et al.

I am not entirely sure how Mr Ted Baar made the leap from US citizens
petitioning their government by email being somehow analogous to the
benefits (however nebulous) brought to 17th-century England (not to
mention Ireland) by the efforts of Oliver Cromwell.

But when he paints the US mass media as somehow being in the pocket of the
present occupant of the White House, he would seem to be somewhat more
than out of touch with the current content of television and newspaper
commentary.

And when he drags the recently censured Speaker of the House into his
rambling diatribe as the savior of the democratic process I become
completely adrift in his political Sargasso.

Cokie Roberts, like many writers faced with deadline, latched onto
something she appears not to understand well.  But, hey--the Internet
is fair game.


So what?  What she writes (or Mr Baar, or I, for that matter) will not
have the faintest effect on how electronic communications between
the people and the government will develop.

Surely, we can all find something of somewhat greater substance to fill
our Sunday-evening email boxes.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:45:36 -0400
From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
Subject: File 5--Brock Meeks vs. Cokie Roberts (fwd)

(MODERATORS NOTE:  From Brock Meeks and CyberWire DIspatch, who
once again illustrates why he's about the best Cyber-journalist
around!))

Source -  fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

From http://www.msnbc.com/news/wwwashington.asp, April 16

How the Net will kill democracy

Media elite discovers new plot!

WASHINGTON - Some 200-plus years of democratic government
in the United States is "under attack" and a thriving, politically active
Internet community is the perpetrator. That's the theme of a recent
syndicated column by ABC News talking head and National Public Radio
commentator Cokie Roberts and her husband, Steve Roberts, a columnist
for the New York Daily News.

The hysterical tone of the column is astounding. The Robertses claim
that computers facilitate the ability of people to "get in touch with each
other on public policy issues." Horrors! Further, this new, digital
democracy-slaying beast comes close to fulfilling Ross Perot's notion of
nationwide electronic town halls that "let the politicians know what we
want, so then they will do it! No more pandering to the big contributors,
no more deals between members, just the voice of the people will be
heard!" At this revelation, the Robertses write: "We hear that and
shudder."

These are the same sentiments I heard last year during a House
hearing discussing how to wire Congress for the next century. Reading the

column was like deja vu all over again, to borrow from that great political
pundit, Yogi Berra. The Robertses claim that electronic, participatory
government would mark the end of deliberation among lawmakers, that
there would be "no more consideration of an issue over a long period of
time, no more balancing of regional and ethnic interests, no more
protection                                             of minority views."


PARTICIPATION KILLS DEMOCRACY?

Bull. All this would be laughable if the column had been cranked out
by some backwater hack on a second-rate newspaper in a third-rate state.
Instead, it carries Cokie's byline, who, according to a cover story in the
April 5 issue of the National Journal, is noted as being among a handful of
the most influential journalists in Washington. "She's a celebrity, but an
influential one," the Journal writes.

This sort of journalistic tripe is poison and yet at the same time, grist
for the mill among the twisted jackals that make up Congress and who, it
seems, have no qualms about using the Internet as a personal whipping
post whenever it suits their fancy.

The Robertses column falls within days of another equally remarkable
event: A nationwide "town hall meeting," cybercast by Democracy.Net
with Rep. Rick White, R-Wash. The cybercast interview of White,
broadcast in RealAudio with a simultaneous live chat happening, flies in
the face of the column for a few reasons.

PUTTING LAWMAKERS WITHIN REACH

First, Democracy.Net, strung together on a shoe-string budget with
borrowed equipment and staff, easily and effectively puts lawmakers
within grasp of the public. Unlike a physical town hall meeting, where if
you can't make it in person you lose out, on Democracy.Net there is a full
audio archive of White's remarks along with a full transcript of the chat.

The Roberts claim that electronic, participatory government would mark the
end of deliberation among lawmakers.

A member of Congress answering to the public, in real time, might
frighten Cokie Roberts, but to me it's the beginning of a new movement to
breach an ever-widening gap between a public that feels far too removed
from its government and impotent when it comes to being a part of the
process.

To White's credit, he took question after question from those firing
away at their keyboards. He was frank and honest. "How refreshing!"
remarked one person in the real-time chat, "A congressman with a brain!"
Just think, a member of Congress at the mercy of the public they are
sworn to serve and not a lobbyist within earshot. How revolting!

AVOIDING THE MEDIA ELITE

Another reason this democracy.net experiment works is that there is
no middle man, other than some software and a keyboard. Yes, a
moderator, Wired Magazine editor Todd Lappin, did field the questions
and pass them on to White. But Lappin handled the job with the
even-handedness usually reserved for C-Span. The "Washington Media
Elite" are as reviled by the public as the Congress itself; this process
effectively takes the media out of the meeting.

White doesn't brook with the Robertses' assessment of the Internet.
"I'm not as skeptical," White told me in a phone interview. In a short
statement highlighting his appearance on democracy.net, he says: "The
Internet is one of the best new tools we have to create a more open
democracy the Internet is helping bring the issues before Congress into the
homes of people across our country. This is a positive development and
one that will help foster more participation in our government."

White said his experience on democracy.net was "great fun," but like
other such experiments using the Net, "it's an initial first step down a
long                                             path" to putting people
more in touch with their government. However,
White said the experience on democracy.net "doesn't quite substitute for
the direct feedback" in a face-to-face town hall meeting, where there are
no                                             intermediaries. He said
there's no reason to believe that members of
Congress, in the future, won't be able to carry out their own version of
electronic town hall meetings, via video conferencing links, "where we
could look at each other face-to-face on a laptop screen."

BAN GRASSROOTS LOBBYING?

The Robertses, for whatever reason, believe that putting Congress
within a modem's reach of the public would threaten its very existence,
"thanks to the Internet." Yet I know of no one making a case for every
single issue being voted on by the public, via modem, and therefore
usurping the duty of Congress to carry out debate on the issues. All
anyone is asking for is more of a voice, more of a presence. And that's
what the power of the Internet can help facilitate.

Jock Gill is a former White House staffer and an original member of
the Clinton '92 campaign that first incorporated the power of the Internet
into a presidential campaign. He noted in a message to the Interesting
Persons mailing list, run by Internet icon Dave Farber, that the current
two-party system relies on "top down, legacy media branding and
communications structures, which are clearly seen as not producing useful
solutions to tomorrow's pending problems." Gill maintains that this is one
reason why "citizen participation" is at an all-time low. "This lack of
participation is the greatest threat to our security, not the content or
habits                                             of the Internet," he
writes.

On the Fight-Censorship list, James Halpert put a fine edge on his
critique of the Roberts' thoughts: "The logical extension of the Roberts'
position is to call for congressional offices to disconnect their
telephones                                             so that mass call-in
campaigns by well-funded, highly disciplined
grassroots groups are not heard. Are these troops more reflective than Net
users? Hardly."

UNANIMITY ON THE NET? NOT!

Another thing that irks me is that the Robertses column assumes that
Congress could be held hostage to a digital band of nationwide activists
just                                             waiting to hijack critical
items of the national agenda. As if Netizens all
spoke with one voice and always agreed on every issue. As Halpert so
adroitly dead-panned: "Hardly."

I have to applaud the efforts of those like White who are taking a
stand and helping to push the envelope in an atmosphere that is at best
chilly when it comes to the Internet. Unfortunately, he's in an even
smaller                                             minority than the
Democratic Party.
Access to the public via the Internet is no panacea for what ails
Congress, but it can help foster a better dialog and allow people to feel
more connected to their lawmakers. If we can just lead them to these
digital                                             waters, I'm sure those
behind efforts like democracy.net can make them
drink.

Meeks out . . .

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 15 Apr, 1997)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest

Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:

     SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to:   cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu

DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.

The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to  CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

         In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  +352-466893

  UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
    Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)


The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #9.30
************************************