Re: [atlarge-discuss] Auerbach rocks

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Do not grieve and go outside and play later.
Your mail was nicely written.
Simple exposure to light kills many wrongfully growing parasites.
But don't hate the parasite just shed the light.
e

Joey Borda **star*walker** wrote:

> Indeed Karl Auerbach does rock!
>
> To put it a little less contemporary, a little less "sexy" ;-)  and more
> historical, Karl Auerbach is an eyewitness from inside the Star Chamber, a
> witness to grievous history.
>
> Karl's statements -- written at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg04998.html -- I could just
> as easily have written, though not as articulately and sedately as Karl, of
> my own experiences from inside the halls of power and power politics in the
> free, unaccountable exercise of power over other people's lives.
>
> I am taking the time to write this -- time when I would rather be outside
> playing -- because it has DIRECT bearing in a couple threads here recently
> that I have found troublesome and delayed responding to. I shall get to
> those in a moment.
>
> Just reading Karl's statements leaves me in profound grief. That does not
> come because I am in any way the least surprised at anything I learned, but
> rather that I already know from my own political experiences that what he
> describes is indeed the case. It will be no different when matters get to
> the U.S. DOC, the Secretary of Commerce and the President. The U.S. Chamber
> of Commerce and allies have already bought and paid for the result they
> want! Surely this cannot be news to anyone in this effort?! If it is  I how
> to disabuse of that notion by the end of this writing.
>
> It does not matter how local or how global oligarchic power is wielded, it
> is all the same and only different by scale. For that matter the local to
> the global are nested together inside the other much as a set of beautiful
> nested Russian egg dolls.
>
> I am not going to recapitulate everything that Karl writes in response to
> Danny Younger here, rather relate it's contents to the threads here
> mentioned above [again
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg04998.html].
>
> Starting with David Schutt's posted response to Vittorio Bertola at
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00732.html:
>
> David writes sanely, courageously, with principle, and correctly, in my view:
>
> "I won't participate in my own disenfranchisement, and you'd have to be
> crazy to think that you could convince me that it is in my own interest to
> do so."
>
> This quality of standing up for principle for me amounts to a declaration
> of freedom that I measure finally worth dying for, if things were to come
> to that, and of course I always pray they won't have to come to that.
>
> His characterization of "not handing the hangman the noose to hang me with"
> is what "fighting for freedom" is ultimately about. I find the notion of
> others' holding to their position of "controlling me for my own good" to be
> the most demeaning, offensive and destructive assault on my freedom of any
> possible.
>
> I would rather have someone walk at me with a gun in plain site intending
> to kill me, than to be rolled over with rhetoric ultimately intended to
> accomplish the same thing metaphorically. At least with the gun pointed at
> me I will have no doubt and can run or take other action. With the latter,
> I end up, so long as I am willing to participate, ever sinking in quick
> sand until I'm dead even before I realize it and fully, rather slowly and
> painfully, die.
>
> It is axiomatic that power is NEVER surrendered once taken or asserted. In
> the case of the USA globally, it may temporarily consign local
> adminstration of that power to acceptable toadies.
>
> Rather, power can only be destroyed, taken or re-taken! You may talk to the
> end of your days with non-representative power, oligarchic power and all
> you will ever get is the end of your days, and not even necessarily to them!
>
> It troubles me that Richard Henderson
> [http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00746.html ] responded to
> David's post with: "Yes but [!!!!!!] if you were working for Worldcom,
> wouldn't it be better to stay in, not protest too much, and try to
> 'influence' them to change their ways? Surely they'd listen to reason..."
>
> I have three reactions. First, Richard your comparison is flawed.
> At-large-"whatever" does not "work" for anyone, and surely does not work
> for ICANN. The original idea was quite the reverse actually. Even if it was
> not flawed, Karl beautifully addresses that point of your comparison in his
> statement where he writes:
>
> >Were this a labor-relations context, ICANN's captive at-large games could
> >possibly be construed as an "unfair labor practice" as defined by 29 USC
> >158(a)(2):
> >
> >         It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer -         ...
> >         (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation
> > or       administration of any labor organization or contribute financial
> > or other support to it...
> >
> >ICANN's attempts to create artificial substitutes for actual at-large
> >bodies are very much akin to the egregious "company union" practices that
> >were banned by the law mentioned above.
> >
> >Such "company unions" replaced the actuality of participation with
> >company-run (analogous to ICANN-"coordinated") bodies.  It was no surprise
> >that such company unions turned into toadies that slavishly followed the
> >corporate diktat.  ICANN's sequence of AL*Cs is no different.
>
> Second, Richard, please-please tell me that you are not that naive. No,
> Richard, they will not listen "to reason." They don't have too. They will
> nod their heads at you in apparent agreement, much as a parent to placate a
> child, but it is only masking for that moment.
>
> Your "reason" is not THEIR reason. They are there to protect and expand the
> interest of those they are there to serve, and you are not among them. Nor
> soon (if not already) will be Karl, who alone has, does, and did serve you.
> You have nothing they need or want, EXCEPT, as again with a child, your
> condescended-to obedience and loyalty and fool's investment in "fair play."
>
> Third, "yes, but" is the least self-recognized and yet most popular
> psychological game of all. We get to have "fun" playing it with others and
> ourselves. It is defensive play against, and the last step towards, intimacy.
>
> It is THE non-logical, back door game of power struggle, whether simply
> between two people, groups or nations. And taken to it's ultimate, logical
> form and conclusion is disastrous for both oppositional parties.
>
> It is a game of one-upsmanship, based on fear of scarcity, with no winners
> possible. The best one can do for peace is to "call" the game and agreeably
> disagree.
>
> Apart from my affectionate sharing with you what does this have to do with
> ICANN and us?
>
> Well, ICANN has been "yes butting" us to death, and will continue to do so
> as long as we let them. Staying "in" ICANN IS letting them do so. Hans
> Klein identifies the relevant "yes but" Newspeak (see reference below).
>
> Now then, the second, and currently last, thread I want to tie Karl's
> statements to(and Han's Klein's CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 14  8 August 2002 at
> C:\Documents and Settings\Tonto IV\My
> Documents\icannatlarge.com\Cyber-Federalist No_ 14.htm).
>
> In "Re: [atlarge-discuss] worldatlarge.org web site status report etc." at
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00633.html, I wrote to Vittorio
> and he responded (to part):
>
> > >[Joey>] >I've signed up for the WG for Verification, previously spoken
> > of my
> > >interest, and I've yet to hear a thing from any convener.
> >---
> >[Vittorio] Not everyone reads the mailing list three times a day! So I'll
> >wait a few
> >more days before finalizing the list of WG members and actually starting the
> >work.
>
> A casual read of the above comes off as sounding entirely reasonable,
> rational and plausible. However, my well-honed child's and
> psychotherapist's intuition tells me something else entirely.
>
> The most significant part of that paragraph is "Not everyone reads the
> mailing list three times a day!" And the most significant part of the
> sentence is the "!" [exclamation point].
>
> I said at the beginning of my participation in this effort that I would not
> mince words nor hold back. To that I will now add, if not clear before,
> WITH ANYONE. And so I am very plainly, emphatically speaking now to Vittorio.
>
> "Vittorio, you are not my parent. You do not have my permission to
> characterize my enthusiasm and energy as being 'too much' in the service of
> stalling and saying that there is only ONE right way to do things.
>
> "I count myself fortunate to be able to read my E-mails and the web-based
> list postings as many times a day and night that I can, and if you don't
> like it you can just 'byte' me!" ;-) ;-)
>
> I will not let you get away with it as an excuse for inaction.
>
> > >Do you think I will sit here long before I take things into my own hands.
> > >I'm not sitting here doing nothing waiting, that's for sure.
> > >
> > >That WG may have to run to keep up with ME!
> >--
> >Enthusiasm is nice, but if each of us started working on his own, we'd end
> >up with a hundred personal efforts, rather than a strong collective voice.
>
> Another "yes but." Got'ta love 'em.
>
> Exactly what is a "strong collective voice" made of if not a hundred
> personal efforts? You are confusing solidarity with work. THE voice comes
> after the work, not before.
>
> It's time for non-linear, non-hierarchical work.
>
> I like my enthusiasm too. :)
>
> >Don't misunderstand me, but experience has proven that only work that is
> >carefully planned and patiently organized goes far - bursts of enthusiasm
> >usually are followed by disappointment.
>
> Another "yes but." Ka-ching! They're coming out as fast as kids can pull
> gold rings riding in circles on a carousel. (Aside: Anything following the
> "yes but" is the real thing, and the "yes" can be disregarded. Something is
> either one way or another, not both at the same time. So either the "yes"
> is invalid, or the "but" statement.)
>
> Ka-ching! They're coming out as fast as kids can pull gold rings on a carousel.
>
> Bursts of enthusiasm only die when parent-types do everything they can to
> stop them. Disappointment is not a lasting, destructive problem for me.
> There are just too many interesting things and people in the world for me
> to feel bad for long.
>
> Only suppression and oppression of enthusiasm (autonomous life) is a
> problem for me, and I'm making it not a problem right now by
> ENTHUSIASTICALLY telling you where to get off.
>
> You seem determined, as other people I've experienced before you, to pick a
> fight with me when no fight is really called for. Or maybe I "invite" it by
> being so openly strong and competent. Same difference. Or maybe it's my
> unrepentant habit of ripping the clothes off of imperious-sounding people.
>
> I've already spoken in your defense regarding a point you made first about
> fairness and justice regarding the non-publication of the panel-chair
> election results. You may have missed that, I don't know.
>
> Right now I don't care. I wasn't supporting your view to ingratiate myself
> with you, no more than I do with any others here. I pretty well like
> everyone here about the same right now, and I call things as I see and feel
> them.
>
> AND... You know what?! I think you and I are going to become "famous
> friends!" Yes sir. Anyone who seems to want to "fight" with me as much as
> you do must like something about me, and just doesn't know any other way to
> go about expressing it. :)  Plus, I really like Italians. :)
>
> So if we have to "fight" for a while to get there, so be it. And since I am
> better a lover than a fighter (and really don't like getting hit in the
> face), I want the biggest, softest boxing gloves possible. ;-)
>
> I find all of Hans Klein's analysis (worthy of a legal brief) in
> CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 14, 8 August 2002, "Creating the Illusion of
> Legitimacy") valid.
>
> It's applicability to our at-large effort is in it's review of the
> perverted functions and purpose of committees (work groups in our case,
> proximate but de facto close enough to hazard the same effect) and the
> exploitation of "participant learning curves" in the creation of temporary
> (but oh so useful) loyalty and "working something to impotent death" or
> preordained result, whichever comes first.
>
> I respectfully disagree with Karl that what lies at the center of ICANN's
> real purpose is even measurably afraid, and certainly not terrified. If
> ICANN goes down, the oligarchic soul of it will simply be constituted in a
> new shell, after an appropriate period of Newspeak mourning and breast
> beating that is.
>
> I see the only hope for democratic aspirations being in what we are doing.
> Something new, something free, of the contamination that is ICANN, and free
> from the control of anyone or any government, governed and answerable only
> by some democratic mechanism to the whole planet's people.
>
> That what ICANN does results in either outrage or impotent wry amusement
> well describes my entire history in activism, politics and public service.
> And so I shall close with a personal anecdote.
>
> [Purely optional reading below about how power works
> ...........................]
>
> That I was defrauded, and the brief story that goes with it, of my first
> run and election to public office, at the age of 21 when you still had to
> be 21, appears on-line at the end of my Resume
> [http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250].
>
> I shall now add a couple things not there. My fraudulently
> recounted-back-into-office opponent was on federal public record as having
> received bribes and kickbacks from a local paving contractor. My visit and
> inquiry of the federal prosecutor's office brought no action. My public
> disclosure resulted in no action, other than my opponent sat lividly in his
> Cadillac all day at the polls while I made available the public documents
> to interest electors. So far as I know he never paid another consequence
> for his alleged action.
>
> Mention is made in my Resume of my unsuccessful run for County Commissioner
> in Hernando County Florida in 1984. What is not mentioned there is the fear
> by power of my running again in 1998 and likely winning, as I became more
> an more widely known in the county as allied with righteous causes.
>
> During the 1984 election of course rumors were circulated that I was gay,
> but there was never any public confrontation regarding it. I suspect the
> reason for the lack of that is their fear that I might likely respond
> effectively to it, which I surely would have (nothing would have given me
> greater pleasure), with "Of course I'm gay. Everybody knows that. What does
> that have to do with any of the issues?!"
>
> So, anticipating the 1988 elections, by which time I was already President
> of several non-profit civic organizations including a county-wide coalition
> of such civic organizations, as well as Chairman of the County Democratic
> Party with almost weekly appearances in the local editions of The St.
> Petersburg Times and The Tampa Tribune... anticipating the '88 elections
> the powers that be  plotted a course certain to disarm and derail me in the
> election.
>
> How? Simple really. At their instigation an anonymous allegation was
> transmitted to the Florida Department of Revenue that I had committed sales
> tax fraud in the course of acting as a broker of a wholesale PC and
> software transaction to a non-profit organization that had it's own tax
> exemption.
>
> It was that simple! A malicious allegation! Tie Joe up with defending a
> baseless criminal investigation and charges, which took nearly an entire
> year just in advance of the '88 election to come to fruition, so that he
> couldn't (maybe wouldn't?) "cause trouble for them for a while.
>
> I will not kid anyone, as any righteous person would likely feel in the
> same situation, that I was devastated emotionally by the accusation and
> attendant publicity upon arrest, and jailing. Indeed, they made certain
> that good deed did not go unpunished.
>
> I was however fairly treated by the newspapers, which, within 15 minutes of
> my ROR release from jail and arriving home, were on the phone to me. In
> each case I agreed to speak to each reporter on one condition, and one
> condition only: They would have to give equal and as prominent coverage
> when the charges were ultimately resolved. They agreed, and later kept the
> agreement.
>
> The next day, above the mid-fold of both local editions appeared my photo
> with the headline "Democratic Party chairman charge with tax fraud."
>
> Ten months in all, critical planning and politicking months, and $1000 of
> money I didn't even have for a defense attorney (fresh out of the office
> that was prosecuting me), the charges were conveniently dismissed before
> the court on the flimsy excuse of lack of venue. The charge remains of
> record in Florida as I was never "acquitted."
>
> I say flimsy because I had at the outset brought it to the authorities'
> attention that I did not live in the county where I was charged, nor did
> the alleged crime take place in that county. I was soundly ignored for 10
> months, till it suited their purposes.
>
> Can you spell "fraudulent prosecution" boys and girls?" The State at it's
> best in the service of private, personal and corporate political power.
> Don't ask me how I felt about the Law and justice after that outrageous
> experience with it, or about "democracy."
>
> In spite of all that, the worst I allowed the experience to effect me was
> in stepping aside myself, as much as I would have liked, as a candidate for
> office. But that is exactly what they set out to do and they achieved it. I
> was the one they feared, and wanted out of the race.
>
> Nevertheless, we put up a candidate that I believed was even better than I
> for County Commissioner from my district (a university professor).
> Allegations were made about his mental health, and hay was made by the
> opposition of his righteous refusal to disclose his legally protected
> university health records. He was not elected, but we sure came close.
>
> Otherwise, we succeeded in electing the first woman to the commission in
> another district.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> /s/ Joey
>
> Friday, August 16, 2002 * 5:26 PM EDT USA
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de