Okay, PPLE and others have tried without success to get a meta-discussion going, so I'll bang my head on the wall awhile too.

Do we want to do something here, or should we just decide we all resemble the proverbial hog on ice too much and go our own ways? It looks to me that so far all we've done is wade out into the swamp and stand around being leech lunch.

If you (the individual reader) didn't come here with a purpose in mind, why did you come here? (This is a request for information, not a request for an excuse to beat on you.)

If you did have a goal in mind, what was it?


Since I started the thread, I'll go first (something I'm normally reluctant to do).

I came here because I was appalled at what happened at PI. I'd had high hopes for the place, even though I'd left after a huff, or maybe a minute and a huff, and it felt devastating to watch what happened. I have great respect for Mike in particular, considering him to be politically insightful and energetic and having had many go-arounds with him over the past several years in various places.

So when I stumbled across Wolf's blog (I don't remember how) it was very gratifying to me to realise I'd also found Mike, Raph, and others. And my pleasure was enhanced by realising that even more people whose posts I'd particularly enjoyed and learned from were to be part of this community. I thought this place could be the inheritor of PI's unfulfilled promise, so I felt pretty excited.

I had no particular agenda in mind myself, but I was ready, if I could, to pitch in and help realise any productive-looking agendas that others might have in mind. I'm haunted by the idea that mine might be the last generation to die in our beds, or someone's bed anyway. The prospect of Lovelock's prediction coming true just makes me shake with fear. Not for myself, because at 66 I haven't probably more than another 40 years tops, but for the kids and kittens and puppies and children of all species whom we human "adults" will take down into oblivion with us because we can't get over ourselves enough to work together to avert the disaster.

I think it's a pity that we've reached an apparent impasse here. I think it's appalling that we reached it so quickly and in such a stupid way. I'd like to toss out the controversy if possible, write it off to errare humanum est, and start over in a more careful, less scattershot way. If possible. If.

So that's me. Your turn.

My purpose for being here is to contribute to the restoration of the New Deal coalition, by doing the critical task for which we are ideally suited - creating a new narrative and disseminating it. I now am certain that the smashing of the ideas and assumptions of modern liberalism in all of its guises is an essential first step.

This is based in some convictions I have that may not be shared -

1. That politics happens in words and ideas and communication first and foremost. Words and ideas is where we are losing the battle.

2. That no movement can be based on "people like us" any more than a farm could be built with only tree trimmers as employees.

3. That we have a specific role to play in politics, and that we are shirking our duty to perform that role.

4. That we few can have a significant impact.

5. That this discussion matters - it is the most important thing we are doing or could be doing.

6. That this is work, not play: serious, legitimate and valuable. I would not devote this amount of time and energy into a hobby or a diversion or entertainment.

7. That we are working for others, not ourselves. What "we want" what "works for us" and "our personal stances" are irrelevant. We are working for the people.

8. That we need momentum, not perfection.

9. That we need to create the framework for a big tent, and that this will inevitably move the country to the Left.

10. That 70% of the people are already with us if we would stop driving them away.

I now am certain that the smashing of the ideas and assumptions of modern liberalism in all of its guises is an essential first step.

Your convictions are looking pretty decent.

Your conclusion is not one I share, nor do I care to discuss it at any great length, nor will I countenance that it is the essential first step. Liberalism is not what fucked this dialogue up last week. You are.

If you get together some good signs and bumper stickers for mainstream messaging, do share them.

I've got other stuff to do that's creative instead of destructive.

I don't have time to take on Benjamin Creme, nor do I have any more to go through the exertions of battling the figmentary liberal boogeyman when the theoretical underpinnings, unimpeachable in their might, are posted on this board that render your multiday, multi-thousand word exertions so much the waste of time, even as you seem on many points to agree with the writers whom I have posted.

That kind of talk is not going to get us anywhere. Is it going to impede us getting anywhere?

Wolf's offense was wrong. Your defense and your proposition above as a foundational core for the discussion are right wing endeavors.

I refuse to play.

Um.

Period.

There is no place on the Internet, in spite of (or maybe because of?) its powerful force for communicating and organizing, for people like me. Populist, pragmatic, weary members of the blue collar riff-raff class. Most of us are not party loyalists. In fact, most of us no longer vote.

We are thwarted at every turn. At every attempt to speak plain truth to corporate power. To ask for something different in the accepted process. We think the Two Party system has failed. We don't see a relationship between gay marriage and the price of gas.

Naturally, politicians and their ilk despise us. Disinfo artists slap us down at every turn when we question issues of race, class, or "conspiracies" on web forums.

I think I found newswolf's blog through Google. Like Mairead, I saw the comments from some of my favorite PI thinkers, and then saw the link to this site. I signed up the moment I saw the forum name = "Populist Independent."

I don't know what my goal was.

Guess I'm always searching, always hoping, that I'll find a place where the people in my world can have a chance at the soapbox. Without suppression. A forum where my favorit-ist web thinkers :D are brave enough to let the chips fall as they may.

By the way, I didn't come here because of emotions about PI. I have no beef there. I wasn't a very prolific poster and I had no conflicts with Admins or members. I did manage to determine (from reading older threads) that the site took a specific turn in the direction of anti-war work. Which is fine by me. It's just that I wasn't looking for an anti-war site when I joined there.

As a Populist, Pragmatic, Blue Collar Riff-Raffer....
I was LOOKING for war!

With those insistant demands that we "do something!" It is a discussion board and we are doing just that. Two floods ago I had started to entertain the possibility of emigrating to Italy. I had started to learn the language and considered dual citizenship. I'm starting to look into it again. I guess that is doing something within the perimeters of my own life.

What the hell is a meta discussion anyway? You're using those big words again that leave a bumpkin like me in the dark., but still don't think we reached any impasse over anything other than Mike's histrionics. hehe.

With those insistant demands that we "do something!" It is a discussion board and we are doing just that. Two floods ago I had started to entertain the possibility of emigrating to Italy. I had started to learn the language and considered dual citizenship. I'm starting to look into it again. I guess that is doing something within the perimeters of my own life.

What the hell is a meta discussion anyway? You're using those big words again that leave a bumpkin like me in the dark., but still don't think we reached any impasse over anything other than Mike's histrionics. hehe.
Sorry Raph, I forget that not everyone speaks Nerd. A meta-discussion is a discussion about discussing.

If it doesn't feel to you like we've reached an impasse, good! Although the fact that you're thinking about moving to Italy doesn't sound like you're very hopeful about the US overall, or our ability to do something about what's going on.

So you just came here to talk? About anything in particular?

I want a discussion which includes very practical application in the real world, founded in historical materialism. I think it will mean an additional or wholly different structure than the board we are on now. I don't even want to start the kinds of talks that have recently been so disruptive before laying down a method for having them that keeps all the whining and bloviating and pontificating in check.

I mean to bring to life the seeds of PPLE - post petroleum local economies - in the real world wherever we the members are at. There are practical steps to take to do that. There are other ideological discussions to be had as well.

The ideological discussions need structured to be deliberative, perhaps like wiki pages are the result of a deliberative process in many many cases because the complexity or politization of an issue means that there are deliberations about what is objectively agreed upon as an article on the topic. Why? Because the deliberative discussion is mirrored in the outside world by the socialist ideal - a deliberative democracy, citizen run and citizen owned. Why else? Because it would largely preclude this kind of bullshit.

It is not destructive to be pedantic. It is destructive not too.

We can put the hemingway on the messages we hope to put out for popular consumption, but if they are not rooted in truth we will poison them all the more in distilling them into popular messages and frames for the message.

If this is not going to accomodate some real world networking and message making for use in real work activism working in and among the many various groups of the splintered, so-called left, then I don't want to play. I'll go work on my real world plans without wasting my time on this crap either. I was in the real world today. I made a difference. It was confirmed. And the difference I made was in an activist who is relentless. Far moreso than me, nobody special.

My sign at the Dallas micromini version of the DC anti-war parade was after much searching and thinking about how to get the real leftist message out that is what I think is bigger than 'end the war.'


I am tired of hearing what the rich think

The difference I made was in killing the 'Islam is a threat' thought vampire dead as a doornail with the silver bullet of explaining a tiny bit of history to this young minority single mother who has been in the streets more than just about anyone 'round these parts.

There was a fair size contingent of Iranian Americans, well organized because they have an intact community unlike the isolated, nearly all white and all comfortably 'middle' class individuals at the protest, few of whom knew one another at all.

One of the Iranian immigrants had come by earlier, and I had a good talk with him. The American lady next to me, it turned out, had been married to an Iranian for 30 years. I could see she was surprised and pleased to meet someone who knows and applies the history of the place to current discussion.

Anyway, later on like six or seven of the Iranian immigrant group came over on our side of the street and one had a shirt on with the name and likeness of Mossadegh on it. I said that was probably the most important shirt at the gathering. The young mom and activist asked me why. I explained. She was visibly TRANSFORMED by the knowledge of that history.

I commented after that little epiphany had passed in its intensity that knowing the real history about things makes it a little harder to buy the koolaid they are selling us. She agreed. Strenuously.

Misson Accomplished.

Seen on a blog this morning and useful today, very much so, even if I don't hew to the constitution as the end all be all:

"I would rather be wrapped in the constitution and buring a flag than wrapped in the flag and burning the constitution"

Burning the constitution can be done later, carefully. Burning the nativists' myths and nationalism to crisp now is expedient.

In re practical actions, I hope to hear Chlamor comment on something going on in his backyard. (This is just the sort of thing I am talking about pursuing in the real world. And activating people along the way with messages we craft here that are succinct and effective and true and based in sound book learnin.')

http://www.ithacahours.com/f-eighth.jpg
http://www.ithacahours.com/

Naturally, we would be remiss if we did not also discuss a means to get involved with and similarly message the labor movements in our respective real world areas and out in cyberspace too.

That's stuff I have had in mind. Of course to discuss these kinds of things we first have to be rid of the reaction and the defense of the reaction.

Here is something else I want to pursue when I get a Spanish-speaking confederate and a few hundred bux I can spend to get the ball rolling:


Alternative Economy Internship Program
The Mexico Solidarity Network is looking for students, recent graduates or community organizers who are interested in doing an internship in their city. There is no need to relocate for the internship and you can do it while attending college, high school or even while working another job! The internship program is part of a fair trade/solidarity program organized by the Mexico Solidarity Network in coordination with three Zapatista women's cooperatives and a Zapatista coffee cooperative. During the internship, you will learn about the Zapatista struggle for autonomy and alternatives to the predominant capitalist model. You will also have the opportunity to develop strong public speaking skills. The internship is a paid position, with the amount of income depending on your time and organizing capacity.

Interns will receive material on indigenous rights and fair trade. Each intern will start with a package of fair trade items, including textiles and coffee produced by Zapatista cooperatives. Interns will organize at least one public presentation each week at which you will discuss indigenous rights and fair trade, and sell fair trade items produced in Zapatista cooperatives. You can keep 20% of the income from sales. Interns are expected to devote 3 to 6 hours per week, and can expect to earn anywhere from $50 to $100 per week.

Presentations and sales can be organized at Sunday church services, community events, local universities, farmers markets, etc. For example, you can arrange to make a five-minute presentation at the end of a church service on Sunday morning, then sell fair trade items after the service. Or you can set up a table at university events, such as concerts, public talks or even in the cafeteria. You can arrange house parties where you discuss fair trade and indigenous rights and also sell fair trade items. You can also request five minutes to speak at community events that are already organized, then set up a table at the events. Through this internship you will be part of a growing fair trade movement that supports cooperative-based production in Zapatista communities.

How to Apply: Please complete the following application and return it to MSN@MexicoSolidarity.org. Or call 773-583-7728 for more information.

NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY, STATE, ZIP:

E-MAIL ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE NUMBER:

WHERE DO YOU ATTEND SCHOOL?

WHY DO YOU WANT TO INTERN WITH THE MEXICO SOLIDARITY NETWORK?

HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK CAN YOU DEVOTE TO YOUR INTERNSHIP?

WHAT POSSIBILITIES EXIST IN YOUR COMMUNITY FOR SELLING FAIR TRADE ITEMS?

WHAT UNIVERSITY, COMMUNITY OR SOCIAL GROUPS HAVE YOU WORKED WITH OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS?

THE MEXICO SOLIDARITY NETWORK IS LOOKING FOR INTERNS WHO CAN MAKE AT LEAST A SIX MONTH COMMITMENT. WE CANNOT ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FOR COMMITMENTS OF LESS THAN SIX MONTHS. WHAT DATES ARE YOU AVAILABLE?

WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF ZAPATISMO?

WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF FAIR TRADE?

PLEASE PROVIDE TWO REFERENCES:

IF SELECTED AS AN INTERN, THE FIRST SHIPMENT OF SUPPLIES HAS A VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY $700. BECAUSE WE DON'T RECEIVE ANY MONEY UP FRONT FROM INTERNS, MSN ASKS THAT INTERNS PROVIDE A MAJOR CREDIT CARD NUMBER AS A MEANS OF INSURANCE. DO YOU HAVE A CREDIT CARD THAT COULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE?

via mexicosolidarity.org

As a Populist, Pragmatic, Blue Collar Riff-Raffer....
I was LOOKING for war!
:)

You said it.

Killary, Billary Bop everywhere I look. The Luvfest has commenced. One of those local reactionary call-in TV programs, that I am half aware of when I channel surf, were all onboard with the gushing talking points about Hillary with maybe one or two half-hearted negative comments thrown in to suggest balance. The manufacturing of consensus from a show that attacked social security and cheered on Bush and his Iraqi adventure is now batting for team Hillary. All the callers sound like the same voices on the home shopping network, ever notice? They blabber on how great it is that she is a woman, but no one ever points out that she used Bill to get her foot in the door. So much for making it on her own merit. Not exactly the role model of an independent woman.

Mike's histrionics. hehe.
You are far too kind. I am not worthy of all of this praise.

We all went to bat for you. We all thought Tinoire was in error and handled the situation in a gross manner and then just tried to move along and not accept any responsibility. Her standing has been lowered in my estimation.
We all want to see this thing get off the ground. Why don't you help rather than doo-doing all over everything?

We all went to bat for you. We all thought Tinoire was in error and handled the situation in a gross manner and then just tried to move along and not accept any responsibility. Her standing has been lowered in my estimation.
We all want to see this thing get off the ground. Why don't you help rather than doo-doing all over everything?
Mike's contributed to this thread, Raph. Give a little credit, maybe? I think being willing to let the past go (not forget it, but not grind an edge on it either) is the only way we can get a fresh start going. Or do you know of another way? I'm all ears.

Mike's contributed to this thread, Raph. Give a little credit, maybe?

Credit for which of the two lines?

Oh

My Bad.

You mean upthread where he said our whole discussion should be founded on tearing down liberal ideas.

I'd already round-filed that premise.

We all went to bat for you. We all thought Tinoire was in error and handled the situation in a gross manner and then just tried to move along and not accept any responsibility. Her standing has been lowered in my estimation.
We all want to see this thing get off the ground. Why don't you help rather than doo-doing all over everything?
At your service.

I understand that there is some sort of complaint about me. Anything I post now is met with accusations and innuendo. In all sincerity, I may be dense but I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I am doing my best to answer your questions honestly and forthrightly.

doo-doo.

You want to just move on? Fine. Just don't step in the doodie. :P

Well, hell, I want to save the world. :roll:

My motivation is two fold, but in the end one in the same. I grew up working class, and have always been resentful of the way my father was treated, his pathetic wages after decades of service, the sneers and looks when my neighborhood, Highlandtown, was mentioned around Towsonites(our term for yuppies). Fuck those people, if that's class hatred then so be it. I believe in fairness, that do unto me as I do unto you business. Socialism is the obvious game plan. I also think it important that life on earth be allowed to continue in all of it's myriad expressions. I see these motivations as mutually reinforcing: people need the natural world for physical survival and mental grounding,it was part of our intimate existance for the vast part of our existance, it is part of what our genes expect, whether we realize it or not. The rest of nature will not survive without the will of the people, econazism may for a time perhaps "save" this or that but in the end will fail as arthoritarians always do, with a desperate, resentful backlash making things worse than ever. In the end it's up to the people, and their immediate greiviences must be addressed first. So, socialism first , I don't know where it goes from there, but the growing awareness of our environmental plight among all people and the crunch that is coming may make folks more amnedable to sharing the earth. And if not then wtf, it's the will of the people, we were probaby doomed from the start. But if we don't try then we're surely doomed. I want to do my part, whatever it is, in ending the oppression of people and the destruction of life on earth by what I see as the maladaptive social organization of hierarchy, manifest in our time as capitalism. The idea of the "Big Tent" seems to me the best shot, a long shot maybe but the best that I've seen, in effecting the necessary change.

(sorry for the run-on paragraph, it's my way of insuring that I can recover if I time out)

I understand that there is some sort of complaint about me.

Rather, I think it is about some of your premises. Just like the one quoted just above - it sets up a conversation about you personally when that is most certainly not what we are talking about.

I have a very, very difficult time accepting that this is just flying right over your head.

You have already proven yourself a little too smart to employ that tactic.

Look guy, Mairead made a thoughtful post, suggested we make a fresh start, and asked for input. I took her post at face value, gave it careful consideration and answered sincerely and honestly.

I don't know why you are dragging the other argument into this thread. I understand that you think you must "confront" me over something, but all I am seeing is insinuation and accusations. I can't prove to you that I don't have a hidden agenda. If I defend myself, you object. If I leave it alone and move on, you follow me and object.

Why not just politely ask me to leave rather than try to hound me and run me off? Or if that isn't your intention, why not resolve what is bothering you with me privately?

Look guy, Mairead made a thoughtful post, suggested we make a fresh start, and asked for input. I took her post at face value, gave it careful consideration and answered sincerely and honestly.

I don't know why you are dragging the other argument into this thread. I understand that you think you must "confront" me over something, but all I am seeing is insinuation and accusations. I can't prove to you that I don't have a hidden agenda. If I defend myself, you object. If I leave it alone and move on, you follow me and object.

Why not just politely ask me to leave rather than try to hound me and run me off? Or if that isn't your intention, why not resolve what is bothering you with me privately?

This needn't be private. I am frankly surprised you asked.

I objected to your post in this thread.

About the content of that post.

Stop spinning.

Then the public refutation of it will stop.

on edit, this is private isn't it? I nearly missed another false premise there.

Practical Politics AND a guide to architecture for this site too.




http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=83

Online Rulemaking: A Step Toward E-Governance


Robert D. Carlitz <rdc@info-ren.org>

Rosemary W. Gunn <rgunn@info-ren.org>




Information Renaissance
1612 U Street NW, Suite 408

Washington, DC 20009
202-265-2150 (voice)
202-299-0128 (FAX)


(June 15, 2002)
(Revised July 19, 2002)




Abstract


The adoption of electronic rulemaking by many federal agencies provides an opportunity for a greatly enhanced public role—both in terms of the numbers of people who might participate and the depth of their possible participation. This step towards E-governance poses several challenges for agencies: how they should structure their proceedings, how they can process the comments received and how they can foster and take part in the online communities of interest that will result from this activity. The online tools that may be applied to rulemaking and its ancillary activities—advisory committees, advanced notices of proposed rulemaking and enforcement—can also be used at earlier stages of the legislative process to increase public interest, involvement and commitment. This approach is relevant for all levels of government and for any issue on which public hearings are held or public comment solicited. It can provide an efficient and effective non-adversarial process in which officials and members of the public can mutually define problems and explore alternative solutions.

I. Background

Federal agencies are moving rapidly to develop electronic systems that provide information, services and tools for the public, businesses and various levels of government. While these aspects of E-government are important, another change could have a more profound impact on the functioning of our democratic society. This is the use of computer networks to permit expanded public involvement in policy deliberations, an area sometimes described as “E-governance” to distinguish it from service initiatives.[1]

This paper will focus on a particular process that many agencies are currently converting to an electronic form—rulemaking by federal agencies—and will present a model for online participation. Rulemaking has broad impacts, since it underlies the implementation of most federal policies.[2] Since rulemaking is a well-defined and circumscribed process, and since it provides a very specific role for public input, it is an excellent area in which to explore how network access can facilitate public participation. Experimentation with rulemaking can then provide standards that can be applied more broadly.

When Congress passes a law, implementation typically involves the issuance of new rules by one or more federal agencies. Rulemaking is a common process that shows up almost daily in newspaper accounts of important federal initiatives, but at the same time is such an obscure facet of the federal government that few people not professionally involved either take part or even understand that they might be able to participate.[3] Indeed, it is unlikely that most members of the public even know this opportunity exists.

Nevertheless, federal rulemaking—as framed by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946[4] and elaborated by legislation, court decisions and executive orders[5]—invites broad public input to every rulemaking proceeding. The basic structure is a notice-and-comment process, as sketched in Table I. An agency issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and announces a period for public comment. In drafting the final rule the agency must consider all material comment that has been received. Comments are not votes on the rule; rather this is an opportunity for stakeholders and interested members of the public to offer substantive analysis and criticism of the proposed implementation of the law.

Table I. Basic steps in notice and comment rulemaking.

1

Notice of proposed rulemaking

Published in the Federal Register, with description of the proposed rule, including reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed, and a statement of the time, place and nature of the proceedings.
2

Comment period

Interested persons are given at least 30 days (and often 60 days) to comment on the proposed rule.
3

Agency response

The agency analyzes the submissions and prepares a final rule; all material comment must be addressed.
4

Preamble to final rule

A concise general statement of the basis and purpose must accompany the final rule.
5

Publication

Publication of the final rule must typically take place not less than 30 days before its effective date.

For a detailed list of steps in rulemaking under various mandates, see Seidenfeld, M. A Table of Requirements for Federal Administrative Rulemaking. Online. Available: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawrevi ... eidtab.pdf (http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/272/Seidtab.pdf).


Few other venues offer such a direct, compelling and effective means for public input to the process by which federal policies are developed. Yet aside from the occasional effort of interest groups to lobby for a particular outcome on a particular rule, this has not been a mechanism that most members of the public use in the course of their civic lives.

Thus while rulemaking may be the engine of the modern democratic state,[6] it remains buried in obscurity. This may be simply because it is generally carried out by public officials who are not elected; the agencies involved are not necessarily vying to be in the public eye. And though agencies now have some explanatory material on their Web sites, participation in rulemaking has not, like voting, been embedded in the public mind through civics courses and publicity campaigns as a way to have an impact on government.

Further, the type of broad public participation enabled by the Administrative Procedure Act was impractical before the widespread availability of the Internet. In particular, with paper-based systems the physical location of each agency's rulemaking docket tended to limit participation. Anyone wishing to follow the detailed course of submissions had to be in Washington, or to have a representative who could consult the docket on a daily basis.

This has limited direct citizen input, and agencies have received most of their information in a form filtered by various interest groups. Internet-accessible dockets change the situation dramatically. As agencies move their dockets to electronic form, the possibility for direct public participation becomes very real and practical. [7]
We will argue in this paper that E-governance can have a profound effect on the evolution of our democracy. We look at online rulemaking as an example, beginning with the electronic dockets that will make this possible. However, to make the most of the opportunities offered by the Internet, it will be necessary to facilitate and broaden public input. One model is outlined in Section III, followed by a discussion of additional benefits and broader applications to be gained from online activities.
http://www.info-ren.org/publications/gi ... _2002.html (http://www.info-ren.org/publications/giq_2002/giq_2002.html)

^^^Practical Politics that can have VAST consequences gets not one response from this site, even when you don't have to step away from the keyboard to pursue them. This is just another instance of it.^^^

Practical Politics that can have VAST consequences gets not one response from this site, even when you don't have to step away from the keyboard to pursue them. This is just another instance of it.^^^

Is it possible that it just didn't get, rather than it doesn't get?

My sense is that it's somewhat banal in a general context, though of course very forward-looking for any US government bureaucracy. The time period, for example, is way too short -- 6 months would be closer to the mark than 2, given that knowing that there's something that wants commenting has to diffuse by word of mouth. Of course, it might be that I'm completely missing the point (no novelty for me!), so could you say what about it you find significant?

Practical Politics that can have VAST consequences gets not one response from this site, even when you don't have to step away from the keyboard to pursue them. This is just another instance of it.^^^

Is it possible that it just didn't get, rather than it doesn't get?

Or even 'hasn't so far gotten.' You're very right. Thanks.


My sense is that it's somewhat banal in a general context, though of course very forward-looking for any US government bureaucracy. The time period, for example, is way too short -- 6 months would be closer to the mark than 2, given that knowing that there's something that wants commenting has to diffuse by word of mouth. Of course, it might be that I'm completely missing the point (no novelty for me!), so could you say what about it you find significant?

Dry perhaps, but its a bit hard for me to see the coloration of the idea you mean to paint by using 'banal.'

I find significant the chance to AFFECT the rule making process of federal agencies. Seems to me that's some serious practical politics dangling out in the ether like a low hanging fruit.

Practical Politics that can have VAST consequences gets not one response from this site, even when you don't have to step away from the keyboard to pursue them. This is just another instance of it.^^^

Is it possible that it just didn't get, rather than it doesn't get?

Or even 'hasn't so far gotten.' You're very right. Thanks.


My sense is that it's somewhat banal in a general context, though of course very forward-looking for any US government bureaucracy. The time period, for example, is way too short -- 6 months would be closer to the mark than 2, given that knowing that there's something that wants commenting has to diffuse by word of mouth. Of course, it might be that I'm completely missing the point (no novelty for me!), so could you say what about it you find significant?

Dry perhaps, but its a bit hard for me to see the coloration of the idea you mean to paint by using 'banal.'

I find significant the chance to AFFECT the rule making process of federal agencies. Seems to me that's some serious practical poltics dangling out in the ether like a low hanging fruit.

ah! My suspicion was right--I did completely miss the point you were making. I didn't grasp that you meant it was a potential portal for us. I thought you were talking about their RFC process being something we could adopt here for some purpose. Which of course was 180 degrees out from what you did mean.

I agree wholeheartedly with you (now that I actually understand!). It's potentially an excellent point of attack.

I did completely miss the point you were making.

Not completely. The online schema for deliberation of this sort is worth stealing.

With those insistant demands that we "do something!" It is a discussion board and we are doing just that.

Oh, I think we'll have some answers to the "Do Something" dilemma before too long. Do stick around to keep them real :)

It'd be nice if those who're hanging back would at least put in a placeholder so we know where we stand. Something like 'pass' or 'present' would provide closure while preserving your distance. How about it?