[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Wed Jan 7 13:22:44 CST 2009
A December 30, 2008 NewsGazette online poll with 2083 votes showed 74%
of responses
opposed the seating of Burris in the Senate, 17% in favour, and 10% unsure.
Removing the "unsure" votes gives a whopping 82% opposed to be represented
in the Senate by Burris
Although this is not a 'scientific' poll, it is an indication that the
readers of the NG
don't want this appointment. We cannot discern whether they don't want
Burris himself, or
if they just dont like the circumstances.
Since the percentage of opposition is so high, I am going to make the
assumption that this result
is reflective of the opinion of Illinois as a whole.
The insidious aspect of this Blagojevich - Burris Debacle is that the
whole process of government as a
representative democracy is being quite obviously derailed by the action
of one single man acting as a monarch.
This is not about partisan-ism. It's about a fundamental malfunction in
the machinery of the Republic.
From Wikipaedia:
A republican democracy is a republic which has democratic forms of
government.
One of the key principles is free and open debate prior to casting a
vote.
The United States of America is a Democratic Republic. (I'm not
talking about partisanship)
*A republic in the modern understanding is a nation or state where
the people are sovereign. *
*It is not a monarchy, where the king or queen is the head of state*.
By this definition there are abundant examples of states that are
republics but not democracies,
and of states that are democracies but not republics. *Another
characterization of a republic *
*is its emphasis on law and rule of the people through elected
representatives*.
In this sense it refers to the notion representative democracy, as
one meaning of republic is a system of restricted democracy.
*Representative democracy* is a form of government founded on the
principles of the people's representatives.
The key issue here is not whether or not Burris will make a good Senator.
/*The problem is that there has been a coup d'etat,
such that the government of the people by the people for the people
is no longer responsive to the people.
*/
As long as this is the case, you can send your letters, call your
representative, wear your buttons, vote, plant signs, carry signs,
make t-shirts, paint your car, hang off bridges, blog, rant, and preach
to the non-existent crowds in free-speech zones,
and your efforts will be totally ineffectual.
They know that you will squeal, maybe even kick, but the steely
machinery of the state
will drain your life-blood and make merchandise of you with engineered
efficiency.
/With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger. - from "Sheep".
/
If we cannot get the republic to respond to us ---
if the neurocircuitry from the people to the central processing is not
functioning---
if the hotline from the people to the government terminates in a never
to be read voice mail box ---
then we have a problem far more fundamental than our absurd foreign
policy that is bankrupting us
and costing millions of precious lives---
we are in danger of losing the republic *totally.*
People should not be afraid of their governments.
/Governments should be afraid of their people. / - "V"
Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> True that selling a Senate seat is not much of a crime compared
> to making aggressive war, particularly against civilians. However, I
> don't think it counts for much that our illustrious governor hasn't
> yet been convicted, as you point out - after all, neither has Bush -
> or Obama. (Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet, after which we
> *fear* that he *may* "kill thousands" - and while it can be
> argued that his relative inaction has allowed the deaths of many
> thousands, and we would have wanted him to fight for the anti-war
> mantle he at times claimed, that's just not the same as being a
> "blood-spattered con-man" I think.
>
> It might be more like a politician who doesn't measure up to our
> expectations - imagine that - but in this case one who may represent
> an opening to make some gains, at times moderate, at times marginal,
> with any luck on occasion significant gains, on various fronts, but
> only if we organize to make it happen.
>
> It is also true that it is hard to "fill the streets" for much of
> anything. It's a lot easier to complain that we aren't doing it, I
> have to say. But even if we do try and fail to organize mass
> protests, it's more useful to analyze why specific efforts fail and
> other succeed than to simply dismiss the efforts of others.
>
> Personally, I think Just Foreign Policy has some worthy campaigns
> going on - to try to block any attacks on Iran, for example. At the
> moment, MoveOn - though most of us are not usually fans - has a good
> project to rally Obama supporters to push the most "progressive"
> agenda possible. It's a good idea. Organized labor and other groups
> are all pushing what they think they can, and many of these efforts
> seem to me to be worth our support - with some glaring exceptions,
> like that nonsense I shared earlier about "partitioning Iraq" or whatever.
>
> There are promises that Obama made, like closing Guantanamo Bay, and
> rhetoric he used, about "diplomacy" for example, that organizers can
> use to rally for bigger and better causes, expanding on these ideas to
> call for, e.g. closing *all* bases like Gitmo and the fmr. SOA, etc.
> And there are ideas where Obama has been "inactive" - like the
> Israeli occupation and aggression against the Palestinian people -
> that need our efforts as well. This Saturday at noon there is a rally
> against Isareli aggression in Gaza. The Mosque had a meeting last
> night to plan local response to these attacks. AWARE is planning an
> event for the local MLK Day activities. These are all worthy
> efforts. And if we still have energy, and feel that more should be
> done, we can meet together with people and plan more.
>
> But simply to dismiss the lack of effort, paint Obama with a wide
> brush, or accuse the antiwar movement of being coopted without backing
> that up, just doesn't help anything, in my opinion. But now i'm
> repeating myself.
>
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> *To:* Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 4, 2009 12:02:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>
> Yes, and, with the happy accident of the BBC (I like your coinage of
> "Blago-Burris circus"), Illinois continues to supply a distraction
> from the real political situation, as it did during the presidential
> (non-)election.
>
> Consider two Illinois politicians. One may be guilty of nothing more
> than bad language and politics as usual: he's been convicted of
> nothing, and -- innocent until proven guilty -- has exercised his
> legal responsibility to appoint a senator. (I should think that
> Illinoisans would be more miffed at the Senate's intention to
> disregard our legal procedures.) He hasn't even been accused of
> killing anybody, or even planning to.
>
> The other Illinois politician is publicly planning to kill thousands,
> and by his inaction has allowed the killing of hundreds this week
> alone by thugs paid by our government. But we're not planning to fill
> the streets to prevent the public celebration of the inauguration of
> this blood-spattered con-man. Our dismay is displaced onto the
> pathetic governor. As he might say, fuck that...
>
> --CGE
>
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> > Couple of even more annoying developments, from Nick Burbules's
> excellent
> > news roundup ...
> >
> > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/3/94832/93890/631/679744
> >
> > http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/1/3/19577/93035
> >
> > And even the most superficial overview of Burris's past seems to
> suggest that
> > his current level of opportunism is par for the course, e.g.:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris
> >
> > Are we really going to have to start the Obama Administration
> arguing over
> > non-issues like, "He's just a sneaky Chicago politician like that
> Blago and
> > Burris..." or "lynching" Burris, or (as someone shouted at last
> month's demo)
> > the claim that Obama is a Muslim [as if that were a problem, but of
> course he
> > isn't, followed by:] "Oh, yeah? Then why'd he change his name to a
> Muslim
> > name? [cue the sound of truck engine zooming away]" - or better yet,
> "Good
> > luck with the Magic Negro," or whatever????
> >
> > Don't we have enough problems to try to sort out, you know, with
> depression
> > looming and huge tracts of the planet drowning in blood, for example?
> >
> > Ricky
> >
> > "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090107/acb1919e/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list