[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

Wed Jan 7 16:23:15 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

I am not sure what voodoo is being used in the form of "new math;" but I
fail to see how the 82% figure is derived.  If you remove the 10% unsure by
assuming that they are opposed to Burris' seating, you get 84%.  If you
remove them by discarding that 10% from the sample, thereby reducing the
sample size, I suppose you could come up with the 82% figure; but in that
case, why not discard the 17% in favor as well and say that 100% opposed the
seating?

>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.

Basically this is bull.  It first assumes that we had a representative
democracy in the first place to derail for starters, which is something that
I think is questionable given the fact that everyone acknowledges that
vested interest groups and moneyed persons and corporations tend to be those
who are represented by the representative democracy which itself comprises a
circulation of elites.  Moreover,  if there was a "real" representative
democracy to be derailed, there is nothing in such a democracy that
precludes the representatives in question from passing rules in the form of
constitutional provisions and legislative laws which set forth a process
that gives a single office holder the right to decide and appoint people to
fill vacancies as is the case in the State of Illinois and other states
where the governor is granted that power and authority and have exercised it
without complaint in the past.  I suppose we could eliminate all appointed
positions and make them elected positions as well as requiring all vacancies
in elected positions for whatever reason under all circumstances to filled
via timely elections.  This would not only be very costly but would result
in cumbersome ballots and election processes on an almost permanent
continuous basis.

Aside from the fact that the 74% as well as those in the Senate who wish to
deny Blagojevich the right to exercised powers of his office granted to him
under law on the basis of accusations and indirectly Burris the right to
assume a post to which he has been legally appointed are engaging in the
assumption that "people are guilty until proven otherwise" and that "people
are guilty by association" which fly in the face of the values these purport
to value and hold as American ideals and values under the rule of law as
they claim, it is also the case that, while both chambers of the Congress
can  without any interference from outside make internal rules governing the
particular chamber's operations and functioning, decisions not to seat
someone based on such internal rule making authority and independence
becomes an affront to the people from that district or state democratic
right to be represented and to control who will represent them.  If the
members of the chambers of Congress can decide who they will seat and who
they will not on the basis of accusation and appearance, like or dislike, or
association, then they could very well decide not to seat someone who was
officially elected as a representative by their constituents without need
for any justification, thereby denying those constituents with fair
representation.

In addition, I would not put all that much faith in definitions and
distinctions regarding republics, democracies, republican democracies, etc.
"A republican democracy is a republic which has democratic forms of
government. If all democracies are republics or all republics are
democracies, why do we need two terms? One of the key principles is free and
open debate prior to casting a vote."  The first sentence is a tautology;
are there non-republican forms of democracy or non-democratic forms of
republic?  Is so what are they?  Where is it written that either a republic
or a democracy has to have free and/or open debate prior to the casting of a
vote?  What defines "free" and/or  "open" debate; and does that also apply
to the making of  policy decisions in that they must involve free and open
debate among all of those who are being represented?

> 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. 

How does a republic differ from a democracy?  In modern understanding, why
can't a republic be a monarchy where the king or queen is only the titular
and symbolic head of state; but the government is made up of elected
officials in terms of popularly elected representative bodies and executives
like prime ministers.

>By this definition there are abundant examples of states that are republics
but not democracies, 
>and of states that are democracies but not republics. 

But nobody ever names any.  How can you have a non-democratic republic when
a republic is a state or nation where the people are sovereign, which means
that the ultimate power rests in the citizenry who either engage directly in
policy making and governing or indirectly via representatives selected to
represent them either through virtual representation as suggested by Edmund
Burke or by actual  de facto representation.

>Another characterization of a republic 
>is its emphasis on law and rule of the people through elected
representatives.

So the former Soviet Union  and China would both qualify as republics as
well as democracies; but the UK would not qualify as a republic under the
previous characterization but its monarchy would qualify under this
characterization.  What is the opposite of "Republic"?  Isn't it "Monarchy"?
Does the symbolic nature of a monarchy as in the UK make a difference?  

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:23 PM
To: Ricky Baldwin
Cc: peace discuss; C. G. Estabrook
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

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  <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu> <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: Ricky Baldwin  <mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com> <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
Cc: peace discuss  <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
<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/20090107/8fbc46c1/attachment-0001.html