[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Wed Jan 7 17:11:21 CST 2009
The math is quite simple and straightforward.
The 10% remain unsure and are eliminated from the pool. 90% remain.
74/90 = 82.2%
Indeed the government was started as a "Republic if you can keep it".
That is a fact.
The definitions were copied from Wikipaedia for background. Here are
the links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
I am surprised that you find so many reasons for the people to not be heard.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> >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 <galliher at uiuc.edu> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>
> *To:* Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> <mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/d08d0b16/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list