Connections and patronage
This is going to be fun and not just for Republicans. One of the great weaknesses of the American system of government is the role of family connections and patronage: Clintons and Bushs and Doles hanging around Washington and governors having the right to appoint politicians. How can anyone seriously think that in this hugely democratic nation it is somehow OK for a governor to have the right to appoint a senator under any circumstances? That's the real scandal, that and the governor's haircut...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
What is it with Illinois politics? And if they have a special election for Obama's senate seat, can they have one for another governor at the same time?
Complain about this comment
What is it with Illinois politics? And if they have a special election for Obama's senate seat, can they have one for another governor at the same time?
It's all based in a place called Springfield - and the plot is right out of The Simpsons! I'm just waiting for Homer to get elected...
Complain about this comment
'How can anyone seriously think that in this hugely democratic nation it is somehow OK for a governor to have the right to appoint a senator under any circumstances?'
Well, I believe it is in the language of the Constitution(s), both at Federal and most state levels. I don't have a copy of it at hand, but it is how most Senate vacancies are filled in these circumstances. In the case of the death of a Senator, the widow has been named on a number of occasions to fill the term of her departed husband. Others may have more accurate memories, but I believe this was the case in both Missouri and Louisiana within the past couple of decades.
And, not to whine overly much, but...isn't the whole history of the British monarchy about 'role of family connections and patronage'?
I recall that on some occasions, the lack of same led to the separation of heads from shoulders...
Complain about this comment
The issue is really the people of Illinois and the idiots they (and I..I am a transplant to Illinois) elect. FOUR of the last eight governors have wound up in jail for actions in or out of office.
That is appalling. But it comes back to the people. These politicians--from Chicago aldermen to state senators to the governor are not appointed but voted for by the people of this state. In part the problem is the monopoly of power enjoyed in Chicago by the Democrats. Republicans do not even bother to run a candidate for Mayor in the city of Chicago. Daley's reelection is about as assured as an election can be outside of Zimbabwe. Chicago (with 3 million people) is a one party statelet.
But it goes deeper than that (as evidenced by the incarcerated former governor Republican George Ryan) Corruption here is just seen as normal. People complaining about "Blago" now would readily accept illegal favors for themselves or their families from other politicians.
It stinks and there is virtually no way for it to get better. There are political families in Illinois too. And the people kowtow to them every election (and I will not even get into what a farce the "secret ballot" is here).
Complain about this comment
PLEASE....it is not "Illinois Politics" It's Chicago politics.
Complain about this comment
What everyone seems to forget is that they nailed the bum. And a grand time was had by all. Now let's see what we can do in Alaska.
Complain about this comment
It isn't Springfield... It is Chicago.
Complain about this comment
My goodness! Obama isn't even in office, and
he stands the risk of being dragged down by
his previous one.
I heard on the radio on the way home Obama
claiming that he had not talked with the governor
about who would fill his vacant seat; but I also
heard one of his aides proclaim that they had
talked "several times" about it.
Which is it?
As for changing the constitution, Justin, you'll
just have to wait. Things like that take longer here
than than it takes to get service at the Social
Security Administration. And, I should know.
I went in to get a new card, and thought that I
had been transmitted back in time to Ellis Island
in the early 20th century.
Complain about this comment
Your input is needed.
Name the most corrupt cities in the United States. I will start the ball rolling.
Any of the large cities in New Jersey.
Complain about this comment
Justin to counter your point about our form of Democracy it's best to examine yours. Who elected Gordon Brown to the Prime Minister's office? It was done at a meeting of Party Officials. Something you might find in China. Now from what I've read Labour holds a majority of the seats in Parliament and an election wouldn't overturn that. However...
England hasn't held a Parliamentary election since 2001. Even Robert Mugabe has held elections since then. Also the British House of Lords is an unelected hereditary position that can be sold.
Then lets not even get started on the insane powers of Governor Generals to disrupt the will of the majority as one recently did in the Canadian parliament.
The thing is Justin, no matter how corrupt an administration is it is always answerable to the voters here in the US. It's the advantage of an American Governmental Model over the Westminster Parliamentary Model.
Complain about this comment
That's right Ms. Marbles. Philadelphia, where I
am from, ranks a close second, but someday
the city of my birth may win the pennant in the
corruption race.
Complain about this comment
We can also make a list of the most crooked mayors of all time.
It is appropriate to start with Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, who fixed the election for John F. Kennedy. And Mayor William O'Dwyer of New York, who was in with the mob, was no slouch either.
Complain about this comment
First of all, what is wrong with Eddie Munster?s haircut? ? I was trying to figure out which state holds the record for number of governors who have served prison time? Springfield is the capitol of Illinois, not Chicago, but there are a lot of corrupt politicians in Chicago and Cook County. As a recent transplant from the suburbs I have learned that the local churches and their ?Reverends? control a lot of the Aldermen. Many of these churches are fronts for gangs and these Reverends have a strangle hold on the city. Now Daily is another story. I feel like I have moved to a different country. I wish the UN would send observers to Chicago?s next election.
Complain about this comment
13, mspacmanus.
"Reverends control a lot of the Aldermen. Many of these churches are fronts for gangs and these Reverends have a strangle hold on the city."
Churches and gangs? That is a new one on me.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I don't know why my previous comment was
referred to the moderators, but suffice it to say
that Philadelphia politics are small-time compared
to Chicago.
When's the last time that a Philadelphia-based
politician managed to influence a national election?
It happens all the time in Chicago.
We should move the capital there, so that all
of our corruption is centralized. It would be
just like a corporate merger - money would
be saved because we would only have to
bribe people once.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
10 (Risforme)
I voted in a General Election in Britain (notEngland, which, true, hasn't indeed had a parliamentary election of its own for some considerable time . . .) on 5th May 2005.
Are you telling me it was an illusion? There has to be another one by May 2010, since a parliament is elected for five years, though we generally have an election every four.
And I suppose, though it's been said often enough, it has to be repeated: we do not vote in elections for a Prime Minister, but for a party. The leader of the party that wins (or constitutionally anyone who has enough support among MP's to form a government) becomes Prime Minister.
Anyway, why is it so many American haircuts look like wigs? And why do they all have partings?
Complain about this comment
Looks like the governor shares a hairdresser with Donald Trump.
Complain about this comment
3. At 03:54am on 10 Dec 2008, OldSouth wrote
"I recall that on some occasions, the lack of same led to the separation of heads from shoulders..."
Only once, really. One was shot in the back with an arrow and another met his demise with a red hot poker. Since 1688 we've just sent them out of the country (twice) when we've gone off them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
21. seanspa wrote:
Looks like the governor shares a hairdresser with Donald Trump.
Thought it looked familiar. Do you think the barber has to be bribed to do it like that?
Complain about this comment
10. Risforme
Just to add to British-ish 20 statement. In some ways the position of Prime Minister is closer to that of the House and Senate majority leaders, who are also not elected to the position by public vote, but by the majority party.
As for the House of Lords, whilst an apparent anachronism, it does provide a non partisan counter balance to the elected commons. In reality it can be overuled after 3 rejections of a bill that it returns to the Commons. What it does provide is a breathing space for parliament to reconsider some of it's more outlandish party politically motivated bills. I suppose it can be considered as a council of elders who provide 3rd party advice to the more enthusiastic members of the majority party.
Complain about this comment
To be fair, Justin, the governor's appointee would only serve until the next national election in 2010, regardless of when Obama's term was scheduled to end (which concidentally was 2010).
Anyway, to those who say it isn't Illinois politics, but Chicago politics that are the problem, I'll point out that former Governor Ryan is from Downstate Illinois (Kankakee). Of the three governors out of the last seven were not indicted, two (Ogilvie and Thompson) are from Chicago, while one (Edgar) is from Downstate.
Complain about this comment
#10. Risforme: "England hasn't held a Parliamentary election since 2001. Even Robert Mugabe has held elections since then. Also the British House of Lords is an unelected hereditary position that can be sold."
The first point has been answered at #20, and the second is incorrect since under Tony Blair the hereditary element was largely terminated and today the majority of those sitting in the upper house are Life Peers. The selling of peerages is prohibited. Risforme is uninforme(d).
Complain about this comment
OldSouth posted:
"... not to whine overly much, but ... isn't the whole history of the British monarchy about 'role of family connections and patronage?"
Good point, well made. And it's absolutely true, and executions did indeed happen on occasion.
However, the British monarchy (or any other monarchy for that matter) never claimed to be a democracy. They are a monarchy. The arbitrary appointment of those in power by their friends (or people who can give them additional power or influence) should be stamped out as soon as possible.
Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson - take note!
Complain about this comment
David_de_Jong, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is a far more powerful position than that of Senate Majority Leader or even Speaker of the US House. As the recent events in Canada have shown, a parliamentary constitutional monarchy has its own undemocratic quirks. The President here has no authority to prevent Congress from meeting (as Harper just did to our north), or to call an election whenever he or she is at the height of popularity, as Gordon Brown considered doing last year. Plus, say what you want about one-party rule in local elections in the US, but most local offices in Britain (including mayoralties) aren't even elected offices.
Complain about this comment
You are right about it being undemocratic to have someone appoint a senator or other member of the government.
That also means that when the president appoints supreme court justices it is very undemocratic.
America is a very undemocratic society, despite all the propoganda of it being so 'free'.
I am originally from Illinois and what I find so funny about this is that Blagojevich will probably go to jail for selling a senate seat, but when a president 'sells' cabinet and transition posts to lobbyists and bundlers no one says a thing. How is giving a post to someone who raised $10m for your campaign any different than giving a senate seat to someone who paid you $10m?
Complain about this comment
Justin, I agree. That Miami Vice hair do has got to go. I cannot believe how blunt and stupid this govenor is. How embarrassing for this country.
Complain about this comment
How come almost every official in office is a complete narcissist?
Complain about this comment
in Ref. to # 3
I believe your right OldSouth; I think Louisiana Senator Boggs's wife replaced him in the Senate when his plane disapeared over Alaska a while back.
In any case though, a Gov. should never auction off a Senate seat.
Complain about this comment
#20. The part in his hair was like the parting of the sea, it's not normal it's a phenomenon...from the 80s.
Complain about this comment
#34. ladycm: "The part in his hair was like the parting of the sea, it's not normal it's a phenomenon...from the 80s."
How many 52 year old men have such luxurious locks? I thought it was/is more like a phenomenon from Hair Club for Men . . .
Complain about this comment
#35: I think the question is how does he create that illusion? The answer is by having literally no visable forehead. I can't get over it! Why didn't someone tell him? I think the hair do made him do these things he is acused of. He's actually a victim.
Complain about this comment
#6 allmymarbles
What everyone seems to forget is that they nailed the bum
Agreed. He's going down. Let's hope he gets a semi-decent prison haircut.
#8 OldSouth
And, not to whine overly much, but...isn't the whole history of the British monarchy about 'role of family connections and patronage'?
That is true, but the USA isn't a monarchy.
#10 Risforme
Who elected Gordon Brown to the Prime Minister's office? It was done at a meeting of Party Officials. Something you might find in China.
Although I agree with your sentiments you have to remember that it is the largest political party in Parliament (well, the House of Commons to be precise) that is asked to form a government. That party is allowed to change it's leader. The Canadian problem seems to be that a new party or coalition has appeared after the election. That party or coalition cannot be asked to form a government until it's duly elected. I hope that makes sense. There was a general election in 2005 btw, and the next one will likely be in 2009 (but there has to be one by spring 2010). As far as I know there is less political corruption in the UK, not that any system is better than the other; just as long as it works.
Complain about this comment
I used to love Chicago until I moved here. The police are so afraid of being jammed up for using agressive tactics that the murder rate has rocketed. Most of the killing is of criminals by criminals but there is always the chance of getting stuck in the cross fire. I teach about 8 blocks away from a place that Richard Roper once described as more dangerous than Iraq when you take into account how many people get shot per square mile. There were 5 shootings alone on Monday. The media doesn't report this. Also there alot less police that the city says there are. They say there are 13,000 officers on the website but only 9,000 paychecks are issued in a pay period?
The schools here are so bad that most principals and teachers send thier children to private schools if they can't get them into a magnet school. My own son is autistic and if I hadn't know someone who could pull some strings to get him into a decent school I would have never come here. After teaching SPED in public schools I would never enroll my son in a typical public school.
And yes, there are alot of store front churches that are connected to gangs. Street gangs members also own businesses. It is alot more organized than a person might think.
Complain about this comment
Wish our model was half as good as the US one.
David Starkey is right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/7766700.stm
The British model - which we in the commonwealth have inherited and suffered by is not that democratic.
(Granted the UK hasn't a wriiten constitution.)
The PM is elected at the same time/process as the MPs. The MPs owe allegiance/patronage to the PM; the Whip can get at them.
Not so a congressman even of same party as the president. Case of Mr. Lieberman - a democrat campaigning for a Republican and no sanctions from his party or no deselection. Mr. Galloway and others must marvel at that.
Further, look at the Cabinet ministers who had to resign for asking for ballots at the Labour party conference? The Cabinet is chosen from MPs - they're ok at winning seats but (many are lawyers by trade?) not necessarily qualified to run a department.
Power is concentrated in hands of the PM. The House of Lords is being tweaked too. Only saving grace is the EU Court - as in the recent case where police keeping DNA of people found not guilty of a crime has been ruled wrong.
Look at Obama's Cabinet - doesn't have to be a politician - just someone (academic, ex-military, financier, etc) deemed competent in that field.
The checks and balances are better in US model.
With the police powers and the Damien Green issue and Brian Haw, etc and all the stuff Jacqui Smith comes out with, can't see how "free" we really are over here.
Complain about this comment
The president may appoint a justice to the bench - but doesn't it still have to go through Congress? The Clarence Thomas case highlights that it's not a foregone conclusion - some make it and some don't.
But with our quangos and special groups and parliament being bypassed, it's a more flawed system here.
BTW, how long was set aside for debate on the Damien Green issue?
The Govt win in its fight against the BBC (Andrew Gilligan and Greg Dyke) , the strong anti-libel laws, and the tone of their always wanting more info on us - though they can't secure it (pick any scandal about missing data) - suggests a mindset that's more about control.
Complain about this comment
There is plenty of corruption to go around in the U.S and from reading the Economist, the U.K should not throw stones.
I lived in Louisana for 2 years and live in Boston now. So I am quite familiar with govt corruption.
Although one can not tie Obama to this I do hope this brings David Axelrod (the dems Karl Rove done).
The hubiris of these politicians on both sides never ceases to amaze me.
Only 200K for a U.S Senate seat?
Complain about this comment
Risforme,
Please do not use "England" and "Britain" as equivalents. England does not hold Parliamentary elections, and your understandiing of the House of Lords is also somewhat out of date and inaccurate, though I have no wish to defend the sale or otherwise 'gift' of Peerages...Peace and an alert, informed electorate
ed
BTW, Britain did have a Parliamentary election in 2005.
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05.htm
Complain about this comment
jpp799,
Evidence? I thought not.Complain about this comment
Risforme,
Is a post in a transition team publicly funded? I don't know, but I think not. If not, then there's a very large difference indeed.Besides, i don't imagine Obama has put many place-fillers into his team. I think he needs 'real' workers, and knows how to identify them.
peace
ed
Complain about this comment
why is this "referred"?
Please do not use "England" and "Britain" as equivalents. England does not hold Parliamentary elections, and your understanding of the House of Lords is also somewhat out of date and inaccurate, though I have no wish to defend the sale or otherwise 'gift' of Peerages...Risforme,
Peace and an alert, informed electorate
ed
BTW, Britain did have a Parliamentary election in 2005.
Complain about this comment
# 10 et al.
Thanks to an astute clip on the BBC, we heard transcript complained of.
He said that he was not going to make the appointment for "nothing". Now, Jury, would that be asking for a political quid pro quo or for a financial bribe?
As to Anglo corruption: reread the Diary of Samuel Pepys!!
Mark Twain said something like: "America has no native criminal class- except the Congress".
On a more serious note, I would raise the issue of legalism, its introduction to American society and its pervasive presence in the recent administration.
The essence of legalism is the belief that the letter of the law, not ethics or morality, rules. I.e., if you can get away with it, it's OK!
Legalism reaches an absurd point when the miscreants rewrite the law to make their abuse legal.
Complain about this comment
The problem goes well beyond Illinois, political dishonesty, corruption, abuses of power, and nepotism/favoritism have been evident in Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, New York and other states in the Union for decades.
We live in a free and democratic country with enforceable laws and unlimited access to information, why do we keep electing and re-eleting morons to high office that are neither qualified nor deserving of the positions they get?
It is evident that money, powerful sponsors, and effective political campaigns can persuade the general public to vote for individuals that should not qualify to be dog catchers outside a prison. Education and public awareness are essential to put an end to embarrassments like this which, ironically, seem to be the only truly non-partisan "attribute" of many of our leaders.
Complain about this comment
Alanskillcole, the court to which you were referring is the European Court of Human Rights which is nothing to do with the EU. The EU court is the European Court of Justice.
All deomcratic models are flawed - they just have different flaws.
Others have commented in the UK's lack of a written constitution. This in many ways is a good thing. Our unwritten constitution tells us what we can't do, all written constitiutions tell you what you can do and that is very different. We have far more "rights" than any country which has a written constitution since we have the right to do whatever we wish unless and until it is ruled on by a court or legislated on by Parliament.
In the US there is a huge and unresolved conflict between state and Federal law - look at the rows over gun carrying within close proximity of schools. The members of the US Supreme Court are split into two camps of how the Constitution should be read - the literalists and the progessives. The Scalia and Thomas camps want it read at it was in 1776! That ain't progress.
Complain about this comment
For #43 and #44:
The transition is paid for by a mix of federal funding and donations. So at least part of it comes from taxpayers, even if it is the smaller portion. Transition teams was just an example and I am not making any pre-emptive claims about Obama. We will see in time what he does, but I can assure you that many cabinet and ambassador posts will go to a fundraiser/bundler/lobbyist.
There is little available for Obama (he hasnt taken office yet) but for Bush and Clinton, there is plenty of proof of business and fundraiser appointments for federally funded jobs. Do a search on one of the major search engines and you will find tonnes of articles from places like the NY times or Washington Post.
Amdassador jobs have always been appointed by the president to people who are their close friends or contributors. That is a job whose salary is paid for by the Dept of State. If the president can do it, why can't the gov of IL?
Complain about this comment
I believe that the practice of Governors appointing senators or congressmen to fill vacancies is a product of the size of the country in 1776.
At that time with no communication faster than a horse, organising ad hoc elections would be costly and time consuming, mind you it still is. Also when the educated, literate people suitable to stand would be few and far between, and most were known to governors and current legislators, the appointment would likely be a matter of a quick local consultation.
I have a question - do senators still refer likely local boys/girls to west point and annapolis ? Should this tradition also stop ?
As for rights here in the UK, Niall-g is quite correct. Without a bill of rights we can do anything we want so long as there is not a specific law against it. This fact greatly concerned my wife (who hails from a controlled society) recently when we moved house and didn't have to inform the police where we lived! Also when she took citizenship she worried about how to spell her name or whether to include patronymics and was quite confused when told that her name would in future be what ever she decided to have put on her naturalization certificate.
Complain about this comment
jpp,
Q.E.D. No evidence, just sling a bit of mud and hope the perception will stick...There is actually some evidence that things may be being done differently, with particular regard to 'plum' ambassadorial posts, etc. A bit early to be condemning an administration which, as you note, hasn't taken office yet...My impression is that Obama prefers workers to drones.Peace and time will tell
ed
Complain about this comment
Ref 49
"Transition teams was just an example and I am not making any pre-emptive claims about Obama. We will see in time what he does, but I can assure you that many cabinet and ambassador posts will go to a fundraiser/bundler/lobbyist."
Rewarding the party faithful and supporters with Cabinet and advisory posts, ambassadorships, and other political appointments has been a trademark of every administration.
While it is premature to judge Obama on this issue I think it is fair to say that, thus far, his appointments have been pragmatic, focused on competence, and devoid of ideological imperatives or friendship. If anything, I expect more criticism from the liberal side of the Democratic party during the confirmation process than from the GOP.
Complain about this comment
Scouser,
Back in the Stone Age, when I wanted to go to the US Air Force Academy and "fly my own jet", you needed to apply to a Senator or Representative to be 'appointed' to any of the military Academies. Said person would probably have several applicants and might refer one or more.Obviously, a good academic record was expected (though probably plenty of 'good old boy' handshakes occurred), and the physical exam needed passing. As it happened, I had the grades, and the Senator, and passed the physical (surprised myself), but failed because I was an inch too tall for flight training....;-( I was thus saved the opportunity of bombing villagers in Vietnam - God moves in mysterious ways...
I don't know if the system still works the same way, but I doubt any suitably talented and motivated young person would be excluded...
Apologies fro personal recollection
Peace and the extra inch
ed
Complain about this comment
#48 niall_g
Can I clear up a small misconception: Britain does have some of it's Constitution written, like, amongst others, the Representation of the Peoples Acts and the Human Rights Act. What it lacks is a Codified Constitution, the Brits do not have a booklet like the US which details the Constitution. This means that Britain can change it's constitution without as much fuss as the US. The downside is that you need a degree in politics or law to understand the British Constitution!
You raise an interesting issue of positive rights as opposed to negative rights. I'm in-between: can I retain my negative rights whilst my very basic rights are protected by being written into law?
Complain about this comment
Couple of words, as far as Governors privlege of appointing Illinois representives to the United States Congress in Washington. It is difficult for people to wrap their heads around but people get confused in thinking of centralized states. Where everything happens in the capital. In the US the states have rights of their own in fact Senators orginally did not represent the "people" they represented their "State". Weird I know. So the idea here is that Member of congress is replaced the governor has the power to find someone to carry out that persons agenda that they were elected for.Most states have it so the are appointed for appx. 2 years and then special election so all candidates can prepare and mount the best campaign possible. FYI on the ballot this year in Illinois was whether or not to hold a constitutional convention to change things like this and it got voted down so technically we voted for the Governor to have powers like this.
Complain about this comment
I guess it should be added that the reigning British Monarch is the one who asks someone to form His/Her Majesty's government and become Prime Minister. It is certainly not the electorate or MP's who vote directly for the Prime Minister. The Monarch merely notes the will of the people and can ignore them if they choose.
Please remember Winston Churchill was never even elected by his MP's or the electorate in 1940, he was asked by His Majesty George VI to form a all-party war time government.
Complain about this comment
Chicago has never been a bastion of political honesty. Unless the honest citizens of Chicago stand up & do something to clean it up from the inside, there's little the rest of the nation can do for them.
Complain about this comment
Thank you David_de_Jong, no 25, for explaining... I've always wondered what the Lords did.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Talking of corruption in Local Politics, can we discount the crack smoking, pilanderer woman beater who was "elected" as Mayor of Washington or perhaps, the the Mayor of a Southern City who spent money on Statues rather than on the levies which could have saved his City from major Floods.
Whoops sorry, both are Democrats so their behaviour is little more than we have come to expect
Complain about this comment
as an Englishman (notice ,not a Brit. Scotland and Ireland , north and south, have always been different and Wales is increasingly so,) I have always admired some aspects of USA democracy, bearing in mind that its is a federation of ostensibly sovereign states. I like for example the arrangements in California where electors can 'recall' the executive. and referenda are as common as in Switzerland . I like open school committees in Massachusetts and town meetings and open meetings of town councils. I like counties which are often very small indeed and the mico states like the Dakotas with the all the apparatus of a sovereign nation less a set of ambassadors (they do have a national guard I think) But Supreme Court, Constitution or not, I worry about Huey Long and his like, some aspects of the New Deal. Eisenhower.s military-industrial complex (yes he did warns us after the Interstates were built), Richard Nixon, Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies and of course the Cheney-Bush regime which are as much a part of the USA as its democratic attractions.
Complain about this comment
48 54
in the UK you do not have to pledge allegiance either.
or wear a flag pin.
Complain about this comment
Well, as noted, Obama's not even taken office yet, and he's already judged guilty of almost every possible form of corruption....
Peace and the presumption of innocence
ed
Complain about this comment
#9:
My list includes Memphis, featuring the legendary Ford family...John, the patron of the clan, now serving a loooong term for sale of his services as a Tennessee state senator to the highest bidder.
There's Harold Sr., his brother, the long-time Congressman, who had a long dust-up with the Feds in the 1980's over some suspect loans from a bank that went bust.
Then there's Ophelia, 'elected' to replace Harold, with one minor detail about dead people voting that served to complicate matters. She eventually won the seat to which she was so richly entitled in a different district in Memphis environs.
Harold Jr. was a congressman, succeeding his father in office, later ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. He took a J.D., failed to pass the bar, but this never discouraged him from publicly claiming to be an attorney. He worked for Merrill-Lynch after leaving office (in its final glory days), and is now being groomed as a future shining star of the Democrat party.
Just warms the heart, doesn't it, how Memphis continues to share the love...
Complain about this comment
Re 59
President-elect Obama cannot decide how his vacant Senate seat is filled. That matter covered by the Laws of the State of Illinois. Obama cannot call for the public to decide this, it would be illegal under the terms of Illinois State Law.
I don't agree that the Govenor of a State should decide this, but that it is law and the rule of law must be applied.
Like it or not, the Govenor selecting a replacement for Congress is an old law, composed when sudden deaths were much more common and to prevent elections in places with heavy winters. The benefits were that you do not get a power vaccuum and an unrepresented district in Congress whilst awaiting new elections. States have maintained this law because Congressional elections are costly and are time consuming to arrange-remember we would need a primary just to decide the candidates who make the ballot.
An election in Illinois in the middle of winter would hardly be democratic either. If you have ever been to Chicago in January, you will know what I mean.
Complain about this comment
The provision for making temporary appointments to the Senate is not, in itself, a "scandal," no matter how odious the particular case at hand.
Appointments to the Senate last only until the next biannual election. This saves the cost of a special election. Many such appointments have been made without scandal since the passage of the seventeenth amendment:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_appointed.htm
Using a particular incident like this to cast aspersions on our procedures of government is gossly unfair to the many public servants of high integrity who serve as governors or senators, and for a foreign correspondent to do so is particularly inappropriate.
Complain about this comment
Scandals associated with the power to appoint are not, of course, unique to the US:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/news/blair.php
Does Mr. Webb think that British Lords should likewise be elected?
Complain about this comment
Ed, calm down. I haven't seen anyone accuse Obama of anything. The system has been questioned, and there is plenty of evidence there. Illinois politics have been questioned, and quite rightly so. The challenge for Obama is to show that he is above it, and he is indeed for change.
Complain about this comment
I voted for the constitutional convention that was on the illinois ballot this past election, and was disappointed to see it not go through." Situations" arise (lately very frequently) and times change, and so it should be looked at.
It's funny the reaction i had to the news of the governor was automatic laughter. I called my father and he just laughed. People of illinois i think are hardly phased, we just wonder why it took so d##n long. Chicago is a great city, and i would be a complete hillbilly were it not just45 min away, but its stink definitly drifts far and wide
Complain about this comment
Sean's Dad,
Thanks! ;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
niall_g (#48), you seem to have a problem with the principle of consideration for the "original intent" of the framers of the US Constitution. Here's the liberal alternative:
http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm
Complain about this comment
#48 niall_g:
The members of the US Supreme Court are split into two camps of how the Constitution should be read - the literalists and the progessives. The Scalia and Thomas camps want it read at it was in 1776! That ain't progress.
That ain't progress. No, it's democracy.
You sound like you equate change with progress. Now I know that you know better than that.
As we say over here, If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Complain about this comment
The scariest thing about a story like this is that it clearly shows the guy thought he could get away with it. That should cause alarms to ring in any democracy.
(As for our Royal Family, they don't have any political power that could be corrupted. They aren't even allowed to vote.)
Complain about this comment
Oh, and by the way "naill_g" (#48), the US Constitution was ratified in 1787.
Complain about this comment
british-ish:
'we do not vote in elections for a Prime Minister, but for a party. The leader of the party that wins (or constitutionally anyone who has enough support among MP's to form a government) becomes Prime Minister.'
It's much the same here in the US. The only difference is, since the President is separate from Congress, a separate legislature - called the Electoral College - chooses him. The citizens vote for this or that party's electors, and the winner thus becomes President.
Thus, in both the UK and US the citizens don't choose the leader; they choose the people who choose the leader.
Complain about this comment
british-ish:
'we do not vote in elections for a Prime Minister, but for a party. The leader of the party that wins (or constitutionally anyone who has enough support among MP's to form a government) becomes Prime Minister.'
It's much the same here in the US. The only difference is, since the President is separate from Congress, a separate legislature - called the Electoral College - chooses him. The citizens vote for this or that party's electors, and the winner thus becomes President.
Thus, in both the UK and US the citizens don't choose the leader; they choose the people who choose the leader.
Complain about this comment
re. 20. british-ish:
"Anyway, why is it so many American haircuts look like wigs? And why do they all have partings?"
It's the comb-overs. They always end up looking more fake than a hairpiece.
Complain about this comment
Re #9,
I don't have any entry for most corrupt local government, but I do have one for stupidest case of government corruption.
Back in the 90's in my hometown in central California, the Feds busted a number of people in a rezoning-for-bribes scam that included 5 or 6 councilmembers. Millions of dollars was at stake in these land deals. What did the councilmen get as bribes? Cars? Trips? Cushy private jobs after leaving public office? No, they got things like business suits and new sets of tires. How can a person be corrupt, for an extended period of time, and be that bad at it?
Complain about this comment
Justin
Visiting your site as always for the daily dose of misleading news I read your report about Rod Blagojevich. I was surprised with the extra misinformation you chose to gee-up by your article and link, that is being further exacerbated by your biased followers on this blog. I think it only fair to put the record straight, before it becomes an international incident, Mr Blagojevich a Serbian-American [his father being a Serbian, and with Rod a born and bred American], indirectly 2 glorious male populations are being examined under the magnifying glass of public opinion.
First, I have no beef about his political career and honesty that is being discussed, or the figures expressed by some as to the remuneration involved by selling the senate seat, or the price he may ask for the legs, when they too go on ebay. It is the mention you make about his haircut, with further unfriendly comment supplied about "head and shoulders, the waves, the parting, his barber or hairdresser, to the extreme of suggesting that it could be a wig". Before you know it, someone will suggest that it really is a rug, and with central stapling to hold it in place on windy days, it must be worn parted left or right and the style covering his forehead is designed to hide the visible staples.
Then to let another put him in the same boat as Donald Trump, a hair stylists icon who is doing his best to improve the Scottish economy by building a much needed golf course there,{ when they so desperately need another one] and laugh at the two is not on...
Rod and Donald are just two of many modern day middle aged men who like to look good, and Rod is after all the birthday boy today, and does not look the 52 years of age that he is..His hair is his own, and what does it matter if like many Americans and others around the world he is using Serbian 5001 shampoo to make the colour darker. Would it matter if Rod has had hair implants, or botox injections to give that debonair Godfather look to remove a few skin wrinkles and fill out his cheeks. Perhaps his healthy tanned skin comes out of a spray can as well. So what!
For g*ds' sake man. This is 2008. Men use all sorts of cosmetics and colouring now, and with the last poll showing that more than 1250000 older American men are having simple botox, hair implants or plastic surgery yearly to improve their appearance, the healthy man image is here to stay, and the numbers are increasing.
Perhaps you, your moderators and disciples, sitting pretty at your computers have missed our changing world. Modern man trains and is seeking the 6 pack Abs not the 6 pack flabs. We try to look good. Even if you yourself are fit and healthy with that glowing complexion of youth, to sit back with an I am alright Jack attitude, and then supply a resume of the facts, with 80% missing does not follow the honest standard we expect from the BBC.
I will be checking this column daily for further misleading information. .
Complain about this comment
re. 47. DominickVila:
"The problem goes well beyond Illinois, political dishonesty, corruption, abuses of power, and nepotism/favoritism have been evident in Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, New York and other states in the Union for decades."
I should point out that in 2006 after the widespread influence peddling among the Republicans who dominated state-wide positions came to light, the Ohio voters threw the bums out.
Complain about this comment
re. 61. cping500:
I think recalling an elected official by a special election is part of the process in most states, not just California. It doesn't happen very often, because you have to get enough signatures on a petition to schedule an election. So the electorate needs to be really unhappy before you see a recall election.
The role of the National Guard isn't really like having a state army. They can be used in disaster relief and to put down riots and things like that (remember the Kent State shootings?), but states can't declare war against each other or anything like that. Although there was the Toledo Strip War between Michigan and Ohio in the early 19th century that no one wants to talk about today. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War) But the National Guard also acts as a reserve force for the US military. There still are National Guard troops in Iraq, I think.
As for parliamentary versus republican democracies, I think it's like sexual positions: enjoy whatever works for you!
Complain about this comment
"One of the great weaknesses of the American system of government is the role of family connections and patronage: Clintons and Bushs and Doles hanging around Washington and governors having the right to appoint politicians. How can anyone seriously think that in this hugely democratic nation it is somehow OK for a governor to have the right to appoint a senator under any circumstances? That's the real scandal."
I don't know. Why don't you go back in time to the writing of our constitution and ask Jefferson, Attoms, Hancock and the rest of them what they're thinking. And while you're at it ask them what they intend with the second amendment after all the grief it has continuously caused throughout this nation's life, will you?
For my two cents. I don't think it is ok under any circumstances for a governer to appoint a legislative seat to any house; local or national!! I think it is a crying shame, that this perck shouldn't be in our national and state constitutions, think it paints us as flameing hypocrits to our "democratic" values, and dearly hope that their are moves underway to strip this "power" from the hands of governers!! I think this power held by governers is America's third original sin (that is after slavory and the unwriten law that all presidents must be Christians of course.) Honestly! Can you immagin if a prime minister tried to appoint a member of the house of Commons in the UK? They'd be thrown out of office so quickly they wouldn't even know what hit them!!
And regarding family connections, to think our founders when concocting our constitution went to all that trouble to try to ensure that this new nation would not have the trappings of the British monarchy, when in the end it seems all we have done is come full circle back to where sadly yes, a clinton, Bush, or Dole has a much better chance at getting into office than someone not well known in Washington.
Ain't American Democricy grand?
Complain about this comment
Scary haircut, indeed.
I don't know about "impeach"? I'd imbanana him or even imcucumber him until he was raw. The unbelievable arrogance and denial of a man who, in the face of being completely exposed, still claims innocence. What happened to integrity?
Complain about this comment
Thou, Brit, have got no right to talk about hair-cuts. We have had to put up with Major's hairstyle for an awful lot of time.
Pres.Obama, whatever happened to due process, one's day in court etc?
Complain about this comment
British-Ish #20: Easy there!! You don't have to be so harsh in your correction of 'risform!! While much of their knoledge of the UK's electoral process is very missinformed, nevertheless, I think the point taht they were trying to get across in commenting that Gordon Brown wasn't "elected" so to speeck, was merely to point out that between the Blair government and the Brown government, where normally in the UK or indeed any other parlamentary Democracy an election would've been called to give the people a say in the future of their country, one was not called, and Brown did in fact take over from Blair. They were not I believe making any claims as to know who the British people vote for in elections, merely that they didn't get the chance to vote at all this last time.
The role they house of Lords plays in the UK of a nonpartizon arbitor between the prime minister and the house of Commons was an interesting one for me to learn of from David_De_Jung's post at #25. So it seems the house of Lords acts sort of like the Supreme court does in the US. Their are obvious positive aspects to this role but their are also negative ones as well. If I were a British citizen, it still wouldn't sit very well with me knowing that one of the two houses of government that is supposed to represent the people is not tecnically elected by the people. But after learning of this Illinoys feasco, I'd gladly take on that citizenship!! This mess makes Brown's unelection as PM look like a walk in the park!!
David Cunard #27: Will you please explain to me what a "peer" is refering to the house of Lords? How does one become a "peer?"
JPP799 #30: '"You are right about it being undemocratic to have someone appoint a senator or other member of the government. That also means that when the president appoints supreme court justices it is very undemocratic."
High court judges are appointed in the UK as well!! If you are going to point out reasons why the US is less "democratic" than it likes to think, believe me, there are millions of other things you could point out!!
Complain about this comment
I was born and raised in Chicago, and I know a lot about politics there. Illinois has not only the Daley Democratic machine, but a suburban Republican machine and downstate machines for both the Republican and Democratic parties.
When you are a clean politician like Obama is, you have to coexist with some dirty and sleazy political animals in your own party. This doesn't mean you like them, but you have to show them respect and publicly endorse them during election time.
The thing about Obama is, he is operating at a much higher level now than Illinois. I believe that his Justice Department will be unmerciful in prosecuting any corruption, particularly because of the governor.
Complain about this comment
#85. NoRashDecisions: "Will you please explain to me what a "peer" is refering to the house of Lords? How does one become a "peer?"
Originally, Peers of the Realm were hereditary appointments of varying degrees, from Barons to Dukes. Although their titles are different, they are all referred to as Lord (or Lady) so-and-so. All of these hereditary peers made up the House of Lords. In more recent times, there was the creation of Life Peers, whose title died out when the recipient passed away. Ostensibly these are created by the Monarch, but in fact by the Prime Minister of the day. I suggest you Google 'House of Lords' and you will find detailed information on the British upper house.
Complain about this comment
Parrisia (#84), there is no issue of lack of "due process" in Obama's statements so far. "Due process," a "day in court," and a presumption of innocence are things to which Blagojevich is entitled before he can be convicted and incarcerated. His serving as governor is an entirely separate matter.
As a resident of Illinois, Obama is well within his rights to hold and express an opinion that a pending legal problem of this magnitude interferes with his ability to serve the people of Illinois as governor. If he is cleared at trial, he can run again.
Complain about this comment
niall_g 48: '"Others have commented in the UK's lack of a written constitution. This in many ways is a good thing. Our unwritten constitution tells us what we can't do, all written constitiutions tell you what you can do and that is very different. We have far more "rights" than any country which has a written constitution since we have the right to do whatever we wish unless and until it is ruled on by a court or legislated on by Parliament."
Obviously you haven't read the American bill of rights. Read it. It explicitly lays out what government is forbidden from doing to the people under any circumstances. It is not your unwriten constitution that dictates what you can't do, it is your laws. Anyone in any democratic country can do whatever they wish unless and/or until one's actions are ruled on by a court or legislated on by that person's nation's legislative body. Its called personal freedom within the bounds of the law. There are positive aspects to not having a writen constitution, though, as tcaliar at #54 has pointed out. Namely that you do not have to go through a long and arduous process to change your constitution.
But at the same time, a prime minister or parlament could sneeckally slice away some of your civil liberties if they wanted to with your system because their aren't glaring, widely known laws detailing what certain rights are enduring and are not even to be adjusted over time by any government. For instance, if the Dameon Green case were to happen in the US, the police officers involved would immediately be fired, and impeachment proceedings would begin on the president.
Complain about this comment
Following up on a few of the posts about the actual legal situation:
Contrary to what FormerScouser@50 claims, the practice of governors appointing senators does not date back to 1776 (or 1787). The original plan was that senators would be chosen by the state legislature; this didn't change until 1913 (in, as Gary_A_Hill@66 points out, the 17th Amendment), and the change was precisely because there had been a scandal---in Illinois, even---where someone had bought off most of the legislature to get appointed to the Senate.
The current text of the Constitution provides for popular election of senators *including* as replacements. If there is a vacancy, the executive (ie the governor) must issue a "writ of election" to fill it. However, there is a provision that the State legislature *can* statutorily permit the executive to make temporary appointments until the election is held; the State legislature is also empowered to "direct" how and when the election is to be called and held (and so, contra Gary_A_Hill@66, there is technically no Constitutional requirement that the appointment only last until the next biannual election, though in practice this is how it works in all 50 States).
The actual choices of the States on how to handle a vacancy are somewhat varied. Responding all the way to Justin Webb's original question, I would say the practice of some states is quite reasonable: the governor appoints someone to fill the seat for thirty or sixty days or so, just long enough to put together and hold a special election (the international term would be "by-election", I gather). While perhaps not ideal, I think that (since the governor is elected) this is not wholly antidemocratic. A few states go further and require the special election sooner and allow no appointment; but this leaves their state underrepresented. It's true that most states (more than two-thirds of them) have the "appoint until next biannual" convention, though perhaps not for long after this scandal. A breakdown of the current situation among the states was made by the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn a week ago.
Complain about this comment
David Cunard #87: thanks
happylaze #62: You don't "have" to do those things in the US as well, although sadly many Republicans do try to guilt and shame people into doing them. I do envy the majority of UK citizens's and politicions's level headedness though!! A flag pin contraversy would never even surface in a UK election!! They are not nearly as rabidly and obsessivly patriotic as many American Republicans are!
Complain about this comment
JPP799 #30: '"You are right about it being undemocratic to have someone appoint a senator or other member of the government. That also means that when the president appoints supreme court justices it is very undemocratic."
Bear in mind that the only time a Governor appoints a Senator is when the incumbent dies or leaves office before the end of his term. The person selected by a Governor under these circumstances serves until the end of the term of the popularly elected Senator at which time he/she must run for the post and be subject to the scrutiny and decision of the electorate.
Similar situations are taking place in other states where senatorial vacancies occurred as a result of incumbents such as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton being selected to other positions before the end of their terms. In effect, this is a stopgap measure designed to fill a vacancy and provide continuity until the electorate has a chance to vote. In my opinion this should not be regarded as undemocratic.
I am more concerned about how easy it is to persuade the electorate to vote for inept and undeserving politicians than the fact that some of them manage to occasionally rise to the top. Considering how many members of Congress and Governors have been found guilty of wrongdoing, and how often that occurs, I think one of our priorities as citizens should be to help educate voters and encourage more participation in our electoral process.
Complain about this comment
blahedo (#90), thanks for the link to that Eric Zorn piece, and your detailed elaboration. That should satisfy the process wonks among us (myself included).
Please note, however, that I did not state that the procedure of a temporary appointment expiring at the next biannual election was "Constitutional."
Complain about this comment
Why did it take Mr. Obama so long to call for Gov. Blagojevich to resign? Shouldn't he have done that immediately. Seems lame brained to me for Mr. Obama not to have done so!
Complain about this comment
I wonder what they would do in Hawaii if the former Senator to be replaced had been elected as an independent. (See Zorn article.)
Complain about this comment
British-ish (20), you ask "Anyway, why is it so many American haircuts look like wigs?"
In this case, the general assumption around Chicago is that it IS a wig, or a "rug" as we disparagingly call it.
Old South (64), I don't think Harold Ford is being viewed any more as a rising star in the Democratic Party. He's been wrong on so many issues that I don't think he carries much weight any more, and besides the matter of all his family's sleaze baggage, he sides with the Republicans on more issues than he sides with Democrats.
Complain about this comment
murphyslaw3 (#94), good grief, what a nit-picking complaint! Maybe he just wanted to get all the information and think things through instead of shooting from the hip. He could have just left things at his previous comment, without calling for resignation, or he could have called for it earlier. It's his choice and it doesn't matter.
Complain about this comment
Comparisons of UK and US systems is going to prone to problems because they are so different. In UK we tend to not put as much power in one executive (nationally or locally). The monarch serves to prevent the Prime Minister from being Commander in Chief. The Queen ensured that we did not have President Thatcher. Mayors are not generally elected (except for the recently created Mayor of London) but are ceremonial offices. I prefer the British System in many respects. The House of Lords does bring in experience not looking over its shoulder to popular opinion. (I am not fully up with the reforms having left 13 years ago.)
I am overjoyed at Obama's victory but it does still bother me how much becomes about the person rather than policies compared with UK.
The main weakness of the UK sytem is a first past the post elctoral system, but that is the same as US. And I think British society has better mechanisms to prevent the kind of institutional corruption that is found in Illinois for example.
I have gone off the idea of a written constitituon since living in the US it appears to be partly responsible for the polarisation that prevents the middle ground, common sense position coming to the fore.
I also find the practice of electing all and sundry troubling. DA's and Judges need to be appointed on merits by independent bodies, and should not be looking at poll numbers - the corrupting effect of this is very clear.
I gather that the role of the Governor General in Canada and Australis is because these countries are confederations and so asymetric power can arise regionally. America has the highly anachronistic electoral college to offset this, but that is set in stone it appears, is skewed, and so is a blunt instrument based upon 18th century situation.
Complain about this comment
decisivemoment (#96), perhaps it's a good rule of thumb never to vote for someone who wears a hairpiece. Why expect soneone who is a brazen phoney in one thing to be honest in anything else?
My solution to the problem of thinning hair in cold weather is to wear a hat. (An Optimo, made in Chicago by the way.)
Obama should get an Optimo. I think it would look good on him.
Complain about this comment
What i do not understand is how Americans sit in front of the world and preach about corruption in other parts of the world.
Complain about this comment
It's a rug? I thought it was just a weird hair cut. I guess he won't need one where is going.
Complain about this comment
ofilha (#101), there seem to be differing opinions on the question, based on my Google search. There ought to be somebody in Chicago with an authoritative answer.
Too bad Royko isn't around to write about this.
Complain about this comment
Funny thing about Governor Blagojevich - we knew he was a Democrat via the BBC, because the BBC didn't mention his political allegiance. Had he been a Republican, that would have been the first thing the BBC would have impressed on its public. We were discussing the issue on a blog and it became quite funny with people speculating on when the BBC would finally reveal that it was one of their own tribe under a cloud of corruption. Took ages, on the World Service and on the website, until finally someone spotted the well-hidden fact in the fifth paragraph of a website article a day or two after the fact. I've yet to hear it mentioned on the World Service.
This is standard practice for the BBC - distort and cover up facts for the benefit of your friends and shout them from the rooftops when your adversaries are under suspicion.
Now the banned jacksforge, in his new incarnation as Happylaze, and others on this site can deny BBC bias till they are blue in the collective face, but it ain't gonna change that bias one bit.
Complain about this comment
AAPrescott #98: '"Comparisons of UK and US systems is going to be prone to problems because they are so different. In UK we tend to not put as much power in one executive (nationally
or locally)."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understandhat it, each party in the house ofcCommons's members vote for their party's leader. Then when a general election is held, the people vote for their prefered party. The party that gets the most votes wins the election, and thus gets the overwhelming majority of seats in parlament, which in turn gets to form a government who's leader becomes the defacto prime minister. So that means that in a way the legislative and executive branches of government in the UK (Excluding the queen who has no real policy making power anyway) are intertwined. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that members of parlament introduce bills before parlament. I think that is all the prime minister's job. If this is the case, then since the prime minister's party is by default always the majority party in parlament, every time the prime minister puts a bill before parlament, they have a good I would say at least 90% chance of getting it through. In fact if a bill doesn't pass parlament, the prime minister runs a very high risk of being ousted for another to replace him/her, or an election being called. In the US, since each branch of government is clearly (in its proper working form) separate from each other, a president has a 50-60% chance of getting a bill thrugh congress if the congress is of the same party as the president, and if it isn't, you can guess the chances. And this is without all the members of congress putting their own bills before their peers to become laws. Also unlike the UK, if a bill introduced by the president before congress does not pass, the president must make do, or as is most offten the case, compramise with congress to come up with a bill that they can all agree on. The president does not run the risk of being thrown out of office. As I've stated several times previously on here, I greatly admire Prime Minister's Questions and the UK impeachment process, and would love to see them imported to the US!!! But if I could create my own perfect Democricy, I would have the US-style one, with less election campaigning time, religious openness toward elected officials, Presidencial Questions, UK-style impeachment process, less rabid patriotism, and of course, a doing away with a governer having the ability to "appoint" legislative body's seats!!! As was stated above, there is no perfect nation or Democricy, but that would be mine.
"The monarch serves to prevent the Prime Minister from being Commander in Chief. The Queen ensured that we did not have President Thatcher."
If the queen were aposed (and able to express her opinion) to the Fawklins invasion would she have been able to stop it from happening?
"I am overjoyed at Obama's victory but it does still bother me how much becomes about the person rather than policies compared with UK."
The Republicans tried to make it about personality etc during the campaign, and every time they did, Obama called them out on it. Parties do that with each other in all Democracies when they don't have any popular ideas to share with the voters themselves. Look at what Labour is saying about the Tory's financial rescue plans. They are trying to paint them as out-of-step with the rest of the world on how best to fix the UK's economy. A sort of "But all the rest of the world is doing it!" approach. That doesn't just focus on policy, it also focuses on peer pressure.
Complain about this comment
Gary,
Like this?Lookin' good!
ed
Complain about this comment
David_Hazel (#73)
Just for clarity, the ruling Monarch of the time certainly has political power.
Theoretically (and, essentialy it is just that, but nevertheless it exists) the Monarch may choose not to endorse a bill passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords - hence bills only become Acts when they have received Royal Assent. Whilst this power of veto has not often been exercised (the last time was 1999), it nevertheless allows a Monarch to refuse to allow a Bill to become law.
In addition, it is the Monarch who chooses to dissolve Parliament (albeit generally upon a request from the Prime Minister of the day).
Whilst the Queen may, in general terms, be a figurehead for the Country (and the Commonwealth), she does retain certain constitutional powers which can have a significant impact.
Peace, all
Bryn
Complain about this comment
Justin
Could someone please ensure that the "moderators" on here have an understanding of Political History?
I have now had two posts removed for breaching house Rules dispite the fact the content was HISTORICAL FACT and something that even someone with a rudimentry understanding of Politics and History should be aware of.
It is somewhat frustrating when a valid argument is undermined because its content may offend. Unfortunately History has a habit of doing that but that is no excuse for revisionism regardless of individual political standpoints.
Such behaviour simply dilutes the diversity and validity, the whole point, of this forum
Complain about this comment
Re 62
Happy
British MPs and Members of the Armed Forces and Police DO take a pledge of Alligence.
That pledge is
"I, NAME, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Complain about this comment
Perhaps this explains why Barack Obama appointed Greg Craig, the scandal-ready litigator, as White House counsel.
Complain about this comment
KAS,
Don't hold your breath! I believe the work has been "off-shored", and is in the hands of (wait for it) Americans.Peace and moderation ;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
At 10:29pm on 10 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:
Funny thing about Governor Blagojevich - we knew he was a Democrat via the BBC, because the BBC didn't mention his political allegiance. Had he been a Republican, that would have been the first thing the BBC would have impressed on its public. We were discussing the issue on a blog and it became quite funny with people speculating on when the BBC would finally reveal that it was one of their own tribe under a cloud of corruption. Took ages, on the World Service and on the website, until finally someone spotted the well-hidden fact in the fifth paragraph of a website article a day or two after the fact. I've yet to hear it mentioned on the World Service."
What does "their own tribe" mean. Are the BBC based in Illinois
If you have such a big problem with astute political reporting, why not turn off the World Service and turn on Limbaugh or Bill Reilly?
"This is standard practice for the BBC - distort and cover up facts for the benefit of your friends and shout them from the rooftops when your adversaries are under suspicion.
Now the banned jacksforge, in his new incarnation as Happylaze, and others on this site can deny BBC bias till they are blue in the collective face, but it ain't gonna change that bias one bit. "
And banging on that the BBC is biased (er yes all human activity is biased one way or anohter) is as futile as it is puerile.
The BBC follows the news agenda, you shouod try and do the same and bone up on what news is.
And given you stance on Israel (is always right),it seems you have no idea what bias is anyway
Complain about this comment
# 85 NoRashDecisions wrote:
"British-Ish #20: Easy there!! You don't have to be so harsh in your correction of 'risform!! While much of their knoledge of the UK's electoral process is very missinformed, nevertheless, I think the point taht they were trying to get across in commenting that Gordon Brown wasn't "elected" so to speeck, was merely to point out that between the Blair government and the Brown government, where normally in the UK or indeed any other parlamentary Democracy an election would've been called to give the people a say in the future of their country, one was not called, and Brown did in fact take over from Blair. They were not I believe making any claims as to know who the British people vote for in elections, merely that they didn't get the chance to vote at all this last time. "
Just for the record, this is incorrect. Ie, there have been numerous instances in the UK where there has been a change of PM without an election - the most recent was the change from Thatcher to Major. For what it's worth, as I recall, in c 3 of the last 5 such instances, the new PM won the subsequent general election. There have also been changes to the Head of Govt in the Rep of Ireland without an election - there was one this year in fact - and I'm sure it's not that rare in other parliamentary systems.
The important thing to remember is that in parliamentary systems the people elect the Parliament and the Parliament elects the PM. Although a UK PM like Brown, who takes power without a general election, might well choose to call an immediate election, to secure a 'personal mandate', he has no obligation to do so - any more than you would require to have a Congressional election after a change of Speaker. In fact some might even argue that in some ways it's 'fairer' if he doesn't - ie, it gives people a chance to judge him on his performance as PM before voting for him
Complain about this comment
Ed (#105), that's the idea, but it looks like someone sat on that hat.
And it should be the classic form: brim down in front, up in back.
Complain about this comment
The power of governors to make appointments for Senate seats is only temporary, until a special election is called (17th Amendment). Further, it doesn't normally occur (the Senate isn't populated with appointed Senators), it isn't that much of an issue.
Further, prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by state legislators. The theory being that the House would be popularly elected and represent the people, and the Senate would be elected by the state governments and would represent their interests. We've only had popular election of Senators since ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913.
Complain about this comment
108. At 08:47am on 11 Dec 2008, KAS1865 wrote:
Re 62
Happy
British MPs and Members of the Armed Forces and Police DO take a pledge of Alligence.
That pledge is
"I, NAME, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
I would add that the representatives of the FCO do as well at least when taking up certain posts if not always Thankyou for informing the others .
Those oaths are taken by choice. and not by all the people.
Where as contry to previous sugestions ALL americans take that oath. they say the pledge at school.
Complain about this comment
103.
The BBC reaches far does it not. Now all the way to some two bit state.Their Buddies in Illinois.
great proof of bias there.
PS did you ever answer the question about where exactly is the Muslim east after your revelation that the Christian east is Poland?
The Upsetter
Complain about this comment
110 ED LOL
Complain about this comment
Now the banned jacksforge, in his new incarnation as Happylaze,
phew thank god it was jacksforge that got banned not me.
Complain about this comment
"'Reverends' control a lot of the Aldermen. Many of these churches are fronts for gangs and these Reverends have a strangle hold on the city."
You folks need to visit parts of Washington, DC to see dirty men and women of the cloth in action. It's breathtaking.
What's also breathtaking is that Mrs. B has such a mouth on her. It's not surprising what she said, but it's news because she cuts the figure and image of the demure hi society mom that belies the "gutter" in many people. But this year has dispelled a lot of myths about politics and race and "class" and gender in America.
Complain about this comment
in a country that has a ballot measure every year why not treat it like an empty seat and have an election
Complain about this comment
100. At 9:18pm on 10 Dec 2008, ofilha wrote
Because here you get caught and sent to jail and political privelege cannot save you.
Happylaze: If one enjoys the benefits of citizenship should they not be loyal. I am not sure what your beef is in proclaiming ones loyalty unless one is disloyal.Did I miss one of your posts that offered a little more clarity to what your point was.
Complain about this comment
happylaze # 118.
Jack is that really you?. Well well well. Never have guessed it. Happy-forge does not ring any bells in my head! I was expecting a superhero return as Ironman because of your job, The Green Hornet, [Green Goblin] to back up or shoot down your hopes for the planet, or at least you using a civilian name to bow your head to express your humbleness at being allowed back- Bruce Banned perhaps.
Unfortunately there will always be those whose mission in life is to pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. Are they envious of your dual personality and try to undermine your passionate prose because they suspect dual nationality?! Are they themselves fugitives from this or other blogs who have returned under yet another nom de plume and remain a thorn in the side for all instead of the revered status they think they deserve.
Take their attitude as a compliment.
We have watched Obama go through the mill so many times and here it is, coming around again. Differently clothed but the hopes of the disappointed opposing observers need anything to shore up their insecurities about a strangely named "foreigner" from the other party.
Maybe Barack will go halfway, and like Woodrow Wilson choose a new christian -name when he starts office. Surprised about Milorad "Rod" R. Blagojevich .I would have thought like Walter Matuschanskavasky who changed his unpronouncable name to Walter Matthau he would have done the same. Still perhaps Rod blogs and emails under LexLuthor as a nom de plume to get his feet back on the ground.
If only "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" could be given to all who have possibly erred, and doubly so for the president elect until he has begun his job as POTUS and stumbled and failed in the field of play. It appears to be just as dangerous suiting-up in the changing room these days. Do not forget to keep your own head down too..
wma
Complain about this comment
#108 KAS
Yes Members of Parliament do take the oath, but it's largely ceremonial. I remember the MP Tony Banks taking the oath making sure that everyone saw that his fingers were crossed. There have been many MPs who are openly Republican who take the oath.
Complain about this comment
#104 NoRashDecisions
correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that members of parliament introduce bills before parliament. I think that is all the prime minister's job.
Yes and no. Individual MPs can put forward 'Private Members Bills', however, for the bill to progress through Parliament and become law it needs the tactic approval of the PM and the largest party. I think the legalisation of abortion happened this way. You are right to point out that the PM effectively controls the legislature (Parliament) and Government (Executive). I may add that, as the PM has the old powers of the Monarch (the Crown Prerogative) s/he is also head of State. I'm a Bennite in that I want the old powers of the Monarch, the Crown Prerogative transferred to Parliament. So in future Parliament declares war and recifies Treaties etc. For me, until the power of the PM is reduced the USA's system will always be the better system.
Complain about this comment
116. At 6:21pm on 11 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:
"PS did you ever answer the question about where exactly is the Muslim east after your revelation that the Christian east is Poland?
The Upsetter"
The Ukrainians, Moldavians Lithuanians will be fascinated at this news.
Complain about this comment
122 wma I had a lot of fun at the shop today an wouldn't possibly know what you are talking about;)
Complain about this comment
121 I like the fact that the person comes before the state. that oath thing for joe blogs seems a bit like a commie thing. Me the party and all that.
those born to a nation have no choice as to what their birth right is they just are.
If a person was to say no I will never swear that oath what happens. Not much I suspect but it is not even an issue, really.
Complain about this comment
and wma it is true that some of the inflamatory remarks made by the nice man ill he oi wait a minute what did he actually say.
tips please
Complain about this comment
When the guy from Illinous gets the sack, or resigns, he should hop a plane to Brussels (Europe) toot sweet.
With his CV they will make him an EU Commisioner, no problem.
Complain about this comment
100. At 9:18pm on 10 Dec 2008, ofilha wrote:
"What i do not understand is how Americans sit in front of the world and preach about corruption in other parts of the world."
There is corruption everywhere including here, obviously. There is no finger pointing here because no country is perfect including America. Where is this pedestal that everyone thinks we stand on here in the U.S.?
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions (#104)
You said "If the queen were aposed (and able to express her opinion) to the Fawklins invasion would she have been able to stop it from happening?"
Presumably you were enquiring whether, if our Monarch were opposed to the invasion of the Falklands Islands, she could have done anything about it.
I'm sure she was opposed to the invasion. I certainly was. It was an invasion by forces from Argentina, and many lives were lost (on both sides) before the legal status quo was restored. Please don't make the mistake of believing that it was the British who invaded the Falklands. We re-took the Falklands, liberating the British residents of those islands from a foreign invading force.
Just to bring a little historical accuracy to the debate!
Peace, all.
Complain about this comment
104. At 11:49pm on 10 Dec 2008, NoRashDecisions wrote:
"If the queen were aposed (and able to express her opinion) to the Fawklins invasion would she have been able to stop it from happening?"
Presumably you mean the British response and teh answer is no.
If the Parliament were to present the Queen with her own death warrant she would be constitionally obliged to sign it.
This was an early legal conundrum which used to amuse Queen Victoria's ministers,some of whiom would have liked to present her with such a document.
Complain about this comment
Simon21,
"Tribe" was probably not the best choice of a word since it implies a local grouping. I was referring to the fact that the BBC leans left, e.g. supports Labor in Australia, Labour in Britain and the Democrats in the US. The only debatable point is how far left it leans. Sometimes, as when a World Service reporter stands on Cuban soil reminiscing n an emotion-laden voice about how the heroic Cuban revolutionaries defeated the CIA-sponsored invasion force, it is very far left indeed.
Show me one right wing government on the planet supported by the BBC and I'll eat my keyboard.
116. jacksforge/happylaze,
I clarified the Christian East on the Clinton Risk thread. You must have floated past it in your self-induced fog.
I also have a question or two: Have you figured out by now that Iranians are not Arabs and antisemite is a term applied to someone who is against Jews, not someone who is against Arabs?
122. watermanaquarius,
If it were made clear to me that I was an unwelcome guest, there is no way I would return to the house of the host.
Complain about this comment
Truetoo # 133,
During our last correspondence we both advocated jocular not jugular, and I believe my sorry attempt at keeping an open mind about Blago...., Obama s' newest problems while still president elect, and happylazes' necessity to change names and press on in this new persona would be understood as my usual combination fantasy offering here of some fact, and a lot of fiction.
All three have their black or white hats / wigs and masks that they are forced to adopt and others do their best to expose the characters beneath.
I do not regard you or any here as the unwelcome guest or supervillain in my comic book prose above but if you wish to award yourself that cloak please feel free to do so.
Perhaps you should read another fantasy offering of mine about " evil be to him who evil thinks" and the original french translation of it, where I also explained my abysmal communication skills. Above I also wrote "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" for all.
Many have the weapons to hand with their better use and understanding of the English language here than mine, and as I have no axe to grind with any, I do not understand your desire to fall on your own sword / pen.
Complain about this comment
133. At 12:31pm on 12 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:
Simon21,
"Tribe" was probably not the best choice of a word since it implies a local grouping. I was referring to the fact that the BBC leans left, e.g. supports Labor in Australia, Labour in Britain and the Democrats in the US. "
Pray how does it support "the left"? The BBC's chief political commentator was a member of the Conservative party. Melanie Phillips is a frequent guest and Andrew Neil (former editor of the Sunday Times) hosts practically the only political show on BBC TV.
These figures are hardly left wing.
Israel is practically given a clean run. Its spokespeople are given free reign and in comparison it is rare for a Palestinian even to be allowed to speak.
These are established facts. No point disputing them.
"Sometimes, as when a World Service reporter stands on Cuban soil reminiscing n an emotion-laden voice about how the heroic Cuban revolutionaries defeated the CIA-sponsored invasion force, it is very far left indeed."
Sorry but the CIA sponsored invasion was defeated - are you saying it wasn't? This again is a mater of fact not left or right.
Do you know what the term "left" means? You seem to think it means someting like witchcraft or heretic or anything right-wing US administrations dissaprove of.
"Show me one right wing government on the planet supported by the BBC and I'll eat my keyboard."
The BBC does not support any government. Buts its reporting on Georgia was highly irresponsible (though it did recover) and its coverage on Russia is sometimes very biased showin no understanding of the Russian position atr all.
"I also have a question or two: Have you figured out by now that Iranians are not Arabs"
They are no mindless monsters either and do not claim the right to occupy the land of four million people and throw about nuclear threats.
"antisemite is a term applied to someone who is against Jews, not someone who is against Arabs?"
Arabs are semites, is that to hard to grasp? They are human beings too of course.
Complain about this comment
134. watermanaquarius,
By "unwelcome guest", I meant jacksforge, not myself. He was banned, yet he returned as happylaze and even seems quite proud of that fact.
But yes, there are a few people here who seem to regard this site as their turf and make newcomers with contrary opinions feel like intruders. And there are a few people here who have put their noses in the air and wont talk to me, simply because they disagree with my point of view. This childishness doesn't bother me. The Internet is an open platform and people are free to communicate or not. And people who read the comments section of this blog will judge who is avoiding the issues and who is genuinely debating them.
Only the moderators and more senior powers that be here can silence someone they feel has broken the rules.
But I will try to remember the "jocular" rule. There is far too little of it on the Internet.
135. Simon21,
Speak to Alan Johnston, who broadcast for Hamas under the BBC umbrella for three years from Gaza, about whether he thinks Israel is given a "clean run" by the BBC. In fact, speak to any of the BBC Middle East crew. I have been following their biased reporting for years. Have you?
I'm not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point. It seems like it. Facts are facts. There is obviously no argument there. But I take issue with the BBC's presentation of facts - with its omission and distortion of facts and the emphasis it places on some at the expense of others.
I recall that Nick-Gotts gave you and jacksforge a comprehensive explanation of the origin and meaning of the word antisemitism. I'm not sure why you want to continue bashing your head against this particular brick wall. You should rather go back and study what he said.
The word antisemitism was never intended to apply to Arabs, it never did apply to them and it never will. It applies to specifically to Jews.
Complain about this comment
TrueToo,
You now obviously understand my predicament. Difficulty in reading anything and gleaning the information in the piece, even after giving up the speed reading bit. Difficulty in writing anything down without a dubious or double meaning.
I have obviously missed my calling and could have made the perfect politician, with no mind, no hope, and no way!! Trying to avoid everything except my limited knowledge that this world needs all the help it can get. Technology alone will not get us out of the mess, it and we, have gotten ourselves into, and occaisionally swimming against the stream of the accepted mindset you meet a nice class of prodigal sons and daughters going in the same direction.
Feel free to splash about as much as you want to. Much better than standing on the banks and letting others make the waves that sink the ship.
Complain about this comment
137. watermanaquarius,
You mean, if we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, we're facing the wrong way?
Complain about this comment
131 Rob good point .I find it starnge to think of it as an invasion.
but there was a chance to stop it. the FO had warned about the chances and a year of "exercises in the area" would have probably put the Argies off the attack.
But there was an election to think about.
Some would say.
Complain about this comment
125 I always wondered where I was in Bulgaria , there they were claiming that they were the gate way to asia (of course that was because they did not recognise turkey).
I am getting some interesting geography lessons here and will hopefully forget them all before they start seeming real.
;)
Complain about this comment
136 carry on . you are looking more emasculated with every posting.
The word antisemitism was never intended to apply to Arabs,
then they should not have used the word semitism.
case closed
as you put it.
"The Christian East is Poland in the context of the original statement I made about immigration to Britain. Or are you now going to deny that there's a wave of Polish immigration to Britain? You should try to increase your attention span, jacksforge.
I note your insults. Are you upset that I've blown your cover?"
"The Muslim East is the Muslim East; The Christian East is Poland. Pay attention and you'll notice the different attitude the lefty BBC has to different waves of immigration, depending on whence they originate."
Now PAY ATTENTION HERE
The Muslim East is the Muslim East.
OK so AGAIN (really do leave anytime)
Where did you explain where the "Muslim east "is?
Mods can I get nasty now.
Oh and as for the rant about Identities it is like your rants about horrid names SMOKE.
Comeback when you can answer or carry on and you will look even more foolish.
PS what makes you think Jacksforge should be banned but not you?
Complain about this comment
PS as Jacksforge asked you that day why do you have to turn everything to the mid east.
And nick -gotts is well maybe not as unbias as I am.
Complain about this comment
Truetoo # 138,
If you mean facing the wrong way, like the world doing the backstroke - yes we are!. Many following the stream are just too busy floating, drifting along as though nothing matters.. If everybody continues to follow the same absence of a simple stroke and not consider the butterfly or the dolphin as a good thing, soon the majority will be doing the "crawl"!
Did you spot this yesterday? "Can you imagine if it was Yellowstone Park and people were shooting up grizzlies?"
End of a fellow resident
And re the light visible at the end of the tunnel. Please do me a favour and switch it off. Thoughtless lack of care by others for our world and environment, is causing our present problems.
Complain about this comment
#136 TrueToo
If you are an expert on anti-Semitism then you'll know it's a uniquely European disease whose history of it goes back centuries. I hear many people accuse Arabs of anti-Semitism - they don't know what they are talking about - to justify the continued oppression of Palestinians. How can distaste of the actions of the modern Israeli state be Judeophobia?
Complain about this comment
144. dceilar,
Antisemitism is not unique to Europe, but worldwide. And of course the Arabs are antisemitic. It would take years of research just to scratch the surface of their antisemitism. Two quick examples:
The antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is an enormously popular book in the Arab world. The state-controlled Egyptian media regularly publishes vile antisemitic cartoons directly comparable to those the Nazis published. And that is Israel's "peace partner."
Nobody is using antisemitism "to justify the continued oppression of Palestinians." If Palestinian terrorists would stop murdering Jewish civilians, there would be no need for check points and other controls. The Palestinians are not oppressed. Those of them who are terrorists are thwarted as far as possible in their designs to spill Jewish blood. Why is Israel accused of crimes when defending herself?
How can distaste of the actions of the modern Israeli state be Judeophobia?
Simple answer to that one: the Jewish state is singled out like no other for scorn, ridicule and contempt simply for trying to survive while countries that are really worthy of contempt, like Sudan with its Islamist butchers of its own people, are given an easy ride.
That is antisemitic.
143. watermanaquarius,
Yes, the story at the link is pretty disgusting - decimating a species to make a fashion statement.
By "facing the wrong way" I meant there used to be light but now we're looking back at it as it disappears since we are moving down the tunnel away from it. This is black humour, pun intended.
140. jacksforge/happylaze,
I never said I thought you should be banned, simply because I don't know what you did that got you banned. So I can't make a judgement on the matter. But I did say that once you were banned you should have stayed banned. I would have.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that all discussion of Israel on this thread is off-topic.
And that the use of ad hominem, personalities and name-calling debases the level of the discussion.
Could it be the calculated provocation of someone who wishes to sabotage the BBC?
If the blog disappears, then the purposes of such a saboteur would have been served.
Complain about this comment
145. At 9:51pm on 12 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:
144. dceilar,
Antisemitism is not unique to Europe, but worldwide. And of course the Arabs are antisemitic. It would take years of research just to scratch the surface of their antisemitism. Two quick examples:
The antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is an enormously popular book in the Arab world. The state-controlled Egyptian media regularly publishes vile antisemitic cartoons directly comparable to those the Nazis published. And that is Israel's "peace partner."
Nobody is using antisemitism "to justify the continued oppression of Palestinians." If Palestinian terrorists would stop murdering Jewish civilians, there would be no need for check points and other controls. The Palestinians are not oppressed. Those of them who are terrorists are thwarted as far as possible in their designs to spill Jewish blood. Why is Israel accused of crimes when defending herself?
How can distaste of the actions of the modern Israeli state be Judeophobia?
Simple answer to that one: the Jewish state is singled out like no other for scorn, ridicule and contempt simply for trying to survive while countries that are really worthy of contempt, like Sudan with its Islamist butchers of its own people, are given an easy ride. "
Simplistic answer whihc avoids the point:
1. Israel is not a jewish state, anymore than the US is a white state.
2. Hitler might have used the same argument as to why Germany was being targetted before Stalin's Russia.
leaving aside the fact that Israel is fully supported by the West and encouraged.
Complain about this comment
145. At 9:51pm on 12 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:
144. dceilar,
Antisemitism is not unique to Europe, but worldwide. And of course the Arabs are antisemitic. It would take years of research just to scratch the surface of their antisemitism. Two quick examples:
The antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is an enormously popular book in the Arab world. The state-controlled Egyptian media regularly publishes vile antisemitic cartoons directly comparable to those the Nazis published. And that is Israel's "peace partner.""
And there are plenty of antisemitic Israeli jews
Quick example: Avigdor Lieberman (former Israeli deputy PM) and the settler movement.
Complain about this comment
"135. Simon21,
Speak to Alan Johnston, who broadcast for Hamas under the BBC umbrella for three years from Gaza, about whether he thinks Israel is given a "clean run" by the BBC. In fact, speak to any of the BBC Middle East crew. I have been following their biased reporting for years. Have you?""
You haven't otherwise you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement.
Israeli spokepeople are always consulted, Palestinians nearly never
Do you contest this? If so where is your evidence. I can refer you a to any number of reports.
Mark Regev has been used to justify every atrocity.
"I'm not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point. "
I am afraid it is difficult to see your point. You seem to see all reporting as proaganda which must be skewed in your way or it is in some mysterious way "untrue" or "biased".
.It seems like it. Facts are facts. "
This from the person who beleives Israel is always right regardless (what other country's in the world has this queer exalted status, the US, Bhutan?) , and whose seems to think that saying the CIA invaded Cuba is not a fact, even though the CIA has well nigh confessed.
Along with "bias" you have a problem with "facts".
"There is obviously no argument there. But I take issue with the BBC's presentation of facts - with its omission and distortion of facts and the emphasis it places on some at the expense of others."
But you present no argument. You have not contested one of my points and fail to show how it does not keep the news agenda.
As I say I was unhappy about how the BBC presented the Georgian war - how the Ossetian view and the Abkhazis were almost ignored.
But at least the BBC did acknowledge their existence which is more then nearly all the US stations did.
"I recall that Nick-Gotts gave you and jacksforge a comprehensive explanation of the origin and meaning of the word antisemitism. I'm not sure why you want to continue bashing your head against this particular brick wall. You should rather go back and study what he said. "
And I rather got the better of the argument. My point is unimpeachable Arabs are semites.
DO you or do you not contest this point?
Its a very simple question.
"The word antisemitism was never intended to apply to Arabs, it never did apply to them and it never will. It applies to specifically to Jews."
Not any more, Progroms used to be specifically jewish Much of what Israeli appeasers say is classic antisemitism.
Indeed a I beleive the father of one of Obama's opfficials made a fairly typical, disgusting, arab anti-semitic comment on the US national media.
His son apologised of course, but just imagine the fuss if the comment had been diorected at jewssh people?
Anti-semitism regarding molems and arabs is mainstream in the US, as black rascism was (and still is in some cases).
Complain about this comment
Simon21, if you want to have a debate, base it on facts. As I've told you before, if you keep on insisting that Arabs are the victims of antisemitism nobody will know what you are talking about, since antisemitism never has been and never will be directed against Arabs. Repeating your ignorant assumption over and over will not turn it into knowledge. Antisemitism is directed exclusively against Jews. That's my last word on this particular "debate" with you.
Complain about this comment
145 what do you mean by "this is black humour" pun intended?
Ps you never get back when asked a question Again where is the "Muslim east"?
You tell people they are someone banned so they should leave.
Well I accuse YOU of being " Z"
And you were banned so leave.
See it does not work.
you would not leave even if all including the mods told you to so please save the sanctimonious " I would leave"
should we all complain about your pathetic comments until the mods realise you are a charlatan . Ruining debates.
would you feel so noble then?
Complain about this comment
150. At 5:48pm on 13 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:
Simon21, if you want to have a debate, base it on facts."
What like implying the CIA did not help invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, as you did?
Still haven't heard you say that this is not a fact.
"As I've told you before, if you keep on insisting that Arabs are the victims of antisemitism nobody will know what you are talking about,"
Anti Semists refers to Semites. Simple.
" since antisemitism never has been and never will be directed against Arabs. "
Are you sure? This sounds like oneof your delusions of grandeur. It has been used in this manner frequently. Recently, by implication, by the Israeli PM.
You agree that a progrom is an antisemitic riot (certainly as russian/polish jews would understand it) ? Yet The Israeli PM used it to describe the recent settler riots.
Surely, in your eyes, the PM of Israel cannot be wrong?
I understand your concern with the views about Arabs you hold, but sorry there it is.
Radical Afrikaaners used to angrily reject the term rascism when applied to Aparthied as well.
"Repeating your ignorant assumption over and over will not turn it into knowledge. Antisemitism is directed exclusively against Jews. That's my last word on this particular "debate" with you."
Since you have offered no arguements or facts there has been no debate.
I have be de facto proved my case.
But I await eagerly, as does the rest of the sane world, your explanation of the Bay of Pigs affair.
Do you beleive the Cubans were, in fact, invading Florida with the help of the Haitians and the word "pigs" referes to the barbecue they had upon landing?
Complain about this comment
#149
Anti Semists refers to Semites. Simple.
I dont know what that means and that doesn't really qualify as an argument but even though semites refers to other races, anti-semites are people prejudiced against jews. Look it up in the dictionary if you dont believe me.
Complain about this comment
153. At 10:12pm on 13 Dec 2008, luacene wrote:
#149
Anti Semists refers to Semites. Simple.
I dont know what that means and that doesn't really qualify as an argument but even though semites refers to other races, anti-semites are people prejudiced against jews. Look it up in the dictionary if you dont believe me."
Semites is a word that means peoples who are supposed to come from Sumeria, the land between the rivers (modern Iraq).
In fact it has long been held to refer to people from the Middle east, such as Arabs.
In terms of anti-semitism it also has a religious connotation. The jewish religion is held to be a "semitic" religion, as is Islam.
The racial abuse frequently directed at Arabs and moslems, such as that displayed by MR Rahm's father, Avigdor Lieberman, Golda Meir, and is in general use in the US, is anti-semetic and is increasingly recognised as such.
Exactly like jews used to be, Arabs and moslems are seen as a "race" involved in a world wide "conspiracy". They are not to be trusted, they must continuosly "prove" their loyalty. They are a dangerous fifth column dedicated to taking over the world.
Any act of terrroism by any moslem "indites " the rest. Just as jews were supposed to be all to blame for the "rise of Bolshevism".
Mark Steyn openly speaks of them "outbreeding" other (ie white) Europeans.
And of course "they do not belong to any other country but moslem ones to where they should all be sent or "transfered".
All "moslem or arab" countries are of course the same.
These things are said quite openly
No traditional anti-semite would have the slightest problem recognising any of these sentiments whihc have become common currency in the US and elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
153 oh laucene so glad you joined the conversation . now there is a side line down the" I" path.
Strange how you and robloop onlt turn up when this sideline comes to the front.
and again with the psudo I say you say argument.
I will bite this time just to tell you that if you go to a funk and wagner dictionary pre 1910 you will find a reference to anti semitism.
And again Nick Gotts argument is not as well based as he says and no one else has even tried to rationally explain how a word does not mean what it says but something else, this is a language based on certain things one of which is it is not up to YOU to tell all what words really mean.
this has been hashed and rehashed because every time you guys on "The distract all things and debates about Israel down stupid smoke filled alleys club" come out and jump on it. Even though nick gotts came on in support of the crowd despite being against all the other ideas the crowd has, his argument was no better than yours which is "I say".
I am not saying this because I say I am right but because words have meanings and define what they mean on their own,
Anti is against
Semite is someone who is Semitic.
and semetic is someone descended from Shem (sorry nick , but it does not matter about psudotribal heritage arguments you brought up.
Jacksforge spent a lot of time trying to make you'll see sense on this one linguistic anomaly.Most curiously I would as well but there is no point because you guys have been brainwashed by the looks of it.
which one of these other frauds are you related to?
Go read an older dictionary.
Complain about this comment
#154
Oh jack i thought we had this respect thing going. Im not suprised you couldn't keep it up for very long though.
If you actually research this subject which i certainly didn't bring up in the first place, you find that scholars had pretty much settled on the fact that although the word semite includes Arabs the word Antisemitism doesn't they just arent contrasted words. This whole argument is brought up by Arabs who are prejudiced against Jews who want to get away with it just with a little word play.
Complain about this comment
Origin of the word "antisemitism."
origin-of-the-word-antisemitism
Complain about this comment
. This whole argument is brought up by Jews who are prejudiced against Arabs who want to get away with it just with a little word play.
Complain about this comment
#158
Oh i love it when u do that. Next time try to make it make sense though
Complain about this comment
156 I can't Imagine jack staying polite with people that only join the debate once Israel is the topic then carry on with this propaganda.
Do not ask someone who gives a "expletive" ask an impartial person, words MEAN what they mean.
that is how english works as with most languages. there is occasionally another meaning but a faggot is a bundle of something and not a term of abuse despite later uses.
Again the fact that the most popular usage is different does not take away from the truth.
The fact that some famous idiot used two words to describe one race while being ignorant of the others is not relevant to what those words mean.
it seems there is a faggot of people that would promote this absurd notion that against be saved for jews.
Anti jew. that is the word you want to use then use it.
Gary that piece is hardly anymore than a view from one that forms the faggot of thought.
"British English, where "faggot" traditionally means a bundle of sticks and faggots are a kind of meatball," wiki add a bundle of metal to faggot weld together.
156 and actually you will find I did accuse you of joining when this topic came up not starting it.
But I should bow to your better comprehension.
Um NO
Complain about this comment
159 open your mind and learn to comprehend.
it says jews are prejudiced against arabs that like word games.
back to comprehension lessons for you.
try joining a conversation before it goes down the "I" path.
Complain about this comment
159 sweetee,
I love it when you pretend to be smart and all knowing, whilst showing no ability to comprehend.
Complain about this comment
Gary # 157
Fools seldom differ, so I checked it out too.
Semite from "dictionary.com" shows a number of possibilities but all more or less the same.
Random house unabridged gives:- 1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in south western Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. 2.a Jew. 3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.
American heritage dictionary gives:- 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem.
Etymology dictionary gives:- 1847, "Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan," from Mod.L. Semita, from L.L. Sem "Shem," one of the three sons of Noah (Gen.x:21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in the days when anthropology was still bound by the Bible), from Heb. Shem. Semitic (1813 of languages, 1826 of persons) is probably from Ger. semitisch (first used by Ger. historian August Schlözer, 1781), denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc. In recent use often with the specific sense "Jewish," but not historically so limited" Semetisch / Semitism then referring to semetic traits and customs of all of the above peoples..
On the anti-semitism side it would appear that the word from its origin above to its later inclusion in H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882)., has become to be mainly used in an anti -jewish context.
happylaze and luacene,
In this respect you both appear partly correct. A chicken and the egg situation with an old dictionary versus the new. Scholozer and Marr being both german we thankfully can blame it on them.
That said :-"New Anti-semetism"... Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate." [reference.com]
Complain about this comment
try joining a conversation before it goes down the "I" path
Erm do i have to have a certain post count before i get to talk to you? I come onto this blog and see someone trying to change the meaning of a word am i not allowed to respond? Just because you spend every waking hour posting here and i happen not to do it alot do i get disqualified?
If your gonna go around telling people how stupid they are you should probably get a new argument method. The whole swapping Jew for Arab thing is getting a bit boring now. It was funny the first time i saw it but i mean that's all you ever say nowadays.
I have no problem with anti-jew by the way but the etymology of the word antisemitism is what gary said it was. Its just a peculiarity of the language, the same way that flammable and inflammable meant the same thing.
Complain about this comment
# 163
Sounds authoritative.
For those who cling to ethnic prejudice, consider this:
Syrians, Ashkenazim Jews and Palestinians all share the same blood grouping, differing from everybody else.
Complain about this comment
To all those who include Louisiana in the list of corrupt states, I would say that in some ways that is correct, an unfortunate legacy of the LA Bourbons, but unlike Illinois our state has cleaned up quite a bit; we now have the toughest ethics laws of any state in the nation, and our last few Governors have not been sent to jail either. In addition, N.O. voters voted out Jefferson (D) and chose Cao (R).
Complain about this comment
# 165
Lol!!!!!
Jews and Arabs and everyone else have the same spread of blood types as everyone else if that's what you meant. We don't have our own specific types.
Complain about this comment
Also for accuracy's sake
New antisemitism
Complain about this comment
168. At 10:31am on 15 Dec 2008, luacene wrote:
Also for accuracy's sake
New antisemitism
Complain about this comment
Wikipedia = accuracy.
LOL
But it explains a lot.
Complain about this comment
164. At 9:58pm on 14 Dec 2008, luacene wrote:
try joining a conversation before it goes down the "I" path
Erm do i have to have a certain post count before i get to talk to you? I come onto this blog and see someone trying to change the meaning of a word am i not allowed to respond? Just because you spend every waking hour posting here and i happen not to do it alot do i get disqualified? "
Stop complaining. Antisemitism means against semites.
End of story
"If your gonna go around telling people how stupid they are you should probably get a new argument method. The whole swapping Jew for Arab thing is getting a bit boring now. It was funny the first time i saw it but i mean that's all you ever say nowadays. "
Your the one who is making the fuss.
"I have no problem with anti-jew by the way but the etymology of the word antisemitism is what gary said it was. Its just a peculiarity of the language, the same way that flammable and inflammable meant the same thing."
Originally the word Cretin referred to christian inhabitants of the Vosges mtns.
But now it means something else.
Anti-semetismoriginally referred to jews as these were the only semites Europeans encountered on a regular basis.
Now it refers to anti-arab rascism as well.
That is why it is perfectly psosssibl for both jews and arabs to be anit-semetic
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
163 water man
I fail to see how the common usage is considered to be the right or correct usage.
As you say
"has become to be mainly used in an anti -jewish context"
I still faggot weld things together and I am not gay.
164. At 9:58pm on 14 Dec 2008, luacene
I don't care really what you do but do not pretend to be impartial when the only posts you ever make are on this topic and from one side.
the fact that you do not condescend to join the conversation except when the topic gets distracted to the "I " issue .
Do you want me to not argue with you is that it.
well do not be so bias.
As you say we are free to comment.
As for the peculiarity of the language , that was a point I raised so you are doing little more than engaging in a tactic similar to the one where I change the names ( which by the way still makes the point that you are bias as hell ).
Complain about this comment
ps luacene did you notice the timing on my posts, all bunched together. all analytical one.
"Just because you spend every waking hour posting here and i happen not to do it alot do i get disqualified? "
Today is a no work day so sorry I will be able to respond to your one sided one topic obsessed rants if you want to join in.
Complain about this comment
#169
not everything in wikipedia is right but that happens to be a very well sourced article which you would know if u read it. But of course you just can't accept any other opinion than your own can you?
Complain about this comment
What does all this linguistic analysis of anti-semitism have to do with the topic of this blog?
Complain about this comment
luacene
In the local vernacular "what ever".
The thing that gets me is, I am still open for that discussion but when no one yet has once come up with anything more concrete than "has become" (which is the closest of any reasoned argument) I do not see how you can be so definitive about it.
it seems to be trying to prove a negative.
On first glance to anyone the words ,as explained ad nauseam on this site, would mean what I claim.
To assume that this word does NOT mean what it apparently means is if you can prove that negative.
So far that has not been proven.
therefore it is reasonable to assume that the word can be taken at face value.
despite many peoples efforts they have not got beyond phrasing that leaves doubt.
I am open, but really think I have said enough.
Complain about this comment
happylaze # 163
The common meaning of any "flexible" word is considered to be correct for which ever party chooses to use it
I just searched for explanations , found the facts about the various words listed, and reported them here. Why the word changed its meaning after about 100 years and was used by the German Marr to describe, just the Jewish peoples, I have no idea.
Some German words spoken with a strong guttural articulation have a certain resonance about them that sounds attractive to all who hear it. Look how often "schadenvreude" has been used here and "angst" [meaning anguish]. Perhaps this German articulation characteristic appealed more to the Hebrew folk than the Arabic where both languages contain guttural- back of the throat sounds. Got a "hip" word, then make a point of using it, and hanging on to the new meaning perhaps.
Reading the last paragraph I reported, it looks like it is being bent to change the original meaning yet again..If that paragraph holds true [if I am reading it correctly], then in a few weeks further blogging, when a citizen of the world has a differing opinion about anything America does or did in the past. then expect the accusation to be thrown around in its new context even further.
Complain about this comment
168 you are ludicrous (yea I said it)
Ok there is little else here so I will engage you on this
from the link (which I had already read , thanks)
"New antisemitism"
"manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel"
but no it really says that
" The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2]"
"some writers" does not= "common usage"
and does not mean that it is any different than giving credence to the words of hitler or anyone else in the world.
Some writers could be you for all I know.
At no stage does it back up your argument, so drop it until you have something.
174. because block heads here seem to have a real problem with the truth. and the truth is they cannot prove what they say. so until Aqua man or someone with wit comes and shows a better argument than these bias bloggers I will continue to call people out when all they talk about is the "I" issue.
Which if you could be bothered to read the other posts you would see was brought up by others who persist in trying to prove their negatives.
I will discuss whatever I'm FULL OF IT , but if they will Hijack it I'll jump on board because frankly ,I don't like to see the lies being printed as absolute truth.
See I am not on your back because you at least discuss some other things.
Complain about this comment
157. At 5:54pm on 14 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Origin of the word "antisemitism."
origin-of-the-word-antisemitism"
Possibly true, but largely irrelevant. The origin of a termor word has littel to do with its development.
Look up the origins of the word "barbarian", hardly what it means today.
Complain about this comment
"Why the word changed its meaning after about 100 years and was used by the German Marr to describe, just the Jewish peoples, I have no idea."
aqua man I realise that you were trying to explain it but this(semantics of Semites) is an argument that was first raised by jacksforge.
It is not an argument that has much meaning except that there are some that would would deny the words meaning.
My point is the same;)
I have no idea why it changed but I will not accept the incorrect usage as limited by this German fellow.
Until I hear a convincing argument.
I would add that several people have been called antisemetic for saying this word includes more than Jews. Which is offensive because I am not anti Jew or Anti Isreali.
Just as you have noted before I am interested in words.
(Oh that was jacksforge you were commenting on way back, my mistake.)
Strangely we think so alike,
As to the love of some German words how about "Uber" this and "Uber" that that has become popular in some parts of the states (well at least oregon).
Complain about this comment
seems to be this blog could also be about the 50 billion swindler.
Complain about this comment
Well now, the Burris controversy is all but over. However I feel I must point out that the appointment of Senators to the US Senate, is not too dissimilar to what occurs in Queensland Australia, and I believe in the other states.
If a sitting Senator for some reason leaves or is otherwise disqualified from his/her Senate seat, then generally the Senator's party selects the next member from the party ticket. i.e. that replacement member must have previously stood for election on the same party ticket to be appointed.
Tradition has it that the appointment must be approved by the Parliament,. Once approved that member is deemed to have been actually elected. I am not aware of any rejection.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS