Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Randolph Denies Role In IndyUndercover

Former Star columnist Ruth Holladay is determined to uncover the identity of the persons behind IndyUndercover. Radio talk show host Abdul Hakim Shabazz' role in the now-defunct blog is a foregone conclusion. As Fox 59's Russ McQuaid learned, a search warrant was issued against his home computer based upon responses city police obtained from Internet service providers identifying Shabazz. Indianapolis police undertook an investigation to discover who had leaked the identity of a confidential police informant in this summer's arson investigation on the IndyUndercover blog. But questions about the involvement of City-County Councilor and almost-2007 GOP mayoral candidate Ike Randolph have remained unanswered. I think Ruth Holladay got her answer to that question today.

As I previously reported, someone began anonymously forwarding to me e-mail exchanges between Abdul Hakim-Shabazz and Ike Randolph. The first such e-mail I received was actually an e-mail Randolph sent to close supporters announcing his intention to seek the GOP nomination for mayor. I assumed the e-mail was forwarded to me by the recipient to get the word out about his campaign. I quickly posted the news on my blog. The Star's Matt Tully had already been in communication with Randolph and noted a couple of days later that my post had pre-empted his planned column that week about Randolph's candidacy. I became suspicious about the source of the e-mail later, however, when I was anonymously sent an e-mail exchange between Shabazz and Randolph, which Ruth Holladay recently inquired of me. She has posted that e-mail in her post today on this subject. The e-mail purported to be a message from Shabazz to Randolph as follows:

hey,
check indyuncover when you get home. i've got the draft for the (unveling). i also found out how to change the time of the postings, that could come in handy later.
chat soon.
ahs

The unveiling referenced in the e-mail appeared to relate to the planned uncovering of the identity of the person behind IndyUndercover. As we later learned, that turned out to be a post announcing that Indianapolis' law enforcement officers, collectively, were the persons behind IndyUndercover. I chose not to divulge the contents of the e-mail on my blog and, instead, questioned both Randolph and Shabazz about it. I believed the e-mail was either spoofed, or someone was illegally accessing one of the two men's private e-mail accounts. Shabazz denied he authored the blog, although he freely admitted he knew a group of law enforcement officers who were behind it. He laughed off the e-mail I showed him as I recall. He said the e-mail account identity shown for him was not one he used. I met with Randolph, at his request, after I met with Shabazz. He, too, denied any involvement. He had already viewed the e-mail I showed to Shabazz when I met with him. He noted that he was on vacation in Mexico at the time the e-mail in question was sent, and he didn't have access to his e-mail at that time.

Shabazz has subsequently acknowledged a more direct role in the blog. He has said he inspired a group of law enforcement officers to start up the blog as an outlet to vent their misgivings about the Peterson administration and Sheriff Frank Anderson. He has also acknowledged exchanging information with them on occasion, but he insists he didn't author any of the blog's posts. In an interview with Ruth Holladay earlier today, Randolph admits he knows at least one police officer behind the blog, but he denied any direct involvement. Randolph actually goes further than Shabazz and admits he received the e-mail in question from Shabazz, but he says Shabazz sent out the e-mail as a ruse to smoke out whoever Shabazz believed was gaining unauthorized access to his e-mail. Holladay writes:

I talked to Randolph today about that email, which I've seen. He acknowledged he received it from Abdul, but he denied being connected to Indy Undercover.

"No. Period," he said. "I do know a police officer who is part of the group that started it. I never pressured him. I don't think he did it all. There may have been as many as 12 (officers) involved."

As for the email, Randolph said Abdul called him a year and a half or so ago. "He said, 'Someone is jacking around with my computer. Here is what I want you to do. I'm gonna email you that I've got a new posting.'"

The ruse, according to Randolph, was that Abdul would use the words "indy undercover" as "a bait," to see "if the cops are monitoring me (Abdul)."

"I said, 'yeah, send it to me," said Randolph. "He (Abdul) believed his computer was being bugged. It was a test. It was just a passing thing."

Randolph said he was at the firehouse when Abdul contacted him. "I sent it online, I got on the Internet. We used the word 'indy undercover' in the email, just to see what would happen."

When I read Randolph's exchange with Holladay, I was a bit taken back by it. As I stated earlier, Randolph told me he was in Mexico on vacation with his family at the time the e-mail in question had been sent and did not have access to his e-mail account. Now, he says he was at the firehouse when Shabazz contacted him about sending the e-mail and the word "indyundercover" was intentionally included in the e-mail's subject heading. Call me cynical, but someone isn't getting his story straight on this one.

Does it really matter who is behind IndyUndercover? From a personal standpoint, it matters a lot to me because I have twice in the past been falsely accused of authoring the blog. The second time I was fingered by Jacob Perry after the IndyUndercover blog outed him as the Scribe who authored Circle City Pundit blog. Perry lashed out at me and blamed me for outing him on IndyUndercover in a defamatory screed on his blog. I really don't have any sympathy for Perry, but if the blog's authors thought it was okay to out Perry, then the bloggers at IndyUndercover shouldn't be heard to complain when they are outed by others. And lest we forget that it was Shabazz himself who publicly tied himself to the blog when he announced on his other blog, Indiana Barrister, police were attempting to serve a search warrant on him. After Russ McQuaid's report, additional questions were raised about whether Shabazz had been entirely candid on this matter.

In the larger sense, IndyUndercover has become the face of Indianapolis' law enforcement community, good or bad. At times, some of the blog's postings earned it a reputation as being racist, sexist and anti-gay. The negative aspects of the blog arguably damaged law enforcement's reputation in some corners. Many people would be shocked to learn that two, prominent African-Americans were behind the blog, one a journalist and the other a public employee and elected official.

There are other implications if Shabazz and Randolph are the persons behind the blog. Randolph is an elected official and a full-time firefighter, allowing him to draw two public salaries. It raises serious questions about whether he was using a city-furnished computer and Internet access to perform work on the blog on the taxpayer's dime, which I assume violates the city's computer use policy for its employees. Journalistic integrity comes to mind in Shabazz's case, but it also raises questions about the involvement of one of his employer's, a law firm at which the Marion County GOP Chairman is a partner, which could also indirectly implicate the county party. I hasten to add that IndyUndercover existed before Tom John became the county's elected chairman.

Let me be clear that on the whole I believe the IndyUndercover blog played an important role in helping bring matters to public light which needed the light shined on them. As someone who has operated my blog in full public view, I have no problem with the IndyUndercover's authors identity being revealed for all to see. Let the chips fall where they may.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to ask, who cares? For everyone who said they thought it was trash and nothing but a place to post rumors and trash, SOOOOOOO many people are obsessed with something that is now gone.

Get over it. There are so many more interesting things going on. Ruth's obsession is over the top.

indyernie said...

I find it hard to believe that it matters who authored the Indyu blog. Who really cares except to say I told you so?
I think LEO's were behind the blog. I also believe that Abdul is being as open about the authors as he can without enabling the leadership at IMPD.
If Anderson was a leader and if Peterson had showed a speck of intelligence the blog would never have had any effect. Anderson and Peterson are the responsible parties. If not for their arrogance and ignorance the blog would have died within weeks.
Give Abdul a break, all he did is man up, what’s wrong with that?

John said...

Ernie,

I think "manning up", whatever that is supposed to mean, would include owning up to your words and actions.

John said...

This is troubling, too:

One last note: Randolph said he returned my phone call because he wants to put this baby to bed. "I don't want to carry this into 2008."

If he was involved, and at this point it certainly appears he was, then he should "man up" and accept any consequences for his actions. If that means he won't be the new fire chief or whatever position they have picked for him, so be it.

Anonymous said...

Abdul has always had a shady relationship with Ike, but he's not alone.

Last spring on Greg Garrison's morning show, Councillor Marilyn Pfister called in while Ike was a co-host or guest. She identified herself as "Marilyn," and that squeeky damned voice was unmistakable. They discussed things as if Marilyn were a regular caller, not a council member. It was disgusting, and no one owned up. Greg was in on it, too. As I recall, they were bashing the Mayor. There's a surprise.

And, as a reminder; Ike took a $5,000 2003 campaign contribution from a developer; whose zoning cases, when called down for council votes, Ike refused to recuse himself from.

It really doesn't get any sleezier than that.

And Ike was a frequent flyer on both morning radio shows.

Soooooo glad Ike's gone.

Anonymous said...

"Soooooo glad Ike's gone."

Are you kidding? Ballard is about to name him Deputy Mayor.

indyernie said...

If Ike and Abdul are IndyU and if nothing illegal transpired they don't owe anyone an explanation.

Manning up is simple, even you can follow along. It's kind of like, KISS MY ASS I'M NOT TELLING YOU ANYTHING because I don‘t have to and what I know is my business and not yours.
Some would say that statement is brash and arrogant and they are right. But get over it. The democrats lost, we have a new Mayor and CCC. If Peterson and Anderson want to go on a witch-hunt why should those who know make it easy on the simpleminded fools?
Wagner insists that TDW is her blog and that the democrat party has nothing to do with it. Yea right! We know better but you left twisting lug nuts defend her every step of the way.
BULL SHIT IS BULL SHIT. It’s not poo or potty it’s BULLSHIT! The identity of IndyU isn’t anyone's business except those who ran it. And anything else is BULLSHIT!

Anonymous said...

indyernie needs to get back on his meds......

Wilson46201 said...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

garyj said...

He Shoots! He scores!
indyernie is "one up" on the anonymous!
Wilson loses 5 points for a "WTF are you talking about" comment!

It's so "yesterdays news" my question now is....
"What is Indy Undercover?"

How 'bout them Pacers, huh?

indyernie said...

"indyernie needs to get back on his meds......"
No meds, just a beer or two will mellow the anger.
But seriously who really cares who IndyU is? Peterson? Anderson? Forestall or Spears? This is amusing. If the leadership in Indy had attended to the escalating crime issues IndyU never would have happened.

Anonymous said...

Ike and Danny Burton have so much in common.......when the public finds out........look out, Ike.

Anonymous said...

Well Gary, I hope that Mayor-elect Ballard does read your blog as frequently as you suggest. If nothing else, it might make him pause about offering Isaac Randolph anything other than keeping his firehouse job.

The facts of the matter are simple: Randolph chose not to run for Mayor. Why? perhaps a skeleton in the closet, or two? Whether or not that is a "bastardized" version of the truth (kidding on the square), he chose not to be in the game. Of course, since November 6th he has been prancing around like a giddy school-girl, probably very busy in matters of (a new) government! Apparently his family issues regarding time management have been resolved! Thats good, if true...problems can be solved like a..coathanger..can hang up a coat, solving that problem?

Ok, sorry about the last thinly veiled reference, but I really hope that Ballard gets some more info on this so-called 'public safety expert' in terms of character, hypocrisy, or the lack thereof both qualities. Let Isaac fade into the sunset, and perhaps actually do the job of an appointed government employee, rather than an overly ambitious, narcissistic elected one, who's "christian family man" schtick is about as worn out as the leather on a pimps shoes.

Anonymous said...

The difference between Randolph and Shabazz is that Ike is an appointed government employee who has enjoyed a brief tour of elected employment, HAD a chance to go further, and declined to do so, yet has this obsession with remaining in the loop, ala his toadying to Greg Ballard. Where was Randolph during the primary season? How about after, up until November 6th?

Disgraceful! Or to use a Wilsonian term, Pitiful!

Abdul..lets see..he's an Illinois Bar-certified atty, a teacher, a broadcaster, a reporter, and political gadfly of all parties, leaning towards Libertarianism. Although I am sure he has enjoyed success in all areas, he might want to narrow his focus a bit, as trying to do all these things AND toady for Tom John has blown up in his face, ie 'IndyU'

Speaking of John..is he still on the transistion team, do you know, Gary? For Ballard to include him as stated early on was definitely an act of kindness, that as far as I, a moderate Republican is concerned, was wholly undeserved.

Ah well..here's to Greg Ballard! May he sort thru the straphangers, jock-sniffers, and other ilk-cut them loose, and may he govern well.

freedom said...

It seems as though everyone wants to know who IndyU was. Can a citizen voice an opinion and still attempt to remain anonymous? There are reasons. If we always call for the identity of those that speak against the norm, will people continue to speak out.

You may not agree with all that was said, but should they still be allowed to say it? Its not that they were calling for the overthrow of the goverment in a violent way.

And Wilson, I would think that you would be one of the supporters of allowing them to remain anonymous. There was a time , not too long ago , when certain people could not speak the entire truth, for fear of persecution. To enable those people to have a forum to speak out, to bring attention to their cause , without fear of retribution, is a noble thing.

And yet, it seems as though everyone wants them outed.


Think..... You could be next.

Wilson46201 said...

The free speech problem is that the people allegedly behind IndyU are armed employees of the government: police. Those police have access to resources and databases way beyond that of a regular citizen and all paid for by tax dollars. Yet these very powerful armed employees of ours want to remain secret and hidden. Not good in a democracy!

In fact, the very essence of democracy is protecting citizens from the overwhelming central power of the state. Agents of the state must remain under control by the citizens and not participate covertly in a democracy.

Of course, if IndyU is just an electoral fraud by a radio pundit and a fireman to hoodwink voters instead of a genuine voice of armed state agents, shouldn't voters know that too?

Angry Republican said...

Wilson said:
"Not good in a democracy! "

As I've pointed out many times before, we don't live in a democracy; we live in a republic.

Please don't take my word for it, please consult with Mr. Madison.

AR

Wilson46201 said...

It is not good in a republic for armed agents of the state to being operating covertly without firm control by duly elected representatives.

John said...

The democrats lost, we have a new Mayor and CCC.

While this is true, if Ike Randolph was part of IndyU, he's not much better ethically than what we've had. People voted for Greg Ballard and elected a new CCC because they wanted a change and because they were sick and tired of the shady dealings of our elected leaders. If Ike Randolph was involved, being so much of a weak, stupid coward as to avoid attaching his name to some of what was said, then he's as ethically-challenged as what we've put up with for too long.

indyernie said...

Wilson46201 said...
"It is not good in a republic for armed agents of the state to being operating covertly without firm control by duly elected representatives."

Wilson if what you state is true, how do you expect "duly elected representatives" (Mayor Peterson and Sheriff Anderson) to control “armed agents of the state"?
Peterson and Anderson aren't able to supervise the day to day needs of a city like Indianapolis.

epoch said...

Wilson46201 said...
It is not good in a republic for armed agents of the state to being operating covertly without firm control by duly elected representatives.

Wilson46201 said...
The free speech problem is that the people allegedly behind IndyU are armed employees of the government: police.


Are you suggesting that the police , while off-duty, should be monitored by duly elected reprresetatives? The same police, who at the risk of their careers, tried to tell the public the inner workings of the department. The same police, who risking their reputations, pointed out problems to the taxpayer.

Perhaps you would like it better if the public did not know the dirty laundry within the department. Perhaps their should be no whistleblowers within the department. Perhaps the blue wall of silence is better.

I think not.

You should try and take the red pill next time Wilson. See how far the rabbit hole goes.

Anonymous said...

Wilson! You should have taken the "red" pill!
Go back to your cave and allow people with common sense to do their job.

varangianguard said...

If Ike Randolph was using City computer assets to "run" Indyundercover, then the City could have found it out so very easily (unless, of course their IT people are all incompetent).

I would think that, by now, the City would have screened all City computers for "insider" blogging activity, whether IndyUndercover or some other blog.

If they haven't, well egg on their face.

Anonymous said...

AI,

I may disagree with you and other bloggers, but I respect you because you ID yourself and stand behind your beliefs. Indy U was the only blog that was unidentified. (Breaking copyright laws on Jack Webb's estate in the process). Since the Ballard Adm wouldn't now disclipline any cops behind IndyU, they should own up. And if the IndyU folks weren't cops, then the civilians, be their Abdul, or Ike should have the courage of their convictions. And stand up like men and admit their authorship.

Anonymous said...

AR, back to school with ye.

Our form of government happens to be a republican one (small r). But that is only one of many different democratic forms of government.

You seem to equate "democracy" with only a strict definition of direct majoritarian rule. But this is not the case: there are several different democratic forms of government: republican, proportional representation, parliamentary democracy, social democracy, liberal democracy, etc.

What they all have in common, despite meaningful difference, is a commitment to rule by the people (of a sort), and a primacy placed on the import of fair and free elections.

So we are, last I checked, a resounding democracy, despite Bush v. Gore. May 2008 bring you and your Republican (capital R this time!) brethren a bracing reminder of this fact.

Anonymous said...

It is not good in a republic for armed agents of the state to being operating covertly without firm control by duly elected representatives.

Cops are not slaves to the state. While I know you hate this fact, cops DO NOT give up their constitutional rights when they become police officers. Cops have a right to operate as covertly as they want. This is how things should be in a free country.

Anonymous said...

Since the Ballard Adm wouldn't now disclipline any cops behind IndyU, they should own up. And if the IndyU folks weren't cops, then the civilians, be their Abdul, or Ike should have the courage of their convictions. And stand up like men and admit their authorship.

This would be a foolish thing to do. According to Wilson, cops are some kind of armed slaves of the government. Well, a few of those armed slaves were slammed (rightly or wrongly I don't know) very hard. While Wilson wishes cops were robots programmed to do what the state wishes, they are not. They are human and humans can sometimes lose it. Not sure if anyone who was slammed would go crazy and attack someone for the blog, but it could happen. Second, the Ballard Admin. won't be around forever. For these reasons, I would remain very quite about my involvement in the website. The current crop of Democrat hack hires can easily start their own police blog if they are unhappy with Ballard and/or Anderson.

Anonymous said...

"If Ike and Abdul are IndyU and if nothing illegal transpired they don't owe anyone an explanation."

Nothing illegal other than interfering with an arson investigation. And of course, the massive amounts of libel that some people are anxious to attach a name to.

Jeff Newman said...

You guys are all so anxious to Wilson-bash you miss an important point: the police have easy access to information that none of the rest of us do, and they have powers the rest of us do not have.

Need someone's home address and social security number? A rookie sheriff's deputy can get if for you in 5 minutes (I know this from personal experience--a few years ago I had some help from a police acquaintance in collecting on a bad check).

People on either side of the political spectrum should be uneasy about agents of the state with full access to private information operating in the way IndyU operated (assuming, of course, that the blog was run by police officers as claimed).

Angry Republican said...

Anonymous at 7:03 said:
"AR, back to school with ye. "

My degrees are in political science. I teach political science.

I was referring specifically to James Madison's definitions of "republic" and "democracy." You'll notice that I referenced Mr. Madison. Those definitions are found in Federalist #10. As James Madison is often called "the Father of the Constitution," I hope that you won't be offended if I choose his definition over yours. As well, I'm sure most folks know that when Benjamin Franklin was cornered following the Constitutional Convention and was asked what they had given us, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Madison says that a democracy is a system of government in which people themselves adminsiter the affairs of government. That is not what we have. (I'm paraphrasing - you can read Federalist 10 for the exact quotation.)

A republic, in Madison's view, is a system of government in which "...the scheme of representation takes place."

No, I am quite right on this one, given the reference. Perhaps you should read or re-read federalist 10.

If you must insist on calling our system a "democracy," then please call it a "representative democracy" because that's more accurate. It is not accurate to call it a "democracy."

No, I don't need to go back to school, thank you.

AR

indyernie said...

"And if the IndyU folks weren't cops, then the civilians, be their Abdul, or Ike should have the courage of their convictions. And stand up like men and admit their authorship."

Why? What will this accomplish other than feeding the frenzy? Nothing!

Anonymous said...

The only thing worse than an angry republican is an angry, dense one.

AR teaches political science? Pray tell where? (Home school doesn't count.)

AR you dodge the point of 7:03, even as you attempt to "paraphrase" (how convenient for you). Madison's definitions of words that go well back before his time, and have come a long way since, are important, but by no means dispositive.

And why do you leave out the point of Madison that a "pure" democracy (his term for a majoritarian system)is undesirable , for its inability to control factions?

Read carefully (and slowly!) and tell me which of these statements you disagree with:

Democracies come in many formats. The US is a democracy of some type. We do not have a direct democracy. We have a republican form of governnment.

Turn to any dictionary, to the Greeks, to modern and ancient political theorists, and you shall see that your definition of a democracy is too narrow.

withfriendslikeyou said...

Jeff Newman said...
You guys are all so anxious to Wilson-bash you miss an important point: the police have easy access to information that none of the rest of us do, and they have powers the rest of us do not have.

Need someone's home address and social security number? A rookie sheriff's deputy can get if for you in 5 minutes (I know this from personal experience--a few years ago I had some help from a police acquaintance in collecting on a bad check).

People on either side of the political spectrum should be uneasy about agents of the state with full access to private information operating in the way IndyU operated (assuming, of course, that the blog was run by police officers as claimed).

8:30 AM EST

Well, Jeff, so you are saying that you conspired with an agent of the state to break state and possibly federal laws by acquiring information under false pretenses?

So, assuming you are who you say you are, I would be rightous in tracking you down and interviewing you to ascertain if any laws were indeed broken. Surely you are not anonymous, as you call for those at IndyU to not be anonymous.

You see Jeff, I don't believe Indyu was using information to coerce anyone to do anything. Aside from the political sidetrack, most of the time was spent discussing problems with the merge and the department. Problems that most citizens would never have known if not for the officers exposing themselves to risk by posting about it.

So, in closing, could you please present yourself to the Sheriffs office in your jurisdiction to answer to the possible NCIC and IDACS violation. And please notify you Sheriff friend that he should notify internal affairs in his department about the wrong that he commited.


Thank you.

Anonymous said...

File an ethics complaint against Ike to uncover what he has been doing on the city dime and equipment.

Anonymous said...

The story here is that an individual hired by his employer to be a political observer (Abdul) instead became a political participant with a political agenda while working with members of a particular political party. Remember, Tom John, the Republican County Party chair is a partner in Abdul's law firm - do you really think John did not know what was going on? Or that John did not assist with the strategy of the blog?

The other involved individual was an elected official who had pledged to serve the community but instead appeared committed to serving his own future. Nothing new in politics, but at least the others do it openly.

To Abdul's employer: Your child needs a spanking (oh wait, he'd probably like that so make it a chastisement) and a reminder of his role in this community. While I had previously disagreed with Abdul on many occasions, I admired his willingness to "investigate" stories. Now I find out that he was being spoon-fed information by Tom John, Ike Randolph and other Republicans. Disappointing.

As for Ike Randolph, Mayor-Elect Ballard, you would do well to remember that if Randolph will operate in this manner on your behalf when he thinks it will get him somewhere, just think what he will do to oppose you if he thinks it will get him further.

Anonymous said...

AR:

Check the dictionary. Why use a narrow and restrictive definition over 200 years old rather than what we all refer to today? We have a democracy. We also have a republican form of it. Not that difficult to grasp or concede.

Anonymous said...

gary, my question is..did indyundercover make anti gay or anti black statements? Or were these comments left by anonymous sources.....and if not is it really fair to blame indyundercover...

Jeff Newman said...

WHATEVER, withfriendslikeyou! Ligthen up. There were no false pretenses, the cop who assisted me knew exactly what I needed the info for--to collect from a criminal who intentionally wrote a bad check.

The stuff on IndyU was only "political sidetrack??" Wasn't getting Peterson whacked the whole purpose of the thing?

Anonymous said...

"I have to ask, who cares? For everyone who said they thought it was trash and nothing but a place to post rumors and trash, SOOOOOOO many people are obsessed with something that is now gone.

Get over it. There are so many more interesting things going on. Ruth's obsession is over the top."

When Democrats lose, they need an excuse. This is why it is imperative the IndyU authors are outed. This reaction is similar to 2000, when Al Gore demanded recounts galore until he was shown to be winner. More directly, it is like Robin Winston's reaction to ex-appointed Attorney Trainwreck Karen Freeman-Wilson losing in 2000. Winston obnoxiously demanded an investigation for MONTHS. I expect sore losers. What I fear is the Constitution may be trampled along with Indiana's shield law, which should protect Abdul -- no question about it. My advice to the IndyU folks is to ignore it all. They have an unquestionable right to journalism, blogging, even anonymous posting.

Angry Republican said...

Wow - I wasn't trying to insult anyone. Now I've been called "dense", told that someone hopes I don't teach at home school, and so on. For the record, I teach for a publicly-funded, state university.

I wasn't trying to be rude to any of you. I paraphrased Madison because, when posting this morning, I didn't have time to go searching for Federalist 10. I paraphrased because I did not want to inaccurately quote Mr. Madison.

But since you've asked...

Madison says:
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. "

To him, a democracy, or pure democracy (which is what most people mean when they use the term democracy) is when we ourselves do the work of government.

He also says:
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union."

See my note early that says if you are going to call our system a democracy, please call it a representative democracy, or use some other such qualifier because "democracy" is inaccurate (it's not so much wrong, I suppose, as incomplete.)

Oh, and to answer your questions:

1. "And why do you leave out the point of Madison that a "pure" democracy (his term for a majoritarian system)is undesirable , for its inability to control factions?"

I don't omit Madison's point. In fact, I quite agree with Madison on this. I probably would say it another way, and that is the majority can be wrong, which is, in part, why we have these safeguards.

2. "Read carefully (and slowly!) and tell me which of these statements you disagree with:

Democracies come in many formats. The US is a democracy of some type. We do not have a direct democracy. We have a republican form of governnment."

I disagree with none of these. That's my point - even your second statement implies there is a qualifier. That's what I was trying to suggest earlier.

Why do I care about Madison's words so much? He is the principal architect of the Constitution - I think his particular view about our system of government is critical. Why? Because, today, the government is essentially the same as it was in that original Constitution. We still have a representative form of government. That hasn't changed, which means that Madison's definition hasn't changed, either.

AR

Anonymous said...

Great backfilling, and wonderfully goofy logic, AR

You simultaneously claim that we dumb Americans say "democracy" but mean "pure democracy," What's your proof for your claim besides your opinion? Webster and everyone else says it differently: Many Americans claim we're a democracy. And this is a meaningful claim. You're the one that tried to deny this in the first place. e.g.:

Early AR:
"As I've pointed out many times before, we don't live in a democracy; we live in a republic."

Late AR:
"The US is a democracy of some type."
"I disagree with none of these."

which one are you?

indyernie said...

"The story here is that an individual hired by his employer to be a political observer (Abdul) instead became a political participant with a political agenda while working with members of a particular political party."

This sounds more like Dennis Ryerson than Abdul.

Anonymous said...

"Jeff Newman said...
WHATEVER, withfriendslikeyou! Ligthen up. There were no false pretenses, the cop who assisted me knew exactly what I needed the info for--to collect from a criminal who intentionally wrote a bad check."

It is fine for you to do it but if it was done to you? You would be singing a different tune. Spare me your lame excuses for breaking the law.

Chris Spangle said...

http://www.chris-spangle.com/?p=74

angry republican said...

We live in a republic. If you want to call it a "representative democracy," that's okay with me. To say we are a "democracy" or live in "a democracy" just isn't complete or wholly accurate.

But the term "democracy," without qualifier, isn't accurate. My first posting certainly wasn't complete, either.

I've said all I can here. Attack away, but you'll be tilting at windmills at this point. I can't be any more clear.

AR

Anonymous said...

All this time and energy expended to uncover the truth about IndyU...

How about instead using it to uncover the truth about Monroe Gray and his ethics questions? His business dealings? Or to find out whether his double-dipping homestead tax credit situation has been cleared up.

Oh, and about that little issue with Aaron Haith's ethics that was submitted to the state supreme court's Disciplinary Commission.

withfriendslikeyou said...

Jeff Newman said...
WHATEVER, withfriendslikeyou! Ligthen up. There were no false pretenses, the cop who assisted me knew exactly what I needed the info for--to collect from a criminal who intentionally wrote a bad check.


Mr. Newman. You may want to stop digging such a hole for yourself. The false pretenses were misusing NCIC and IDACS for information not related to a police investigation.

You and your police friend broke the law. Now, I am sorry if that upsets you. Maybe you feel that it does not apply to you because you had good intentions. Well, that does not make it right.

The stuff on IndyU was only "political sidetrack??" Wasn't getting Peterson whacked the whole purpose of the thing?

The blog started as a way for police to discuss the merge and the department. It moved into the political relm out of neccessity. Oh, and they were right about Peterson. That may be what bothers everyone so much. A little blog caused alot to happen.

How dare they.

Anonymous said...

7:19 wrote:


"Cops have a right to operate as covertly as they want. This is how things should be in a free country."

Good Lord, no they don't! My Constitutional rights, confirmed as recently as last month in a case before this goofy Supreme Court, demand that I be protected against unreasonable search. I'm praying you don't carry a gun as an LEO. I fear that you do. Probable cause, friend--and warrants--are demanded. So cops cannot operate as covertly as they want. Plus, every single police department in the nation operates under local statutes, ordinances or General Orders or Policy Manuals. None I've ever read condone improper covert activity--which is defined as activity that ignores my Constitutional rights. It's all really pretty simple.

11:49--yes, there are ways for blogmasters to policle (pardon the pun) the anonymous postings. The blogmasters know the posting address, and if the postings are obnoxious, untrue or any way offensive, the blogmaster can pull the posting. It's done all the time on this blog. IndyUndercover should've done it a lot.

Their lack of such practice leads to their general disdain among the blogging and general public today.

Jeff Newman said...

withfriendslikeyou, you're making my comment all about me, when the point was that police have access to lots of information, and my story was to illustrate that they don't always follow the rules with it. This is what makes me uncomfortable about police blogging anonymously.

And for the record, I'm not "digging any hole" for myself or any cop, the incident in question occurred almost 10 years ago, and I'm pretty sure that particular individual has long since left the sheriff's department.

Anonymous said...

Abdul called Gary and Ruth blog trolls who ought to get a real life on his radio program this morning. He must be feeling some heat.

Advance Indiana said...

anon 7:38, you can tell Abdul he shouldn't have opened up his mouth about the search warrant if he didn't want people to discuss the issue.

withfriendslikeyou said...

Jeff Newman said...
withfriendslikeyou, you're making my comment all about me, when the point was that police have access to lots of information, and my story was to illustrate that they don't always follow the rules with it. This is what makes me uncomfortable about police blogging anonymously.

You may wnat to give up on this one. Your saying it is ok for a citizen to gain that information( like you did) and use it, but the police should not be allowed to. You realize that when we are not working, we are citizens also.

Your argument doesn't hold water. And after the police, who is next to not be allowed to do things that you deem yourself able to do?

Jeff Newman said...

Damn, dude, you're just not getting it. Nowhere did I say it was "ok" for me to use that information -- the cop gave it to me anyway! All he had to say was "sorry, no, I can't do that, it's against the rules." The burden was on him, not me.

The point is, the cops have access to lots of information, and they don't always do the right thing (like telling me no when I asked for the deadbeat's personal information).

I gotta get out of this thread, you're wearing me out. If you want the last word have at it.