« Phoenix By Bus | Main | I kindly ask you, lady in red, to please not stand so close to me, for I have been blinded by the light. »

February 17, 2009

Comments

finally there is clarity: this tiny life is making sense.

There's nothing wrong with your post, von, except that (1) everyone already agrees with you and (2) your only real demand:

Make it clear now that Burris will not have the support of either President Obama or the Democratic leadership if Burris decides to run for a full term in 2010
is already the consensus view. You may recall that even before these latest revelations the only person to back Burris, to near-universal oppobrium, was Bobby Rush. For obvious reasons, Obama can't be seen to dictate to the primary proceess in his party, but the state party has made it very clear that they're not backing Burris in 2010. I admit that I don't have a cite handy, but I saw a headline stating so in almost exactly the terms you used in the last 48 hours.

I agree that Burris is bad news, but enough with his childrens' name. Naming your children after a parent is nothing special in the Black community. I personally know of a "Calvinisha, Warrenisha, Derricka, etc".

wait, so von gets jumped on when he says something that offends certain of the commentariat here (I'm thinking of the recent gay marriage post) *and* when he says something that "everyone already agrees with"? dude can't win...

You consider that comment "jumping on" Von?

when the #2 comment is effectively "why did you bother writing this" then yeah, I think he's getting jumped on.

especially in the context that most of his posts lead to vigorous disagreement. (FWIW, I disagree with von more often than not.) can you imagine that comment appearing after a hilzoy post?

dude can't win...

I think it comes with the territory. Blogs where the commentariat universally agree with the top level post and find nothing in it to nitpick over are pretty dull. Or nonexistent.

BTW I've already dubbed my children UTurn and KTurn, so you child-naming-fascists can go shove it.

Oh and Burris is nothing but a warm body with a (D-IL) attached, also.

I agree that Burris is bad news, but enough with his childrens' name. Naming your children after a parent is nothing special in the Black community. I personally know of a "Calvinisha, Warrenisha, Derricka, etc".

I appreciate the comment, but I'm not sure that I buy the second proposition. Naming your children after a parent is nothing special in any community, regardless of race. But that's difference between naming a child (even a child of opposite sex) after a parent and naming all your children after the same parent.

I won't speak to how common such a thing is in Roland Burris' community. Maybe it's supercommon, I'm being superinsensitive, so shove it where the sun don't shine (thank you very much). But I don't buy that there's such a thing as a "black community" perspective on this subject. First, which community? There are tons of black communities -- from Honolulu to Miami. Second, even if the idea found favor among some black folks (or some white folks, or some brown folks, or some yellow folks) that doesn't make it a black community issue. (Where's Lando on the issue?)

Anyone who's confused about my reference to Lando, aka Billy Dee Williams, see Ta-Nehisi's post here:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/one_spokesperson_to_speak_for_them_all_the_white_folk_edition.php

This will be the only term Burris serves in the Senate, and everyone knows it--including Burris.

He's just about as irrelevant at the moment as Franken, who hasn't even taken office yet.

and in an http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/burris-now-acknowledges-fundraising-effort-for-blagojevich.html>article highlighted by Steve Benen, apparently Burris *did* try to raise money for Blago while being considered for the seat, but couldn't get any takers for a fundraiser.

Dammit, Lamh31, now you've made me think about your point a little bit more. I've added an update. I hope you don't mind, but it strikes me that your comment could lead to a more interesting conversation than the standard one.

farmgirl, I can certainly imagine such a comment appearing after a Hilzoy post, if Hilzoy was urging unnamed people to "show some courage" and "make it clear", on an issue where plenty of people have already been doing just that. Hilzoy tends not to write that kind of post though. It's not about whether people here agree or disagree with von, it's that von appeared to think his position was that of a voice in the wilderness, and so the call to arms came across a little funny. Like: "Why oh why can't someone, anyone, have the guts to say they can't stand Barry Manilow?"

Your reference to the names of Burris' son and daughter weren't making fun of them or their names, but a jab at his memorializing tendencies, already noted in the medium of marble. Fair game.

It's not my impression that naming children after a parent is any more common among African-Americans than it is among Americans in general.

It's extremely common in all corners of American society for a first-born son to be named after his father. (All part of constructing and reinforcing patriarcy! ;>)

It's also pretty ordinary for a daughter to be named with a variation of her father's name. It's a lot less common when there's already a son named after the father.

I'm glad my family hewed to a different tradition (naming after grandparents), but if we'd gone the honor-the-father route my name would be equally old-fashioned (Alberta).

"but enough with his childrens' name. Naming your children after a parent is nothing special in the Black community. I personally know of a "Calvinisha, Warrenisha, Derricka, etc".

Over sized shoes are very common in the clown community. Doesn't make them any less funny.

I would be remiss in not mentioning two twin (black) boys in my kids' school, Jamarion and Jamaria. Identical, of course, and why the parents chose nearly identical names. I don't know their dad's name, but I suppose in the interest of the greater internet knowledge base, I should check.

Oh, and about Burris - the Senate should toss him out if the perjury is beyond the incidental 'misstatement' that can be found by creative interpretation.

Hob, I don't know that anyone has publicly stated that Burris should not run in 2010. If you can link to that statement by President Obama or a member of the Democratic Leadership (anyone with the title Speaker, Whip, or Majority Leader will do), I'll gladly acknowledge that I'm behind the curve on this one.

If not, pipe down. I wouldn't characterize myself as "a voice in the wilderness" on this one, but, if being a voice in the wilderness is a prerequisite to posting on a subject, you should probably cut and past you comment and repeat it on 90% of the posts on this site by Hilzoy, Publius, Eric Martin, etc.

and in an article highlighted by Steve Benen, apparently Burris *did* try to raise money for Blago while being considered for the seat, but couldn't get any takers for a fundraiser.

Posted by: farmgirl | February 17, 2009 at 03:11 PM


Which makes me ask...WTF??? I don't know which side (maybe it was both) pushed through his confirmation, but Reid was a wuss for caving. He first said Burris wouldn't be sworn in until the situation was resolved in IL. Then he backed off and said, "Welcome to the family".

No matter who Blago picked it was going to end badly. Because he allegedly perjured himself during the hearing, he will most likely be bounced anyway and the new governor will have to pick a new one!

Thank goodness I live in MO and we only elect dead guys.

Over sized shoes are very common in the clown community. Doesn't make them any less funny.

That wasn't exactly the kind of response I had in mind.

Keep in mind that comments that sound one way when you're face-to-face read differently in text. Every attorney learns this the first time they try to take a deposition ... or read their client's snarky emails. (I could teach a course on "bad" emails that were once intended to be clever or funny.)

SisterZip, while I think most people concur in their robust admiration for Reid's consistent and convincing imitation of a complete milquetoast invertebrate, my understanding was that the legal situation dictated that there was no way the Senate could refuse to seat Burris. The only real debate was over whether Burris, once seated, should promptly be ejected.
Given recent revelations that Burris isn't just an egotistical scumbag more interested in his career than in justice, liberty, and the performance of his duties, but is in addition apparently a perjurer on the specific issue of his appointment to the Senate, and now that Blago is gone, it may well be time to revisit the latter question - though it'd be great if Illinois were expeditiously moving to create a system of special elections, so that a replacement of Burris need not cause the same problems.

"If not, pipe down."

Von, front-page poster, or not, you're perfectly entitled to make suggestions or requests of anyone and everyone, but you're not remotely entitled to give orders (unless someone violates the posting rules) to someone to not state their opinion.

patriarcy

Is that like the way the Dread Pirate Roberts moniker is passed down through the ages?

if being a voice in the wilderness is a prerequisite to posting on a subject, you should probably cut and past you comment and repeat it on 90% of the posts on this site by Hilzoy, Publius, Eric Martin, etc.

Dude, I'm at least under 85%.

FWIW, I read your comment about Burris' kids' names not as making fun of THEM, but as snarking about Burris' ego. Made sense to me.

What AnnPW said.

It sounded like a jab at the man's considerable ego.

My kids Mike, Mickey, Mikhail, Michelle, and Michaela want to know what the problem is.

(Actually, in my community we don't name kids after living relatives, because the angel of death gets confused easily.)

Given recent revelations that Burris isn't just an egotistical scumbag more interested in his career than in justice, liberty, and the performance of his duties, but is in addition apparently a perjurer on the specific issue of his appointment to the Senate, and now that Blago is gone, it may well be time to revisit the latter question - though it'd be great if Illinois were expeditiously moving to create a system of special elections, so that a replacement of Burris need not cause the same problems.

I agree with most of this, Warren Terra, but want to be sure that you're not in any sense calling for the expulsion from the Senate of egotistical scumbags more interested in their careers than in justice, liberty, and the performance of their duties. Without such Senators, I doubt they could muster a quorum.

Gary, I most sincerely request that you pipe down will such vim and vigor that you should view it as a demand ... and of course feel free to disregard it. As I'll disregard your instruction.

"As I'll disregard your instruction."

Of course, an observation is not an instruction.

Naming your children after a parent is nothing special in the Black community.

Naming a child after a parent isn't uncommon. But naming both children after the same parent? That's a testimony to someone's oversized ego.

I tend to agree more with your update. Imagine a media event where the speaker had a picture of the two Burris children and made the same point as you did. Regardless of whether or not the target is Burris' ego, the way of making the point is very problematic.

Of course, if there were a group that wanted to make sure that they were picked up on TV, they would probably lead with this, which might be part of the problem.

I'm with Tyro. Why were both kids named for their dad? Is their mother deserving of no recognition, not even for nine months of pregnancy?

On the other hand the kid naming is just icing on the cake. Burris's behavior throughout his career has been that of an ego-centric twit, incapable of processing or responding appropriately to feedback. He demands leadership positions without the track record of accomplshment to merit advancement. All ambition and no substance. Reminds me of someone...actually a lot of someones. Former Senator Allen of Virginia, for one.

I was not offended at all by the mentioning of the kids names. In fact, I agree that Burris needs to go.

My comment wasn't meant to take anything away from your post. It was mostly meant to shine a light on something that maybe other people are not aware of. I like mostly everyone else thinks Burris is a total shmuck. Aside from the to complete lack of ethics, I actually think the mausoleum(?) that Burris will be buried is more indicative of extreme ego, than having his kids named after him. That's all, no harm no foul.

BTW, I am African American. And it is pretty common the naming of kids after fathers particularly girls. It is easy to name a boy after his father, on the other hand there are not always feminized versions of male names, i.e. Robert/Robin, Anthony/Antoinette. So yes a few kids are named "insert father name"-isha (Calvinisha), or "insert father name"-a (Rolanda). That was what I was speaking to, it's no different than naming your daughter "Stanley Ann", or "Sammy-Joe", etc

I was named after my father, and I find Burris' naming choices a little strange.

But it's really neither here nor there. He's lied to us, repeatedly. Even that would be excusable. I'm willing to take the bad with the good. But what's the good? Someone please tell me what about Roland Burris is worth fighting for, other than he's a registered Democrat who still draws breath.

"Someone please tell me what about Roland Burris is worth fighting for"

Who, exactly, is fighting for Roland Burris?

How could this post have gotten so many comments with no one mentioning George Foreman?

I think literally grilling Roland Burris might be a bit harsh.

How could this post have gotten so many comments with no one mentioning George Foreman?

You mean George Forman,Jr
George Forman, III
George Forman, IV
George Forman, V
and daughter Georgianna?

THAT George Forman

Or Will Smith and Wife Jada who have

Willard Smith, III
Son JADen
Daughter WILLow

My eldest sister is named for my mother's two favorite men: her brother, Vernon and her father Charles. While Mama tried to feminize Vernon, she didn't care about trying with Charles, and yes, my sister's official middle name is Charles.

I had a cousin Willie Mae named for her father, William May.

I think picking on what Burris named his children is tacky.

Yes, I'm Black.

And white folk or hispanic folk don't name their kids after them? Damn, and they have more junior than a mother....

Let it go with naming your kids after yourselves, it happens in ALL CULTURES.

icebergslim, it doesn't happen in all cultures, as Mike Schilling says upthread. Orthodox Ashkenazi don't do it, for example.

But indeed, noone was trying to make this out to be the clinching bit of evidence against Burris. It would be just wonderful if naming both of his kids after himself were the worst of his transgressions, or even if it were the worst of those of his sins pertaining to egotism.

Equal time for white egotists: Roger Clemens's kids are Koby, Kory, Kacy, and Kody, all named for the "K" used to record a strikeout.

What excuse do the Kardashians have, then?

How could this post have gotten so many comments with no one mentioning George Foreman?

I love Foreman and his grill rocks.

"von" links to Eric Zorn who I don't like. I always fall asleep about half way through his columns. Boring.

"Burris has now admitted that he did have contacts with Blagojevich's guys, which seems to contradict his prior sworn testimony that he had no such contact."

Sorry, Von, but that's not what the AP article you link to says. It does quote one Republican, Jim Leach, who says that. But it also describes Burris's "prior sworn testimony:"

"In Jan. 8 testimony before a state legislative committee investigating whether to impeach the governor, Burris acknowledged speaking with just one Blagojevich associate. And in a voluntary affidavit submitted days before then, Burris said he had no contact with anyone close to the governor about the appointment."

So all the affidavit said was that Burris hadn't discussed the Senate appointment with anyone close to the governor. It didn't say that other matters had not been discussed. And in his testimony before the committee, Burris did acknowledge having a contact with an associate of the governor. Presumably the committee, for whatever reason, didn't bother to ask him whether he had had any other contacts.

What seems to have happened here is that Jim Leach, and probably a bunch of other Republicans, decided to accuse Burris of contradicting himself. As a result of modern reporting conventions, the resulting news story is not headlined, "Jim Leach Lies About Burris." Instead, we get a story analyzing the political implications of the accusation titled, "Dems hold breath on Burris." So you have to read the whole story closely to determine whether Leach's accusation is baseless.

I don't like the idea that Burris is a senator, and won't weep any tears if he gets kicked out. But I would have hoped that folks at Obsidian Wings would understand Republican media strategies well enough by now that this latest accuation against Burris wouldn't be taken seriously.

But I would have hoped that folks at Obsidian Wings would understand Republican media strategies well enough by now that this latest accuation against Burris wouldn't be taken seriously.

Kenenth sometimes the Republicans are right. I blame Bill Clinton and the gullible liberals who backed him for Blago, b/c no doubt he looked to Clinton as an example to be followed. Deny any wrongdoing and just blame Republican "media strategies."

Burris never shold have accepted the appointment from Blago.

Kenneth, the problem is that Burris' current affidavit seems to contradict his testimony before the committee, and both seem to contradict his original affidavit (no contacts).

If there's confusion in the chain, it might be because the term testimony can refer to any statement made under oath, whether by written document (affidavit, declaration) or in person. (This isn't a von-only definition, but a commonly accepted one at least among lawyers.) Since I didn't want to get into every detail, and since those details weren't impotant to my point, I just used the neutral "testimony" to catch it all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad