Comments on Advance Indiana™: Randolph Denies Role In IndyUndercover

Damn, dude, you're just not getting it. Nowhere d...

2007-12-13T10:48:00.000-05:00

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.

Jeff Newman said... withfriendslikeyou, you're mak...

2007-12-13T09:44:00.000-05:00

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?

anon 7:38, you can tell Abdul he shouldn't have op...

2007-12-13T07:58:00.000-05:00

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.

Abdul called Gary and Ruth blog trolls who ought t...

2007-12-13T07:38:00.000-05:00

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.

withfriendslikeyou, you're making my comment all a...

2007-12-13T07:34:00.000-05:00

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.

7:19 wrote: "Cops have a right to operate as cov...

2007-12-12T20:27:00.000-05:00

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... WHATEVER, withfriendslikeyou! ...

2007-12-12T19:10:00.000-05:00

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.

All this time and energy expended to uncover the t...

2007-12-12T19:09:00.000-05:00

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.

We live in a republic. If you want to call it a "...

2007-12-12T19:06:00.000-05:00

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

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

2007-12-12T19:00:00.000-05:00

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

"Jeff Newman said... WHATEVER, withfriendslikeyou!...

2007-12-12T18:44:00.000-05:00

"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.

"The story here is that an individual hired by his...

2007-12-12T18:31:00.000-05:00

"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.

Great backfilling, and wonderfully goofy logic, AR...

2007-12-12T18:20:00.000-05:00

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?

Wow - I wasn't trying to insult anyone. Now I've ...

2007-12-12T17:03:00.000-05:00

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

"I have to ask, who cares? For everyone who said t...

2007-12-12T13:47:00.000-05:00

"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.

WHATEVER, withfriendslikeyou! Ligthen up. There ...

2007-12-12T13:05:00.000-05:00

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?

gary, my question is..did indyundercover make anti...

2007-12-12T11:49:00.000-05:00

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...

AR:Check the dictionary. Why use a narrow and re...

2007-12-12T11:15:00.000-05:00

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.

The story here is that an individual hired by his ...

2007-12-12T11:11:00.000-05:00

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.

File an ethics complaint against Ike to uncover wh...

2007-12-12T10:42:00.000-05:00

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

Jeff Newman said... You guys are all so anxious to...

2007-12-12T10:13:00.000-05:00

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.

The only thing worse than an angry republican is a...

2007-12-12T09:59:00.000-05:00

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.

"And if the IndyU folks weren't cops, then the civ...

2007-12-12T09:53:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-12T09:27:00.000-05:00

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

You guys are all so anxious to Wilson-bash you mis...

2007-12-12T08:30:00.000-05:00

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).