Mediaboss Marketing

CHENNAI: The DMK on Sunday appealed to Tamil Nadu Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao to "nullify" the vote of confidence won by Sasikala loyalist EK Palaniswami, alleging it was adopted by contravening the rules of the state assembly.

DMK, whose MLAs were en masse evicted from the state assembly before the voting on the confidence motion on Saturday, also announced a state-wide hunger strike on February 22, protesting what it called was "murder of democracy".

In a representation submitted to Rao, Stalin, also the leader of the opposition in the assembly, urged him to "nullify the entire proceedings" to "protect the spirit of democracy and the Constitution".

DMK Rajya Sabha members RS Bharathi, TKS Elangovan, and Tiruchi N Siva submitted the representation.

Recalling his demand for secret voting on the motion of confidence moved by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami and Speaker P Dhanapal's rejection of it, he said, "Finding no other way to register our protest, we resorted to peaceful dharna inside the House."

He, however, said, "The Speaker ordered expulsion of all the members of the DMK without following the procedure."

"Assembly guards forcibly evicted us and many of us sustained injuries. Other opposition parties staged a walkout strongly protesting the action of Speaker," he said.

The DMK leader claimed that the Speaker "ignored the rule that if the House is adjourned after moving a motion, it lapses". He said it was "a mockery of democracy and a severe blow to the Constitution".

He claimed that in 1988 "when voting on the confidence motion was held by the Speaker with only two factions of the ruling party present in the House (it was) later declared as invalid and void by the then Governor".

It appealed to the Governor to weigh the proceedings in the state assembly, focusing on the Speaker's declaration that the confidence motion moved by Palanisami was adopted in absence of members of all the opposition parties.

It urged him to invoke his constitutional powers to nullify the proceedings to protect the spirit of democracy and Constitution.

Continue reading here:
'Murder of democracy': DMK announces hunger strike on February 22 to protest against trust vote - Times of India

The former head of one the United States leading scientific agencies has said she fears for the very future of our democracy if scientists are muzzled and intimidated by DonaldTrumps administration.

Speaking to a packed house of about 250 people at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) annual meeting, formerNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chiefProfessor Jane Lubchenco said she was even concerned for the health and well-being of scientists amid warning signs that she described as very sobering.

Since MrTrump was electedhe has appointed a string of climate change deniers to key positions in government, information about climate change has been deleted from federal websites and staff at the Environmental Protection Agency were told not to speak out publicly without approval.

This gag order was described by Professor Barbara Schaal, president of the AAAS, as chilling when she opened the meeting.

An event organised by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) at the annual meeting saw emotions run high as some people in the crowd compared Mr Trump to the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini and his administration to the Nazis in 1930s Germany.

However, one of the founders of the UCS, Kurt Gottfried, who was a child in Austria when the country was annexed by Germany in 1938, said such comparisons were ridiculous at the moment but also warned they might not be in the future.

Ms Lubchenco, who was the NOAA administrator from 2009 to 2013, told the audience: My biggest worry is about the consequences to society if scientists are muzzled and intimidated, if science is defunded, data deleted and scientific institutions are undermined.

I fear for the health and well-being of scientists and the economy and the environment, indeed the very future of our democracy and our world.

Why? We need science at the table for individuals and for institutions to make smart decisions. We need data to help citizens and businesses be smart about what they do, we need science to create the new knowledge that will help society solve many of the big problems that are facing us.

She said it was unclear whether her worst fears would become reality but added we have warning signs that are very sobering.

I fear that neither policymakers nor citizens will have access to the best available science because federal scientists are afraid or unable to do their best science and to share it with the public and policymakers, Ms Lubchenco said.

I fear that the scientific integrity policies that are essential for wise decision-making will be either ignored or dismantled. I fear that science will seen increasingly as partisan and untrustworthy.

Scientists could decide to quit Government jobs or not apply for them, affecting everything from the quality of weather forecasts to new sources of renewable energy and the safety of medicines, she said.

But Ms Lubchenco also appealed to people not to make science a partisan issue.

It isnt, it shouldnt be and dont buy into that framing of the debate, she said.

The eminent physicist, Professor Lewis Branscomb, who has advised four US Presidents, echoed that point as he suggested some politicians in Mr Trumps own party might prove to be allies.

A great many of the leading Republicans are very nervous about where all this is going to lead, he said.

If there is a chance of having strong friends anywhere in the conservative community, then dont put them in the pot with everything else we plan to cook.

He appeared taken aback by the heady atmosphere of the meeting.

The energy is right here in the room, look at it, weve never had a meeting like this, Mr Branscomb said.

But some among the audience expressed fears that the dangers posed by Mr Trump were being underestimated.

Jeremy Grantham, the Boston-based investment strategist known for steering investors away from coming crashes and who set up the Grantham Foundation For the Protection of the Environment, accused scientists of having a lack of passion.

I think scientists actually think passion is not scientific. They have enormous respect for the dignity of science, he said.

They understate their work on climate change and that is simply dangerous if it leads to a lack of understanding by senior politicians.

This is a matter of real survivability for certainly our society as we know it and for many species including our own.

Mr Grantham said there was a need for scientists to speak out more strongly on such issues and it shouldnt take the second coming of Mussolini to provoke such a response.

And Dr Phil Rice, of Harvard Medical School and an emergency doctor, went further.

This is an authoritarian fascist government. All these institutions that people are hoping to rely upon to keep him and his group in check I think are just going to fold, he said.

This is a locomotive coming at us just like they did in Germany, they will come for the scientists, this is just the first salvo.

They will attack the scientists and they will imprison them. I think part of the response has to be that we are going to protect each and every one of us that gets attacked.

Even if you just do your science and dont speak out, you will get attacked. The universities are going to be gone after just as they are beginning to.

However Mr Gottfried advised against comparing Mr Trump to the far-right leaders of 1930s Europe.

I saw my school yard filled with tanks and my sky filled with German fighter planes, he said.

Ive experienced what you are talking about and I want to warn you about over-stating the case.

I think the US is not Germany or Austria in 1938. We have a lot of strengths we can rely on.

We damage ourselves by exaggerating the threat. This country has strengths that Germany did not have, to equate thetwo is ridiculous.

Unfortunately you may turn out to be right, but to talk now as if it is a forgone conclusion is a mistake.

You may help the people who want [a] Hitler to come to power. Ive seen what you are talking about and its not what we are facing. It may be, but we help it come about if we make exaggerations that are really way off.

No one was available for comment at the White House on Saturday evening.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump threatens 'the very future of our democracy', top scientist warns - The Independent

The people are always right. No? Ah, but then they vote for leaders like Donald Trump and Oh well, we can add to the list, internationally and nationally!

Does this mean that democracy is a mistake? No, quite the contrary! But we have to hack away at some stubborn centuries-old shrubbery in order to see the foundation of this clearly enough.

One of the greatest myths about democracy started largely by the Left in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and continued with a twist by the Right into the 21st relates to the most common rationale behind it. The people are always right, claimed the Left in the past. The market, or the consumer, is always right, claims the capitalist Right today, tweaking the Leftist argument cleverly.

Between them, they justify democracy as a form of political organisation based on human beings being basically always right. Very little in the past from the picnics at public hangings outside London jails to the genocides of colonisation and Nazism justifies such confidence in people being always right. Over centuries, people have been horribly wrong at times.

Way back in 1882, Henrik Ibsen, the great Norwegian playwright, wrote An Enemy of the People (adapted into a film, Ganashatru, by Satyajit Ray in his last years) around one aspect of this perception, arguing that one needs to be morally and intellectually ahead of people in order to be right. Ideas and truths, Ibsen suggests in this play, get dated, habitual and platitudinous, and hence the majority, which lives habitually by grasping on to platitudes, tends to mistrust the truly ethical and intellectual individual. In other words, if you are Jesus, you risk getting crucified.

But even this argument is faulty: a lot of intelligent people can go horribly wrong. Cleverness does not necessarily save you from mistakes, and even ethics can be twisted in painful ways: there are many in the U.S. who claim to be pro-life and hence will criminalise abortions, but they spare little thought (and no money) for the plight of women forced into unhappy pregnancies or the future of poor, abandoned and unwanted children.

History is full of brilliant people great leaders, scientists, thinkers, planners who helped destroy a village, a nation or an age. Sometimes it appears that intelligence, on its own, merely provides a person with an easier ability to make excuses for his or her mistakes, and hoodwink others in the process.

So if people whether as individual or group, entrepreneur or consumer, tribe or republic, nation or political party, king or voter seem to make horrible mistakes much of the time, what hope is there for democracy? Why believe in democracy at all?

Actually, one can argue that the main justification of democracy is exactly this: that anyone ordinary voter or monarch can be wrong about any given matter. The ability to make mistakes is human neither power nor riches nor education can eradicate it, though self-awareness might help. A king or dictator can make a mistake as well as the majority of voters in an election who vote in a party or a leader with bad plans. But in a democracy, after a period, during the next elections, such mistakes can be corrected.

A democracy, in other words, allows us to regularly check the mistakes we make bloodlessly and correct them when their disastrous consequences become finally clear to us. This is far more difficult, and costly, to do in any other kind of (autocratic) regime, whether justified in worldly or divine terms.

Democracies are not necessary because people are always right: if we were certain of being right all the time, we would not need any political organisation at all, let alone a democracy. We would be gods. Democracy is necessary because people groups and individuals can be wrong. Hence, in a democracy one learns to live with ones opponents, not exile or murder them. This is a political version of the fact that in life we always live with others or with the Other, the self who is not and cannot be (by definition) entirely yourself.

Democracy is the only political option that allows us to mitigate the effects of our own mistakes, and the mistakes of others. Democracy is necessary not because the people are always right, but because human beings are often wrong. We forget this only at great peril to ourselves and others.

Here is the original post:
We need democracy because people can be wrong - The Hindu

COMMENTARY:I learned some things on Wednesday when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted a raid in Las Cruces. Their action came on the heels of the first nationwide raids since Donald Trump became president. Agree or disagree with whats happening, its an event that impacts our communities.

Heath Haussamen

Las Cruces was ready.

Journalists sprung into action. KVIA-TV broke the story. Other journalists, including me, were quickly on top of it.

As has been the case elsewhere, learning what happened was difficult.

Whether this is the start of Trumps pledged mass deportations or routine enforcement action, as ICE claims, is a complicated issue.

Regardless, immigrant-rights activists were prepared. Dozens gathered outside the federal courthouse in Las Cruces to protest. We need to stand up for our brothers and sisters, Leonel Briseo told people before they shut down a road and blocked traffic.

I learned that even in these polarized times people can make a point peacefully. Blocking traffic is disruptive and controversial, and I also appreciate the point of view of Las Cruces Police Chief Jaime Montoya, who asked that protesters stay on the sidewalk next time.

I learned that Montoya is good at his job. Protesters were upset. Some motorists were angry. Montoya had an unenviable task. Instead of further escalating, the chief expressed empathy and helped calm the situation. I think its commendable, what theyre doing, he told journalists. Theyre speaking up for the rights of people who cant speak for themselves.

I already had a high opinion of many activists in this community. Im dating one of them, Sarah Silva, who led the protest. I observed a key moment when Sarah and others were sitting in the street blocking traffic. Montoya got down on his knees, at her level, and they talked. When Montoya asked Sarah to clear the street, she did.

I disagreed last year with people who called ranchers occupying a national wildlife refuge in Oregon terrorists. When people disrupt our lives to protest, theyre risking arrest or worse with a bold, loud cry from their hearts. We should listen, as Montoya did on Wednesday.

I also learned something about myself on Wednesday. I have to juggle quite a conflict when my girlfriend makes the news. Ideally, I pay a freelancer to cover such an event for NMPolitics.net and step away. Wednesday moved too quickly for that. When Sarah led people onto the street in front of the federal building, I knew the protest was turning into a larger event one that could end with her arrest.

And I did my job.

I observed. I documented. I watched as Sarah led people down streets with honking motorists behind them. I tweeted. Sure, I wondered if Sarah would end up in handcuffs. When police approached her, I stood back and documented.

That was my role: the journalist. After the protest I grabbed some food and wrote an 1,800-word article with photos and videos.

Las Cruces was ground zero on Wednesday for the heated disagreement that will shape our nation for years to come. Our people showed they can debate, protest, shine light, do their jobs, and work toward what they believe will be a better future for our nation and our children and go home at the end of the day and get ready for another. Some Trump supporters are preparing their own rallies, and I expect the same then.

This is democracy in action.

Heath Haussamen is NMPolitics.nets editor and publisher.

See the article here:
This is democracy in action - NMPolitics.net

It is true that the immediate cause that forced Marcos to flee the country was thefour-day People Power Revolution. But this historic event was the climax of a longseries of other revolutionary struggles which I call the Road to EDSA.

On the night of Jan. 22, 1986, when Cardinal Sin asked the people to go to EDSA, Iwas one of those who immediately went there. While there were just a few thousands of us inEDSA, the response was quick, as most of those who came first were part of organized groups.

There was no social media at that time. However, these organized groups had their ownnetworks and means of quickly reaching each other. But because there was no media support and communication networks were limited, it was not surprising that the groups were smallin numbers. However, there were so many of these groups and they were so widespread thattogether, they could rally thousands on very short notice.

Religious orders, priests, nuns, and brothers were ideal because they lived together andthey had the numbers. Furthermore, their networks went beyond their members and includedstudents in Catholic schools, parishioners, and members of Catholic lay organizations. Theywere used to organizing and were very disciplined. It is no wonder they were at the forefrontof the EDSA Revolution.

For example, my own journey to EDSA started in 1978 during the Batasang Pambansaelections. I was then an active member of the Manila Jaycees and we had volunteered tojoin the Operation Quick Count of the Philippine Jaycees. That was when I first met Butz Aquino who was a Capitol Jaycee. The night before the election, we were at the Quezon Cityheadquarters attending a meeting. A small typewritten note was being circulated that saidNinoy Aquino, who was then in jail, was asking the people to organize a 30-minute noisebarrage as a sign of protest.

Around nine in the evening, people started quietly leaving the room. My friend, NinoyGutierrez, told me to come with him and find a group we could join. We did not invite anyoneelse because we were not sure whom to trust. These were the days of martial law. When wewent out, it seemed as if the entire metropolis was taking part in the protest. Cars weregoing around blowing their horns and we joined one caravan. We were confident then that the opposition would win in the next election.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

But it was a rude awakening. In one school which was a polling place, the opposition watchers were told to leave. In another school, army soldiers closed the gates during the counting. Only in one school I went to St. Scholasticas College did the counting proceed publicly. The nuns there stood their ground and refused to be intimidated.

That was when I realized that it would take more than one noise barrage or rally to topple the dictatorship. But I learned, from the nuns example, that an organized group with the courage to stand its ground could be more effective than any speech. This was, to my mind, the forerunner of NAMFREL, maintaining its position in subsequent elections under the dictatorship.

For the revolution to succeed, there has to be a cause for which the overwhelming majority of the people would be willing to go to jail or even sacrifice their lives for, if necessary. The restoration of democracy and overthrowing of the Marcos dictatorship were such causes.

There also had to be an emotional event and a charismatic leader that would bringtogether the different revolutionary forces and inspire groups to organize themselves.The assassination of Ninoy Aquino was such an event, and groups were unified under the leadership of his widow, Corazon Aquino.

There also has to be organizations on the ground to serve as a nucleus in any confrontation with the ruling powers, like in a rally. It was, therefore, critical that existing institutions likethe Catholic Church and Protestant denominations joined the cause. These institutions have a following that could reach all social classes, including the poor.

The Makati confetti rallies were successful because of the support of the businessgroups. Business and civic groups were also the primary organizers of NAMFREL. Theelectoral campaign during the snap election took off because political opposition parties like PDP-LABAN and UNIDO were organized. Cause-oriented groups and nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs) became active mobilizers of rally participants.

The participation of youth groups was essential because they have built-in organizations like student councils and other campus organizations. And in organizing the masses, I discovered that there were organizations in the urban poor areas that could also be tapped.

The EDSA People Power Movement was not just civil disobedience. It was a revolution amovement for radical change. It achieved its primary goal, which was the restoration of thedemocratic system to this country.

Now we hear people questioning whether democracy really works. I even heard a nun sayon television that she preferred the country to be run by professionals rather than by elected officials. But who will choose the professionals who will run this country?

For those who tell me that they prefer a dictatorship, I always ask them to give me thename of the person that they propose to be the dictator.

Democracy will work. It just requires collective will, leaders who believe in democraticideals, and the active support of the very same groups that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and made the EDSA People Power Revolution a reality.

Time has a tendency to wash over horrible moments in history. This is why we must never forget. We must constantly reinforce the legacy of EDSA, and keep reminding ourselves that when push comes to shove, we are a people who will fight for freedom and democracy at allcosts.

From The Aquino Legacy: An Enduring Narrative by Elfren Sicangco Cruz and Neni Sta. Romana Cruz (Imprint Publishing, 2015).

Creative writing classes for kids and teens: March 4 (1:30pm-3pm).Creative nonfiction writing for adults:March 11 (1:30pm-4:30pm).Classes at Fully Booked Bonifacio High Street. For registration and fee details text 0917-6240196 or emailwritethingsph@gmail.com.

Email: elfrencruz@gmail.com

See the original post:
Making democracy work - Philippine Star