Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Bishop Arthur Brazier is an important man. The leader of the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn, Brazier was a civil rights activist and organizer in the 1960s and '70s, a supporter of Harold Washington in the '80s, and one of the first and most prominent black ministers to endorse—and contribute to—Mayor Daley after the collapse of the Washington coalition in the early '90s. A Daley aide once described Brazier and other key black clergy to me as “surrogate aldermen” who could be counted on when the actual officeholders couldn’t—the implication being that he was the real source of power in his community. I never saw any reason to doubt it; when I once wrote a story Brazier didn’t like I received a letter complaining about it from 20th Ward alderman Arenda Troutman.
So it was revealing to find out that Troutman lost Brazier’s support when she moved to hold up a $77 million development in Woodlawn recently. She may survive getting charged with bribery by the feds, and she may not need Brazier’s endorsement to win reelection against a couple of previously unknown candidates, but now that both have happened, I’ve got to think she’s a long shot to hold onto her seat.
I called Troutman’s office last week—several times—to set up an appointment with her. It never happened, but the one time I spoke to her personally she complained that Brazier had not only endorsed her opponent Willie Cochran but had been calling other churches in the ward to align them against her.
Brazier told me this wasn’t true. “I have not called other pastors,” he said. “It’s something I would do, but not something I have done.”
Brazier said Troutman’s decision to pull her support for the development was “outrageous” and “irresponsible” after she’d signed off on it a few weeks ago. “It’s time for her to go,” he said.
and as for Stroger. he will easily be elected next time around.
We can vote for an admitted "ho," who takes paltry bribes to grease development, or a likely lapdog of the real powers-that-be in the neighborhood (see above), who seem to content to run the ward as if they were lords of a fief.
What would you do? Me, I'm voting for the dentist (I think).
As for stroger, I feel people should give him a chance. In a few months he has replaced his ailing father, won the election and has to balance the beleaguered Cook County budget. Considering all this and his time constaints I think it is fair for him to have staffed his administaraion with qualified individuals that he knows and thrusts. What the public isn't being told by the media is that governmental agencys have inter-departmental budgets. You can't easily borrow money from one budget to balance another. It can be done, but it's easier said than done. If a given department doesn't have enough money to pay it's employees, unfortunately layoffs have to be considered. Private and public sector entities have heafty executive/administrative budgets. The Cook County board is the second largest municiple post in this nation. Do you actually think certain people want this young black man to hold this post? His main opponents (Forrest Claypool & Tony Peraica) are perpetuating all the negative press and using unions and their rallys for their personal/politcal gain. They are just two sore losers! We are too intelligent to fall for negative propaganda recently in the media. Give Stroger a chance to do his job. The following quote is so fitting!
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. -- Malcolm X
Troutman is a crook and a self professed "ho",
but Cocharan will be a "ho" for Bishop Braizer, Rev. Leon Finney, and Jesse Jackson Jr.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Let us know your thoughts.
Africantownchicago.wordpress.com
When the people want a term to end, they vote the person out.
Do you think the people are too stupid to vote in their own best interests ?
You are saying the people are too stupid to know what is good or bad for them.
if the people wanted a change, they would find their way to the polls come hell or highwater.
just because YOU have a problem with the status quo, do not assign your problems with the rest of the electorate.
We must to get involved and form our own companies to assure everyone will benefit!
This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.
I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'.
While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.
I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public.
This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s).
Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected.
In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%.
It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist
the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.
So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).
Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:
* 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
* 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.
* 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and
IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.
* 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.
* 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.
Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election
participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above.
If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?
If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to
sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?
Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?
Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?
Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?
As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.
The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.
The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power
ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by
their deeds.
Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few.
To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:
* You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time
* You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time
* But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time
The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at
just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.
However, in my expert opinion I have identified you as DAVID E. NEELY,how am I doing so far. You kinda outted yourself along time ago!
It is really sad the way things worked out for you, I really think you would fight for what you feel is right. Don't be bitter.. Get your stuff in order for the next election.
Your beginning to behave like your name really is SPOKE... and you are out of this world.
GOOD LUCK!
DM and spoke sound like frustrated politicans.