Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
E-mail to a friendIn the aftermath of today's City Council vote, it's pretty obvious that Chicago's bid for the Olympic games isn't going over very big in black wards on the south side.
Five black south-side aldermen, including three in election runoffs, voted against the Olympics financing package, which backs the games with at least $500 million in public dollars and allows the city to sell off assets to finance construction costs. That may not sound like much, given that 45 other aldermen, including 14 other African-Americans, voted for the deal. But you have to understand the context to see what it really means.
Getting the Olympic Committee to give the U.S. bid to Chicago requires the appearance of rock-solid local support for having the games here. If there's a whiff of opposition, much less doubt about the city's ability to finance the event, the committee will almost certainly award the games to LA, which already has the advantage of having the required infrastructure and facilities in place.
For months Mayor Daley defused potential opposition by steadfastly insisting that the games would cost not a dime in public money. Of course, on March 7, U.S. Olympic Committee vice president Bob Ctvrtlik blew the lid off of that whopper when he told reporters the city had assured him it would "have some skin in the game."
Within hours of Ctvrtlik's comments city officials were scrambling to win City Council approval of a financing plan. They began gathering aldermen in small groups to brief them on the bare basics of the proposal, talk up the jobs the games would supposedly generate, and, perhaps most important, let them know how much Daley expected their support.
In short, the city gave aldermen a choice: endorse public funding for an uncertain venture or face the wrath of the city's most powerful politician.
For white and Hispanic aldermen it was a no-brainer. They obediently fell in line. It was a different situation for black south-side aldermen, who represent areas near where much of the games would be staged. By then most of them had apparently figured that the proposed Olympic Village--a 5,000-unit complex near 24th and Lake Shore Drive--might force many longtime residents out of their homes by raising land values and property taxes in surrounding areas. Over the last few weeks several south-side aldermanic candidates--most particularly challenger Pat Dowell in the Third Ward and incumbent Fourth Ward alderman Toni Preckwinkle--have been demanding that the city do a better job of including black south-siders in the planning process.
Under pressure from Dowell, incumbent Third Ward alderman Dorothy Tillman, generally a Daley loyalist, voted against today's package, as did 16th Ward alderman Shirley Coleman, who's in a tough fight against activist Joann Thompson. Twenty-first Ward alderman Howard Brookins, who's in a runoff against Leroy Jones, also voted against the plan, as did Preckwinkle and lame-duck 20th Ward alderman Arenda Troutman, who was ousted in the February 17 election. And in doing so, they destroyed the carefully cultivated illusion that the whole city--not just the north but the south side--wholeheartedly supports it.
Mouse farts in a thunderstorm.
We don't have a legislative government in Chicago.
We have an executive dictatorship, that sees itself as being acceptably benevolent.
Do the hispanic politicians believe that their constituents welcome gentrification? That their supporters are gleefully waiting for that windfall developer money to sell their property and take the next train/plane/bus to warmer climates?
Do the 'black' aldermen truly fail to appreciate the potential political power in 'black' south and west and north side voters actually out numbering all others?
Isn't it ironic, (or absurd), that Daley just did to the 'black' citizens exactly what Harold did to the 'whites', back when little richard first took his shot at his daddy's kingship?
Daley = Walls
Brown = Burne
Harold = Daley
Divide and Conquer... classic strategy.
And what about all that sweet, TIF cash that the Machine has flowing regularly thru it's stubby paws?
Why couldn't those monies be what is pledged as the 'insurance' needed to placate the Olympic decision makers?
Oh, that's right. There's already dibs on all of that money, for may years to come.
Go Bears.
lastly, I hope we don't get the nod. traffic will be horrible, there will be cost overruns, and well you get the picture.
Tim Degnan
Jerry Joyce
McDonough Construction
Walsh Construction
John Daley's insurance
Michael Daleys (Daley and George) law firm
people like the mob associated Duffs
to make a TON of MONEY $$$$
not doing real work or bidding
off the back of the taxpayers
There is so much sub standard development in the south loop and politically connected LLC's
with DiPiazza, Degnan and the like
So many building inspectors backed off
so much eminent domain like at UIC where Oscar D'Angelo and Ted Mazola made tens of millions
Some do real work, like GF Structures and their iron fences
the Duffs did clean up but treated people like shit in phony minority companies greased by Skinny Sheehan to get the Special Event contracts and Mara "Liar Liar" Georges saying the Duffs were black and women and not big Irish mob connected thug men.
The City that works (for some)
The Airport deals with Maggie Daleys friends and the bookstores
the inside stuff with United
Jerry Joyce's contracts that never seem to hit the media
the McDonalds
Tim Degnans relationship with DiPiazza, Allied Waste
Freddie Barbara, Mike Tadin
Trucking contracts, construction supplies, Walsh construction,
consulting,
the jobs and the patronage are a distraction, even HDO is a distraction
IT IS THE CONTRACTS AND CONSTRUCTION
IT IS WHO IS MAKING MONEY ON THE DEVELOPMENT
The Olympics is not about the best swimmer, diver or who can play basketball. IT IS ABOUT $$$$$$
and you stupid taxpayers will pay for the Daley playground for the rich and corrupt Daley friends
No one but mike has noticed that the "HAT" who is usually a rubberstampe for Daley is suddenly opposing him.
Further, did anyone notice that 4 (including the "HAT") of the five Alderman currently in run-off's opposed Daley/Olympics today.
Well kiddies..now the fabulos 4 see what/where being a rubberstampe (Bigbox) for him will get them. Where is Daley, now when they really need him?
Oh.. he'll pretend to help them win by sending out champaign workers, but what else? Will he take care of them after their unseated. They sided with him on the Bigbox issue and everythong else for god's sake!
Now they see that tax bases(Walmart), construction & related contracts are worth more to Daley than a few measley Aldermens jobs,reputations or votes.
I like seeing them all squirm.
The fabulous 4 are making a last ditched effort at pretending to care about their constituents needs.Posturing has worked well for these Alderman in the pass.
BUT.. IT'S TOOO LATE BABY... NAW IT'S TOO LATE
Don't underestimate the significance of this, because, if it were possible to 'urban renewal' the remaining populations out of the west and south sides, it would be happening.
It's not generosity or fairness or respect that's at play here, only common pragmatism.
The Harold Washington experience has taught the arrogant to be a bit more cautious in their actions.
Those historically held in political contempt by the mighty have shown their capacity to bite, as well as bark and whine, so being careful, despite the added financial expense, is, in the long run, the more effective strategy.
Make no mistake, however, the goals of the game remain the same.
The big boys have just accepted the fact that they have to play the game with more discretion and public tact.
Thus the current tactics of buying out the undesirables, albeit with some echoes of the past in applying the pressures to sell of obscene taxation and punitive citations.
Does anyone really think that all of the infrastructure improvements in some of the formally 'blighted' areas is meant to be enjoyed by the present residents?
Does anyone honestly wonder why those areas still years away from gentrification are being ignored?
Don't mistake the tossing of a few bones via the 'mixed income housing' endeavors to be anything but a panacea to appease and neutralize the substantial potential threat of the under utilized number of votes these residents possess, but lack the intelligence to weld.
Starve a dog long enough and he'll be thankful for any meager scraps you toss him and really grateful when you offer him a bone with some meat on it.
Too bad the voters in these 'blighted' neighborhoods don't understand that just because they've been treated like dogs for generations, doesn't mean they are dogs.
At the rate things have been going, there will never be another Harold Washington, (to which there are some who say 'amen' and thank their god named greed)
But the well connected have little to worry about, for they know that they can always depend upon their skills at playing the shell game to carry the day for them, the election day, that is.
They'll begin to behave like animals.i.e. People found walking on all fours.
Arenda Troutman has no sence, I heard her on the news charactering certain constituents as undesireables. No one with good political savvy would make that characterization.
Oh that's right she can get away with it because she's a lame duck.
Well this is how I will characterize her.
AAAAnndd SSSshee OOOut!
so what does this tell us about our voters?
Daley didn't 'carry' every ward, in the truest sense of the word, he was gifted his reelection, said gift supported firmly by a foundation made up of apathy, sloth, discouragement and that common disease called malaise.
As I type this, I'm watching another series of skillfully skewed media 'reports' designed to establish the plausible 'reasons' why we'll soon be hit with a fare increase for the CTA and, likely, watch taxes increase, once again, for the sole purpose of milking us working people for every drop of cash we have.
Economic segregation is alive and well. And, if you think about it, that's always the mechanism used to enable segregation for different, more malicious reasons.
Maybe the voters need a strategy less difficult to remember.
One requiring much less pondering.
Here's an idea that seems to be making the blog rounds lately:
==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT==
* 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.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.
This seemed kinda kooky at first read, but after thinking about it for a bit, I concluded it just might work to shake things up.
What do you think?
No, but you seem to be enjoying yourself, so who am I to object?
this does not seem to be a good way to go about it.
Daley didn't 'carry' every ward, in the truest sense of the word, he was gifted his reelection, said gift supported firmly by a foundation made up of apathy, sloth, discouragement and that common disease called malaise. "
Fine thoughts, but in a democracy, you snooze, you lose.
It's not like Chicago normally has massive turnout, the highest turnout in American elections is presidential ones, which might hit 50% of the eligible voters on a good cycle.
your stats actually just confirm to me that the people guilty are all of the ones who don't bother to vote, as if even half of the people who didn't vote did, we could see a change.
I mean wtf, is that much to ask of a citizen to spend 15 minutes EVERY FOUR YEARS in a voting booth? gkimme a break...
What it all seems to come down to is:
1) Are the citizens who do not participate in our 'democratic' political processes, (ie. elections), whether by not voting or by not even registering to vote, actually expressing their satisfaction with current governance?
2) Or are these invisible-at-election-time individuals, (who we see all around us, every day, our neighbors, co-workers, friends and families, etc.), are they, in fact, merely oblivious to the immense and insidious effects said governance has on their lives?
3) Or is it more likely that, while painfully conscious of the many difficulties they endure, on a day-to-day basis and as a direct or indirect consequence of current governance policies, they've concluded that their participation has been and is futile. That their own, personal experiences 'dealing' with their 'public servants' have proven, time-and-time-again, to be fruitless and disappointing.
An intelligent person's first thought after realizing the pathetically low political participation rate of his/her fellow citizens is understandably a loud and resounding W-T-F!!!!!
BUT, what thoughts follow this initial reaction?
Mine are as follows:
1) I assume that most non-voters / non-participants are NOT satisfied, just disgusted and discouraged.
2) I think about all the types of efforts for change which have proven difficult or ineffective in the past.
3) I ponder the possible or likely reasons why said efforts have effectively failed to produce the desired results of positive and beneficial political, social and economic progress for as close to all of my fellow citizens.
4) I conclude that, while there are no written-in-stone, never-to-be-changed permanent specific solutions, (besides the obvious rules-of-thumb of 'Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done Unto You' and 'Be Careful What You Sow, For It Shall Be What You Reap' and 'First, DO NO HARM' and all the wonderful ideals expressed in our Bill of Rights), there may be a more effective voting strategy that could, at the very least, stimulate thought and participation in many more voters and maybe even in those holding and/or seeking public office.
5) I have been posting this proposed strategy recently, to see if ANYONE is interested in either considering it or condemning it. Both of these reactions could stimulate some, (hopefully many), to think about the possibilities a wave of incumbent firings would open up to the average citizen.
6) I invite everyone to use their imaginations and ponder/wonder about what our lives might be like if our political representatives actually felt the same pressures we all feel every day, the pressures of losing our jobs should our work be deemed, say, 'unsatisfactory' - 'sub-standard' - 'disappointing' - incompetent' - non-productive' - 'damaging to the business' - 'no longer needed' - 'below minimum levels of efficiency required' - etc., etc., etc..
7) So, here it is, ONE-MORE-TIME:
==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT==
* 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.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.
If the thought that your vote will/can actually have the effect of firing the person or persons who are supposed to be WORKING FOR YOU, (the tax paying public), intrigues you, pass this idea along and see what happens.
If the thought that this idea might just catch on and threaten to disturb your cushy clout job, clout contract or your status of being one of the favored few, do what you will to suppress the idea. The greater efforts that are made to discourage the proposed election experiment, the more likely it will be that it could be an effective catalyst for positive political change.
It's fine to observe that 'if you snooze, you lose', but is that really the ideal you want to base your actions in living your life on? Is that really the end result of our 'evolution' as a species, to essentially embrace being creatures whose daily conduct is no more than 'I live and I let you die'?
Because, all I'm doing is trying to say 'WAKE UP, sleepy voters' and to present a method, as simple to remember and execute as voting a 'straight' party ticket, an advantage exploited very effectively by the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans.
You wouldn't think of NOT waking those sleeping in a burning building, would you?
You wouldn't even consider taking advantage of a sleeping woman, would you?
You wouldn't sneak into a house while the occupants slept and walk out with all their valuables, would you?
Granted, it is each individuals' responsibility to protect themselves from being taken advantage of.
I'm presenting the possible means for ALL to do so on election day.
We'll just have to see if this idea catches on or fades into oblivion.
March 16th - 4:50 p.m.
Mr. David E. Neeley, you just leave clues all over the place. Stevie wonder would be able to tell that you go under several alias.
Dude, you you must get over it.
1) Get the courage to try again.
2) Get a champaign manager and Attorney, thats right your are an Attorney, well get one anyway, you can't do everything.
3) Handle your business
4) If you don't win, move on and
and run for something else.
5) Don't come to this or any other message board tripping on voters and things you can't change, WITH LONG POSTS.
6) Be fair to others on all message boards, You take the fun out of reading and posting messages.SHORTEN YOUR POST
7) WHEN IN DOUBT REFER TO STEPS 1-7
The point to my suggestions is to encourage the non-voters in this city, county, state and nation, of which there are many, to dismiss entirely the usual bullshit games that those who think they are engaging in the practice of true democracy have been doing for generations, and to shake up the status quo and reaffirm / reassert the power they possess, but, so far, fail to realize or utilize for the benefit of all.
If you find that there are 'too many words' involved in the communication of ideas, don't read them.
If your perspective on life is that it's a game, to be played by no rules at all, winner take all, try to remember your thoughts and attitudes of the present, and, when you are much, much older and have experienced more breadth and width of living, reflect on all that you believed then, back when you didn't, and maybe couldn't, have known any better.
Here's a clue: My name is not David, nor E., nor Neeley, nor anyone who thinks like you do would likely know or understand.
Hopefully, time will change that for you, if you choose to see beyond the tip of your own nose, someday.
Go back to your planet as you and everyone else knows that you should, since plane english doesn't do you any good.
Are you planning to distribute your proposal at the polls?
Ideas are in the public domain and are, thus, free to any and all who wish to share them.
Ads cost money.
I am essentially an idealist and, as is often the case, idealists rarely accumulate wealth, nor do they wish to, knowing that life is a finite experience, not to be wasted on gathering that which one cannot keep for long.
I do not own the ideas expressed in the 'PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT', anymore than a person can own 1+1=2.
I invite anyone and everyone to express and share their ideas, anywhere and everywhere they can.
As has been expressed elsewhere, all that those whose nature is to be hurtful, exploitative and heartless need to be able to do as they will, is for those whose nature is to be helpful, generous, fair-minded and reasonable, to do nothing.
In my own meager way, I have presented an idea that, should it be shared and embraced by enough people, may be a bit more than doing nothing.
Because, to try and track down every ant-minded, self-centered, pocket-picker would be as difficult and fruitless as trying to catch mosquitoes one bug at a time.
Better to use the repellent method.
The 'WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT' concept may be that repellent.
It has the potential to, at the very least:
1) demonstrate to those discouraged non-voters that they do, indeed, have the power to control their own governance.
2) break the strong rhythm of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' that has been, for so long passed off as democracy.
3) encourage those citizens of honest and fair-minded character to seek public service office.
4) stimulate sufficient interest, in the minds and hearts of our fellow citizens, to overcome the malaise and apathy so effectively imposed on them, by those so very accomplished in doing so.
Would the Trib or Times accept my money, (if I had any), to print my proposed election experiment? Not likely. For obvious reasons.
Will any other printed/web posted media share my ideas, in whatever honestly edited form? Probably not, but, as an idealist, hope burns eternally, tho I have learned not to hold my breath waiting.
If you are familiar with the 'Bit Torrent' protocols, you'll understand that the most efficient means of distributing anything is found in nature.
The apathetic non-voters need to believe that there is hope.
They need to experience their significance at election time.
They need to have confidence that their efforts are not futile.
All that is needed to achieve this is, even just one time, in just one election, for most to all of the incumbents being voted out. Just once.
Then the real work will begin.
Then the people will have to embrace true participatory democracy, with all the thought and effort that it requires.
Then all candidates for public service office will have to prove to the people that they not only deserve to be elected, but deserve, by their deeds, not merely their words, that they deserve to remain in public service office.
A pipe dream? probably.
But, that's essentially what our founding fathers were doing, some 230+ years ago.
Spread the word, if you like what I've proposed.
I can't wait until Ben and Mike list and article for us to comment on that has nothing what so ever to do with bad poilitcas,there are a few good ones.
You'll probably still babble and rant about bad politicans even when the subject matter is about tube socks.
Ben and Mike please I'm begging you, give us something lite. As for you, Mr.David E. Neeley or who ever this frustrated back seat politican is, You know who you are.
Lighten up won't you?
If you yearn for lighter fare, I suggest you read the Trib or the Times.
As for 'there are a few good ones', I'd certainly be pleased if more than a few more 'good ones' were to be successful in seeking public service office.
'Don't you get it' that that's what I've been encouraging?
Or is it that you don't want to get it?
Maybe the problem is that your posts are too short, too devoid of substance, too lacking in thoughtfulness, as in full-of thought.
Maybe if you'd appreciate this venue as a place to share ideas and not merely a place to amuse yourself, you'd invest more effort in participating in the conversation and less effort in babbling and ranting about same.
If you give it some thought, you'll realize that you don't have to fear things changing anytime soon, your 'clout' job, contract, etc. is likely to be safe for some time to come.
Because, like you keep repeating, 'nobody wants to read your doom and gloom rants'.
Except, you keep reading them.
I wonder why.
How can you critize voters for not voting?
If you think you know so much about what is good for all of us.
why don't you run?
You know you want to.
Believe me we all get it,you don't need to keep saying the same things, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and AGAIN.
why not use the time honored strategy practiced by many in the past.
when confronted with ideas you don't like, why not just ignore them?
It's not that difficult to just scroll past what you don't like.
That way, you avoid having to think about any opinions that differ from your own.
Try it, you'll like it.
So, he waited until after an election to do so, again.
So, he and his are gonna bleed us dry in another scheme, again.
So what.
Like a slow growing tumor, hardly noticed, until it's too late, the Machine keeps growing and growing and growing and growing.........
Property Taxes, (part of your rent, if you don't own property AND part of the price you pay for everything you buy, goods and services, 'cause the businesses you buy from pay the same or greater taxes than you do.)
Sales taxes of all kinds.
Income taxes, both state and federal.
Licenses, Fees, Fines, Permits, etc. (also passed on to the consumers)
Utility taxes, in addition to the sales taxes, which juice your utility bills.
Mystery taxes you may or may not see, and couldn't know what they're for anyway.
What's the calculation now, something like 40% - 45% of our GROSS income is taken from us in taxes.
Every year we work from January 1st until mid May and ALL of our income earned during that time goes directly into the pockets of some government agency.
Granted, many things that government uses our tax dollars for are beneficial to us all.
Many, however, are not.
Yet, year after year, decade after decade, there still seems to be a steady 70% - 80% of our fellow citizens who either don't vote or don't even bother to register.
Our 'elected officials' pay lip service to 'getting more people to register', and only make efforts to do so that benefit their particular political party.
WAKE UP, WAKE UP, SLEEPY VOTERS!
Our fates are in our own hands.
"1) If telling the truth HELPS you, tell the truth. (however rarely this is true for an incumbent)
2) If telling the truth HURTS you, tell a lie, particularly a lie that is impossible to prove is a lie.
3) When lying, coat your lies with as much truth as possible, so the lie APPEARS to be true.
4) When confronted with your lies, vigorously assert that you're NOT lying and accuse those who say you are of LYING.
5) avoid lying about things that can be PROVEN to be lies, tho, you can ALWAYS challenge the honesty of those who present the proof of your lies.
6) Do your very best to keep some sort of track of your lies, so you don't waste energy lying when you are confronted with conflicting lies.
7) Whenever possible, always have OTHERS lie for you, so you can denounce them, if and when they are caught lying.
8) When caught in a lie, change the subject and focus on telling those lies that have, so far, not been proven to be lies.
9) Tell the truth sparingly, as, if the truth were helpful to you, you wouldn't have to tell so many lies in the first place."
There's a lot more stuff in the Political Hack's Playbook, but I think this is enough for now, don't you?