| 
del.icio.us
| 
E-mail this | 
Facebook
I've heard many explanations from aldermen as to why they voted for or against Mayor Daley's $500 Olympic funding package on Wednesday. But the most sensible one I heard for voting for it comes from an alderman who asked to remain anonymous.
"I voted for it 'cause we ain't gonna get it anyway, so why let his honor blame me for something we ain't gonna get anyway? Get it?"
Makes perfect sense to me--as long as we really don't get stuck with the games.
"That's the risk. But even if the U.S. Committee gives the bid to us over LA, there's no way the International Olympic Committee's going to give us the nod so long as we have troops in the Middle East. Better the mayor be mad at the International Committee than at me."
And if you're wrong, and we do wind up with the 2016 Olympics?
"Oh man, the cost overruns . . . I don't even want to think about it."
Re: Cost overuns, if we do get the olympics, do tax payers have something that would protect us from bearing the brunt of cost over runs?
Also, when I was twelve years old I suggested to my Mom that citizens could have just about everything they needed if they used/pooled the money they give to the Lottery to solve one problem at a time.
People would have guaranteed results with interest, unlike the lottery. I named the fund "The Peoples Fund".
She of course explained to me that people are too selfish for it to ever work.
Well it seems the British Government is just going to just take their citzens Lottery money and spend it as it sees fit.
In light of this... does The Peoples Fund Sound so crazy?
you know, if I had the time and money, I would run for alderman just sit on my duff and collect the pay. I mean really for 90 thou, plus benefits I think I could get used to be a rubber stamp.
is there someplace I can volunteer to be a political lackey? if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. :(
Also, could you try to quote the aldermen/women you interview with the exact words that they spoke? It would go a long way in giving your readers a clue as to who the any-mouse alderman/woman is.
Then, if we voted for them, or didn't vote against them, we'd be able to kick ourselves in the ass with confidence that we got it coming.
1)How much Taxpayer money can Mayor Daley and his friends steal?
This event is rigged just like everything else in this City.
2) Newspaper Editors Spin Event.This event is for all News media, it test there skill in not reporting corruption by Mayor Daley, then spinning it as "everyone accepts a lttle corruption!"
3)Mayor Daley's "I don't Know Him." event. This event consist of Daley's family and friends walking in front of him and him saying " I don't know him" with a straight face.
Please if you have any ideas for events for Chicago's 2016 Olympics post them hear, I'll see them and consider them for 2016!
1) humbly and reluctantly accepted the nomination for independent candidate for mayor.
2) been elected by a landslide of disgusted, formerly discouraged and down-right pissed off voters.
3) taken office in his usually dignified and stylish manner.
4) instituted not only fair, efficient, economical and equitable fiscal policies, but also all remaining useless clout hangers-on who haven't the sense to run for the hills on the day of his nomination.
Frankie C.
His slogan: JUST GO FOR IT!
The Mayor won, Walls and Brown lost.
Get over it. You, John Kass, Mark Brown, Eric Zorn, etc., need to get over it.
The people have spoken and they are not buying your gloom and doom.
Save yourself the anguish and just move to the suburbs, like KAss and Brown, and Mary Mitchell and the other armchair mayors.
1) the small minority who's own personal financial interests
motivated them to 'bring out the vote', in the usual manners.
2) most of the many who, having been conditioned by mass media propaganda, concluded that 'what's the use of voting, Daley's got it all wrapped up, anyway'.
3) some more of the many, who's votes were split between the two challengers. ('Divide and Conquer')
4) and the remainder of the many who, seeing only the positive improvements around them, forget that these improvements are being made on the taxpayers' dimes and at a cost far exceeding their actual worth.
"The people have spoken"?
In fact, only a small minority of 'people' have spoken, as in:
"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."
As for moving to th suburbs, why, thank you for confirming the mayor's and his minion's desires.
That is the end game goal, isn't it? To have the residents of our great city be ONLY those pledged in fealty to his highness and his associates.
How British!
And how ironic, coming from an Irishman!
Nothing to do with the Olympics, but I'm going to steal a few bytes of web space here to respond to this week's "Works" column since your publisher has apparently not yet figured out how to capture the conversations the Reader generates.
First comment is, I wish you would have given the column inches over to Stone the Elder, especially since we're having a heck of time getting the guy on record on anything. As you know, before the primary he avoided debates saying he didn't want the challengers to gang up on him, but now that the field has narrowed he's still making excuses.
But the main thing I want to do is remind your readers of a counter-example to:
The Jay Stone Theory of Aldermanic Runoffs
We normally benchmark theories against existing data before using them to making predictions.
In 2003 in the 21st ward a challenger for alderman forced a run-off, and come from behind in the primary, to prevail in the run-off over an incumbent alderman.
February, 2003 Municipal Primary
Candidate Votes %
LEONARD DeVILLE* 6570 48.84%
HOWARD B. BROOKINS, JR. 5038 37.45%
BARBARA J. JONES (B.J.) 824 6.13%
WOODY T. REMBERT 122 0.91%
KEVIN AMMONS 324 2.41%
ADRIENNE A. SMITH 573 4.26%
Conventional wisdom: a 1500 vote deficit is insurmountable, but...
April, 2003 Aldermanic Run-Off
Candidate Votes %
HOWARD B. BROOKINS, JR 6015 50.54%
LEONARD DeVILLE* 5887 49.46%
* incumbent
Of the 5 2003 run-offs, the Jay Stone Theory was accurate in 4. The primary is not a perfect predictor of run-offs.
Any contracted work I've ever done, I was expected to complete at no more than the quote I submitted.
If it costs me more to finish the job, that just meant that I made less profit, which also meant I had quoted the job for too low a price. My mistake and my loss.
The few times this has occurred, I've always found it very difficult to persuade my customer to pay for my under-estimated errors, though, occasionally, they would do so, if the additional cost was not too severe and I could show them that it was an honest miscalculation on my part.
The times when I was able to complete the job at less cost than I had quoted, I usually chalked it up to my good fortune and hard work, so I was comfortable with having earned more than I had figured I would.
In any case, I figure my bid for any job based on both what I estimate it'll cost me to complete it and on what my competitors are likely to quote.
I've found that 9 times out of 10, the bids I don't get turn out to be jobs I probably couldn't have earned a profit on anyway.
So, why is it that government contracts allow so large a percentage of costs over the winning bid for a job to be paid?
It would seem like this practice would encourage fraudulent under-bidding.
Because, if I came to my customer and told him the job I quoted, and he accepted and contracted with me to complete, was going to cost much more than 5% to 10% over what we'd agreed on, he'd fire my ass and sue the pants off me.
Why do government officials enter into contracts that give so much leeway to the contractors to end up charging so much more than they had said it would cost initially?
Don't these guys know that they're supposed to be spending our money wisely?
favored bankers would get to issue bond deals and charge a slightly higher than market rate. they would then make campaign donations.
favored contractors would get plum public works projects and then make large campaign donations.
favored insurance carriers get to handle municipal insurance and then they, you guessed it, make campaign donations.
this stuff will never change. it's like wooing a woman in the 1920s vs today. the lines are a bit different, but the technique and objectives hasn't really changed.
Will you 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.
Human nature, the part that is greedy, dishonest, deceitful, treacherous, manipulative, exploitive, and just plain low-life, seems to be alive and well.
And the parts of human nature that encompass honesty, integrity, fairness, balance, generosity, kindness, equity and plain old common sense seem to be difficult to find. At least in our 'elected officials' and their associates.
Once again, however, 'never' is a long, long time.
Sure, the greedy and lust-for-power control freaks will continue to woo the public, and, likely continue to fuck same, for as long as they, the public, continue to believe their lies.
Those members of the 'public' who have been ravaged, repeatedly, for so long, are unlikely to effectively object such treatment any time soon.
But, there are those future members of the voting public who have yet to actually be violated, those not yet of voting age, who have only the sordid tales of woe from their parents, and other adults, to base their present and future opinions on.
Will they be 'giving up without a fight', like their 'elders', being pre-conditioned to believe all the lies that their parents have convinced themselves are true?
Lies like 'there's no point in voting, all politicians are bums and crooks' or 'it's just the way things are, we just gotta make the best of it' or 'there's nothing wrong with the way things are done, it's the american way' or 'you gotta play the game of politics by the rules that exist, and it's a waste of time to try to change those rules' or 'things are , today, just as our founding fathers designed them to be' or ..... you fill in the rest.
While it may seem hopeless, ie. devoid of all hope, it is really only hope-less, as in being of less hope than more.
To surrender completely to the violators is no different than to embrace the touch of the rapist.
Force, whether physical, emotional, economic, mental or otherwise, exerted for the purpose of achieving goals contrary to the benefit and good of all, is the very essence of evil.
Evil, as in the opposite of Live.
Abandon ye not hope, even at the gates of hell, for the surest means used to defeat the righteous is hopelessness.
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?
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.
Almost as much as a 'voter' who isn't even registered to vote.
'Cause the vote that is never cast is one less vote for a challenger.
Incumbents wet their pants in glee when they see a record low voter turnout.
The sales of Depends skyrockets.
The conventional wisdom is that two 'voters' who don't vote are worth one voter who does.
So, don't anyone dare to criticize those 'voters' who don't vote, they're an invaluable asset to all incumbent elected officials and their minions. :)
Hail the Unregistered Voter!
Hail the Illegal Immigrants!
Without these three groups, we, the 'leaders' of this great city wouldn't get much sleep, at night or during city council meetings!
Without these three groups, we, and our pals and buddies, wouldn't be getting fat and wealthy, just by pulling the many strings at our disposal!
Without these three groups, we might have to face the horrific possibility of having to, can I say it, actually WORK for our daily bread!
Hail ALL who make it easy for us to do what we do best, for, all evidence to the contrary, we really DO love them all!!
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.
Some sat that if one repeats a lie often enough, it will be accepted as the truth.
The same is true of the truth.
The truth has to be repeated as often, or more often, than a lie, just to have a chance of showing the lie to be what it is.
Here's the formula for stimulating political change:
* 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.
* 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.
Make whatever specific exceptions to the above rules you choose to, but, remember that this formula is designed for the purpose of countering the effective practice of 'splitting the vote' of those wanting to fire the incumbent.
This is precisely what enabled Harold Washington to become our first 'black' mayor, and precisely how Richard the 2nd just got re-elected.
If you, the voter, are NOT satisfied with your representative(s), the only opportunity you EVER have to change things is on ELECTION DAY.
And ONLY if you've REGISTERED TO VOTE and show up and CAST YOUR VOTE(S).
One of the most lame reasons for retaining an incumbent is 'better the devil we know, than the one we don't.'
If the voters elect someone new this time around, they can, if not satisfied with his/her service, apply the same formula in the next election, continuing the practice until all candidates for political office get the message.
That message being: YOU SERVE US, WE DON'T SERVE YOU.
TRY IT, YOU'LL LIKE IT!
"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?