Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
E-mail to a friendThe Trib reports that among those in attendance at the epic Plan Commission meeting Thursday were Children’s Museum "proponents" bused in by the Woodlawn Organization, which is led by plan commission member Leon Finney Jr.
You and I and every other taxpayer in the state helped finance the organizational efforts and transportation costs needed to get the Woodlawn cheerleaders downtown.
Here’s how: the Woodlawn Organization is a tax-exempt, 501c3 nonprofit organization, and according to its most recent filings with the IRS, the vast majority--more than 80 percent--of its annual revenues come from government grants, most of it federal money handed out by the state and city. That amounted to $4.6 million in taxpayer money in 2006, the most recent year available.
In fairness, the organization did bring in a little more cash through "real estate management and development fees." And it raised $69,000 at a "golf gala"—though about $40,000 of that went toward expenses for the event.
When it’s not busing people to political showdowns the Woodlawn Organization uses its public money on a range of social programs, including Head Start and Chicago Housing Authority services.
Incidentally, Finney was paid $161,989 to run the group in 2006. His wife, Georgette Greenlee-Finney, earned another $60,000 as a marketing specialist.
Also on the payroll was former CHA chief Vincent Lane, who was forced to resign that job amid allegations of mismanagement. He was later convicted [PDF] of fraud and sentenced to two and a half years in federal prison. In 2006 the Woodlawn Organization paid Lane $66,781 for consulting work.
Before this news of Leon Finney and TWO's involvement, the only opinions I've heard or read from my fellow Black city residents was about the need for such a massive and wondrous investment to be made in our predominantly Black communities on the south or west side.
Mr. Finney, I'm appalled and disgusted. This is so old-school, Regular Dem Machine Hack tragic: a south side politico doing his sell-out routine in order to give his boss a good show. Mr. Finney, what "incentives" did you offer those good folks in order to get them to pile on buses to demonstrate in favor on a million project downtown?
Shame, Mr. Finney, shame!
71% of 25% = 17.75% of the whole, the whole being, presumably, the registered voters of this city.
Since the percentage of citizens meeting the criteria for voting and actually being registered to vote is approximately 50% of the whole, this means that a mere 8.87% of the total number of citizens who could be voting, voted for Daley.
Shit, that's less than 1 out of 10.
If you're correct, it's worse than I thought.
And also better.
All it will take is for a bit more than 1 out of 10 citizens to vote out Daley.
How hard can that be?
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
(Starting with the midget mayor)
"It takes more than just voting incumbents out, to get Daley out."
No, it doesn't.
It takes one candidate in the General Election, one and only one.
Daley had 2 shills 'run against him' in the Democratic Primary, to siphon off and split any dissenters in the black community.
Daley had both shills be black, to dissuade those voters who will never vote for a black mayor from voting for anyone but Daley and/or to not bother voting at all.
Were there any other candidates running for mayor?
Nope.
The Republicans didn't bother to try.
No one else bothered to try.
If just one person not a total idiot would try, giving the citizens an option and the opportunity of a General Election, and if the results were to be the same, then, and only then could you say that the people substantially support what Daley has been doing as mayor, and even that would require many more citizens to have voted, than the paltry 30%, give or take, of those registered, let alone those who haven't bothered to register.
"Out of those citizens that actually vote, most of them are bought by the mayor."
Yep, so very true.
So, what about the huge number of citizens who are registered but didn't vote?
And the even greater number of citizens who aren't registered, but could be?
Incumbents DO lose (George Bush, Richard Ogilvie, Mike Bilandic, Jane Byrne, etc.) when the people want a change.
By movement, I presume you mean the embracing, by enough citizens, of a common desire, in this case, of the majority of black (African-American descent) Chicagoans believing, for the first time ever, that, united, they could actually elect a black man as the mayor of this city.
This being because of the splitting of the 'white' vote between Byrne and Daley, in the Democratic Primary Election.
Then, as now, the Republicans failed miserably to put forth a candidate worthy of anything other than the votes from the bigoted whites then residing within the city's boundaries.
Yes, there were many non-blacks who were inspired by the always charismatic 'Harold', but without the fervency of the vast majority of blacks, even the lackluster Bernie Epton might have squeaked by with a victory, however distasteful as to it's source.
And what followed that victory?
(I'll leave it to you to elaborate on the answers to this question)
This administration/abomination, both city and county, is so entrenched that only a shift in perspective can interfere with their continued domination, that shift being from thinking that your vote is only worth casting FOR a worthy candidate to thinking that your vote is worth casting to FIRE an unworthy Incumbent.
For any significant reformation to occur here, the movement you speak of must be one of a fervent commitment to FIRE INCUMBENTS, most all who have proven to be unworthy of the publics' trust.
We, as citizens, will have to return to thinking about the basics and basis for which governments, at all levels, were created.
To do this, we must no longer be lazy thinkers, no longer accept as an excuse the apparent futility of our political processes and reject being the programmed and trained servants of what has become an effective monarchy/aristocracy.
The irony is that this economic crisis may be the necessary catalyst for stimulating a renewed sense of social and political courage and determination in those accustomed to giving up before even attempting to begin the journey.
Realistic Idealists founded this country, this Democracy, this land of hope and dreams and Realistic Idealists can restore what generations of dumbing down propagandas and relentless hypocrisies have diminished.
All it takes is to embrace being honest with ourselves.
Not a lot to ask for, if Freedom is what we truly value.
PS The Washington Movement wasn't just about splitting white votes.
All you are is a internet lurker. Nothing more, nothing less.
You sure Army Specialist Patrick Daley was not up at the Michigan Compound smoking some crack or maybe it was Judge Sheila Kilroe McGinnis going to the wrong house to party. Richie, tyour family is becoming the Kennedy's of Chicago. God does overcome Evil!
You can correct my spelling now.Also the majority of people (64%) do not like the Daley administration. The problem is no one taps into that anger of voter.
Frank Coconate & Co., I love you, and you often seem to agree on a lot of things. But with all due respect, all of the time you spend replying to blogs with this back and forth could be and should be spent in trying to work together and help mobilize this honest rebellion you are proposing and which I agree with. You obviously have the energy, now come help us achieve it.
(*The Tribune incorrectly reported that Finney was TWO's founder. He is not.)
"If you don't like the regular parties' candidates, then start your own political party(ies). Then, you might give people reasons to vote FOR someone, instead of voting AGAINST someone."
Political Parties, what, and whom, exactly, are they good for?
And why is that the first thought that comes to your mind?
And by 'regular parties's candidate', are you automatically referring to the Democratic Party of Cook County? Or is the Republican Party of Cook County included in your description of 'regular'?
And who really thinks that there aren't ample reasons already to vote out the incumbents of both 'regular parties?
And why do you think the minority of citizens who do vote consistently vote to reelect these 'regular party' incumbents?
And why do you think that that minority is a minority of both the total number of citizens who could vote and the total nymber of citizens who are registered to vote?
Could it be that both these 'regular' political parties have done such an exemplary job of discouraging citizens from voting AND such a complete job of indoctrinating citizens into believing that political parties are the ONLY means by which a Democracy can exist, that the vast majority of citizens have accepted the relinquishing of their own, individual responsibilities to control their own governance and rarely, if ever, question the basic methods by which they have been led to this sorry state of being the servants of government, rather than government being the servant of the citizens?
Is it really necessary, for the best interests of the citizens, to have government functioning as this Big Brother overseer of the citizens?
Is it truly beneficial to the citizens to be lied to, deceived, manipulated and cajoled into effectively working close to half of their lives just to pony up the taxes that these two 'regular' political parties routinely waste, misuse and just plain steal?
"Originally, you said vote incumbents out, but you changed tunes with shilled candidates."
No, the tune didn't change.
Shill candidates prevent, as you well know, the voters from uniting behind a single challenger, mostly in the given 'regular' party's Primary.
Why?
Because of the previously mentioned tunnel vision focussed on voting FOR a specific candidate.
Shift that focus to voting OUT a specific Incumbent, determine how to avoid splitting your votes between multiple challengers, that would be where the party's shills come into play, and you will, at the very least, deny the Incumbent reelection.
This, in and of itself, would be a powerful and meaningful event, as the long term, entrenched Incumbents are the least likely to give a shit about the best interests of their constituency, when they do not authentically fear being ousted.
"What about elections, where the incumbent is the ONLY candidate?"
What about them?
They're not even elections, are they?
They're coronations.
And why, in a supposedly best for the voters two-party system, would there ever be an election with only the Incumbent seeking the specific office?
"PS The Washington Movement wasn't just about splitting white votes."
Never said it was.
But, since you've chosen, at this time, NOT to respond to my invitation for you to elaborate on what happened after Harold was elected, can I presume you don't know? Or don't remember? Or don't want to say?
By the By, I did not contribute to the DeLeo Kass Column. I told you before ,I would have been mentioned. Also DeLeo does the same thing DoHerty, McAulliffe, Kevin Joyce,Pat O'Connor or any other elected official would do....the difference he is Italian.
Who the hell do you think you are other than a crybaby whose family suffers because of your need to feed your ego?
And dumbass, the community won the Lincoln Park battle, unlike anything you've been able to do for your own neighborhood.
Your were a disappointment to your dad, and blew your chance to be any kind of role model to your own family.
Your pathetic life revolves around these message boards, and all you try to do is extort cash from elected officials and candidates. You kiss all of their asses until they won't pay you, then you focus your energy on trying to screw them over. Nice values to teach the kids, lowlife.
Hell, you make Rev. Jackson look honorable by comparison.
didn't no ya brother was gay. ya dad must be proud of da two of yous.
It's a shame you don't have the balls to give your name. You are scared of what I'll do to you. So until you have the nerve to say your name , your statements mean nothing. By the way did Patrick daley, Gerald Breimon or Sheila Kilroe McGinnis have the same priest . Father McCormack?
Coconuts makes me honorable? He must be doin somthin right.
Maggie go at Richie.
Shouldn't a federal fraud conviction automatically disbar you from having any chance of getting $60k worth of "consulting work" from a taxpayer-funded organization?
Fuck the CTA, fuck the CHA and fuck all these cesspools of ignorant, barely literate morons who take home salaries more than double what they'd be able to earn in the real unclouted world.
Look at the BGA website and see lightbulb repairmen getting paid $70k a year. And we wonder why there's no money to fix the roads.
What a shitty city Chicago is, full of witless buffoons and led by a mayor whose IQ seems to drop by the day.
"Oh, but at least we're not Detroit" cry the imbeciles. Yeah, and that's in spite of Daley, not because of him.
He was with that sell out racist Dorothy Tillman.
These house negroes are making the city more white--but maybe Daley is right and that is a good thing.
We will see how many Black kids go to the Childrens Museum.
Very few go to the one in Navy Pier and less in Glenview.
Daley has cut public transportation and it is not accessible by public transportation and no known plans for shuttle.
There are many other good locations.
"OUTFIT COP BEATS UP POOR OLD MAN"
He is a nobody. Now go put your Lawn Jockey uniform back on and stand in front of Mayor daley's Michigan home.
Yes. He made millions ripping off the African Americans with ribs so loaded with sauce that you couldn't tell it was dog meat! Than soon as I died ,he took the Daley Deal from Rudy Polk. Just like little Louie Gutteirez. Just like Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr, except in Jesse Jr case, he used the threat of running for Mayor-Toget his wife elected and be part of the O'Bama bull-shit express.
So to answer your question. He made his money selling ribs and his race.
Finney is corrupt.
But some of these posts especially about dead babies are offensive, disgusting and stupid.
Too many of these posts are inside baseball and strange.
Nice of you to admit that you are not a supporter of Democracy.
Refreshingly honest.
it really sux when you go up against your own tax dollars
"You aren't a supporter of democracy either, with your silly "vote incumbents out". The US is officially a republic."
Just what do you think a Democracy is?
Or do you even think about the nature and purpose of Democracy?
And the purpose of government?
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT is far from 'silly'.
It's the responsible thing to do, when Democratic government has become Default Dictatorship and Arrogant Aristocracy.
Since our local version of a Legislature, the City Council, refuses to fulfill it's authentic purpose, as a check against the dictatorship of the Executive, ie., the Mayor, the only reasonable and responsible action the city's citizens should take is to VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS.
The only question is, will enough citizens do what is reasonable and responsible, will enough citizens:
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
or will we continue to be burdened with a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy?
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Before every election, compile a list of the Incumbents seeking reelection, from every branch of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, and for every contested office, be it city, county, state or federal.
Bring this list with you when you go to vote.
In Primary Elections:
Vote in the Primary of the political party of your choice, preferably that party which has the most Incumbents seeking their party's nomination to be that party's candidate in the General Election.
The goal is to deny Incumbents reelection in the General election, so, if the Incumbent fails to win their party's Primary Election, that Incumbent will not be that party's candidate in the General Election.
If the Incumbent has only 1 challenger, vote for that challenger.
If the Incumbent has 2 or more challengers, then, to maximize the votes for a single challenger, vote according to ballot name position, following these two, simple rules of thumb:
1. If the Incumbent's name is listed FIRST, vote for the Challenger whose name is listed LAST
or
If the Incumbent's name is NOT listed first, vote for the Challenger whose name IS LISTED FIRST.
Denying the Incumbents their party's nomination to run in the General election will ensure that those Incumbents will now be Ex-Incumbents.
In the General Election, if given the opportunity, vote for any candidate who is NOT a member of the Democratic or Republican party.
Breaking the stranglehold these two party's have on our governments is the only means of returning democracy to Our Democracy, Of the
People, By the People and For the People.
Anything less is, and has been, proven to be futile.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT