Yeah, when Lake Shore Drive has some potholes, it's a flaming emergency that has the Mayor freaking out. But CTA viaducts and tracks can be maintained at a level that would embarrass the average sub-Saharan sheikhdom - until the Olympic committee points out that it sucks. Because the average income of people who drive cars is a lot higher than the average income of people who take the El. The economics of political decisions in a nutshell, here.

Hey Westgard, buy a city sticker for that truck of yours and help pay your fair share to the city coffers.

Here's the truck.

http://morsehellhole.blogspot.com/2008/07/city-sti...

mayor daley should listen to this song. It's made for him and Oreo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqqC9We03E

1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.

2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be - this will probably not be effective. It's threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.

3. They "construct" a reality around themselves. They don't value the truth, especially if they don't see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, "Well, what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!" (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs).

4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment.

5. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there's some mysteriously "illness" that has them all stressed out. It's another excuse tool for their behavior.

6. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).

Here are some ways to tell someone is a pathological liar contributed by another WikiAnswers Contributor:

They lie about even the smallest things. For example, saying "I brushed my teeth today," when they didn't.
They add exaggerations to every sentence.
They change their story all the time.
They act very defensively when you question their statements.
They believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn't.
Here's an alternate "checklist":

Lies when it is very easy to tell the truth.
Lies to get sympathy, to look beter, to save their butt, etc.
Fools people at first but once they get to know him, no one believes anything they ever say.
May have a personality disorder.
Extremely manipulative.
Has been caught in lies repeatedly.
Never fesses up to the lies.
Is a legend in their own mind.

1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.

2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be - this will probably not be effective. It's threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.

3. They "construct" a reality around themselves. They don't value the truth, especially if they don't see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, "Well, what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!" (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs).

4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment.

5. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there's some mysteriously "illness" that has them all stressed out. It's another excuse tool for their behavior.

6. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).

Here are some ways to tell someone is a pathological liar contributed by another WikiAnswers Contributor:

They lie about even the smallest things. For example, saying "I brushed my teeth today," when they didn't.
They add exaggerations to every sentence.
They change their story all the time.
They act very defensively when you question their statements.
They believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn't.
Here's an alternate "checklist":

Lies when it is very easy to tell the truth.
Lies to get sympathy, to look beter, to save their butt, etc.
Fools people at first but once they get to know him, no one believes anything they ever say.
May have a personality disorder.
Extremely manipulative.
Has been caught in lies repeatedly.
Never fesses up to the lies.
Is a legend in their own mind.

T Westgard wants to rid the city of all the blacks

http://morsehellhole.blogspot.com/2007/04/lost-wes...

westgard hates barack.... just sayin'

http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/2008/08/fabo-h...

...that we see Daley riding the Beijing subway, only because the International Olympic Committee pointed out that our CTA is pathetic. Chicago a world-class city? It's more like a 3rd world city run by a junta now.

All Chicagoans and the International Olympic Committee will probably get is lip service, whatever it takes to win the games. I hope the International Olympic Committee is wise enough to see past Daley's BS.

But if Chicago wins the olympics, Daley will be sucking money from wherever and however he can. The federal government will probably get lip service and politicians will cough up some money out of political motives. The Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority will probably become the McPier Olympic Authority, raising our sales taxes even higher.

In the end any money spent on the CTA will probably be wasted away by city employees, contractors, friends of Daley, etc. At best the CTA will get a paint job, while express bus services are created to connect olympic travelers from the airports to the olympic village, conveniently shielding visitors from the reality of Chicago's transit system. I bet Daley's trip includes communist Beijing's tips on shielding visitors from reality as well. Maybe more collaboration on surveillance systems to squash dissent as well, but I digress.

When the Olympics are over, the city will probably be even more broke, our sales tax will probably be 13% or higher, Chicagoans will be paying the tab for decades as Daley and his buddies laugh their way to the bank. Maybe it'll look like 1980 all over again with people fleeing Chicago.

We already have the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority as an example, one that's been sucking tax dollars since '89 at least. I thought the MPEA taxes were supposed to be temporary, ceasing after Pier and McCormick renovations were complete, but the taxes never ended. After nearly 20 years aren't Navy Pier and McCormick Place viable, self-sustaining entities?

When a hot dog is $4, a soda is $3, and a movie can be $16 at Navy Pier, while Chicagoans are still being taxed to keep it open, and overall paying the highest taxes in the nation, maybe Navy Pier doesn't deserve to exist, at least not at the expense of taxpayers.

Politicians and other crooks like to run around claiming you have to spend more to make more, but here we are with the highest sales tax in the nation, a crappy transit system, a crappy school system, etc. etc. etc. Now we're going to compound Chicago's problems with the olympics? For the benefit of tourists and to the detriment of Chicagoans? When are our elected officials ever going to learn? Why is it that the electorate never holds them accountable?

Maybe we need a mayor who can truly lead this city into the 21st century, and definitely take some clues from the world's most livable cities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Most_Livable_...

Maybe we should concentrate on doing what it takes to make Chicago a world's most livable city for its citizens, instead of letting Daley run this city as Circus Chicago.

"Maybe we should concentrate on doing what it takes to make Chicago a world's most livable city for its citizens, instead of letting Daley run this city as Circus Chicago."


And the very FIRST step must be to break up the cozy cabal that is our Democratic AND Republican parties.


REGISTER TO VOTE


VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION


HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT

Voting incumbents out sounds great in theory, but isn't reality, because some people will still base their vote on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and political party.

"Voting incumbents out sounds great in theory, but isn't reality, because some people will still base their vote on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and political party."


Presumably because these 'some people' you refer to place a higher value on the commonalities you have enumerated than on retaining more of their earnings for them to decide how and for what to spend them.

So, if your premise is true concerning the casting of votes in elections, is it also true in other areas of these some people's lives?

For example, if any one of these 'some people' were to observe an individual, possessing one, or more, of your listed commonalities, enter their home, uninvited, and proceed to collect several valuable items, belonging to said 'some' person, would you expect that 'some' person to say, "Hey, buddy, you possess one or more of the qualities I possess, so, it's okay if you now choose to take my valuable property. After all, we are so alike, perhaps of the same race, or same gender, or same ethnicity, or same religion, or same sexual orientation or same political party; why, I'd be wrong, just plain wrong, to object to your removing the things I've bought with my hard earned dollars."?

Or would you expect that 'some' person to say, "What the fuck do you think you're doing, muthafucka!!! Get the fuck outta my house!!!!"


Apply the same analogy, replacing personal property with gross earned income.

Now consider that practically ALL of those reelected Incumbents are responsible, by acts of commission or omission, for the net income you receive for your labors is significantly less than the gross income, to the tune of close to 25%+ on just your payroll deductions alone. Factor in the various other tax liabilities you have to pay, once you cash that net payroll check, and the total tax burden the average working American is paying approaches 40%+ or more.

And your theory, or observation, if you will, is that there are more than enough 'some people' to ensure that the Incumbents, who are taxing the economic life out of the working people of this city, county and state, will reliably be reelected, time and time again, is it not?

Implied in your theory is the assumption that there are NOT enough 'other people' willing to place a lesser value on your enumerated commonalities than on the contents of their pockets remaining their's to control.

Perhaps it's just a question of enough people realizing that their own, individual interests are best served by placing a higher value on those interests than on the commonalities you have listed.

Your wordy, sociological theories make a great thesis, but don't reflect today's reality.

So then, your theory is that people will accept an ass-fucking, as long as it's being done by other people who present themselves as being the same "....gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and political party.", right?

Is that your perspective on "...today's reality."?

Another gem from the comments section of:


http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/



"Off Topic, but this comment needs to be placed where it can be read by all your readers.

Your contract:

Please do not fall for the gimmicks being offered to buy your "loyalty," such as new color schemes for our squads, new Tahoes, etc. The city can find money for this stuff, but cannot find money for your contract?

Come on guys and gals, wake up!

What is wrong with our current color scheme? How much is it going to cost to redo all the Department's vehicles?

Recently, an Order came out wherein Overtime for CAPS was canceled. I'm sure soon you will see all Overtime canceled, because of the budget, except for court related Overtime.

But, the Department keeps creating new positions.

Just announced, a Personal Assistant position was assigned to the Bureau of Strategic Deployment.

Come on people! A Personal Assistant!

In addition to the new Personal Assistant, the Bureau of Strategic Deployment has a Deputy Superintendent, an Assistant Deputy Superintendent, a Chief of Homeland Security, and a Deputy Chief of Homeland Security.

The Department has 2 CAPS Exempts: Chief of CAPS, and the Director of CAPS Implementation, who by the way, should be in jail because of his involvement with the GD's.

Why do we need 2 Exempts doing essentially the same thing?

We have a Superintendent's Policy Group. Why can't Research and Development handle policy suggestions; after all, policy falls under their purvue.

In IAD, there is a Chief, and a Director of Investigations, which will soon be filled by another FBI Special Agent who recently retired.

Look at the Personnel Division, a civilian heads Personnel now. Also, the Department has a Director of Marketing; again, isn't this a responsibility of Research and Development?

If these new spots and some existing spots were eliminated, think of the savings that could be used for your contract. At the very least, you are talking about 2 million dollars.

Let me talk about morale. They want you to be aggressive, yet you are told you will be fired if you disclose an illegal aliens status.

They have already proven that they will go after you in other ways if the Cook County justice system doesn't suffice.

Also, they tell you they have your back, but what does the Supt do, he hires an FBI Special Agent to be Director of Investigations in IAD.

What message is this sending?


Nepotism. The Supt said at one of his first meetings that he was going to eliminate clout on the job, but what does he do, he hires his Best Man, and another Fed, and now another Fed.

If you really need these positions, how about filling them with officers from within our ranks.

You mean that you couldn't find people qualified within our ranks instead of going outside the Department. A slap in your faces.

Outsiders: Deputy Superintendent of Professional Standards, Chief of Homeland Security, Director of Investigations for IAD, Director of Marketing, Director of Petrsonnel.

Not one person within our ranks is qualified to fill these spots?

Getting rid of good bosses before you even got to know them.

Hiram Grau - had the trust of the rank and file - was part of the Violence Reduction Initiatives that worked!

John Risley - knew how to handle major events - also part of the Violence Reduction Initiatives that worked.

Michael Chasen - like him or not, he was the right man for police shootings.

George Rosebrock - held 019 up to standards.

Yes the other dumps were on target: Kohlman - O'Donnell - Chizewski.

How about the fact that the Cmdr of Management and Labor Affairs was inept but was laterally moved.

M. Bonds. Terrible representative of the Department. Has done more damage than good.


Manpower. How about assigning SWAT members to Districts on all three watches. Provide them with cell phones. If a call comes out, you already have SWAT personnel working who can respond from their assigned Districts within minutes.

More manpower and less time waiting for SWAT to assemble.

Time Due. Watch Commanders are looking at your activity to base whether or not to approve your time off. They are playing favorites as well.

Guys and Gals, this is just a few things you need to look at.

Keep doing what you are doing. It is not worth loosing your job.

To the FOP, you should seriously look at a no-confidence vote.

8/10/2008 10:34:00 PM"

Yes, people will accept the ass fucking.