The Blog

Wasn't it just a few days ago this blog attempted to tarnish the image of Joe Moore. There are 50 wards after all. There must be something happening some where else in the city. Maybe something about the upcoming hearings on Todd Stroger's proposed budget for Cook County? Maybe something about Barack Obama's recent endorsement of the Mayor? There really is a lot more going on in the city than one would realize from this blog. I think the authors of this blog should also provide equal time to some of the other wards, there really are some interesting stories out there. But then I guess the Reader is beholden to it's advertisers (and members of the Chicago Chamber of Commerce). They are probably contractually obligated to write an anti-Moore piece at least once a week. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Joe Moore is of one of our cities finest, most progressive Alderman. Joe Moore is one of the few brave and independent council members we have. If any of the commenters in any way cherish the liberal principles of freedom, equality, human dignity, tolerance, and the celebration of diversity, and believe that our common wealth should be used for the common good, then please speak to that and which candidate will help best achieve the those goals. I have no doubt you'll come to the conclusion that Joe Moore is the one!

It would seem Randall is making a legitimate point. Looking back at the blog home page these are the posts listed and 3 of them are related to Joe Moore - that is 30% - though this isn't probably a fair sampling. Jan 22 49th Ward - current post Jan 20 Kozicki - patronage scandal - 4 comments Jan 18 50th Ward - 25 comments Jan 18 25th Ward - 13 comments Jan 17 CFL endorsements - 7 comments Jan 17 27th Ward - 4 comments Jan 15 49th Ward - 41 comments Jan 12 CTA resolution - 13 comments Jan 11 37th Ward - 0 comments Jan 11 Bill "Dock" Walls - 1 comment I live in the 43rd Ward and would like hear a story on Vi Daley. I'm not voting for her. But there are several challengers. Peter Zelchencko has been making a lot of news lately because the Board of Elections keeps letting our personal data - birthdates, address, social security numbers - fall into the wrong hands. There's a good story. I think Michelle Smith has a good chance at it too. Haven't heard much from the others. As for Joe Moore, don't know much about him, but I like his sense of humor. I don't think I would have handled the confrontation so well.

Randall, I'm not going to take sides in the 49th Ward, but I have to ask you, as someone that lived in Rogers Park for years, what the hell have you been smoking? You need to sit down and come up with a list of antonyms for all the adjectives you used to describe Joe Moore. Then you will have an adequate description of what that guy is all about. My only regret is that there isn't someone that has a shot in 49 like Greg Brewer does in 50.

Mike said.... Looking back at the blog home page these are the posts listed and 3 of them are related to Joe Moore - that is 30% - though this isn't probably a fair sampling. I wonder why the race is so popular? http://morsehellhole.blogspot.com

To the commentor interested in the 43rd ward, here's something to look at. http://43rdward.blogspot.com/

From one who was labeled 'naysayer' to the media after the deadly Marshfield fire on Labor Day weekend, just do a search on http://www.howardwatchers.blogspot.com for a photo tour of 'bad buildings', 'vacant buildings', 'slumlords' that depict the failed social experiment Joe calls progressivism.

> Joe Moore is of one of our cities finest, most progressive Alderman. > Joe Moore is one of the few brave and independent council members we have. May I ask, what is your evidence for this? Thanks.

> I guess the Reader is beholden to it's advertisers (and members of the Chicago Chamber of Commerce). News flash, Moore apologists: after reading the Tribune's editorials on foie gras and big box, I think it is safe to say Moore has NO chance at the Tribune endorsement, either. Those corrupt newspapers! You guys are just warming up gabbing at the little ole Reader.

That's a good question. Why does the 49th ward get so much attention. For a while it used to be 46. Again why are the wards that are represented by white independents overrepresented by the Reader. Off the top of my head, that's probably where the bulk of the Readers readers are. Those two wards are also where the most affordable housing stock is along the the lakefront and the red line. So the aldermen with the reputations for the most (northside) independence are in wards that should be ripe for developers. Independence often equates to anti-development and support for the working middle-class. So the so-called independent aldermen in 46 and 49 constantly find themselves threading the thin line between independence and development. Folks like Hugh probably fault them on both counts. They are not developing the neighborhood enough and they are not independent enough. He's probably looking for an Alderman independent of the mayor and the developers that can get the mayor and the developers to put money into the ward. Good luck Hugh. Craig G above is probably doesn't care about independence. He just wants to live in Lincoln Park. Well not quite that of course, because he probably couldn't afford to live there. He wants the amenities of LIncoln Park without the costs. Good Luck Craig. For all these people being being an Alderman is easy. Just do x and y and z. They, like most of us, are naive about the job. Another reason for 49 this year is that it's easy for the Reader to report because they have the HellHole blog to use as a source. I'm sure the blog is not as unsophisticated as the name implies. I'm sure the writers are really well-meaning and sincere folks. I'm not so sure I would trust them to be good judges of aldermanic practice. But hey, I live in the uncontested world of Mary Ann Smith. Joe should have taken some lessons in "democracy" from her. Some of this is ramble. Is there a preview and edit option somewhere here?

> ... an Alderman independent of the mayor and the developers that can get the mayor and the developers to put money into the ward. Good luck Hugh. Thanks, bro. I'm working on it. You tell yourself what you have to reconcile your endorsement with your guy's documented record of pay-to-play. Rogers Park Tear Down Gallery http://www.forum49.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=377

> ... naive about the job. Sophisticated Chicagoans don't confront their alderman about the relationship between their legislative activities and their campaign fund raising activities. It serves no useful purpose and just annoys the alderman.

> Why does the 49th ward get so much attention. Because the biggest hypocrites make the best copy? The most interest aldermen are the ones who are the biggest airbags on social progressive issues while at the same time fulfilling every stereotype of the campaign-contribution grubbing, back-room dealing, craven rubber stamp politician.

The reason the 49th Ward gets so much attention is that there is a large but loose coaltion of well-organized, highly-motivated, sophisticated grassroots organizers that are deeply committed to political involvement, and when anyone writes about our local politics, we dive into the subject like a swarm of ants. Not everyone likes ants, especially if you're holding a big campaign picnic, but you can't deny their relentlessness.

I'm glad I don't live in the 49th ward.

If slander is considered sophisticated grassroots organizers - Then the Ginderske campaign is the most sophisticated of them all. http://morsehellhole.blogspot.com/2007/01/ginderske-campaign-pass-buck-and-blames.html

You guys aren't grassroots, organizers, organized, or sophisticated. It's clear your highly motivated, but literally the same 6 people sitting around whining.

Sophisticated organizers recognize all politicians are about the same and are able to switch allegiances on a dime.

JUST SO ALL YOU 49TH WARDERS KNOW--"HUGH"IS 50TH WARD RESIDENT AND PREMIER HATE-MONGER HUGH DEVLIN--APPARENTLY "HUGH" HATES ALL INCUMBENTS AND IS A SERIAL CYBER-TERRORIST SMEAR ARTIST--A WORD TO THE WISE EVERYTHING"HUGH"POSTSIS MOTIVATED BY HIS HATREDS AND A KEYBOARD IN FRONT OF HIM IS A TOOL OF PURE --EVIL!! HUGH -WHEN DO YOU RUN FOR OFFICE AND FACE THE VOTERS?

Ilana, when will you run for office and face the voters?

==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT== 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.

Get your affairs in order for the next election David E. Neeley!