The Blog

I told y'all Scott Waguespack was good. Now, can we get another dozen like him in 2011?

Only a dozen?

just trying to be realistic, I'd certainly like to see more.

Whew! Glad I got my rezoning in, and just under the wire too!

Shouldn't we start a website called corruptchicago.com ?? The whole Zoning Department process where developers twist it for their own profit and regular people are left behind having to obey archaic rules about side setbacks needs to go!!!!! And DCAP.... Don't get me started!!!! These two places need to be hosed down!!! The movement will start here...

I have a picture of Mayor Daley [IMG]http://www.nbc5.com/2007/0518/13346065_200X150.jpg[/IMG] Vote for Daley!!!

GUYS PLEASE DON'T FORGET THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS,STILL RUN BY LOVABLE CHRISTOPHER KOZICKI.

"a modest proposal April 2nd - 10:46 p.m. For your consideration: The citizens of our once great country will not be honestly served by their 'public servants' until such time as there are no political parties. When the voting public participates at a much higher rate than the present 15% - 20% of those eligible to vote, that will be the time when the citizens will treat their employees, the aforementioned servants of the public, as employees are treated in the 'private' sector, ie. if your job performance is unsatisfactory, you get fired. The catalyst for change begins with firing all incumbents, the 'flush the toilet and start with a fresh bowl' method. Newly elected public servants will then have to earn the privilege of continuing to remain employed as same. The selective, party-prejudiced efforts to register only those citizens whose party loyalty agrees with ones own is the primary cause of the high levels of unregistered non-voters. Voter apathy can be overcome by a united commitment to voting out all incumbents. The effect of seeing a successful firing of even a small number of incumbents will encourage the newly registered voter to repeat the experience, until those seeking public office get the message. All that is required is that the effort be made by enough of those currently not participating in the election process to overcome those staunch supporters of 'business-as-usual' governance. WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT Use the following formula to maximize the effectiveness of your vote: 1) The voter MUST know who the INCUMBENTS are. 2) NEVER VOTE FOR THE INCUMBENT. 3) If there is only ONE CHALLENGER, vote for that candidate. 4) If there are two or more challengers, then: a) If the incumbent is listed FIRST, then vote for the candidate who is listed LAST. b) If the incumbent is not listed first, then vote for the candidate who IS LISTED FIRST. Should you sincerely like an incumbent candidate, by all means vote for him / her. Remember, however, that those who have been in power for decades have been able to do so by being unified in their support of the party chosen. To counter this unity-of-purpose, the common citizen must have the same strength of unity, albeit, one focused on ousting the incumbents. The above is a strategy that will be the most effective at achieving this goal."

"focus" you have posted this manifesto on damn near every post in this blog, and bored everyone to tears in the process. Stop being an attention whore and post something constructive. Come up with some new material.

If you're crying, it ain't because you're bored, it's 'cause you're upset at the possibility that enough voters will turn out and implement this strategy and put your ass out of a job. You should try coming up with some 'new' material, as in something other than impotent bitch-ragging. Apparently, you ain't got nothing better to do, while you wait for your 3 hour lunch break to arrive.

"focus", I think many of the incumbents are incompetent hacks who need to be voted out. However you've posted your manifesto so fucking many times that it has become irrelevant. You scare away those who may be sympathetic to your cause. Try some new material instead of copy/pasting the same damn thing on every entry.

Hey, buddy, feel free to rephrase the essence of the idea in your own words, if you truly "think many of the incumbents are incompetent hacks who need to be voted out.". If you've got a more efficient and potentially effective way to do it, share your ideas. If you read this comment board for the sole purpose of your own amusement and entertainment, hungering for 'fresh, new material' to stimulate your monkey, try surfing for porn, 'cause trying to turn this comment board into a political version of 'Entertainment Tonight' or 'Extra, Extra' isn't worthy of someone who presents himself as being sincerely interested in figuring out what to do to promote changes in our defective political systems. If you've got more intelligent and thoughtful comments to make, post them, as many times as you like, if what you've written is interesting, no one will complain that it isn't 'fresh' or 'new', as intelligent ideas are well worth repeating and re-reading.

OK "focus" here is what I think would be more effective: Instead of posting the same thing ad nauseum, focus on a specific officeholder, say the one mentioned in the blog entry. Give reasons why you believe that person should be retained or voted out. This type of reasoning would be far more effective with your intended audience.

My intended audience, if you're correct, has been focusing on individual, incumbent politicians for decades, buying into the false premise that an incumbent office holder has, somehow, earned the 'right' to be re-elected, unless that person has done something or things to warrant being 'fired'. This premise is what is responsible for all of the lousy 'representatives' we have been burdened with for generations. Before you point out that these 'public servants' were duly elected by the 'people', let's examine that assumption. First, ask the question, 'How many citizens are, at any given moment in time, qualified to vote, ie., 18 years of age or older, citizens, whether born or naturalized and residents of the area holding an election. Think of that number as 100% of all eligible voters. Next, I believe we can safely propose that, as a rule, no more than 50% of the whole are registered to vote at any given time, for any given election. So, we start with only half of all eligible voters are registered. Then, we can also safely propose that, of those 50% who are registered, usually only half of those voters actually show up at their respective voting places and casting their votes. Thus, we see that approximately 25% of all eligible voters actually vote in any given election. Since, at most, a candidate needs only 51% of voters to choose him/her to win, we can safely conclude that a mere 13% of the total number of eligible voters are deciding who are elected public servants are. Granted, many will say that the 50% of eligible voters who don't register are, theoretically, expressing and enjoying their right to vote by not voting, and that the 25% of the whole, who are registered, but don't vote, are doing the same. What I wonder is, why would 75% of those eligible to vote choose not to, choose to either register, but not vote, or not even register at all. I don't believe it is because 75 out of 100 citizens are making this choice voluntarily, at least not as the word is defined in Webster's. I believe, and propose, that most of the 75 out of 100 don't vote, or register to vote, because they have concluded that their vote doesn't matter, won't change anything, isn't important and isn't worth the time and effort it takes to participate. In this, they are substantially correct, as the present public perceptions of the accepted political practices is designed to discourage the majority of citizens from participating in the political process. Your focus on individual candidates is the crux of the problem, however counter-intuitive that sounds. We can only afford to focus on the individual candidates when we have honest, intelligent, ethical and naturally helpful candidates to consider. We waste our time and energies considering and analyzing the 'professional' politicians, as they all, with few exceptions, are cut from the same cloth and want us to believe that there are no other kinds of cloth to cut from. The typical 'professional' politicians are rank opportunists, willing to act in a hurtful/harmful manner as easily as act in a helpful/harmless manner. The typical 'professional' politician is only honest and forthcoming when he/she is forced to be, defaulting to dishonesty, deception, misdirection, stone-walling and blatant double-dealing as the rule, rather than the rare exception. This is what the voters, both the 25% who routinely vote, and the 75% who do not, should be focusing on. This is the fresh, honesty and plain truth presumption that all voters should take with them into the voting booth, every election, with the challenge to the INCUMBENTS to ALWAYS have to convince enough voters that THEY DESERVE to be re-elected. This is why the entrenched incumbents strive to keep the public believing that the challengers should be the ones who have to convince voters to elect them, why the entrenched incumbents promote the wide-spread belief that they have to have screwed up really bad to warrant the voters firing them. Until such time as enough voters open their eyes and realize that, contrary to the 'professional' politicians assertions, THEY are OUR EMPLOYEES, not our 'leaders', 'masters', 'betters', or 'bosses', we will continue to be led, like sheeple, down that primrose path to poverty. In the 'private sector', one's employer requires that the employees efficiently produce value for their pay. In the 'public sector', we, the employers, seem to accept much less value from our employees, our 'public servants', than we would ever think to accept from our employees, should we own a business. We seem to accept much less value for our tax dollars from our 'public servants' than we would ever accept from our local store, contractor, service provider, etc.. The reason we accept paying so much, for so little, is, I believe, to be found in our generational conditioning to see and accept our 'government servants' not as our employees, but as our 'leaders/masters/bosses/superiors. They are anything but...... Focus on firing all incumbents. Use the outlined, mathematical formula. Register to vote and Vote on Election Day. See what will happen when the entrenched incumbents are shown the door. Should the newly elected challengers FAIL to PROVE they DESERVE to keep their jobs, vote THEM out, using the same strategy. REPEAT AS NEEDED, for as long as it takes to inspire honest people to enter what will be true public service. The experience of seeing your vote result in change will inspire more and more citizens to participate, will force any who are elected to be much more responsive to the desires of the people, and will allow us to truly know what a democracy actually is.

Did JOhn fritchey ever get his cut from the deal?