The Blog

yawn..... stretch.... yawn some more....

'boring-ion' is even boring himself into a stupor........

"Gatziolis said Special Events has 71 full-time staff, a number that hasn't changed much in the last several years. "There's a lot of hard-working people here," she said. 'It would be nice if we had 300, but we don't.'" Yeah, I'll bet this lady would like to have 300 on her staff, after all, it's not like she's providing a service we, the taxpayers, can decline to purchase. It would be nice if Mick would provide a breakdown of each and every city department's staffing and salaries, just so we can all fully savor the costs of all the many benefits we get from our tax dollars. Perhaps an explanation of what each department does, as in services provided, would also be interesting reading. The sleepy-head poster above might wake up to read it.

Maybe instead of being a lazy ass you could do your own research and find this information out for yourself. It is all on the internet, but that would involve a little work, something the counterculture crowd is afraid of.

Sorry, but that would be stealing Mick's rice bowl, not done among civilized folk. But, then, you wouldn't know anything about that.

Mick, Next time ask him how many Outfit guys are on the City Pay-Role. Start with Water Managements Mike Terranova ......Thats for Orion/DM !

Hey Frank, how's Gabe and your brother doin' ?

Get off the internet!! Daley has 38 pairs of shoes he needs you to spit-shine. Chop chop.

For those who appear to have abandoned this thread of comments, due to the irritating nature of the buzzing mosquito going by the name of 'orion', please don't let it be that easy for the bug to chase you away from this fertile ground for conversation. When you've got something to share, post it, I guarantee your post will be read, considered and engaged in.

Well, actually, staffing really isn't the issue, what you want is Return on Investment as compared to other large municipalities. What exactly is the value that Special Events brings, in terms of tourist dollars, investments, etc? More importantly, It is not surprising that payrolls would increase in election years. Running an election requires a lot of man hours of effort; the load on all city departments would increase, as citizens and politicians make inquiries and demands and hold public meetings to discuss the issues of the election. For example, the load on Streets and Sanitation would increase, each of those public meetings, even if politically motivated, generates trash, traffic and a whole host of other issues that need to be met, irregardless of what candidate is sponsoring them. Then again, there is also Chicago's rather enthusiastic approach to participatory democracy, involving a host of dirty tricks by all sides of the political spectrum, all of which need to be cleaned up after impartially. Thats not even including the various sorts of security and administrative functions needed. How many extra permits are issued in an election year?

Staffing and the misuse of our tax dollars during an election year is really what the issue is, and all the patronage positions throughout local government has absolutely nothing to do with "a Return on Investment." The taxpayers don't pay their taxes to 'invest' in incumbents to pay our public servants for the many man hours of effort to discuss the issues of the election. As far as the public meetings - the mayor wouldn't even debate his opponents, and many of his hacks on the council like your buddy Stone refused to sit down in a public meeting with any of his opponents, and the 50th ward is one of dirtiest on the North side regardless of its an election year or not - and you don't need a permit to hold a debate. Chicago's 'rather enthusiastic approach to participatory democracy' - were do you come up with BS?! You are the biggest Tool I have ever come across. Not one of those extra patronage spots filled has anything to do with cleaning up after the election - who the hell do you think your fooling? Thanks for the Socratic input you piece of shit Tool.

Don't be too hard on randy, he's gone over to the dark side and doesn't even know it.

Good to see the tinfoil-helmet crowd is never at a loss for conspiracies

Hey Darrell, I told you to spit-shine my shoes. I gotta look good for the crew at Gibson's. Don't make me find a new lackey!!

Yessa, massa! Isa bees rite dere, quicks as I canz! Pa, Pa, Pa, Pleeeez donts beets mees!

You think they could find a job for Frank Coconate picking up horse do-do or sweeping floors. Ask Mayor Daley to give Frank something, anything. Just do not give Frank any job that requires work. Frank has kids for crying out loud. Daley is very silly, very silly. Daley should be licking Frank Coconate's booty for all the blowing on the whistle.

Earth to Frank: You were caught stealing/loafing on the job. Face the fact. You are not getting your job back. Now if you play nice, we may get you a job at a toll both or something. But then you would too tempted to steal the nickels.

Fuck you.

Ahhh, nothing like the smell of censorship in the morning. Let me get this straight, Frank's crude entreat to engage in sexual intercourse with me is deemed appropriate (especially for the kids that read this site), yet when given an equally, yet less profane comeback, that is censored ? Sounds like the editor may have a skeleton in his closet, yearning to "come out".

Skinny Sheehan at Special Events is the guy who fixed the contracts for the Duff family. The corrupt mafia Irish family who had connections to Accardo and the older brother threatened to kill a police officer and his family because he got arrested picking up a transvestite prostitute. The Duffs got no bid contracts and defrauded the minority contract system. THANKS JAMES "Jimmy" "Skinny" SHEEHAN

Any proof of that or is that another urban myth ? Look out, I hear black helicopters in the distance.

Not sex, just fuck you.

Skinny takes orders from Jerry Joyce, who takes orders from Tim Degnan, who takes orders from John Daley, who works with the Outfit Controlled 36th ward, who takes the request to NO-NOSE!!!!! By the way orifus.....my brothers are doing fine ....on cloud 9 !!

It would be nice if you assholes at least knew how to spell Sheahan. It's funny how all you fuckers bit on the steak, but when someone asked you to actually work for it, you fucking up and play like it's all their fault. The system's a sham! Bullshit! By the way, Happy Mike, if Skinny had done everything you claim, i.e.-the no-bid contracts to the Duffs, the FBI would be all over his ass, particularly when you consider all the crap that went down with a co-worker of his at McPier. Now go take your conspiratorial theories and shove them up your ass. You hear shit from some bitter fuck in a bar and christ almighty, it's like it's the god's honest truth. You and Kass are maggots.

Don't bust a nut, you may need them soon.

When you think about it, here are a few of the main problems we, the citizens, voters and non-voters alike, have, with the present state of the 'system': 1) Are all these job positions necessary to fulfill the essential, beneficial-to-the-citizens functions of government? 2) Are all of those employed in these positions doing the best job possible, not merely the best job THEY can do, but the best job POSSIBLE? 3) Are these employees being paid only as much as is necessary to keep the best people, doing the best job possible, for the benefit of the citizens, from seeking employment elsewhere? 4) Do the citizens in general have an equal opportunity to be employed in these job positions, so only the best people will be hired to do the best job possible? 5) Are there ANY positions currently being worked, and paid for, that are NOT necessary to serve the citizens in the best way possible? 6) Are there positions that have proven themselves to NOT be for the sole purpose of benefiting the citizens? 7) Do the citizens, voters and non-voters alike, have access to clearly understandable information for them the consider, in seeking to determine the answers to all of the above questions? 8) Does the discovery of connections between city, (and county and state and federal), employees and political party members and membership indicate that the processes of hiring have been unfair, unequal and have resulted in the best people possible NOT being employed? 9) Even if the best people for a given job have been hired because of political connections, do the citizens still feel that the fairness and equal opportunity elements that have not been respected are more important to them than the quality of the work being done? 10) Do the citizens feel that the influence of political connections, in the hiring and budgeting of city jobs, results in a greater expense to the taxpayers, than would be the case without this influence? 11) Do the citizens believe that EVERY service, provided to them by their city government, is necessary, beneficial, efficient and fairly staffed? 12) Do the citizens believe that EVERY expenditure made of their tax dollars is solely for their benefit? 13) Do the citizens have access to clearly understandable information describing ALL the various, specific functions and purposes and performances of ALL the city departments, services and expenditures made in their name and for their sole benefit? If those in the profession of journalism were to focus on gathering the information that could answer the above questions, present their findings to the public, stimulate public thinking about these findings, stimulate responses to same and provide a venue, such as this one, for citizens to express their opinions on same, it would, at the very least, be an interesting exercise in the meanings and applications of our 1st Amendment Rights.

"re stop May 30th - 5:21 p.m. 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."