The Blog

So, we begin to see the workings of the leprechaun king's reign of 'benevolent' terror. 1) Independent thinking, (read: everything NOT the absolute, unquestioned desire of Mayor Mumbles, or his cohorts), is suppressed and rendered moot by the pointlessness of lacking enough votes to pass anything in the city council. 2) Threaten those independent thinkers with retribution and retaliations, should they dare to speak publicly, in any significant or specific way, about the 'workings' of the leprechaun king or his minions. 3) Ditto for any who do anything that impedes, delays or otherwise interferes with said workings. 4) At every opportunity, mock, denigrate, disparage and express contempt/disdain for all independent, opposition to the desires of the leprechaun king, directly from the mouth of the midget, or, more commonly, through his many surrogates, to discourage and frustrate any and all efforts to do anything contrary to the wishes of those who rule. 5) Apply the above relentlessly, consistently and ruthlessly, to keep things just as they are, just as those who rule like them to be. 6) Publicly object to any and all allegations, insinuations or accusations that we, the citizens of this city and county and state, are not enjoying the benefits of a true, representative democracy, said representatives working tirelessly and solely for the benefits of all citizens. 7) Denounce, mock, denigrate, disparage and otherwise criticize any and all journalists who dare to report the many, many, many ways, means, workings and schemes, actively engaged in by the leprechaun's minions, surrogates and agents, that are clearly NOT solely for the benefit of the, supposedly, democratically represented citizens. This 'new' development may be the timid beginning of weak, impotent dissent within the city council, dissent which may have some limited success in garnering a few meaningless concessions from the midget, but will not result in any significant reduction in the workings of our resident, 'benevolent' dictator. We all know what will. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT.

Who knows, maybe the bunch of them will get together and grow a pair. Maybe even two pair between them if they get sufficient pressure from citizens. But I do understand their reluctance

I am as quick and willing to bash the mayor's machine as anyone, but then along comes this reminder that there is something even worse -a Chicago 'progressive'.

"something even worse"? Could you please be much more specific? For the enlightenment of those few thinkers who visit this site?

Doesn't Preckwinkle already have a pair? Seriously, (is Preckwinkle anything other than serious/impersonal/humorless), if the 'progressive' caucus could lend some transparency toward the fiscal mismanagement of this city, they would go along toward their causes of affordable housing/police accountability/working wage. I wish her luck, but have little faith she can pull it off given the lack of conviction or courage of her fellow alderman. I think even 12 sounds high, much less 20. I count about 5 I would trust in any sort of progressive caucus. I count 30 I think are completely worthless and only in the council due to Daley and/or that they were born into the right family. What ever caucus she forms, I hope they will reach out to the many wards were there is opposition to the pieces of shit who represents them, but no organized support. Four years from now, the city is going to have a historic election that will decide the direction of Chicago post Daley. I only hope that Preckwinkle and her other independent alderman (all 4 of them) aren't fooled by Huberman, the heir apparent.

I think you've got something there, in that, if ANY alderman/woman were to have the balls to, on their own, publish/post the entire city budget, dollars allocated, departments, staffing, purposes and functions and duties of each department, programs, staff positions, contracted work, etc., it would go a long way in stimulating the public interest and awareness of just how mismanaged, misused and abused our hard-earned tax dollars have been and are being spent/wasted on. Whether we see any significant actions on the part of our current crop of rubber-stamps or not, the willingness of only a few alderpersons to share detailed information with the citizens may be enough impetus, over the next few years, to open the eyes of those who are not yet permanently blind. If a few souls in county and state government were to do the same, Chicago might not be the only place where evolutionary political events take place. We can only hope that enough citizens are willing to look themselves in the eye and face the fact that WE are responsible for permitting THEM to 'have their way with us'. JUST SAY NO TO ENTRENCHED INCUMBENTS. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT.

First they were communists, but after a while they had to run from that label. Then they were socialists, but after a while they had to run from that label. Now they are going with 'progressives'. It's all the same crowd. The worst of them are plain and simple poverty pimps. We're victims, and it's all the police department's fault. They're all about wealth transfer, and it's humorous that they're oblivious to the fact that those with wealth, can and will simply leave town.

Please be so kind as to define, to the best of your understanding, communist, socialist, 'poverty pimp', 'wealth transfer', and, 'those with wealth'.

No one is driving the wealthy out of Chicago, in fact it is just the opposite, they are driving the poor out to communities that simply do not have the resources to share the burden of taking care of our most indigent. The solution, however, is not as to have NO DOUBT and Vote all incumbents out anarchy of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is to encourage elected representatives like Preckwinkle/Flores/Dowell/Waguespack and a few others to lend some transparency on the under funded pension obligations, gross misuse of TIF's, and the debt level of the city of Chicago. Until we are given a clear picture of the fiscal situation of this city, and the misplaced priorities of this mayor, we are never going to get accountability of our public servants in the police department. Sadly, governments have become completely dysfunctional at all levels. City/County/State/Federal - it doesn't matter. You, the taxpayer, are not informed on how your tax dollars are being spent. If we're victims, it is because we refuse to insist on better leadership from elected officials. It isn't enough to hold many of them in low regard, we need to organize and get responsible and competent individuals in offices. But beating up on responsible folks like Preckwinkle and her efforts to get more 'progressive' legislation advanced will do little to change things. She is one of the good guys, and she needs to be more open to working with others in the city who are interested a more inclusive and progressive vision for our great city.

Keep whichever individual 'new-born babies' you want, but the effectiveness of encouraging the voters to vote out long-term, entrenched incumbents, without waiting for challengers 'worthy' of your vote to magically appear, has yet to be intelligently challenged. The amount of thought and effort necessary to determine whether an incumbent is WORTHY of being reelected is less than the same efforts pertaining to a challenger, given the fact that incumbents have a public record of their activities available to those interested in voting with thoughtful consideration, and challengers must spend a lot of money to inform the public about themselves. Voting out all ENTRENCHED, LONG-TERM INCUMBENTS is hardly 'anarchy', unless this poster believes all challengers are, without exception, complete, fucking idiots. I keep having to repeat the obvious: If there are incumbents you approve of, well, VOTE FOR THEM. If you have any doubt about an incumbent's record of honestly representing YOUR interests, VOTE THEM OUT. "Sadly, governments have become completely dysfunctional at all levels. City/County/State/Federal - it doesn't matter." So, who the fuck do you propose to say are responsible for this 'dysfunctionality', if not the LONG-TERM, ENTRENCHED INCUMBENTS? Stop being so disingenuous and dishonest, stop suggesting that I'm recommending that HONEST INCUMBENTS be voted out and start encouraging what I've been encouraging, namely, the most effective and efficient strategy to overcome the huge advantages that entrenched incumbents use to continue to rule us all into financial ruin. BE an honest citizen and you'll be part of the solutions to many of the problems we endure, courtesy of the many DISHONEST fucks you claim to want to help rid ourselves of.

Labels have various interpretations. I like the word 'reformer'. This town needs reformers. I am almost never impressed by anyone claiming to be progressive.

And I take it that you are in no mood to impress progressives either (yeah, I am a progressive). And you can bet your last cash that the kind of person who would give you real reform with tranparency is also going to be progressive.

So, does this mean you have a limited understanding of the various words/labels you so freely apply to others?

Step 1 in the process is to get an honest, intelligent insurgent to run against that entrenched incumbent. The national Democratic Party finally got its act together in 2006 by challenging every Republican candidate in every district in every state, whether or not the race was thought to be winnable. It succeeded -- it flipped the party balance in the House of Representatives and clawed its way back up to parity in the Senate. Meanwhile, here in Chicago, a third of the aldermen aren't even challenged, and another third get the endorsement of the IVI-IPO because their challengers are pitiful bush leaguers. A gutsy, organized opposition movement that puts credible candidates on the ballot is a prerequisite for getting on citizens' cases about voting out corruption-enabling incumbents.

Progressive in this city is a reformer. But I'm with you - most voters, like you and I, aren't as stupid as the vote all incumbents out guy thinks we are. We can actually figure out who are the reformers and who are the pathetic hacks that our ruining our governments.

First, I don't that citizens who don't vote or don't register to vote are ALL stupid, just that there are several basic reasons they commonly have for doing nothing concerning their own governance. 1) Apathy, born of long-term experience in seeing even excellently qualified candidates denied access to the ballot, bumped off the ballot, garner meager support from the few independently oriented citizens who do vote and generally get smothered by the incumbent hacks when they do manage to get elected. 2) Exceptionally low opinion of their own intelligence and ability to discern truth from lies, gold from lead and an honest candidate from an accomplished bullshitter. 3) Mental laziness, unwilling to muster the small amount of effort to think about the factors that impede and obstruct their day-to-day ability to survive and prosper, to find their own way to achieve the American Dream of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. 4) Continue to embrace and promote the provenly ineffective strategy of waiting for "an honest, intelligent insurgent to run against that entrenched incumbent.", so that, while we all wait, both the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans have a field day, playing musical chairs and continuing to fuck up everything they touch, all slight variations to the contrary being irrelevant. I take it Mr. Ammann proposes that the recent event of "The national Democratic Party finally got its act together in 2006 by challenging every Republican candidate in every district in every state, whether or not the race was thought to be winnable. It succeeded -- it flipped the party balance in the House of Representatives and clawed its way back up to parity in the Senate." means anything more significant than that we all now have, on the federal level, the same species of creatures that we had under Clinton's 8 years of bullshit, and that this is somehow a vast improvement over the past 7 years of the Bush Crime Family's horrendous reign. As for those "pitiful bush leaguers" Keith has such contempt for, his attitude shows he has more respect for the 'professionals' in politics than for those common citizens he implies he's 'fighting for'. Apparently, Keith's a die-hard Dumbocrat who'd prefer corrupted Dumbocrats to border-line Retardicans every time. I say a pox on both their houses, they both are groups of people who believe that 'the people' don't know what's 'good for them' and 'need' to be led around by their noses. NEITHER the Dumbocrats, NOR the Retardicans have much of anything if beneficial value to offer the citizens. BOTH parties have long been compromised far from their proclaimed ideals and values. "Step 1 in the process is..." and "....puts credible candidates on the ballot is a prerequisite for getting on citizens' cases about voting out corruption-enabling incumbents." are both putting the horse before the cart. FIRST prove, by example, that entrenched incumbents can EASILY be ousted, THEN those "...honest, intelligent..." ...and "...credible candidates..." will overflow the ballots, will get the media attention they merit, will know they've got an even chance at being heard, and fairly considered by the electorate. Continue trying to climb the giant pile of shit built by entrenched incumbents and their party apparatus, if you choose, for my part, I'll continue to encourage people to stay as far away from that shitpile as possible and to apply the effective, efficient strategy of using the power of their united votes to wash the shitpile down into the sewers, where it belongs. The more my proposed strategy is mocked, the greater my confidence that it can work. What did Gandhi say, about what the powers-that-be do, when confronted with an effective movement against their interests? First, they laugh at you and mock you. Second, they threaten and disparage you. Third, you win.

I'd like to think that a progressive is a reformer and one who stands for transparency and accountability, but what I see is that they want transparency and accountability only for the money and jobs that they don't control. Each and every alderman is handed several hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer money to staff and operate their office. Nobody knows why it costs so much. In addition they are handed a few million dollars of taxpayer money for "aldermanic menu" items, supposedly neighborhood improvements. So tell me, exactly which, if any, progressive alderman has made all of these expenditures completely transparent? Preckwinkle has a web site. She should list her staff members names, salaries, job description and responsibilities, hours, and benefits package. She should list her own complete benefits package. She should tell us how much her office rent is. She should list how every dime of her aldermanic menu funds are to be spent. She also sits on committees that opaquely spend millions each year. Let's see her itemize those expenditures. If "progressives" want popular support, let's see them start walking the walk.

So, "So, does this mean you have a limited understanding of the various words/labels you so freely apply to others?" Also, take your list of 'demands', email them to every alderman/woman, the mayor, county board members, every department head of every city and county department, every contractor doing 'business' with the city and county, etc., then, hold your breath until you get their responses. You might want to have a friend or member of your family standing by, ready to dial 911 for the paramedics, once you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Kelly, you are right on the money. It is the same old game of aldermen who make their living by pandering to the emotions of the have-nots. "He's got more than me? Then he's bad. And the cops are even worse. Down with 'the man.'" In fact, Preckwinkle's three main goals, i.e., (1) her mandatory percentage of affordable units-per-development, (2)the living wage, and (3) her police accountability proposal(actually "hamstringing" is more like it)_each have unintended consequences. For reasons discussed extensively elsewhere (allowing me to avoid being too verbose) her three plans will make things worse for the part of our population whom she says she wants to help. Meanwhile there are a dozen issues where an opposition group of alderman could really do some good, e.g., cleaning up crony-directed city contracts, making merit and performance be the keys for city hiring, lessening the fiasco that is our current land rezoning system, and many others. No, Preckwinkle won't bother with those. She'll team up with the poverty pimps and the scared-to-be-voted-out minority aldermen to waste tax dollars on hearings, investigations, and just plain distractions. Also, when you tie the media up with her baloney it diminishes the time for them to do real good elswehere in pressing for city government reforms. Preckwinkle and her Progressives? Same old same old.

Check in with your clout monkey mentors in the morning, you'll get you 'bonuses' in cash, as usual.

For anyone who has bothered to look at the affordable housing statistics in Chicago, there has actually been a tremendous decline in the number of affordable units. Preckwinkle doesn't strike me as someone trying to play this issue for her own personal benefit. Unlike virtually every other alderman, you see Preckwinkle in meetings with Planning staffers, Housing staffers, Education staffers. I do think she's going light on the Mayor by not taking him one inefficient government, though.

I don't believe I've ever seen a post so chock full of bullshit in so small a space. Bravo. "....aldermen who make their living by pandering to the emotions of the have-nots." You mean like every black and latino rubber-stamp alderman loyal to the machine? Of course you do. "In fact, Preckwinkle's three main goals, i.e., (1) her mandatory percentage of affordable units-per-development, (2)the living wage, and (3) her police accountability proposal(actually "hamstringing" is more like it)_each have unintended consequences." Let's see if we can figure out what 'wardup' is saying here, when he refers to those "unintended consequences": (1) her mandatory percentage of affordable units-per-development.. must result in fewer builders being willing to build, should they be required to sell to all those nasty, low-income, spics and niggers. After all, what wealthy, white people will want to live anywhere near these types of scumbags? The low-income spics and niggers, I mean..... (2)the living wage... well, we can't have any of those low-life spics and niggers making more money, they'll then be able to afford to buy the above, now affordable, dwellings, from the non-existent builders.... (3) her police accountability proposal(actually "hamstringing" is more like it)... That's right, no need to interfere with our cops' ability to beat down all those low-life, spics and niggers, these scumbags might start to think they can walk the streets like any other citizen, the low-life, spics and niggers, I mean..... "...her three plans will make things worse for the part of our population whom she says she wants to help." So, 'wardup' figures that MORE affordable housing will be BAD for those who need it. a living wage requirement will actually HURT the working 'poor', because, well, because those businesses that employ them will, quite naturally, fire them, if they have to pay them ONE PENNY MORE, than the shit wages they pay them now. and, cops being held accountable for anything less than egregious, criminal acts will result in, better behaved cops? No, sayeth 'wardup', on the contrary, cops will, quite naturally, AVOID doing their jobs, will REFUSE to respond to 911 dispatchers, will, by malicious neglect, ALLOW criminals to run rampant in those areas where even A SINGLE citizen dares to complain about police misconduct or abuse. As for "Meanwhile there are a dozen issues where an opposition group of alderman could really do some good, e.g., cleaning up crony-directed city contracts, making merit and performance be the keys for city hiring, lessening the fiasco that is our current land rezoning system, and many others." My, how dishonest can one poster be? Daley and his clans have ALL of the relevant committees packed full of his chosen ones, NOBODY, at this point in time, can do a damned thing to change ANYTHING in these rightfully described vital misuses of government powers. Talk about "...just plain distractions.", wardup's post is packed full of them. And I'm so impressed by wardup's concern for the media being 'tied-up'....... Yep, wardup, you're full of the "Same old same old."

The members of the 'progressive' caucus should look through these blog entries, Kelly makes some excellent suggestions. Alderman Preckwinkle and the rest of the members of her 'progressive' caucus should be committed to lending some transparency to their use of our tax dollars in 'menu money' and staffing hires with your tax dollars. Better yet, starting an organization that tracks the votes of each alderman, and with the implosion of the neighborhood capitol budget group, someone who tracks the out of control TIF program. FYI - Ben Joravsky and Jacqueline Leavy (the former executive director of the NCBG) will be speaking at an IVI-IPO event on the Use & Abuse of TIF - and Commissioner Quigley will be their to give cover to his fellow pols and telling everyone it isn't the fault of the Alderman who created the mess we are in. Apparently, listing it on your tax bill is supposed to solve the problem - so much for an advocate for transparency and accountability.

And yet, there are still some who dismiss the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT strategy. Still some who insist on being played like the proverbial fiddle. Still figure there's enough time remaining in the life of our universe to overcome the various ways and means by which the rascals in power have achieved that power and have kept it for as long as living memory. I can hear them now, those in control...... Suckers.

you keep repeating yourself. We aren't going to get the 'critical mass' to vote every incumbent, and you haven't impressed many with your strategy despite repeating it at least 5 times in every thread on this blog. You need to start register people, organizing, and filling the vacume of the lack of an orgainzation like the NCBG - and let everyone in on your identity and mabey run for office your self - but your going to need a broader platform than HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT!

Not EVERY INCUMBENT, vote for any incumbent you CHOOSE TO, just don't sit on your ass and think that by NOT voting, you aren't helping entrenched, machine hacks to stay in office. And, I don't flatter myself into thinking the electorate is ever going to unite behind a single person's platform, thus, I'm not advocating my personal political, social and idealistic opinions, just proposing an effective strategy of vote casting that will break wide open the political playing field, for those many individuals who DO believe they've got a better way to both keep government out of our lives, where it's not needed nor wanted, and keep government limited to what it is supposed to be limited to. And don't claim that 'many' are not 'impressed', the more likely reality is that 'many' don't know what to make of my suggested strategy, they're either too locked into the status quo or too slow to figure out the value of a new and unusual concept that goes counter to their long held sensibilities. If all you can perceive is the inside of the box you're in, you'll never even begin to imagine the vast world outside of that box.

If all you can perceive is the inside of the box you're in... You don't even know who you’re talking too. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'many' - I should have said that 'I' am not impressed with your strategy. I do know I am not sitting on my ass and not voting. I don't know if you can say that your not just sitting on your ass and complaining. I hope your not, but you post way more than do I, and I post alot.

That's because I have faith that: 1) this comment board is read by more than just those who post comments. 2) this comment board is read by those who are interested in any and all ideas on how we, as supposedly free, intelligent and responsible human beings, can affect positive, beneficial, and fair/equitable changes and improvements in our social, economic, physical and political environments. 3) those who visit this comment board include many who are, in fact, intelligent, reasonable, thoughtful and basically good natured human beings who, when presented with the ideas and opinions of others, can discern those motivated by self-serving agendas from those primarily motivated by selfless and hopefully helpful agendas. 4) for as long as it lasts, this comment board can be a vehicle for the exchange of innovative ideas, concepts and perspectives, not merely a mental masturbation rendevous for the politically jaded and cynical preverts who get off on the drama of the behaviors of our local political zoo animals. All opinions should be welcome, including those that expose the clout monkeys for what they are.

Alderwoman Preckwinkle has been one of the very few on the city council who has consistently questioned the antics of mayor mumbles and his gang of bullies, whenever their activities have been contrary to the best interests of her constituents. Her position on the issues linked to in this article are good examples of this. The mayor's tentative plans for the proposed 2016 Olympic Village structures clearly show his intentions, namely, create an isolated, rich-people-only compound, akin to where he now resides, 'protected' from the current residents of the area and enjoying those wonderful lakefront views that are so highly valued and, thus, so lucrative. When the Wal-Marts of this world decide to locate one of their stores in an area, you can be sure that they're not doing so out of the goodness of their hearts; they know that 'there's gold in them there hills', as, even 'poor people' buy goods and services. Mayor Mumbles' appearing to cave in to their hollow threat of not building in areas they've determined they want to build in, should they be required to pay a decent wage to their many workers, is another example of his either lacking in the balls necessary to do right by all this city's citizens or his well developed talent for lying. The market that Wal-Mart found so attractive will still be here, whether Wal-Mart is the store to service it or not. Daley blinked, or pretended to blink, having cut his deals long before this ordinance was proposed. The obvious problems faced by any alderman choosing to get in Daley's way is the very real existence of retaliation, and, since Preckwinkle's ward is already underserved, (deliberately, for the purpose of keeping property values low, until the next wave of gentrification washes over that area and pushes all those 'undesirables' out), this alderwoman has to keep in mind how to not piss the mayor and his minions off too much. It's tough, being an honest human being, having to push against the thick wall of crooks, just to get, for your community, a few scraps from the table. She could use a little help and any aldermen/women who've got a shred of integrity in them will jump at the chance toget off their knees, wipe the stains off their collars and stand up for the responsibilities and authority they have been granted, by their constituents, to reign in this midget mayor and his 'associates'.

"take a breath," you don't know what you're talking about. First: "As for those 'pitiful bush leaguers' Keith has such contempt for, his attitude shows he has more respect for the 'professionals' in politics than for those common citizens he implies he's 'fighting for'." Not at all. When I lived in Oak Park, I strongly supported the reformist Citizens' Alliance over the establishment VMA. Here in the 47th Ward, however, the only opposition to Alderman Gene Schulter was Martin Cooney, and when I investigated his platform, he did not strike me as farsighted, well-informed or, frankly, competent. I should have voted for him anyway, just because he was the devil I didn't know? Screw that. I wrote in my own name (my usual practice when I can't bring myself to vote for any candidate on the ballot). I'm sure there are any number of fine citizens in my ward, political professionals none of them, who would have made an outstanding alternative to Gene Schulter, whom I was able to identify in Café Selmarie one day not because I'd ever seen a picture of him before but because he was wearing a suit that was conspicuously more expensive than any I'd ever seen on anyone else in the neighborhood before. And if one of those fine citizens were to run, I'd support him or her. What I got was Cooney. Enough said. Second: "Apparently, Keith's a die-hard Dumbocrat who'd prefer corrupted Dumbocrats to border-line Retardicans every time." It's machine politics like Cook County's and sellouts like Bill Clinton that have kept me from claiming Democratic affiliation for the past 14 years. Here in Illinois, where we have open primaries, I vote the Democratic primary ballot, but in New York, where you're required to register with a party to vote in its primary, I allowed myself to be effectively disenfranchised rather than claim membership in a party I couldn't support. So don't go thinking you know anything about me from one comment on a politics blog. You clearly don't. I don't believe that only professionals are capable of running the city of Chicago. However, we do have to acknowledge that the machine is run by professionals -- not professionals at governing, but professionals at winning elections, and one of their chief skills is keeping their potential opponents too scared to oppose them. I am all for grassroots, nonprofessional involvement in local politics, but it needs to be fostered and promoted by an organized insurgency that can find outstanding candidates and support them against the onslaught of the machine pros. What good is it if Dr. Brilliant from the Block runs if his signatures are invalidated, if he spends all his pocket money on yard signs that vanish in the middle of the night, or if he doesn't have enough volunteers to walk the neighborhood and convince his neighbors that he has the support to win, that you can fight City Hall? There's not only safety in numbers, there's visibility as well. Do you have any interest in being part of an insurgent organization like that, or would you rather sit on your ass and shout unimaginative rude names at people?

Want to learn how to fix the City? First you have to know how we got where we are today. A few primers: Captive City, by Ovid Demaris The Outfit, by Gus Russo American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J. Daley - His Battle for Chicago and the Nation by Adam Cohen and Elizabeth Taylor Boss, by Mike Royko for more nitty-gritty: Rogues, Rebels, and Rubberstamps: The Story of Chicago City Council from the Civil War to the Third Millennium by Dick Simpson there are of course so many more, but for Chicagoans especially, this one is key: Paddy Whacked: The Untold Story of the Irish American Gangster by T. J. English it's key because it explains how crime and politics have worked together since the first non-WASPs came here and started using their superior numbers to chisel a piece of the pie for themselves, and the "informal" arrangement these various ethnic groups came to.

Excellent reads, fascinating characters, all the more so because they were real people. 'One hand truly DOES wash the other' and we, the taxpayers, supply the soap. All the strategies employed by this long list of rascals includes three key elements, namely: 1) Appeal to the greed in as many 'voters' as you figure you'll both need and can afford, tax revenues being what they can be, as high as possible. 2) When all else fails, lie, steal, intimidate and extort, they are time honored and proven means to most any end. 3) Never give a sucker, (the voters), an even break, or even close to an even break, (ala Las Vegas). This city and county are, to some, one BIG, FAT, POT 'O GOLD, to be divided by those worthy souls who have what it takes to conquer. Black, white, brown or yellow, the common color is GREEN. Who was it, that said, "Sheep are meant to be sheared."?

Apparently, you're not interested in considering abandoning the traditional, failed methods of cleaning out a pile of shit, one spoonful at a time, though you seem to think that if only you could find ENOUGH people, with ENOUGH spoons, together you could all spoon that shit pile into the sewer. Spoons won't do it, Keith, no matter how many you can muster to the task, but a fire hose, backed by the pressure and volume of focussed voting, will blast that pile of shit out into the middle of Lake Michigan in no time. You said: "When I lived in Oak Park, I strongly supported the reformist Citizens' Alliance over the establishment VMA. Here in the 47th Ward, however, the only opposition to Alderman Gene Schulter was Martin Cooney, and when I investigated his platform, he did not strike me as farsighted, well-informed or, frankly, competent. I should have voted for him anyway, just because he was the devil I didn't know? Screw that. I wrote in my own name (my usual practice when I can't bring myself to vote for any candidate on the ballot)." You make my point for me. This is the attitude that is exploited so successfully by the 'professional election winners', aka professional manipulators and con-men/women. If there's no one on the ballot that meets your standards, why, either don't vote at all, or vote for yourself. I take it that you also don't see the absurdity in your choosing to 'vote for myself', rather than appreciate the opportunity to fire a piece of political shit, when you get the chance. Brilliant strategy, Keith, simply BRILLIANT! You'd garner more benefit from that write-in-name, if you'd used a piece of toilet paper, instead of the ballot, at least then, you'd get some use out of it, wiping your ass. You further stated: "....one of their chief skills is keeping their potential opponents too scared to oppose them." Not exactly. Their main tactics are: 1) Promote voter apathy, (such as your choices of either not voting or voting for yourself), by 'winning' elections so consistently that few voters can convince themselves to vote at all. 2) Unfairly prevent challengers from getting on the ballot, by writing the election laws to suit their agendas, placing their cohorts as hearing officers and judges, through slating or appointments, so the laws they have written will be upheld and applied in their favor. 3) Out-spending and out-staffing any but the most independently wealthy challengers, so most citizens won't ever even hear of the challenger candidates, let alone know what they 'stand for'. 4) Bribe, pay-off and otherwise grease the palms of the greedy, so they'll have plenty of cash and manpower to promote their lies and deceptions, and run their lucrative cons and schemes, said greedy including, but not limited to, the bought-and-paid-for whores of the major media, clout monkey job holders, clout contractors, clout vendors, clout 'consultants', etc. 5) Promote and maintain dissent and conflict between any and every group of people, ethnic, racial, gender, generational, political, social and economic, to garner the benefits of the time-honored 'divide and conquer' strategy. 6) Create massive economic, social and political problems, then proclaim that only THEY have the solutions, all the while raking in billions of our tax dollars for solving nothing, for merely appearing to be TRYING to solve said problems. 7) Neutralize all attempts at independent citizen actions, by whatever means necessary, so as to assure that no significant momentum is ever achieved by those who object to being played for chumps. Finally, you said: "Do you have any interest in being part of an insurgent organization like that, or would you rather sit on your ass and shout unimaginative rude names at people?" Why, I wonder, did you choose a word like 'insurgent' to describe an 'organization' you purport to be for political purposes only? Sounds to me like you are, in fact, another one of those 'closet clout monkeys', trying to pass yourself off as an honest, dedicated-to-reform citizen interested in honest government, staffed by honest people, doing their best to do as little harm as possible and as much good as possible, for ALL citizens, in the most efficient, effective and least intrusive and burdensome ways as possible. "So don't go thinking you know anything about me from one comment on a politics blog. You clearly don't." Perhaps I clearly do. "Enough said."

"kelly July 9th - 2:43 p.m. I am as quick and willing to bash the mayor's machine as anyone....." Bullshit.

The machine sucks. Communists, socialists, and progressives suck. What is it that you don't understand?

Once again, define, to the best of your ability, your understanding of the words 'communist', socialist', 'progressives', 'poverty pimp', 'wealth transfer' and 'those with wealth'. IF you would be so 'kind'. "What is it that you don't understand?"

I mentioned that I opposed Preckwinkle's positions on her three main issues. In response, several writers on this blog moved immediately to ad hominem rage. Very interesting. I thought I was just voicing an opinion as an average citizen, but the next thing I know, I am told that I should report to my "clout monkey mentors" in the morning to pick up my bonus. Also, I am told that I just want to force out "sp--s" (hispanics) and "n----rs." One of the writers above suggest that I view them with those terms in my head. That charge is both despicable and laughable. There's no way for me to try to prove it here, but I am in the health field and I have no connection to politics, government, or development. None of my family members has any such connection either. Adding to the irony is that I take care of "sp--cs" and "n-----rs" every day at my job and I wouldn't have it any other way. But then I don't call them that. I would suggest that the sanctimonious, angry writers on this blog tone it down a bit. You will have more credibility.

"In response, several writers on this blog moved immediately to ad hominem rage." If you think words on a blog = rage, you can't have lived very long in this city.

How about explaining, specifically, WHY you "...opposed Preckwinkle's positions on her three main issues."? "You will have more credibility."

"If you think words on a blog = rage, you can't have lived very long in this city." You're right. When people start using a lot of exclamation points and telling me that I want to get rid of "n-----rs," then perhaps "goofy" is a better word than "rage." Oh...and I've lived my entire life in this city. What irony. In your new put-down post, you have joined the others in making up a history for the person with whom you are addressing. What else have I done? You people seem to know everything about the people with whom you disagree. Amazing.

"What else have I done?" It's what you haven't done, namely, explain your reasoning for your opinions.

Daley the Merciless > The obvious problems faced by any alderman choosing to get in Daley's way is the very real existence of retaliation ... We've all heard this, and it seems many buy it: our alderman are co-opted by their fear of retaliation. But is it real? Has anyone heard an actual siting alderman defend (publicly or privately) a pro-Daley vote by citing their fear of the executive? What is the nature of the retaliation feared? What are some examples? If the Daley administration deliberately underserved a neighborhood, wouldn't an alderman call a press conference?

"Has anyone heard an actual siting alderman defend (publicly or privately) a pro-Daley vote by citing their fear of the executive?" Sure, they bitch about it all the time, to their wives, husbands and/or significant others.

That's an excellent question, Hugh, because, if aldermen were being 'threatened' with a type of retaliation that they could call a press conference on, the threat wouldn't have much weight behind it. So, one wonders what could the different types of retaliation then be? Any ideas?

Guess what, nobody cares.

Fuck you.

NTTDB: You're basically arguing that the only way to fix a broken system is to take out damaged parts and replace them with whatever handful of parts you have handy, even if they're damaged too, rather than find a source for quality parts. This is moronic. End of conversation.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that those damaged parts refuse to be removed, will do ANYTHING to remain in place, fucking up the workings of the machine of our social, economic and governmental functions, so, a wholesale removal of those parts, even if the replacement parts aren't pre-proven to be way better, is a practical beginning to the repair process. If you were to think a bit more on the possibilities created by citizens embracing and implementing my proposed voting strategy, you'd be 100% in favor of it, as it is the simplest, most efficient, quickest, and most easily remembered way to clean out all those broken or defective parts, thus, opening the way for your version of a quality part to be elected, if not in the first phase/election, by the second or third. I'm all for the creation of a third, fourth, fifth or Xth number of political parties, all for 'quality' candidates running for office, but, you're being disappointingly disingenuous when you dismiss a strategy designed to open wide the political playing field, and still insist you are for quality people having a chance of being elected to run our governments.

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."

> ... if aldermen were being 'threatened' with a type of retaliation that they could call a press conference on, the threat wouldn't have much weight behind it. > So, one wonders what could the different types of retaliation then be? > Any ideas? The threat of retaliation of some kind from Daley is often mentioned by Chicagoans in discussions of the total dysfunction of our City Council. But you never hear an alderman say, "I voted [fill in the blank] because if i didn't Daley would have kicked my [or my beloved ward's] ass." I don't buy it. I don't think it's true, and, in any case, it's not a useful theory of the operation of our City government. We really have no choice as citizens but to hold the aldermen themselves responsible for their behavior. There's a much simpler explanation for the abysmal behavior of our legislative branch: co-operation with the executive. Co-opting has many benefits, including: 1. guaranteed lifetime employment with a full-time salary for part-time work, great health coverage and a generous pension; 2. no supervision or accountability; 3. a generous friends & family plan: numerous exempt head count, more if you are a committee chair; 4. when the mood strikes, your choice of work locations to report to, close to home or downtown; 5. a $1M+ "aldermanic menu" fund and the ability to dole out property tax rebates to help make friends around the hood; etc. It's not the stick, it's the carrot. Our aldermen are not terrified into submission, they are bought.

And we, the taxpayers, foot the bill.

Hugh, If Daley said to the Developer Corps, 'I command you not to develop there,' that would work, don't you think, with barely a wink and a nod?

"By the Powers granted to me, on the Holy Day of the Four-Leafed Clover, in the name of the Blessed Pot 'O Gold, I command thee blasphemers to cease and desist in your evil ways, your penchant for criticisms and your mockeries of those anointed to rule over you. WHERE'S ME GOLD!!!!!????

So, kelly got scared and ain't got nuthin' ta say...... Poor baby.

kelly's busy, buddy, she's got a lot of stops to make, running all over town, dropping off those envelopes filled with the grease that lubes the wheels of progress, aka the machine.