The Blog

These "independents" have proven a major disappointment with their tax proposal for downtown commercial properties. Daley angered the electorate with his proposed tax increases. All the "independents" had to do was come up with some common sense budget cuts. Tackling unnecessary TIFs would have been a good start. If Daley rejected their cuts he would have risked a taxpayer revolt. Instead the "independents" passed the blame and proposed another tax.

Blah, blah, blah.... The budget will pass on tuesday November 13, overwhelmingly. Yes, we will allow some of the aldermen to bluster about how hard it is on the little people, but in the end, His Honor's budget will pass, yours truly will enjoy another year on the taxpayers' dime, add more credits building to the 80% defined benefit pension. Life is beautiful, NEXT !

while I still can't pay off my subprimes *sob*!

Orion, are you ready for another grueling year of fetching coffee for your precinct captain? Better re-sole those shoes. And get some stronger mouthwash to remove the stench of your precinct captain's a-- from your breath.

Amazing, ain't it, that a simple solution can't be seen by those who are so willingly blind, to wit: 1) If the budget prosed is not to the liking of our aldermanic representatives, than, they should all VOTE NO. 2) Where is it written that the executive branch is immune from being told by the legislative branch that they won't pass into law ANYTHING that doesn't pass muster as truly representing the will of their constituents? 3) If a city council majority were to simply say to the mayor: "Your proposed budget is shit. Get your happy ass back to work on it and try again. Have all your rocket-scientist boys and girls figure out how to reduce the budget so that we can REDUCE TAXES by at least 10% across the board. We don't care how you do it, we're not going to do it for you, you'd better be able to prove you're not cutting ANY essential services, nor ANY essential city government functions, only the immense fat and waste which you and your cronies have, with the help of some assholes still members of this council, burdened this city's citizens with for so long. Further, you WILL provide every last bit of verifiable information to back up your claims of having reduced this city's budget and NOT by cutting one single service that the citizen's depend upon. Until then, NO is what we're gonna say." what could he do about it? If these gutless wonders, our legislative representatives, want to treat our pocketbooks as blank checks, I suggest that they all take out THEIR checkbooks, sign every check, leaving everything else blank, and pass out their checks to random citizens. No need to concern yourselves, aldermen and alderwomen, as to who those checks will be made out to, how much each check will be for, or what the money garnered from those checks will be used for. All of you assholes don't care about the answers to the above questions when it comes to OUR monies paid in taxes, why should any of you care about the answers to the above questions concerning your own monies? Haven't any of you aldercreatures ever heard of a filibuster? Or are you all as clueless as the mayor likes you to be?

You must be slipping, you forgot your usual S.E.E. and When in Doubt....

She mentioned acceptence of a do nothling office to protect and hire political hacks.( office of compliance)Lyle is some what of a hack herself. Remember she was appointed by Daley. She plays the independent role when it benefits her. Also remember, she was in a tough runoff in 2003. Now she plays it safe by posturing like she is independent,to fake people out.

She is flighty, just like Leslie Hairston. Neither could probably find another 100K year job chasing abulances in the private sector. They are working at alderman just long enough so that they can appointed to a judgeship one day.

Patrick McDonough stumbled on tens of millions of taxpayer waste (at least $40,000,000) just by seeing private drivers sleep in their trucks. Gang bangers get good paying jobs who take bribes from outfit trucking companies who do no work. Maybe ask Patrick McDonough where to find waste. Frank Coconate found $60,000,000 in waste with the vortex Rain Blocker program with thousands of the devices being thrown out behind the Department of Water Managment (and many times they did not work as they were supposed to) Frank Cocoante with Chicago Magazine did an analysis of the top heavy management (with 3 to 10 managers supervising 1 worker sometimes) and very large salaries of family members and politically connected people with no credentials. Even Alderman Bernard Stone did a study and spoke out on the number of over $100,000 city employees. If Frank Coconate can find $60,000,000 in waste with the rain blockers and see the obvious top heavy and overpaid political commissioners, deputy commissioners and do nothing political workers--what about a study, a efficiency expert with an education, the US Attorneys etc. Just read the Sun Times and the Tim Novak now regular series on political waste and corruption. Some ways to cut (from big to small) 1. Why does Alderman Burke need 4 bodyguards and a city car and a driver? He sometimes has more police officers all assigned to him? WHY?--is he going to be assasinated? ALSO--he is very wealthy why doesn't he hire bodyguards instead of us paying for them. 2. Why did Mayor Daley's mother (and daughtes and son)(and God rest Sis's great soul and a great lady) need a bodyguard??? Again, the Daley's are wealthy let John Daley's insurance company (which insured all the hired trucks) pay for a bodyguard or international investment and finance "guru" Williama Daley. The taxpayers should not have to pay extra protection for alderman, unkown and no threats to all family members. YES, some of these jobs are hard and people in the public light can be attacked or kidnapped BUT nobody knows what Daley's daughters look like. Alderman Burke sometimes has four or more police officers and a driver and city car (and picks up friends and does social things with his city car and driver) 3. Cut the top heavy management, the deputy commissioners. Just ask Daley ally alderman Stone. 4. Cut the HDO drug dealers and thugs, cut the 11th ward ghost payrollers, cut the 19th ward do nothings. The Operating Engineers salaries are too high. There are whole sections of people doing nothing or Whirity swiping in and out or Strodin building a house on city time. 5. Chicago has much higher law suits by city workers and much higher workmens compensation claims than anywhere else in Illinois including coal miners. You have to change the culture. You have to get good lawyers and not political hacks like Mara Georges who is there to get contracts for Shefsky. 6. Cut Intergovernmental affairs, which even the alderman joke are the notebooks with their spying and writing notes on everyone. 7. Cut Maggie Daley's subsidized art program let her friend Ryan and Aon fund it and not taxpayers--not saying it might not do some good but my mom might have a great idea to help kids and I don't get taxpayer funding. 8. TIFS--just read Ben Joravsky or County Commissioner Mike Quigley. 9. The Inspector General's office under Vrstrouias was a corrupt joke. His salary was a waste. How many stupid investigations wasted money on silly stuff or protecting big corruption and waste. Vrstourias now works in the States Attorney's office. 10. The Burge legal defense when everyone knows he is guilty and they settled or are going to settle cases that everyone knew would be settled over $20,000,000. 11. The Jeremiah Joyce Airport contracts. 12. The loss in the city revenue from selling land undervalue and buying it back for insane profits from Tom DiPiazza, Tim Degnan, Jerry Joyce, Oscar Dangelo, Michael Marchese. 13. Grants to Churches (Separation of Church and state) and no interest loans over 30 years ffor 5 million. The Reader just did a story on the blaspehemer "Rev" Lucius Hall who corrupted the "Our Father/Lord's Prayer" saying "give us our Daley, Daley, Daley bread" in exchange for corruption of the Black clergy and selling out his own people Rev. Lucius Hall has received 3,500,000 in grants. City Commissioners used to shake down contractors and employees for Old Saint Patricks Church and government has given them a lot of breaks. 14. Alderman Stone had a good idea to sell the vacant lots the city owns or sell idle city property. 15. Every alderman should have a program to turn vacant lots into productive tax earning land. 16. Cut the stupid city council committees that do nothing and provide ghost payrollers and job spots for political people. One hack they call the hallwalker has no education and makes over $100,000 with no skills or training in his supposed field. 17. Cut the number of alderman from 50 to 25 or 20 or even 10. 18. Implement Term Limits 2 6 year terms for Mayor 3 4 year terms for Alderman The money and power is calcifying in the wrong places. 19. Consolidate the Treasurer and Clerk into 1 appointed post. Why have elections on what de facto amounts to an appointment by the Mayor. 20. Really eliminate patronage and thus eliminate the need for the millions wasted on the stupid Federal Monitor. 21. Act right so you don't have Sorich/Slattery indictments and federal monitors and stupid Shakman settlements where Michael Shakman will make 4,000,0000 in attorneys fees. 22. The no bid and overbilling legal contracts that Mara Georges gives out to her mentor Brian Crowe at Shefsky or Freeborn Peters or other silly political connected overbilling law firms. 23. Victor Reyes, just his family members on the city payroll, let alone the money he makes from no bid contracts on redisticting (Cost taxpayers 1,300,000) or his sisters company Aztec or pass through bs minority contacts. Let alone what Victor Reyes has cost in legal bills for investigations and law suits or all the criminal idiots who he put on the payroll (he probably put 1000 employees on the city payroll including his entire fat family) 24. The whole property tax assessment and appeals which is for the politically connected Speaker Madigan got a 2,000,000 fee for his law firm when he saved a big airline $6,000,000 that could of gone to taxpayers Hynes, Houlihan and company make a lot of money from the current Byzantine tax system which does not work and favors politics Both commercial and homeowners are over taxed 25. The Duffs at $50,000,000 of phony minority contracts for cleaning and other services that could of been done better and cheaper 26. Grants to churches and non for profits that are political payback Eliminate politically connected art programs Eliminate the Inspector Generals office Eliminate 20 or 30 alderman Eliminate City Council committees Make a 10 or 20% across the board cut 27. The Joyce cousins made a HALF A BILLION 500,000,000 of profit on the Cable buyout which was a joke 28. Daley's wife's friends and Oscar Da'Angelo made money on concessions at O'Hare as did Tim Degnan with McDonalds 29. The towing scandal 30. The City of Chicago could probably fire at least 2000 political hack do nothing ghost payrollers We will get to education and pensions later

Great ideas, Thomas. I agree with most except eliminating the IG's office. If Hoffman were allowed to investigate city departments (and add the aldermen) without interference from Daley he would eliminate enough corruption to pay for his department tenfold. Pensions will be tough to tackle, especially with the new labor agreements. Daley 10-year, 4% raise per year contract with unions, minus meaningful benefit concessions, will handcuff the city. All in the name of the Great White Olympic Whale.

The city council is our local version of the legislative branch of democratic government. Our problems stem NOT from there being TOO MANY aldermen, but from there being TOO FEW. Think about it. Consider the total population of our city, then divide that number by the number of legislative representatives, (aka aldermen, each chosen by the residents of the same number of city regions as there are aldermen, commonly referred to as wards). Presently, there are 50. Approximate the average number of citizens being represented by each of these aldermen, and/or, determine the actual number of citizens residing within the boundaries of each and every one of our city's wards. This will result in your understanding how many citizens each and every city legislative representative, aka alderman, is responsible for serving and being accountable to. The purpose of having a legislative branch of city government is no different than the purpose of having a legislative branch of our state and federal governments. That purpose, along with the purpose of having an executive and judicial branch of government, is to SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE CITIZENS WHO HAVE GRANTED THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. It's an understandable reaction, to the failures we have as aldermen, to desire that there be fewer of them, (fewer of them failing to perform their duties and fewer of them failing to live up to their responsibilities), said responsibilities being to fulfill their promise to those who granted them the authorities they so casually disregard. However, if you think about it, their failures lie NOT in the number of them, but in the NATURE of the individuals we have elected, or allowed to be elected, to this important legislative position of authority. The purpose of having a legislative branch of government is to provide the citizens representation in the activities of their government. The legislative branch is responsible for the making of law. The executive branch of government is responsible for the making, implementing and managing of policies, for the sole purpose of providing the citizens those services that are best provided by government. The judicial branch of government is responsible for the interpretation and adjudication of law. Our problems stem from the fact that the members of our legislative branch, our aldermen, have failed to exercise their authorities to ensure that the members of the executive branch are authentically serving the interests of the citizens who elected them. The executive branch members answer to the whole number of citizens residing within our city's boundaries, while the legislative branch members answer to the smaller number of citizens residing within the boundaries of their respective wards. To REDUCE the number of aldermen would require a reduction in the number of wards and, thus, an INCREASE in the number of citizens said fewer aldermen would be required to answer to. As we have seen, the GREATER the number of citizens our elected officials have to answer to, the LESS influence the citizens have on their elected officials' actions. DOUBLE the number of aldermen, thus dividing each and every ward into two wards, and you will have far FEWER citizens holding their respective representatives accountable for their actions. FEWER citizens to answer to means a louder voice is enjoyed by each and every citizen. FEWER citizens in a GREATER number of wards means that A SMALLER NUMBER of citizens WILL determine the outcome of aldermanic elections. With MORE aldermen, being elected by FEWER citizens, it is likely that those who wish to be aldermen will be much more active in seeking to satisfy the needs of their constituencies, resulting in the executive branch being LESS in absolute control of our total city governments. Presently, the executive branch needs only 26 aldermen to go along with their desires. Think about what it would mean if this same executive branch needed 51 aldermen to go along with their desires, 51 aldermen who answer to approximately HALF the number of citizens. Authentic Democracy requires the real and authentic opportunity for the citizens to have their desires respected and responded to. Th present ratios of the number of citizens to the number of those in authority over said citizens is the source of our current problems. Alter this ratio, even only in the legislative branch, and you alter the dynamics under which our government functions, or fails to function.

I wonder that, if the city council has the inherent authority to alter the ward boundaries, do they also have the authority to increase the number of wards, as suggested above? Daley exploits the age-old technique of 'divide-and-conquer', why shouldn't the aldermen do so in this manner? Anyone know the history and authority behind the determination of ward boundaries, ward population size and all other information relevant to same?

We have made some recent victories lately with the NEW AND IMPROVED Chicago Inspector General. Many positions that have been posted improperly, are now being re-posted. Slowly the posting process under the the scrutiny of McDonough and some other employees that are cooperating with the F.B.I. in the Building Department are making some progress. The Shakman Monitor is disaster. Special thanks to Mr. Frank Avila for his impeccable honesty making things better for the Chicago City Worker. Frank Avila Jr. is a great lawyer and a friend to the City Worker. Again, progress is being made, the struggle continues. We look forward to victory for the Chicago Taxpayer.

The alderman are jokes

Why add more aldermen? New York and Los Angeles do fine with far fewer reps per capita. Adding more 100K aldermen, plus staff and expenses, would require yet another tax increase. Why add more people who will rubber stamp whatever Daley wants, no matter how stupid it is.

I guess my request, for those who took the time to read my humble post, to THINK about my suggestion didn't register in your mind this time. Why would more aldermen automatically rubber stamp whatever Daley wants? Why would the aldermen continue to make $100,000 a year? Why would you ask the question "Why add more aldermen?", if you had actually read, considered and thought about the reasons stated in my comment? What do you think aldermen are supposed to be, if not the elected, legislative representatives of their individual ward's residents? What do you think the city council is supposed to be, if not the city's legislative branch of our city government? Just because we haven't seen an authentic legislative body in this town for decades, doesn't mean the purpose of the city council has magically been transformed into a rubber stamp for the executive branch. It's been corrupted into being a rubber stamp for the executive branch. If you've lived here long enough, you will remember how effective the city council was at fucking over Harold Washington's executive branch's attempt to govern. Remember those 29 aldermen, led by 'Fast Eddie V.', 'Dick Mell', 'Burke' and the rest of the white aldermen at the time? The city council is supposed to be the legislative source of balance, said balance being between the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch of a democratic government. To repeat, 100 aldermen, representing 100 wards, each ward being half the size of the present 50 wards and each ward's population being half of same, would present the residents with far more control over their respective aldermen. A city council with 100 aldermen would present far more of a challenge to the executive branch, ie., the mayor, to control, because those rubber stamps needed would no longer be 26, but 51. Further, since each, individual alderman would have to answer to half the number of citizens which they have to answer to now, and, since there would be twice as many aldermen, there would be a greater likelihood of the citizens' desires being heeded, on every issue important to said citizens, regardless of what the fucking mayor wants. Also, each of the 100 aldermen would receive half, or less than half, of what the position pays right now. How much less will our government cost us, if every citizen now knew that their individual vote counted, come election time? Because, with fewer constituents in each of the now 100 wards, fewer votes would make the difference between winning or losing an election. Though the mayor would still have the advantage of being elected by the city's populace as a whole, each alderman would be subject to only the approval, by getting their votes at election time, of far fewer voters, making it truly possible for anyone to get elected alderman, without the political machine's support. Read and think about it, if you really want to understand. You do really want to understand, don't you?

I understand your point exactly. Those with good memories will remember how much better state government ran when there where 3 representatives per district, 2 from the majority party and 1 from the minority party. It forced compromise. Pat Quinn led the fight to reduce the size of the State legislature and as a result, with fewer representatives, state government is now in the oversized ego hands of the 4 party leaders (Madigan, Jones, Watson, Cross)with no reprecussion from the voters. Good point. Life is beautiful, NEXT !

THE HISTORY BEHIND MY PREVIOUS POST: Will the Cutback Amendment bring competition and accountability? By DAVID H. EVERSON The Cutback Amendment was approved in November and thus ended an era. It brought an end to cumulative voting and will reduce the Illinois House. But will it fulfill its promises of greater competition and stronger accountability? It will for certain add to the 1981 reapportionment battle. REPUBLICAN Bernard E. Epton of Chicago was elected to the Illinois House from the 24th District in the 1980 election; he received 6.8 percent of the total votes cast in the district. At the same time, in the same district, Democrat Richard H. Newhouse was elected to the Illinois Senate; he received 99.9 percent of the total vote cast. These are extreme cases, but each suggests, in different ways, a lack of competition for legislative seats in Illinois. And results in other legislative districts, though not as extreme, clearly showed weak two-party competition. In general, the lack of strong competition for legislative seats undermines the principle of accountability to the electorate, and it is unlikely that either the "Cutback Amendment" or reapportionment will do much to alter this situation in Illinois. The 1980 legislative elections in Illinois set the stage for reapportionment — the biggest battle of the 1981 legislative session — and marked the swan song of cumulative voting and three-member House districts. The initiative or so-called Cutback Amendment was approved by 68.7 percent of those voting on the proposition, and thus ended a political era in the state. The Cutback Amendment will reduce the number of House members elected in 1982: one state representative will be elected from each of 118 new districts. In 1980, there were 177 House members elected, three each from 59 districts. In 1982, there will be no cumulative voting, that unique experiment in representative elections established in the 1870 Constitution. It was reaffirmed in the ratification of the 1970 Constitution when voters had the choice of changing the system to single-member districts in a separate submission. For over a century in Illinois, voters in each legislative district have elected three representatives by the method of cumulative or weighted voting. The Cutback Amendment has eliminated the system. Although the Cutback Amendment was an effort to reduce the size of the Illinois General Assembly, in reality, there were two issues: size and accountability. The critical argument was about the virtues of one system of representation over another in terms of political competition and electoral accountability. While the 1980 election resulted in the ratification of the Cutback Amendment to end one era, the 1980 Illinois legislative elections showed a definite swing to the Republican party, which appears to be entering its own new era. It was a Republican year in the nation and state, and the effects of that broad electoral tide were felt in Illinois legislative races. The Republicans gained control of the Illinois House by a 91 to 85 margin. (One independent incumbent, Taylor Pouncey, was elected in the 26th District, but he always sits with Democrats.) The Democratic edge in the Senate was narrowed to one vote which gave them the bare constitutional majority of 30. In both House and Senate races, the share of seats gained by the Republicans was proportional to their share of votes cast. In the House elections, the Republicans received 51 percent of the two-party vote statewide and 51 percent of the seats. In the Senate, with 20 seats to be decided, the Republicans received 52 percent of the votes cast and 50 percent of the seats, Republican coup It was assumed from the election outcome that the 82nd General Assembly would have the Repubhcans in control of the House and its leadership, faced off against the Democrats in control of the Senate and its leadership. The Republicans, however, seized control of leadership in the Senate January 15 with Gov. James R. Thompson as presiding officer. The power struggle in the Illinois Senate further complicates the situation for decisionmaking in the Illinois General Assembly. There was already a question of how divided control of the 82nd General Assembly would complicate reapportionment, but if reapportionment in Illinois has appeared to be a thorny issue in previous decades, it now appears worse for 1981. In 1963, when the Republicans controlled both houses of the General Assembly, they were eventually able to agree only on a House reapportionment plan. This plan was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Otto Kerner, and his action was upheld by the Supreme Court. Gov. Kerner, following constitutional procedure, then appointed a reapportionment commission, but when it was unable to produce an acceptable plan by its December deadline, Illinois had its first, and so far only, at-large legislative election. This was the famous 1964 "bedsheet ballot listing 236 candidates for 177 seats. In 1971, reapportionment was carried 10/March 1981/Illinois Issues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1971, reapportionment was carried out according to the precise procedures in the brand new Illinois Constitution. With the Illinois Senate evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and the House controlled by Republicans, the legislature was unable to pass a reapportionment plan before its deadline of June 30. As prescribed by the Constitution in Article IV, section 3, a commission was appointed. Composed primarily of legislative leaders and their aides, it did come up with an acceptable plan in the prescribed time. Although the Supreme Court objected to the makeup of the commission, the plan went into effect for the 1972 elections. In 1981, reapportionment by the General Assembly appears improbable. It takes a constitutional majority — 30 votes in the Senate and 89 in the House — to pass legislation, including reapportionment of state legislative districts. With both houses so evenly divided, and with different partisan majorities in each house, it may be difficult to arrive at the magic majority number or to get the two houses to agree to the same plan. One thing the 'Cutback Amendment' is guaranteed to do is complicate reapportionment And the Cutback Amendment comes back into the picture again. With the cut of 59 House seats, there will be a lot of individuals jockeying to carve out new districts, and party loyalty may disappear as the predominant party attempts to sway individuals with "safe" seats in return for an "aye" vote on reapportionment. But it would appear almost impossible for the House majority leadership to find a plan which must cut out 59 of the incumbent 177 state representatives. It seems probable that reapportionment will dominate the session this spring, but that a commission, not the legislature, will decide on the plan. But if it is a sure thing the Cutback Amendment will complicate reapportionment, it is not much of a certainty that the Cutback Amendment will increase competition in House elections. Incumbents win The threat of electoral defeat is a major check on politicians, but that threat is only credible when there is an effective opposition. The advocates of the Cutback Amendment consistently argued that single-member districts allow for more electoral competition, and thus more accountability, than did cumulative voting. In particular, they argued that cumulative voting protected incumbents. Pat Quinn asserted in Illinois Issues in January 1980 that "the complicated and collusive election system is consciously designed to protect incumbents and limit political competition and accountability." But will electoral competition increase for House seats once the "cutback" election in 1982 is over? Once those 118 representatives are elected, will they, as incumbents, be safe in subsequent elections? The results of Illinois Senate elections, which have always been conducted in single-member districts, indicate that incumbents win. In the four elections from 1970 through 1978, 132 of the 150 incumbents who sought reelection were victorious (89 percent). And the 1980 Senate races were hardly models of competition. In November 1980, there were 20 state Senate races in Illinois. Four of these were reasonably competitive with the winner receiving between 50 and 54 percent of the vote. Two of the races were totally noncompetitive; Sen. Newhouse ran unopposed in the 24th District and Republican John E. Friedland ran unopposed in the 2nd District. That leaves 14 races which were not very competitive since the winner received 55 percent or more of the vote. In all, the average senatorial race was won by a 30 percent margin. How about the fate of incumbent senators? There were 14 incumbent Illinois senators seeking reelection in 1980; one lost (see table). That was Democrat Don Wooten of Rock Island in the 36th District; he was in the original group of liberal Senate Democrats called "The Crazy Eight." All in all, the success rate of lllinois' incumbent senators was about the same as the rate nationally for U.S. congressmen and much higher than U.S. senators. What about competition in House races? Although cumulative voting and multi-member House districts are now things of the political past, the last of those elections — 1980 shows much the same pattern of noncompetition as the Senate's single-member district races. One frequent indictment of cumulative voting as been the "set-up" where only three candidates are on the ballot for three seats. In 1980, eight out of 59 House districts had "set-ups." As a percentage of total races, this was 13 percent, just slightly higher than the 10 percent of Senate races where one candidate ran unopposed in a single-member district. Cumulative voting has also been criticized for making it possible to elect a representative with an extremely low percentage of the votes cast. Assuming the third place finisher in a four-person race with 15 percent or less of the total votes is a weak showing, then nine of the representatives elected to the House in 1980 got in on a pass. But this problem appeared to be limited to the heavily Democratic districts in Chicago, since all nine were from the Chicago area. They included eight Republicans and "independent" Pouncey of the 26th District. March 1981/Illinois Issues/13 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How safe were House incumbents? About as safe as Senate incumbents. In all, 153 House incumbents sought reelection in 1980. Of these, 145 or 94 percent were reelected. Of the eight incumbents who lost, six were Democrats: Richard A. Mugahan, 2nd District; Anne W. Wilier, 6th District; Gale Schisler, 48th District; John F. Sharp, 49th District; Vince A. Birchler, 58th District; and William L. Harris, 59th District. The two Republican incumbents who lost were Mary Lou Sumner in the 46th District and veteran Webber Borchers in the 51st District. The 94 percent success rate of House incumbents compares almost exactly with the 93 percent success rate for Senate incumbents. Evidently House incumbents were no safer than their Senate counterparts despite the "collusive" intent of cumulative voting. New system, same results The conclusion is obvious. Do not expect the 118 single-member districts prescribed by the Cutback Amendment to produce more competitive elections than the old system. If single-member districts were automatically more competitive, the Senate results should differ dramatically from the House. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the new House districts will be smaller, and probably more homogeneous, than the Senate districts. In general, smaller districts which usually have less diverse interests, are less competitive than larger districts. Reapportionment will determine the shape of the new House and Senate districts, and it is very probable that the lines for many districts will be drawn to minimize competition. In other words, the tendency of pohtical parties is to reapportion "safe" districts for as many incumbents as possible. One other frequently noted effect of cumulative voting is that it has tended to maintain an even balance between parties in the House, and 1980 was no exception. Control of the House swung to the Republicans because of only five districts (8 percent). Four of those districts shifted from delegations of two Democrats and one Republican to the reverse. All four of these were south of Peoria. In four of these cases, an incumbent Democrat was replaced by a Republican. These four incumbents were Schisler (48th), Sharp (49th), Birchler (58th) and Harris (59th), and none of them had run first in the district in 1978. Despite the inherent resistance of cumulative voting to landslides for either party, it did "respond" to the Republican tide in 1980. Even though only a tiny percentage of the district delegations shifted in party balance, the Republicans gained control of the House. Republican gains in the Senate in 1980 put the Republicans one-vote short of a constitutional majority, which is required to pass legislation. The Republicans held onto all eight of their contested seats while the Democrats dropped two of their 12. Incumbent Wooten lost in the 36th District and George J. Lewis lost in the 48th District where incumbent John Knuppel (D., Virginia) did not seek reelection (he lost his bid for U.S. Congress). The Republican electoral tide of 1980 did not result in any clean sweep for Republicans in the state Senate, partly because only one-third of the seats were up for reelection. In 1982, however, after reapportionment, all 59 Senate districts will have elections. In 1982, without cumulative voting and with all state legislators elected from single-member districts, a party could experience a landslide if there again is a strong national surge. The avowed purpose of cumulative voting, of course, was to allow minority party representation. The method of achieving this was the weighted vote; each voter had three votes. When a voter punched the ballot for only one candidate, that was a "bullet" counting as three votes. The voter could also divide his vote among two or three candidates. In fact, the election of a minority party candidate was all but assured since the majority party in each district typically nominated only two candidates. Bullet's distortion But the "bullet vote" also potentially allowed for the election of two representatives by the minority party — an obvious distortion of the intent of cumulative voting. Four districts in 1980 appeared to have done this. The voters of the 46th, 48th, 51st and 54th elected two representatives from the party which received a minority of the total vote cast in the district for representative. In each instance, however, the margin was so narrow (48 or 49 percent) that it would be extremely difficult to say with certainty which party was the "real" majority. Moreover, these "distortions" cancelled each other out. In two cases, the minority Republicans elected two representatives, and in the other two, the minority Democrats got the two seats. The analysis of the 1980 legislative elections in Illinois strongly suggests that reapportionment will be an intractable issue in the General Assembly in 1981 and that the Cutback Amendment will not result in increased competition for House seats nor in less safe seats for House incumbents. The only possible way that the new House districts might be more competitive is the minority party — whether Republican or Democratic — works hard in those districts strongly dominated by the majority party. The absence of cumulative voting might encourage this. Finally, despite the minimal amount of party change in both Senate and House elections in 1980, both elections showed a degree of responsiveness to the larger electoral wave in the nation. Both Illinois chambers moved in the Republican direction. If competition is to be increased in lllinois legislative elections, it will not come from the switch to single-member districts. Rather, it can only come from the revitalization of local party organizations, especially in the Chicago area, where the minority party has atrophied.

Please your boring the shit out of me. The blog is not for novels!

It is impossible for you to have the shit bored out of you, as, you, being so incredibly packed full of shit, possess an unlimited supply of shit and, thus, will never have the shit out of you, no matter how often you feel a slight reduction of same. This blog is not for mental midgets, incapable of comprehending words of more than 2 syllables, nor for imbeciles seeking soap-opera type drama, nor for those too lazy to think, nor for the many clout & tout monkeys shilling for the mayor's gestapo. Try taking your meds and then post a comment of some substance OTHER than your morning spunk.

Thats better!

Frank Coconate November 12th - 8:14 a.m. The White Alderman have a history with the daley's. Alderman banks went to school with Richie, Marge Laurino's father was Daley's connection to the mob, PJ Cullerton and Richie played together as children while her father and old man daley met,Levar and Doherty are just easy to control so why get rid of them. Alderman Mell, Lipinski, Degnan,Joyce,Burke, and Stone put Eugene Sawyer up to finish out Washingtons term with the Idea llittle Richie could destroy sawyer. So there is a sense of loyalty by Rich Daley. Bottom line Richie goes down so do all the kings men!

And how do you all feel about Freddrenna as an alderman? Do her constituants have a right to be upset with her? Has she done well with her time in office?

Why don't we get rid of the aldermen, at least most of them.The various sides of the city can be represented by deputy mayors. You can have a north,south west and central deputy mayor. get rid of these bottom feeding aldermen and their lackey subordinates. Term limits for all lowlife politicians-one to two sucks off the public tit and its off to a real job.

Dumb, really dumb. The city council is the legislative branch of our city government. The legislative branch is responsible for making the laws that are imposed and enforced upon the citizens. The legislative branch consists of a number of elected representatives, said number being elected by a portion of the whole number of citizens residing with the boundaries of this city. Why would anyone want to eliminate the legislative branch of our city government? Why would anyone want to eliminate elected offices that are responsible for representing the many groups of citizens who reside within the boundaries of each of their respective wards? Why would anyone want to eliminate the representation intended to be enjoyed by said residents? Why would anyone think that a system of mini-despots, ie., 'deputy mayors', answering only to the maxi-despot, ie., the mayor, would be better for the citizens of this city? Just because the current crop of aldermen, our city's legislative representatives, along with most past crops of aldermen, have failed miserably in their sworn duties to honestly and aggressively represent the best interests of all of their constituents, doesn't mean that we should support eliminating the legislative branch of our city government. And certainly doesn't mean that we should replace it with a system of dictators and dictator deputies. Replace those elected representatives who have failed in their duties, restore our legislative branch of city government to be what it is supposed to be, ie., a force of balance between the executive and the judicial branches, and an authentic advocate for the will of the citizens. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT

AS long as there is money to be made at the expense of the people of this city, people will keep stealing from them, its too natural not to. Connected people get the contracts, developers and their zoning friends get the changes they need to rip off people. And the Mayor gets the last laugh.

Freddrenna plays both sides against the middle. She posters like an independent,only to remain alderman long enough to be appointed to a judgeship.Lyle received a wake up call during the 2003 aldermanic runoff in the 7th ward. Lyle knows if she appears to appeasing to Daley and the Mob interest, she will be challanged again. Some Black Alderman like Austin, Mitt ,AND WALTER BARNETT,Michelle Harris COULD CARE LESS, if they are seen as being to accomodating to Daley.

To show what at least one of her colleagues thinks of Lyle, Ald. Willie Cochran hired her opponent, Karin Northington Reaves to be his $70K per year assistant.

David Hoffman is not what he appears to be . He made his bones going after gang bangers, and low level political hacks. He purposely tips off Daley, before the FED raid a city Departments. He has never brought down a clout heavy hack, to this day.Now he is going after fake city vechicle sticker producers. I believe the revenue dept, and the Chicago P.D have enough investigators to deal with this problem. Unless, there are city workers involved, why is he so involved? Maybe its his ego,or he was told to find other thing to do beside investigating internal corruption. He hold a big press conference to announce, his investigation. I Davy Hoffman is nothling but smoke and mirrors. I will stand up and oppose him being appointed to a Federal judgeship too. Hoffman is in bed with the corruption at city hall.

Sun-Times today(11/13/07) Robert Feder column. Coconatti is mentioned in his column!

As surprising as it may sound, it's actually the reality that most aldermen barely get enough money to run an office. that's not an accident- this is why they are so dependent on developer handouts, err, donations. my point being, it's the whole system which is gamed, adding or subtracting a few aldermen is addressing a symptom, not the root cause. the root problem is the same as it is everywhere, "pay to play" policies & systems that favor corporations and the wealthy, at the expense of your average citizen.

Anyone know the exact $ amount that alderman get to run their office? We know their salaries are just shy of $100K. Do they get an allowance to spend on a secretary or for rent on office space?

Walter Burnett was a bank robber and sold out his own people to make his ward a nice white ward for rich people.

I looked in the help wanted. No job for "Loafer". Well I will keep looking tomorrow. Jan Pestka the hero

Weeeee... look at me "Frank Coconate: WCKG did nothing but hurt itself with your readers by lying about playing Christmas music". All day sponging off the wife. Thank you Jan Pestka for exposing this tard.

"We know their salaries are just shy of $100K. Do they get an allowance to spend on a secretary or for rent on office space?" They get a lump sum of $33,280,which is unchanged from 1999. They do also get 2 staff positions, but you can imagine how much it's going to cost an alderman to rent an office in a high-rent ward, and how this can lead to a dependence on outside contributions. a few interesting links below http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=14819 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070516/ai_n19115197

apologies, it's three staff members plus the $33,800. http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2006/05/aldermen_eighte.html

33,000? You cannot pay rent with that much unless you are on the west side in one of those nice wards like Caruthers.

How they voted yesterday: Vote on overall budget Yes (37) — Dowell (3rd), Hairston (5th), Lyle (6th), Harris (8th), Beale (9th), Pope (10th), Balcer (11th), Cardenas (12th), Olivo (13th), Burke (14th), Thompson (16th, Thomas (17th), Lane (18th) , Rugai (19th), Cochran (20th), Brookins (21st), Zalewski (2! 3rd), So lis (25th), Ocasio (26th), Burnett (27th), E. Smith (28th), Carothers (29th), Reboyras (30th), Suarez (31st), Waguespack (32nd), Mell (33rd), Austin (34th), Banks (36th), Mitts (37th), Allen (38th), Laurino (39th), O’Connor (40th), Daley (43rd), Tunney (44th), Levar (45th), Shiller (46th), M. Smith (48th). No (13) — Flores (1st), Fioretti (2nd), Preckwinkle (4th), Jackson (7th), Foulkes (15th), Munoz (22nd), Dixon (24th), Colon (35th), Doherty (41st), Reilly (42nd), Schulter (47th), Moore (49th), Stone (50th). Vote to raise property taxes by $86.5 million Yes (29) — Dowell (3rd), Hairston (5th), Lyle (6th), Harris (8th), Beale (9th), Pope (10th), Balcer (11th), Cardenas (12th), Olivo (13th), Burke (14th), Thompson (16th), Thomas (17th), Lane (18th), Rugai (19th), Cochran (20th), Zalewski (23rd), Solis (25th), Ocasio (26th), Burnett (27th), E. Smith (28th), Carothers (29th), Reboyras (30th), Mell (33r d), Austin (34th), Mitts (37th), O’Connor (40th), Tunney (44th), Shiller (46th), M. Smith (48th). No (21) — Flores (1st), Fioretti (2nd), Preckwinkle (4th), Jackson (7th), Foulkes (15th), Brookins (21st), Munoz (22nd), Dixon (24th), Suarez (31st), Waguespack (32nd), Colon (35th), Banks (36th), Allen (38th), Laurino (39th), Doherty (41st), Reilly (42nd), Daley (43rd), Levar (45th), Schulter (47th), Moore (49th), Stone (50th). Vote to raise other taxes, fees and fines Yes (40) — Flores (1st), Dowell (3rd), Hairston (5th), Lyle (6th), Harris (8th), Beale (9th), Pope (10th), Balcer (11th), Cardenas (12th), Olivo (13th), Burke (14th), Thompson (16th), Thomas (17th), Lane (18th), Rugai (19th), Cochran (20th), Zalewski (23rd), Dixon (24th), Solis (25th), Burnett (27th), E. Smith (28th), Carothers (29th), Reboyras (30th), Suarez (31st), Waguespack (32nd), Mell (33rd), Austin (34th), Colón (35th ), Banks (36th), Mitts (37th), Allen (38th), Laurino (39th),! O&rsquo ;Connor (40th), Daley (43rd), Tunney (44th), Levar (45th), Shiller (46th), Schulter (47th), M.Smith (48th), Stone (50th). No (10) — Fioretti (2nd), Preckwinkle (4th), Jackson (7th), Foulkes (15th), Brookins (21st), Munoz (22nd), Ocasio (26th), Doherty (41st), Reilly (42nd), Moore (49th).

It's the same every year, since 2003. They should just lock in 2008-09-10-11. Because as long as we keep the great rich hope in office, the more he and his outfit will steal! The take more than what the taxpayers give! fast forward to next year....Mayor Daley claims there is a short fall of $287 million dollars due to NO revenue from last years tax on water! The Council votes for fee charge on the air we breath! 2009 Budget pass's 40 to 10.

The coward hypocrites that voted for the extra money for their offices and menu money, yet voted against the tax increase will feel the mayor's wrath in 2011 when they come, hat in hand either seeking his support for their re-election (Vi Daley) or to appoint a replacement of their choosing (Bernie Stone). Brookins and Allen can forget support in the primary. The Mayor should take away the committee chairmanships of Suarez, Bankds, Allen, Laurino, Levar, Schulter and Stone and give them to the courageous folks who had the guts to do the weightlifting on the budget. And the union folks will be happy to know that we got Dowell, Thompson and Cochran to flip onto the reservation. Union money well spent/wasted. Anyway, the voters will forget by 2011, but the Mayor will not. The budget passed and with it, another year of salary, earned pension credits and living the good life. Life is beautiful, NEXT !

And why is Coconuts so worried about taxes ? I do not think that unemployment checks are taxable. Oh, but maybe since his wife is now the bread winner, it does effect him to a certain degree. Life is beautiful, NEXT !

The Mayor isn't the only one with a long memory. Failing schools, public transportation falling apart, an unaccountable police department, TIF abuse, under funded pension obligations, a shrinking economy, a housing market crises, deteriorating infrastructure, a blue bag fraud and recycling fiasco, more federal indictment and convictions, and an increase in crime that is destined to hit Chicago as hard as it has other US cities... you can not plant enough flowers to cover the mess this city is in, most certainly not from those who rate our bonds. Life is beautiful though.

You are so focused on what our Mayor, in your opinion is doing wrong, that you can not focus on the little things, like putting a receipt on your petitions. Oh, and you must be slipping, because you forgot to mention about your military service. Life is beautiful, NEXT !

The failures of our governments is not the fault of one man. I think the Mayor has done an OK job (he has a difficult one), but I also believe you can be critical about the issues facing the citizens of Chicago. I also think it is time for a change and would support a candidate who could deliver that change in the next election. I also think it is sad that you try to defend the trivialization of our democracy by dismissing the demonstrated support by not submitting a receipt in a timely manner (our state and federal government has shown how to get things that really matter in a 'timely' manner). Politics is about ideas, and governing is about implementing those ideas. I don't care about the personalities involved, and that includes you and the mayor. Our governments at all levels are a disgrace. Our military is falling apart, the CIA, State Dept., and Justice Dept. are in a state of crises. At the state and local level there is a crises in leadership, with a bunch of cowards who are unwilling to face a new generation with new ideas. I know I am a decent person, and a very competent person. You are wasting your time and energy by trying to portray me as anything other than that. I lost a legal argument about ballot access - that's it. I've moved on, and so should you. We certainly agree that life is beautiful - too beautiful to waste time arguing with the likes of you.

Orion, grow the fuck up buddy! You didn't "flip" any aldermen. As I told you before, the unions did not take an official position on the budget, therefore we did not ask the Progressive aldermen to vote against it. If you had any real juice you would know that Joanne Thompson's and Pat Dowell's votes will pay huge dividends to their communities. BTW, this was the most votes against the budget since 1991 and your Mayor was none too happy about it. I am still waiting for your reply to my numerous challenges. I know you won't ever show your face though...coward!

What a deluded little union fool you are. Using your argument, Foulkes and Dixon should have also voted for the budget because their shit-hole wards are worse off than wards 3 and 16. Nice try, but failed again. Life is beautiful, NEXT !

If the regular posters here put half the time they spend posting into local political organizing, they could win an aldermanic seat.

If an alderman doesn't have time to read the budget before voting on it, they don't have time to be an alderman and should immediately resign.

HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT Simple. Effective. Easy. Just Do It.

A stab at some simple math would have undermined the entire premise of your GAO comparison. Proportionally, the funding and # of employees at the GAO is significantly LOWER than the City of Chicago spends on its IG. GAO: $485m/$2.9 trillion = .017% IG: $5.6m/$5.9 billion = .095%, or almost 6 times more spending, proportionally. GAO: 3260 / 14.6 million federal employees = .022% IG: 66 / 36000 = 0.183%, or 8 times more investigators, proportionally. Does the City need more investigative resources, proportionally, than the federal government? Yes. But it's grossly misleading to imply that it has significantly fewer resources than the GAO when the math so obviously points in the other direction.

While percentages are often very useful in understanding financial and practical realities, in this case, percentages are not helpful. In the case of Federal agencies, while there are still many that flaunt the laws prohibiting theft by fraud and misuse/misappropriation of public funds, the oversight function o f the GOA is much more vigorous, proportionally, than any oversight efforts seen to date, here in Crook County and the City That Works, for a few crooks, that is. Furthermore, without a rock solid commitment, from those empowered to investigate, indict and prosecute thefts by fraud and criminal misuse/misappropriation of public funds, all the tax dollars in the world won't end the graft, corruption and thievery that we, the taxpaying citizens of this city, county and state have long endured. It's the corruption of our county and state prosecutors and judiciaries that is the cause of so much thievery continuing to exist and flourish. The electorate must force changes to the natures of our governments, executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch, of our city, county and state. We have the potential power, we haven't, to date, exerted it. The citizens must commit themselves to realizing that the sources of our problems are not a mere few individuals, but, rather, every single incumbent elected official, be they of the executive branch, the legislative branch or the judicial branch, city, county and state. With few exceptions, all incumbents are the problem, be they Democrats or Republicans. REGISTER TO VOTE VOTE ON ELECTION DAY DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENTS When your choice is between only 2 candidates, the incumbent and a single challenger, VOTE FOR THE CHALLENGER, regardless of party affiliation. When you have the choice between only 3 candidates, a Democrat, a Republican and a candidate of neither party, vote for the candidate of NEITHER PARTY. VOTE to NOT RETAIN whenever you have the choice to do so. Reject each and every Democrat and Republican at every opportunity. When faced with more than 3 candidates running for a given office, concentrate your votes by voting per Ballot Position, as in: If the INCUMBENT's name is listed FIRST, then vote for the candidate whose name is LISTED LAST or If the INCUMBENT's name is NOT listed first, then vote for the candidate whose name IS LISTED FIRST. Focus on ousting every incumbent currently in office, making exceptions sparingly, and only if you are certain that an individual incumbent has proven, to your satisfaction, to be worthy of being reelected. Force the changes, (through the committed use of the power of your votes), that those in control of our governments, (and, thus, our pocketbooks, through their power to tax), have refused to implement. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT

I shant tell Mayor Daley what to do with his committees, otherwise the mayor won't flip me! *sobbbbbbb*

The Jessay Juniah "F*cking Our Fathers" playgoers Like the VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT ASSHOLE JUST TO SUCK JESSE I WANT A CITY INCOME TAX IN CHICAGO'S DICK JACKSON JR & TONY MY WIFE IS A SUNNI MUSLIM RADICAL BITCH PRICKRACA, So QUIT cajoling the people, PLEASE!!!!!!.

BECAUSE it WILL be the SAME SHIT!!!!!!, But DIFFERENT LEADER!!!!!!!!!!.

Gee, buddy, you can't even remember which article you're posting on. Guess what, buddy, I'll gladly take the chance of having someone, ANYONE, different occupying EVERY SINGLE ELECTED OFFICE, be it of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch or Judicial Branch, the more different people, the better. ANYONE but the ASSHOLES who are cooperating in the shameless acts of SHITTING all over the Publics' Best Interests NOW. Because, as it's obvious you know all too well, the ASSHOLES in office NOW are the ASSHOLES who've BEEN in office for DECADES, and have been FUCKING UP our lives for DECADES. Be they Republicans or Democrats, they are, certifiably, ALL ASSHOLES. YOU know it, I know, and the fact that you find it so desperately necessary to constantly post comments condemning any and all attempts to share what WE know with the citizens at large, is PROOF POSITIVE that HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT will be an EFFECTIVE voting technique to rid ourselves of the vermin who attempt to pass themselves off as Servants of the Public. Primary Elections present the best opportunities to apply this voting strategy. Primary Elections are where the incumbents are the most vulnerable. Deny the incumbents a Primary win and you've just knocked them off the General Election ballot, at least as a candidate of their declared party. Deny the two 'major' parties their incumbents as candidates in the General Election, force the two 'major' parties to run non-incumbents in the General Election, and you open up the General Election to any and all Independent Challengers. No longer will the voters have to face the unpleasant reality of having only an asshole Democrat or an asshole Republican to choose from in any given General Election contest. When the voters have that third candidate to vote for, and that third candidate is not a Republican or a Democrat, the voters will then actually have the beginnings of a chance to reject the assholes of BOTH 'major' parties, said assholes having been in control of our governments for far too long. With few exceptions, all incumbents are the problem, be they Democrats or Republicans. REGISTER TO VOTE VOTE ON ELECTION DAY DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENTS When your choice is between only 2 candidates, the incumbent and a single challenger, VOTE FOR THE CHALLENGER, regardless of party affiliation. When you have the choice between only 3 candidates, a Democrat, a Republican and a candidate of neither party, vote for the candidate of NEITHER PARTY. VOTE to NOT RETAIN whenever you have the choice to do so. Reject each and every Democrat and Republican at every opportunity. When faced with more than 3 candidates running for a given office, concentrate your votes by voting per Ballot Position, as in: If the INCUMBENT's name is listed FIRST, then vote for the candidate whose name is LISTED LAST or If the INCUMBENT's name is NOT listed first, then vote for the candidate whose name IS LISTED FIRST. Focus on ousting EVERY incumbent currently in office, making exceptions sparingly, and ONLY if you are CERTAIN that an individual incumbent has proven, to your satisfaction, to be WORTHY of being reelected. Force the changes, (through the committed use of the power of your votes), that those in control of our governments, (and, thus, our pocketbooks, through their power to tax), have refused to implement. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT

Your "HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT" is NOTHING but giving free BLOWJOBS to St. Jesse Jackson Jr. Freaking CONDESCENDING PRICK. Go give BLOWJOBS to Tony Peraica & His Sunni Muslim wife who's most likely anotomically incorrect.

Go to the play "F*cking Our Fathers" with your boyfriends Jesse Jr, Tony Prickraica & your OTHER freaking sick freakos, With your Vaseline. Sick perverts!!!!!.

As the Primary approaches, so does panic time in the kingdom of the clout monkeys. Hear them chatter and screech, as their fear rises up in their scrawny little necks. See them scamper to and fro, like ants in a crumbling anthill. Smell the fear that permeates their lairs. Might this be the day, the day when their primacy is ended? The natives are restless, there's a feeling in the air of impending doom. Can the unthinkable happen? Is it possible that the king of the kingdom of the clout monkeys cannot save them, from the approaching storm? Tune in next week, for the exciting next chapter in the ongoing sage of 'The Legendary Kingdom of the Clout Monkeys'.

It's just YOU Jesse Jackass Jr wanks trying to cajole the masses, When THAT asshole can't run a 3-car funeral. Your "HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT" charlatan is FAR from convincing, With his tiresome mantra. What would be life like with Jesse Jr in power??????????; SAME SHIT, Only WORSE!!!!!.

"...the masses..." Now, what do the clout monkeys define the 'masses' to be? And, how appropriate is it, that they use the term "...to cajole...", as in, dishonestly persuade? And, why this dishonest effort to falsely link the suggested ousting of all incumbents with JJ Jr.'s political ambitions, as if JJ Jr. is not just another professional politician seeking the same things every professional politician seeks? HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT means just that, nothing more and nothing less. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT is, as has been stated numerous times, a voting strategy designed to empower the citizens with a means to use their inherent Right to Vote to remove the cancerous individuals currently making our city and county governments diseased to the point of near death. Those citizens who are willing to make the efforts necessary to discern the difference between a professional politician, aka political hack, and an honest human being seeking to be elected to public office, are absolutely free to vote for whomever they choose, preferably the honest human being. Those citizens who find it difficult to figure out which candidates running for elected office are honest human beings and which candidates are 'professional political hacks' can apply the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT voting strategy with the understanding that their votes will, at the very least, accomplish one thing, that thing being the removal of the present crop of political hacks currently infecting our city and county governments. The first step in curing our governments of the disease infecting them, said disease being the thorough infestation of our governments by said professional political hacks, is the removal of same. This removal, like the removal of cancerous tumors, is unlikely to be totally achieved in a single, election. But the alternative, to do nothing, will never accomplish anything, other than to resign ourselves to 'live' with these cancerous tumors. These cancerous tumors are mostly malignant, rarely benign. They drain the economic life out of every 'common' citizen. They are like vampires, feeding off the living, sucking the economic life out of every hard working, honest citizen. Will the application of the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT voting strategy allow some political hacks to be elected? Probably, though, if enough honest human beings manage to get on the upcoming Primary ballot, the odds concerning the 'vote according to ballot position' part of the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT strategy will favor those honest human beings. The process by which our city and county governments have become so thoroughly corrupted has taken generations, thus, the cure for this diseased condition will take more than a single election. Every journey has a beginning. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT can be that beginning. If the 'masses' wish it to be.

IT'S DOUBTFUL THAT THE POSTERS WHO MAKE THE CLAIM OF ANTI-AMERICANISM ARE REFERRING TO CITIZENS VOTING IN EVERY ELECTION OR JUDGING INCUMBENTS ON THEIR RECORDS-WHAT IT SEEMS ,IMO, IS THEY ARE REFERRING TO THE POSTERS THAT MALIGN ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH THE SAME BRUSH,MAKING USE OF LIES,INNUENDOES,AND DISTORTIONS OF PUBLIC RECORDS, ALL WITH THE INTENT TO CREATE PUBLIC MISTRUST AND DISTRUST WITH ALL LEVELS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT,AND ALL WHO HOLD OFFICE. THE "VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS" OUT POSTER IS A GLARING EXAMPLE OF THIS SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR-A-L-L?THAT POSTER IS TRYING TO PERSUADE VOTING CITIZENS THAT ANY AND ALL DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS ,WITHOUT EXCEPTION, SHOULD BE VOTED OUT IN FAVOR OF "CHAOS CREATING" NEWBIES,WHO THE MINUTE THEY ARE ELECTED WILL BE INCUMBENTS. ONE POSTER KNOWN TO BE THAT UNREASONABLE IS THE ONE NAMED "HUGH"

The machine's clout monkeys post their drivel on an observable time table, to wit: Posts between approximately 11am and 2pm tell us they're on their lunch 'hours'. Posts between approximately 3pm and 5pm tell us they're on their 'late afternoon coffee breaks'. Posts between approximately 8am and 10am tell us they're on their 'morning coffee breaks'. Posts appearing during any other time periods tell us they've taken the day off. And they say everything is beautiful.

I did make the effort to sift through your ALL CAPS post, difficult as it was to read. My efforts were wasted, though, as I couldn't find a single honest thought, a single coherent idea, a single genuine expression of anything reasonable or rational, try as I might. Unless you actually don't understand the concept of the citizen/voters: 1) casting their votes intelligently, 2) considering the past actions of their incumbent elected public officials as indicative of their probable future actions, 3) determining whether or not those actions were truly representative of the interests and desires of said citizen/voters 4) and, thus, deciding whether or not their elected, incumbent officials deserve to be reelected. Should the citizen/voters determine that their incumbent, previously elected officials do NOT deserve to be reelected, the logical course of action would be to cast their votes in such a way as to ENSURE that those incumbent officials are NOT reelected. Thus, the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT voting strategy. The citizen/voters desires are fully respected, a strategy to accomplish the denial of reelection to those incumbents said voters choose to NOT reelect is provided, (one that will, if applied, ensure that incumbents NOT worthy of reelection will, in fact, NOT be reelected), and the ALL CAPS poster calls this anti-democratic and un-American? As all previously elected officials in office are, by definition, incumbents seeking reelection in any current election, and, as all incumbents have at least some record of actions taken while in office, and, as their records of actions taken, as elected public servants, are indicative of what actions they are likely to take in the future, should they win reelection, it's puzzling why the ALL CAPS poster should have any objections to the citizen/voters being encouraged to consider the actions of the incumbents, when deciding whether or not to reelect same. Furthermore, to characterize the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT voting strategy as being 'seditious' is, to put it mildly, ludicrous. As the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT proposals include the statements: "With few exceptions, all incumbents are the problem, be they Democrats or Republicans." and "Focus on ousting EVERY incumbent currently in office, making exceptions sparingly, and ONLY if you are CERTAIN that an individual incumbent has proven, to your satisfaction, to be WORTHY of being reelected." and "Reelect whoever you choose, but don't kid yourselves, the incumbents are not the people who give a shit about you, not one bit. No matter how many soothing words come out of their mealy mouths." and "If you want to make exceptions and reelect an incumbent, that's your decision, as it's your vote and you can cast it for whomever you choose." and "It will not be enough to bid the current generation of crooks a fond farewell, for, with the next generation of crooks ready to step up and continue to pick our pockets, nothing will change but the faces. To ensure a real change in our governments, we, as citizens, must accept the responsibilities inherent in our Constitutional Democracy, the essential one being our Right to Vote. None of the Rights, enumerated in our Bill of Rights, has any value, if we, as free citizens, living in a free country, choose not to exercise them in their entirety. Our Right to Vote is the foundation of all of our other Rights. When we elect, or allow to be elected, individuals who have no genuine respect for our Rights, we effectively abandon our Rights. We, here in this city, and county, HAVE effectively abandoned any claim to our many Rights, by electing individuals, or allowing individuals to be elected, who have NO respect for our Rights. We can begin reclaiming our Rights by committing ourselves to exerting the minimal efforts required to: REGISTER TO VOTE VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION VOTE TO DENY INCUMBENTS REELECTION VOTE TO NOT RETAIN EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL Use your Right-to-Vote to remove the dishonest, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative bullshitters, open our elections to every citizen who wishes to serve, respect and value your Right-to-Vote." Now, ALL CAPS poster, what is 'seditious' about encouraging the citizen/voters to exercise their Right to Vote?

ONLY IN DICTATORSHIPS ARE PEOPLE FORCED TO "VOTE".AMERICAN CITIZENS, WHO ARE LEGALLY REGISTERED VOTERS, CAN CHOOSE TO VOTE IN ANY AND ALL ELECTIONS; THE ACT OF VOTING IN A DEMOCRACY IS VOLUNTARY,ON THE PART OF THE VOTER! YOU'RE SERIAL POSTING IS NOT INTENDED TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY;THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. YOU'RE POSTS ARE INTENDED TO CREATE PUBLIC DISTRUST AND HOSTILITY TO THEIR GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS ,AND THOSE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AND THE PUBLIC SERVANTS THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS APPOINT,USUALLY AT FAR LESS SALARY THAN THEY COULD EARN IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY. WHAT IS SEDITIOUS IS INCITING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT ALL IS BAD. NEGATIVITY TAKES NO SKILL IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES, JUST BITTERNESS!

When you use dictatorships as an example, at least try to be a little honest in your description of them. In a true dictatorship, there aren't any elections. In a dictatorship that pretends to be a democracy, there may be elections, but most offices have only one candidate to vote for. (sound familiar?) In a dictatorship that pretends to be a democracy, where there is more than one candidate, there is rarely more than two, and the common knowledge is made known that to vote for anyone other than the incumbent would note be a 'wise' thing to do. (also sounds familiar?) Plus, in a dictatorship pretending to be a democracy, the citizen/voters know that there is little likelihood that their votes are secret, and every likelihood that their votes are known by the dictatorship's minions. You further state: "......THE PUBLIC SERVANTS THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS APPOINT,USUALLY AT FAR LESS SALARY THAN THEY COULD EARN IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY." Now I KNOW you must be high! Blasted out of your mind. Or haven't you visited the web sites that have the names and salaries of every county employee, including those overpaid appointees you have the gall to say are generously serving the public by being compensated "....USUALLY AT FAR LESS SALARY THAN THEY COULD EARN IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY.". How convenient for you, to leave out how all those 'appointed' by our 'elected' officials benefit from the insider connections, immortalized by the phrase 'I don' wan' nobody dat nobody sent.'. Plus, as has been delineated previously, since you've chosen to raise, as an issue, the citizen/voters' right to NOT vote, when approximately 50% of all eligible-to-vote citizens fail to register to vote AND when approximately 50% of those who are registered fail to vote on election day, we, the public, are left with a mere 25% of all citizens who COULD be voting, actually voting in any given election. Since the most votes any given candidate must receive to be elected is 51% of the total votes cast, we see that, at most, a meager 13% of the total number of citizens who COULD be voting are deciding who gets elected and who does not. This is, as you've stated, YOUR concept of Democracy. It is NOT mine. Nor is it the concept of Democracy established by our Founding Fathers, who would NEVER have envisioned their country being dominated by political hacks who encourage citizens to exercise their Right to Vote by NOT voting. Finally, you state: "....NEGATIVITY TAKES NO SKILL IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES, JUST BITTERNESS!" And you claim to be an American? Where the hell do you think this "....NEGATIVITY...." comes from? What the hell do you think has brought about "....THESE TROUBLED TIMES..." that you speak of? Why the hell do you suppose there is any "....BITTERNESS!" in the minds and hearts of the citizens at large? And who the hell do you think is responsible for same? "Not I", said the 'elected by 13% of the citizens' officials. "Not I", said the 'overpaid appointees', given 'jobs' by the 'elected by 13% of the citizens' officials. "Not I", said the 'corrupted businessmen' buying influence and sweetheart contracts from the 'elected by 13% of the citizens' officials. "Surely Not I", said the ringmasters of corrupted governments. "Most Certainly Not I", said the minions touting for the incumbent, machine politicians, be they called Republicans or Democrats. "It Ain't I, Neither!", said the phony mis-leaders of their communities. So, who is responsible? If not all of the above? Why, according to mister/missus ALL CAPS poster, it's US. As in "We Have Met The Enemy, and It Is Us.". In a sense, this is so, as, We, the People, by failing to exercise our Right to Vote, by allowing that 13% of our fellow citizens to decide who our elected officials will be, have failed ourselves. REGISTER TO VOTE VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT (or vote to keep every incumbent you please, and 'enjoy' things staying exactly the same as they have been. It's your vote and your choice.)

WAS THAT A MINI-THESIS IN TURNSPEAK OR WHAT?

If it 'was' anything, it 'was', and is, an invitation, to all citizens, to think, to understand and to act on their understanding. 'Turn-speak' is an interesting term, coined, apparently, by those who have developed the concept into an art form. Professional politicians, aka professional liars, aka professional bullshitters, aka professional salesmen, aka professional 'leaders', aka professional bunko artists, aka professional deceivers, et al, have been around for thousands of years, as long as there has been men and women to lie to each other. 'Bear No False Witness' is an admonition that some will always ignore. It's up to the citizen/voters to not support these liars. It's up to the citizen/voters to not elect these liars. It's up to the citizen/voters to not reelect these liars. That is the reason for the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT voting strategy. Nothing more and nothing less. Those citizen/voters who DO support said liars are registered to vote and vote in every election. Those citizens who do NOT support said liars, have NOT, to date, been as dedicated to honest government, consisting of honest people, elected by honest people, acting honestly, thinking honestly and dedicated to honesty, as those dishonest citizen/voters HAVE been dedicated to electing dishonest, self-serving liars and thieves. For example, who said, BEFORE the last election, that there would be NO need to raise taxes? And, who said, AFTER being reelected, that everything's going to shit and taxes will have to be raised? Answer: Many reelected public officials, at all levels of government. So, what's to be done about all these incumbent liars? We know the answer to this question. We need only to have the resolve to do it. HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT

AND ROUND AND ROUND WE GO!- 'Bear No False Witness' is an admonition that some will always ignore.QUOTE FROM ABOVE POST-IF TWISTING PUBLIC RECORDS AND MAKING SCURRILLOUS CHARGES AGAINST PEOPLE BASED ON THOSE "TWISTS", COGNITIVE DISSONENCE,HALLUCINATIONS,OR OUJI BOARDS ISN'T BEARING FALSE WITNESS ,THAN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FALSE WITNESS,AKA,LYING!

This must mean that those thoroughly 'honest' elected officials WILL be posting, on the City of Chicago and Cook County websites: The ENTIRE City and County payrolls, week by week, The ENTIRE accounted for payments to ALL contractors, The ENTIRE accounted for payments to EVERYONE, for EVERYTHING our tax dollars are spent on, The names of EACH and EVERY person, business entity, (with the names of the owners/investors/partners/etc. of each), vendors for EVERY item purchased, and the names of the vendors purchased from, and the recipients of EVERY PENNY of the taxpayers dollars, for whatever specified purpose, in the very near future, right? All the above information is supposed to be publicly available, right? In a form that is NOT intentionally, or negligently complicated and indecipherable to the average citizen, right? After all, as the self-proclaimed guardians of the Public Trust, what better way for you to build and maintain that trust, than to prove you're worthy of same? And, what better way to prove your worthiness than to show EVERYONE just how honest you all have been and are being? Publish every last digit concerning the spending of our tax dollars, identify every single recipient of same, specify every single purpose and use of our tax dollars, THEN, and only then, will you have PROVEN you can be trusted. That is, IF you do, if fact, prove that our tax dollars have not been misused, wasted, stolen, or otherwise incompetently mismanaged. Unless, of course, it's your position that the Public's business is NONE of the Public's business.

MORE OF HUGH'S TURNSPEAK AND COMPULIVE HATRED OF ALL GOVERNMENT,ELECTED AND APPOINTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND OUR VERY FORM OF GOVERNMENT! HUGH IS ASKING FOR SUPERFLOUS POSTING OF PUBLIC RECORDS WITH THE ABOVE POST,SO HE CAN EITHER(IF HE ACTUALLY HAD HIS REQUEST FULFILLED) HAVE AN EVEN GREATER DATA BASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO DISTORT AND MAKE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OVER, OR COMPLAIN THAT THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

It's not 'hatred', nor is it, whatever 'it' may be, 'all government'. It is an encouragement, to all citizens, to participate in the selections of those individual human beings who are to be entrusted with the responsibilities inherent in the positions to which they are elected. To have a request, for the very public information that would show every tax-paying citizen exactly what their taxes are paying for, be characterized as being 'superfluous' is the height of hypocrisy, even for a clout minion. Specific information on the specific expenditures of our tax dollars is everything but 'superfluous'. The claim that such public information is to be denied the public, either by a blatant refusal to provide it or by the providing of it in such a way as to be incomprehensible to the citizens, is typical of the common practices of both the Democratic party office holders and the Republican party office holders. Arrogance abounds in both these two, dominant political parties. Arrogance, and indifference to the honest citizens' concerns. As the saying goes 'Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.' Regardless of how often said 'Denials' are made in ALL CAPS.

YEP, CLASS IS OUT . YOU HATE THE TWO PARTIES ,HUGH, AND ARE MOST LIKELY A SUPPORTER OF THE TEXAS WHACKO , YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE!SO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL CHALLENGE TO YOU,HUGH:WHEN DO YOU RUN FOR OFFICE AND LEAD BY EXAMPLE,RATHER THAN "TAR AND FEATHER" ALL WHO DO PUT THEMSELVES OUT THERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.INSTEAD OF CALLING OTHERS "CLOUT MINIONS","CLOUT MONKIES", CLOUT___", WHEN DO YOU STOP BEING A "TENURE MONKEY" AND AN ACADEMIC ELITIST SEDITIONIST? ARTIST?

"ALL WHO DO PUT THEMSELVES OUT THERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC."? Other than the police and firemen, the only individuals who '...put themselves out...' are the ones putting out to their clout. And the only way the public is being served is as economic food for the hogs that feed at the public financed trough. "WHEN DO YOU STOP BEING A...." greedy, lazy, liar and actually do some kind of honest work for your paycheck? Or is honest work not a part of your vocabulary?

HUGH, YOU NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE! YOU ASSUME THAT ANYONE WHO OPPOSES YOUR ANARCHIST "HATE ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS" WORLD VIEW IS A "greedy, lazy, liar",AND THAT ANY SUCH POSTER MUST BE "hogs that feed at the public financed trough". DO YOU , A SUPPOSEDLY EDUCATED MAN, REALLY HAVE SUCH A JAUNDICED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY?HOW DID YOU,HUGH, GET TO BE SUCH A BITTER MAN,SO HATEFUL OF THOSE WILLING TO MAKE OUR SOCIETY FUNCTION? YOU ARE DEFINETLY AN ANARCHIST AND MOST LIKELY YOU ARE BUYING IN BIG TIME TO THE EXTREMIST PAUL,WHO SEEMS TO BE A NATIONAL VERSION OF YOU; ONE DIFFERENCE, AS DISTASTEFUL AS PAUL IS ,APPEALING TO THOSE "ANGRY" WHACK JOBS LIKE YOU,AT LEAST HE HAS THE COURAGE TO RUN, UNLIKE YOU,HUGH!

Let's take your opinions one lie at a time: (Advance apologies to all who are thinking "Uh, Let's not") "HUGH, YOU NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE!" Since I am not Hugh, I will conclude that you admire Hugh, Hughever Hugh is, and have admired him for many years. Give yourself some closure and accept the fact that Hugh apparently doesn't know you exist and doesn't care. So move on with your life and bid Hugh a fond ado. "YOU ASSUME THAT ANYONE WHO OPPOSES YOUR ANARCHIST 'HATE ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS' WORLD VIEW IS A 'greedy, lazy, liar',AND THAT ANY SUCH POSTER MUST BE 'hogs that feed at the public financed trough.'" As stated before, no hate is being felt or expressed, nor is any desire for anarchy. What is being expressed is an observation, of the natures and characteristics of those many, fraudulent individuals, who purport to be public servants, while serving only, or primarily, themselves and their friends, families and co-conspirators in said fraud. Also observed is that, for the most part, those who post obsessively slanted-in-favor-of the established, political machines' activities, both Democrats and Republicans, are invested in the continuation of 'politics as usual', said 'politics as usual' being, in one way or another, the source of their lucrative incomes. And, since authentic public service is quite a different thing than 'politics as usual', authentic public service being an activity substantially free from feelings of greed, sloth and dishonesty, and, since the activities of all those many who support, and profit from, 'politics as usual' is so packed full of greed, sloth and dishonesty, it seemed appropriate to conclude that those so obsessively supportive of 'politics as usual' would, quite naturally, be those obsessed with being greedy, lazy, liars. "DO YOU , A SUPPOSEDLY EDUCATED MAN, REALLY HAVE SUCH A JAUNDICED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY?HOW DID YOU,HUGH, GET TO BE SUCH A BITTER MAN,SO HATEFUL OF THOSE WILLING TO MAKE OUR SOCIETY FUNCTION?" Let's break this one down a bit: "DO YOU, A SUPPOSEDLY EDUCATED MAN, REALLY HAVE SUCH A JAUNDICED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY?" Well, do you? "HOW DID YOU,(whomever you are) GET TO BE SUCH A BITTER MAN,SO HATEFUL OF THOSE WILLING TO MAKE OUR SOCIETY FUNCTION?" Who do you think makes our society function? Surely not those who, like vampires, suck the economic blood from the arteries of the many hard-working citizens who are being taxed into poverty? Surely not those who regularly mock and ridicule any who dare to object to being thus treated? Surely not those who have the gall to claim, with a straight face, that their self-serving activities are, miraculously, serving the public's best interest? Surely you jest? "YOU ARE DEFINETELY AN ANARCHIST AND MOST LIKELY YOU ARE BUYING IN BIG TIME TO THE EXTREMIST PAUL,WHO SEEMS TO BE A NATIONAL VERSION OF YOU; ONE DIFFERENCE, AS DISTASTEFUL AS PAUL IS,APPEALING TO THOSE "ANGRY" WHACK JOBS LIKE YOU,AT LEAST HE HAS THE COURAGE TO RUN, UNLIKE YOU,HUGH!" Well, since Hugh I am not, and, as I am not an anarchist, nor a supporter of some guy named Paul, nor am I angry, you must be speaking to someone who is not I. You sound like you could use a 'time out'. And maybe some cookies and milk.

ABSOLUTLY ,VINTAGE,HUGH!

Hugh, whoever Hugh is, must be finding your comments Hughmorous, indeed. As in the Hughge error in judgment that you are determined to consistently make concerning who Hugh is. While it is obvious, from all of Hugh's posts that Hugh is a reasonable, rational and intelligent Hughman being, seeking to expose the corrupted for who and what they are, I doubt that Hugh would deem it necessary to deny his Hughness, especially to you. But, you keep on obsessing about Hugh, and who Hugh may be. I'll just continue to encourage all, who are willing to ponder, to HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT.

hugh has more faces than Lon Cheney! The caps poster is right-if Hugh put his name to every post he does, this would be the Hugh blog in name as well as fact.

So, when are you clout & tout monkeys gonna actually address the points made by whoever you've seen fit to mock and slander? Or don't you got anything to say but mockeries and slanders?

What is it with this poster who has so much scorn for those who serve the public? Why doesn't he tell us what his vocation is? Perhaps he lives in a glass house and throws rocks! Wouldn't it be a hoot if he worked in local gov't. and is disgruntled over not getting an undeserved promotion? Food for thought.

"What is it with this poster who has so much scorn for those who..." criticize those who pretend to "...serve the public?"? "Why doesn't he tell us what his..." clout job "...is?"? "Perhaps he..." knows he "...lives in a glass house and..." isn't bright enough to realize that when he "...throws rocks!" he's likely to damage his own house? "Wouldn't it be a hoot if he..." has never "...worked in local gov't. and is disgruntled over not getting..." a clouted job, but has to settle for getting "...an undeserved..." token, flunky job, with no chance of ever getting a "...promotion?"? "Food for thought."?

"THE ABOVE ANARCHIST/ANTI-AMERICAN POST November 30th - 4:56 p.m. IT'S DOUBTFUL THAT THE POSTERS WHO MAKE THE CLAIM OF ANTI-AMERICANISM ARE REFERRING TO CITIZENS VOTING IN EVERY ELECTION OR JUDGING INCUMBENTS ON THEIR RECORDS-WHAT IT SEEMS ,IMO, IS THEY ARE REFERRING TO THE POSTERS THAT MALIGN ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH THE SAME BRUSH,MAKING USE OF LIES,INNUENDOES,AND DISTORTIONS OF PUBLIC RECORDS, ALL WITH THE INTENT TO CREATE PUBLIC MISTRUST AND DISTRUST WITH ALL LEVELS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT,AND ALL WHO HOLD OFFICE. THE "VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS" OUT POSTER IS A GLARING EXAMPLE OF THIS SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR-A-L-L?THAT POSTER IS TRYING TO PERSUADE VOTING CITIZENS THAT ANY AND ALL DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS ,WITHOUT EXCEPTION, SHOULD BE VOTED OUT IN FAVOR OF "CHAOS CREATING" NEWBIES,WHO THE MINUTE THEY ARE ELECTED WILL BE INCUMBENTS. ONE POSTER KNOWN TO BE THAT UNREASONABLE IS THE ONE NAMED "HUGH"" "ALL ELECTIONS ARE OPEN! December 2nd - 4:27 p.m. ONLY IN DICTATORSHIPS ARE PEOPLE FORCED TO "VOTE".AMERICAN CITIZENS, WHO ARE LEGALLY REGISTERED VOTERS, CAN CHOOSE TO VOTE IN ANY AND ALL ELECTIONS; THE ACT OF VOTING IN A DEMOCRACY IS VOLUNTARY,ON THE PART OF THE VOTER! YOU'RE SERIAL POSTING IS NOT INTENDED TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY;THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. YOU'RE POSTS ARE INTENDED TO CREATE PUBLIC DISTRUST AND HOSTILITY TO THEIR GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS ,AND THOSE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AND THE PUBLIC SERVANTS THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS APPOINT,USUALLY AT FAR LESS SALARY THAN THEY COULD EARN IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY. WHAT IS SEDITIOUS IS INCITING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT ALL IS BAD. NEGATIVITY TAKES NO SKILL IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES, JUST BITTERNESS!" "WOW!VINTAGE HUGH December 3rd - 10:12 a.m. WAS THAT A MINI-THESIS IN TURNSPEAK OR WHAT?" "Hugh IS WRITING A TURNSPEAK THESIS December 3rd - 3:59 p.m. AND ROUND AND ROUND WE GO!- 'Bear No False Witness' is an admonition that some will always ignore.QUOTE FROM ABOVE POST-IF TWISTING PUBLIC RECORDS AND MAKING SCURRILLOUS CHARGES AGAINST PEOPLE BASED ON THOSE "TWISTS", COGNITIVE DISSONENCE,HALLUCINATIONS,OR OUJI BOARDS ISN'T BEARING FALSE WITNESS ,THAN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FALSE WITNESS,AKA,LYING!" "RE:Well December 5th - 10:01 a.m. MORE OF HUGH'S TURNSPEAK AND COMPULIVE HATRED OF ALL GOVERNMENT,ELECTED AND APPOINTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND OUR VERY FORM OF GOVERNMENT! HUGH IS ASKING FOR SUPERFLOUS POSTING OF PUBLIC RECORDS WITH THE ABOVE POST,SO HE CAN EITHER(IF HE ACTUALLY HAD HIS REQUEST FULFILLED) HAVE AN EVEN GREATER DATA BASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO DISTORT AND MAKE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OVER, OR COMPLAIN THAT THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE." "RE:ESSENTIALS December 5th - 2:53 p.m. YEP, CLASS IS OUT . YOU HATE THE TWO PARTIES ,HUGH, AND ARE MOST LIKELY A SUPPORTER OF THE TEXAS WHACKO , YOUR IDEOLOGICAL SOULMATE!SO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL CHALLENGE TO YOU,HUGH:WHEN DO YOU RUN FOR OFFICE AND LEAD BY EXAMPLE,RATHER THAN "TAR AND FEATHER" ALL WHO DO PUT THEMSELVES OUT THERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.INSTEAD OF CALLING OTHERS "CLOUT MINIONS","CLOUT MONKIES", CLOUT___", WHEN DO YOU STOP BEING A "TENURE MONKEY" AND AN ACADEMIC ELITIST SEDITIONIST? ARTIST?" "re:DENIAL MONKEY December 5th - 6:01 p.m. HUGH, YOU NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE! YOU ASSUME THAT ANYONE WHO OPPOSES YOUR ANARCHIST "HATE ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS" WORLD VIEW IS A "greedy, lazy, liar",AND THAT ANY SUCH POSTER MUST BE "hogs that feed at the public financed trough". DO YOU , A SUPPOSEDLY EDUCATED MAN, REALLY HAVE SUCH A JAUNDICED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY?HOW DID YOU,HUGH, GET TO BE SUCH A BITTER MAN,SO HATEFUL OF THOSE WILLING TO MAKE OUR SOCIETY FUNCTION? YOU ARE DEFINETLY AN ANARCHIST AND MOST LIKELY YOU ARE BUYING IN BIG TIME TO THE EXTREMIST PAUL,WHO SEEMS TO BE A NATIONAL VERSION OF YOU; ONE DIFFERENCE, AS DISTASTEFUL AS PAUL IS ,APPEALING TO THOSE "ANGRY" WHACK JOBS LIKE YOU,AT LEAST HE HAS THE COURAGE TO RUN, UNLIKE YOU,HUGH!" "OH,YOU'RE HUGH ALLRIGHT December 6th - 12:34 a.m. ABSOLUTLY ,VINTAGE,HUGH!" Happy now?