<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?
    
      by Ben Joravsky</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=943920&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?
    
      by Ben Joravsky</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:45:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#955759]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#955759]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Evanstonian]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I no longer live in the 48th ward. However, as a longtime colleague who has watched and benefited from Elder's policy making with respect to businesses, as well as noted her exemplary work with The Care Act, I avidly support Suzanne Elder's candidacy. She is a person of uncommon range and astonishing integrity, and exhibits passion and drive in all aspects of her life. A vote for Elder is a vote for vitality, follow-through, and honest representation.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Evanstonian]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:15:11 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#961728]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#961728]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Aethlos]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[JOE BERRIOS IS A CORRUPT LYING DIRTBAG.  VOTE DERATANY.  END THE BERRIOS CORRUPTION.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Aethlos]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:46:45 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#948223]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#948223]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Candice]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[VOTE FOR ELDER!!!
    VOTE FOR JAY PAUL DERATANY
    VOTE FOR IRIS HERNANDEZ
    VOTE FOR OBAMA!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Candice]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:52:28 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#974225]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#974225]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Indie Jones]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Suzanne Elder has made a race of it.  She has grassroots support in community organizations and merchants seem to like her.  The LGBT community really likes her.  According to her literature Elder won the endorsement of the IVI-IPO, the north side Democracy for America chapter, and just recently the N.O.W. endorsement.  Steans racked up pretty much all the politicians plus a lot of organizations, but take away those she hadn't already showered with money and she has not won a lot of new converts. The Tribune followed the money and what they see as a winning bet. Are we surprised?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Indie Jones]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:55:54 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#954831]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#954831]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Tito]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[VOTE AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT OF ALL CHICAGO POLITICIANS-- JOE BERRIOS
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Tito]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:35:48 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#958393]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#958393]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Mrs. Westgard]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Leave my tommy alone he needs to be alone
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Mrs. Westgard]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:42:04 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#954937]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#954937]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[No, Tommy.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Public Service isn't a game, even though it has been perverted into one by 'professional' politicians.
    
    Manipulating the public is, indeed, a game, a game played not only by politicians, but by many who consider themselves to be 'businessmen', as in busy-men, who are 'busy' manipulating their fellow citizens, generally for fun and financial gain.
    
    Professional politicians fit this definition to a tee.
    
    Professional politicians are NOT, nor do they EVER intend to be, Public Servants, though they disingenuously present themselves as such.
    
    Being skilled at playing 'the game' does not, in ANY way, qualify one for public service.
    
    It DOES qualify one to "...hold a political position.", which is quite different than a public service position, all politician's assertions to the contrary.
    
    This attitude, which, admittedly, has been embraced by some, and accepted by many, as the normal state of affairs, is the cause of the fraudulent condition our FAKE Democracy is in today, especially here in the 'County of Crooks' and the 'City That Works For Crooks'.
    
    Don't call on 'Christ' to help your kind to persuade the many to continue to accept this sham democracy as an inevitable, and unavoidable, pathetic substitute for Authentic Democracy.
    
    While it true that politics is a game, with no rules but one, 'win at any cost', POLITICS is NOT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNING. 
    
    Politics, as the game is played here, is BAD BUSINESS, the same as CONSUMER FRAUD is BAD BUSINESS.
    
    If you want to continue to 'play the game' by the 'rules' written by the FRAUDS passing themselves off as public servants, you can. It's a 'free country', Tommy boy, and you are certainly 'free' to be as fraudulent as you wish to be, just don't whine when you, and your co-conspirators, are exposed for the frauds you are.
    
    And, next time you find yourself back here, please try your best to avoid making such an ass out of yourself, by posting exceptionally specious analogies, and blatantly fraudulent assertions as truth.
    
    This may be a good time for you to review the principles of Democratic government, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the many writings of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, et al., (you know, our Founding Fathers, the guys who created our Country and defined our Democracy, our Country being the United States of AMERICA, not some third world petty dictatorship....), and reassess your own perspectives on exactly what kind of citizen you choose to be.
    
    
    HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
    
    
    (and THEIR LITTLE DOGS, TOO.)
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by No, Tommy.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:34:48 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#947738]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#947738]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Thomas Westgard]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I came back to this post through the link on Suzanne Elders' website, and what strikes me this time through is what a collection of entitled victims has assembled here. Somebody actually complained that a politician set up "an orchestrated move, months in the making." 
    
    No shit. What a travesty.
    
    I mean, I'm not in a position to know what Carol Ronen knew or when she knew it, but at that point you're blaming a politician for planning strategically and making tactical moves. People, it's what politicians do for a living. If you're in a car race, do you blame the other side for keeping their tank full? If you're competing for a lover's attention, do you blame the competition for taking a bath? Look out, that goddamn weather is interfering with my plans again.
    
    Christ, get over it. Suzanne Elder has some worthwhile qualifications; she doesn't need a cadre of pathetic blogwanker victims to back her up. Strategy isn't an unfair advantage - you strategize and take things into account. By complaining about the rules of the game, you give the impression that your candidate isn't capable of playing the game, that is, isn't qualified to hold a political position. You think you're helping Elder, but really you're just making her look weak by demonstrating that her supporters don't know how the game is played. For her sake, I hope her political advisers aren't among the commenters. Politics isn't won by whining.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Thomas Westgard]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:19:08 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#952392]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#952392]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Cant say]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[There were rumors inside the 48th ward's DNC office for sometime that Ronan was going to retire. Heather hangs out there and is a known multimillionare, along with her husband and is known for giving thousands of dollars to candidate. That is her qualificatio, "she has money." Money is the key in this run for office, she is hoping to buy her support, pay back is truely a bitch.
    
    Ronan well organized her retirement and Steans  move to action
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Cant say]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:43:21 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#951833]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#951833]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Re: Tom Westgard et al]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Saying that this wasn't as bad as the Stroger maneuver, pretty much an outright fraud upon the electorate, is accurate but misses the point. The point is that it was an orchestrated move, months in the making. Ronen's new job was not a surprise to her nor to others, only to the public. You don't line up the endorsements and campaign team that Steans has, and put together an organization capable of gathering over 3000 signatures in a week, on the drop of a hat.
    
    Conversely, if in fact no one knew about this until October 22, then the politicians who gave their blessing did so without any investigation of who might else want to run, or who the community might want as their first choice. 
    
    Instead, the pols made THEIR top-down choice in a backroom without consulting the rank and file, let alone the groups they routinely ask for support, let alone the Democratic voters of the district at large. This taints the candidacy.
    
    Steans may be a smart, personable, liberal. However the rolls of past elections, including many in the 49th, 48th, and 46th Wards, are littered with the names of smart, qualified, progressives who were denied the chance to do good because they didn't write big enough checks or kiss the proper pinky rings. Steans is the candidate of those in the 48th Ward who hand down political offices like they were family photo albums only because she made a conscious decision some years ago to become a fully vested member of Pay-to-Play Illinois, a system which leaves 99.95% of the public stuck standing outside the halls where policy decisions that abuse and loot us are made. Regardless of her other qualifications, she chose to go along with a power play, willingly accepting the benefits, and getting in bed with a clique that has spent their political careers keeping grassroots and independent Democrats marginalized. And to many, in the current crisis caused by a culture of corruption, that is a disqualifying event.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Re: Tom Westgard et al]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:01:29 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#964248]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#964248]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Chris Lawrence]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[OH MY LORD!  I haven't rubbed one out in my mother's basement in WEEKS!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Chris Lawrence]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:41:40 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#969369]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#969369]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re '...the jerk off']]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[We all know you've got a lot of time to kill, Mary Ann, hanging around the ward office, while your flunkies blow off your constituents, who visit every day, wanting you to actually do your job, but, unless you're getting your panties wet, imagining Chris in his "..moms basement..." masturbating, (and even if you are), that's one helluva feeble comment, even for you.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re '...the jerk off']]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:30:58 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#969395]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#969395]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Chris the Jerkoff]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Gee Chris, thanks for that heads up you moron. Now go back to your moms basement and masturbate.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Chris the Jerkoff]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:45:50 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#960184]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#960184]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Chris Lawrence]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Yesterday evening I received a call from Ms. Stean&acirc;&#128;&#153;s and she informed me that her campaign would not be issuing any challenges to Ms. Elder's petitions.  The tax-payers of the 7th district will get something that has been sorely lacking in our supposed Democracy, a real debate and choice between two very competent and well qualified individuals to represent us in the state senate.
    
    Chalk one up for the cause of democratic government - and the 48th ward will finally have an elected representative who can claim they won a mandate from the majority of people rather than yet another coward who has lost even the pretense that they believe in accountable government and respect the will of the majority.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Chris Lawrence]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:39:46 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#971174]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#971174]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[thanks]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Perhaps my choice of words gave the impression that I wasn't asking what I was asking, namely, what might be the significances and purposes of a politician who chooses to present him or herself as being other than who they presently are.
    
    As an example, if Carol Ronen is fond of presenting herself, through the use of images of herself that are not current, one might speculate that she is seeking to give those who view said images the impression that she is younger, and perhaps more akin in her opinions and beliefs, to the younger citizens who are a part of the electorate.
    
    If Carol Ronen were to be fond of presenting images of herself that depict her as being older than she currently is, one might speculate that she wishes to give the impression, to the older members of the electorate, that she embraces their, presumably, more 'conservative' and 'traditional' perspectives.
    
    The commonly observed practices, of those currently holding publicly elected offices, to present themselves to various segments of the electorate as NOT who they ARE, but, rather, as who they wish those various segments to PERCEIVE them to be, (presumably for the purpose of deceiving said voters into believing that casting their votes for the person they have been led to believe share their perspectives, even when this is not so, will result in a more authentic and genuine representation of their interests), was the point you were trying to make.
    
    Whether Carol Ronen prefers to present herself, through the images of herself she chooses to make public, as YOUNGER than she actually is, or as OLDER than she actually is, in either case, she is presenting herself as what she is NOT.
    
    Hardly a rare occurrence for a politician.
    
    Also, not at all an HONEST one.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by thanks]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:09:12 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#959501]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#959501]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re: please clarify]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Unlike earlier posts that disparaged Sen. Ronen's personal appearance, which I personally find to be a repugnant approach to political criticism, I think this tidbit about her official portrait symbolizes something that many in the district have known for some time--Sen. Ronen holds a particular view of herself that significantly differs from the one her constituents hold. She presents herself as a progressive, inclusive politician, yet all the while maneuvers to limit participation and lock doors so she can pass her job to a well-healed contributor and friend. 
    
    Sen. Ronen seems to have attempted an end run around democratic process to pre-qualify her contributor and friend. The only reason we're typing on this topic today is because she failed. The committeemen, for whatever reasons, wouldn&acirc;&#128;&#153;t go along. Had she persuaded them of her choice, you would have been introduced to your new Senator right around the time the crocuses pop.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re: please clarify]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:06:46 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#955897]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#955897]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[please clarify]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["I'm advised that Sen. Ronan distinguished herself among legislative staffers - although it's possible that she's unaware of this - by the fact that she was widely thought to use the oldest picture of herself as her official portrait of anyone in the legislature."
    
    When you say 'the oldest picture of herself', do you mean a picture that shows her as YOUNG as possible, or as OLD as possible?
    
    And, in either case, what would you say is the significance of this?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by please clarify]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:14:54 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#952195]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#952195]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[It Came from the 7th District]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Heather Stearns may be an entirely reasonable, intelligent person. However, anyone endorsed by Carol Ronan and Jan schakowsky can't be all good.
    
    I'm advised that Sen. Ronan distinguished herself among legislative staffers - although it's possible that she's unaware of this - by the fact that she was widely thought to use the oldest picture of herself as her official portrait of anyone in the legislature.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by It Came from the 7th District]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:50:19 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#960066]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#960066]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Another 7th District Resident]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I would like a say in whom our favorite sons and daughters are.  That is what being an American is all about, a majority get to determine who should represent them, not a few well connected who coronate each other into our political seats.  They do not have a birth right to be representatives of us, and we should have an election of one man, one vote!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Another 7th District Resident]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:31:04 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#953728]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#953728]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Re: 7th District Resident]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[That's not why residents in the 7th are bitter and suspicious. The 48th Ward has a long history of installing its favorite sons and daughters into various elected offices without the benefit of an election. Sen. Ronen spent months trying to do it here and residents cannot imagine that Ms. Stean was unaware of this effort. Ms. Stean may well possess the qualifications you cite but her patron's behavior effectively recast them as entitlement markers when she bear-pawed the process and the people who'd barely recovered from the insult of the Committeemen Coronation in May.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Re: 7th District Resident]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:15:01 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#962066]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#962066]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[7th District Resident]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Wow.  So, it's not okay to run for office if you have been involved in politics and you have money?  It's okay to guess and speculate and make up lies if you don't?  Does a Master's degree in Public Policy from Harvard make Heather a bad candidate because she went to an elitist school or a well qualified one?  Does serving on boards of WBEZ and the Erikson Institute make you unqualified because you took a leadership position in the community and gave your time?  Why is being wealthy bad?  I bet you'd like to be.  This family has given incredible amounts of time and money to the community.  Why does that make you so bitter?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by 7th District Resident]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:42:36 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#956601]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#956601]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[baseball fan]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[double play time.
    
    SSS posts a comment that both criticizes and proves the above poster's point.
    
    nice.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by baseball fan]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:23:31 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#947161]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#947161]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Sunday Sermon Stealer]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Oh come on, you stole that load of crap from some high and mighty priest.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Sunday Sermon Stealer]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:45:49 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#973225]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#973225]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Representative Exploitation is what we've got]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Pull back and see the bigger picture.
    
    Decades of indoctrination and propaganda conditioning several generations to be compliant, cooperative cogs in the vast machine of monopoly commerce.
    
    Monopoly as in the common self interest of a relatively small number of human beings.
    
    Co-opted and manipulated cooperation of the many individuals who've 'invested' their own meager assets in the stocks of said monopolies, seeking to make the easy buck of 'return on investments', and we have the bed to sleep in that we've made for ourselves.
    
    An intricate economic web, woven for the sole purpose of transforming individual human beings into 'consumers', all striving vainly to produce enough income to satisfy their artificially induced 'need' to consume.
    
    Since those who actually work for their income are never paid enough, and, thus, can never earn enough, to satisfy the profit demands of those controlling the production of goods and services, those who work must borrow, at loan-shark rates of interest, the funds necessary to keep the machines of our economy from grinding to an dead stop. 
    
    Everything we are taught, about the principles of economics, social values, the purpose and functions of government and laws, and the ideals of living as human beings, both moral and ethical, all come to naught, since few take any of the above seriously.
    
    We are, as the Native Americans have referred to us, a people who 'speak with forked tongues'.
    
    Those liars in politics could not be so successful, were it not for the fact that, we, the people, are as accomplished at lying to ourselves as we are at being lied to.
    
    When you buy a sack of shit, telling yourself that you've just got a great deal on a sack of gold nuggets, who have you to blame but yourself?
    
    Regardless of how full of shit those who criticize America are themselves, how fundamentally wrong they may be in their basic assumptions about their own values, they're still right when they say we are a nation of hypocrites.
    
    Because we are.
    
    Every single value that we claim to hold dear, we shit on.
    
    Every single ideal we claim to believe in, we give meager lip service to, routinely doing exactly the opposite of what living up to the ideal requires of us.
    
    Everyone of us is guilty of not being what we claim we are, some blatantly and enthusiastically, and others reluctantly, albeit out of apparent economic necessity.
    
    We claim we are a generous people, yet greed is what we worship.
    
    We claim we are a compassionate people, yet we act in the most egregiously ruthless manner to protect our greed.
    
    We claim that we are an honest people, yet, the only things we are honest about is our greed, our self-interest and our seemingly limitless capacity to indulge ourselves.
    
    We claim to be a people worthy of respect, yet we have no respect, whatsoever, for anyone or anything that impedes our seeking to satisfy our greed.
    
    We claim to be a moral people, yet our actions speak louder than our words, our actions being devoid of authentic morality.
    
    We claim to be a fair and just people, yet our actions are reliably unfair and unjust.
    
    We claim to be an intelligent people, yet we avoid engaging in even the most basic and simple thinking processes, preferring to focus our thoughts on satisfying our greed.
     
    Every single quality that we claim to denounce and reject, we, instead, embrace and relish.
    
    We don't have to wait for the Anti-Christ to appear, as, we are the Anti-Christ.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Representative Exploitation is what we've got]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:25:49 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Two weeks, 1,000 signatures, no problem?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#967935]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/02/two-weeks-1000-signatures-no-problem/#967935]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[No more property tax increases!]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Ronen voted against the 7% cap.  We let them get away with a lot when they think they are unaccountable.  I wonder if Steans would be any different if she were allowed to buy a senate seat?  God knows she can afford a modest few hundred dollars in property taxes, but an increase in the income tax or something more progressive?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by No more property tax increases!]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:54:54 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




