OK...That would be impressive if....
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2006 3:58 AM EDT |
This looks pretty good if you don't know anything about Chicago. The problem is not with the systems, it's jus that job applications, restaurant inspections and, most pointedly, ethics have little to do with running Chicago. As recent federal investigations make clear, you get jobs by going through a friend in Hizonner's office, restaurant inspections are done only if an owner forgets to pay the inspector and ethics, well, let's just leave that alone. Good to see that Chicago's got good IT folks, though. Congrats to all. |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2006 7:34 AM EDT |
> restaurant inspections are done only if an owner forgets to pay the inspector And amazingly enough, there just happen to violations which can get you shut down, don't there? Some things never change, anywhere or anytime. > ethics, well, let's just leave that alone. Might as well, most local politicians seem to (again, anywhere or anytime). |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 24, 2006 8:33 AM EDT |
Local politics always seem to be pervaded by the most filthy, nasty, corrupt to the core kinds of people. I think it's because not only are the fighting over a very small slice of cow-pie, what's left after the Fed and State have pre-empted everything they want, but also because local politics is _personal_. It takes a very ugly person to rob me "for my own good" face to face. Much easier when it's far away, from Washington or Raleigh, so they work through several more layers of lackeys and "officials". |
| dcparris Oct 24, 2006 1:28 PM EDT |
> This looks pretty good if you don't know anything about Chicago. Well, you know I don't know anything about Chicago. Well, other than that it's big and colder than Charlotte. :-) |
| jimf Oct 24, 2006 1:56 PM EDT |
Well Don, for a start, think of all the Democrats as Republicans, and the whole thing as a mini reflection of National politics %-)... In reality, It's nearly impossible to really describe the totality of the Chicago political experience. You really have to live in the city a few years for it to sink in. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2006 6:06 PM EDT |
>Well Don, for a start, think of all the Democrats as Republicans Now, now jimf, I detect some rigid-minded left-wing whacko extremist hate-mongering going on here, instead of the reasonable, flexible, and thoroughly rational view we conservatives take. Democrats in Chicago are not merely Republicans with a different armband. OTOH, if Daley had invaded Iraq instead of Bush, the electricity would be on, people would be workign ( in part because Daley would have handed out so many patronage jobs to bring everybody into line), and there would be wrought iron fences all over the desert. |
| jimf Oct 24, 2006 6:35 PM EDT |
> Democrats in Chicago are not merely Republicans with a different armband. Lol, they're more like what the republicans purported to be, but, certainly not much like the what the rest of the country thinks are Democrats. And incidentally, your detection sensor has it all wrong. |
| dcparris Oct 24, 2006 7:14 PM EDT |
> OTOH, if Daley had invaded Iraq instead of Bush, the electricity would be on, people would be workign ( in part because Daley would have handed out so many patronage jobs to bring everybody into line), and there would be wrought iron fences all over the desert. So you're basically saying the primary difference between Daley and Hussein is that Daley is a little nicer, and maybe soft on crime? Just kidding, of course. |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2006 3:34 AM EDT |
dc - No. Although...there was the time when Daley got tired of waiting for people to agree with his vision for Northerly Island. That was better known as the home of Meigs Field, which should be know to anybody who has every played Microsoft Flight Simulator (sorry for using the M word). Daley had long wanted to shut the airport down and use the island for a park. Meigs had it's supporters, because ti was right down town. Very handy to fly your private plane into Meigs and cab into the loop. Finally, in the middle of the night, Daley sent heavy equipment into Meigs and dug big x shaped trenches in the runway. Caused some consternation for planes that happened to be at the airport, but Daley had his park. Hmmm. Come to think of it, Saddam wouldn't have to do it in the middle of the night, so Daley is, at best, a Saddam wannabe. |
| number6x Oct 25, 2006 11:58 AM EDT |
Daley is not in Iraq, but one of his sons did join up and is serving in Iraq. The difference between Illinois Republicans and Illinois Democrats is almost non-existant. The two parties in this state have very little in common with the national parties that bare the same names. They both (illinois versions) also thrive on corruption and patronage jobs. Daley is often touted as being 'conservative' because he has outsourced many city services to the private sector. It really came about as a way his administration could reward supporters with jobs and contracts. The laws governing old style patronage jobs became too cumbersome to work around (avoid). The laws tried to make sure you actually hired qualified people! |
| jdixon Oct 25, 2006 12:07 PM EDT |
> with the national parties that bare the same names. Makes it almost sound like your party affiliation is branded in, doesn't it? Well, it may come to that eventually, who knows. |
| jimf Oct 25, 2006 12:29 PM EDT |
> Makes it almost sound like your party affiliation is branded in Almost, nothing... That's the state of the nation, People are either Democrat or Republican to be effective in today's National politics. The Last third party to seriously challenge that was TR's Bullmoose Party. The only difference in Chicago is that the Democrats are the 'only' party that matters. Resistance is futile! |
| dcparris Oct 25, 2006 4:45 PM EDT |
Go Bullmeese! :-) |
| jdixon Oct 25, 2006 6:30 PM EDT |
> The Last third party to seriously challenge that was TR's Bullmoose Party. I don't know. Perot's 19% showing was pretty impressive. |
| jimf Oct 25, 2006 6:37 PM EDT |
> Perot's 19% showing was pretty impressive. Knew you'd bring up that one jdixon :). All Perot's 19% did was take away from a certain party. Many speculate that was the purpose in the first place. You'll notice the Perot party vaporized immediately after that. In any case, there was never a real possibility of Perot winning. |
| dcparris Oct 25, 2006 6:38 PM EDT |
He broke my heart with his Republican plot to get pictures of his daughter's wedding. I was with him 100% right up til then. I believe he honestly had a chance without that remark. That might have also meant the continuity of the independents. Here's a guy who literally hired an old Nam vet to go rescue his execs in Iran. There is nothing that inspires a Marine like that kind of story - especially if you know that "we never leave our own behind". And then he threw that cockamamey line out to the press! Sigh! I haven't been as impressed by the others. I also admit I would have preferred him over the current Bush - even with his Replublican plots. |
| jimf Oct 25, 2006 7:07 PM EDT |
The problem with National politics is that power really does corrupt absolutely, and no one gets within range of the Presidency without being owned by 'somebody'. I honestly don't know how we can tell, who wants to serve us and who's just serving us up. Still, Don Parris for President has a nice ring to it. I don't think he'd sell us out :D |
| jdixon Oct 25, 2006 7:31 PM EDT |
> All Perot's 19% did was take away from a certain party. Which would have lost half of those votes at a minimum even without Perot. The Bushes do seem to have a unique ability to thoroughly irritate their base, don't they? I swear, if the Democrats could put up anyone even halfway reasonable, they'ed win in a landslide. If only they'ed return to their roots and realize that big government hurts people as much or more than big business, they'ed wipe the Republicans out as a party. But, as long as they're dominated by the current leadership, they're hopeless. |
| dinotrac Oct 26, 2006 2:34 AM EDT |
>All Perot's 19% did was take away from a certain party You didn't pay much attention to subsequent events, did you? Perot absolutely opened the door for Clinton, but Clinton walked right through it. If you'll recall, after getting his butt kicked in the first mid-term election, Clinton gave us (I was a volunteer campaign worker for Perot) some serious love. Not only did he sign off on welfare reform, he buckled like a Pilgrim hat on deficit reduction. Won't go into NAFTA, but Bush 41 would have backed NAFTA anyway. Perot proved the power of identifiable and active minorities. Clinton needed reelection votes and saw a large faction of people who were willing to bolt the Republican party with the right incentives. I don't have much regard for Clinton's character, but, as a politician, he's so much smarter than the current Dem leadership he could teach a class. Trouble is, they'd fail it. If they decide to run a candidate in 2008 instead of a cardboard cutout, they might be surprised at what happens. On the other hand, they've spent so much time saying "no" and calling names that they might have forgotten how to send an actual message to the electorate. |
| helios Oct 26, 2006 2:58 AM EDT |
If you want true polarity in Washington, let's run Mike Savage as the presidential canidate and Nancy Pelosi as his running mate...it the two of them made it out of the election process without one killing the other, it would be an administration so hamstrung that it couldn't do any real damage. We could label the new party as "the DoNothing" party. Wait...we have two of those already. Of course, that is only a good idea in a non-war environment. The last thing we need is additional side-show politics now. h |
| dinotrac Oct 26, 2006 3:31 AM EDT |
>The last thing we need is additional side-show politics now. No kidding. It's a funny thing (Not so funny if you hew to the party not in power). We are coming up on the second midterm election of an unpopular presidency. By all rights, this should be a bloodbath of near historic proportion. I fully expect -- or more accurately, expected -- the Dems to take control of the House and to have a good shot a the Senate (not everyone runs every year in the Senate, this was going to be tough for them). Now, for the first time, I'm beginning to wonder if the Dems' refusal to engage in serious politics (as opposed to whining, haranguing, blocking, making noise) might keep them from taking Congress. A few polls and articles indicate that some disaffected voters have been drifting back to the Republicans. The message would seem to be "We don't like you, but after giving the other guys a hard look, we don't like them more." Not a good thing for the country. The Pubs have not earned another renewal. Kind of sad if we've reached the point where they get it by defautl. |
| jdixon Oct 26, 2006 6:51 AM EDT |
> I don't have much regard for Clinton's character, but, as a politician, he's so much smarter than the current Dem leadership he could teach a class. Most of us here have been privileged (if that's the right word) within our lifetime to see two of the finest politicians to ever live: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Whatever you may think of either man personally, they these men were politicians on par with Lincoln and Roosevelt. > The Pubs have not earned another renewal. Kind of sad if we've reached the point where they get it by defautl. The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Not that that helps the country any. |
| number6x Oct 26, 2006 8:16 AM EDT |
Funny how even though the Republicans have been in charge for some time, they have no one to blame but the democrats either! :) I personally blame the vast majority of Americans who can't be bothered to vote. |
| jdixon Oct 26, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
> I personally blame the vast majority of Americans who can't be bothered to vote. When your options are big government and big business Republicans or even bigger government Democrats, can you blame anyone for not bothering to vote? Voting third party is strictly a protest vote. Almost no third party candidate has a hope of being elected, and in many areas has almost no hope of even getting on the ballot. (Note: I routinely vote third party. The fact that I or anyone else routinely votes third party does not disprove this assertion). So, given that there is (and in many areas can be) no real opposition to the two main parties, and the difference between the candidates often requires a micrometer to determine, why should most people care? |
| dinotrac Oct 26, 2006 9:09 AM EDT |
jdixon - >why should most people care Because not voting says "Yeah -- whatever you do is fine with me". Because not voting ignores how much power is available even to the losers. Perhaps because we have only two parties, Americans seem not to have much appreciation of coalition politics. We see winners and losers, period. Even our history has shown the fallacy of that view: As mentioned earlier, the Perot "defeat" ended up with Clinton making major overtures on key Perot issues (deficit-deficit-deficit) in order to win a second term. The history of 20th century civil-rights showed the power of a well-organized minority block to extract concessions from the majority. Staying home says that the entrenched parties don't have to care about you and don't have to offer you anything. Politicians have proven themselves down with worms and rotted wood on the intelligence scale, but even they get a clue eventually. If the Dems don't take Congress this coming election, don't you think a few of them will start asking how in the heck they can get their hands on the levers of power? All the arrogance and attitude in the world do you no good if you can't flip the switches and turn the knobs. |
| number6x Oct 26, 2006 9:35 AM EDT |
dino, Staying home helps in another way as well. There are many small groups of 'one issue voters'. These voters tend to be rabid about their one issue, to the exclusion of all common sense. They make it to the polls come he** or high water. Normally these voters would be like Microsoft Fanboys at a neighborhood LUG meeting. Loud, annoying, and a small minority. However when most average reasonable Americans don't vote, the percentage of voters who are one issue voters becomes a large percent of the people who end up choosing our government. Politicians do not have to court one issue voters, they just have to do a quick poll of the demographics of their constituents to see the issues they need to include in their platform to maximize the turnout. Its kind of like activating a bunch of zombied windows boxes to send spam out. If you can also maximize the disgust of the average voter with lots of mudslinging and dirty politics, you can make sure more of the regular well reasoned folks stay away from the polls. This makes your army of one issue voters even more statistically significant. You can see this when the local sheriff or a local alderman takes a stand on serving fois gras or on stem cell research. They won't have anything to do with these issues, but talk about them to get the one issue voters to the polls. |
| jdixon Oct 26, 2006 12:58 PM EDT |
Dino: > because not voting says "Yeah -- whatever you do is fine with me". At least at the state and federal level, it makes no difference. I've written most of those politicians at one time or another. Take my word for it, they don't care what I think, and how I vote makes absolutely no difference to them. Since I'm a registered Libertarian, and WV is effectively a one party state, they probably consider me a lost vote anyway. I vote, not because I think it will make any difference, but because I feel it's a duty of a citizen to be informed and vote for the best people available. That's what I try to do. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 27, 2006 4:24 PM EDT |
I vote specifically to vote against any and all incombants. My logic is simply that if this nobility starts to lose their jobs on a regular basis, they might actually take notice. Nothing but hitting them in the wallet seems to get their attention, and I cannot afford to hit them in a positive way like Bill Gates, so I try to hit them in a negative way. ...Except for Ron Paul. |
| jimf Oct 27, 2006 4:31 PM EDT |
Something that I just became aware of is that, in many states, you can vote by mail even if you aren't really absentee. I strongly suggest that people do it that way. If nothing else it bypasses the diebold voting machines and assures an accurate record of your vote... I know, ya'll knew that :D... |
| helios Oct 28, 2006 2:51 AM EDT |
Then there is the stealth vote...the ghost no one talks about except around the water cooler and in the golf club locker rooms. Prediction...for those who care. Kinky Friedman will either be the next Governor of Texas or give the scare of a lifetime to Rick Perry. It is the loudest whisper in Texas. "My Governer is Kinky" That is how sick of PAU most people are. Having went to washington recently and looked into the "shark-dead" eyes of Specter, Obama, McCain and Hatch, I can tell you for certain that what I think, what I say or what I believe is of no concern to them. Unless it gets in the way of their newly-found hobby. Stockpiling money. Anyone do a short research on how many first-time Congressmen or Senators became wealthy in thier first or second term? Or more accurately, how many spouses of Congressmen and Senators became wealthy in thier first or second term. The numbers cannot be argued. Unless you are a Ron Paul or the such, you are in Washington for one reason only. To collect as many portraits of dead presidents as possible. h |
| dinotrac Oct 28, 2006 5:17 AM EDT |
helios - Kinky! Kinky! Kinky! Kinky! How can the lone star state go wrong with the original Texas Jewboy? I trust the locals saw thorugh that flap about things Kinky said when he fronted the band. Given that Kinky has always been about sharp wit, skewering hypocrisy, etc -- that had to be the height of stupid political maneuvering to claim that he would in any way be a secret racist. Texans are smarter than that, and I would say so even if my wife and oldest daughter weren't born there, and mot of my immediate family and in-laws didn't live there. Of course that might influence me -- Texans are great people, but they can be ornery cusses!!! |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 02, 2006 11:14 AM EDT |
My sister is a Texan. (no one more fanatical than a convert, as they say...) I mentioned that Kinkey was making things interesting in Texas. She snorted with disgust, and said something to the effect that no one wants a drug abusing freak for a governor. I guess she hasn't noticed the last few Presidents. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!