"Well, now I really feel like chopped liver."
RPneighbor
October 18, 2006
Updated - 11/30/2006: Before any petitions have been turned in. Before any names are on the ballot. Before any debates have occured, RP Neighbor has given up on candidate Chris Adams for what looks like ignoring issues raised on the blogs. She has officially taken out the 'For Rent' sign and replaced it with the opponents sign in her front window.
Blognotes: Here is one case of a candidate losing a voter for what seems like ignoring what's gong on in the blogsphere. A very active voter no less. It's no wonder Alderman Moore hired blogmaster Alex.
31 comments:
thanks Craig :)
Maybe we'll get an answer now!
"If you are going to represent a candidate, or give out so-called facts about a candidate, please give your full name and position you hold in the campaign."
Craig,
Please do the favor of following the "rules" of this blog. Tell us that all this propaganda lately is directly related to your support of Ginderske. We know your name know tell us your position.
Everyone take a deep breath. Jesus, I forgot why I stopped posting on this board. After this comment, I am going to stop reading the hellhole again because this is just insane.
Apparently, common sense ain't all that common. I think my neighbors are proving that on a daily basis by the venom they spew on this board. I'm displaying that lack of common sense right now. I'm hoping it will be the last time I do so.
The campaign is not going to be won or lost on the blogs -- at least I pray it won't and sanity will prevail.
Chris Adams will speak for Chris Adams. James Ginderske will speak for James Ginderske. Joe Moore will speak for Joe Moore and Don Gordon will speak...you get the idea.
According to James' website, Tom is not his campaign manager. Being a free-thinking adult and recognizing both Tom and James as different people I know that statements Tom makes are not those of James.
On the same note, I don't blame Adams for not posting on this board. Jesus, would you? Nothing positive comes out of this website. All it does is make anonymous posters feel better by venting about things in their neighborhood, some even cheering when gang members die or blaming a family that lost children in a fire for having too many kids. Classy. I'll bet you don't have the guts to say those things at Joe Moore's public hearing on the fire. It's just easier to tear someone down on the internet.
If you don't vote for James because you don't like the tresurer of his campaign or Adams because he doesn't respond to your e-mail messages or post on this board, that is your business.
I haven't heard anything from Adams, Moore or Gordon yet. So, I and many Rogers Park residents are going to wait and see what the CANDIDATES have to say on the issues.
I want to see what each candidate brings to the table. I want to know why they are running, their involvement with the community and any conflicts of interest they may have.
The MOST important aspect in my mind is the platform of each candidate and what they hope to accomplish.
So take a deep breath. Relax. Wait for the candidates to speak and bring their message into the community.
...and for the love of god please listen and think before you open your mouth.
How Many people are runnning for Alderman?
JoMo
DoGo
Adams
Ginder
Did I miss anyone?
Where can I go to find out about all the candidates?
> I want to know ... their involvement with the community and any conflicts of interest they may have.
> The MOST important aspect in my mind is the platform
look at what they DO between now & Feb
all this place does is bitch and moan. do you actually do anything besides typing out your frustrations? if all the other candidates suck so badly, why don't you run? No wonder this neighborhood is going nowhere--fast.
To read candidate information all one has to do is google the candidates and you will find their websites. In alpha order, the sites are:
www.adamsforalderman.com
www.jimgrp.com
www.dongordon.org
Presumably, y'all can find your own way to JoMo's site.
There, I just saved everyone from having to buy GOOGLE FOR DUMMIES.
all the sniping between the challengers' camps is unattractive and worse...
BOW-RING!
you will all look pretty foolish when Moore re-ups for another 4 in Feb
you are forgetting the 800 lb go-rilla in the ward
If you guys can't find something critical of Moore to post each day you aren't trying
@dan2:
You hit the nail on the head. Well said!
Also.. anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that duhm_blonde is also tiedieisback?
When are some of the folks that comment here going to get together in the meat space to talk about some of these issues as real people instead of hiding and sniping behind aliases?
Dan2 I disagree that no good things have come from this website.
This website has raised awareness on several issues we as RP neighbors deal with day in and day out. Craig and the posters demanded accountability from each of these groups.
Some of us posting and reading do not have the time to attend any or all the Caps, Zulac, Devcorp, LK, BGD, LE meetings or any of the many other special interest groups RP has to offer.
We can monitor a very slanted view on these issues here on the MHH.
It is Craig's blog after all and he did it first.
PS Bike lanes.
duhm blonde- your name really fits.
Based on your comments, it is obvious you are a vacuous waste of space and a disgrace to womankind.
You won't be hearing from me again.
Regarding the lack of response from Chris Adams to my email.
Chris Adams website does not have much in the way of specific details of what he has done in our neighborhood. If I am to consider him as someone I could vote for, I would want to know more. I politely emailed him and now have gotten no response. I did not just post the question on my blog, I directly emailed him.
Now, he might assume I am part of the "blog rabble" and not worthy of a response, but I think that is really doing me and other intelligent and thoughtful bloggers an injustice.
He has pretty much lost any chance at my vote and at this point I feel really insulted because it's been on Craig's blog a few times.
Personally, I would like to see someone in office that I see at meetings and has some history of involvement. I didn't see that much of this on his blog and sincerely would have liked to know more.
A couple of things:
1. To Paradise: please please show some consistency. You complain that RPNeighbor is being picked on and then proceed to make note of Adams' lack of studliness. Either everyone is fair game or no one. RPNeighbor has a blog and has a picture on the blog. Whether it's decent and respectful or not, you put yourself in the public space then you're fair game.
2. To RPNeighbor: you want to ask a candidate a question, then ask a question. I wouldn't have responded to your email either. It was an attack and then a btw sort of query tossed in. I would have written him and said something like "Dear Mr. Adams, you note on your website that you've been involved in the community. Can you be specific? I've not seen you at meetings and it may have been that I didn't notice so it would be helpful to have specifics." Then, as a blogger, I would have identified myself as such and noted whether I intended to publish the essence of the response (btw, it is illegal and copyright infringement to post someone'e email without their permission). If you really want an answer to your question, call the man. His phone number is right there on his website.
I have had exchanges with two of the candidates. Questions have been answered in a timely fashion.
If this is the biggest thing that y'all and Craig can find to pick on then y'all have very small minds or are bored silly. Everyone so busy dissing this or that candidate (except for James), it's all fodder for Joe. Energies might be better directed at prodding the lazy, self involved electorate who have a track record of poor voter turnout (except for those nursing home residents who Joe and Fagus make sure vote early). RPers are big on talk, short on action.
Paradise: anyone is free to go after anyone who puts themself in the public space -- irrespective of their political aspirations. Drudge isn't a political candidate either but as a blogger he gets attacked all the time. That's life in the public space.
So you think Adams' house in one shingle away from being condemned? Let's get pics of Gordon's and Ginderske's abodes too. And Joe's, while we are at it. Of course, JoMo could submit two -- his abode and where his ex-wife and kiddies live -- in Evanston. I'm sure that house would live up to your standards of someone capable of fighting slumlords. Your criteria are interesting. Further, I'm not sure, exactly, what you think is so wrong with Adams' house.
But have we really stooped so low intellectually that we're now picking candidates on the basis of their sex appeal and house drive by appeal? God help us.
Just out of curiousity, who has been to a real live candidate forum? How many hellhold readers have sat down and listened to any of the candidates and asked them questions -- in person?
Better stay away from JoMo's office with that new dead animal coat, Duhm Blonde. Joe hangs with the PETA people and they have a nasty habit of tossing red paint on dead animal coats. I think you should get a goose feather coat. ;-)
Pamela- I don't agree with you that just because one has a blog, they are "fair game" to nastiness. That's like saying, "Well, she walked outside, so she was fair game to be hit with a flying tomato." How does that make sense? Just because one states an opinion, doesn't mean there can be no regard for manners, but then I should know better because of what I read here all the time.
I just reread my email and I realize it is a bit accusatory in tone. I read it and was like, "I wrote that?" I must have been in an angry mood that day-wow. Maybe I'll send a nicer one and apologize.
And I did not post the email address on the blog- just the content of my email.
And isn't Drudge someone who writes extreme inflammatory opinions? My whole blog is relatively benign(usually). And just because someone shares views or concerns about the community they should be attacked? Again, I don't treat others this way and I expect/hope to be shown the same regard. If not, I'll just go elsewhere because I don't have the stomach for it.
I plan to attend the debates and I've read all candidates websites. I have not gone to any formal events to meet them, but I have spoken to 3 of the candidates in person about what they want to do around here. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet CA in person. Hopefully I will.
RPNeighbor -- Drudge doesn't write anything. He has a blog that does nothing more than provide links to news stories and columnists. He does have a radio show where he makes his views known.
I'm sorry that you don't see yourself as fair game by virtue of your blog but the REALITY is that whether you like it or not, you are. You are "publishing" your thoughts, you have your picture (or a picture) on it. You are just as much fair game as the Chicago Trib or the NY Times.
And, yes, if you walk outside in a fur coat, you are also fair game to be hit with a can of red paint by PETA people.
None of this may be right. It may not be respectful or appropriate. But it's reality. I post my comments here and I'm fair game to be picked on to. I don't like it but I accept the reality. Otherwise I'd stay out of the public sphere.
Well Pamela, maybe this will give me a thicker skin- that never hurts in this world. I do think that public discourse has lost much of the civility we used to have in past ages and that it is a real shame because people can't seem to disagree and still maintain a degree of respect.
We see it in Congress and we see it right here on this blog. It's quite sad.
It is a complete fallacy that there was ever any civility in political discourse. I wish that it were otherwise but it has never been and so I won't bemoan the loss of a fantastical state that never was. For a glimpse into the "civil" discourse of our founding fathers, read Hamilton by Ron Chernow. Read any of the fine biographies about Teddy Roosevelt. Read the newspapers during the Regan years. Even a little reading of "real" history (as opposed to the crap that passes for history taught in most schools) shows that we are far more civil today than Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton were way back when.
What I bemoan is the lack of knowledge of history. Which stems from the atrocious education that we call learning.
I don't know that I agree with you entirely about the civility issue. But then I haven't read the materials you are referring to. I was not just referring to political discourse, but all public discourse.
I don't think everyone agrees with your take either. How do you explain members of the current Senate and Congress that describe extreme polarization currently where prior parties were able to work together? I'm not saying that things were all peaches and cream before, but that the level of incivility is such that people can't even seem to work together where they could more so in the past. Would you agree with that?
Also, I think that manners in general have gone downhill in the public sphere especially in the cities. I suppose people always have complained of such things.
It's a comfort to romantics/idealists such as myself to think that there was once a better time. But if it gives us something to aspire to- to be better- then what is so wrong with that?
RPNeighbor wrote: How do you explain members of the current Senate and Congress that describe extreme polarization currently where prior parties were able to work together.
When would this have been, exactly? Cites sources, give examples. The parties have almost never been able to work together (which is not necessarily a bad thing as it means that they are mucking up less). Every once in awhile politicos pass a bill (usually of the spending or government intrusion in lives variety). That's not my idea of working together. Welfare reform: it was acrimonious. NAFTA: ditto. Great society type legislation: nasty, nasty, nasty.
More than superficial study of history shows that the parties have rarely acted collaboratively or happily together to pass any bill (without dissing each other) except for war acts and war provision bills where the greater threat was from outside.
I find it shocking that you state you've not read history but then disagree with my take. It's not MY take. It's fact. Read a little bit and you will see. I'm not making this up. Mind boggling that anyone would assert that something is "not true" based on their belief as opposed to a review of the historical record. Beliefs are great where the supernatural and religion is concerned. Belief is irrelevant when there is a record that any 15 year old with a library card or internet access can verify.
That said, I will agree with you (in that this is what I think you may mean) that what we seem to be missing from olden times is simple etiquette which tends to make the insults easier to take. In olden times, pamphlets would be published that referred to the opposition as "sir" and used much more high brow language and intelligent writing (even while being very cutting). Swear words and such had no place in the dialogue. No doubt this was a holdover from real duels that had their rules. A gentleman may fight his opponent but one would do so in a gentlemanly kind of way. That is what is missing. The acrimony was as intense, if not more so, but the way it was delivered was more civilized and intelligent.
Disclaimer: I've not declared for any candidate. Have been researching, getting to know folks, and pondering. I did host block coffee talks last month for both Chris and Don so my neighbors and I could hear them out (I was going to reach out to James and offer to host one for him too until his campaign attack dog acted like Old Yeller and since I've not had a rabies shot, I decided no nasty dogs welcome in my home! You are who you hang with).
Anyway, Chris and Don's message really, at the end of the day, isn't that different. They are both strong candidates with great, though different experience, which make both of them viable. Don has a long commitment to RP with dedicated locals working on his behalf; Chris has great experience in journalism and management, and an impressive campaign staff (Obama and Clinton folks). We are LUCKY to have such experienced, qualified, and dedicated people running against JoMo, and the dissing and whatnot here and elsewhere is absurd. One may like candidate A over candidate B for whatever reasons but their platforms are pretty much the same with slight differences in their focus. Don is big on protecting the lake (though this is also a commitment by Chris); Chris is big on improving education in RP schools by getting the city to give more resources to RP schools (though Don mentioned education as a priority too).
Since the candidates largely are very similar, my decision will come down to how I answer the following questions:
1. Which candidate do I think will be most responsive, respectful, and transparent to all RP residents personally and by hiring the best staff?
2. Which candidate do I think has the greater likelihood of getting anything accomplished with the city regardless of who is in power?
The rest of the dialogue I've read is meaningless noise. If platform and policy are the same, what else could possibly jave any bearing on our respective decisions?
I encourage everyone to get out and meet with Don and Chris (and James, I suppose, though he fails the respect and best staff test). Meet these people and come to your own conclusions about who can best spearhead getting RP what RP needs.
duhm blonde: you really are dumb. I didn't deride any great society program, just pointed out that legislative passage of such was acrimonious and greeted with much partisan fighting. Do you understand that? Or should I use words with less syllables?
dear rpdude: so you are saying that street cred is your main criteria? ok. I just don't see that such has a strong track record (see JoMo). In fact, I could make a case that RP might benefit from some new blood since much of the old blood hasn't done much.
I appreciate that street cred may be an important qualifier for some people, and respect that position. For myself, I don't care so much. Yesterday is in the past. I'm more concerned about tomorrow. I stick with my two main points: respect/transparency and ability to get neighborhood things done.
Pamela- you didn't really cite specific sources either did you? I don't have time to debate this at the level you are taking things. I meant I haven't read Roosevelt's biography not that I haven't read ANY history. Please- do you think you are the only well-read and intelligent person on the blog? Are you just trying to prove you are the smartest person here or something? Sheesh! I'm done here. You can be king of the mountian that's fine.
Dear RPNeighbor: you want sources, you've got them.
The first one of import: The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently released a report from the National Civics Literacy Board that tracked student knowledge of American history at selected colleges and universities. College seniors failed the civic literacy assessment with an average score of 53.2% (NYTimes, 10/11/06, Eugene Hickok -- see www.americancivicliteracy.org for the actual report), thus proving my point that people aren't learning history, not even college grads. As Santayana said "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Apparently we're doing that very nicely as the report -- and your comments make clear.
2. For a sampling of the acrimonious state of political discourse throughout U.S. history see: Hamilton by Ron Chernow, any of the biographies of Teddy Roosevelt by Edmund Morris, Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson. Dutch by Edmund Morris (also sample all major newspapers during the release of that book including NY Times, Wash Post, etc.). You can also read the Clarence Thomas hearings transcripts and newspaper commentary at the time (do your own google search). Need more reading material? How about Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose. For 1950s "civility" see Master of the Senate by Caro (about Lyndon Johnson's time in the Senate). Take your disagreement up with any of these emminent historians (all works are scrupulously footnoted and sourced), not me (and btw, I've provided historians who lean left and who lean right so as to avoid bias from any one view -- they all chronicle the lack of collaboration between parties, the acrimony, etc.). Do I even need to mention the period from the late 1850s to the end of the Civil War or would the level of acrimony at that point in history be considered self-evident?
RPNeighbor -- my point is not to be the smartest or show off but simply to challenge misconception when and where I see it with facts. I can provide sources and have studied much U.S. political history (it's a weird hobby but there you have it). By your own admission, you have not, yet you persist in telling me that I'm wrong? I am not the smartest person in the room -- ever -- mostly because I know to admit when I don't know something (which is frequently and often) but when I do speak up, I do so knowing the facts.
Julie said, "I can't help it if I'm correct"
No offense, but I just have to say that is a hilarious comment.
Pamela- I don't believe I asked for your sources. You are most definitely the smartest person on this blog hands down. You are a beacon of helpfulness and clarity. You state facts never opinion. I have come to realize this and will mend my questioning ways now. hahaha! ;o)
Margo -- Under Chicago election laws the winner must take 50% or more of the vote to win. If Joe only gets 49%, he does not win in which case we would have a run off between him and next highest vote-getter. This is actually how Joe got in office in the first place. He forced a run off.
Though, according to RPneighbor and Julie, I'm a smart ass whose statement of facts is really opinion and thus should be discounted so you might want to fact check my assertions with Chicago election rules.
I need to make a correction to my post about JoMo getting in office in the first place. He did not force a run off. I had heard that factoid and repeated it without verifying. My bad. Sorry about that.
However, the 50%+1 stands. The election will go to a run off if Joe or one of the candidates does not get 50%+1. Chicago elections are determined by the majority vote (meaning that any candidate has to have more than 50%) while national elections are decided on a plurality (candidate with the most votes prevails which means we can have presidents who win without majority vote).
P.S. RPNeighbor: I did not just read any biographies and make assumptions. All the books I've read are by esteemed and highly credentialed historians. I did not make assumptions or interpretations from their writing. They presented the facts -- and the facts are politicans, since the time of Ben Franklin, writing very scurrilous things about each other, and rarely getting along. Before you continue to rail on me for simply stating facts, why don't you crack a book.
Julie -- my bad and thanks for the Santayana quote correction. I should have either paraphrased and left off the quotes or gotten the quote right.
With so many of the people we elect into office turn around and use the office to serve themselves. Then when they stand trail and get convicted, they unlike most of us citizens get "special" treatment from our judges.
Case inn Point:
Will federal judges stand up for the people in this thoroughly corrupt state of Illinois?
I ask this as the crooked and convicted George Ryan walks free, out on appeal. His steakhouse pals and mouthpieces twitter. And a cold rain falls on the graves of the six Willis children, burned in a crash with a bribe-paying truck driver.
And Ryan walks?
Free on appeal is what white-guy politicians with establishment clout receive by way of consideration. A kid with a gun at a gas station isn't treated at Tavern on Rush. The kid with the gun sits behind bars, measuring time with cigarettes to trade for sips of moonshine distilled in a toilet.
(Chicago Trib)
Then the asshole Ryan says "There is a God" (Sun Times)
I bring this up because reading all of the arguments about electing an aldermen for our great ward, keep in mind the person who we vote in plays by different rules and when convicted has different judgements given to them, thenus the common Americans who what is Amercia all about!
Unlimited Earnings Potential - http://1greatfuture.com
Our company is rapidly growing and offers you an extraordinary income helping others succeed. The primary requirement is to follow up on client inquiries and point them in the right direction. It is stress free, rewarding and straightforward work.
For complete details: http://1greatfuture.com
Post a Comment