# At some point, it's not news anymore



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Word from the front lines:

https://live.chicagotribune.com/Event/news_chicago_gun_violence_82_shot

Sad.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Aren't guns, fireworks and big colas illegal in Chicago??


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Yes, Woulda. My native Chicago has become a tragic cartoon in many ways. 

One explanation for the linked Trib piece is the relationship between neighborhood and recidivism. The violent crime in Chicago is concentrated in 6 neighborhoods. A recent study indicates that recidivism is much worse when ex-cons are released back to their old neighborhoods. Unfortunately, most states have laws and practices that either require this or encourage it. The study indicated that ex-cons who settle in new environments have a much greater chance of successful reintegration, and as a consequence their old neighborhoods stood a better chance of rehabilitation. 

However well-intended, it is doubtful that disarming the impoverished law-abiding residents has done them any favors.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The Bangers are at war. Their families provide them safe harbor and view the police as the enemy. Chicago goes way out of their way to disarm their citizenry, rendering the innocents largely defenseless. and leaving only the bad guys "oh-so-heavily armed." Chicago's police chief said it best when, in a evening news interview, he compared this past weekends Chicago experience with his (the police chief's) prior service in New York saying, in New York, when the police confronted armed thugs, the thugs either ran away or threw down their weapons and surrendered. While in Chicago, when the police confront the armed thugs, the bad guys stand their ground and engage the police in a gunfight. The issue is Chicago is not just dealing with another criminal element, but rather is confronting gang warfare...and they should treat it as such! If the citizens want their neighborhoods rendered crime free, or closer to such, they should stop harboring the criminals.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I heard that they beefed up police presence and security to ridiculous levels at some public events at Chicago over the weekend, which left them short in the neighborhoods where the violence happens. Whether or not cops on every street corner on the south side would have made a difference isn't a sure thing, for sure. The thing that struck me most in this link were the photographs, especially the ones with kids in them. They are so well done and really capture, I think, how crazy it must be to live this day to day and what a toll it must be taking on kids who grow up in this environment.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I heard that they beefed up police presence and security to ridiculous levels at some public events at Chicago over the weekend, which left them short in the neighborhoods where the violence happens. Whether or not cops on every street corner on the south side would have made a difference isn't a sure thing, for sure. The thing that struck me most in this link were the photographs, especially the ones with kids in them. They are so well done and really capture, I think, how crazy it must be to live this day to day and what a toll it must be taking on kids who grow up in this environment.


The Liberal experiment causes so much suffering I hope the rest of the country wakes up and ends it.

Just keeping hope alive!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm glad someone has mentioned that the majority of the violence is contained to a handful of neighborhoods and not the city as a whole. It really is sad though.

Wouldashoulda's point is a good one though. Chicago had a history of concentrating poverty into a small area by means of housing projects. Like all government programs, those instituting it did not realize that what would result were virtual ghettos from which escape would be near impossible. Those families living in them would become institutionalize and instead of the housing becoming sort of a way point toward a better life, it became multi-generational. 

To some degree, we are seeing the fruits of this bear out.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The Liberal experiment causes so much suffering I hope the rest of the country wakes up and ends it.
> 
> Just keeping hope alive!!


You could just as easily argue that the experiment of enshrining the right to own guns in our constitution has been a failed exercise, but let's not have that debate just now. I would agree that the welfare state has been a dismal failure that hurts the purported beneficiaries more than anyone. I don't know that it is completely to blame for this, but it likely bears at least some responsibility. It is, as they say, complicated, and senseless slaughter is, after all, a time-honored human tradition. The post-war partitioning of India, among other examples, makes this past weekend in the Windy City look like a Sunday school picnic, and they had to hack each other to bits with garden tools because they lacked firearms.

The report and statistics are tragic, but what really makes me angry is the political opportunists. SG likely knows about this, being a Chicago resident, but indictments are just around the corner in a festering scandal involving the governor of Illinois, who flushed $50 million down the toilet four years ago for so-called anti-violence projects in Chicago that were aimed more at winning votes in a tight election than keeping the peace. Forget, for a second, the folly inherent in thinking that throwing millions of dollars at a problem like this will solve anything. Instead of soliciting competitive bids for social programs, the very least you could do, the state spent money based on recommendations from Chicago aldermen and ward politicians, with predictable results. An accused murderer was paid $8 an hour to distribute don't-shoot-each-other leaflets. No money at all was spent in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods. A reentry program for felons had a daycare center for a mailing address, with no evidence that anything at all was done in exchange for the thousands of dollars that found their way to insiders. Sometimes, I think the biggest crooks aren't the ones who are shooting each other.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

It's tempting to blame either failed liberal economic policies or failed conservative guns-for-everybody initiatives for gun violence in our cities. Either explanation is overly simplistic.

Switzerland has a high gun ownership, but their level of gun violence is minuscule compared to ours. The Swedes have a level of social welfare that dwarfs ours; they similarly have little gun violence.

The solution to our gun violence problem won't lie in either confiscation of arms (which would be unconstitutional in any event) or slashing social welfare programs. We should remember, though, that the rate of handgun violence in the US has fallen substantially over the past 20 years: https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> You could just as easily argue that the experiment of enshrining the right to own guns in our constitution has been a failed exercise, but let's not have that debate just now. I would agree that the welfare state has been a dismal failure that hurts the purported beneficiaries more than anyone. I don't know that it is completely to blame for this, but it likely bears at least some responsibility. It is, as they say, complicated, and senseless slaughter is, after all, a time-honored human tradition. The post-war partitioning of India, among other examples, makes this past weekend in the Windy City look like a Sunday school picnic, and they had to hack each other to bits with garden tools because they lacked firearms.
> 
> The report and statistics are tragic, but what really makes me angry is the political opportunists. SG likely knows about this, being a Chicago resident, but indictments are just around the corner in a festering scandal involving the governor of Illinois, who flushed $50 million down the toilet four years ago for so-called anti-violence projects in Chicago that were aimed more at winning votes in a tight election than keeping the peace. Forget, for a second, the folly inherent in thinking that throwing millions of dollars at a problem like this will solve anything. Instead of soliciting competitive bids for social programs, the very least you could do, the state spent money based on recommendations from Chicago aldermen and ward politicians, with predictable results. An accused murderer was paid $8 an hour to distribute don't-shoot-each-other leaflets. No money at all was spent in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods. A reentry program for felons had a daycare center for a mailing address, with no evidence that anything at all was done in exchange for the thousands of dollars that found their way to insiders. Sometimes,* I think the biggest crooks aren't the ones who are shooting each other*.


Winner of the Captain Obvious Award


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The best thing to do would be the hardest and the longest term, so won't even be considered. Find out why these people behave the way they do and solve _*that*_ problem. What you describe as liberal welfare state reforms, carried out as vanity projects, or political aggrandisement schemes won't work, any more than controlling gun ownership, or making guns freely available. The social problem that causes this behaviour is what needs to be addressed, otherwise it will never stop.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The best thing to do would be the hardest and the longest term, so won't even be considered. Find out why these people behave the way they do and solve _*that*_ problem. What you describe as liberal welfare state reforms, carried out as vanity projects, or political aggrandisement schemes won't work, any more than controlling gun ownership, or making guns freely available. The social problem that causes this behaviour is what needs to be addressed, otherwise it will never stop.


I'm all for making irresponsible parenting/fathering more miserable than sticking with your old lady.

AKA, encouraging adoption and discouraging single parenting.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^It's simpler than that...Street Gangs are lawless by nature! They are the modern urban versions of organized crime families.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It's simpler than that...Street Gangs are lawless by nature! They are the modern urban versions of organized crime families.


They are indeed, and have a similar modus operandi. The solution is to find out why they exist, what leads to their development and put that right. Everything else is just dealing with the symptoms.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> The report and statistics are tragic, but what really makes me angry is the political opportunists. SG likely knows about this, being a Chicago resident, but indictments are just around the corner in a festering scandal involving the governor of Illinois, who flushed $50 million down the toilet four years ago for so-called anti-violence projects in Chicago that were aimed more at winning votes in a tight election than keeping the peace. Forget, for a second, the folly inherent in thinking that throwing millions of dollars at a problem like this will solve anything. Instead of soliciting competitive bids for social programs, the very least you could do, the state spent money based on recommendations from Chicago aldermen and ward politicians, with predictable results. An accused murderer was paid $8 an hour to distribute don't-shoot-each-other leaflets. No money at all was spent in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods. A reentry program for felons had a daycare center for a mailing address, with no evidence that anything at all was done in exchange for the thousands of dollars that found their way to insiders. Sometimes, I think the biggest crooks aren't the ones who are shooting each other.


It's a start;

Ex-New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin sentenced to 10 yearsA jury convicted Nagin of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes -- money, free vacation trips and truckloads of free granite for his family business -- from businessmen who wanted work from the city or Nagin's support for various hurricane recovery projects.Prosecutors asked the court to send Nagin to prison for a long time. They argued that he was found guilty of 20 of 21 counts in the indictment, and that he participated in and orchestrated a years-long conspiracy to enrich himself and his family.
The government also argued that Nagin spent years covering up his crimes and that his testimony during the two-week trial showed an "astounding unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his actions."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-nagin-new-orleans-mayor-sentencing/12397415/


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> They are indeed, and have a similar modus operandi. The solution is to find out why they exist, what leads to their development and put that right. Everything else is just dealing with the symptoms.


La Cosa Nostra thrived in the US not because of racism, lack of economic opportunity, voter ID card requirements or birth control not being paid for.

It existed because it was tolerated, witnesses wouldn't come forward, and the head of the FBI even denied it existed.

It hadn't been nearly eradicated until the law changed, the law was enforced, and the community at large no longer tolerated it's violent, animal like behaviors.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> You could just as easily argue that the experiment of enshrining the right to own guns in our constitution has been a failed exercise, but let's not have that debate just now. I would agree that the welfare state has been a dismal failure that hurts the purported beneficiaries more than anyone. I don't know that it is completely to blame for this, but it likely bears at least some responsibility. It is, as they say, complicated, and senseless slaughter is, after all, a time-honored human tradition. The post-war partitioning of India, among other examples, makes this past weekend in the Windy City look like a Sunday school picnic, and they had to hack each other to bits with garden tools because they lacked firearms.
> 
> The report and statistics are tragic, but what really makes me angry is the political opportunists. SG likely knows about this, being a Chicago resident, but indictments are just around the corner in a festering scandal involving the governor of Illinois, who flushed $50 million down the toilet four years ago for so-called anti-violence projects in Chicago that were aimed more at winning votes in a tight election than keeping the peace. Forget, for a second, the folly inherent in thinking that throwing millions of dollars at a problem like this will solve anything. Instead of soliciting competitive bids for social programs, the very least you could do, the state spent money based on recommendations from Chicago aldermen and ward politicians, with predictable results. An accused murderer was paid $8 an hour to distribute don't-shoot-each-other leaflets. No money at all was spent in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods. A reentry program for felons had a daycare center for a mailing address, with no evidence that anything at all was done in exchange for the thousands of dollars that found their way to insiders. Sometimes, I think the biggest crooks aren't the ones who are shooting each other.


This town has had gang violence going back generations, and yes, there is mounting evidence that large sums of money meant for anti violence initiatives are unaccounted for.

Like any other political problem, this one is especially racially charged and politicians will dance around the issue and blame everything from SCOTUS decisions about guns to the lack of after school programs.

The fact is that these gangs are sophisticated criminal enterprises that bring in and control a lot of money. They are very much like the mafia of old minus the silk suits and taste for gabagoul.

I think at least part of the solution had to be a recognition of this and not this notion that this is the result of lack of after school programs.

The US has been trying to get Afghan farmers to quit farming poppy and plant other crops instead. They won't budge. Why? There's more money in poppy.

These street gangs are making money doing what they're doing. After school programs aren't going to change this. Going after them with ruthless, anti-mob tactics is the only answer.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> It's tempting to blame either failed liberal economic policies or failed conservative guns-for-everybody initiatives for gun violence in our cities. Either explanation is overly simplistic.
> 
> Switzerland has a high gun ownership, but their level of gun violence is minuscule compared to ours. The Swedes have a level of social welfare that dwarfs ours; they similarly have little gun violence.
> 
> The solution to our gun violence problem won't lie in either confiscation of arms (which would be unconstitutional in any event) or slashing social welfare programs. We should remember, though, that the rate of handgun violence in the US has fallen substantially over the past 20 years: https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf


Very well stated.

Of course, in our current environment, we Americans just want to point the finger at "the Others" as opposed to working on sustainable solutions.

At this point, I would almost like to see one political party be given carte blanche for 10-15 years with the caveat that if everything that they promise does not materialize, then they promise to recuse themselves and their ideas from the political arena for the next 50.

It does stink for Chicago though. IMO, it is by far the best big city in America.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

As a life long native and person who toils in the City itself, the headline making gun violence in indeed mostly confined to neighborhoods in the West and South sides of the City. Most of it is gang related. Criminals are heavily armed and witnesses refuse to cooperate with CPD. No one is safe in the hot spots; cops are targets, firemen/emts, bystanders, etc are looked at as just folks in the wrong place at the wrong time. Shooters dont target a victim; they shoot at any and all hoping the spray gets the "target". This type of violent crime is on top of the crime to be expected in any major city. 

If anyone is hoping for an overarching political solution, it isnt in the cards for any time soon. The State and City are broke, have the highest gas prices in the country, the highest unemployment in the country, a lousy public high school graduation rate, the worst public bond rating in the country, major labor issues with City teachers, firemen, police, and public labor plus huge pension problems for each. Party identification is meaningless in Illinois; the Dems have owned the legislature for decades and the demise has only quickened. Four of the last five governors were convicts. State and City officials are routinely convicted of bribery and corruption crimes, and we have a huge State public pension problem with beneficiaries collecting from more than one pension. Recently, the legislature enacted a weak stab at pension reform and it went immediately into the Illinois Supreme Court regarding its constitutionality. On a local level, to cope with Chicago financial bleakness, Rahm is facing a major headache on raising property taxes. These circumstances arent going to lead to a political solution for the hot areas and are only going to make them worse.

Whatever the root causes, the government is just not able to deal with the problem in any sort of comprehensive way and the officials lack the will to do any thing significant.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Very well stated.
> 
> Of course, in our current environment, we Americans just want to point the finger at "the Others" as opposed to working on sustainable solutions.
> 
> ...


Well VP you got it but its reversed. Democrats have had there way with Chicago since 1931.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Joseph Peter said:


> As a life long native and person who toils in the City itself, the headline making gun violence in indeed mostly confined to neighborhoods in the West and South sides of the City. Most of it is gang related. Criminals are heavily armed and witnesses refuse to cooperate with CPD. No one is safe in the hot spots; cops are targets, firemen/emts, bystanders, etc are looked at as just folks in the wrong place at the wrong time. Shooters dont target a victim; they shoot at any and all hoping the spray gets the "target". This type of violent crime is on top of the crime to be expected in any major city.
> 
> If anyone is hoping for an overarching political solution, it isnt in the cards for any time soon. The State and City are broke, have the highest gas prices in the country, the highest unemployment in the country, a lousy public high school graduation rate, the worst public bond rating in the country, major labor issues with City teachers, firemen, police, and public labor plus huge pension problems for each. Party identification is meaningless in Illinois; the Dems have owned the legislature for decades and the demise has only quickened. Four of the last five governors were convicts. State and City officials are routinely convicted of bribery and corruption crimes, and we have a huge State public pension problem with beneficiaries collecting from more than one pension. Recently, the legislature enacted a weak stab at pension reform and it went immediately into the Illinois Supreme Court regarding its constitutionality. On a local level, to cope with Chicago financial bleakness, Rahm is facing a major headache on raising property taxes. These circumstances arent going to lead to a political solution for the hot areas and are only going to make them worse.
> 
> Whatever the root causes, the government is just not able to deal with the problem in any sort of comprehensive way and the officials lack the will to do any thing significant.


I also live in Illinois. Yours is an optimistic view. Seriously.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Hitch said:


> Well VP you got it but its reversed. Democrats have had there way with Chicago since 1931.


I wasn't referring to just Chicago. And I don't recall mentioning a specific party.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Joseph Peter said:


> As a life long native and person who toils in the City itself, the headline making gun violence in indeed mostly confined to neighborhoods in the West and South sides of the City. Most of it is gang related. Criminals are heavily armed and witnesses refuse to cooperate with CPD. No one is safe in the hot spots; cops are targets, firemen/emts, bystanders, etc are looked at as just folks in the wrong place at the wrong time. Shooters dont target a victim; they shoot at any and all hoping the spray gets the "target". This type of violent crime is on top of the crime to be expected in any major city.
> 
> If anyone is hoping for an overarching political solution, it isnt in the cards for any time soon. The State and City are broke, have the highest gas prices in the country, the highest unemployment in the country, a lousy public high school graduation rate, the worst public bond rating in the country, major labor issues with City teachers, firemen, police, and public labor plus huge pension problems for each. Party identification is meaningless in Illinois; the Dems have owned the legislature for decades and the demise has only quickened. Four of the last five governors were convicts. State and City officials are routinely convicted of bribery and corruption crimes, and we have a huge State public pension problem with beneficiaries collecting from more than one pension. Recently, the legislature enacted a weak stab at pension reform and it went immediately into the Illinois Supreme Court regarding its constitutionality. On a local level, to cope with Chicago financial bleakness, Rahm is facing a major headache on raising property taxes. These circumstances arent going to lead to a political solution for the hot areas and are only going to make them worse.
> 
> Whatever the root causes, the government is just not able to deal with the problem in any sort of comprehensive way and the officials lack the will to do any thing significant.


Don't forget, Obama was a state senator then the U.S. Senator for this delightful state.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> I wasn't referring to just Chicago. And I don't recall mentioning a specific party.


I didnt say that you had.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hitch said:


> I didnt say that you had.


You shouldn't have to. It's the topic of the thread!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Pentheos said:


> Don't forget, Obama was a state senator then the U.S. Senator for this delightful state.


And therein lies a lot of his issues. He was steeped in a dysfunctional political culture and advised by people who would put Machiavelli to shame. Not to mention the greed, which is beyond comprehension. Consider pensions. The system is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt. It is more than $100 billion in the red and the state Supreme Court last week ruled (I believe the vote was 9-1) that a legislative move to reduce health benefits for state retirees violates the state constitution that says the state cannot diminish pension benefits (we'll ignore, for a moment, the stupidity of putting something like that in the constitution). Changing the constitution is politically impossible.

Emil Jones, the retired president of the Illinois state senate who was considered Obama's political mentor and made sure that he looked good, collected, at last report, more than $126,000 in his legislative pension. That was in 2011, and they get automatic COLAs (I believe that it is 3 percent). Jones only made $95,000 when he was actually "working" as a senator (he made it official and retired in 2008). How is it possible to collect $31,000 more in a pension than you made while actually working? The legislature had passed a law for themselves. Getting 85 percent of their final salary after working for 20 years was not enough, and so they decreed that they'd get an extra 3 percent of what they would otherwise be due for each additional year of "service" (beyond 20 years) in the legislature, where virtually every seat is safe thanks to gerrymandering (a huge percentage of Illinois lawmakers run unopposed or, if they do have opposition, it's from the village idiot who has zero money). For Jones, who was a senator for 36 years, it meant a six-figure pension the day he called it quits. He isn't alone. A senator who retired in 2000 at an annual salary of less than $60,000 is getting more than $220,000 a year in pension. How is that possible? For one thing, he was a senator for more than 30 years, and so he got the extra 3 percent annual bump. For another, after he left the senate he was hired by the Chicago Public School District, so he gets a second pension. The senator in question was asked about this by a reporter a couple years back and he didn't bat an eye. "Everything I did was legal," the senator said. "I served in the Illinois legislature for 31 years and survived 22 elections. People ask me how I did it and I tell them all I did was campaign 365 days a year." He really did say that.

I'll close by saying that I will never again trust anything published in Fortune magazine. They recently published a story ranking Illinois as the fourth most corrupt state, behind Mississippi, Louisiana and Tennessee. I cannot imagine how Illinois was topped by three other states. If there are only two members of the Illinois general assembly under indictment at any given time, that is a good day. Joseph Peter is right that four of the last five governors are felons, but folks inclined to do so add an asterisk: One of those four, Dan Walker, was convicted of bank fraud and perjury for conduct that occurred after he left office, so he doesn't really count.

Only in Illinois.

Addendum: On top of pension, these retirees also get free health coverage.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Isn't the situation you describe what is at the core of the political rot we see at the Federal as well as State levels of government? The founding fathers intended for elected representatives to serve the better good of those they represent. At some point, the situation turned back upon itself and we now find the today's electorate to be, on an ever increasing basis, working to support the alarming inepitude and personal greed of those we elect!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> And therein lies a lot of his issues. He was steeped in a dysfunctional political culture and advised by people who would put Machiavelli to shame. Not to mention the greed, which is beyond comprehension. Consider pensions. The system is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt. It is more than $100 billion in the red and the state Supreme Court last week ruled (I believe the vote was 9-1) that a legislative move to reduce health benefits for state retirees violates the state constitution that says the state cannot diminish pension benefits (we'll ignore, for a moment, the stupidity of putting something like that in the constitution). Changing the constitution is politically impossible.
> 
> Emil Jones, the retired president of the Illinois state senate who was considered Obama's political mentor and made sure that he looked good, collected, at last report, more than $126,000 in his legislative pension. That was in 2011, and they get automatic COLAs (I believe that it is 3 percent). Jones only made $95,000 when he was actually "working" as a senator (he made it official and retired in 2008). How is it possible to collect $31,000 more in a pension than you made while actually working? The legislature had passed a law for themselves. Getting 85 percent of their final salary after working for 20 years was not enough, and so they decreed that they'd get an extra 3 percent of what they would otherwise be due for each additional year of "service" (beyond 20 years) in the legislature, where virtually every seat is safe thanks to gerrymandering (a huge percentage of Illinois lawmakers run unopposed or, if they do have opposition, it's from the village idiot who has zero money). For Jones, who was a senator for 36 years, it meant a six-figure pension the day he called it quits. He isn't alone. A senator who retired in 2000 at an annual salary of less than $60,000 is getting more than $220,000 a year in pension. How is that possible? For one thing, he was a senator for more than 30 years, and so he got the extra 3 percent annual bump. For another, after he left the senate he was hired by the Chicago Public School District, so he gets a second pension. The senator in question was asked about this by a reporter a couple years back and he didn't bat an eye. "Everything I did was legal," the senator said. "I served in the Illinois legislature for 31 years and survived 22 elections. People ask me how I did it and I tell them all I did was campaign 365 days a year." He really did say that.
> 
> ...


The only saving grace about Illinois government, which really amounts to nothing more than Chicago politics, is that the trains run on time. The City works at least.

Beyond that, we have a state that is incredibly inefficient with entrenched politicians who pass along their seats as though they are hereditary titles to cousins, sons, nephews, etc. upon retirement. I remember when John Stroger, the Cook County Commissioner, had a stroke a number of years ago, there was no clear indication as to what had happened or whether he was going to remain active. It was something reminiscent of a 3rd world dictatorship where the dear leader would not be seen in public and no one knew what exactly was going on. When the dust settled, his son all of a sudden became the new Cook County commissioner.

Illinois has tons of different taxing authorities as well as public pension systems. It's not unheard of for people to retire from public service and make well into the 6-figures on their pensions. One can float from one agency to another and work long enough to get vested, and then upon retirement pull in 5-6 different pensions.

Even as dysfunctional as California is, at least they're smart enough to have CALPERS, one pension system for all public employees.

Caterpillar has just announced its moving some operations to Michigan. Indiana and Wisconsin are actively courting Illinois companies to move and some have.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> And therein lies a lot of his issues. He was steeped in a dysfunctional political culture and advised by people who would put Machiavelli to shame. Not to mention the greed, which is beyond comprehension. Consider pensions. The system is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt. It is more than $100 billion in the red and the state Supreme Court last week ruled (I believe the vote was 9-1) that a legislative move to reduce health benefits for state retirees violates the state constitution that says the state cannot diminish pension benefits (we'll ignore, for a moment, the stupidity of putting something like that in the constitution). Changing the constitution is politically impossible.
> 
> Emil Jones, the retired president of the Illinois state senate who was considered Obama's political mentor and made sure that he looked good, collected, at last report, more than $126,000 in his legislative pension. That was in 2011, and they get automatic COLAs (I believe that it is 3 percent). Jones only made $95,000 when he was actually "working" as a senator (he made it official and retired in 2008). How is it possible to collect $31,000 more in a pension than you made while actually working? The legislature had passed a law for themselves. Getting 85 percent of their final salary after working for 20 years was not enough, and so they decreed that they'd get an extra 3 percent of what they would otherwise be due for each additional year of "service" (beyond 20 years) in the legislature, where virtually every seat is safe thanks to gerrymandering (a huge percentage of Illinois lawmakers run unopposed or, if they do have opposition, it's from the village idiot who has zero money). For Jones, who was a senator for 36 years, it meant a six-figure pension the day he called it quits. He isn't alone. A senator who retired in 2000 at an annual salary of less than $60,000 is getting more than $220,000 a year in pension. How is that possible? For one thing, he was a senator for more than 30 years, and so he got the extra 3 percent annual bump. For another, after he left the senate he was hired by the Chicago Public School District, so he gets a second pension. The senator in question was asked about this by a reporter a couple years back and he didn't bat an eye. "Everything I did was legal," the senator said. "I served in the Illinois legislature for 31 years and survived 22 elections. People ask me how I did it and I tell them all I did was campaign 365 days a year." He really did say that.
> 
> ...


I believe in a two term limit for governors. One term in office; one term in prison. Works in Illinois.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> The only saving grace about Illinois government, which really amounts to nothing more than Chicago politics, is that *the trains run on time*. The City works at least.
> 
> Beyond that, we have a state that is incredibly inefficient with entrenched politicians who pass along their seats as though they are hereditary titles to cousins, sons, nephews, etc. upon retirement. I remember when John Stroger, the Cook County Commissioner, had a stroke a number of years ago, there was no clear indication as to what had happened or whether he was going to remain active. It was something reminiscent of a 3rd world dictatorship where the dear leader would not be seen in public and no one knew what exactly was going on. When the dust settled, his son all of a sudden became the new Cook County commissioner.
> 
> ...


Speak for yourself. They do not run on time here. Amtrak shares track with Union Pacific. We're the only industrialized country in the world that believes it is possible to have a workable passenger train system run on tracks owned and controlled by freight companies. Freight has priority, and so it is not unusual for passenger trains running between St. Louis and Chicago to sit on sidings while the freight trains run on time. How to fix this mess? The feds and the state a few years back gave more than $1 billion to Union Pacific to improve their tracks on the theory that this would cut back on delays. Meanwhile, Union Pacific has forecast astronomical increases in freight traffic on this same line over the next couple decades. The company has zero obligation to do anything if the passenger trains don't make on-time targets. Rather, under terms of the $1 billion federal grant, the state has to pay for necessary improvements to meet on-time targets. My guess is, these grant terms will be quickly forgotten if the targets are not met, and smart money says they won't be. End of day, the government gave more than $1 billion to Union Pacific to improve a freight line that has a couple of passenger trains on it that can't make the trip between St. Louis and Chicago faster than I can make the trip in the car. And what does the government call this program? High speed rail.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Speak for yourself. They do not run on time here. Amtrak shares track with Union Pacific. We're the only industrialized country in the world that believes it is possible to have a workable passenger train system run on tracks owned and controlled by freight companies. Freight has priority, and so it is not unusual for passenger trains running between St. Louis and Chicago to sit on sidings while the freight trains run on time. How to fix this mess? The feds and the state a few years back gave more than $1 billion to Union Pacific to improve their tracks on the theory that this would cut back on delays. Meanwhile, Union Pacific has forecast astronomical increases in freight traffic on this same line over the next couple decades. The company has zero obligation to do anything if the passenger trains don't make on-time targets. Rather, under terms of the $1 billion federal grant, the state has to pay for necessary improvements to meet on-time targets. My guess is, these grant terms will be quickly forgotten if the targets are not met, and smart money says they won't be. End of day, the government gave more than $1 billion to Union Pacific to improve a freight line that has a couple of passenger trains on it that can't make the trip between St. Louis and Chicago faster than I can make the trip in the car. And what does the government call this program? High speed rail.


I guess I'm using the term "trains run on time" as a metaphor that city services work. As for the trains I use, they do run on time. I can't speak for Amtrak as I've never ridden it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I guess I'm using the term "trains run on time" as a metaphor that city services work. As for the trains I use, they do run on time. I can't speak for Amtrak as I've never ridden it.


You should. You're paying for it. Then again, there are much cheaper ways. The cheapest ticket from St. Louis to Chicago on Amtrak is $70 (it goes as high as $182). The journey takes 5 hours and 45 minutes, presuming you're not delayed by freight trains. You can take a Greyhound bus (actually not too bad these days) for $29, and the journey is just five minutes longer. The question, of course, is why is the government paying a $1 billion subsidy to improve rail lines between these cities (there are also operating subsidies) when the private sector can provide public transportation between these cities without any subsidies and for less than half the cost to travelers?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You and I agree on this. Amtrak should be allowed to survive or fail on it's own. Rail for freight is one thing. The days of transporting passengers from point A to B via rail are long gone. There are far more cost effective and efficient means available.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ You and I agree on this. Amtrak should be allowed to survive or fail on it's own. Rail for freight is one thing. The days of transporting passengers from point A to B via rail are long gone. There are far more cost effective and efficient means available.


I think that subsidized rail is OK in limited circumstances. The NYC subway,for instance, is subsidized, and I don't have a problem with that. Every public bus service in every municipality is subsidized. I also don't have a problem with that--the only alternative I can see is to give the needy cab vouchers, and that would be worse, and I think that needy folks, not to mention the disabled, who need to get to jobs and medical appointments and so forth should have transportation. I don't have a problem with subsidized public transportation between cities in congested urban areas such as San Francisco and the Puget Sound region in Washington state, where freeways are parking lots for a good part of every weekday. Then there is train service between NYC and Boston, which, as I understand it, is at least a break-even proposition.

Other than this, you're right. There is a reason why choo choo trains aren't used to transport people in the United States anymore, and the reason is that inter-city train travel, with some very limited exceptions as noted above, is obsolete. I traveled between Mexico City and Zihuatanejo a few years ago by bus and was prepared for the worst--I had visions of goats in the aisles and chicken coops strapped to the roof and a lot of sweaty smelly drunks inside. I could not have been more wrong. It was comfortable, clean and affordable. The seats folded down into comfortable semi beds. I have not taken a Greyhound in years, but I am told that inter-city bus travel in the U.S. is similar. There is WiFi service and comfortable seating and all the rest. Yet, Obama flushed billions of dollars down the toilet on so-called high-speed rail projects as part of the stimulus a few years back. The smart states, Wisconsin being one, rejected the money on the grounds that the federal grants would obligate states to waste lots of money on operating costs over the years, much more than what was initially received from the feds. Job creation, at least in Illinois, was negligible. Union Pacific brought in crews from out of state to do the work. A few union laborers got jobs by acting as flaggers at crossings while new gates were installed, but that was about it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ You and I agree on this. Amtrak should be allowed to survive or fail on it's own. Rail for freight is one thing. The days of transporting passengers from point A to B via rail are long gone. There are far more cost effective and efficient means available.


The railway systems in France, Spain, and especially Germany, are fast, efficient, relatively inexpensive, and carry more passengers now than ever before. I could travel from Paris to Montpellier in about 3 and a half hours. Calais to Montpellier in 6.5 hours, including a change in Paris or Lille, and about 9.5 hours by autoroute at a steady 70mph.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> The railway systems in France, Spain, and especially Germany, are fast, efficient, relatively inexpensive, and carry more passengers now than ever before. I could travel from Paris to Montpellier in about 3 and a half hours. Calais to Montpellier in 6.5 hours, including a change in Paris or Lille, and about 9.5 hours by autoroute at a steady 70mph.


That's great!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Its a gas reading all about political solutions and how its not possible for them to work. For close to a century Chicago has been administered by Democratic machine politics and policies. So near as I can tell we're supposed to accept that almost 100 years of one party rule and the resulting failures have no connection or relation to the party in control. Ms Pelosi would be proud.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Hitch said:


> Its a gas reading all about political solutions and how its not possible for them to work. For close to a century Chicago has been administered by Democratic machine politics and policies. So near as I can tell we're supposed to accept that almost 100 years of one party rule and the resulting failures have no connection or relation to the party in control. Ms Pelosi would be proud.


This is true. Although we have had Republican governors, the state's political machinery is largely run through Chicago and this is a stronghold of the Democratic party. The real decision maker in Illinois is not the Governor, but instead speaker Madigan.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Amtrak;

I was gong to put up Amtrak rates demonstrating the absurdities local of train travel , but Amtrak has in formed me Portland Oregon does not exist. oy vey

Im off to catch the news and find out what happened.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Hitch said:


> Amtrak;
> 
> I was gong to put up Amtrak rates demonstrating the absurdities local of train travel , but Amtrak has in formed me Portland Oregon does not exist. oy vey
> 
> Im off to catch the news and find out what happened.


Try "Oregon territory" and see what happens.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> That's great!


Yes. They're state run.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yes. They're state run.


I was being sarcastic.

That's great, as in so what. Europe is Europe and what works there doesn't necessarily work here and vice versa. Europe is more of a train culture, the US is not. People are used to cars and planes. I use public transport in the city but is I need to travel 2000 miles to LA, I'll fly.

People on the east coast use trains more, but then again the distances covered, say between Philadelphia and New York, are much shorter and rail makes more sense.

It's interesting how so many try to apply a European model to the states but god forbid we try to export our thinking across the pond!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Is there anything more boring than journalists writing books or doing the lecture circuit on what it is/was like to report news? (Reporting on how the news was told is never news per se, unless it was all incorrect or just lies.)

Well, frankly, yes. here are my top three:

1. ICT types writing books or doing the lecture circuit on what it is/was like to write/program a certain piece of software or system
2. Billionaires writing books or doing the lecture circuit on what it was like to create their empire and make their first million (Gates, Jobs, the facebook bloke)
3. Politicos, medicos, militarios, legalos: you've never heard of, writing books or doing the lecture circuit delivering memoirs from their unknown careers!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Is there anything more boring than journalists writing books or doing the lecture circuit on what it is/was like to report news? (Reporting on how the news was told is never news per se, unless it was all incorrect or just lies.)
> 
> Well, frankly, yes. here are my top three:
> 
> ...


I'm going to disagree here in at least one respect. I heard Sy Hersh speak years ago about how he landed the My Lai story. It was fascinating. It involved a meeting with some high-ranking military official who had the smoking-gun documents on his desk. The official could not ethically allow Hersh to read the documents, nor could he ethically say just what was in them, and Hersh could not ethically steal them. And so there was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink sort of conversation and the official excused himself to take a leak. You can guess what happened next. I've also heard Mark Bowden speak on how he put together Blackhawk Down, and it was similarly fascinating. OTOH, I've heard Larry Flynt (whom I respect) speak, and it was beyond lousy.

I think that it all depends on who it is and what they have to say. I'm not so keen on hearing someone say what they think about this or that as much as I am hearing someone tell stories about stuff that actually happened, and a lot of top-flight journalists have great stories to tell that they are never able to actually publish. That's why they are worth hearing. It also gives one an opportunity to learn why something of public import was reported in such-and-such a way instead of this-and-that way. I find that interesting. Others may not.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> I'm going to disagree here in at least one respect. I heard Sy Hersh speak years ago about how he landed the My Lai story. It was fascinating. It involved a meeting with some high-ranking military official who had the smoking-gun documents on his desk. The official could not ethically allow Hersh to read the documents, nor could he ethically say just what was in them, and Hersh could not ethically steal them. And so there was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink sort of conversation and the official excused himself to take a leak. You can guess what happened next. I've also heard Mark Bowden speak on how he put together Blackhawk Down, and it was similarly fascinating. OTOH, I've heard Larry Flynt (whom I respect) speak, and it was beyond lousy.
> 
> I think that it all depends on who it is and what they have to say. I'm not so keen on hearing someone say what they think about this or that as much as I am hearing someone tell stories about stuff that actually happened, and a lot of top-flight journalists have great stories to tell that they are never able to actually publish. That's why they are worth hearing. It also gives one an opportunity to learn why something of public import was reported in such-and-such a way instead of this-and-that way. I find that interesting. Others may not.


You'll get no argument from me there as I differentiate between getting the scoop and then reporting on it. Getting the scoop is often part of the news in itself, and often just as fascinating or humorous: Watergate, the Hitler diaries, etc. What I mean is that the subsequent analysis of the reporting i.e how the news was delivered/broadcast/published is rarely news per se, just retrospective meddling and criticism of journalistic working methods and usually of no interest.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You'll get no argument for me there as I differentiate between getting the scoop and then reporting on it. Getting the scoop is often part of the news in itself, and often just as fascinating or humorous: Watergate, the Hitler diaries, etc. What I mean is that the subsequent analysis of the reporting i.e how the news was delivered/broadcast/published is rarely news per se, just retrospective meddling and criticism of journalistic working methods and usually of no interest.


Agreed.


----------

