Can You Believe It?
[UPDATED]
Wow, what a shock. I was ready to stay up all night biting my fingernails to see who the next mayor of Chicago would be, and here we are at 10:30, and the whole thing's been wrapped up for several hours. That link will update as votes are counted, but right now, with 86.6 percent of precincts, Richie has 71.8 percent of the votes.
If Daley can avoid getting indicted and make it to the end of this term (and right now it doesn't look like anything to but wishful thinking to believe he won't), in just a bit under four years (on December 25, 2010, as a matter of fact), he'll surpass his father as the longest-serving mayor in Chicago history. Merry Christmas, Mayor Daley!
On a related note, none of the criminals, whether they were on the ballot or not, won in their various elections.
posted by Doug @ 10:26 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Quick question ... you've lived in LA correct? So, which city LA or Chicago runs more efficiently?
I ask, because having lived in both NY and DC I find little to complain about in Daley's Chicago.
So you're in favor of those other cities becoming more corrupt?
That response avoids the question in its entirety.
It seems to me that it would have been simple enough to type out something like ... LA's city government is a model of incorruptible and responsive enlightenment ... if that were the case.
Of course, never having lived in Los Angeles I can say myself. MY experience of New York however was that it was so hopelessly corrupt that it was not uncommon for blocks to take up collections to pay off garbage collectors and snow plow drivers to ensure that they would not be overlooked. Features I've failed to note here in Chicago.
My point. Since the corruption part is a given where any sizable metro is concerned ... what is it, precisely, that you find objectionable?
can't say ... I hate blog typos
I did avoid the question because comparing the efficiency of corruption from one regime to another does little more than promote and legitimize that corruption. (I will say, though, that I never heard of anyone in LA having to bribe a snowplow driver to keep their block clear.)
It's interesting that a post intended almost as a throwaway about the size of Daley's margin of victory invokes a response defending municipal corruption. Is it really true that to talk about Chicago politics is, by definition, to talk about corruption and cronyism?
You dodged again. Nice try.
I would however think that it would be possible to have done so without misrepresenting my comments. If you felt that my assertion that literally ALL large metropolitan areas have corrupt municipal governments was incorrect; a simple: “Boston, Baltimore and San Francisco’s governments are scandal free;” would have sufficed. If you agreed, refutation of my second assertion (that Chicago’s municipal services are a wonder as compared to those on display in New York, D.C., Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Paris and Miami) would seem to have been in order.
So why opt for unnecessary dissembling? Is it so odd to be asked if one’s complaints are reality-based?
O’ and in all fairness London arguably works as well if not better than Chicago, Detroit’s comparative status is so lamentably self evident it seemed somewhat unfair to mention and I’ve personally spent too little time in the likes of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto to comment on them.
How did I misrepresent your comments, Dirk? What part of my response makes me a liar?
Hey Dirk... been on the CTA lately?
Post a Comment
<< Home