Saving the world, Chicago style

Introduction: Today, I will touch on:

·       A revolutionary new system of government I invented back in 1976 – which the world wasn’t ready for;

·       Chicago, Illinois as an example of how my system could work;

·       How the European Union, especially, could directly benefit from this system, as well as the entire world in a trickle-down kind of way;

·       Miscellaneous comments concerning Chicago, not directly relevant to this new system I’m proposing.

THESIS:  I will use the example of my hometown Chicago to demonstrate how Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR) can save the United States, the European Union, and (indirectly) the entire world. I invented CSR over 35 years ago, though I was unable to generate any interest. Much has happened since then, which I hope will inspire the grassroots interest needed for implementation. CSR, as it might be adopted at the national level is described here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

Sidebar: Many of us identify with our hometowns. We understand them with far more intimacy than larger entities such as counties, cantons, provinces, nations, and regional unions. For this reason, perhaps more people will come to appreciate the vast potential of CSR by considering the case of one city – Chicago. Though my hometown might differ greatly from yours, I’m hoping there are enough similarities for you to conclude CSR could work in your town, country, or alliance of states.

I hasten to add, though, that CSR cannot work as a One-World basic form of government, though certain trickle-down benefits would make themselves broadly felt – more on that later.

Basic description of Chicago

My town has a strong mayor, weak Council type of government. Though we now have a new mayor, it remains to be seen if Rahm Emanuel will try to become the strongman dictatorial-type embodied by the two mayors named Daley. Chicago is divided into 50 units called wards, with each electing an alderman to serve in the City Council. However, the Council has been so weak throughout city history, that it basically served as a rubberstamp to approve the mayors’ various projects, policies, and budgets.

Chicago is a one political party town – that being the Democratic Party. For this reason, we suffer the same disadvantages of one-party domains the world over. Cronyism, corruption, inefficiency, and an arrogance which has landed us in a vast ocean of red ink. Given the state of the nation’s and Illinois’ economies, Chicago might have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. That’s an extreme assessment, but I mention it to paint a very grave fiscal picture indeed.

Chicago is also the most racially-segregated city in the United States. Currently, about 42% are white, 37% are black, and 26% are Hispanic of any race.* Also, Chicago isn’t what it once was – for example, its current population (at 2,700,000*) hasn’t been that low since prior to 1920. In 1950, 3.6 million people lived here*.

As is usual in any case of diminishing local wealth, every lobbyist, interest group, and ethnicity fights to maintain its share or increase it. Of course, this does not help maintain the health of the greater unit – the city itself as a whole. [As if anybody really cares!]

My solution involving CSR

The Basic Set-Up

We don’t need a mayor and we don’t need 50 rubberstamping, part-time aldermen. Instead, we should elect a governing board of seven full-time directors. There would not be any need for a Chairman of the Board, which I’ll explain later (see Chairman of the Board, below).

Here’s where the concept of cross-sectioning comes in:

Instead of electing the directors from geographically-based units such as wards, each director would be elected by a new unit called a Cross-Section. To make this change, the names of every registered voter in Chicago would be entered into a computer which would randomly assign them to one of seven Cross-Sections. And those seven lists would be published. My name might end up on list # 4, making me a constituent of the director elected by Cross-Section #4.

My duly-elected director would know that the demographics of his constituents would roughly match those in any of the other six Cross-Sections. They would:

·       Have the same average income;

·       Be of the same mix of races and religions;

·       Be equal in number of voters;

·       Live evenly distributed throughout the city.

That last is especially important. Right now, aldermen cast their votes for one of two major reasons:

·       The mayor is able to exert enough pressure to influence that vote;

·       Each alderman tries to insure that legislation favors his ward or at least doesn’t work to its detriment.

However, a Director representing my Cross-Section #4 won’t have to worry about trying to (especially) please Hispanic voters, since they won’t make up more than 26% of his constituents. There are as many Hispanics in Cross-Section #4 as there are in any of the other Cross-Sections. For the same reason (that is, due to random assignment of voters to Cross-Sections), none of the Directors will have to worry about displeasing some local (in the past, ward-based) interest group. They will be free to vote for whatever is good for the city as a whole.

Campaigning for office – how to become a Director

The only way to campaign for office will be on-line, after campaign fund-raising and spending are banned. But this is strictly regulated and formatted. Each candidate must maintain one – and only one – campaign website. On it, he can list his biographical info – including his accomplishments, legislative and otherwise. Also posted will be a list of endorsers – those groups and individuals who support him. Each candidate is free to list those who oppose his opponents.

Also included are campaign statements, promises, self-promotions, and “analyses” of opponents. However, to be sure, there are many voters who will not care to analyze on-line policy content. They will opt instead to see who is endorsing which particular candidate along these lines: “Hey, my _______ says this guy deserves my vote, so that’s good enough for me.” [Fill in the blank with: union, rabbi, favorite academic association, professional association, etc.]

And why not? Whatever informs a voter’s decision is good enough for me if it’s good enough for him.

As for the primaries: If someone wants to run for Director, they pay a modest application fee which allows his name to be listed on the website of the Cross-Section he wishes to represent. He will be allowed folder space on that website to make his pitch, and then a primary is held with constituents of that Cross-Section going on-line and making a choice. The top five choices in each Cross-Section appear on the ballot two months later, with voters instructed to make two choices: If your first choice doesn’t win, who would you switch your vote to? Simple majority wins with this automatic run-off system.

Chairman of the Board:

Once the seven Directors are elected, it would not be necessary to have a Chairman of the Board. These seven won’t even have to meet in person since they could conduct their business via secure on-line link with read-only access for the public. Any Director could post a proposed piece of legislation on that link, allowing for comments and dry-run votes from the other Directors. If a point is reached when four out of the seven Directors approves, that bill becomes law.

No more Chairman of the Board means no more Big Boss. No more vying for permission to speak at a meeting. No more following the agenda of one man. The shock of this Control by Committee might be too much for the residents of Chicago. But I think they can handle it. Moreover, they’ll welcome this new venue as a breath of fresh air.

Concluding items of interest

Miscellaneous items concerning Chicago:

These items aren’t all relevant to my Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR) model, but I include these to further stimulate thinking about the reform of governance in general:

·       When citizens have complaints or need services, they won’t have to call their local alderman (who notoriously looks up their voting record before deciding how much assistance to render). They can have input on-line or directly with relevant city agencies or ombudsmen.

·       Chicagoans won’t be encumbered with a mayor like Richard M. Daley, who in my opinion must have received a kickback for his efforts, having had the nerve to sell the rights to parking meter revenues for 75 years. This was done with investors (some of whom are foreign and/or anonymous) in order to obtain an immediate, one-time-only windfall payment of $1 billion to the city’s coffers – which has mostly been spent already. This was done with only a few days notice given to aldermen who “had to” quickly vote on this measure, after the mayor had had an entire year at his disposal to cobble together this deal.

For a change, we’ll have a Board of Directors working on such issues as a team, with each member having equal access to all pertinent info and analysis.

·       Chicagoans won’t have to worry about equal protection provided by their police forces. Right now, wealthier and more politically-connected wards get better protection. A Board of Directors would be far more inclined to protect the whole city – not just special enclaves.

·       We won’t have to worry about lobbyists trying to influence lawmakers to, for instance, dole out public money to upgrade private sports teams’ facilities – yes, Chicago Cubs, I’m talking about you. Those kinds of deals don’t benefit the city as a whole.

·       We can rethink basic services from the point of view of what’s good for the public rather than what’s good for powerful unions – for instance, the Chicago Teachers’ Union. Or even teachers’ unions in general.

As for public education, why not finance the best possible teacher-provided education for all kids from grades K thru 8? After that? Modular programs providing on-line instruction without mandating physical attendance in a school with a teacher. Also, why on earth do our public colleges – especially community colleges – insist on classroom contact as the primary means of instruction? Much can be conveyed on-line with support from peer tutors paid to provide assistance.

·       TIF districts can be designed and properly managed for their original purpose – to help eliminate economic blight. However, a CSR Board of Directors would also be likelier to compensate those public agencies which usually suffer from loss of tax revenue under TIF set-ups. No more TIF’s for the purpose of creating a slush fund controlled by the mayor.

·       We will move away from the model of a city which has large sections which have been wastelands for decades, languishing simply because these areas are in a ward lacking political clout. The new theme will be: We’re in this together.

The European Union and the Rest of the World

I understand the EU is basically governed by political parties tightly integrated into a bureaucracy which is very elite and insulated from the effects of popular backlash. Notably, the banking community and mega businesses have way too much power, with little direct popular accountability. The EU still has a long way to go in terms of becoming a single integrated political entity, with power firmly in the hands of the average citizen, regardless of where in the EU he happens to live.

I will repeat the link I’d cited above for the benefit of those who might want to ponder how Cross-Sectional Representation could truly level the European playing field:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

As for the “Rest of the World,” CSR can’t be directly applied to create a One-World government. National sovereignties and their armies would stand in the way of any international Board of Directors trying to implement locally unpopular policies. However, the rest of the world would benefit from CSR, since CSR-based entities would be freer of the types of elitist control and exploitation from which lesser-developed nations currently suffer.

CSR isn’t perfect by any means, nor will it be easily implemented – traditional power brokers will fight this tooth and nail. But that doesn’t mean they will win. I direct your attention to a link which describes the ideal weapon to use against these opponents:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/general-strike-declared-by-steven.html

* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Now is the time to act – before the elites are able to consolidate their power past the point of no return.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

R.I.P. Chicago?

It’s official: Rahm Emanuel won the election and will be Chicago’s mayor for the next four years. God help us.

I say “God help us” – not just because I think there’s nothing Rahm can do to save the city. Oh, to be sure, Rahm will go through the motions and appear on lapdog-media TV making “Rah-Rah, let’s go Chicago” speeches. He’ll appear before all the right public fora and mouth all manner of clichés. But I personally don’t believe Rahm will be committed to anything more than lining his own pockets as the City of Broad Shoulders maintains its slow but steady decline.

The low turnout

I must admit surprise at the low turnout for this particular election. Out of 1.4 million registered voters, only 42% had bothered to vote for mayor. That’s especially surprising since voting early by mail was an option. That is, voters didn’t even have to bother to go to their polling places. Out of those 42%, 55% voted for Rahm – and the media calls that a landslide. Perhaps so, but there’s another way of looking at those numbers: Only 23% of Chicago’s registered voters cast their ballots for Rahm.

Worse yet, in my book: For every two who voted, there were three who didn’t.

How to explain that? Maybe those “three who didn’t” realized that none of these candidates could save the city:

Rahm Emanuel (with 55.27% of the vote), Gery Chico (23.93%), Miguel Del Valle (9.26%), Carol Moseley-Braun (8.99%), Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins (1.64%), and “Dock” Walls (.91%).

That is, these voters concluded that the city was past saving. So, rather than compromise their dignity by voting at all, these good citizens simply ignored the election. That seems to be the likeliest reason, though I wish they had considered the following:

“Chicago may well be past saving. But I want to make a statement by rejecting the four Machine front-runners and voting for the only plausible independent on the ballot – Patricia Watkins.”

But those good citizens might have also thought: “If Watkins becomes mayor, then we’ll only have a return to Council Wars, as during the days of Mayor Harold Washington. But this time, the Council will be a bunch of Democrats pissed-off that a Machine Democrat didn’t win the mayor’s seat.”

Blame the candidate?

I was almost tempted to blame Watkins for not running a more inspired campaign. When I viewed footage on her website of a few of her public speeches, I thought: “This person seems too self-effacing, almost apologetic.” I’m not saying she should have tried to out-asshole Rahm Emanuel at his worst, but surely she could have done more than roll over and play dead.

The lapdog-media did its best to exclude or minimize her. She was not even listed as an option when most public opinion polls were conducted. She was not invited to speak with the front-runners during any of the three televised debates. And of course the whole brouhaha over whether Rahm was even eligible to be on the ballot served his purposes quite well – by allowing a circus-like atmosphere to envelope the campaign to the exclusion of any serious debate on the issues. [He couldn’t have planned that any better…hmm..(?)]

And then of course media occasionally got cute, with remarks like this appearing on the CBS website*: “Braun and Del Valle trail, along with two other candidates – [Watkins] and [Walls] – who did not participate in the debate.” They didn’t “participate” because they hadn’t been invited!

I’d even read one mainstream account of how Rahm’s people tried to spin his potty-mouthing and belligerent past. They claim he has matured over time. I beg to differ. Rahm’s behavior, back in the day, was not a sign of immaturity. It was a sign of mental illness – which, by the way, doesn’t just go away over time…it just manages to mask itself.

Should Watkins have tried some high-visibility, grandstanding maneuvers, like showing up outside the debate locations with busloads of supporters, demanding to know why she’s being excluded? Should Watkins have indulged in a bit of guerrilla theater by arranging for her mock crucifixion in the middle of Daley Plaza? Should Watkins have (repeatedly and unceasingly) asked THE embarrassing question of Rahm Emanuel:

“How is it that you were able to ‘earn’ $16.2 million during your two-and-a-half-years of employment with an investment banking firm, even though you had no training or experience whatsoever in this field? Don’t you think you should come clean with Chicago voters on this issue, since they might well wonder if you’ll similarly ‘earn’ even more once you achieve supreme political power as their mayor?”

Should Watkins have promised to use her training as a Certified Public Account to “get to the bottom” of Chicago’s fiscal mess?

I had even sent e-mails to her campaign with suggestions on how she might proceed. By the way, these e-mails were never acknowledged. So I don’t know why Watkins didn’t run like she meant it. To my mind, there are three possibilities:

• She and her campaign staff were incapable of envisioning bolder campaign strategies.

• She ran a token campaign this time around, with a view toward running more seriously four years from now.

• She was threatened to “tone it down”…or else. [This is Chicago and these boys play rough.]

At this point, though, I want to thank Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins for at least having made an effort.

The only real, long-term solution

Years ago, an actor friend of mine was crying in his beer about how people just don’t go to see live theater any more. But then he remembered something: “If you want an audience, you have to go out and get one. You have to find a way to grow an audience. And if your message is too subtle, you have to find a way to raise consciousness.”

I suggest that a Coalition of Independents do just that. They can organize, resolving to run at least one independent in each of Chicago wards in the next election to oppose incumbent Democratic aldermen. Chicagoans have been lulled into apathy; consider:

“Between 1972 and 2009, a total of 30 Chicago aldermen were indicted and convicted of federal crimes such as bribery, extortion, embezzlement, conspiracy, mail fraud and income tax evasion.”**

But even such negativity can be overcome, if only a power base can be established. And that base should come from the local universities, since they (unlike the labor unions, for example) haven’t been sucked into the culture of corruption that is uniquely the City of Chicago’s and the State of Illinois’. These universities, from among their ranks of professors, could be a source of independent candidates as well as a forum of opposition to the “business as usual” Democratic Party gangstas.

Of course, anything can be corrupted – even a reformist movement. This is Chicago, after all, and the elite have much to lose if their grip on power slips even a notch. So I suggest that any sincere potential members of such a Coalition keep it simple. Don’t, for instance, name your group the People’s Collective or Chicagoans for Socialist Change. Calling yourselves simply the Coalition of Independents adequately makes the point.

The mission of such a group is to seek out and enlist/draft potential candidates among academics (or other pillars of the community) who would be willing to run for election, and to serve if elected. The Coalition could also serve to advertise their existence, and promote the necessity of dismantling the One Party system in this town. They could even ask embarrassing questions like, “Why isn’t the money that’s been collected under the TIF programs been spent on economic development, as it’s supposed to be?”

Chicagoans don’t have to just lie down and take it any more. But they do need a focal point and visible leadership, which such a Coalition could provide.

If enough well-intentioned men and women do nothing, then we’ll always have business as usual and we’ll always lack viable alternatives. And we’ll always have people like Daley, Emanuel, and Edward Burke in charge. “Oh well, people are always free to leave if they don’t like it” – that’s what a cynic might say. Right! People are leaving – at least, those who can. As for those who get “left behind,” they might as well get used to comforting themselves by thinking, “Oh well, at least we have Democrats in charge here.” [Put that on your tombstone, dammit!]

Somehow, though, I don’t think that will be much consolation to our remaining residents, who will see their city sinking further while the boys at the top (and their cronies) manage to keep doing very well, thank you very much!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The only thing that can save Chicago is a strong mayor, strong city council model – with independents at the helm” – Steve.

   *  http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/17/major-chicago-mayoral-candidates-debate/

  ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_City_Council

Rahm Emanuel, Mossad agent?

QUESTION # 1: Is Rahm Emanuel a Mossad agent?

QUESTION #2: Does that matter, one way or the other?

Disclaimer:  I don’t have any proof that Mr. Emanuel is a Mossad agent, certainly not anything that would stand up in a court of law. In the following posting, I merely present factors which should be considered by anybody thinking of supporting Rahm for Mayor of Chicago. And some of these factors would still be worth considering even if Rahm wasn’t even remotely connected to the Mossad.

I personally believe he is…

I personally believe Rahm is a Mossad agent. There! I want to put that upfront, first and foremost. Why do I feel this way? There’s an old saying: “Just follow the money.”

Follow the money:

Some way, somehow Rahm has been blessed with the Midas Touch. He is a legendary fundraiser, who has profoundly influenced the fortunes of Mayor Daley [when Rahm was all of 30 years old], Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Party. I believe his connections to wealthy Jews have helped him far more in this capacity than any acquired learning or natural flair. These wealthy Jewish donors see him, accurately and in appreciable numbers, as “their man” – or, more accurately, as “Israel’s man.”

There isn’t anything inherently evil in being sympathetic to or enamored of another country. It is, however, a conflict of interest to pretend to be serving the interests of the United States as one serves his “real” object of loyalty. There are people who claim that Rahm is a dual Israeli-American citizen; others deny this. I don’t believe he is, at least not in terms of formal documentation. However, it’s best to keep in mind that every Jew is automatically an Israeli citizen should he ever wish to formally make application.

Back to “follow the money”: $16.2 million:

How did [Zionist] Rahm “earn” $16.2 million in two-and-a-half years while “working” as an investment banker for [Jewish] Wasserstein Perella & Co? This, while he had no experience whatsoever in that field and had no MBA.

I’m amazed that no one questions this in the midst of a hotly-contested election for Chicago mayor. I’ll come right out and say it: “There’s no honest way anyone can earn that kind of money in such a brief period of time without training and experience.” But…none of Rahm’s opponents bothers to point out this obvious fact.

Rahm’s deep connection to Israel:

QUOTE*:

His father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was once a member of the Irgun…

The surname Emanuel (עמנואל), adopted by the family in honor of his father's brother Emanuel Auerbach, killed in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

He and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel, including just after the 1967 Six Day War.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel volunteered with the Israel Defense Forces as a civilian helping to maintain equipment.

:UNQUOTE*.

My response to these quotes:

·         Concerning Irgun: “Critics of the Irgun has seen it as a terrorist organization. It was legally classified as such by the new State of Israel in 1948” – according to the Wikipedia article on Irgun.

·         Concerning “the surname Emanuel”: The more likely reason for changing the family name was to get rid of the (hated) Germanic surname “Auerbach” and re-establish the family with a Jewish surname – “Emanuel” being Hebrew for “God is with us.” I don’t believe for a moment that a family from a highly patriarchal culture changes its surname to honor a brother, while forsaking the surname of the father of that brother.

·         Concerning attending “summer camp in Israel”: What better way to indoctrinate the young?

·         Concerning Rahm’s volunteer service with the IDF: There’s a lot wrong with that fish story. It’s incredible that Rahm would not try to help Israel by using his already-established knack for fundraising. Rahm’s services to the IDF would not have been needed during the 1991 Gulf War, since Israel wasn’t under attack at that time. However, Israel (as always) would surely have appreciated any funds Rahm could have raised on its behalf. Then there’s the issue of Rahm working to “maintain equipment.” Since Rahm was missing part of the middle finger of his right hand (and he is right-handed), it seems improbable that he would have been terribly efficient as a mechanic. Most likely? Rahm went to Israel in 1991 to receive a briefing and necessary training for his new role as Mossad’s leading agent in the United States.

Chicago: Geo-Political Considerations

Not many people fully appreciate Chicago’s importance in the larger scheme of things. We’re more apt to hear stories about Wall Street than LaSalle Street. In fact, much of what makes Chicago tick is skillfully and intentionally kept out of the news. Let’s take a look at the sleeping giant that is Chicago:

Chicago is a power center located in Illinois, the fifth-most populous state in the Union. Moreover, Chicago as a financial and economic power doesn’t really have much competition. This can be more fully appreciated by taking a map of the United States and drawing a circle, using Chicago as the center, with a radius of 500 miles. Go ahead, take a good, long, hard look. Within that circle (with a diameter of 1,000 miles!), Chicago stands alone in terms of financial and economic influence. No other city even comes close.

It’s a truism in Realpolitiks: “If you can control the heartland, you can control the nation.” In this sense, Chicago is critically important.

And yet the local media in Chicago (and even the national press) doesn’t question the dubious circumstances and timing of Mayor Daley’s retirement (I believe he was forced to retire to make room for Rahm). No one questions how Rahm miraculously manages to be the only white candidate in this racially polarized city. And the two Hispanic candidates will most likely split that bloc of voters and the only leading Black candidate (Carol Moseley Braun) has been recently (and conveniently!) tainted by disclosures about her personal finances.

And none of the candidates for Mayor, including Rahm Emanuel, says anything about investigating city government’s financial irregularities or mob influence. The mob is pointedly not mentioned by anybody – by neither candidates nor media. Instead of focusing on the issues (on which Rahm is notably silent, speaking only in sweeping generalities), local media focuses on Rahm’s legal challengers trying to force him off the ballot based on doubts concerning his legal residency. On that issue, I tried to post this on Yahoo! – unsuccessfully (yes, Yahoo! does censor):

QUOTE:

The [Illinois] Appellate Court tried (or did it, really?) to keep Rahm off the ballot. With 2 of the 3 judges being Democrats, maybe - just maybe - the Dem who (apparently) sided with the Pubber to keep Rahm off the ballot was just engaging in a little theater. Justice Shlevin Louis Marie Hall (Dem.) knew, if the case went to the state Supreme Court, the 4-3 Democrat majority there would reinstate Rahm.

So why the theatrics, Justice Hall? To build sympathy for Rahm? To fire up his base? To keep him in the headlines as a (gag) underdog? To make his residency an issue, so he wouldn’t have to speak on any real issues?

Good job, Hall! Way to go.

Oh…don’t think too much of the Supreme Court voting unanimously to reinstate Rahm. Why not? To split 4-3 would make it seem “political” – which the court would never dream of doing…righhtttt. All in the spirit of bipartisanship, yea!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If you think this cheap manipulation in service of Rahm was a slick piece of work, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

:UNQUOTE.

Miscellaneous Considerations

How is it that Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama, both of whom came from Chicago, managed to come out of thin air to storm the national stage? Obama’s narrative maintains he was a community organizer fresh out of law school. And yet, during his presidential campaign, I never saw one single human interest story in the news featuring an interview with anyone who actually saw Obama do this. Oh, to be sure, he might have staged a grand appearance once in a while, just to reinforce any future propaganda effort, but the lack of coverage on this aspect of his career is truly striking.

Rahm and Barack both succeeded in having the media play an embarrassingly supportive, non-questioning role in advancing their careers.

During his two years as Obama’s Chief of Staff, absolutely nothing was done concerning the Palestinian question – which is just the way Israel wants it. [Good job, Rahm, keeping the US President in line.]

And lastly, it’s amazing that Rahm Emanuel had emerged to play such a pivotal role in the Democratic Party’s resurgence in the 2006 election cycle. All of these accomplishments can be attributed far more to Rahm Emanuel’s connections to wealthy Zionist donors than to any native genius on his part. Though, it must be admitted, he has played his role well. Since Israel has only six million Jewish inhabitants, and the international Jewish community is so small, it’s absolutely critical for them to utilize every resource at their disposal. And they have utilized Rahm to an exquisite degree – for which service he has been handsomely rewarded.

And should he become Chicago’s next mayor, his rewards will grow by leaps and bounds – though won’t necessarily be publicly noticeable. Go figure.

END NOTE: I couldn’t resist laughing aloud at a headline in one of Chicago’s papers, announcing that Rahm Emanuel had been declared ineligible to be on the ballot. This ruling was from the Appellate Court. The headline? “Rahm Bomb.” One of the greatest Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages was Maimonides – also known as “Rambam,” which is pronounced exactly the same as “Rahm Bomb.”

I doubt this connection was intended by whomever wrote that headline. But who knows? Perhaps Rahm Emanuel will become as equally revered as that ancient Jewish scholar. The universe can have a wicked sense of humor.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If Hollywood were to invent a script similar to the life of the real life Rahm Emanuel, nobody would believe it. Simply too far-fetched.”

  * All quoted material is from the Wikipedia article on Rahm Emanuel

Dr. Watkins for Mayor of Chicago: A Declaration of Independence

On January 15, 2011, I sent the following email to the (hopefully) next mayor of Chicago:

QUOTE:

I am a “white” resident of Chicago who will be voting for Dr. Van Pelt Watkins on Feb. 22. Chicago will be lucky to have such a fine person as mayor.

For what it’s worth, I wish to offer a few tips which your campaign might find useful. Also, for what it’s worth, I have been a state civil service worker at Northeastern Illinois University for 29 years. I’m about as ordinary and powerless a citizen as can be imagined. However, I do have one minor claim to fame: I was the only candidate in the history of this country to run for US president (in 2008) on the basis of a legally-enforceable contract. If I had been elected, if I had violated any of the 47 campaign promises listed in my written & signed Electoral Contract, I would have forfeited my office.

That leads me to my first tip for your campaign:

Dr. Watkins might consider offering such a contract herself, a sample of which follows:

QUOTE:

Electoral Contract specific to Chicago’s Mayor

This link leads to my blog on which I detail what a US president’s electoral contract [my own contract, back in 2008] could look like:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

The enforcement mechanism, in this case, is quite simple: If I were to violate any of my written campaign promises yet fail to resign the presidency, the Congress could impeach me. However, there is another way which could be included in Dr. Watkins’ contract, since there’s no way to impeach Chicago’s mayor:

“If an opinion poll of registered Chicago voters conducted by the respected polling firm of _____ would ever show 50% saying I should resign as mayor, I would have to either resign immediately or forfeit a ‘bond’ in the amount of ____ held in trust by ____.” [NOTE: Any such poll would have to be paid for the mayor’s detractors.]

Other possible mayoral campaign promises:

ONE: If elected, I would have no part in raising taxes or fees for four years.

TWO:  If elected, I would have no part in granting public money (not even by means of bond issues) for the benefit of privately owned corporations, especially sports franchises, especially in regard to construction of new ball parks.

THREE:  Discretionary money in TIF accounts, controlled by the mayor, would be spent as follows: 50% for school improvement (not for any salary increases), 30% for (other) infrastructure improvements, and 20% to hire more police officers.

FOUR: If the day comes when the city council consists of at least 50% independent aldermen not aligned with any political party, I would seek majority approval by such Council for legislation, that being sufficient for enactment. Also, I would step aside and allow the Council to select its own presiding officer and, in all respects, operate independently of the mayor.

:UNQUOTE.

Other suggestions

Dr. Watkins should emphasize that she is an independent who believes Chicagoans have suffered under one-party, strongman mayor rule for too long. Single party rule dominated by a strongman is typical of stagnant third world countries. And this is not fitting for a leading world-class city like Chicago.

On the other hand, this is not a suggestion that competition in the form of a revived GOP is welcome. What is really needed, here and nationwide, is an end to the Two Party System’s dominance. When elected officials are beholden to a political party, they lose their connection to the people they’re supposed to service.

As mayor, Dr. Watkins would invite City Council members to sever their allegiance to the Democratic Party and declare as independents. Either that, or face challenges from independents who will start to look increasingly attractive to a party-weary public.

It’s time for Chicagoans to declare their independence by voting for independents.

With people like Rahm Emanuel, we don’t know what favors he’ll be expected to grant in exchange for campaign contributions. With the other candidates, they will behave as good servants, doing what’s best for the Democratic Party without any care for the ordinary citizens of Chicago.

As Mayor, Dr. Watkins could lead for renegotiation of the city’s parking meter deal by threatening to lead meter boycotts on certain selected days, saying, “On these dates, I urge all citizens to take public transportation instead of feeding bloated parking meters. We will continue this boycott until this blatantly unfair contract is renegotiated.”

I hope you will consider these possibilities as foci for your campaign.

Sincerely,

Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

:UNQUOTE.

Post Script

I’m going to send another email to the Watkins campaign, suggesting that she add one more facet to her campaign: Advertise heavily that she, if elected, will aggressively investigate Chicago’s more hidden aspects of corruption. She can do this by means of her executive authority as mayor, and by inviting the feds to come in and pour over the books. She can order all agency heads to fully cooperate in this investigation. If this trail of investigation leads to where I strongly suspect, Mayor Richard M. Daley might end up doing the perp walk after all.

In any event, such revelations will be to the good of all of Chicago’s citizens.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors Party

" #1: Anybody but Rahm; #2: Anybody but a Dem/Pub; #3: Watkins is actually a very good option."