Contact Us

.

« MO Dems have new party leader | Main

February 14, 2007

Comments

the money generated from the new version is probably how the bunch of city council members who have put us in a bottomless pit of debt plan on paying it off.

like their other great ideas it will fall flat on it's face.

I really would like to see all the outsiders who are not part of the KC election / government group (read good ole boys network) sweep the elections.

With a fresh group perhaps we could get away from trying to replicate the halburton debacle in iraq locally.

http://alamoalliance.org/truth.html

Pass this on please.

AC Green

Your content wasn't that great. What made the site run was the comments. I'm sure some of us will start a new blog, free of charge, that will quickly replace this one.

AC Green

You're content wasn't that great. What made the site run was the comments. I'm sure some of us will start a new blog, free of charge, that will quickly replace this one.

gerry

I also want to have a mayor who is familiar with the workings of our city government. Reiderer even refers in his ads to his county and state associations as opposed to being familiar with the city. We cannot afford to be playing catch up for months on end with someone who is an outsider to the city's business. It is going to be difficult enough with so many new council people. There is a learning curve that will take too long without someone who knows what is going on. We have some local problems that are being mentioned repeatedly in several of the different candidate TV ads. Our next mayor needs to hit the ground running on the first day of business after the election.

Mark

You still haven't solved the "technical" problem of not using the entire width of the webpage. It hasn't been a problem in the current format so why create one with this new, unimproved format? Are you making us scroll, scroll, scroll rather than allowing the page to auto-resize to the width of the browser window so that we'll see your cheesy advertisements? FIX THE AUTO-PAGE WIDTH!!!

Keith Chrostowski

A.C. Green, the new free site is now getting plenty of comments. Come on over to http://buzzblog.kcstar.com

spock

==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT==

This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.

I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'.

While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.

I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public.

This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s).

Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 13% of the total number of citizens QUALIFIED to vote are determining who is elected to represent the interests of the
remaining 87%!

In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 13%.

It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist
the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.

So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).

Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:

* 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.

* 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.

* 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and
IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.

* 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.

* 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.

Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election
participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above.

If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?

If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to
sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?

Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?

Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?

Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?

As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.

The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.

The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power
ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by
their deeds.

Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few.

To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:

* You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time

* You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time

* But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time


The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at
just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.

spock

==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT==

This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.

I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'.

While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.

I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public.

This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s).

Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 13% of the total number of citizens QUALIFIED to vote are determining who is elected to represent the interests of the
remaining 87%!

In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 13%.

It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist
the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.

So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).

Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:

* 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.

* 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.

* 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and
IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.

* 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.

* 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.

Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election
participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above.

If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?

If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to
sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?

Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?

Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?

Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?

As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.

The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.

The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power
ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by
their deeds.

Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few.

To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:

* You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time

* You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time

* But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time


The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at
just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.

Alex Smith

Hey buddy! Nice blog that you maintain here.. I just chanced upon your blog surfing the blogosphere. I was thinking.. you could try out some interesting widgets on your page and spice it up with more relevant information. E.g try out the new widget on http://www.widgetmate.com with your relevant keywords

African Americans Kansas City

Cool!
http://www.afrokansascity.com

amjoe

1. "We will not have any more crashes in our time."
- John Maynard Keynes in 1927

2. "I cannot help but raise a dissenting voice to statements that we are living in a fool's paradise, and that prosperity in this country must necessarily diminish and recede in the near future."
- E. H. H. Simmons, President, New York Stock Exchange, January 12, 1928

"There will be no interruption of our permanent prosperity."
- Myron E. Forbes, President, Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co., January 12, 1928


3. "No Congress of the United States ever assembled, on surveying the state of the Union, has met with a more pleasing prospect than that which appears at the present time. In the domestic field there is tranquility and contentment...and the highest record of years of prosperity. In the foreign field there is peace, the goodwill which comes from mutual understanding."
- Calvin Coolidge December 4, 1928

4. "There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash."
- Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist , New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929

5. "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months."
- Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929

"This crash is not going to have much effect on business."
- Arthur Reynolds, Chairman of Continental Illinois Bank of Chicago, October 24, 1929

"There will be no repetition of the break of yesterday... I have no fear of another comparable decline."
- Arthur W. Loasby (President of the Equitable Trust Company), quoted in NYT, Friday, October 25, 1929

"We feel that fundamentally Wall Street is sound, and that for people who can afford to pay for them outright, good stocks are cheap at these prices."
- Goodbody and Company market-letter quoted in The New York Times, Friday, October 25, 1929


6. "This is the time to buy stocks. This is the time to recall the words of the late J. P. Morgan... that any man who is bearish on America will go broke. Within a few days there is likely to be a bear panic rather than a bull panic. Many of the low prices as a result of this hysterical selling are not likely to be reached again in many years."
- R. W. McNeel, market analyst, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, October 30, 1929

"Buying of sound, seasoned issues now will not be regretted"
- E. A. Pearce market letter quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, October 30, 1929

"Some pretty intelligent people are now buying stocks... Unless we are to have a panic -- which no one seriously believes, stocks have hit bottom."
- R. W. McNeal, financial analyst in October 1929


7. "The decline is in paper values, not in tangible goods and services...America is now in the eighth year of prosperity as commercially defined. The former great periods of prosperity in America averaged eleven years. On this basis we now have three more years to go before the tailspin."
- Stuart Chase (American economist and author), NY Herald Tribune, November 1, 1929
"Hysteria has now disappeared from Wall Street."
- The Times of London, November 2, 1929

"The Wall Street crash doesn't mean that there will be any general or serious business depression... For six years American business has been diverting a substantial part of its attention, its energies and its resources on the speculative game... Now that irrelevant, alien and hazardous adventure is over. Business has come home again, back to its job, providentially unscathed, sound in wind and limb, financially stronger than ever before."
- Business Week, November 2, 1929

"...despite its severity, we believe that the slump in stock prices will prove an intermediate movement and not the precursor of a business depression such as would entail prolonged further liquidation..."
- Harvard Economic Society (HES), November 2, 1929


8. "... a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall."
- HES, November 10, 1929

"The end of the decline of the Stock Market will probably not be long, only a few more days at most."
- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale University, November 14, 1929

"In most of the cities and towns of this country, this Wall Street panic will have no effect."
- Paul Block (President of the Block newspaper chain), editorial, November 15, 1929

"Financial storm definitely passed."
- Bernard Baruch, cablegram to Winston Churchill, November 15, 1929


9. "I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism... I have every confidence that there will be a revival of activity in the spring, and that during this coming year the country will make steady progress."
- Andrew W. Mellon, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury December 31, 1929
"I am convinced that through these measures we have reestablished confidence."
- Herbert Hoover, December 1929

"[1930 will be] a splendid employment year."
- U.S. Dept. of Labor, New Year's Forecast, December 1929


10. "For the immediate future, at least, the outlook (stocks) is bright."
- Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in Economics, in early 1930

11. "...there are indications that the severest phase of the recession is over..."
- Harvard Economic Society (HES) Jan 18, 1930

12. "There is nothing in the situation to be disturbed about."
- Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, Feb 1930

13. "The spring of 1930 marks the end of a period of grave concern...American business is steadily coming back to a normal level of prosperity."
- Julius Barnes, head of Hoover's National Business Survey Conference, Mar 16, 1930
"... the outlook continues favorable..."
- HES Mar 29, 1930


14 "... the outlook is favorable..."
- HES Apr 19, 1930

15. "While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed through the worst -- and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover. There has been no significant bank or industrial failure. That danger, too, is safely behind us."
- Herbert Hoover, President of the United States, May 1, 1930
"...by May or June the spring recovery forecast in our letters of last December and November should clearly be apparent..."
- HES May 17, 1930

"Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over."
- Herbert Hoover, responding to a delegation requesting a public works program to help speed the recovery, June 1930


16. "... irregular and conflicting movements of business should soon give way to a sustained recovery..."
- HES June 28, 1930

17. "... the present depression has about spent its force..."
- HES, Aug 30, 1930

18. "We are now near the end of the declining phase of the depression."
- HES Nov 15, 1930

19. "Stabilization at [present] levels is clearly possible."
- HES Oct 31, 1931

20. "All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S."
- President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933

qpkhfj
hurrypotter

Dear Friend:

Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors?
More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don’t be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions:
• Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration?
• Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason?
• Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time?
The answers to these questions -- and all your voting needs -- can be found at www.StateDemocracy.org


Lycoas

Hi There, I found your website on Lycoas, does it support Firefox?

Lycoas

Hi There, I found your website on Lycoas, does it support Firefox?

Lycoas

Hi There, I found your website on http://www.lycoas.com Lycoas, does it support Firefox?

Lycoas

Hi There, I found your website on http://www.lycoas.com Lycoas, does it support Firefox?

n5lgq mmkjo

Hi There, I found your website on Altsviatsa, does it support Firefox?

n5lgq mmkjo

Hi There, I found your website on Altsviatsa, does it support Firefox?

dissertation writing help


Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it

Logo design

Nice work. It is good to see that you have been promoted to another platform. Keep it up.

The comments to this entry are closed.