(Please note: I refuse to syndicate HuffPo content unless it is relevant to the story at hand)
Take note:The first point that will fly over most people's heads is that despite the list of continuing grievances that are itemized by this author on HuffPo - she and most others won't make note that Chicago is a city that is completely run by the party and ideology that HuffPo and other operatives seek to push upon America.
Black, brown or white, most of the Chicago families suffering in poverty are woman-headed families.
Black, brown, or white, most of the Chicago families, whose children are getting killed, are woman-headed families.
Black, brown, or white, most of the Chicago families who are homeless are woman-headed families.
Black, brown, or white, most of the Chicago families who can't find an affordable apartment in a safe neighborhood are woman-headed families.
Black, brown, or white, most of the Chicagoans who can't find jobs, who also have children to feed, clothe, and get to school every day, are women.
Black, brown or white, most of the Chicago families, desperate for change they can believe in, are woman-headed families.
In the face of this American tragedy, the case for electing a pro-women woman mayor is the winning one--both for political reasons and for governing ones. Take note:
--The services and programs Chicago's mayor has to deliver--say, creating schools in which most children graduate from high school, or creating housing working families can afford to live in, or, most of all, creating neighborhoods safe enough for people to live in, well, in Chicago, those are services and programs women need the most. In fact, if women had them, and the programs worked for them, we wouldn't be in the muddle we're in.
I am forced to ask them - "What of this methodology which has failed to work in Chicago do you figure will work more effectively once nationalized?"
CNN: Jesse Jackson Jr - If Emanuel Enters The Mayor's Race It Will Become A Referendum On Barack Obama's Governance Of The Entire Nation
I notice that even though some people may move their mouths and voice the same words that I may express - upon further inspection of their agenda - we should note that their intentions could not be more different.
We must recall that Jesse Jackson Jr was "Obama's guy" in Illinois as he spearheaded Obama's campaign in the area. When Jackson makes note of "those communities that have been left behind" during the economic hardship that has taken place, coinciding with the Obama presidency, CERTAINLY Jackson is not hoping to assist in weakening Obama with a strong indictment. At most Jackson has issues with Rahm Israel Emanuel.
When I constantly make the case that we should not look at President Obama - the one man - but instead consider the machine (of methodologies) that he sits atop of - I can think of no better example than this one with Jesse Jackson Jr.
Said Jackson, "If Rahm Emanuel does make the decision to run for mayor of the city of Chicago, it will become a national campaign. This will not be a local race run by local candidates just debating just local issues. It will be about urban policy. It will be about the president's agenda. He has served as chief of staff.
"The president's record will probably be brought into that campaign. And given that the president was a state senator in my Congressional district, he was a -- a U.S. senator from the state of Illinois, and he, for two years now, has a record that he has to run on, Rahm Emanuel will have to answer the questions about those communities that have been left behind."
I am forced to ask Mr Jackson: "What about this machine track record regarding 'the communities that have been left behind' were not legitimate questions that should have been asked to candidate Obama back in 2008 AND every person running for re-election from local/state/federal to serve as representatives and have the popular support in these same 'left-behind' districts"?
I believe that it is clear that Mr Jackson has no intention of performing house cleaning, purging those who sit in the seats of power yet have come up short. Instead he is fielding a "soft-indictment". If he can force Emanuel to address the issues surrounding 'the least of these' - the resulting solutions that will likely come of it will be leftist and thus to Mr Jackson's liking. People mistake "leftist criticism of Obama" as a spirited attempt to damage him when all it is is an attempt to draw attention during the lull before the next election where these same forces will strongly support the reelection effort. Their focus being more on keeping the enemy out of power than actually obtaining their own agenda end points.
How Does The Establishment Talk About The Problems While Escaping Accountability For Leaving Them Unresolved On Their Watch?
There are more articles to be found that follow these two patterns of thought.
The one point of consistency to be found in all of them is the fact that despite having enumerated the continuing problems in Chicagoland (and other similarly Democratic/Progressive enclaves) there is no thought to assign accountability and take punitive political action against those who have the power and allowed these conditions to propagate.
In as much as progressivism is inorganic there will be no heartfelt demand to look inward and draw out more of the innate productive capacity of the citizenry (holding the people to this notion as the only option for their desired standard of living. NOT just saying it as motivational rhetoric). They retain and acquire more power when they set the people's quest for a better living on an OUTWARD focus, making the case that their ideological enemies are responsible for their present malaise.
Chicago provides an opportunity to show what happens when one's "infinite universe doubles back on itself and the tail lights of the car that they are chasing in front of them becomes that of the vehicle that they are riding in. (Translation - YOU are now in the leadership positions over the system that you say is failing you). To those of us would watching with open eyes - it is ever so clear that upon such a total victory - the progressive does not change his antics. At a time where his #1 calling should be to field a workable system that provides the desired ends - within the constraints of not trampling over private property rights - he punts his primary obligation for the choice to continue his outward advocacy which he is most comfortable with.
In truth once this situation is reached the progressive must become the "conservator" of the new regime that he has put forth. He must retire from advocacy and become a resource manager. Instead the scope of the domain is scaled larger, a greater body of water must be boiled and thus his advocacy continues. After all his ideological enemies, though weakened - are still moving upon the ground.