Yes, you can fight City Hall

Gomezman5 says on Jun 17, 2005, 06:41:

Interesting....but I think something is missing Although people often talk about national fgures being corupt, often people leave out the fact that local officials are also corupt, if not more so.

It is very hard for me to believe, that the local "city hall" of Medellun reimbursed everyone for every dollar (peso) they paid in. When money enters the till, not only is the money not ussually properly spent, but local officials often walk off pocketing a share of the money that is supposed to go for tradtional goverment expenses.An auditing trail is poor or non existant.

Bogota is the best example. It was not too many years ago that various parts of the north side were targeted for sewer-like repair and/or replacment. About mid way through the project, with holes and broken roads in many areas, the project just stopped. No further work could be completed. Why? Because allegedly they were out of money. The reason they were out of money (as it turns out) is that many of the local "mayors" (elected representatives) pocketed a the money. Do you think they punished? And what about the very visible unfinished work?..........Use your imagination as to both of those questions. Welcome to politics Bogota style.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 17, 2005, 07:51:

The end result is much the same in the US. Projects very rarely make budget so have to use more tax payer money to complete projects. Luckily in Orlando we just tax the tourists.

We have had loads of problems with local politicians getting kickbacks on public works projects. Often they hire companies run by a spouse or other family member.

I think it is a universal problem perhaps to greater extent in some countries, or perhaps it just seems worse when a country has less wealth to squander.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Jun 17, 2005, 08:17:

JAL UC what you are talking about is called JAL, or Juntas Administradoras Locales. When ever a project is going to be executed the project has to be put up for the consideration of the JAL, which is the composed of the people who live in that area. Plus if the project is of specific benefit for the people of that area, or the project will make your property value, you have to pay the property value tax, "impuestos de valorización". Projects inclusive of those of private enterprise can be put up for consideration if the community thinks they are not good for the area. An example is the Exito at Calle 134 in Bogotá which had incredible problems with the community which believed it would create to much impact on the zone. Finally the came to compromise and exito ended building a ring road on its property to avoid putting extra traffic on the existing road, plus a big front garden to make it look nicer. Unfortunatelly there are many Colombians who love critizing everything and do nothing about it. They never go to community concils but then when things are done not to their taste, they love talking bad about everything. Like Kernow states, I have also seen this things happen in most places, just look at much over the budget and how much behind schedule the Boston underground freeway system is, but when the funds are not limited, they just increase the budgets untill things are done. Fortunatelly for us although far from perfect, Transparency International has applauded Bogota as one of the cities that has made more progress in the world in fighting corruption. That is why things like the Transmilenio lines in Bogota have been within budget and on time, the new bridge at NQS and Autonorte in Bogota was even a few days ahead of schedule.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 17, 2005, 08:34:

Kernow...they really are not the same..at all Public projects that are underbudgeted due to cost over-runs and unforseen expenses is one thing. Stealing public funds is quite another. I rarely here of a situation in this country, where a politician actually stole government funds for his own use. In fact, I cannot even remember the last time such an event occurred. Outright theft of public funds, is not the same as misappropriating funds or even the misuse of funds.

In the situation I described above, I am talking about outright theft of the money in and of itself. The saddest part about my example was that not only were the funds stolen, but the city lacked the funds necessary to complete the project for a quite a while. The net result was that you had these huge holes scattered throughout Bogota with partial construction that went nowhere until they were able to come up with the funds to complete the project.

At least here in the states, if there is a shortfall in money, it is on paper only. (Budgetary-cost overruns) I have never in my life heard of a situation here in Chicago where a project was started and not completed due to the fact that there was no money to pay for it.

No major US city operates that lean so that if a major public works project is started, even if they are underbudgeted or overbudgeted, they will not have the funds to actually pay for the completion of the project.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 17, 2005, 09:04:

Gomezman We just went through 20 years of that shit in big cities, from the late 60s to the late 80s.

Hell, in your hometown of Chicago, there are lots of famous cases of that same thing.

And what about the South Bronx, with all those buildings burning and the building owners walking out with the insurance money, no questions asked. And the tenants getting all their relocation expenses paid and even new furniture, who the hell paid for all that??

We may be a little more creative in hiding it, but its the same thing. And its really only in the last 15 years or so that we've cleaned our act up in that regard.

Another thing that comes to mind is the freeway system in Montreal and the Olymic Stadium, soon to be imploded. They built all that shit in the 1970s and the mobbed up contractors used concrete several grades inferior to what they were supposed to use. The result now is a bunch of unsafe crumbling roads and a stadium that's about to topple any day now.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 17, 2005, 09:16:

Gomez, I said the end result Gomez, I said the end result is much the same. It doesn't matter to my pocket whether it is a theft or some creative bookeeping that is conveniently termed "cost overrun". I know a little about this as I used to work in the concrete industry and trust me there is quite a bit of under the table wheeling and dealing to get projects that we bid on.

You are also taking a specific case that happened quite some time ago in Bogota and applying it to all projects in Bogota if not all of Colombia.

Juanalejo has offered some counterclaims that are more current. As Juanalejo lives in Bogota and certainly seems more well-versed in its day to day workings than you who has only spent a short time in Bogota, I will listen more to his posts thanks very kindly.

Personally I think Bogota is moving in the right direction.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jun 17, 2005, 09:25:

My wife counts her centavos and she says that she did get back every bit of the money she had to pay in. There is one thing I don't understand after reading juanalejo's description. It sounds as though normally a project can't go ahead without the people in the area approving of it first. In this case, they were already going ahead with it and she (along with everyone else) was having to pay the additional assessment. She said it took the intervention of a city councillor to get the thing stopped and the money returned.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adrimm says on Jun 17, 2005, 11:29:

People in the area approving it If that is what is suposed to happen, then no wonder nothing gets done. How often are referendums held for local street scaping projects? Local councillors rarely go knocking on all doors before deciding to pass something. IMHO even in North America very little would get done if every resident had to approve of it first. Infrastructure improvements and repairs are hardly cheap and imho most would balk at the cost and pass it up.

Example: Councils in my area recently approved an increase in property taxes to help pay for somthing.... I know about it becuase alot of the paperwork came through my office, but I wouldn't be surprised if I am the only one on my street who knows about it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 17, 2005, 11:29:

HAHAHAH kernow and I just posted in stereo!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 17, 2005, 14:00:

Rubiazo......lot's of famous cases ?? I live hear...you don't. Can you name me one. Try if you can. Try and find me one case...just one where an elected official actually stole government funds for personal use. I am not talking about misused. I am talking about the actual theft of money. If you are attempting to say that the level of thievery in Colombia rivals that of the states, then I must ask you, what have you been drinking today?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 17, 2005, 14:12:

It's not the same Kernow...not even close I don't mean to be acting like a lawyer but excuse me, it goes to what is called "INTENT". For example, killing someone while driving a car is, in the end, the same---killing someone while driving a car. However, if you don't see someone standing between two parked cars, and they jump out suddenly in the darkness and kill them, it is called vehiclular homicide. On the other hand if you are drunk and you get into the car and turn the key, and proceed to run a red light and while doing so you run someone over in the crosswalk when they have the "walk" sign in front of them, you kill a person too, but it's not vehiclular homicide, it is reckless homicide, 2nd or 3d degree murder, depending on the state. Are you saying that those two are the same.

There is a difference between underbudgeting for a public works project, where tax dollars are used to build a public structure and out right theivery.......that sir, is NOT the same. Where a project is underbudeget, the money that has been appropriated DID go into the construction or is used to benefit the public, EVEN if more money is required to finish the project. That is not the same as some politician having pocket the money for personal use.

The public does NOT lose money if the money goes for public use, even if the project came in under budget. The public loses everything if all the that was appropriated for a project goes to a politicians bank account....That should be easy enough to understand...NO ?

How can you possibly conclude that the end result is the same????Impossible!! Sometimes I wonder where peoples thinking is here??

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 17, 2005, 14:34:

I don't mind you acting like a paralegal, go right ahead.

Yes, Gomez the end result for the dead person is the same.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 17, 2005, 14:50:

2 points Kernow First, I find it ironic that you had incorrectly accused me of insulting and/or getting personal with people out here. I had to remind you of the inacurracy, and you agreed. So what do you do? You take a personal swipe at me with your "paralegal" comment. So not only were you inaccurate, but you actually engage in the type of activity that you accuse me of doing. Ahhhh si..very funny guy

Second, after I clearly show you the inacurracy of your analogy, (my office associate who is studying to be a paralegal agreed) the best you can say is something nonsensical "the dead man stuff". Hey, if that is your way of capitualting to defeat....so be it. I recognize that you have a tough time meeting your match sometimes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 17, 2005, 15:33:

I met my match 11 years ago and we've been happily married ever since.

I said the end result is the same, the guy is dead. The end result is the same it costs more to finish the work. It matters not to me why the cost was higher, the projects usually get finished in the end.

If someone is charging me $10 for something that cost him $5 and he pockets the other $5; am I any worse off financially than if I deal with someone who quotes me $5 then ups the price to $10 because of unforseen costs? It cost me the same no?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 17, 2005, 15:44:

A pleasant conversation with Mr. Gomezman Dear Kernow,

The fact that Mr. Gomezman refers to local mayors (I don't know what the quotes were for) as "elected representatives" is indicative of a lack of information of local government in Bogotá. I'd rather discuss this sort of issues with someone who has a clue. Juanalejo seems to be on the money.

Your truly,

Sr Tertius.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caslug says on Jun 17, 2005, 15:59:

gman, i can name a few.. My hometown, Orange County, CA. The controller/treasurer at that time 1990's, drove the county into bankruptcy, school/police and services were cut. Turn out that the controller was incohoots w/ Merrill Lynch he got lots of perks. The court made Merrill Lynch pay back something like 200-300 million. So yes, stuff like that happens in US. BUT as Kernow mention, we just have lots of money to complete things IN SPITE of those problems. While in less fortunate countries they may not the have the resources to dig themselves out.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

spigrimace says on Jun 17, 2005, 16:09:

And don´t forget.... The big dig in Boston (why do you think it´s right next to the entrance to the North End Italian neighborhood) and my all time favorite is the Long Island Expressway on the skyway just before the Midtown Tunnell. Started when I was about 4 years old and finally finished a few years back when I turned 32.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 17, 2005, 19:14:

Everyone....really? Sr Tertius:

Of course, everything Juanalejo says is always postive about Bogota. He is one of the Go Go Colombia leading cheerleaders. And Mr. Gomezman cannot possibly so misinformed, about Bogota. He has a friend who works for one of these local alcaldes. I am not exactly sure of how or in what capacity they hold the office.

Caslug,
Kickbacks and misappropriations, as I stated earlier, is not the same as outright theft. Of course there is corruption in this country. However, you cannot even honestly think that the corruption in this country...the US approaches the level that it does in Colombia. Are you honestly suggesting that? Remember, need I remind you, that Colombia was the country that had a president (Samper) that had evidence against him as strong as it comes, that he took a 6 million dollar campagin contribution from the Cali drug cartel. And the the Colombian congress failed to impeach him. In the US, not only would the president been vilified, and impeached, he surely would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. We....here in the US, impeached a president for lieing lie under oath about cheating on his wife (Clinton), and we also impeached and actually forced a president out of office, because he lied too....about the fact that he said he did not know about the break into a hotel room by the party out of office.(Nixon)

My point is, the US does not accept the kind of nonsense that happens in Colombia.......not even close. But, I will give you this much, Colombia is not much different than any other Latin American government. Corruption runs much more rampant in Mexico, than it does in the US or Canada.....or do you want to debate that point too?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 17, 2005, 19:38:

Gomezman: how can you even SAY that
What our current EXCUSE for a president has done is much worse than any Colombian president has EVER done. Fuck impeachment, we need to bring back cruxifiction for some of these MFs up here!! I'm sorry, but in my mind the Bin Ladens and the other fucking worms the higher-ups in this country are in bed with are FAR worse than any drug cartel.

I'm not even of the opinion that most of the corruption in this country is even due to the Bushes. They are just the visible face of a much deeper problem.

And since when did they impeach Clinton? Unless I really am on some hard drugs I'm not aware of, he completed his full 8 years. Not that I am or was a huge fan of him either. Impeaching would have meant removing him from office.

I will say that we are BETTER at hiding corruption than Latin American countries, for whatever reason I don't know. Maybe piss-poor journalism here, maybe it is really just that we are richer and dont miss the missing funds as much.

If I had to choose which country out of all the places I've been is the most corrupt, I'd pick Canada, HANDS DOWN. Some of the shit that goes down there with public money is absolutely unbelievable.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 17, 2005, 20:01:

Rubiazo, you better check those drugs buddy, because Mr. Clinton was indeed impeached by the US House of Representative...with 2 articles of impeachment. After a trial was held in the US senate, he was found Not Guilty.

Being impeached does not mean you are removed from office.

Don't bet me on this one, you will loose....for sure!
I wish some day someone will explain to me why I come on here and feel that I have to enlighten people all the time....Oh well

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy4Cali says on Jun 17, 2005, 22:00:

When "Kickbacks and misappropriations, as I stated earlier, is not the same as outright theft."

As long as that notion prevails, it ain't never gonna change. I'd like to understand how "Misappropriation" isn't the same as theft, though. to me, in the end, theft is theft.

But, come on, it's just numbers on paper (and the hardly use paper any more) it's not like it was real money...

My guess is that you could sit in on any U.S. city council meeting for a couple of weeks and see things that made these Latin American examples pale in comparison...Why here in Seattle, we have two stadiums and a light rail project to exhibit. (The stadiums were actually completed, though, but using public money to finance private enterprises against the outcome of the referendum still seems like theft to me.) The light railbproject, on the other hand is just going to be one cost overrun after another....

But, I agree, the difference between Latin America and the U.S. is we have deeper pockets to turn inside out.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 17, 2005, 22:32:

G5, Theft of Funds in Your Backyard... Estimado G5,

I am in agreement with Crazy4Cali that misappropriation which ignores real needs of citizens in order to play favorites with public monies is, in my opinion, theft. And Chicago is full of it.

SOURCE: The LOWE DOWN - City's supply of coffin nails diminishes (June 8-14, 2005)

By Ed Lowe, Senior Writer

"...If the mayor has not encouraged theft of public property and services, he has certainly tolerated a climate where his underlings wink at that sort of action....

But, if you think the Meigs disaster was the only mistake the Mayor made and won't admit to, think of some of the others that have surfaced in the past couple of years. There was the infamous hired truck scandal where trucks were leased from well-connected owners while City-owned vehicles, and their well-paid drivers, were sitting around. The influence that was exerted to permit this action also enriched the campaign coffers of the Mayor's favorite political party.

Or you could take the influence exerted to appoint a couple of 19-year-old sons of influential union executives to hold inspector's posts in the housing department at salaries of about $50,000 a year. They were unqualified, probably didn't know a nail from a screw or a hammer from a saw, and yet were entrusted to inspect properties that might have been dangerous for public safety.

Or there was the sudden discovery that truckloads of asphalt were missing from City inventories. How this building material disappeared from the Department of Streets and Sanitation is a mystery still being unraveled. The present explanations that it was simply a bookkeeping error and that it was, in fact, used on City repaving projects, rings a little hollow when you begin to count the number of potholes that we bounce around in when out in our cars.

Or, there is the present investigation of irregularities at the City's Water Filtration Plant. We aren't sure what happened there but are certain that it cost the taxpayers some extra money --- money that seems to be in short supply all over town.

There isn't enough cash to keep the schools running, there isn't enough to provide decent low-income housing, but there is plenty of cash to reward politically connected landscape gardeners and concrete contractors as they block up some of our streets with attractive, expensive road blocks that limit traffic to two instead of their designed three lane accesses."

The end result is the same as outright theft of funds.

Having said that I must also say I agree with you that there is probably no hard evidence of outright theft with criminal intent. If that could be proved... well, the mayor would probably not last long as the mayor. But political thievery is legal so he's probably safe.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 18, 2005, 00:41:

Platano..... A few paragraphs from newspaper articles that like to suggest the mayor of Chicago is thieve is representative of absoluteloy --nothing--nada.

The press in this city has been after the mayor for years. Now you will get the facts Mr. Platano. Our US attorney , a Republican, appointed by Bush, has been after our Democratic mayor for the last 5 years. He has put away a few politicians, for bribery, mail fraud, and extortion, nobody.....I repeat nobody has been jailed for theft of public funds. There is a difference/

If the you think that theft and the above crimes are the same as the actual taking of public funds from the treasury, than you are as confused as the others. Sorry to tell you buddy.

Let me enlighten you as to how wrong your post is from top to bottom/
Meigs Field....where was there a problem there? Theft? Meigs field involved the mayor's last minute actions to close an airport practically in the middle of down town, where planes can take off and do who knows what kind of terrorist act. The airport is 1...just one minute from the Sears Tower (tallest building in the US,) and the John Hancock bld.I think the rest is obvious.

Everyone here knows about the employee and asphalt situations....what is your point? Is there anything anywhere that even remotely suggest that any public official...especially the mayor of Chicago put public money in his pocket? Where? The fact that items are unaccounted for, that can be cause by incompetence or employees stealing or it could have just been lost. That is not the same as blameing the mayor or alderman. Again, I repeat, if there was theft occuring, and if the mayor or any of the local alderman were responsible, the US attorney would have indicted them in a hot second//believe me...I know, I live here.

So do me a favor, don't take exerts of biased press and try to make that look like the facts....What kind of realm do you come from, where you will let the American press decides as to one's guilt or innocense...get the point??? I wait for an attorney to indict, and a jury to convict, before I point fingers..You might consider doint the same.

You need to reread my examples of how Clinton and Nixon were impeached for next to nothing, and the president of Colombia took 6 million dollars from the Cali Cartel, and the Colombian congress exonerated him. Where are these bean blowers of the Go Go Colombia now to explain how a country can let corruption of that proportion rise to the highest office in the country, and then do absoultely nothing.....can someone explain this to me? And what do you come up with??? Press clipping --just clippings, a biased story about one of the greatest mayors not in this country,,,,,,but the world. He has been elected again, to be the head of the US conference of Mayors....He must have some degree of competence to get elected to that post

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy4Cali says on Jun 18, 2005, 05:29:

A lack of indictment.. ... can hardly be used as a proof of innocence. Give me a break.
Surely an attorney would know that. Otherwise the converse should be true: An indictment is proof of guilt, after all, they wouldn't arrest someone if they weren't gulty, right? In which case we could do without the courts and probably 80% of the attorneys. Come on G-man, you can do better than that.

The pernicious thing about the corruption and moral decay in the U.S. is that the government is in on the action.

Legal simply means in compliance with the law. But everyone knows that "legal" is not the same as "moral." While "appropriating" funds may be in compliance with the laws (in many cases drawn up and passed by those who will benefit from them) detracting from the public good to suit private gain, can hardly be considered moral.

And using "terrorism" as an excuse to dig up Meigs field is about as stupid as it gets. G5 forgot to mention that the mayor had been looking for an excuse to remove the airport for years as it is on some PRIME real estate. Real estate that would bring in MUCH more money as an office park or just about anything besides an airport.

The airplane excuse just doesn't hold water:

1) a small, private plane doesn't even make a dent in a building let alone destroy anything besides the airplane (as numerous accidents have shown, before and since 9/11)

2) the World Trade Center was destroyed by two commercial airliners

3) Chicago has a two commercial airports, so if safety (read: paranoia) were the concern why didn't they just close Midway and O'hare? could it be because of the.....money?! No, I'm sure the safety of Chicago is the only concern...yeah, right.

That's the kind of political nonsense we're talking about.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Jun 18, 2005, 05:42:

Gomez you are correct about Samper. The thing is most Colombians believed him to be guilty too. No one is denying there is corruption in Colombia. When I look back in history to your own great city there was a lot of corruption, I am talking many decades ago, Chicago got through this bad patch in its history and now it is the stuff of folklore. I like to think the day will come when Colombia can look back on its days of corruption, the days of the cartels, kidnappings etc. and they will be no more than folklore. That would my dream come true.

PS: Sorry about the paralegal crack, it was a low blow.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 18, 2005, 07:20:

crazy4cali, you really are CLUELESS !!!! Are you from this country?Were you born here. You, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about insofar as the how are legal system works.

You wrote:

"An indictment is proof of guilt, after all, they wouldn't arrest someone if they weren't gulty, right?"

Those are your words. And they are wrong....completely wrong. I am not going to teach you criminal law & procedure 101. If you want to learn that, go to a law schoolo in the UNITED STATES to learn American law.
Your above statement does not even have centila of logic. If indictment were proof of guilt, than why do we have trials????Yea, let's just arrest people, and lock them up. Forget about trails. Let's let the state's attorney's make the unilateral decision as to peoples destiny. That is a great idea.

Well speaking of Meigs...you just made another comment that does not make sense. Here is why. Meigs was torn down in March of 2003. Now, today is June of 2003. Don't you think that it would have taken this long (2 years and 3 months) to find a developer to purchase the site?
Obviously you are not to familiar with Mayor Daley. If Mayor Daley wanted to sell the property to a developer, the property would been sold and the type of complex you are talking about would have been built. So much for that comment. He said he was going to convert it to a park. Nobody...I repeat nobody in the media said he was going to do anything but convert it to a park. But of course, as always, somebody on PBH has superior knowledge about everything in this world.

And crazy4cali, I thought you would understand things a bit better when I said the rest is obvious about the danger Meigs field posed. While I mentioned the sears Tower and the Hancock building, that does not mean that they could not drop some kind of chemical or biological agent in downtown Chicago. Ever think of that? Hmmmmm, we have beach front...Oak street and all. And......what about the proximity of Soldier field....only blocks away????? You might want to rethink that lack of threat argument.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 18, 2005, 07:30:

Kernow...thanks Apology accepted. Thanks.....although it was not necessary. But, I am getting used to people making utterlyfalse statements about the laws in this country and at the same time telling me that I don't know the law.

Crazy4cali did just that. Somehow, this person erroneous believes that if a person is indicted, he is automatically is guilty. People like this person obiously don't read the papers or maybe they just recently arrived in this country. I can't figure it out. What get's me is if they don't understand our legal system, that is one thing.. But when they make a statement about the law and it's completely untrue, and then tell me (in so many words) that I don't know what I am talking about, that is completely different.

Anyway, Kernow, I don't know if we will be eating any Kidney pie, but I think we could settle on a beer some day.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 18, 2005, 08:08:

I thought politics was restricted to the other forum.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 18, 2005, 09:26:

G5, I don't know if you got to the end of my post where I agree with you.

Having said that I must also say I agree with you that there is probably no hard evidence of outright theft with criminal intent. If that could be proved... well, the mayor would probably not last long as the mayor. But political thievery is legal so he's probably safe.

I would have to agree with Crazy4Cali about the distinction between legal and moral. But for some that is either not relevant or too fine a distinction.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 18, 2005, 09:44:

I just don't make that distinction I look at the Canadian government and go 'fuck, i wish somebody would get them all in a bigass room and gas it'
I look at the US government and go 'damn, i wish someone would dig a mile-deep hole and throw those mf's down it.'
I look at the Colombian government, and think pretty much the same thing.
Once again, I'm far from trying to defend the Colombian government and say how GREAT things must be down there. All I'm saying is WE'RE REALLY NO BETTER.

I think it's incredibly naive to think of any level of government anywhere on Earth as being anything but corrupt and self-serving to the detriment of the public. I think pretty much anywhere one could be would be better off with FAR less government than is in place, from the USA to Timbuktu and back.

As far as I'm concerned, governments and police forces are all in the same boat with the cartels and the mafias and the terrorists. They get no more respect from me simply by virtue of actually being in power.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 18, 2005, 09:54:

Rubiazo, Your position appears to be "less government is better." The proponents of no government are called anarchists and many pacifists are anarchists, Leo Tolstoy for example.

Do you share their position that no government (or rather "self-government") is better?

In Colombia I only hear about the socialists (like FARC who believe in more government, more state control) and the conservatives/liberals who all believe in some kind of "democratic" form of government as long as they have the power and the democracy doesn't become bothersome.

Is there an active anarchist movement in Colombia?

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

rjstuff says on Jun 18, 2005, 10:15:

Corruption is Universal When I was a kid, one of my friend's dad used to send in bids for govt. projects of all kinds of things and I relaized that if he got a bid, he would just hire someone else to do the job and pocket about 50% of the money - most people call it business or capitalism or the market. I felt it was dishonest to bid on something he knew nothing about - knowing that there were others who would feed on the crumbs he throws them! I see recently the hundreds of billions (yes with a b)of dollars that have been handed out (most projects didn't require a bid) in Iraq by the administration to their cronies - business, corruption, capitalism or just plain payoffs and GREED? Neil Bush started a company in Colorado where he was paid a hundred thousand dollars a year, his total investment was $1. (Where are those guys when I want to invest a dollar and get paid hundreds of thousands per year? Oh! Damn. My dad was not in the CIA - damn damn damn!)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 18, 2005, 10:58:

I'm not an anarchist Anarchists believe in abolishing property rights.
I'm really not much of anything, but I do believe that government should be minimal.
FDR had a great quote something about 'the government should decide what it wants to do and then do it in style'. Unfortunately that was pretty far from what he actually did IMO!

Most governments dont do a damn thing in style. Maybe over in Europe it's different, but here in the Western Hemisphere they tend to turn everything they touch to pure shit!

One of the things that attracts me so much, frankly, about South America, is exactly the fact that governments are bumbling and ineffectual and really don't accomplish much, mainly leaving citizens to their own devices. Here and in Canada their invterventionist intentions are the same, but they actually accomplish some of these interventions, which never work the way they were intended.

I believe things like corruption and crime are part of human nature and the only REAL way to completely do away with them would be to kill every last human being. I think that instead of an unrealistic expectaion of ZERO corruption or ZERO violence or ZERO hunger (actually a slogan in some places now :P) we should be talking about acceptable levels of these things.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 18, 2005, 11:03:

Ironically, a project of such a magnitude as the one... you propose: "to kill every last human being" would require a large governmental effort, perhaps the effort of a World Government, which would, after killing everyone but themselves, perform the final honorary act of hari kari and kill themselves, leaving the planet earth to non-homo sapiens species.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 18, 2005, 13:25:

Platano, what is legal and what one might consider moral are two different concepts. Conduct that is regulated by law, varies from locale to locale, and the concept of what determines what is legal or ilegal, is dependent on once perception of morality.

For example, in most areas of the United States, (Vegas being the exception) prostitution is ilegal. And it is illegal because local norms and morals have determined that such an act should not be allowed an therefore laws were passed making it illegal. In much of Europe, and Latin America, locals have a different view and therefore have decriminalized prostitution.

Furthermore, morality generally is defined objectively. What is moral and what is imoral varies not only from community to community, but such conduct is often not agreed upon within the same community. conduct that the law prohibits and therefore is considered illegal, is not objective but is highly subjective. In other words, if there is a law prohibiting a woman from engaging in the act of prostitution, there is little room for debate as to whether such conduct is allowed or not allowed.

In closing although what is unlawfull and what is moral are related, morality does not have the power of law and does NOT define what conduct is allowed and what conduct is not allowed and it does NOT have a clear set of penalties that are proscribed for violating a principle of morality.........Laws have exactly that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 18, 2005, 13:45:

G5, thank you, and you end with "Laws have exactly that"... But my observation is that laws are for "los de la ruana" in other words they are selectively enforced. I understand it is illegal for employers to hire "illegals" but obviously those laws are not widely enforced or the USA would be deporting people right and left...so having a clear set of penalties (de jur) is really meaningless (de facto) and the law is for "los de la ruana" not for employers.

There is even conflicting behavior on the part of those who MAKE the laws. Congress has passed seven amnesties. Amnesties are all too common legislative efforts to forgive the breaking of immigration laws and to make it possible for illegal aliens to live permanently in the United States. Amnesties represent a system of federal rewards and assistance for illegal migrants, and they entice an even greater number of illegal migrants.

So, MI QUERIDO G5, do the laws exist to punish those who break the laws? Or do the laws exist so the lawbreakers can be rewarded by the lawmakers? This is all so confusing to a non-lawyer green banana. (By the way, discrimination against allowing green bananas in law schools is rampant I was never able to pursue a legal education)

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy4Cali says on Jun 18, 2005, 13:54:

This really has nothing to do with Colombia, anymore, but... Apparently my use of irony was lost on Sr. Gomezman5. Let me try again:

You stated: "I repeat nobody has been jailed for theft of public funds." implying that everyone cited above was innocent. My comment was that lack of an indictment, let alone a conviction didn't prove (or disprove) anything. Merely that no one had been brought up on charges. So to cite that as evidence of innocence is a fallacy.

With regard to terrorist threats, Meigs posed a threat to only the most paranoid (and, perhaps, creative) of minds. Having Meigs field next to the Central Business District posed no tactical advantage that couldn't be had by O'hare or Midway where they have MUCH bigger planes to commendeer. A boat or a semi would serve as a much more efficient and innocuous delivery vehicle than any aircraft able to use Miegs.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 18, 2005, 14:44:

Platano y Crazy4Cali Platano....I agree with all that you wrote. Selective enforcement of the law,is a reality.........And I will not even begin to explain what the reasons are for such. It varie from racist/ethnic factors to financial ones. No system is perfect my friend....not even the US one.

That said, we clearly have the fairest and least arbitrary system of any country in the world. In other words, if you are charged with a crime, you are better off being charged and tried here than you are in Any other country that I can think of. That is true if for no other reasons, assuming you don't have a history of substantial crimianl behavior, in the US, you get to put up bond money and walk the streets until you are tried and convicted. You certainly don't get that right in Colombia.

Crazy4Cali,wish to call the closing of Meigs the result of Paranoia, I think most would disagree with you. I think you need to read a little more about how easy it would be to use a chemical, biological, or nuclear substance to destroy a large central area......and it is all done with the size of a plane similar to a cesna (crop dusters). You make it sound as if you have been persoanlly inconvenienced, I can assure you, I have been probably more inconvenienced than you, because I used to fly the only commercial crafts that flew from there and that is the planes that went to Springfield, the state capitol. Now I have to take a 20 minute plane ride to Midway....So what? Big deal! Who else flies there? The richies with their private planes that need to get to their meetings and now they too have to go to Midway or O'Hare. Again I ask...So what?? I think it is clear that a few minutes more travel time to and from the airport is worth eliminating or at least mlinimizing, a potential catastropic event, that the world has never seen. If you want to call that paranoia.....so be it. However, I think most people would disagree with you.

So....what more can I say.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 18, 2005, 17:28:

Platano: I propose the exact opposite, let us all live and continue being corrupt and selling our bodies and each others bodies and pissing in the water etc. Life would be very boring if it weren't for the shitty side of it!

G5, I seriously doubt that if you had a national referendum on prostitution, it would still be illegal. Those laws were FORCED on an unsuspecting public in 1915 by a tiny and vicious lobby group of religious old bitches of both sexes, and they continue to stay on the books by virtue of the lobbying of said bitches' great-grand-crotchfruit. The average American (thank Satan) believes in 'what goes on between consenting adults is nobody else's business.' Brazil and Colombia have this written in their constitutions. Sometimes I really wonder who are the 'atrasados' in this world!

If you look at any of the recent large obscenity trails in this country, whenever it goes to a jury, it almost always ends up with a hung jury. It's only when you get the odd Bible-thumping jackass of a judge that it goes the other way.

Bottom line, if people in the US had their way, we should SURE AS SHIT have legal prostitution in at least half of this country.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adrimm says on Jun 19, 2005, 09:35:

Rubz How do you reconcile your dislike for government with the accomplishment of costly public transit infrastructure? IMHO without government support and leadership projects like subways, metros, and transmilenio would never get off the ground. A line that is cost effective today, could have been a money pit 50 yrs ago when it was installed, yet it was still installed.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 19, 2005, 11:00:

Rubiazo Regarding your assertion that if there was a national referendum on prostitution, that the majority of people would NOT vote to make it illegal, I agree with you....%100. In fact, if the question were phrased so as to decriminalize, license and regulate prostitution, I would bet that %95 of the voters would view that as acceptable.

But let's face reality, what politician is going to put decriminalization of prostitution on his legislative agenda? How would the media treat him? In a day when elected officials take positions for the purpose of appealing to the electorate, except for those that regularly patronize prostitutes, I can't see that as a winning item to put on a legislators agenda. Can you? A politician would have nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to lose.

The above said, the only reason I brought the anlogy up in my former post, was to demonstrate, the difference between condcut that is illegal and conduct that is immoral. I think I did my job perfectly in that regard. If I decide to drive down the street and pick up a prostitute standing on the corner, and patronize her, I will have comitted an unlawfull act, and I would deserve whatever penalty the law proscribes for that unlawful act. On the other hand, if there were not prohibition against prostitution, I would be able to patronize her without fear of repercussions. My conduct my be frowned upon by those who consider prostition immoral, but I would not go to jail for it.

The law sets forth a standard of conduct that people are expected to adhere to. As I mentioned above, enforcemnet is not always fair or equal. But, the goal of law is not necessarily there to punish all of its violators. Everyone knows for a variety of reasons that is not practical or possible. But for certain, the threat of punishment is enough for the majority to abide by the standard of conduct that the law proscribes, or prohibits as the case may be.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 19, 2005, 18:18:

Adrimm, not so Take NYC as a perfect example. The subway lines flourished under private ownership until the Great Depression, when everybody went bankrupt.
The government took over and did a good job until the 1950 or so, after that it just kept getting worse and worse, until today where it is plagued by incompetency resulting in breakdowns, slow transit times, trains full of people just sitting there etc.

Then look at Rio's Flumitren service. If you look at the beginning of the movie "central do brasil" you see a shot of this old rickety rusty train at the beginning. THAT was a Flumitren during the last year the government ran the system. Now they have been bought out by a private interest and 11 years later they have a fraction of the breakdowns, 3 times the rolling stock, (all new or completely overhauled) and are profitable.

Santiago, Chile is another city that did really well by privatizing its transit system. People enjoy a better level of service than ever, and the system runs at a profit.

Then look at the TTC, which I was unfortunate enough to have to use for six long years. One of the most inefficient, aggravating, convoluted transit systems out of any major city. And staffed by monkeys and reptiles!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

adrimm says on Jun 19, 2005, 19:05:

I'm not saying that private industry isn't sucessfully involved in transit projects, but that some gov't involvement is often needed at some point in the evolution of the project. The mayor of NYC appointed the Transit Commission that mapped out the subway.

This is pointless, we could both wing international examples of each of our perspectives at each other till the cows come home.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 19, 2005, 20:21:

Rubiazo As a general rule, I would agree with you. But in the USA, that defiitely is not the case. Public transoportation in all the msjor American cities is nothing short of excellent. And I will tell you why. The system is an area where the politician would get vilified if it was less than excellent. If you live in New York, you don't need a car. The same goes for Chicago. A car is a luxury, but by no means is it a necessity. Taxpayers would toss the politicians out of office in a hot second, if the service went down. It not only affects those who use the system. It also affects those who depend on employees to get the work so that they can run their business.

The fare in Chicago for trains and busses was $1.50 for several years. Only 2 years ago, the fare went up to a whole$1.75. Big deal. For 25 cents more, you get a transfer and you can ride another route. Our busses are modern with air conditioning. Gas prices have sky rocketed, and still, the fares stay the same. How do they do it??? No problem, the go to the state legislature and bingo....another 300 million dollars get sent to the Chicago transit authority. In other words, nobody in their right mind would ever suggest that the public transportation system should be privatized in Chicago....nobody. The same $1.75 express bus ride from my condo to my office takes 25 minutes...at most. A non airconditioned (so they say) and smelly taxi would cost me $14.0o and that would still take me at least 15 minutes. If they were to privatize public transportation, the fares would be a lot closer to that of the taxi than to the $1.75 I pay now.

Hence, privitization is not always the be all to end all.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 19, 2005, 20:44:

I'm not happy with the public transport in NYC at ALL. I think it's way too slow. And it seems to be getting slower by the WEEK almost. To tell the truth, I don't know why people aren't burning City Hall down as we speak. I actually did some research. Average travel times were 30-40% FASTER in 1950 than they are today. And headway between trains was way less. It's like nobody knows how to run the damn things anymore! I'd honestly rather they even double the fare, but get it right.

As for any other cities, you have to be JOKING. In most places you would be completely stranded after 11pm anywhere without a car, and even during the day, you'd be woefully inconvenienced. LA did put in some nice new subway lines but its like a drop in the bucket because it's so VAST out there. SF's transit system is as bad as Toronto's, Boston is decent but outside of rush hour you can wait 20 minutes or more for ONE train. Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Memphis, Dallas, anywhere else, FORGET IT, you need a car or you are a 4th class citizen.

On the other hand, in Bogota you can get on the Transmilenio and watch the bus shoot past people in gridlock. And you never wait more than a few minutes for your bus. This is also a testament to how bad regular traffic is, though.

And even after hours, there are tons of private buses and taxis everywhere. Hailing a cab anywhere in BOG takes SECONDS, not even minutes. In very few cities in the US is it possible to hail a cab on the street under ANY circumstances.

I don't have any experience with Chicago's public transit system. A friend of mine who lives there says he does love it though.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Jun 19, 2005, 21:23:

Well ......honestly.... I can't say I have heard many of my friends in NYC that have said the same. It may be slower than before.....but I don't think it is a result of the system per se. Increased traffic and increased ridership, also causes delay. Ridership has increase quite a bit in Chicago since gas prices have risen. I am sure if ridership is up here, it has to be in NY. You are correct about Miami. You better be near some of the main routes, or you will have your problems. Seattle has excellent trasportation and so does San Francisco I understand. El Paso Texas is good too.

As to the after 11:00 PM situation, you are also correct. But keep in mind that most people work either day or afternoon jobs...at the same time, it is not to safe to be standing in the stree or at a train station in the middle of the night. So I really don't think that the demand is really there for all night service. Chicago does have all night service "owl" service on most routes. They operate about 45-50 minutes apart from 12:00 AM until about 5:00AM. Where there is no service, a parallel street a little north or south will have service.

Public transportation in Chicago is excellent. Frankly, I don't know how the taxis stay in business.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Jun 20, 2005, 07:52:

Yes but even in the Dominican republic, it is easier to get around on public transportating than anywhere here. They have 24 hour buses even way out in the boonies, because hardly anybody has cars.

Ridership is up here, but still not up to the level it USED to be at in the 1950s.

Obviously it makes sense for most transit systems to shut down at night, but there should be taxis to compensate. Like in Tokyo, for example. After 12am you have NO problem finding a taxi. Or anywhere else in Latin America. It's really only Canada and the States (and PR) that suffer from that problem.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lawyerincolombia says on Jul 14, 2006, 09:23:

Lawyer in Cali Colombia I am a certified lawyer in Colombia. My name is Carlos Arturo Dorado and I can help to you about inmigration and legal problems in Colombia.
I am located in Cali Colombia.

Best regards:
Carlos Dorado
http://nicelatinladies.com/abogado.html

0 funny, 0 helpful.