Something To Say-World

Something to Say-World blog is a forum where I can vent and share my strong viewpoints with the world, and get feedback from others, whether they are pro or con, for or against my positions. The main thing is that we engage in a thought provoking discussion with hopes of seeing the world in a more clearer and different light than we did before initiating our intellectual dialogues. __________ MOTTO:Committed To Relentless Pursuit Of Hidden Truths -Globally-

Tuesday, October 30, 2007


Friday, October 12, 2007

CHICAGO: MAYOR DALEY PROPOSES A $293 MILLION INCREASE IN TAXES, FEES AND FINES! Are Some Chicago Voters Getting Exactly What They Deserve?



Yesterday’s on line Chicago Tribune article's title read: “Daley's big tax bite. Only 1 choice, mayor says.” Not surprising!

And when I read the first sentence of the art
icle, I could only shake my head and laugh, sadly: “ Mayor Richard Daley proposed a whopping $293 million increase in taxes, fees and fines Wednesday, including a 15 percent jump in Chicago's property-tax levy, among the biggest in the city's history.”

I further lamented to myself: ” Chicagoans-those that voted for Daley- are getting exactly what they deserve by reelecting the Mayor, time and time again. They should not complain. But for those voters that were insightful and visionary that voted for his opponents are the ones that are not worthy of such an invasion on their pocket books and bank accounts; especially those that are struggling to make ends meet. And believe it or not, apparently, the Mayor acknowledges the same.

Ironically however, it seems that no one- the City Council in particular, has addressed the unnecessary overspending, coupled with the fraud, waste and abuse issues that contribute immensely to budget short falls. But then again, will the aldermen ask those hard pressing questions in light of the fact they themselves, their minions and family members are in many respects receiving substantial monetary benefits from Daley’s wasteful and overspending patterns and practices?

The article states that Daley, ......, expressed regret for the need to seek more from residents. But he insisted that the issue boiled down to a choice between higher taxes and stagnation. Da? Would not a temporary period of City stagnation (showing little activity) be better than putting residents in a more stressful financial situation or deeper in debt in many cases as a result of across -the-board tax increases? Is the Mayor’s expressed regret actually genuine?

Also, I have a few admonishing words to those dire heart Daley supporters: Stop whining! You are reaping precisely what you voted for, time-after-time!
Again, I pose the underlying question: “are some Chicago voters getting exactly what they deserve? But at the expense of the wiser voters; specifically those that are of the lower stratum of Chicago residents and tax payers? You decide!
Read complete article by Gary Washburn and Mickey Ciokajlo, Tribune staff reporters, dtd October 11, 2007, at below LINK:

Wednesday, October 10, 2007


(Photo: Google Images)

Preface: This Blogger’s comments to the Chicago Tribune in response to the October 10, 2007 article: “Cops disband elite unit, Scandal-plagued division broken up under pressure of criminal probes.

An excellent story on Acting Chief of Police Dana Stark's decision to disband the SOS team. But why aren't you addressing the fact that it takes an acting chief, to make a decision that the Mayor should have made, coupled with the fact the Mayor seems to "never" comprehend the seriousness and broad implications of such rogue City officials; whether they serve as police officers or bureaucrats. Just look at how he defended his convicted patronage chief Robert Sorich. Why haven't you all asked the operative question: Is the Mayor suffering from the Hubris Syndrome? Or the intoxication of power? Or maybe he is simply and clearly in over his head(?). Too many people, if the Mayor is telling the truth about what he knows and doesn't know about the incessant corruption and scandalous behavioral patterns of some City employees, are consistently making him look like a fool and doofus (dufus)/moron. Additionally, is the Mayor really "Fit For Purpose" of overseeing the City's business? And last but not least, don't you think you should give Acting Chief Starks a well deserved KUDOS? C. Middleton,Sr/Publisher of: and (END)
NOTE: Supt. Starks would definitely have my vote for mayor if he were to run, and I were living in Chicago. He is a hero with this Chicago American-Expat and others living in the United Kingdom. New Campaign suggestion: STARKS FOR MAYOR OF CHICAGO!
Article written by: David Heinzmann and Emma Graves Fitzsimmons, Tribune staff reporters, and Tribune staff reporter Gary Washburn who contributed to the report.
Read entire story with video by clicking below Link:,1,6200690.story?track=rss

Saturday, October 06, 2007


Get first hand news from inside Burma-Myanmar: Click Link!


Friday, October 05, 2007

ON SECOND THOUGHT, REFLECTIVELY! Maybe Bill Is Right About Hillary's Expereince!

After reflective thought, perhaps Bill Clinton is right about Hillary being more experienced than Obama. She was probably the one actually running the country from the Oval Office while he was in the closets being sexually serviced by Monica Lewinsky; and God knows who else? So the question for Hillary is plainly: "If you couldn’t manage your husband-literally right under your nose- then how in the heck do you think you can manage the pressing demands and enormous business of our Nation as president?" Again, you decide!

BARACK vs HILLARY or OBAMA vs THE CLINTONS? Is The term “inexperienced” Just Another Politically Correct 2007 Racist Coded Word?

(Photos: The Times-UK)


As the 2008 election campaigns heat up, with charges and counter charges and counter-counter charges, one cannot help but feel inundated with physical images and back-and-forth verbalizations between and among the democratic and republican candidates, respectively and collectively. But one thing that stands out in my mind more than all the other issues I have heard, is the charge, especially, from the Clinton (Hillary) camp is that Obama (Barack) is too “inexperienced” to be president of the USA. Too inexperienced? As if there is a definitive list of prerequisites that prepares one for the office of the president of the USA. Only in the movies! Not the real world.

Now Bill Clinton, disgraced ex-president of the USA and Hillary’s beloved(?) husband, has entered the fray in defending his wife’s reputation or record; rightfully and to be expected. According to The Times, UK, Monday October 1, 2007, Bill stated that “Obama is too inexperienced to tackle America’s challenges.” And that “her (Hillary’s) experience is more relevant and more compelling.” Whatever in the hell that means? A lot of pretty-flowery words that only Bill Clinton can conceive and master. But then again, there’s Jessie Jackson, Sr.

Speaking of Jackson, the “inexperience” issue is the same phoney charge made back in 1984 when Jackson- another black man-ran for the presidency; who by the way garnered over 3.5 million votes during the nation-wide primaries from varied racial groups-not just blacks; which is worth mentioning. Additionally, the operative and most poignant question was back in 1984,which is still being used in polls today: “Are Americans, meaning US citizens, ready for a minority/black president?” Instead of asking outright the most obvious question: “Are the [majority of whites] ready to vote for a minority/black president?”

Some even said that Jackson should have ran first for local or state office, such as for a Chicago aldermanic seat or for governor of Illinois. And only after holding such a position for a few years, should he throw his hat into the ring in his aspiration to fill such a high office as the presidency. Unquestionably and without a doubt, the naysayers and closeted racists always find a reason to raise the bar, or move the goal post, especially when a black runs for the Oval Office seat. This in my opinion equates to nothing less than an attempt to amend the Constitution by invoking additional requirements that simply and irrefutably do not exist; nor should they be pertinent.

The Constitution states:”No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

I see no mentioning of the word “experience or inexperience” nor an inference or an implicit delineation of its meaning with a list of prerequisites. Thus, the term as used in the presidential campaigns is simply bogus, a pretext to conceal a coded politically correct message for 2008 to remind “white” Americans that Obama is a black man. And that he should not receive their votes; pure and simple. But to be expected, even more so in this phoney- politically correct day and age. You decide!