http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-10670-mayor-mcmodern.html

It can most certainly be done. Try driving a few miles out of Nashville, Atlanta or Charlotte........

Yeah. There are a lot of places with a tough rural/urban divide. The problem in OK is that our legislature is still rural-dominated despite where 2/3rds of the state lives (OKC and Tulsa).

The obvious concern is that the Leg is going to pass so many headline-grabbing, draconian, backward-ass laws (which Mary Fallin will no doubt sign) that the progress we're making in OKC -- and to an extent, Tulsa -- is stunted or reversed.

The obvious concern is that the Leg is going to pass so many headline-grabbing, draconian, backward-ass laws (which Mary Fallin will no doubt sign) that the progress we're making in OKC -- and to an extent, Tulsa -- is stunted or reversed.

well good afternoon Mr. Positive.

I'm only speaking to the concerns of many people on this board. That means I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

The obvious concern is that the Leg is going to pass so many headline-grabbing, draconian, backward-ass laws (which Mary Fallin will no doubt sign) that the progress we're making in OKC -- and to an extent, Tulsa -- is stunted or reversed.

That sounds like something Andrew Rice just said today in an op ed piece in the DOK.

Yeah. There are a lot of places with a tough rural/urban divide. The problem in OK is that our legislature is still rural-dominated despite where 2/3rds of the state lives (OKC and Tulsa).

Surely that can't last since the majority of rural small town Oklahoma is going downhill in population. Hopefully redistricting will better reflect that.

The obvious concern is that the Leg is going to pass so many headline-grabbing, draconian, backward-ass laws (which Mary Fallin will no doubt sign) that the progress we're making in OKC -- and to an extent, Tulsa -- is stunted or reversed.

The hope is that the Republican majority accepts its responsibility as the governing party in single party rule and governs rather than occupying its ordinary crazy bomb thrower role. The DOK has editorialized as much, so I'm optimistic.

I'm less optimistic than Mid.

I'm also hopeful Mid's optimism turns out to be well warranted.

I'm less optimistic than Mid.

I'm also hopeful Mid's optimism turns out to be well warranted.

Let me clarify. The Chamber of Commerce is going to be able to write its own legislation; and it probably will. This year, we're going to see some pretty draconian tort reform measures. Expect it to be almost impossible to seek redress through the courts when a professional (including a legal professional, hey good news for securities lawyers! [have you ever seen their malpractice premiums!?]) commits malpractice. Also, expect it to become illegal for royalty owners to sue producers in class action litigation [this is one Chesepeake, et al. have been after for awhile now--this would make it possible for them to short royalty owners, even by a lot, without being accountable through the courts]. We'll probably see Compsource go private as they've been lobbying like hell to do so, even though I can't for the life of me discern how that would be advantageous to policy holders. The worker's compensation system will be totally redesigned. Right now, it is overly favorable to workers. In the future, look for an administrative system like Arkansas has, where lawyers are cut out of the picture; and where injured workers are at a huge comparative disadvantage. And of course, the bread and circuses for the plebs--we'll get to have high point beer and wine in the grocery stores.

This next session is going to be tough on us trial lawyers--at least, assuming the Oklahoma Supreme Court doesn't have the last laugh on a lot of those items, but even then, Republicans have already implicitly threatened to "redistrict" the Supreme Court, which I interpret as a threat to pack the court if they don't get what they want out of it.

Now, all that I say there sounds like a lot of gloom and doom. As for the crazy bomb thrower stuff, consider that the Ideologue Caucus and Liberty Caucus refer to a select few legislators who are pursuing a more social Conservative agenda, e.g., immigration reform (which we all know is totally unconstitutional) and teaching kids in schools that intelligent design is a science. What is encouraging is that there are maybe four legislators who have bothered to author these sorts of bills and that for the most part, they aren't even caucusing with the rank and file Republicans.

We're going to end up with a radically different state at the end of this year. That's what folks voted for. They'll probably end up with a little sticker shock if a loved one is ever killed or maimed by medical malpractice or if they're injured on the job, but we're probably not going to pass those "Arizona-plus" laws being talked about [totally unconstitutional]; nor are we going to see intelligent design creep into our textbooks--at least not by statute, the state curriculum committee might eventually have a say about that.

Midtowner, although I have a professional bias just as you do, most loved ones are maimed or killed by themselves long before a doctor ever gets ahold of them, in terms of smoking, drinking, unhealthy eating/living, decisions to have surgery they don't really need. And interestingly, most cases of true malpractice never end up before a judge, as people decide to sue more based on how they feel about the doctor than about the outcome. If you think your doctor is a jerk, you're a lot more likely to sue. I see a lot of people who lose a loved one or who have a very sick loved one with an unusual illness acting as if they just won the lottery, and cannot tell you how many people are looking for a reason to sue if there's a bad outcome. The reality is, bad things happen to good people, and usually that's not the doctor's fault. Bad things happen to people who do bad things to themselves and that's not the doctors' fault. Bad things happen to people who constantly doctor shop and pressure their doctors to do things they shouldn't, and that's only partially the doctors' fault.

I seriously doubt tort reform will do anything but lessen the wastebasket "pain and suffering" rewards. Maybe, over time it will help doctors relax enough to practice real medicine rather than "cover your back" medicine. When you go to the ER with a bad headache and get a CT scan that costs $2,000 when the doctor really thinks you've probably got a migraine and not a brain tumor or a head bleed, we all pay for it with higher insurance premiums or taxes to support Medicare and Medicaid. When I keep a 6 week old in the hospital on IV antibiotics for 3 days because she might have sepsis or meningitis on top of the flu I know most likely caused her fever, adding in fees for antibiotics, the spinal tap and assorted lab tests despite the fact that in 20 years I've never had one unexpectedly have either sepsis or meningitis, that raises your insurance premiums or your taxes. Do you know how many 6 week olds have fever? I know it's the flu, but there's a one in a hundred thousand chance I could be wrong and I don't want to get sued for missing meningitis. Everything we do as physicians has at the back of our minds "Could I get sued?" We have that hanging over our head in every action we take, which is why emergency rooms feel safer putting people in the hospital and letting us make that decision than doing it themselves. People in the U.S. have a hard time accepting that people have to die from something and that when they do, it's not usually someone's fault. They also have a hard time accepting the fact that sometimes people get sick and they can't be fixed or shouldn't be fixed. We spend the majority of health care money on people in the last few months of their life, prolonging the agony, frequently. Or, we spend hundreds of millions keeping children alive who have horrific problems and quality of life because their parents cannot say goodbye. It's all sad and tragic and insanely expensive. But, we can't have it all and doctors can never do it all.

The medical malpractice industry is half of what's crippling health care, both economically and by forcing doctors to practice by cookbook. The other half of health care costs come from the pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries. The pharmaceutical industry, by advertising and by selling antibiotics to ranchers and farmers who are raising our food, promote resistant bacteria that are causing a lot of new health care problems, as well as increasing the cost of medical care. The medical equipment industry is getting fat selling equipment at inflated prices to hospitals and people who need their services.

I didn't really mean to go off on a rant here, but it looks like I did. There are two sides to every coin and what sounds like gloom and doom to you spells relief for me. Sue me if I commit real malpractice, but don't sue me to see if you can get a quick settlement for your client and yourself regardless of whether I was at fault or not. Sue me for the actual injury I caused, not for some nebulous "pain and suffering" that no one can put a price tag on. And then don't take half a multi-million dollar settlement for yourself. We doctors have our fees set by the government and we can't increase them unless the government permits. Perhaps you all should set hourly charges that are fair and reasonable and not charge $50 an hour for your secretary to make copies on top of that. In every dealing I've had with a lawyer, I've been a lot more frightened to look at the bill than when I've gotten one from my physician. I'm not including hospitals, whose bills are also truly scary, thanks again to our pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies.

I didn't even vote for a Republican in this year's election, because I wanted other things more than tort reform. If I have to suffer through "draconian" decisions made by them, at least I might get a little something for myself, in terms of real tort reform.

I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you in the politics forum, but there are certainly two sides to this coin. At its simplest, we are rewriting the rules to benefit mostly a billion-dollar special interest called PLICO at the expense of people who have or may have been injured by doctors and nurses who committed malpractice. Keep in mind that mistakes in medicine are okay, even expected, but malpractice is more than a simple mistake.

On the legal side and practical side, most docs can't see past their own pocketbooks (even though they seem to do okay financially), and tend to be some of the most uneducated on the subject of medical malpractice tort reform from the patient's perspective.

You bring a lot of issues into the equation, such as attorney fee arrangements, which you really aren't educated on. If you'd like to hash it out in PM (because I know you try to stay away from the politics forum), be my guest.

The medical malpractice industry is half of what's crippling health care, both economically and by forcing doctors to practice by cookbook.


The facts, however, tell a completely different story. A new study published in the journal Health Affairs found that medical liability is responsible for only 2.4 percent of the country’s annual health care spending. According to the American Association for Justice (AAJ), what this means is that “limiting the rights of injured patients will do practically nothing to lower health care costs.”

The new study…found the annual cost related to medical liability is $55.6 billion. Most of that spending ($45.6 billion) is related to defensive medicine — the tests, drugs and other procedures that doctors prescribe in order to limit the risk of being sued for malpractice. The researchers said their findings indicate malpractice-related costs are neither insignificant nor a cure-all for the nation's skyrocketing health spending trends. -The Hill


“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.


A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?

A.
Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.

Q.
Why not?

A.
As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.

Q.
But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.

A.
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.


Even if these separate sources aren't quite right, it ain't half.

I, too, do not wish to debate the medical malpractice issue, but it has been studied endlessly and has a negligible to non-existent impact on health care costs. I do respect physicians like Betts and what they do, but why do the actual insurance companies always get off the hook in this argument?

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, Oklahomans are pretty dumb. They vote against their own economic self interest. Mostly poor and rural voters -- the kind of people who are going to be screwed by corporations and have no means to fight them -- are the people who voted in this agenda. Personally, I'm well off financially, have great health care, job, etc., so I will be fine.

Great discussion of modernizing OKC, guys!

OK. so it isn't half. Sorry, I was speaking from emotion. I just got a phone call regarding a patient. I didn't know what was wrong with him and I've seen enough in my lifetime to know what is wrong with most people when I see them. I got a consultant involved who made a diagnosis that I went along with, because it was the most likely diagnosis and I don't have the malpractice insurance (which has tripled in the past 10 years after PLICO lost several very high dollar lawsuits) to do the invasive procedure required to make a more definitive diagnosis. He got a little bit better and went home. So I get a phone call saying he's worse. My first thought is: What in the heck is wrong with this person? What could this disease possibly be? Hard on the heels of that thought was...."I wonder if his parents will sue me if he ends up having something other than what we told them he likely had?" That's what doctors live with every day.
No he hasn't died and is very unlikely to do so. Does that mean I won't get sued anyway? No, not at all. And, if he dies and it's not my fault that he has an incurable disease, it doesn't mean I won't get sued either, because I didn't make the diagnosis. The fear of lawsuits has taken the joy out of the practice of medicine. It's not even that you're required to be perfect, because not everyone who makes a mistake loses a lawsuit. It's that you can be sued even if you did everything you could. It's not even losing lawsuits that is terrifying....it's having to be involved in one, having to be deposed, having your intellect and ability open to criticism, being listed as a doctor who's been sued, even if you win the case. I've testified in enough child abuse cases to know that the defendents' lawyers do everything they can to discredit you to win their case, regardless of whether they think their client is guilty or not. The whole legal system is a mess, when winning is more important than doing what's right.

Again, there are doctors who commit MALpractice, I know that. People who have incompetent doctors have the right to compensation for their loss of life, limb or salary. But winning a lawsuit shouldn't be a game, and it shouldn't be a pot of gold for a lawyer, because doctors lose whether they win the suit or lose it.

Most doctors do OK financially (although I get paid about what we were told the average fireman makes because I'm a professor instead of a private practioner). However, if you divide their salary by the number of hours a week they work, with the exception of the doctors who primarily do procedures, as they are better reimbursed, you'd be better off being a plumber.

Mods: Feel free to delete this or move it to the political forum, although I generally avoid that place like the plague.

Sorry about that- I'm partly to blame for the threadjack. Let's get back on topic.

Back on topic: The Oklahoman editorial page somewhat ominously forecasts a string of nutso bills, including some "Obama isn't a citizen" bills. They deflect by saying there are only about four legislators filing bills like this, but that doesn't mean the rest of them won't vote for them. It's going to be an interesting year.

Great national exposure for us (I wish there were a sarcasm smiley).

Hey Betts,

Since you're so poor off, I'll offer to swap checks with you and I'm sure they consider me beyond the average fireman since I've got more than 20 years on. As for the hours I'll work this year at the station- Here's the numbers. 121 shifts at 24hrs each but they only pay me for 16. That's 2904 hours worked this year or about 56 hrs. a week. Here's my smiley :) for ya.

Actually, she's right. I know two teaching docs at OUHSC, and a third who is retired. They do alright. Probably better than a fireman for hours worked, to be honest, but probably make 1/3 to 1/4 what they'd make in private practice.

Hey barnold. I work 16 days a month straight....or 15 if I'm on on the first half of the month or it's a 30 day month, 14 in February. I'm on call every night of those 16 days straight and can get calls all night long, especially if my team is admitting. The other two weeks I work in the clinic parttime. I bet you wouldn't switch paychecks with me or at best we're about even. I don't get to retire after 20 years either.....I have to work until I'm 65 and I had 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school plus 3 years of residency before I got to start getting paid what I do now. As a resident I started at $22,000 a year and got a $1,000 raise every year and worked about 100 hours a week with 36 total days off the entire year, counting vacation. I told my son to become a fireman instead of a doctor because the money's just as good and the hours and retirement are a lot better....seriously.

I told my son to become a fireman instead of a doctor because the money's just as good and the hours and retirement are a lot better....seriously.

Wow. I've never actually heard a doctor be honest about why they're in the profession. $$$$$$$. In most parts of the world, doctors are doctors because they want to practice medicine. For a doctor to tell a son NOT to be a doctor because the pay's better doing something else is mind-blowing. Frankly, we don't need doctors with that mindset. I'm still looking at your post and shaking my head. Could you post your real name so I know to stay away? I'm sorry, but that's just scary that you would tell your son not to be a doctor (if he wants to be) because the pay and benefits are better doing something else. Wow.

Oh Mike, I'm just cranky and being rhetorical today. And my son shouldn't go to medical school. In fact, I actually told him he shouldn't go to medical school because I don't think he has the calling. You have to love it, because medical school and residency are totally grueling. Before I went to medical school my husband warned me that I had no idea how hard it would be and that you cannot really appreciate that until you've done it.. I'm just tired of all the "poor me's" in other professions when I know doctors work harder than almost anyone, and they don't start getting paid anything until they're in their 30s. I calculated my salary when I was a resident, and I was getting under $5 an hour. Many doctors are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt by the time they graduate, and many of them don't pay it off for well over a decade, which means they're in their mid 40s before they are school loan free. I do it because I love it. You probably don't want me as your doctor, since I only take care of kids, and I do it for, as Midtowner said, about a fourth of what a lot of other doctors make. I chose it because I love it, as did almost everyone in medicine, because you can make more money per hour as a plumber, with a lot more free time and a lot fewer nights spent studying or working instead of sleeping.

But, there is a point to be made here. When the federal government was trying to cut CEO's financial perks in the companies they were bailing out, all the companies argued that if they couldn't pay their better employees a great salary, there was going to be a brain drain, with the smartest going into other fields. I think people have to realize that essentially freezing reimbursement for physicians carries the same risk. We can't all be Mother Theresa and if we're going to ask doctors to work 60+ hours a week, work nights and weekends and not start getting paid a reasonable wage until they're into their 30s, there is a risk that some of our most capable people may think it's too much work for too little compensation, or too little free time. You sometimes get what you pay for.

Wow. I've never actually heard a doctor be honest about why they're in the profession. $$$$$$$. In most parts of the world, doctors are doctors because they want to practice medicine. For a doctor to tell a son NOT to be a doctor because the pay's better doing something else is mind-blowing. Frankly, we don't need doctors with that mindset. I'm still looking at your post and shaking my head. Could you post your real name so I know to stay away? I'm sorry, but that's just scary that you would tell your son not to be a doctor (if he wants to be) because the pay and benefits are better doing something else. Wow.

This is a crappy thing to say to a fellow poster. Betts is obviously dedicated to her profession. Now, please get back on topic.

sooner- let's see. I've seen you use crack pot, nutjob, ho, B&*ch, just to name a few of the recent. Pot-Kettle; Kettle-Pot. Introductions formally now over.

But I do agree with you that we need to get back on topic.

barnold,

Please feel free to post when I called a fellow poster a name like that.

This is a crappy thing to say to a fellow poster. Betts is obviously dedicated to her profession. Now, please get back on topic.

I didn't derail this thread. I was shocked by what she said - period. Soonerguru, YOU, of all people, to chastise for talking "crappy" to a "fellow poster?" It DOES happen to be true that in most parts of the industrialized world, doctors don't decide on medicine as a profession based on how much money you make. Betts advice to her son struck me as rather sickening (pardon the pun). Practicing medicine shouldn't be something one gets into because of the pay. This is where America and the almighty dollar goes over the top. Our health care system is all about $$$$. When that's threatened - the advice is to not go into medicine. Whatever.

And by the way, you called our governor a "ho" just the other day.

Considering what you invest in a MD versus what you invest in getting an Associates in firefighting (or pardon my ignorance, whatever the degree is), money should be a major factor.

Hey Betts,

Since you're so poor off, I'll offer to swap checks with you and I'm sure they consider me beyond the average fireman since I've got more than 20 years on. As for the hours I'll work this year at the station- Here's the numbers. 121 shifts at 24hrs each but they only pay me for 16. That's 2904 hours worked this year or about 56 hrs. a week. Here's my smiley :) for ya.

Oh Great!!!, here he goes with his woe is me, I work so hard, I want, I need, bull crap, dude, give it a rest. We all know the 99.9% of the OKC Fireman do an outstanding job, but why you feel the need to remind every time you post on OKCTALK is sickening.

Oh Great!!!, here he goes with his woe is me, I work so hard, I want, I need, bull crap, dude, give it a rest. We all know the 99.9% of the OKC Fireman do an outstanding job, but why you feel the need to remind every time you post on OKCTALK is sickening.

No kidding, man. If you don't like the job, the pay, and its requirements, leave it and get a new one. Stop b*tching. You have a choice. Make one.

People who complain about their job, the hours, the pay, etc. annoy me. If you're so miserable get a different job. No one is forcing you to do something you hate.

Best thread, ever.

In conclusion, THAT is how Cornett's legacy will be determined.

Love my job. Great schedule with long hours I've become used to. Tired of those here that think we're some kinda wealthy white collar bunch that do nothing but sleep, eat and play volleyball. Will continue to fight for proper manpower to those ungrateful few that don't realize how understaffed we currently are. Rc is still hated by the people that worked with him and spreading more of his BS (their words, not mine) still haven't seen him at any council meetings or screaming about taking apparatus out of service like he stated he would. Probably too busy at the lake. Amazing that some people don't believe that city politicians lie.

Mayor Mickey's legacy is that of a liar, self serving with a vision of "this is what I want, so it shall be done". But then again, I don't really like the guy and his politics. And that Casey is what makes this the best thread ever. I get to express my opinion and you get to express yours.

Please drink the Koolaid! Sorry for the derailment, but I tried to bring it back on topic with that last statement.

Love my job. Great schedule with long hours I've become used to. Tired of those here that think we're some kinda wealthy white collar bunch that do nothing but sleep, eat and play volleyball. Will continue to fight for proper manpower to those ungrateful few that don't realize how understaffed we currently are. Rc is still hated by the people that worked with him and spreading more of his BS (their words, not mine) still haven't seen him at any council meetings or screaming about taking apparatus out of service like he stated he would. Probably too busy at the lake. Amazing that some people don't believe that city politicians lie.

Mayor Mickey's legacy is that of a liar, self serving with a vision of "this is what I want, so it shall be done". But then again, I don't really like the guy and his politics. And that Casey is what makes this the best thread ever. I get to express my opinion and you get to express yours.

Please drink the Koolaid! Sorry for the derailment, but I tried to bring it back on topic with that last statement.

Now that funny, you have no clue or knowledge of, any of my past employees, as a matter of fact, I had a Christmas Party at my place on Tenkiller and 17 of my past employees attended. (if I as so hated, I doubt they would have made the 3 1/2 hour drive to attend). I started to invite barnold, but knew his oversize ego wouldn't fit through the door.

P:S: If I can talk the mayor into giving you a raise (since we know that's the only reason your upset, well, that and the fact you wasted your time trying to defeat MAPS3) will you crawl back under your rock, at least until the next MAPS elections and there's nothing in it for Public Safety.

Outside of this great thread is where the original post was intended, which is whether the mayor can lead the City into being a modern city despite it's "rustic-valued" subset of people on the South side.

I know plenty of Republicans from both sides of the City that voted for MAPS3. Lumping the South side into a group of backward-minded, tea partiers is erroneous, as are many of the assertions the piece tries to make.

I would argue the South side has a much larger population of firefighters and police officers, and blue-collared workers that were probably the largest piece of the negativity. I would also argue that conservatives stretch across the entire City (2008 Presidential race), and likely, the majority of them living in the City voted for MAPS. So the alignments that the author attempted to draw are all wrong.

Sure, for some people that align themselves with the Tea Party, and the fight for controlled spending/lower taxes, the argument was only about lower taxes. Perhaps there is a larger population on the South side (that is a BIG maybe). But for many conservatives like me they see that as long as the City is actually purchasing specific items that enhance the City, and improve all of our lives, MAPS proposals are actually quite enticing.

Cities have completely different battles than do states. The opinion piece erroneously tried to tie too many ideologies together.

Republicans can actually support good taxes, and Democrats (such as unionized workers) can actually oppose taxes (when they have an opportunity to hold them as hostage).

There are just way too many apples and oranges in the piece. It's poorly conceived and makes far too many generalities, which is highly ironic.

Well said. Again, the beauty of MAPS and our citizens has been the nonpartisan nature of civic pride and willingness to be active participants in moving our city forward.

Outside of this great thread is where the original post was intended, which is whether the mayor can lead the City into being a modern city despite it's "rustic-valued" subset of people on the South side.

I know plenty of Republicans from both sides of the City that voted for MAPS3. Lumping the South side into a group of backward-minded, tea partiers is erroneous, as are many of the assertions the piece tries to make.

I would argue the South side has a much larger population of firefighters and police officers, and blue-collared workers that were probably the largest piece of the negativity. I would also argue that conservatives stretch across the entire City (2008 Presidential race), and likely, the majority of them living in the City voted for MAPS. So the alignments that the author attempted to draw are all wrong.

Sure, for some people that align themselves with the Tea Party, and the fight for controlled spending/lower taxes, the argument was only about lower taxes. Perhaps there is a larger population on the South side (that is a BIG maybe). But for many conservatives like me they see that as long as the City is actually purchasing specific items that enhance the City, and improve all of our lives, MAPS proposals are actually quite enticing.

Cities have completely different battles than do states. The opinion piece erroneously tried to tie too many ideologies together.

Republicans can actually support good taxes, and Democrats (such as unionized workers) can actually oppose taxes (when they have an opportunity to hold them as hostage).

There are just way too many apples and oranges in the piece. It's poorly conceived and makes far too many generalities, which is highly ironic.

This is a nice post. However, I would like to point out that Obama won every single inner-city precinct between I-40, I-44, and 235. He also won many others, but did relatively poorly on the south side. Not sure if this is in conflict with what you were trying to say or not, just pointing it out, as you bring up the 2008 presidential race.

Take it easy guys. I'm a firefighter also, but give everyone else a break.
I can tell you that betts is a good person doing good work. Firefighters are good people doing good work.
I know everyone in this dialogue and can tell you that all of us are all working for the common good.
One had a lot more schooling, the other has experienced years of work related injuries.

We have to stop this arguing over who is sacrificing the most. Everyone is sacrificing something for their profession.
I work at a fire station that never gets sleep. I'm not blaming or expecting a doctor to sympathize, nor should a doctor expect sympathy from me when he/she experienced years of training, and debt.

Outside of this great thread is where the original post was intended, which is whether the mayor can lead the City into being a modern city despite it's "rustic-valued" subset of people on the South side.

I know plenty of Republicans from both sides of the City that voted for MAPS3. Lumping the South side into a group of backward-minded, tea partiers is erroneous, as are many of the assertions the piece tries to make. ...


But when you look at the breakdown of the various MAPS votes, generally, more on the south side opposed it and more on the north side supported it (with MAPS & MAPS 3 "barely" passing with the 53%/54% of the vote. The perception that 1 & 3 were largely downtown/north side centric. MAPS for Kids effected (or is it effected) EVERY school district wide and 30% of the funds went to surrounding school districts. Think even the new schools were scattered fairly evenly. It was something for everyone and the vote reflected it.

I don't know if it was social/economic issues, party registration, conservative/liberal philosophies or what.