Am I the only Chicagoan who becomes more dismayed about our choices in the mayoral runoff with every passing day? And why the silence about when/whether we'll have the options of voting by mail and voting early? If we don't get either, what effect will that have on who can participate as voters? What effect would that have on the accuracy of polling about the outcome?
I can’t believe that Dumb Dog tweet is winning its round. I feel like the kid in the Emperors New Clothes. The other dog is LOOKING AT THE YOGURT, people, the yogurt ! Also I’m disappointed that you didn’t use the much cleverer version of the Priest, Minister and Rabbi joke I’ve seen:
A Priest, a Minister and a Rabbit walk into a blood bank, “I’m not sure” says the Rabbit when questioned , “but I think I might be a Type O “
ralph martire is a poor source for criticizing vallas on his decisions as CPS CEO for pension funding. martire is a 'sophomore' - ie, a 'wise fool'. also a propagandist - smart guy who cherry picks numbers to make his liberal/progressive talking points [check out the funders of his NPO]. vallas may have proposed the pension funding 'holiday' at the time - but it proved to be the consensus opinion, incl'g that of CTU. easy, facile of martire to criticize the decision with 20/20 hindsight. the error that led to the current abysmal state of the CTU pension fund was not the funding holiday during the vallas era - it was the failure of subsequent, post-vallas administrators and politicians to timely reinitiate pension funding as the stock markets trended downward.
I think that point is well made in the post -- it was a bad decision that everyone was cheering on at the time, and that we've had more than two decades to adjust/correct/compensate for it but the problem has only improved slightly under Pritzker -- I didn't get to that. What about Martire's numbers do you disagree with? (He says the CTBA was raising alarms at the time).
i'd like to see evidence of martire's/CBTA's public statements at the time. but i wouldn't be surprised if evidence could be produced.
what about martire's #'s do i disagree with? are you familiar with nonprofit acctg? if you're not, then no point in me trying to explain my disagreement. i will say this - martire plays footsy with acctg #'s - accentuates what supports his argument, diminishes or ignores the contrary. he will disagree, of course. but he used this game of footsy to support the need for a progressive/graduated IL state income tax. you supported that change too, if i recall correctly. fortunately, a solid majority of IL voters saw thru this canard, and voted down the tax increase.
I love Stephanie Skora’s voting guides. I have been using them to help me decide about judges on Cook County’s lengthy judicial ballot. Skora is a trans woman, by the way, for those who don’t know.
I think that newspapers offered a variety of things to get folks to buy their paper. Sports, comics, puzzles, local and national news, editorials and weather.
As other outlets provided better services - you can get up to date sports on the internet (no late games going unreported). There are apps and other access to all kinds of games, puzzles and challenges versus a one dimensional game or two in the paper. Comics are becoming passe’ with memes, you tube and other outlets providing humor. One comic I liked (I am a geezer) is Dilbert…well not anymore.
Weather tends to be very time sensitive and newspapers give an overview that quickly becomes dated.
Classic journalists are disappearing ( no Royko, Kass, Zorn,) and there is no desire to read new journalists since they unknown. Also it seems anybody can call themselves a journalist so there is no quality control. I can get some interesting journalistic viewpoints from your online news - you, Mary S, and even Laura Washington. So why buy a paper for some unknown wannabe?
The business model for papers was to offer a variety of services (see above) to keep circulation. Local news alone was never thought to be a main driver..and local news is becoming the only item left.
Finally a killer, lots of folks especially younger ones get all their news, fun, weather online - they do not read paper period.
As a geezer, I still like reading “paper” - so I subscribe to magazines like the New Yorker which has in depth news stories as well as fun short stories. The writing quality is excellent.
I agree that the newspaper chains are reducing content especially local items-but I think that this is going to happen eventually anyway. Just as people changed their shopping habits (goodbye malls);so too how people get their information and what information they are interested in has changed drastically.
All content Newspapers, like glaciers, will slowly disappear due to a changed environment.
Thanks again to you and Laura Washington for a really good job at the mayoral forum. It was one of the best I've seen for good questions and being well managed.
I thought that Brandon Johnson was entirely evasive in the forum and failed to answer a single question that was put to him. There seems to be little substance to his plans and he did not demonstrate a grasp of any of the statistics. I thought Vallas directly responded to every question and was pretty clear.
The youth jobs question is a good example. He called you a racist, dodged the question, referred to a progressive income tax that is not part of his plans and offered a lot of fluffy rhetoric. Vallas was direct, practical, and pragmatic in his response, particularly in combination with his response to the previous question.
It also struck me that Johnson's demeanor is similar to Lightfoot. He seems thin skinned, short tempered, confrontational and prone to perceiving enemies.
Mincing Rascals was good as usual. All good topics. Berg and Pope were spot on with respect to 'Defund the Police'. The people that originated the slogan and were/are most vocal are entirely serious about the complete elimination of police departments and prisons. It was a mistake for politicians and liberals to embrace the slogan and try to redefine it as meaning necessary reform, some reallocation of spending, and some new spending.
I think a fair number of Lightfoot and Garcia voters will come to the same conclusion as Ja'Mal Green. Vallas has more concrete plans, is not doctrinaire, and is someone that will work with others.
EZ - "Johnson is certainly the better extemporaneous speaker and the more charismatic of the two finalists in the runoff. "
I disagree. Vallas does not light up a room, but he has the facts, groups, and ideas at his fingertips. So, he delivers a consistent message and is prepared to exchange. He is on the colder end of calm and personable.
Johnson is good at spouting the slogans and rhetoric that play well to a CTU and progressive audience. But he presumes that what he says is obvious and that disagreements or questions are evidence of ignorance, racism, and reactionism. I don't think his charisma extends beyond his base. In several of his responses at the forum you could see him pause to dial back his rhetoric. He is on the fiery and angry end of energized.
I'm really surprised that nobody picked up when Johnson said that "the police should know every resident and have to live in the neighborhoods where they work" (words to that effect). To me, that would piss off every officer in the city. I find that remark extremely irritating too. I was set to vote for Johnson but after the debate (not just for that remark), I found him to be extremely untrustworthy. He kept talking about 300 detectives as if that would solve all our problems. Vallas seemed well prepared and capable of discussing the issues in detail and seemed approachable. I was wondering, though, if I suffer from "unconscious bias" - I am a data geek so Vallas appealed to me. Changing my vote to him
I know it’s a huge pain to organize something like your 64 tweet bracket, but it has 3 double-entries that I noticed. This is grounds for a protest from all the other entries. And it opens the possibility of a violation of the transitive property in which a>b, b>c and yet c >a. If that happens the entire tournament is invalid.
After listening to Mincing Rascals I've looked up a lot of info on the Silicon Valley Bank Failure. As usual, the media and pundits tend to spin and dramatize rather than inform. My summary is:
1) SVB was solvent and stable. There was no risk issue with its loan portfolio. It was overwhelmed by a bank run. The reserves were poorly structured, primarily in long term bonds which have fallen in value over the last 2 years.
2) 97% of SVB accounts were uninsured (over $250,000) because they are mainly corporate accounts. With an average $4.7 million on deposit per account; $175 billion total.
3) Due to changes in the valuation of the bonds used for regulatory required reserves, the CEO announced the issue of $2.2 billion of new stock, sale of $21 billion of bonds, and a related loss of $1.5 billion. SVB 2022 profits were $6.5 billion. The announcement was clumsy and poorly described, with no apparent discussion with major stakeholders.
4) A group of Venture Capital companies freaked out, withdrew their money, and advised all of the companies that they had funded to withdraw their money. $42 billion (24% of deposits) were withdrawn in a few hours. These are people that certainly knew what they were doing and the expected results. Other VC managers told their clients to 'stay calm'.
5) The fiasco could have been avoided if SVB had restricted daily cash flows in accounts. If they had restrictions, they did not enforce them. Any bank can make rules restricting daily deposits and withdrawals by type of account. Most do and have procedures for advanced notification and approval if a customer needs to exceed the limits and to provide for routine operations (like payroll). This allows the bank to provide orderly and timely provisions for client cash requirements without daily spikes that would hit reserves. It also prevents a run because it would prevent precipitate, excessive withdrawals and provide time for the bank to meet and discuss finances with customers to prevent a panic.
6) Many of the customers of the bank seem to have ignored basic cash management disciplines and so had excess cash and all-in-one-basket. Some apparently on the advice of the venture capital funds and bank officials.
7) It seems like the FDIC will be able to restructure or sell the company without significant losses.
So, nothing like 2008, nothing like Credit Suisse, nothing to do with the average person, and doesn't require new legislation. While I don't think the guarantee to uninsured depositors was necessary or a good idea, it doesn't look like it will cost anything in this case. It has nothing to do with Fed rate policy and is entirely related to the management of the bank and the inane behavior of the large depositors.
Am I the only Chicagoan who becomes more dismayed about our choices in the mayoral runoff with every passing day? And why the silence about when/whether we'll have the options of voting by mail and voting early? If we don't get either, what effect will that have on who can participate as voters? What effect would that have on the accuracy of polling about the outcome?
Early voting starts Monday, March 20 across the city. Mail ballots start going out tomorrow.
I agree with you about our choices for mayor. I can't see myself voting for either and the harder I try, the less possible it seems.
Always tune in for the "Tweets Madness". Just an FYI, Batman, Crypto and Bagpipes are all in the brackets twice...
Oh well, that’s what comes of hastily assembling the poll at the end of a busy week. We’ll see if they prevail
I can’t believe that Dumb Dog tweet is winning its round. I feel like the kid in the Emperors New Clothes. The other dog is LOOKING AT THE YOGURT, people, the yogurt ! Also I’m disappointed that you didn’t use the much cleverer version of the Priest, Minister and Rabbi joke I’ve seen:
A Priest, a Minister and a Rabbit walk into a blood bank, “I’m not sure” says the Rabbit when questioned , “but I think I might be a Type O “
ralph martire is a poor source for criticizing vallas on his decisions as CPS CEO for pension funding. martire is a 'sophomore' - ie, a 'wise fool'. also a propagandist - smart guy who cherry picks numbers to make his liberal/progressive talking points [check out the funders of his NPO]. vallas may have proposed the pension funding 'holiday' at the time - but it proved to be the consensus opinion, incl'g that of CTU. easy, facile of martire to criticize the decision with 20/20 hindsight. the error that led to the current abysmal state of the CTU pension fund was not the funding holiday during the vallas era - it was the failure of subsequent, post-vallas administrators and politicians to timely reinitiate pension funding as the stock markets trended downward.
I think that point is well made in the post -- it was a bad decision that everyone was cheering on at the time, and that we've had more than two decades to adjust/correct/compensate for it but the problem has only improved slightly under Pritzker -- I didn't get to that. What about Martire's numbers do you disagree with? (He says the CTBA was raising alarms at the time).
i'd like to see evidence of martire's/CBTA's public statements at the time. but i wouldn't be surprised if evidence could be produced.
what about martire's #'s do i disagree with? are you familiar with nonprofit acctg? if you're not, then no point in me trying to explain my disagreement. i will say this - martire plays footsy with acctg #'s - accentuates what supports his argument, diminishes or ignores the contrary. he will disagree, of course. but he used this game of footsy to support the need for a progressive/graduated IL state income tax. you supported that change too, if i recall correctly. fortunately, a solid majority of IL voters saw thru this canard, and voted down the tax increase.
I love Stephanie Skora’s voting guides. I have been using them to help me decide about judges on Cook County’s lengthy judicial ballot. Skora is a trans woman, by the way, for those who don’t know.
It would be interesting to find out what the Seattle Times is doing to suffer an only 2.9% decline over the period reported.
I think that newspapers offered a variety of things to get folks to buy their paper. Sports, comics, puzzles, local and national news, editorials and weather.
As other outlets provided better services - you can get up to date sports on the internet (no late games going unreported). There are apps and other access to all kinds of games, puzzles and challenges versus a one dimensional game or two in the paper. Comics are becoming passe’ with memes, you tube and other outlets providing humor. One comic I liked (I am a geezer) is Dilbert…well not anymore.
Weather tends to be very time sensitive and newspapers give an overview that quickly becomes dated.
Classic journalists are disappearing ( no Royko, Kass, Zorn,) and there is no desire to read new journalists since they unknown. Also it seems anybody can call themselves a journalist so there is no quality control. I can get some interesting journalistic viewpoints from your online news - you, Mary S, and even Laura Washington. So why buy a paper for some unknown wannabe?
The business model for papers was to offer a variety of services (see above) to keep circulation. Local news alone was never thought to be a main driver..and local news is becoming the only item left.
Finally a killer, lots of folks especially younger ones get all their news, fun, weather online - they do not read paper period.
As a geezer, I still like reading “paper” - so I subscribe to magazines like the New Yorker which has in depth news stories as well as fun short stories. The writing quality is excellent.
I agree that the newspaper chains are reducing content especially local items-but I think that this is going to happen eventually anyway. Just as people changed their shopping habits (goodbye malls);so too how people get their information and what information they are interested in has changed drastically.
All content Newspapers, like glaciers, will slowly disappear due to a changed environment.
Thanks again to you and Laura Washington for a really good job at the mayoral forum. It was one of the best I've seen for good questions and being well managed.
I thought that Brandon Johnson was entirely evasive in the forum and failed to answer a single question that was put to him. There seems to be little substance to his plans and he did not demonstrate a grasp of any of the statistics. I thought Vallas directly responded to every question and was pretty clear.
The youth jobs question is a good example. He called you a racist, dodged the question, referred to a progressive income tax that is not part of his plans and offered a lot of fluffy rhetoric. Vallas was direct, practical, and pragmatic in his response, particularly in combination with his response to the previous question.
It also struck me that Johnson's demeanor is similar to Lightfoot. He seems thin skinned, short tempered, confrontational and prone to perceiving enemies.
Mincing Rascals was good as usual. All good topics. Berg and Pope were spot on with respect to 'Defund the Police'. The people that originated the slogan and were/are most vocal are entirely serious about the complete elimination of police departments and prisons. It was a mistake for politicians and liberals to embrace the slogan and try to redefine it as meaning necessary reform, some reallocation of spending, and some new spending.
I've read a lot of information and statements (past and present) from both candidates for Chicago mayor.
Right now, I think the choice is between which candidate sucks less.
I think a fair number of Lightfoot and Garcia voters will come to the same conclusion as Ja'Mal Green. Vallas has more concrete plans, is not doctrinaire, and is someone that will work with others.
EZ - "Johnson is certainly the better extemporaneous speaker and the more charismatic of the two finalists in the runoff. "
I disagree. Vallas does not light up a room, but he has the facts, groups, and ideas at his fingertips. So, he delivers a consistent message and is prepared to exchange. He is on the colder end of calm and personable.
Johnson is good at spouting the slogans and rhetoric that play well to a CTU and progressive audience. But he presumes that what he says is obvious and that disagreements or questions are evidence of ignorance, racism, and reactionism. I don't think his charisma extends beyond his base. In several of his responses at the forum you could see him pause to dial back his rhetoric. He is on the fiery and angry end of energized.
I'm really surprised that nobody picked up when Johnson said that "the police should know every resident and have to live in the neighborhoods where they work" (words to that effect). To me, that would piss off every officer in the city. I find that remark extremely irritating too. I was set to vote for Johnson but after the debate (not just for that remark), I found him to be extremely untrustworthy. He kept talking about 300 detectives as if that would solve all our problems. Vallas seemed well prepared and capable of discussing the issues in detail and seemed approachable. I was wondering, though, if I suffer from "unconscious bias" - I am a data geek so Vallas appealed to me. Changing my vote to him
I know it’s a huge pain to organize something like your 64 tweet bracket, but it has 3 double-entries that I noticed. This is grounds for a protest from all the other entries. And it opens the possibility of a violation of the transitive property in which a>b, b>c and yet c >a. If that happens the entire tournament is invalid.
The winner will have to live with an asterisk the rest of his or her life. The responsible party is chastened.
After listening to Mincing Rascals I've looked up a lot of info on the Silicon Valley Bank Failure. As usual, the media and pundits tend to spin and dramatize rather than inform. My summary is:
1) SVB was solvent and stable. There was no risk issue with its loan portfolio. It was overwhelmed by a bank run. The reserves were poorly structured, primarily in long term bonds which have fallen in value over the last 2 years.
2) 97% of SVB accounts were uninsured (over $250,000) because they are mainly corporate accounts. With an average $4.7 million on deposit per account; $175 billion total.
3) Due to changes in the valuation of the bonds used for regulatory required reserves, the CEO announced the issue of $2.2 billion of new stock, sale of $21 billion of bonds, and a related loss of $1.5 billion. SVB 2022 profits were $6.5 billion. The announcement was clumsy and poorly described, with no apparent discussion with major stakeholders.
4) A group of Venture Capital companies freaked out, withdrew their money, and advised all of the companies that they had funded to withdraw their money. $42 billion (24% of deposits) were withdrawn in a few hours. These are people that certainly knew what they were doing and the expected results. Other VC managers told their clients to 'stay calm'.
5) The fiasco could have been avoided if SVB had restricted daily cash flows in accounts. If they had restrictions, they did not enforce them. Any bank can make rules restricting daily deposits and withdrawals by type of account. Most do and have procedures for advanced notification and approval if a customer needs to exceed the limits and to provide for routine operations (like payroll). This allows the bank to provide orderly and timely provisions for client cash requirements without daily spikes that would hit reserves. It also prevents a run because it would prevent precipitate, excessive withdrawals and provide time for the bank to meet and discuss finances with customers to prevent a panic.
6) Many of the customers of the bank seem to have ignored basic cash management disciplines and so had excess cash and all-in-one-basket. Some apparently on the advice of the venture capital funds and bank officials.
7) It seems like the FDIC will be able to restructure or sell the company without significant losses.
So, nothing like 2008, nothing like Credit Suisse, nothing to do with the average person, and doesn't require new legislation. While I don't think the guarantee to uninsured depositors was necessary or a good idea, it doesn't look like it will cost anything in this case. It has nothing to do with Fed rate policy and is entirely related to the management of the bank and the inane behavior of the large depositors.