Rage Against The Machine
Chicago Journal News-Star
The venerable Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization honored eight Chicago aldermen for their distinguished voting records in the City Council at a dinner last week.
Freshman 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly, who earned an honorable mention, ceded some of his speech time to 49th Ward Alderman Joe Moore, who, he joked, needed it. Moore enjoyed the ribbing and later said, "It's not easy to go against the grain of the City Council. I'll continue to stand up for what I believe in and make changes for Chicago."
More...
33 comments:
honoring Chicago alderman for their voting records?
WTF?
for their next funder the IVI-IPO will designate Chicago Cubs 2008 division series MVPs
I find it absolutely hilarious that Joe boasts about fighting the good fight in City Hall, always taking on Daley, etc.
The funny part is that I've never heard of him being successful in these efforts.
The mayor and his supporters publicly laugh and Joe and his pointless noise making.
Joe keeps yelling that he's against the machine, but he's utterly unsuccessful. He doesn't make an impact.
He's like a little yapping dog who thinks he's scaring way the bad guys. Or like that weired Westgard guy who constantly claims that he's holding the world accountable when he actually just sits in his basement making zero impact on anything.
We've all seen it. The guys who loudly tells you what a big wheel he is always turns out to be quite the opposite.
That's just too funny. After 17 years, more than half of Joe's constituents voted that he should lose his job.
And somebody honors him for it.
Gotta' love Chicago politics.
rogersparking,
until someone actually releases that "mountain of evidence", you have no basis upon which to make such a claim. i am well informed that a big chunk of that "mountain" is bulls*&^, claims that were dispensed with by the legal authority in charge of such decisions- the judges of elections.
and friend,
i think you are using big words that you don't understand. like "machine".
"been there" - Where? The Kool-Aid pitcher. Hey Mo, drop the cowardly fake name and admit that you're one of Joe's biggest suck-ups. As for words he can't understand, Hugh can run intellectual circles around your small brain any day. For God's sake, Mo, if you're going to accuse a person of not understanding words, have the good sense to use proper grammar and capitalization of words.
been there:
It seems that any sort of discourse with you is a bit like wrestling with a pig. Both parties get covered with pig shit, and the pig likes it.
Get my point, piggy?
Do please enlighten us, mo-ron. Oh please do sing to me about the many times Joe has taken on City Hall and made a difference.
You can start with foie gras if you like.
I bow to your superior intellect.
Mo is one of Joe's many supporters who needs a heavy dose of medication to maintain a grip on reality.
A bought and paid for award....
IVI_IPO
828 S Wabash
Chicago, IL 60605
$350.00 - membership fees
7/3/2007 - Expenditure
From the Citizens for Joe Moore bank account
IVI_IPO
828 S Wabash
Chicago, IL 60605
$35.00 - membership fee
11/29/2007- Expenditure
From the Citizens for Joe Moore bank account
Hey, a little positive reinforcement goes a long way, even among Alderman. Posters may not care for Alderman Moore but on these divided roll call votes, his votes aligned with the expressed views of the of IVI-IPO.
Specifically:
1. Public Art Program, 38-11. This ordinance eliminated a neighborhood advisory group and transferred its responsibilities to a City agency. IVI-IPO supported community empowerment and opposed centralizing power in the Mayor's office.
2. Establishing Office of Compliance 43-6. This ordinance established a City agency under the mayor's direct control, rather than an independent inspector, to investigate corruption, ethics and hiring violations and other governmental wrong-doing. IVI-IPO supported independence and opposed Mayoral control.
3. 2008 Annual Appropriation Ordinance 37-13. This vote exemplifies the City's practice of claiming balanced budgets prior to an election, then "discovering" shortfalls after the election and subsequently raising property and sales taxes to cover their deception.
4. 2008 Tax Levy 29-21. Similar to the previous vote. IVI-IPO generally favors progressive taxes rather than property or sales taxes and opposed both these ordinances.
5. Real Estate Transfer Tax/CTA funding 41-6. This tax was part of the CTA bail-out plan. Although IVI-IPO generally supports progressive taxes such as on income, this tax was less regressive than a sales tax so this plan was endorsed.
6. Repeal Foie Gras Ban 37-6. IVI-IPO recommend this divided vote for being significant for the process if not substance. The Mayor called the vote without the prior knowledge of the committee chair and it was voted upon without debate, in violation of City Council rules. The Mayor disregarded the efforts of aldermen to be recognized and cut off the microphone of an opponent rising to speak. IVI-IPO strongly condemns tyrannical tactics as they have no place in a democracy.
7. Children's Museum in Grant Park 33-16. IVI-IPO opposed the plan to build the museum in Grant Park because of both environmental and good government concerns. IVI-IPO supports keeping Grant Park "forever open, clear and free." IVI-IPO also believes that the use and management of public lands should not be privatized and that both the local and greater communities should have greater input in development decisions. IVI-IPO took this position as an organization, testified before both the Plan Commission and City Council, and mobilized our members to lobby every alderman on this issue.
of course, you can always derive any conclusion you desire from a voting record by sufficiently restricting your attention to select votes, and IVI-IPO or anyone else can play that game
for example, some particularly mentally disadvantaged neighbors of ours support Joe Moore solely on the basis of his vote on a resolution in opposition to the war in Iraq!
but when you look at the broad spectrum of Moore's performance the only rational conclusion available to thinking persons is that he is a senior back-bench alderman and a major Daley collaborator
"Hey, a little positive reinforcement goes a long way, even among Alderman."
no, you are very, very wrong here, dangerously wrong, you are part of the problem
you are just encouraging them in their bad behavior of talking maverick and voting machine
a self-appointed reformer who votes rubber stamp is no reformer
I don't see the Ald. doing much but balancing his bankbooks, now that he, in effect, accepted the $6,000+ raise per annum. YOU and I are paying him over $110,000 per year to act in our interests. Why is he not accountable for all his mis-actions? He's as greedy as everyone else in da Machine! What a waste of hard-to-come-by money!
joey goes around saying he is taking on Daley.
Hey joey when are you going to trying takeing on the problems in the ward?
Get you head out of your ass & see what is actually going on in the ward you represent.
Stop telling us crime is down, stop sending out mailings talking about all the (same old)projects your bringing to the ward.
Actually now that I think about it the best thing you could do for the ward is resign!!
Hugh, the selectivity begins and ends in the City Council, not in the analysis, except perhaps at the margin and even then...
Until the City Council is more transparent and requires more divided roll call votes, the IVI-IPOs methodology is reasonable.
I invite you to examine all divided roll call votes and tell me what should have been included that wasn't. I'll rerun the analysis. Believe me, there's a large contingency that would have preferred a different result.
While Alderman Moore has a decent council record, we recognize that his constituency relationships are another matter. ;-)
"Alderman Moore has a decent council record"
you are confused
his voting record is abominable
"Until the City Council is more transparent and requires more divided roll call votes, the IVI-IPOs methodology is reasonable."
why is it reasonable to consider only divided roll call votes?
our representatives are responsible for the consequences of ALL their votes
will you and your organization join and support our alderman in their conspiracy to avoid responsibility?
any alderman at any time can ask for a roll call vote including your precious reformer Joe Moore
I know the desperation of wanting a local politician you can believe in. Of course Moore and the few other alderman who bother to pay lip service to good government require a few faithful to enable them by participating in their constructed version of reality, in which an occasional stunt vote qualifies them for dinners in their honor, but I am deeply saddened to see the once-relevant IVI-IPO and you in particular apparently taken in by their propoganda
"While Alderman Moore has a decent council record, we recognize that his constituency relationships are another matter."
They are NOT another matter, they are one & the same. Moore is not responsible to the IVI-IPO, he is an elected legislative representative responsible ONLY to the citizens of the 49th ward. By honoring him for his stunt votes you are a big part of the problem. He will use your silly recognition to secure future terms of ongoing pathetic service to his constituents. Praise for Moore comes from the same place as his campaign dough: from OUTSIDE the ward.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
VOTE NO MOORE in 2011
Hugh asked: Why is it reasonable to consider only divided roll call votes?
Divided roll calls are the unit of analysis because they satisfy a basic requirement of independence (I’m speaking statistically, not politically). Because undivided votes are all the same, no variance, nothing distinguishes one Alderman’s vote from another, they are analytically useless. We could include them but they’d have no effect; they’d just wash out.
There are votes on other important issues like TIFs, for example, but since every other Alderman voted exactly as Alderman Moore did, his vote on TIFs is not uniquely bad. He’s got a council’s worth of company on that issue. (Btw, IVI-IPO lobbied against the renewal of the Central Loop TIF—canvassing, hearings, etc. Hardly the bum group you’re making it out to be).
As for your other comments, “…will you and your organization join and support our alderman in their conspiracy to avoid responsibility?” and “any alderman at any time can ask for a roll call vote including your precious reformer Joe Moore”
Conspiracy to avoid responsibility? My precious Joe Moore? Stunt votes?
You’ve got to be kidding. I flung self and family into several circles of hell last year to confront conspiracy, the lack of accountability, and the flagrant use of money to access and abuse power---including Alderman Moore and his associates. Having done that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of recognizing Alderman Moore and Alderman Preckwinkle for their positions on important votes.
As for IVI-IPO, there are scarce few organizations that can claim their history or record of achievement. The group is inclusive, their processes are open and for more years than either you or I have been alive, they have actively engaged people and politics from Hyde Park to Rogers Park.
We’ve had Mayors that can’t do that.
Where was your dinner party held?
You want to have dinner honoring Joe
Moore? I'll tell you what - you find a place on Morse or Howard. You have your distinguished guests who drive circle the block looking for parking. You have your guests who took the EL walk to the EL station after dark. Show your membership and guests what 17 years of Joe Moore is all about.
"Because undivided votes are all the same, no variance, nothing distinguishes one Alderman’s vote from another, they are analytically useless."
this is utter bullshit
unanimous votes have very real consequences
an ordinance passed with a unanimous vote has exactly the same weight as one passed a a 1-vote margin
did Joe Moore or Dick Simpson help you with your methodology?
gosh, it's almost like you were TRYING to find some reason to honor an alderman for a "distinguished" voting record
I guess holding a dinner party to announce that there are no alderman who distinguish themselves wouldn't be much of a party, so the facts be damned
"I flung self and family into several circles of hell last year ... "
if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess
have you met James and Ann? were they at your dinner party?
"Btw, IVI-IPO lobbied against the renewal of the Central Loop TIF ... "
" ... that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of recognizing Alderman Moore and Alderman Preckwinkle for their positions on important votes."
so why didn't you include any TIF district establishment votes or TIF subsidy approvals in your micro sample of 7 "important" votes?
seems like the aldermanic fete committee is not talking to the fiscal policy committee
Here's the message the IVI-IPO sends to the people of Rogers Park with your silly dinner honoring Joe Moore:
"Rogers Park is a sad little neighborhood unworthy of even the most basic representation in local government. It is obvious from looking at the neighborhood that you're not using your alderman's office.
So since you obviously don't mind, we will use the 49th ward's seat in City Council as our own little project. We will project into that office all our fondest wishes and highest aspirations for The Perfect Reform Alderman.
He will be the alderman we all want but can't get in our own ward. Our own alderman just gets snippy when we take our reform agenda to him. And besides, even if he took up our cause, we don't want to rile the Mayor. After all, we don't want OUR neighborrhoods where we have OUR homes and OUR businesses to start looking like Rogers Park, do we?"
"While Alderman Moore has a decent council record, we recognize that his constituency relationships are another matter."
this is a very telling comment
your dinner party for Joe Moore and your all too willingness to look the other way on so-called "constituent relationships" is a kick in the groin to the people of Rogers Park
when you stroll Morse or Howard after dark by yourself know you had a part in perpetuating what you see
Hugh asked, “so why didn't you include any TIF district establishment votes or TIF subsidy approvals in your micro sample of 7 "important" votes?
Oh, geesus, Hugh, I explained that already. This is rudimentary statistics. I find it hard to believe that you are incapable of discerning the analytical utility between a divided vote and a unanimous, undivided vote.
Instead of all this snipping, Hugh, how about we test your assertions. Let’s have a bake-off: Gather the data you think we should have included and we’ll build the model you think the IVI-IPO should have employed and let’s execute the analysis and see where the credibility chips fall. I’d be very interested in seeing how the world according to Hugh plays out.
You have my email address. Send me the data file when you’re ready.
well, we're even, I guess, because I fail to see how you could fail to see the obvious problem with absolving your favorite aldermen of responsibility for their votes in cases in which the vote is unanimous, which is the vast preponderance of their votes
I give you more credit than that, so I am deeply saddened to conclude you are onboard with their effort to construct an alternate reality in which some aldermen have a "distinguished" voting record, against all evidence. Please correct me on this.
how did you select your 7 votes?
In all but one (the RE xfer tax) of your 7 select votes, the IVI-IPO position went down in flames. The dissenting votes you recognized at your dinner party lost. Now, that's neither here nor there, go ahead and hand out atta-boys for fighting the good fight if you want. But beyond the loss on the particular legislative issue, no significant change in the Chicago City Council occurred.
For example, you recognized Moore's vote against the repeal of his foie gras ban, decrying (rightly) the City Council's tyrannical undemocratic process, but net net there was no change whatsoever to Council rules or processes. It's not like you are recognizing Moore for his many contributions to opening up City Council processes over his 17 years.
In the final analysis, your recognition dinner was like Seinfeld, a show about nothing.
say, did you catch your girl Toni P's call for the City to invoke eminent domain to deprive legitimate property owners of their land for the Olympics?
did her comments come before or after your award dinner?
kind of an unusual stance on 1st amendment rights for a legislator anointed by the great IVI-IPO as the reigning Queen of City Council Progressives, don't you think?
"Gather the data you think we should have included and we’ll build the model you think the IVI-IPO should have employed ... "
lady, I assure you, you're arguing statistics with the wrong guy
what's the point? yeah sure, you want to plug a bunch of unanimous votes into your spreadsheet, hit re-calc, and voila, Joe Moore is STILL King of Progressives!
obviously, there are hundreds of votes in the record more significant than repealing Moore's foie gras ban, but you didn't consider them
your methodology does not allow for the null hypothesis: the conclusion that NO aldermen are worthy of recognition for a distinguished voting record
this is deeply flawed thinking that can only appeal to an apologist for the faux progressives plaguing the political landscape in Chicago
you're an enabler to the deep sickness in City Council
let's illustrate the absurdity of your analysis this way
I see that Ocasio and Burnett "distinguished" themselves in the IVI-IPO's view by earning a score of zero, and that there is a 23-way tie for 2nd (worst) place
so pick one, who's your LEAST favorite alderman?
If you had the courage to look at the FACTS, the totality of the voting record, you would have to admit that your BESTEST FAVORITEST MOST PROGESSIVEST ALDERMAN differs in his voting record from your BIGGEST MACHINE SCOUNDREL USELESS LUMP OF FLESH RUBBER STAMP only in several places to the right of the decimal point, and that certainly there is nothing going on here worth having a recognition dinner over.
your methodology grossly exaggerates the "distinctions" between alderman
now i don't know you well, but if I pitched a US Senator at you, and told you his voting record was indistinguishable 99.9% of the time from say a Jesse Helms or a Strom Thurmond or equiv, I'm guessing you would say, "No way! You can stop. I don't need to know anything else. I can't support such a person."
As a fan of both Suzanne and Hugh, I have to say this is an interesting read.
Post a Comment