"Chicagoland" is interesting but did anyone else not predict that the show would be exactly like this? North side white people eating fine cuisine and partying, and black kids on the south side in the midst of gang warfare? I was hoping more facets of the Chicago story would be told by this series, but so far am quite disappointed.

So you quote one post that actually has a reasonable point, and follow up to supplement it with a post that makes a pretty stupid one. Yeah, you know you are being inflammatory as possible with an ignorant remark, so of course you preemptively strike with the typical non-creative "the PC police shows up in 5..." comment. And to top it off, you started it all with the usual straw man argument that no ones really used much in the last 15 years or so. Really awesome perspective you have added here :rolleyes:.

^. I make that point because too often Chicago and other major urban centers are accused of having "bad schools" or "failing schools" when in reality the schools are just fine. The communities they serve are what is failing. But when you use terms like "failing schools" it betrays the unfortunate viewpoint that predominates both within and without these communities, which is to point our fingers at teachers and principles to remedy the issue, something they in no way can possibly do.

For real.

Schools have to find ways to adapt to the populations they serve. The formula that works for privileged people will not work for the underprivileged. And make no mistake: Privilege is exactly what we're talking about here (for example—and this is just one of many—the privilege to be free of a legal and law enforcement that isn't stacked against you).

Anyway, I think in the past decade schools have finally realized this and started getting more creative. I'm somewhat wary of charter schools, but I appreciate the innovation they foment and imagine that, among them, certain models will emerge as the most successful and worthy of replication.

I agree with TUP. The whole concept that a "school" is failing is wrong. It's the kids and their families that are failing. They have to take accountability for themselves. And how is a public school a system that is just for the privileged? Anyone can go to a public school.
I went to one of the top ranked PUBLIC high schools in the country but it was because of the quality of the kids and their parents that went there rather than it somehow being an amazing school. The school and the facilities itself were pretty basic. It just happened that the smartest students in the county went there, so it looked really good on all the test scores. If you have a school with students that don't care at all about learning, the scores will be really low.

The problem of blacks in America is one that defies easy explanations or solutions, even for the most intelligent people.

Addressing the problems of black communities becomes difficult for governments that must appear largely race-blind, even though the unique history of American blacks demands unique solutions to today's problems.

^ Yes, indeed, the situation is a little more complex than magically swapping out entire demographics of people in CPS while completely ignoring the forces that caused the situation in the first place.

And again, the point TUP made is silly because he didnt specify what type of asian students; Korean, Indian, Chinese or Hmong, Cambodian and Laotian? Asian is not monolithic. Depending on the region, city, and community, they can have vastly different performances in school. Nigerian immigrants typically vastly outperform american blacks in poor public school districts as well. Appalachian whites from poor mining communities fare poorly compared to Chicago suburban whites.

Why do these groups perform differently? I will give that most likely the main reason is the expectations the parents and students have for themselves, along with the rest of their community, and society at large. But why do these expectations differ, and what historically has happened that led up to these expectations.

So yes, the circumstances are a little more complex than the misleading post TUP gave. Of course there are cultural differences, but what were the conditions that created that culture?

And the resources for public schools, urban vs suburban etc, have only in the recent decade or so began to even up. Previously there were also substantial disadvantages when schools were in a lower property tax district. While resources, principals and teachers clearly do not tell the whole story, they did and still can have a negative impact. Why is Liz Dozier (who is very attractive btw) so worried about losing the federal grant money she has previously used to help turn Fenger around? When you are dealing with children with so many negative surrounding forces, you need all the resources you can get to counter with more positive influences, more positions, more face to face interaction. Which is actually why I am all for public schools in struggling communities to have a higher share of resources from tax money than those that are in more affluent communities - they need those more to help turn things around. We also need more Liz Doziers, but thats asking a lot. Im sure if parents and students themselves do their part things would improve, but in the meantime, its the efforts of people like her that will help make the turn around and help the students and teachers make the changes for themselves.

Obviously the culture overall will need to change, and the expectation level will need to rise. I simply do not like blunt simplistic declarative statements that have absolutely no realistic bearing on the actual issues that are play here. They are not constructive, in fact the tone was so defeatist and negative one could infer that he was essentially stating any efforts to improve the situation would be a waste of time so why not swap out all the students and replace them.

^^^ Jesus dude, he was obviously intentionally making a generalizing statement when he mentioned "asians" for the sake of illustrating his point. You whine about the PC police coming to shut down this conversation and then decide to devolve the conversation into an analysis of how specific of an ethnic group TUP should have used to illustrate the fact that if you emptied out an entire "failing" urban school and filled it with another socio-economic group that the school would instantly transform into an over-performing school. He could have listed a million different groups, but just threw out a massive generalization because the specific group does not matter in the context of what he was saying.

His point is still valid. Let's use a more PC example so as not to offend your fragile ears:

If you took the entire student population of Harper High School in Englewood (one of the failingest of failing schools in the nation) and swapped it out with the entire student population of Deerfield High School I guarantee you that Harper would become one of the best high schools in the state overnight and Deerfield High would be relegated to the various Forbes and US News lists of "top 50 worst things in existence". It has very little to do with the "school" and EVERYTHING to do with the ongoing poverty trap of American inner cities.

Also, it's not about "parent expectations". Children don't do well just because their parents expect them to, children do well because their parents give them the resources to. I've said this before, but the average class size is usually 25-30 students. The average school day length is 7 hours of which probably only 6 hours (at best) is spent in class. That means your average student is getting the direct attention of a teacher for only 1/25 of 6 hours a day AT BEST. That means less than FIFTEEN MINUTES a day of one on one attention per student assuming that attention is evenly distributed to each student which it most assuredly is not.

It is physically impossible for schools to replace the attention and involvement of parent in a child's education. There literally is no way to change this short of reducing average class sizes to say 5-7 students which I don't think anyone would disagree is an utterly absurd notion. Let's say an average involved parent spends just one hour a day helping their child with homework, reading to them (time and again shown to be the best way to increase reading proficiency for children), etc. That's already at least four times as much attention as that child received all day in school.

Most poor parents don't even have an hour a day to relax and eat dinner, let alone to spend reading to each of their children. Many poor parents couldn't even provide the necessary assistance even if they had the time because they may not even understand the material themselves because they too were deprived of the necessary education. There is no amount of government money or teacher training that is going to change this. There just isn't and they myth that there is a way to fund the problem away is wholly counterproductive.

Ultimately I think the only way to truly rectify this problem is to encourage socio-economic mixing on a generational scale. This is obviously a difficult task since different social and economic groups tend to naturally distance themselves from one another like oil in water, but there are fundamental policy changes that can encourage this. The best one in effect today are the magnet schools which often do offer a child who is particularly bright a better environment (i.e. better peers) in which to grow out of the poverty trap. I also think that gentrification can play a huge role in gradually mixing the impoverished back into society as a whole. Gentrifying neighborhoods offer a way out for any of the students fortunate to resist the economic change long enough to reap the rewards of improving peers moving into the area. What other ideas do you all have to address the problem from this angle?

^ Please, I think you need to chill and quit with your outrage to my calling him out. He knew what he was provoking when he wrote what he wrote. I already said what he was inferring. Theres no defense for it, you cant defend it, so dont bother with your bullshit comparisons of Deerfield and Harper High. Fragile ears, please.

I made a legitimate comparison of asian groups because it is far more realistic and applicable and presents a clearer perspective on why certain students of certain backgrounds perform better than others, and why it has to do with culture and parental, student and societal expectations.

And wtf, parental expectations have nothing to do with it? What do you know? Are you a parent? I am, I have a child in CPS. Our expectations have everything to do with it. If you expect a child to do well, you will go out of your way to provide the time and resources for them to do well to the extent possible. Obviously poor parents have a disadvantage in that and thats why they can use all the help they can get from the schools, but unfortunately the schools dont have that type of time or resources either.


The rest of your post I dont disagree with, and no where did I write anything contrary to the idea that parents play the biggest role.

Before you respond, let me explain a little more clearly why TUPs idea of swapping asian students with black CPS students and your idea of swapping Deerfield High student with Harper high students is so freaking stupid.

1. Its obviously impossible and completely based on fiction. It never will be, and never could be, something any of us could actually witness to determine if true. Therefore, its ridiculous and why even bother bringing it up.

2. Even if it were possible, what factors are you holding constant? Do the students have the same parents? Do they bring their current parents to the new neighborhood. Do the Deerfield high school kids actually now have to grow up in Englewood for example? With all the same issues of crime/gangs, poverty, drug use, and police brutality, lack of access to quality food etc etc? Because if so, Id call bullshit on your stupid theory and Deerfield High school students would now perform pretty badly in school as well.

3. By making these statements, you are completely ignoring all the outside forces that made the school problematic in the first place. Which means you are only telling a small portion of the story. In other words, its completely inadequate to make the comparison. But it sounds nice in some neat little package though right? Requires very little mental thought right?

4. They actually probably wouldnt perform quite as well given less resources anyway. Why? Because research has shown less resources actually can affect performance. Is it as significant an impact as parenting, home influences etc? Clearly not.



So please dont bother trying to defend it, since there are much much better ways of making the point that building school condition, computers, teachers, and principals, sports, activities, music program and other resources provided at school do not affect student performance as much as the involvement of parents etc. But even this is a limited statement since it doesnt consider other forces such as criminal activity in proximity of the school, peer influences, and obviously many others. So again, if I havent made it clear yet - quit trying to simplify the god damn issue by making stupid declarative statements that are clearly lacking in support.

But that is what I'm saying.

One of the main solutions to Chicago's problems (high crime, poor school performance, demographic stagnation, etc) is for the gangsters to leave. The whole reason Chicago looks bad is because of this particular population of people.

They make the law-abiding, working African American population look bad (and drag them down), and that's the real, real fucking tragedy.

So Mr. Roboto, I'm trying to understand. What exactly do you think is the reason many CPS schools are failing? Is it lack of funding? Disengaged teachers? Crap facilities? I mean, I get that your deeply offended by some of what TUP and LouisVanDerWright said, but they at least stated some reasons (much of which I agree with).

Comparisons? It's almost as if you've never heard someone use a hypothetical before. This is not about comparing those schools, but rather illustrating that the school itself (i.e. building, teachers, administration, etc) has very little to do with the success of the students and that almost all of it has to do with the parents.

Your anecdotal position does not further your argument. Also, no your expectations have nothing to do with it, the amount of time and attention your devote to your children does. Maybe you will commit more time to your children if you have high expectations, but the expectations are not why your kids are excelling, the time you are committing is.

Kids don't do do well because your expect them to, they do well because you help them do well. There are plenty of parents who do a lot of "expecting" and very little helping and the end result is almost invariably under performance among their children regardless of economic class.


Again, no one is proposing we actually do that, it's a hypothetical. An "if you were to do this" not a "let's do this!"

Uhh yes they have the same parents, live in the same place, etc, they just now take a bus to Englewood every day. That's exactly the point. Hell, let's say you moved the school and not the kids. Let's say you got a huge helicopter and flew Deerfield High, teachers and all, to Englewood and vice versa. The test scores and graduation rates at Deerfield High would plummet and Harper would be fantastic because the school has almost nothing to do with the education the children are receiving. The same would hold true if you did this for years and years.

And if you look at the average cost per student of CPS versus the suburbs it becomes quite clear that they are spending about the same per student and getting radically different results. The fact is CPS does not have a lack of resources, bad teachers, bad administrators, or any other problem along those lines. CPS has a parent problem.

Think about what you're saying: You're saying the solution is one of policy, and policy is determined by government, ergo the problem of institutionalized racism is one the government has to tackle. TUP's post squarely put the blame on the "communities": "The communities they serve are what is failing."

No.

The government is failing these communities. The government has been failing if not actively persecuting these communities for literally centuries. The government must play a role in helping them succeed, even if it's only by eliminating covertly racist laws (e.g., crack vs. coke penalties, voter suppression, etc.).

Public schools are not created equally. Wealth is very unevenly distributed and it's impossible to ignore the role that race and institutionalized racism has played in this process.

Here's a simple, easy-to-understand example: Many of the best high schools in the state are located in the North Shore. These are largely homogenous communities composed of property-owning, upper middle class whites. For generations, these communities have enshrined housing policies that outright prevent the unpropertied classes from living among them (e.g., restricting multi-family residential development), thereby denying them access to the benefits of the vast resources they have amassed. How are people who have since the founding of this country been systematically denied even the opportunity to obtain capital supposed to make their way into those communities? By design, they're not supposed to. And that's the point.

And THIS is exactly what your problem is, and why I think your opinion is so invalid on the subject. Its simply not realistic. All the students are not gangsters, a certain percentage are, but not all. Some have no choice being in gangs either. And to have them all leave doesn't exactly get rid of the problem, it only addresses one of the symptoms. Gangs will continue to exist if the conditions that created them exist. Work on the root causes; address why there are gangs in the first place, address why drug use is so high, address why people are struggling with poverty, etc, and address each issue with creative and maybe some innovative solutions. Or utilize existing solutions that have worked in other cities. Yes it is not easy, but this is why your simplistic take is so frustrating, especially when you represent a portion of the population that has no clue apparently.

Im not deeply offended (calling out a dumb post makes me deeply offended?). I just think they are lazy, and their analysis is simplistic and actually rather dangerous. Displaying one side of the equation and disregarding the other is disingenuous. Some appear to think otherwise, but I thought this is an easy thing to point out.

I don't have all the answers either clearly, I just want people to understand the situation is incredibly complex. Do you think its as simple as they are making it out to be? I agree buildings themselves are not the cause of poor students performance, who would say that they are, but I could at least make the point in a better and less inflammatory manner. If what you think he said is cool and actually adds to the discussion, then alright for you too.

As far as solutions, actually LVW said something I agree with, mixing the socioeconomic groups, most likely by inclusionary zoning and other types of affordable housing requirements for larger developments, incentives for businesses, providing more after school programs for students to improve productivity. programs like upward bound and project bootstrap could have used more funding. Ceasefire seemed to be rather effective and at least provided people n the communities with employment. Obviously job training, educational opportunities maybe in tech trades etc could be made more accessible and available. Maybe there are solutions no one has thought of, as it will take thinking outside the box, and being NOT lazy.


Sure basic hypothetical situations work so amazingly great when you are trying to illustrate a point while discussing a complex and varied topic. Like heres mine: we have a problem with the pension reform. I bet if we replaced all our workers with people from the south, who don't care about them damn unions, we could eliminate this problem. Oh, not so illustrative huh. You see, some of us prefer actual data based on actual student performances, and their actual situations . But why use those when you can just come up with some random off the wall scenario that has little to do with what is actually happening.



Yes, it actually does. See below.

Chicken or the egg. Why do you even put in the time to help a child study? Why do you care? Oh that's because you have expectations, you have hopes, dreams maybe? Your nitpicky arguing over semantics is rather silly, actually makes me just think you are arguing for arguments sake or something.

And yes, my anecdotal position shows that I actually may be more knowledgeable about what it means to have expectations over your child than a nonparent, who would not actually have the experience of working with their child after school and teaching them subjects outside of school activities. My perspective is more defined and actually supported by real life experience. And what, pray tell, is your experience? Are you a teacher, do you work with students? All of those are highly relevant as well. But I suppose you enjoy the hypotheticals so much maybe reality is a little difficult for you to swallow.



Obviously they go together. Again, you put the time in helping them expecting to see results. Ok, if not, maybe you have no idea and are completely clueless, have no idea what they are doing what they are learning and just go about it day to day with no context for their educational experience. Sounds very effective.


See his answer above. And thanks for stating what hypothetical is. I had no idea what that meant. In other words, no shit its hypothetical. So is saying, lets take out every gangster in Chicago and we'd all be safe. Oh really? how is that helping and how is that actually opening anyone's perspective on crime in Chicago become clearer. Or how about this, lets magically make all drugs disappear.

Oh, so bus them to Englewood. Magically replace all of them. Wow, what incredible insight this provides. You mean the actual building itself wasn't holding them back? You mean the rampant crime, low parent expectations, low involvement, drugs, police treatment of young men especially, and all the other negative impacts on them might actually be a major cause of poor performance? I thought it was because the walls in the building told them to stop studying!


No. Shit. But you need to keep in mind this funding situation has certainly not always been the case. And resources do have some impact. For example, class size has a pretty strong relationship with student performance. Been researched and documented. Arts programs, and others extra activities has some impact. Been documented as well. Tutoring clearly does. Besides, kids in Englewood probably need MORE resources than Deerfield, because they are more adversely impacted by negative outside forces in their day to day lives.

So anyway, I already agreed that school resources alone are not the key, and that parenting is clearly more important. But continue to ignore everything else I write, and continue to say the same thing over and over instead of addressing that I already said the exact same thing you did - but with caveats that you ignore. The caveats are there because, um, well, the situation is COMPLEX. My only point is that you and TUP need to stop being lazy on the topic, get a little less hypothetical, and get back into reality maybe.


btw, sorry to derail the topic on Chicago's entertainment, arts etc, but I actually think this is a relevant topic since its on that show.

Mr Roboto, I think we all agree with you that the problem is incredibly complex, and involves numerous moving parts. But your living in a fantasy world if you think you can sell anyone on the idea of giving more resources to poor performing CPS schools over high performing city and suburban schools. If anything, funding will get cut even more. Given that our city and state are on the verge of fiscal catastrophe, people are weary of throwing money at untested theories in failing schools.

Hmm, ok. I dont think they agree its complex, they haven't demonstrated as much seeing as how they refused to acknowledge it but had ample opportunity through numerous posts, but I guess at least you do.

But throwing money? I didn't realize we ever did throw money at the schools. And certainly if we did, it wasn't a whole lot (relatively) at any time. I thought we merely funded them, as we do other public resources and institutions.

Well seeing as how we are on the verge of fiscal catastrophe, we might as well burn half the city down, the poor black and Hispanic parts specifically. Now that's my constructive hypothetical scenario.

No people like those in Englewood are all lazy - they are poor because they are lazy, they are uneducated because they are lazy, and they are criminals because they are lazy. They need no help to improve their situation because that would be throwing money away. Lets instead invest our tax money via TIF for downtown buildings and shiny new arenas. Or how about targeted tax breaks to lure companies.

I get a little weary of what I read on here sometimes, especially from people who clearly have no interest in improving social issues yet feel the need to comment negatively about the people who are in them.

I agree and stand with TUP on what he said about Chicago schools and swapping a group of people that has a strong family support which quite clearly the black community at least in the inter city has shown over multi decades that its not their strong point. The answer I don't know but what TUP said rings true but alas we cannot do these mind experiments in real time but we should at accept the principle or at least respect it without name calling here. There are no real racists here lets make that clear. Most all of us are on the progressive side of most all issues, we speak to our own choir but we should not condemn those among us as not being pure enough to be included in our broad tent if they don't have the exact same thought process on every single issue some hold so dear that even to contemplate an issue counter to your own is blasphemous. I hate that downward discourse, not on just that but most issues open to reasonable debate on these intertubes.

You are correct.

I have little interest in fixing poverty in Chicago.

I want Chicago to be where New York and other cities are now--gentrify the poverty out. I want it to be somebody else's problem.

That's just how I feel, and I know I'm not alone. Yes, I guess that may define me as a racist (among some) but I don't care.

^^^ I don't quite agree with TUP here. While I would also prefer that the poverty be pushed out of the urban core if we have to have poverty, I would much rather find a way to permanently address the problem than just push it off to the side. Will there always be poor people: yes. Do we have to have an ongoing system of institutionalized poverty: no.

The fact is institutionalized poverty is BAD for our economy. Why? Because huge quantities of naturally occurring human capital is being wasted running massive drug gangs instead of being educated properly and going on to found a new tech start up or something. Let's say one in ten people is naturally very smart and a natural leader, I would prefer that every single one of those people be put to productive use by society and THAT is my problem with poverty. It is a total waste to have natural intelligence squandered because of drugs, gangs, or inept parenting.

I'm getting pretty bored with this conversation but wanted to say this: It's definitely not semantics. As the moral crusader of this thread you of all people should realize that it's not just a matter of "if only those minorities expected more of their children, then they'd succeed!". It's ALL about getting parents to put for the extra effort.

Can high expectations motivate parents to put forth that effort? Sure, but don't you think it is just a little insensitive to suggest that high expectations is all it takes to make that effort possible? There are surely thousands upon thousands of impoverished parents who do have high expectations for their children, but simply are unable to put forth the time for any number of reasons necessary to give their kids that edge. So what you call semantics I call wrong. I call it wrong because it's simply not true.

Now maybe you meant to get across the same point as I am trying to make and we are just trying to say the same thing in different words, but I really don't think expectations is the right word to be using.

New topic. I dont think it goes in transportation because its tourism related.




http://www.suntimes.com/news/2657724...-heliport.html

Zoning Committee approves Bridgeport heliport

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter View Gallery Updated: April 1, 2014 10:01PM



A tour company’s $12.5 million plan to build a heliport on the south branch of the Chicago River was cleared for takeoff Tuesday, but not before an influential alderman waved the red flag about helicopter safety.

..


The plan calls for construction of 14 launching pads, a 17,500-square-foot hangar, terminal with rooftop observation deck, water taxi dock and aircraft fueling station.

...

Heffernan once again insisted that his helicopter tours would have “zero impact” on noise in a community that’s plenty loud already because of CTA buses, the Orange Line and traffic on the Stevenson and Dan Ryan expressways.

He promised to use what he called “the quietest helicopter on the market,” build sound barrier walls and follow a flight path toward Lake Michigan high above the Stevenson.

..

Heffernan replied, “$119 for an 18-minute tour. Put that in perspective. New York for eleven minutes, it’s $185. Las Vegas for about eleven minutes, it’s $110. So, our permanent cost…will be the best in the country. The way we’re able to achieve that is by owning the land, owning the facility and owning the helicopters themselves. Trimming a lot of that out of the cost should you be operating out of an airport allows us to offer the lowest price point possible.”

Heffernan said his goal is to draw tourists to Bridgeport and keep them there for a 90-minute "experience" that includes local restaurants, shops and art galleries.

“When they leave, the idea is that their experience was not, `I went on a helicopter ride.’ It’s, `I had dinner. I ate lunch at this great place. I hung out on the riverfront. I got to take a riverboat ride. And we went on a helicopter tour,' " Heffernan said.

...

Well, it comes out, which is exactly as I suspected and why I feel the need to call you out when you comment on these types of issues. You seem to have this type of fixation with clearly defining people by socioeconomic status, and then labeling them by whatever simple means you deem appropriate with total disregard for actually understanding the reasons behind it. I suppose you'd prefer permanent systems of keeping people in poverty - serfdom, or indentured servants and slavery.

And its not somebody elses problem, its yours, its mine, its all of our problem collectively. We all pay taxes, we all vote (from time to time), we all use city services, infrastructure etc, we also all pay for public schools, we all pay for jails to be built and to house inmates, therefore we all clearly have a vested interest.

As far as being a racist, who knows. We all have a little bit of it in us, I know I do. Maybe you just feel the need to embrace it and express it rather than challenge your already lazy assumptions and actually look into all the various aspects that caused the type of poverty and violence associated with many of the struggling black, and some hispanic, city neighborhoods. In my honest opinion I find that your type of negative, callous and un-productive mentality should have no business in city policies; this city, or really any kind of city.

Its indefensible, and I shudder to think that people on this board actually agree with you regarding this. Why? Besides the basic human aspects, see below, its purely economics, something you should actually appreciate. We should absolutely be looking to constantly improve not just this aspect of poverty and crime in our society, but really all of society as a whole.



At least you get it. I completely agree. Any substantial group of otherwise healthy and young but essentially unproductive people is a huge drain on our society, and thats precisely why Im of the opinion that we should, as a community and city, and really as a nation, continually struggle to find ways to improve the conditions that made those people unproductive. It really doesnt need to have anything to do with race, racism, or any other ism. It can be a cold objective view that purely focuses on the economic benefits for ALL of us.

Agreed.

Ill just explain a little more where I am coming from with this. Basically - expectations are the essential driving force behind the effort you put in life.

You set goals, some level of expectation, whether consciously or subconsciously. For example, you expect to pass a test at school or you set a goal to pass that test, you therefore do what is required to pass that test, by studying and working your ass off, and then take the test, and again, expect to pass it when you get the results. Sure, expectations alone are little more than wishful thinking, but again, the initial expectation is the spark that creates the drive to succeed in the first place. If you have low expectations, that is exactly what you will achieve.

I believe many of those who are part of the cycle of poverty in this country actually have much lower expectations of themselves, as does society, which makes them all the less likely to succeed. If you dont have that initial standard set for yourself, where does the drive to succeed come from? If instead you expect to one day get shot, or one day be thrown in jail, to be harassed by police, to find no benefits to education and school, then you have much less chance for success. Tying it back to the Chicagoland show, you can clearly see a kid who has low to no expectations for himself that Dozier is trying to help, and he is useless.

Yeah well, apparently somebody should do it. I dont like to do it, but I find the blunt negative language regarding people who find themselves to be struggling through no complete fault of their own to be troubling, actually pretty inhumane. Some of us seem to live in a bubble and are rarely confronted about our generalizations and simplistic views.

Anyways...

I don't have an interest in fixing poverty in America. That's true.

But more importantly to me, I don't understand why poverty needs to be Chicago's job to fix. Here we are praising places like New York or San Francisco but it's not like those places fixed poverty, they just pushed it out of the way; yet black hip hop artists are singing New York City's praises all the time.

The City of Chicago should be no more morally obligated to fix poverty than Denver, CO or Beverly Hills, CA or Sioux Falls, SD, or Columbia, MO etc etc. It is not a problem that a city can fix--it is a byproduct of Capitalism.

^^^ I don't think you can say the kind of institutionalized poverty that Chicago has is "a byproduct of capitalism" or the problem would be equaled in every other capitalist city. Chicago's problem is much more heavily tied to the racial history of the United States than it is to capitalism. You could say the poverty in the immigrant communities in Chicago is just capitalism, but the african american population has undoubtedly been marginalized and abused for a very long time simply because of race and the fact is that it is very very hard to break that ingrained problem.

I think that it does no one any good to allow the problem to fester when we can make simple changes that can gradually, over time, at least give these people an equal shot at success. I'm strictly against handouts, etc., but basic reforms like ending the war on drugs and doing our best to allow the brightest students to get out through things like magnet schools.

^. But these are national issues. Racism and the marginalization of black people has been a problem throughout America, not just Chicago. How is one city going to solve a national problem?

The Federal government's incompetitance doesn't mean the local governemnt can't and shouldn't attempt to address these issues if they have the ideas and political will to do it. In fact, I think local government should take more aggressive stances on these things as they have started to do with other urban topics like TOD, city infrastructure, or even Bike Lanes/road diets/pedestrian priority.

^ Local Govt should only fix problems that they have the resources & ability to fix. Yes, of course race based discrimination at every level should be illegal. But the drug war, gun laws, federal laws on lending practices, deindustrialization offshoring of jobs, etc etc tend to be handled mostly at the Federal level. Chicago within its budget can only redistribute things so much without discouraging further growth.

Good contribution. Anyway, I don't know why I am even discussing race with you; you are, after all, the one who thought Augustine of Hippo was black because he was born in Africa. I guess I, like Mr Roboto, think such a twisted opinion should have a little light shone upon it.

Lol, just don't sweep me up in that. I don't agree with him beyond my comments on the cause of the problem.

^. What, bailing on me? I'm glad that as an Asian I don't suffer from "white guilt" and don't have to play the idiotic PC game.

My parents were given zero handouts. They had neither toilets or electricity. And here I am.

Succeeding in America is easy. Whiners here deserve zero sympathy

You have confused me with somebody else. I have zero recollection of this discussion

Well Chicago has a lot of immigrants, we arent all white yuppies and hipsters on this board. My family came here from a SE Asian country with nothing much materially, and gave me nothing materially either. I had no economic advantage growing up in a single parent household with multiple siblings in an apartment.

But I was given values. For one, I was instilled with a sense of understanding privilege, and that I shouldn't project my own experiences, or my own family's experiences, onto others since the world is complex and deals many of us rather different hands to play with.

I have met many less privileged than me, and many who were more privileged than me, and understand that our own actions are not fully what give us the economic position in society we have today. And when I say privileged this includes the values I was blessed to be given - I was privileged because I was taught to work hard, taught to value education, I was taught to believe it will pay off. I didnt ask for those, they were given to me. I was also privileged to not be expected to be slow in class, to not have to worry about being shot or harassed by gangs, to not have to be pressured to be a violent individual. (And still I was lured by those things as a teenager and almost didnt graduate school.)

I also was taught to have empathy for my fellow human beings, as more often than not, they are usually the same as I am deep within. They all want a sense of responsibility, to able to reach a sense of accomplishment, and to be able to reach some level of success. It is often only our circumstances that makes us different, the different roadblocks we face. And I will tell you, being from an asian immigrant family you or I face entirely different roadblocks than others from entrenched poverty in the US; both physical and psychological that apparently you have little hope of ever seeing or understanding. Actually how about in asia, you see the little kids running around with nothing, begging or selling trinkets on busy streets? Do you think they are any less of a person than you? Where do you think they end up, what chance do they have for success? Are they any less deserving of a right to live a happy life than you or me? I know, international poverty is on a whole other level.

But as far as Chicago, it would help to at least try to understand some of the people in the city you care about. Why the tale of Chicagoland is about two cities, one a violent troubling one, the other an affluent one, in such a close proximity to one another. A lot of the crime and murders in this city is less than 5 miles from my centrally located house. We all have to share this place, we all have to share resources, and to put it coldly and bluntly, we all have to pay for the hospital wounds for the gunshot victims they show on that TV series some way or another. So we might as well try to make it work as well as possible for all of us, solve the problems. You bring up NYC as if they just threw out all the poor people. Well, no they actually have a much better history of dealing with poverty than Chicago as well. Look at the track record of NYCHA and CHA as an example.

Again, if no one can appeal to your human side, maybe your capitalistic side can at least appreciate that the economics make sense for all of us.


BTW, your aversion to the term PC means you have an aversion to understanding others.

^ Fair enough.

But keep in mind, I am an equal opportunity hater of "hand outs". Take a look at my criticism of runaway CEO pay in this thread. To me that is as much a handout as redistributing resources to the poor.

The notion of "lets give you more money because you are already rich" is even more offensive than "lets give you more money because you are poor".

I really do believe that everybody between the top 1% and the bottom 10% or so are getting the shaft in this society.

^Ill give you that sure.

But keep in mind I also dont think we should just give poor people money as hand outs either. I think that the welfare system needs reform. It is simply not efficient. Im more for providing some form of access or assistance for jobs, education, training, housing, rather than just giving link cards and checks (which all should be highly conditional and limited in term length).

"Roman Emperors," not Augustine of Hippo. Although I imagine you'd misinterpret his racial makeup, too, as he was also an African-born Roman.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=196931

It's not even the top 1% that's really pulling the strings. When you drill down, recent studies showed that 90% of the top 1% haven't experience that same kind of wealth growth like the 0.1% have. Really, if your net worth is under 8 figures, you may still have a very comfortable life. But you really have no influence.

Yeah, I mean, it's amazing how African slaves couldn't succeed when they were bound and forcibly relocated to this country. Probably a culture of laziness.

Chicago to vie for George Lucas' museum

Billionaire "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, who wants to establish a major museum to house his significant art and movie memorabilia collection, is considering Chicago as the location after plans for his $300 million Lucas Cultural Arts Museum stalled in San Francisco.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants the museum and is expected to create a task force of community leaders to identify potential sites. The city will submit a proposal to Lucas in the coming months, said David Spielfogel, a senior adviser to Emanuel.

Lucas' institution, excitedly identified by one San Francisco publication as "a world-class museum of the digital arts," would house a collection that includes valuable Norman Rockwell paintings, examples of the Hollywood special effects he pioneered at Industrial Light & Magic, and memorabilia such as a scale model of the Millennium Falcon, the fictional spacecraft commanded by Han Solo.


Article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...881F9245367I5X

That would be huge.



Some key points from the article. I was going to post this in the business section because of the economic effects.

I don't know...

I'd be shocked if the museum ended up here. Lucas is probably doing a little gamesmanship. I hate to say, but it just seems more appropriate to be located in SF, not that I wouldn't love to see it in Chitown.

^. I don't know about that. We have the advantage of his wife's influence and Rahm's...persuasiveness.

New Chicago casino plan rises, but rocks ahead April 16, 2014

Armed with a revised plan and a new sponsor, advocates for a huge Chicago casino today will kick off the latest campaign to bring a massive gambling emporium downtown.


The plan will be the subject of an all-day Illinois House committee hearing, and it seems a little more realistic than some earlier versions. Even better for proponents, Gov. Pat Quinn has hinted that the latest version comes closer to what he wants than previous bills that he blocked.


But despite that, the proposal still faces long odds of clearing the Illinois General Assembly this spring, even though both the city and state badly need the revenue the casino might generate. A Chicago casino could feature up to 10,000 gambling positions, much larger than Rivers Casino in northwest suburban Des Plaines, which is licensed for just 1,200.

The latest proposal — in two parts — comes from state Rep. Bob Rita, D-Blue Island, who has taken over sponsorship of casino legislation from Skokie Democrat Lou Lang, who recently walked away from the issue after years of frustration.


One version of the measure, an amendment to SB 1739, would authorize five new casinos in downtown Chicago, the south suburbs and in or near Danville, Rockford and Waukegan. The measure also would authorize slot machines at racetracks and guarantee horsemen a cut of the take from casinos. That's the "Big Bill" approach Mr. Lang had followed in an effort to provide something of value to a multitude of Springfield interest groups.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...chicago-casino

I read an article on the proposed Lucas museum in the tribune today, and part of the committee that is assigned with choosing a site proposal is none other than Jeanne Gang...

Devestating news.:(:(:(



http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,7406836.story


Hot Doug's closing doors for good in October

By Kevin Pang

Tribune reporter

4:05 PM CDT, May 6, 2014

In this, our city built on encased meats, where a condiment like ketchup is holy sacrilege, where relish can only look like it’s been exposed to plutonium-239, there is but one abiding truth: Chicago takes its hot dogs seriously.

So when news came Tuesday morning, first on its home page, that the beloved hot dog stand Hot Doug’s was closing after 13 years of business, the ensuing reaction was thunderous.

Social media exploded in a chorus of nooooooooo’s.

Celebrities tweeted their lament.

Nearly every media organization in town camped out on the corner of Roscoe Street and California Avenue in Avondale, cameras trained at customers waiting in line, hoping to capture some sound bite of sorrow. Its owner and chef Doug Sohn said the restaurant will close for good at 4 p.m. on Oct. 3.

“I’m not burnt out. I also don’t want to be burnt out. It’s just time,” Sohn said.

By midday Tuesday, a line of diners stretched 50-deep along Roscoe, a familiar sight during Saturdays in the summer. It just so happens the occassion was a living wake.


“It’s like a dirge out here,” said Jacob Simmons, a 30-year-old from Logan Square, who arrived in line with his friend at 11:44 a.m. and would wait 47 minutes to order four hot dogs. “We came to pay our respects.”

The intense reaction may border on hyperbole, but Hot Doug’s is the rare restaurant that’s crossed over from mere sausage purveyor to pop cultural flashpoint. Its devotion seems real. Witness the many television appearances on national food shows (Anthony Bourdain’s “No Reservations”), the theme song composed by a fan (with acoustic remix!), a hardcover coffeetable book, celebrity endorsements — Aziz Ansari, Anna Kendrick et al., who waits in line with everyone else, no line jumping — and even those fanantical enough to tattoo a Hot Doug’s logo on their body with the promise of free hot dogs for the life of the business.

“I’ve taken a lot of advantage of it. It’s kind of a ritual now,” said Kirk Faber, who’s had his Hot Doug’s tattoo for a few years. He said he plans to be here once or twice a week this summer before it closes.

“I might have a heart attack. But, you know, that’s the price you pay for delicious, delicious food. And love.”

It’s just a hot dog place, sure, but it’s a hot dog place open only for only five-and-a-half hours, six days a week, blasting punk rock from loudspeakers and serving the most inventive sandwiches in the city. The restaurant’s gourmet take on the venerable hot dog looks like it was concocted by some culinary school-trained chef — and indeed Sohn was a 1995 graduate of Kendall College. On Fridays and Saturdays, the restaurant would serve french fries fried in duck fat. Sohn was doing this before duck fat frying was de rigueur at every white tablecloth restaurant across the country.

His was the restaurant bridging high gastronomy and Everyman Chicago food, making accessible high-end ingredients to the proletariat, such as serving a foie gras and Sauternes duck sausage with truffle aioli, foie gras mousse and sprinkled with fleur de sel for $10. It was this particular sandwich that earned Sohn a citation from the city during Chicago’s foie gras ban between 2006-2008. Rather than take duck liver off the menu, he displayed the $500 ticket on his counter in defiance. That hot dog remains on the menu today.

That combination of cheery kitsch, insubordinate streak, ambitious food, limited schedule, The Clash soundtrack, plus personal face time with Mr. Hot Doug himself — Sohn is the only man who takes your order — has garnered them street cred that is the envy of every restaurateur in the country.

Standing in line Tuesday was ...


Tribune reporter Brian Cassella contributed.

Hot Dougs closing is a tremendous blow. I'm actually way more bummed out about that than when the initial Charlie Trotters closing announcement occurred years ago. Given how long the lines are at Hot Dougs, can you imagine what they're gonna be like now?

delete because I am super cool and double post

Off topic request, can a mod please put a cool smiley tag on this thread? Those a really helpful for quickly navigating the chicago topics while still being exposed to the other interesting ideas and threads on this board as well.

Thanks,

Louis V
:cool::cool::cool: