CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

I doubt anyone, except perhaps a racist who believes that minorities are naturally violent and lazy, thinks there is one cause for the dire situation in parts of the South Side and West Side.
But I think it's fair to say a lack of investment in:
1) schools
2) subsidized housing
3) police
are some of the things that have caused those neighborhoods to be barely habitable.

No I don't think minorities are naturally violent or lazy...But i do feel (with regards to Chicago) you will find more violence and lack of family structure, moral structure, and educated individuals in predominate minority areas in the city. With that said it all comes down in the end to the individual and there family structure that lays the ground work for there future...you either stay in school and get your education or drop out and join a gang where you will rob, kill and continue the cycle. This is a black community issue that can only be solved by the black community themselves. They have to wake up and see the light.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

With that said it all comes down in the end to the individual and there family structure that lays the ground work for there future...you either stay in school and get your education or drop out and join a gang where you will rob, kill and continue the cycle. This is a black community issue that can only be solved by the black community themselves. They have to wake up and see the light.

This line of thinking essentially hand-waves the very institutional factors others in this thread have brought up. Things like redlining and the GI Bill are very real historical factors. Current issues like lead pipes and the war on drugs make it much more complex than "it comes down to the individual". These are real factors that are often out of the hands of the individual.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This line of thinking essentially hand-waves the very institutional factors others in this thread have brought up. Things like redlining and the GI Bill are very real historical factors. Current issues like lead pipes and the war on drugs make it much more complex than "it comes down to the individual". These are real factors that are often out of the hands of the individual.

Yes it does comes down the individuals!...what the hell you talking about... last i checked the president of the United states is a black man from the south side of Chicago...how did he make it then?...would it possibly be he made individual choices that would affect his future?...there are many other successful African Americans from the south side too..how did they make it?... your response is a good way to point the finger away from the individual and to play the blame game that has been going on forever...well what you see now is the result

[emathias]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Yes it does comes down the individuals!...what the hell you talking about... last i checked the president of the United states is a black man from the south side of Chicago...how did he make it then?...would it possibly be he made individual choices that would affect his future?...there are many other successful African Americans from the south side too..how did they make it?... your response is a good way to point the finger away from the individual and to play the blame game that has been going on forever...well what you see now is the result

With all due respect, sir, a single exceptional example does not break a rule.

And your first "example" isn't even applicable. Obama was not born in Chicago, he did not grow up in Chicago, he did not, for the most part, grow up around poverty. He even spent a significant part of his childhood outside of the United States. He is not the example you seem to think he is. The vast majority of Obama's childhood was made up of choices he did not make. His (white) mother made them. His (white) Kansas grandparents made them. He did not.

The fact that you see a black man and hear he's from Chicago and automatically assume he shares all the same factors as other black men in Chicago is a direct example of your prejudice. Note, I am not calling you a racist, but you do have prejudices (as do many, probably most people). It's not a moral failing to have prejudices. But it does create a responsibility that you acknowledge them and work to correct them. Knowing you have prejudices and doing nothing to understand and correct them, that would make you a racist.

Yes, individuals need to make good choices. But you know what? Your choices are limited by what you know. You can't make certain choices if you don't even know they exist. If you go to a school that doesn't teach you that there are geologists, and you have to work to help your mother after school and don't have a lot of time for personal self-discovery, you may not even know that being a geologist is a career, let alone a career you might want to have.

If a high school student isn't taught that there are ways to pay for college other than just paying cash, they may not even know that going to college is an option for nearly anyone who would like to do so and who studies hard.

If you are a 2-year-old, you don't choose to live in an old house that still has lead paint and lead pipes because the adults in your city and state and country made the choice to not require those known problems to be fixed. That choice was not available to be made by that 2-year-old. If that lead causes brain damage, that's not the fault of bad choices by the 2-year-old. It may not even be the fault of bad choices by the parents of that 2-year-old depending on the circumstances, it very well may be the fault of the politicians.

Pointing out that there are many, many external factors that affect every single one of us is not making excuses for bad choices. But it is admiting that *luck* (as defined as mathematical probabilities, not a mystic force) plays a role in how well any of us ends up doing in life. Trying to mitigate the worst aspects of people that experience "bad luck" isn't excusing bad behavior.

If anything, identifying external factors that contribute to "bad luck" and working to mitigate them *reinforces* the concept of personal accountability because it lowers the impact of "bad luck" hurting people and increases the role of personal choice.

So if you advocate personal choice, then logically you also need to fully back the identification and mitigation of external factors that undo even the best choices people might make.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by emathias

With all due respect, sir, a single exceptional example does not break a rule.

And your first "example" isn't even applicable. Obama was not born in Chicago, he did not grow up in Chicago, he did not, for the most part, grow up around poverty. He even spent a significant part of his childhood outside of the United States. He is not the example you seem to think he is. The vast majority of Obama's childhood was made up of choices he did not make. His (white) mother made them. His (white) Kansas grandparents made them. He did not.

The fact that you see a black man and hear he's from Chicago and automatically assume he shares all the same factors as other black men in Chicago is a direct example of your prejudice. Note, I am not calling you a racist, but you do have prejudices (as do many, probably most people). It's not a moral failing to have prejudices. But it does create a responsibility that you acknowledge them and work to correct them. Knowing you have prejudices and doing nothing to understand and correct them, that would make you a racist.

Yes, individuals need to make good choices. But you know what? Your choices are limited by what you know. You can't make certain choices if you don't even know they exist. If you go to a school that doesn't teach you that there are geologists, and you have to work to help your mother after school and don't have a lot of time for personal self-discovery, you may not even know that being a geologist is a career, let alone a career you might want to have.

If a high school student isn't taught that there are ways to pay for college other than just paying cash, they may not even know that going to college is an option for nearly anyone who would like to do so and who studies hard.

If you are a 2-year-old, you don't choose to live in an old house that still has lead paint and lead pipes because the adults in your city and state and country made the choice to not require those known problems to be fixed. That choice was not available to be made by that 2-year-old. If that lead causes brain damage, that's not the fault of bad choices by the 2-year-old. It may not even be the fault of bad choices by the parents of that 2-year-old depending on the circumstances, it very well may be the fault of the politicians.

Pointing out that there are many, many external factors that affect every single one of us is not making excuses for bad choices. But it is admiting that *luck* (as defined as mathematical probabilities, not a mystic force) plays a role in how well any of us ends up doing in life. Trying to mitigate the worst aspects of people that experience "bad luck" isn't excusing bad behavior.

If anything, identifying external factors that contribute to "bad luck" and working to mitigate them *reinforces* the concept of personal accountability because it lowers the impact of "bad luck" hurting people and increases the role of personal choice.

So if you advocate personal choice, then logically you also need to fully back the identification and mitigation of external factors that undo even the best choices people might make.

You have alot of fancy talk but when you look at the way you write and dig deeper your an example of why things would never change..firstly nobody said one example breaks a rule but Obama is a monumental figure for Chicago especially the south side to look up to...all black youth should be proud of him and he should give hope that larger goals are possible and can be achieved by a black person. Your basically saying he is a black man but he wasn't poor enough or lived in a bad enough area to validate himself?... Secondly my other point was there are poor black people from the south side who do not join Gangs and come from single family households , they finish High school, and go to college and become successful. It is possible you know. You should probably look at those success stories and find the common element that separates .

... Basically your a sympathizer of people who join Gangs and commit crime..you say its not there fault they drop out of school...the schools they go to are not good enough and don't teach them all the things they can do for there future ... Nobody said that the environment was an easy place for these youth to grow up in and that it would not have its challenges much more than some white kids from the suburbs but its not impossible and it takes a strong family and moral structure from the parents (or parent) to transcend down to the children, which many if not all of these Gang members/criminals do not have! they start off destined for failure without that, no matter how bad are good the school are (based on your opinion). The cycle continues and goes on and on. Wouldn't you think the most important factor is how your parents raise and en-grain personal responsibility/ moral code from your childhood as a pretty damn important factor in how your life will come out?

[pilsenarch]

chicubs111, I think you just bolstered emathias' point... how would you suggest we force poor African American families to suddenly exhibit a "strong family and moral structure"?

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

You have alot of fancy talk but when you look at the way you write and dig deeper your an example of why things would never change..firstly nobody said one example breaks a rule but Obama is a monumental figure for Chicago especially the south side to look up to...all black youth should be proud of him and he should give hope that larger goals are possible and can be achieved by a black person. Your basically saying he is a black man but he wasn't poor enough or lived in a bad enough area to validate himself?... Secondly my other point was there are poor black people from the south side who do not join Gangs and come from single family households , they finish High school, and go to college and become successful. It is possible you know. You should probably look at those success stories and find the common element that separates .

... Basically your a sympathizer of people who join Gangs and commit crime..you say its not there fault they drop out of school...the schools they go to are not good enough and don't teach them all the things they can do for there future ... Nobody said that the environment was an easy place for these youth to grow up in and that it would not have its challenges much more than some white kids from the suburbs but its not impossible and it takes a strong family and moral structure from the parents (or parent) to transcend down to the children, which many if not all of these Gang members/criminals do not have! they start off destined for failure without that, no matter how bad are good the school are (based on your opinion). The cycle continues and goes on and on. Wouldn't you think the most important factor is how your parents raise and en-grain personal responsibility/ moral code from your childhood as a pretty damn important factor in how your life will come out?

Obama is half black and was raised by his white mother and her family. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Just because Obama is black and lived/lives in Kenwood doesn't mean he has any personal experience as a poor black youth in crime-ridden urban neighborhoods.

[denizen467]

^ Don't be so dramatic. If the conversation organically envelops a related and relevant subject, that's a natural thing. Why shut all these people down when they are willing to go out on a limb and put out their thinking. Plus, it's a weekend early in the year and development news might be a little slow right now, and on the flip side we're right at the changeover of a political administration. That said, at some point soon a dedicated thread would be a good idea, although I'll tell you only a handful of diehards would end up continuing over there. Though I would add the forumer who initiated this talk is an outsider with a history of provoking controversial social discussions; I think the local regulars generally exercise more self-regulation and focus on their own.

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ Why shut all these people down when they are willing to go out on a limb and put out their thinking.

Thats not the idea. The topic is becoming politically and racially charged. While there are some valid points and opinions being expressed (many that i would like to respond to as well) this discussion could run on for many pages, effectively shutting out relevant photos and updates from other forumers. Thats all.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

chicubs111, I think you just bolstered emathias' point... how would you suggest we force poor African American families to suddenly exhibit a "strong family and moral structure"?

You cant force anything..Im not here to say there is a real world "magic bullet" that suddenly will solve everything ....that what my original point a few threads back.. that this only this can be solved within in the black community themselves and will take many many decades before you see positive results... The mentality is already firmly entrenched so unfortunately the immediate future doesn't looks so bright...
Thats how I will end this topic in this forum since i dont want to get the moderators upset and take the focus away from General deveolpment .

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

You have alot of fancy talk but when you look at the way you write and dig deeper your an example of why things would never change..firstly nobody said one example breaks a rule but Obama is a monumental figure for Chicago especially the south side to look up to...all black youth should be proud of him and he should give hope that larger goals are possible and can be achieved by a black person. Your basically saying he is a black man but he wasn't poor enough or lived in a bad enough area to validate himself?... Secondly my other point was there are poor black people from the south side who do not join Gangs and come from single family households , they finish High school, and go to college and become successful. It is possible you know. You should probably look at those success stories and find the common element that separates .

no one is denying this. that said, young schoolkids have seen white presidents on the wall for 240 years. it is essentially the archetype of what a stereotypical United States president in everyone's brain looks like. and its even more specific than that. white MEN. white RELIGIOUS MEN. white RICH RELIGIOUS MEN. white STRAIGHT RICH WHITE RELIGIOUS MEN. not universally in all cases, but pretty fucking consistently.

so yes, we had someone come in and shatter that notion in 2008. that said, 2008 was the first time a young black kid could look at the face of a president and see a reflection of himself in that image. an affirmation that "yes, this is something i can actually become".

so while there now is a precedent from a childs perspective for what is achievable, there certainly isnt 200+ years of precedent and affirmation in the same way there is from a white straight male perspective. talk to me in 200 years when we have had gay, bi, atheist, women, minority presidents coming from poor or average means consistently, and maybe we can talk about there finally being a level playing field in this country. the reality is, we just had an election that flung the country far back in the other direction.

[the urban politician]

"If you think I gave you power, then you've got nothing!

Power ain't something you're given.

Real power....is something you take!"

-----Jock Ewing. Dallas

Point being, the world doesn't become a better place by merely walking around and whining about how unfair everything is like a crybaby. To achieve your goals you have to play the game and beat them at it. Sympathy will only advance your cause as far as the sympathizer's wish it, and when their pleasure of feeling sorry for their poor little pet dog wears out you find you have advanced very little from where you've started, with your station still being leagues below those whom you are trying to achieve equality with.

[Mr Roboto]

Families where the father is locked up or not present will automatically have children (particularly young males) much more prone to violent behavior, poor performance in school, and ultimately less chance of success. I think this weighs in the heaviest on these areas.

The presence of male role models, or lack thereof, and a well-structured family are ultimately the most important factor in the success of people coming out of these areas. The prevalence of father-less families is absolutely debilitating to any young children. The numbers back that up.

Perhaps that is where obama relates to some these young kids on the south side, he didn't have his father, but he had a very driven mother who stressed education and fairly stable grandparent situation and grew up in more stable areas. Even still, obama is remarkably exceptional.

My own personal situation: I grew up lower-middle class and without a father but in a fairly stable area, and a mother with a solid educational background. I also was easily influenced by peers, from similar broken family situations, and close to going down toward a path of negativity and recklessness. Eventually i was influenced to return to a more stable path of education and becoming a productive member of society, but it wasnt easy. Suffice to say, as a young man, a father would have played a strong role in keeping me straight as a youth.

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

"If you think I gave you power, then you've got nothing!

Power ain't something you're given.

Real power....is something you take!"

-----Jock Ewing. Dallas

Point being, the world doesn't become a better place by merely walking around and whining about how unfair everything is like a crybaby. To achieve your goals you have to play the game and beat them at it. Sympathy will only advance your cause as far as the sympathizer's wish it, and when their pleasure of feeling sorry for their poor little pet dog wears out you find you have advanced very little from where you've started, with your station still being leagues below those whom you are trying to achieve equality with.

Whining like a crybaby isnt what the concern is, the concern is giving people merely an opportunity to better their lives someway. Criminals have much the same mentality as your quote above btw. not very productive either way.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

to achieve your goals you have to play the game and beat them at it.

what if the game is rigged against you?

what if you weren't taught the skills to play the game?

what if none of your role models had ever played the game before?

what if mistakes made in youth precluded you from ever being allowed to play the game for the rest of your life?


you can't just throw someone who doesn't know how to swim into a swimming pool and say "now go win a gold medal, that's the game".

[the urban politician]

^ It's a fair issue to bring up. Problem is, far too many people don't even try

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's a fair issue to bring up. Problem is, far too many people don't even try

teaching people how to swim is a A LOT more complicated than just simply yelling "try harder" at them.

[sentinel]

Edit: deleted to protect people involved. If you didn't read the earlier version, pm me and I will tell you.

[the urban politician]

Speaker Madigan wrote an Op-Ed in today's Crains and the commentators are tearing him a new one.

Well deserved. He is a horrible person who is destroying Illinois

[bnk]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...rauner-lost-it


July 14, 2017
Greg Hinz on Politics

Has Bruce Rauner lost it?

Earlier today:

I heard the same question in so many words in at least a dozen conversations in the past week, every one of them with top Springfield Republicans: "What the @&*#! is Bruce Rauner up to?"

"Unrealistic," says one Capitol veteran. "He's mentally ill," snaps another. "It's a head-scratcher," opines a third. "His re-election chances will go to zero if this continues," says a fourth. "He sure has doubled down," suggests a fifth. "It's awful," says a sixth. "He's ideological at heart,"..


...


Nor will I dwell on the fact that Rauner hasn't seemed to figure out yet that you can't act like Walker and force through a bunch of anti-union changes unless your legislature is majority Republican, like Wisconsin's. Or that the institute's budget plan—throw 600,000 people off Medicaid, strip cities and school districts of billions of dollars of state aid, effectively abolish collective bargaining in the public sector, and require two-thirds approval for the "sacred act" of raising taxes—was about as realistic as Rauner being named AFL-CIO man of the year





comments

Greg Hinz • 2 days ago
To some of my friends who are with Rauner 101%:
1) I have been almost as critical about Madigan, like in a column last May -- http://www.chicagobusiness.... -- in which I described him as "a total tactician" and asked, "at this point in his career, does he give a damn about anything other than doing what it takes to win the next election?" Some of you may have forgotten posts like that. I guarantee you the speaker hasn't
2) Every person quoted in my opening is a ranking republican. Every single one. I could quote more of them. The governor's actions are being questioned by his own allies.
3) "Revolution," which is what Rauner seems to be doubling down on now, is not conservative. It is radical. A true conservative believes in careful consideration and incremental change.
4) It's easy to sluff off "collateral damage." But how many of you biiiig talking commentators have a kid who couldn't attend college because their MAP grant disappeared in the budget impasse? How many had an elderly parent who didn't get their therapy or home-health-care visit because the providing agency hadn't been paid because of the budget impasse? How many big employers didn't come here with jobs -- GE? -- because this governor was busy bad mouthing the state because he couldn't get every last thing on his agenda 100%.
Ponder stuff like that just a little bit, would ya? You may not agree with me. But the stance I took today is not extreme, outlandish or partisan