Withdraw Now!

Anon... are you saying the south side hasn't experienced "change it can believe in"? 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Six or Nine killed over the past weekend.. and the great quote from the City was... well it wasnt as bad as last year or in past years for this weekend, so we are making some progress.....

Political Correctness

We need more clear thinkers like this:
  
The following is the 2007 winning entry from an annual contest at  major
university calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary
term. This year's term was Political Correctness.
  
The winner wrote, "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a
delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely
possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

I truly thought this thread would be about the nursing home. :)

This from someone who says another poster is mutilating children?

Actions display decency or they don't. Me making sarcastic comments from a distance to score political points about horrific situations in Iraq is insensitive and indecent, in my opinion. It was especially mocking because many of us feel that the bulk of the society has already pulled out of the situation in our neighborhoods, and the "liberals" you refer to are the only ones doing anything concrete. I have my own issues with politicians who hide behind anti-gun rhetoric, but this isn't the way to discuss that.

I don't mock rape because I know in my audience, there is probably someone who has been hurt enough that it would be indecent to treat it flippantly.

IP is generally a pretty caring person. This crossed all sorts of lines. These are not numbers, they are kids and kids who are close to a lot of people, including some of those who post here. If he wants to actually discuss the type of issues you raise Glock, I'm sure he and you will find that I am a worthy conversation partner.

This post has no hint of any sort of interest or care for my kids. It was flippant and accomplished nothing in the way of addressing the root problem. As far as I can tell, it managed to deeply upset the only person on the board who is directly addressing the problem on a daily basis. I'm sure there's others reading, but they haven't weighed in at this juncture.

Then runforcoverliberal came in to mock my pain.

When you make fun of kids we have lost, it hurts me. It hurts me deeply. If that makes me thin-skinned, I'm sorry. I'd like to think we all deal with grief in our own way.

You have to give Jordy a break; he's proved himself to be a complete, elbow-grabbing tard again and again.

Sorry, mocking him in this way does nothing positive.

And that's insulting to those of us who are breaking ourselves over it and in the middle of it and certainly not "doing nothing".

As I said in the first post, we feel as if along race and class lines, America has already "pulled out" of these communities. Especially, when the money funneled into Iraq would have certainly helped deal with the problems we face. You can go meta on me for calling Gordy "indecent", but it was as civil a response as I could come up with and one I worked hard to produce.

I'll wait to hear more from Gordy, but it appears to me that he was not discussing Chicago at all, but using Chicago to discuss the war. It also appears that Gordy--while being a good guy who surely cares in some general way about my kids and everyone else--was not particularly looking for solutions or seeking to contribute on the issues we face.

"insulting remarks about minorities"

I guess we all see what we want to see?

And the point of bringing up Obama was not to smear him, nor was it to blame him for the deaths, it was, as I stated in my post and here, to criticize his record and policies as being more of the same, which obviously isn't helping.  Of course even attacking record and policies anymore is a "smear campaign" apparently, but only against Obama.  Arguing that McCain is offering more of the same in Iraq in spite of his well known record of fighting for leadership/policy changes to deal with Iraq is perfectly within reason.  Obama painting his skeptics as being bigots is okay and not insulting, but noting Chicago is like a war zone to bring attention to the violence problem there is an 'insulting remark about minorities.'

Color me confused.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

I am being as reasonable as possible. I just cannot fathom why you would choose to pick at our loss and then imply that I don't know what is going on or trying to push my policy.

My "policy" is to try my damndest to keep my kids from dying. I work hard and push for policy that will address this. I am fully aware that tougher restrictions on guns will help only in a minor way and spend next to none of my energy promoting such policy. (Glock's ideas miss the environmental realities of our neighborhoods, and I'll elaborate if we want to have that discussion, and that's the only reason why I don't agree with him in the way I do in more rural areas), I spend the vast majority of my energy pushing for social and educational reform through direct means (lobbying and press) and working to empower my students on these issues so their voices are heard since they are the ones who understand the situation best. (Yes even better than compassionate conservatives in Champaign-Urbana.)

The idea that I'm "hyper" or something because I'm deeply upset by an "interesting juxtaposition" of my students dying with a war that someone is interested in with no active attempt to help is fascinating to me. Once again, like for much of this thread, I'm having trouble finding civil words. So I think I'll leave it there.

If you want to have an actual discussion on how to reduce the violence, I'd be happy to do so if you won't come at me with aggressive proclamations of how it is in our community. If you want to make inflammatory comparisons with no substance or subsurface understanding, I'm going to assume that your interest is not genuine.

Gordy:  The problem here was with the tone of the original post.  By deliberately mimicking the language used for arguments to end the war, it becomes possible for people to reasonably interpret your remarks as mocking anti-war activists, particularly since your support for the war is pretty well known.  At that point, it's just a heartbeat and half a breath to the feeling that you are also mocking the efforts of anti-urban violence activists.  Laid out coldly on the printed page (or screen), it is therefore very easy to read a sneer or smirk into the approach that you used.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but any defense of your actual intentions should probably have been preceeded by an acknowledgement of the potential imperfections in delivery.

I'm mocking the PC/speech police.  There are some good examples in this very thread of why I was doing so.  I'm still trying to figure out D.Boon's accusation that what I wrote was insulting to minorities.

Without speaking for Boon, I think I can field this. You are talking about intensely segregated communities and schools. I don't mean "predominantly non-white", I mean "white people refuse to enroll their kids in this mixed economic school with black students".

You are talking about an area of the city that doesn't receive proper services--the roads have been shown to be serviced less, they have a different, less frequent cleaning schedule than the rest of the city, and our schools are often left out of programs that non-far South schools receive.

When you appear to be mocking a neglect area of all black population, it is perfectly logical that people would question the racial element. I don't think there's any possibility that you were making an intentionally racist dynamic--0%. But certainly race is present admist the myriad issues contributing to the understandable "bitterness" in this case.

Finally, I'm not speaking to you on this, but many will say, "If that sucks, why not go after Daley?" We are, and have been. We wish there was more support. If you would like to help us get rid of Daley and push in someone who more of the community are behind (sorry, that means FURTHER left--Daley is basically Chicago's equivalent of a Republican), please do. We need that help.

I find it interesting that, again, the underlying premise here is that there are "policies" that have led to this level of violence.  Or, to probably be more specific, there must be policies that have failed miserably because we can clearly see that there is still violence.

What policies are we talking about, exactly?  Does anyone care to elaborate how government assistance programs led to the deaths of these young people?  I know we've heard that Obama is bad and his "policies" are definitely bad.  But I still haven't seen word one typed up about the policies that are causing this violence, and the counter-proposals that would fix this violence.

I for one am all ears.  Please let us know about how welfare has led to the deaths of these young people.

btw - as far as race goes, people were upset with Obama because he made his comments about white small town folks.  Obama is black.  Race played a part in that outrage.  You have made your comments about black, inner-city folks.  Basically using these deaths as a convenient instrument to make a political point on a blog.  You're white.  I highly doubt you would make the same comments about a car full of white kids who crashed in the suburbs after drinking too much.  Race plays a part in the outrage.

"I find it interesting that, again, the underlying premise here is that there are "policies" that have led to this level of violence.  Or, to probably be more specific, there must be policies that have failed miserably because we can clearly see that there is still violence."

A little of both in my opinion.  Years of dealing with these problems with harsher sentencing and more jails and neglecting the underlying causes seems to be a factor.  As others have noted, urban blight has been a factor.  Economic policies that either ignore or write off some of these communities is a factor.  Government assistance is alright by me, but without any incentives or matched programs for job training/education/etc you have many people lacking in marketable jobs skills in poverty going in, and coming out without any change.   A lack of any serious community/police cooperative program to add more police without turning the place into a police state or  increase resentment.  Serious committment to impoving the educational environment, in the schools, in the community, and in the home, by both the government and in cooperation with community leaders.

I'm just rambling off some issues, I'm sure somebody could write a book with a thousand more and how to get that off the ground without stunting economic growth and killing/driving off tax revenue sources for paying for it.

"Does anyone care to elaborate how government assistance programs led to the deaths of these young people?" and "Please let us know about how welfare has led to the deaths of these young people."

eh?

"btw - as far as race goes, people were upset with Obama because he made his comments about white small town folks.  Obama is black.  Race played a part in that outrage."

Yeah, it had nothing to do with his generalizations of his skeptics of disliking people not like them or being skeptical of him because of his race.  It had nothing to do with this attitude of his and yours that his detractors generally have some sort of race problem.  That's not condescending or offensive at all.  Really...

"You're white.  I highly doubt you would make the same comments about a car full of white kids who crashed in the suburbs after drinking too much.  Race plays a part in the outrage."

I've actually used the analogy of gun deaths to that of traffic deaths often to point out the absurdity of bans on tools instead of cracking down on the misuse and underlying causes, such as criminal misuse, proper training,  cultural issues, and misguided policies, etc.  Are members of MADD just protecting their race? 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Somehow I have a feeling that it has more to do with refusing to enroll their kids in schools because:

Not to be rude, but you feeling is not supported by any facts. Areas or schools' failure to receive services often coincides with race, and this is no exception. This is a school with a small percentage of middle class students, but most years zero white families sending their kids to the school. That's not just class. It's also race.

"Areas or schools' failure to receive services often coincides with race, and this is no exception. This is a school with a small percentage of middle class students, but most years zero white families sending their kids to the school. That's not just class. It's also race."

These are two separate issues.  One is that the area/schools are getting lousy services there.... that you're saying is due to the race of the people living there.

The other is a suggestion that anyone, white or otherwise, would want to move to such a disaster or put their kids in schools facing such problems.  That makes no sense.  I'd imagine that almost anyone with a choice and/or finances to live anywhere else would choose to live somewhere else.  If it's as bad as you say it is... why would anyone want to be there?  What's the motivation?  How would you convince a family, white, black, purple, translucent, etc to move to a place where kids die just trying to get to and from school?

I don't see race having anything to do with that decision.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

"(Yes, this is a converse of the "What's the matter with Kansas?" question.  No, that question didn't offend me either.)"

Reading your comment, I was all set to point that out and ask "What's the matter with Chicago?" when I got to the end and you beat me to it.  Careful, or you'll be accused of being arrogant, condescending, insulting and/or paternalistic...   ;-)

I don't see race having anything to do with that decision.

Down here, there are some who are convinced this is happening because of race.  I'm convinced that discipline/safety problems and a withdrawal from the larger community by the District are more to blame, although an explicitly discriminatory consent decree is also a factor.

It is interesting to me that so few are able to see race as a factor in all that is happening in Chicago and around this country.  This has kind of been the underlying theme of a lot of discussions around here over the last couple of months.  Obama's pastor's comments were almost impossible for any of the more conservative commenters to understand, and completely intolerable to them.  As if black folks don't have a legitimate reason to be angry at America, or something.  Obama's "bitter" comments (while not completely about race) were interpreted in such an extreme way by people who felt offended that he was attacking their "traditions".  A black man saying something somewhat insulting about white, small town America.  The anger was quick and vicious.

Now this.  And we want to talk about welfare policies and school vouchers.  We want to point the finger at Democratic mayors and aldermen.  But no one seems too interested in talking about the racial makeup of these neighborhoods, and the way that has been/is being created.  It is a long, complicated story of course.  But white flight is a very real thing and I am not convinced that many folks in the Chicagoland area would move their families into Engelwood or South Austin even if those schools were the best in the country, but were still 98% minority. 

So ... do conservatives believe race is still a legitimate issue to take into consideration?  Do conservatives still see racism as a legitimate force in American society?  Or are you under the impression that the country has moved on, and race is no longer important?

Non-PC question: the public schools are all black, and they are now run by the Democratic Mayor (and have been since the mid-1990s, IIRC).  Why do black voters keep overwhelmingly re-electing the same people who are servicing their schools so poorly?  Is there no interest in accountability, do they feel someone else is to blame, are there more important issues, or do they feel powerless to make the sorts of political changes needed to get the services their schools need?  Or some other option I haven't considered?

(Yes, this is a converse of the "What's the matter with Kansas?" question.  No, that question didn't offend me either.)

Great question, and completely appropriate. Black voters are split. In our community, Daley got very little support and his pet alders were ousted. I think the distance causes you to miss the countless people who risk their careers and livlihoods to combat the Daley machine. So there is a deep interest in accountability and many blame Daley and Duncan. The powerlessness issue is also present.

But the irony is that you are indirectly blaming the working class communities for the constant reelection of Daley and his cronies, when they are split. It's the more affluent, whiter communities that continue to support him overwhelmingly since he continues to push out poor minorities from their homes and jobs and give them over to incoming gentrifiers. At Englewood, they had a Jim Crow set-up where the kids who had attended the school for their entire careers were forced to use the back door so as to not "get in the way" of the incoming charter school students.

Daley takes care of his elite support base and they take care of him.

Many of you seem to see Chicago in the same light as the rest of the country--red and blue state. Chicago is not a battle ground between Repblican and Democrat. It is a battle between Elitist and Populist Democrats. That's why many Chicagoans feel that the only decent mayor they've seen in their lifetime was Washington.

Can we talk about the policies which led to these segregated neighborhoods?  Can we talk about who enacted those policies, and who enables them to continue still today?

Sure. The history is interesting. We don't really even need to look back though--the same policies that were pushed by old man Daley have been refined and are being used now. Pushing development and tax increases, switching to selective enrollment schools, tearing down public housing and offering no affordable alternative and presto! you have a completely different make-up for a neighborhood. Don't forget the documented practice of real estate steering which has been scientifically supported in that study I'm always linking around here.

(And I'm still trying to figure out how and why you think I insulted minorities with my original post.)

Well, I thought I explained well in a way that would help you see the perspective, but was not vilifying.

Instead, things appear to this outside observer to be nearly as bad - in terms of violence, poverty, segregation - as thery were 15 years ago.  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong, but in the opposite direction. Most indicators suggest that they are much worse. That's what you get for electing a (relatively) right-wing mayor who neglects the poor.

_____________________________

Glock, I don't think your anecdotal post is relevant. You basically pull out one tangential example in New Orleans (which is actually a decent comparison community for a lot of reasons--fighting poverty by trying to get rid of the poor, demolishing the school system and replacing it with something worse, etc.), and use it to say that my reality doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that their aren't African American middle class parents who send their kids elsewhere. I'm saying that in the end SOME do. And NO white parents do. The reasons are plentiful. Some parents want their children to be powerful reformers rather than average high school students. They send them to Julian because they believe that they can improve the school. It's a shame we respond to that by underfunding and asking them why they don't go elsewhere since they have the means.

_____________________________

IL Voter: Have you considered the possibility that some people might not like to see light made of their kids being killed? Not everyone is isolated from this violence.

To me, Chicago is a great city, but a sad example of the failures of Democratic leadership.

Right, and I am not sure what you mean by "Democratic Leadership".  If anything, Chicago is an example of a great city that is horribly racist, or at least extremely classist, at its core.  There are so many problems present at this point that it would take entire book just to dissect one of them.  For example, the War on Drugs, which takes young black men off of the street and incarcerates them for five, ten years at a time for possession with intent.  Or gun violence.  Guns are so easy to procure on the streets of Chicago that some kids end up holding a gun in their hands before they learn to ride a bike.  I could go on.  Poverty, lack of respectable employment, gentrification, insufficient funding for schools.  Hell, what happened to Midnight Baskebtall?

Look, just because Chicago has had one Democratic administration after another doesn't mean that they have tried progressive strategies when it comes to dealing with the problem of violence.  It doesn't mean Daley isn't progressive in other areas, he certainly is.  But on this particular issue he seems to have bitten the apple of desperation and allowed his Law and Order side to take over.  And now we see the results.

Of course I would also like to add that this incident, as horrific as it is, is not reflective of the millions of young minority students in Chicago who are making the right choices every day and trying hard to do the right thing.  For every story like this we could also have 100 stories of students who were just accepted to U of I, or who are working hard to support their families.  It is more than a bit unfair to look at one terrible incident and then declare that entire communities are failures.

As for the minority attack thing, you used the deaths of young minorities in a fairly cynical and definitely inappropriate way: to make a political point on a blog.  As I said above, I don't see you writing this post the same way if three white kids OD on meth in the suburbs over the weekend.  There have been billions of dollars poured into getting white kids to stop doing drugs, yet this weekend millions of white kids will do millions of dollars worth of drugs.  And some will die because of their actions.  Where's the cynical tie-in to Iraq in that story?

And if that doesn't seem appropriate (it certainly doesn't to me), then why is it appropriate to co-opt the sorrow and mourning of these families to make a point about Iraq or, in Glock's case, to throw more mud at Obama?

as the student would have no power over funding, staffing, etc let alone government policies to deal with local issues that affect the educational issues.  They might be convinced that somehow their student just being there will somehow help bring change on issues far beyond their influence as a student, but they'd have a hard time convincing others of it.  Especially since it would generally conflict with what most parents expect from their school, improving their kids, not the other way around.

Well, this is where we have different visions of education. Of course a student should and can have power over funding, staffing etc. And often with fighting, they can gain that power.

I imagine that being an embedded reformer yourself, it's probably far easier for you to relate to those who would send their children into this mess hoping for some sort of positive result.  I think with your role as a teacher you have far better odds of having a positive result, at least on an individual level with the students and perhaps with some policies, but as you've noted the bigger changes require the cooperation of others, many with conflicting interests, that a student would have even less effect on.

As an outsider and an adult authority figure of ethnic other background, it is very challenging to reform. There are thousands of others trying and failing. I would like to think I'm succeed, but for the exact reason that I disagree with what you've written above--students have much more potential power to change the system than I do, and I nurture and support them in doing so.

If you did not feel that power in your schooling, I would argue that your schooling was inadequate.

I find it very interesting to hear Daley described as "a (relatively) right-wing mayor"

"Well, this is where we have different visions of education."

Actually I support your vision of education in this regard.  My beef is with the environment that I find to be a strong underlying factor for all of the "thousands of others trying and failing."

"If you did not feel that power in your schooling, I would argue that your schooling was inadequate."

Actually I had many wonderful teachers, especially in high school who just tried and failed miserably when it came to inspiring hope or empowerment.  Their attempts to do so came off as naive, wearing rose-colored glasses, or simply dishonest since it stood in stark contrast to reality as I saw it and with my experiences.

Contrast this with the influence of peers and others who embrace the hopelessness, defy the authorities, encourage the aggressiveness, and/or utilize the apparent violent nature of man to create an instant-gratification mode of empowerment.  A teacher can attempt to inspire hope and empowerment and have some successes, but they're in competition with those who openly mock them and point to their environment as proof that there is no hope, that the system has essentially written them off, and those that try to keep you in line are merely keeping you a slave to it.  They can point to the failures of the hopeful reformers as further proof.  They can point to countless examples within their environment and the environment itself as incontrovertible proof that they actually get it.  And all to often, they win this debate among their target audience... and unfortunately it becomes more a self-fulfilling prophecy than anything. 

It's probably one of the greatest battles over the hearts and minds of our generation.  But it seems highly unlikely that parents would want to intentionally throw their kids into the front lines.  Your offer of a better vision doesn't negate the other influences that would be actively working against you, and most importantly the kids, in this environment.  If they have the means, they'd be better off ensuring their kids learned empowerment in an environment that doesn't directly contrast the message, often convincingly so. 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

It's probably one of the greatest battles over the hearts and minds of our generation.  But it seems highly unlikely that parents would want to intentionally throw their kids into the front lines.  Your offer of a better vision doesn't negate the other influences that would be actively working against you, and most importantly the kids, in this environment.  If they have the means, they'd be better off ensuring their kids learned empowerment in an environment that doesn't directly contrast the message, often convincingly so. 

 You are using the hypothetical. I am living the real counterexample. I don't really think this is much of an argument. 

"Um, no. You don't get to tell me how bad my environment is, and you don't get to tell my kids who, not to be rude, but have already progressed beyond your level of cynicism that they don't exist."

Actually you were telling us how bad their environment is.  I wasn't going to dispute your description.  I wasn't denying the existence of the success stories, merely pointing out why I think there are thousands trying and failing, as you pointed out.

"...but you don't get to say that the African American parents who work with their kids to try to improve these environments are dumb because they aren't as cynical as you."

Not sure how you took anything I was saying as black parents being dumb, for not being cynical or anything else.  I'm not disputing any good intentions behind their decisions nor that there may be other reasonable factors... just that I wouldn't blame anybody, regardless of race, assessing the risk as too high. 

"And I'm not saying that all of the white parents are wrong to pull their kids. I'm saying that the fact that ALL of them share your perspective and it breaks down along racial lines is troubling. Because while you have this doom and gloom viewpoint that reinforces segregation, you don't have race based motives. Others clearly do."

This might be putting the cart before the horse a bit, imo.  While I doubt that all whites share my particular perspective, I'm sure they have many of the same worries and fears as anyone else does there.  You top that off with an environment that is already fairly segregated, already divided along racial lines, already heavily focused on race, and where they are the minority... is it any surprise that they may be more predisposed to bail?  Especially given our prior conversations about the justifications behind resentment of and frustration towards whites by minorities there.  Such things could lead to far weaker ties to the community or possibly even a feeling of rejection by it... and with all of the other problems you describe, there would be far less incentive to stay if the opportunity to move presents itself.

"As I said before, you are playing hypothetical, because you are using your single experience to paint all of my students. You are the one making the absolute argument--"No child can survive this, so no one should try!""

I'm actually trying to avoid painting any students, yours or others there, with the same brush.  Perhaps it bears repeating in each post how I'm applyinig this perspective only partially and not towards everyone.  I think in your work you are a positive influence that helps kids succeed.  My perspectives apply more to where others you pointed out tried and failed because there are plenty of negative influences that are unfortunately helping kids fail.  Certainly not all though.  I think we both recognize that there are perfectly bright kids out there that succeed in spite of the extra challenges stacked up against them... and there are also perfectly bright kids who, in spite of positive influences by good teachers, still end up throwing their lives away due to the negative influences of others.

My argument is anything but 'no child can survive this, so no one should try.'  On the contrary, I'm arguing more along the lines of risk than absolutes when it comes to success or failure.  Arguing more along the lines of incentives to try rather than whether or not it is something one should or should not do.  My initial comments were far closer to being absolute because I was referring to the idea that people from other communities would move into a community described so dismally more than why people may or may not stay or utilize the schools in the neighborhoods in which they live.

"I am merely arguing that it is not only salvageable but that some children rise out of diversity to be heroic far beyond those in more privileged environments. So you don't get to use one counterexample to dismiss them. I do get to use one counterexample to disprove yours because it is absolute."

I really hope that the situation is salvageable as well.  And I agree wholeheartedly that those who go through hell sometimes become great leaders, sometimes the best of all of them.  Sometimes going through hell also turns people cold, heartless, and destructive.  Sometimes they end up being both, which can get really ugly.

From a parent's perspective though, the risk will almost inevitably seem too high for a negative consequence.  I believe that you yourself noted your frustration with the success rates out of your area when compared to others.  Is it absolute? Absolutely not.  But it's a tough sell given the risk.  If they see someone like Barack Obama as a success story, who according to him lucked out with being able to attend "a fancy prep school" then wouldn't they see the risks as generally being too high for a result that could be had with less risk?

"So I'm sorry, I think you are assuming your own weaknesses on to others.  That's not a judgment--I'm coming from a place of educational privilege that I certainly have no right to judge. However, I have a right to defend my kids who are coming from what must be in some circumstances, even more challenging than your own, and yet are able to rise and not only excel, but improve the environment around them."

No apologies necessary.  I can certainly see how my comments came off that way.  But let me assure you that I'm not talking about weakness here.  I agree that your kids are probably facing greater challenges than many adults will ever face.  And whether they succeed or fail, they may come out of their experiences tougher than nails.  Those that succeed will probably be able to put their experiences to good use.  That's what I'm trying to do with mine now.  But the cards they were dealt are stacked against them there.  And the risk of failure may seem far too high to many parents.  My experiences are only partially applicable on some of those risks, not some sort of universal norm for every situation and every kid. 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Some of it is just consistency of environment. Math in particular is a subject where you need to believe in the existence of consistency to succeed, unless you are one of the few who can derive your way through everything.

I have been working with a few of our more brilliant kids in math, and the biggest problem is tha