Frank-Palmer | Chicago Reader

Recent Comments

Re: “What will ‘Trumpsportation’ mean for Chicago?

The question isn't whether one should cooperate with Trump when he wants to do some good when you know that he wants to do so much evil. The point is that Trump suggests no good even on infrastructure.
Today, our dams, levies, sewers and roads are aging and crumbling. Trump has no suggestion on fixing the dams. levies, or sewers. He has a plan for new roads rather than fixing the old ones which are crumbling.

And the plan for new roads is less to build more than to transfer public property into private hands. The new privately-owned toll roads which his plan will subsidize through tax breaks are of four sorts. the ones which would be privately owned toll roads without his plan, the toll roads which would be built by a public authority without his plan, the ones which would be publicly-owned freeways without his plan, and the ones which wouldn't be built without his plan.
The first sort will only shift public money into private hands without changing the transportation situation at all.
The second sort will shift public money into private hands in the short haul to fund a situation which will shift more public money into private hands slowly over the next decades.
The third sort will cost the taxpayers the subsidy now and cost the drivers the tolls into the future as long as teh roads last.
The fourth sort will be the only roads which will be added tot he mix, and that will increase the burning of fossil fuels and the Global Warming that Trump doesn't see with his eyes tight shut.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Frank-Palmer on 11/28/2016 at 4:10 PM

Re: “Chicago’s new, frightening reality: A blue city in the red nation

It wasn't really that bad.
Clinton won the POPULAR VOTE.
Trump edged very narrowly in PA, Wi, Mi. That was enough to win, but wiinning 3 (and the biggest three) of the four states that close is a statistical unlikelihood.

15 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Frank-Palmer on 11/10/2016 at 6:44 PM

Re: “People who give racism a free pass are part of the Trump problem

Letting racism pass is being an accessory. Likewise, misogyny.

Posted by Frank-Palmer on 11/07/2016 at 3:46 PM

Re: “Political parties need to get with the country’s changing demographics—or get left behind

The "See Change" article had some revealing data, but also some sloppy assumptions. The "Republican Party's leadership" did make some efforts with people of color.
Their primary voters ignored them. (Indeed, not only Trump but Cruz and Carlson ran specifically against the Republican establishment.) The decision was baked in the cake a generation earlier.

The New-Deal coalition included both northern African Americans (most of the AAs who could vote at the time) and southern whites (most of the southerners who could vote at the time). This led to obvious conflicts.
In 1948, the Democratic National Convention decided in favor of the interests of AAs; the Dixiecrats bolted.
In 1964 and more consciously in 1968, the Republicans welcomed the Dixiecrats into their ranks. Soon after, southern African Americans followed their northern brethren into the Democratic Party.

Haters gotta hate. Now, anti-black prejudice and anti-Latino prejudice (and Islamophobia and homophobia) are not logically connected. They seem to correlate strongly among people, though.
The Republican coalition includes most of the haters, and they are so interlaced that excluding one group without excluding the others would be impossible. And, again, who has the power to exclude?

And the slow sorting has worked on the Democratic Party as well. The people who want to avoid the haters have nowhere else to go. It doesn't hurt that most new groups -- immigrants and the socially excluded -- tend to gather in the cities, and the cities tend to be Democratic.
Then, too, the open minded among the privileged groups find the Democratic Party more welcoming.

As to the threats of Latinos if they are ignored. Only once in US history has a third party risen to national electoral significance -- and it has been tried scores of times.
The two national parties of the 1850s could not deal with the prime issue of their day - slavery. Simply being national precluded that. A single-issue party arose; the country split; and that party adopted other issues and survives to this day, if remarkably transformed.

You can say that the Democrats are putting too little emphasis on the liberal side of almost any of the issues of today. You cannot say that there is no difference between the parties on that issue. Immigration and Latino rights are two issues where there is a remarkable difference between the parties. A third party on that issue would go nowhere; it would merely dilute the strength of the party doing more on the issue.

Indeed, there is no more a group doing the deciding for the Democratic Party -- smaller than the primary electorate -- than there is for the Republican Party.

The future holds more Latinos in elective office and other positions of influence in the Democratic Party.
Right now, Gutierrez can walk into Pelosi's office and say, "There are a lot of bills coming up that my constituents don't care one way or another; I could keep them a lot happier about my votes on those issues if we passed the Dream Act this term."
Of course, this would have more effect were Pelosi to be speaker.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Frank-Palmer on 11/07/2016 at 3:41 PM

Re: “When Chicago cops shoot

On the fantasy that civilians doing open carry would stop cops shooting:

The actual statistics are that European cops shoot very few people and kill fewer, and Europe has no open-carry countries. There were more police shootings in the USA in March than there have been in the UK since 1900.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Frank-Palmer on 05/26/2015 at 4:47 PM

Re: “When Chicago cops shoot

No, finding that all the shootings were found justified doesn't make me feel safe. (Being white makes me feel safER.)

Two statistical comparisons that I know.

In a recent year, police in all England were involved in FOUR shooting incidents, none of them fatal. Bobbies reluctance to shoot, and their going mostly without guns, hasn't made their work more dangerous than Chicago police jobs.

Cop is not among the ten most dangerous jobs in the USA. Does someone have a comparison between the number of times Chicago cops fire because they think the target is armed and the number of times Chicago cops take a bullet?

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Frank-Palmer on 05/26/2015 at 4:44 PM

Re: “The most important issue no one's talking about in the mayoral race

The North Side is hardly an integrated paradise. It seems to have done better than the rest of the city, however, and the situation has lasted decades.

I seem to recall that North-Side integration sprang from the "Leadership Section Eights." Could something like this not be revived and applied to the Northwest side?

Posted by Frank-Palmer on 02/10/2015 at 4:45 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.