Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
When we heard about the mom who set herself and her two sons ablaze in Naperville, we felt like there was something off about the situation that we just couldn't put our finger on. And although we really wanted to feel good about it when we read today that the father of the two boys is offering to help kids who are sick and in need of help, we actually felt the exact same way.
The dad, Anand Tiwari, is offering his children's stem cells, which he had stored from birth in case they got sick later in life, to other children who need them. We think that it is truly touching that some good might be found from this tragedy, and we think it's excellent that the practice of saving these cells is getting attention.
We just can't get past the tragedy itself. We in no way dismiss the mother's actions, but stories like this always make us look at the families around us a little differently. This woman filed complaints, told friends she feared for her life and alleged that her husband was abusive and "dictatorial," among other things. All families have secrets, but when is it appropriate to cross that line and to try to help? While we think it's great that this man is trying to make something good out of something so awful, we still wonder if he could have done some things differently, something that would have kept those boys here.
Image via graveyards.com.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"...we felt like there was something off about the situation that we just couldn't put our finger on..."
Yeah, like how some mom just effing immolated herself and her kids. Like that kind of isht happens all the time, you know.
Nice. She kills the children and it is all somehow his fault.
I just recently moved to Chicago, and decided to read your site after being thoroughly thrilled and pleased with the opinions and offerings of a fellow -ist site.
This story really does cement my opinion to discontinue visiting your site. I have seen a trend lately of stories which consist simply of inflammatory remarks based upon, at best, very little insight, and at worst, a complete lack of any investigation.
I'm curious what voice chicagoist intends have, and what service it intends to bring to the city. Please leave the shoddy journalism and shock reporting to the MSM.
Even if this guy is all the things she described in the complaint surely there are better options than setting your children on fire? As the previous user said, leave the wild speculation to the MSM.
btw, one of the kids was a girl.
I get so tired of this trend in American life, this underlying assumption that males are the only ones capable of violence and selfishness and ignorance. We look at the world around us, see women freed after they kill their husbands, young girls ignored for bullying their peers, teachers barely slapped on the wrist for sexually abusing male students ... what we call "rape" when the genders reversed. Men are to blame, men are the killers, men hold women back and teach young girls to be stupid, despite the fact that women outnumber men in colleges by 10 percent, and that this margin is growing. It's women who need all the help, all the special programs. Our little girls need to build their self-esteem, we say. Our little boys don't matter.
Which, really, is irrelevant to the larger issue the existance of this post brings to light. Guest 3 has a point. Of all the -ists--and I read many of them, including the one written in Portuguese--Chicagoist has become the weakest, the most likely to inflame, the most likely to cling to one point of view represented by one small demographic in one part of its city. It wasn't always that way, but since Bowden got a real job and got bought out by google and everyone else who started this thing left with her, it's become the property of preening, self-indulgent know-it-alls who discount any opinion that doesn't match that you'd find in any half-drunk 20-something wandering Clark and Division on a Saturday night. So I have to repeat guest 3's question: What service do you intend to bring to Chicago? How do you expect "articles" like this one, built shoddily on inflammatory assumptions based more on political correctness than fact, to enlighten the people you claim in your big-headedness to represent?
make that drunk 20-something wandering 'damen and division' - much more accurate
I think it's unfair to judge the entire site on one post I wrote. If you don't agree with my post today that's fine, can't win them all. But I think it's jumping to some pretty negative conclusions to think that the entire blog is in the shitter because of it.
That being said, I still think you should carry on. This "preening, self-indulgent know-it-all" doesn't mind criticism.
Different guest here. It isn't one post.
The moronic political posts go on and on. Be it Chuck, Kevin, or Alicia--all of them have the pious conventional PC opinions. They take these opinions, find a story that might support them, master 10% of the facts, and post away.
Whether it is mistaking a Vice Lord for an honor student or blaming the husband because his batshit insane wife immolates her children, it is like Chicagoist posts emerge from some bland 20 something liberal college student opinion machine.
That said, the Chicagoist train wreck is fun to read.
The issue was never about a singular inflammatory post, but rather a whole trend of them. Please look back over the last few weeks and I think you'll find growing criticism over many of the articles presented. However do note how typically it is focused not on the stories themselves, but on the broad-brushstroke style of condemnation increasingly found on here.
Again I'd ask, what voice does this site intend to have? Do stories like this, and the opinions drawn, reflect Chicago life? If the answer is yes, ok that's fine, I'll go somewhere else.
It is fine to say chicagoist "doesn't mind criticism" - but it is an entirely different thing to not mind by ignoring, and to not mind by reflecting.
Guest 3
ps. take all the criticism as a good thing, if no one cared about what chicagoist could be they'd have all left a long time ago.
Guest 3
this (new) guest will join the pile-on. The 'something ain't right, here" slant on this story just seems irresponsible. You are publishing, not talking with friends over a latte.
Why not use this trite rule of thumb when throwing out the unsustantiated drivel: afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted. seriously, it might help Chicagoists many-headed hydra approach to blogging.
I've noticed the same downward spiral on a number of levels.
Now, i scan Chicagoist in the following order: Food/restaurant/gardening stuff; music news; 'news stories' with lots of comments, because it either means crazy commentors or crazy Chicagoist editors have gone off half-cocked; Alicia posts, because she's always good for a cringe and a laugh.
she said, he said .... She was obviously unstable and only her shrink and maybe the husband know for sure. I'm glad you guys aren't on a jury.
alica dorr / chuck sudo / kevin robinson (to a lesser extent) - like listening to your douchebag neighbor talk about the news, except with the special sort of inflammatory, satisfied self-aggrandizing that elevated visibility seems to bring out of every two-bit 'journalist' on this blog. at least my neighbor doesn't insist on referring to himself in the first person plural when spouting off about this and that.
and yes, alicia, this post, and the many like it in the recent past are the exact reason why this blog is in the shitter, and has been, for quite some time.
are the exact reason why this blog is in the shitter, and has been, for quite some time.
Glutton for punishment?
Hummmm, Generally Dorr ( like most Chicagoist writers) isn’t vague in her posts.
So I wonder why this time?
Could it be she out of conscience brought up a much needed post even though she knew she would face an wave of angry majority males? The same folks waging foreign wars and dominating most aspects of civic and public life, yet laying claim “victimization”
But the(USDOJ)domestic violence facts scream out for themselves!
Domestic violence against women occurs every 15 seconds in the US.
Over 50% of all couples experience at least one violent incident- approximately 25% experience violence regularly-. 95% of these acts of are perpetrated by MEN.
Every year, an estimated 3 million U.S women are battered by spouses or intimate partners. 5,000 are killed and this is considered under reporting!.
Battering causes more injury to women than rapes, automobile accidents, and muggings combined.
Almost 35% of women who visit emergency rooms are there because on-going abuse.
Every year, domestic violence results in almost 100,000 days of hospitalization, over 30,000 emergency room visits, and almost 40,000 visits to a physician
.
70% of the homeless women and children in the U.S. are fleeing abuse.
Women are far more likely to be the victims of violence in their home, by partners, as opposed to on the streets by strangers. And can we share our stories? As a male I know plenty
Yesterday Mary Mitchell( Suntimes) reported on a women being stalked by her former boy friend, so “devoted” to killing her that he hired a crack head to toss acid in her face. Lucklyy it did little damage to her face and the face of her daughter onto which it splashed. He also shot up the Metra train that she operates as an engineer, twice! Mr. Sicko did this against an order of protection and is still on the loose. And what about the Amish School rampage where Mr. Sicko Male lined up young girls and shot them? I think its time to teach our boys about violence against women Guest 6 both by partners and strangers
I think any time “anybody” reads about an Order of Protection being taken out against a male including reports of abuse- also under reported, then they need to dig deeper!
Finally those shallow men of hollowed souls that will not consider the state of mind and health of a women who (A) might be dealing with postpartum depression, (B) being abused, (C), comes from a culture where husbands, fathers, brothers, etc have a right to immolate women in their family if they stray outside of the “accepted norm”, if she is at the end of her rope. I’m not judging, I’m just calling for progressive thought, understanding, reflection and perhaps some reading up on these issues before we start screaming.
But no, its those males( and women)that wonder around Clark and Division and Damen and North on a Saturday, all preocuiped with the "party" instead of other folks humanity including their own, who are the reason for such blindness and this dark cultural abyss!
give me a break, spook.
SHE BURNED HER KIDS TO DEATH.
SHE FUCKING TORCHED HER KIDS.
a mother did the ultimate crime of violence against her kids, one of which is female.
who's the sicko here?
Can this be the same Spook who MADE FUN OF 11-YEAR-OLD-GIRLS' WEIGHT? Just the other day.
Not saying out-and-out abuse of women isn't worse. But Spook, take a look into your shallow soul.
And to keep it more relevant to this story, more women than men murder their children.
So what's your point, Spook? That we get to deem this women's husband guilty without proof? If I dig up a report stating that minorities commit more violent crimes, is it OK then if the police go rounding them up without due process?
You're just trying to divert the discussion from the real issue, which is that Chicagoist couldn't even be bothered to get the minor detail of the sex of the younger child correct. Thank god for copy and paste or the names would be spelled wrong, too.
alicia, i read chicagoist everyday.
at the risk of hurting your feelings (i like to think of myself as a benevolent soul), i really agree with some of what was said here, and the way the writing has been spiraling down here lately.
first, there's an all out-war on grammar going on most days. i don't want to sound like an old school-marm, folks, but if you're going to write for public consumption, be literate.
second, i don't know if it's because so many posts seem to garner little to no reaction("comments: 0"), but it does feel like many of the writers at chicagoist toss out inflamatory bits just to get a stream of comments going. at best, it's crap writing trying to get web hits. at most, it's reckless and hurtful.
look, the -ist brand definitely has weight in major market places. as a concept - successfully articulated in several markets - it has the capacity to be something really potent and interesting. i don't know how the writers are selected (right band t-shirt on that day? right amount of holier-than-thou, ascerbic wit in the application?) or how the site is edited, but i'd review some standards, toute suite. and i don't think you're doing the brand or the city of chicago any favors by posting shit like this.
get some editors. get some people who can properly critique your work before you post it. and - raging, lunatic, bleeding heart liberal and-not-sorry-for-it that i am - get some diverse options.
speaking as a young person myself, when i read stuff like this, i think there's a reason that many of us end up working on the junior shit in our twenties - making copies, proofreading, etc. it is possible that we really DO lack the intellectual maturity to know when our stuff is crap - and when it should stay in our myspace blogs...set to "private."
this post was just all wrong. did you really mean to to tackle domestic violence, matricide and stem cell research in 9 sentences? really, alicia....with all due respect: are you nuts?
please, please stop arguing with spook. please. he just writes more incomprehensible nonsense. just pretend he's not here. it's easy if you try.
but it's fun to argue with spook
and we don't have to hold him up to the same standards as alicia
I second what guest20 said.
I've been reading Chicagoist every weekday since 2004. I used it to help me get around the city when I first moved here. It was a great place to get an idea for the feel of Chicago, from its sports to its politics. Sure, it had a particular slant, but it was well-written, interesting, and didn't go on for 3 pages about one issue (I'm looking at you Lollapalooza).
Now however, well, it's everything that guest#20 said. It's nothing that I wouldn't hear walking down the street at Rush and Division, or on Michigan Ave with the tourists. Where are the neighborhood reviews (that go beyond the latest bar opening)? Where are the articles that look at uniquely Chicago issues and *really* try to explore them? You post interviews with musicians that no one has ever heard of that are several paragraphs long, but you can't interview an alderman once in a while? And can you not even be bothered to get pictures from Chicago...you have to resort to putting up ancient pictures of the Empire State Building? Honestly, with the amount of NYC images on this site, I'm almost wondering if it's not just being written by NYC staffers.
I like where Chicagoist has been going lately. Lots of good food articles (thanks chuck and others!) however editorials on how "we feel" about the news is kind of, well, not really good material.
I agree with guest #1 and that's really all I have to add to this discussion.
Also I have offered several times to write business news here but have been rebuffed. So don't blame me for not trying to contribute.
Guest 19:
Please consider posting under a moniker or as in my case, a nom de guerre.
Why? Because as oppossed to most "Guest",you've something say(I don't agree with you), but I think you should seperating yourself
from the dumbed down follow the frat boy rock heads who post repeatedly on the same post as “Guest” mean while adding nothing of substandce except streamed conversations from one centrilized at best frivolous, "id" of the majority
But to your critique, honesty I don't engage in subterfuge. I believe in not just telling the truth, but examining what’s behind “it”
And I never said the man was guilt neither did Dorr, not that I speak for her. But what I( your Spook) got from her post was this. In this society where violence against women permeates all most every nook and cranny, does it make sense to at least hold this case of tragic horror up for at least a cursory glance next too a very real framework of our deeply entrenched system of dominant and violent male patriarchy?
I hope you would agree that its o.k. to examine these horrors that have to do with women in this context, which dosen't mean necessary letting it dictate the outcome.
Now honestly as far as Chicagoists editorial ability. Well honesty in a society where people are reading less and less, and where substantive news is becoming irrelevant the the masses,I'm just so happy that some folks -on a volunteer bassis- are willing to raise some socratic ideas and questions and place them in the "public square". I get the feeling that there is a clamoring out their for more shallow offerings on Chicagoist like more food, movies, music, baby on board, reviews,etc. I would hate for this important venue to become the "interative Red Eye online"
spook-
please address post 18. thanks.
ok guest 26
First we’re all cracked vessels. Although many who hide behind “Guest” have gaping holes in them. When I poked fun of the “Girls that Rock” I was reacting out of light hearted frustration to how certain groups of folk are often portrayed in Chicagoist. Most of these posts concern People of Color in desperate situations, with out providing the needed historical context.
These posts then become over run by “Guests” sounding like Dom Imus on a crack binge.
Mean while my post gets censured while “Guest 53’s post, about a child’s mother still stands, let me quote it in case you missed it “Yes!I'd give her a slice of my summer sausage for sure. Help her have another anchor baby.”
Now I’m offering a honest critique of Chicagoist, because it’s an important social venue, as opposed to those that engage in a childish “bitch fest” about Chicagoist, including the grammar guardians.
I was also reacting to the abundance of coverage of the “life styles of the members of majority who live in privilege- which is more about class than race.
For instance, a Chicagoist writer could based on the fact that 49 percent of American children live in poverty and don’t get their stories told, decide to write exclusively about issues of poor children Or a chicagoist writer could puff out her chest and proclaims “I’m gonna write about the trials and tribulations of privileged parents of the majority. Be the voice of parents who bring children into an over populated world to “complete” themselves and leave behind their “personal mark” on the tree of the world. These parents,as part of the privileged majority, demand to have it both ways, living vicariously as a “childless person” again by venturing into former privileged haunts of the childless, but with their children in tow. And because folks like this operate from a premise of entitlement, they venture into all sorts of public establishments with out regard to any one but themselves, making a statement with their children just like Elvira Arellano did!
Then, after listening to the same story three times in two weeks on NPR, I read Chiacgoist’s “Rock and Roll Girls” review with the picture of again privileged kids of the majority attending a camp designed just for them. This coincide with a book I’m reading that mentioned how Rock and Roll was bequeathed like "water and fertilizer to an arid, materialistic, and anti-cultural American landscape". Those that delivered this gift to America have, by in large passed through the decades into cultural oblivion, never having gotten a nickel. I couldn’t help but wonder how many girls of color get to attend this camp? Didn’t sound like any. And I doubt the foundation of rock and roll was even taught to these young girls This is why the women who can than camp talked about Cheryl Crow, when they could have at least talked about Janis Joplin
But instead of expressing this, I, a cracked vessel like us all, just made a crass comment. My bad!. But with that being said, I think my posts generally try to- some times despite over whelming odds- keep track of all folk’s humanity as well as my own.
Now excuse me as I go have some fun at the baby on board section
The 'guest' here sure seems to be one of Anand's henchmen. It is better if people do not comment on something based on a superficial knowledge on what transpired. The lady is no longer alive to give her side of the story. Whatever is known is just what the husband said. Two innocent little kids have unfortunately lost their lives. Neighbours have mentioned that the mother was a very loving person who loved her kids very much. What is it that drove her to kill herself and their two little kids? If she was mentally unstable as the husband says, did he ever seek help? The husband has given a statement that his wife refused to seek professional help. Ya...right. Now we have to believe him. They seem to have very close knit family ties. Did he atleast mention this to her parents or to her brother and seek their help in influencing his wife to seek treatment? Two innocent lives have been lost and he is as much culpable if not more since he is supposedly the only sane person in the family.
Pretty funny to see Spook try to defend Elvira Arellano's child, seeing how anti-immigrant he is.
Just sayin....