The big controversy lately here in the typically corrupt state of Illinois is the governor's giving $1 million of state money to a church to help them rebuild after a fire.

It's a black church. It has 200 members (some reports say 300).

St. Michael Catholic Church in Wheaton burned down two years ago. It's in a white area. The governor declined requests for assistance back then.

Note: Because the Chicago Tribune requires registration after a day or so and its links expire, I am posting directly the an article and an editorial.

Today's article, written by a very liberal columnist, I might add, about this issue:

Some interesting reader responses:

-----------------------------

Today's editorial covering general stuff about Governor Blagojevich:

He's above it all

Published January 11, 2006


Gov. Rod Blagojevich spent his first three years in office in fully revved, 200 horsepower campaign mode. He cut miles of ribbons. Beamed 100,000 photo-op smiles. Issued thousands of press releases that blasted his name across the top. Hosted lots of fundraisers for himself.

So now that campaign season finally is upon us, he's--what!--too busy governing to go on the stump?

"I'm just not going to get involved in all of that politics," he told Tribune reporter John Chase on Sunday, after politicking ... er, worshiping, at Salem Baptist Church House of Hope. "So I'm just going to keep doing my job as governor, and I'll let those who want to do politics go out and do politics."

It's welcome news that Blagojevich recently discovered the job of governor requires his full attention. We need a hard-working, publicity-eschewing steward intrepidly guiding the citizens and affairs of this state.

Seriously, who spends four hard years amassing enough cash contributions to fill a Joliet landfill to then blow some of it on the annoyance known as the primary campaign? More to the point, why be a chump on the stump when you can make taxpayers campaign for you?

Taxpayers, after all, are the ones who paid for the giant billboards bearing his name on new open-road tolling lanes, just to remind motor voters who brought them their new convenience.

State taxpayers also paid for a full page promotion of "Governor Blagojevich's" All Kids health insurance program inside the income tax booklet recently sent to them in the mail.

Parents checking school report cards on the Illinois State Board of Education's Web site now are subjected to a "Dear Illinois Parent" letter signed by Blagojevich, which inconveniently explains just how convenient the newly designed site is.

Those looking for general education information on the state board's site get subjected, again, to an irrelevant announcement regarding "Governor Blagojevich's All Kids" plan.

His name is all over posters touting newly mandated insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

Blagojevich gets more free advertising with his name gracing the refrigerator magnets he sent out ostensibly to promote the state's prescription drug program.

Stealth campaign promotions such as those were once, briefly, prohibited. Blagojevich signed the legislation that banned the printing of names or images of executive officers on bumper stickers, commercial billboards, lapel pins, buttons, magnets, stickers or any other promotional trinkets if they were designed by, paid for or distributed with public money. State officials could no longer flood your TV screen with taxpayer-funded public-service ads starring themselves.

That brief but shining era of high ethics began Jan. 1, 2004. It ended six months later, when legislators slipped in language that utterly neutered the provision that blocked such self-promotion. Blagojevich signed that too.

Amid such unscrupulous political times, who could blame Blagojevich for not getting involved "in all of that politics"?

For a supposed judge you certainly do, deliberately, spend a lot of time trying to raise other people’s hackles and trying to get them to argue with you.

What is it today MIB? Slow calendar? Lately you rhetoric is becoming a little forced, even for you.

Back when I was in college I had a buddy who spent so much time in a MUD one year that he ended up flunking out. Your posts are sounding more and more like a sophomore with a little legal knowledge and too much time on their hands.

What is up with the bear baiting lately?

R

It's always good to get the Kool-Aid drinkers and other lemmings here to put down their cups and think for a minute.

Well, I'm a bit older than that, but I do enjoy posting items that apparently are beyond your level of comprehension.

To me, the more interesting query is whether this is a rhetorical question.

In light of the way the initial post was edited, and the subsequent responses, I don't really see how this was meant to spur an "honest debate." Looks more like soapbox building to me. Or to use another simile, it's like slowly watching a straw man being built.

But MIB, at least you refrained from calling black voters lemmings, as I had expected from the title of the thread; it's a remarkable improvement from some of your prior posts.

Back to the issue at hand, of course Blagojevich is pandering. His career is politics. Were you expecting him to behave any differently?

Speaking of legal issues, will the ACLU file suit to stop this blatant support of not just religion, but a specific church with public funds? More on the money, assuming the claim that "this is where gospel began," where are all the gospel record artists and their progeny on this one?

Sorry to disappoint you, Neptune, but the original post wasn't edited at all. The Zorn article and the editorial I posted verbatim. You can go to the Trib's web site today and read it yourself.

When will you left-wingers stop assuming so much? It grows so damn tiresome.

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Well, I'm a bit older than that, but I do enjoy posting items that apparently are beyond your level of comprehension. [/quote]Chuckle - I think you just made my point for me.

You seem far more interested, lately, in blatently insulting people than in provoking honest debate and discussion.

You've been descending more and more into direct personal attacks. Maybe we should just create a new forum for you, and a couple of others, called 'Flames'?

R

I'm not well read on semantics and semiotics, nor do I want to engage in a silly pissing contest, but I've always assumed that concept of "editing" had a definition independent of the confines of the Outsports boards.

Of course I know you didn't use the editing function after you posted the op ed piece. However, you admittedly selected some reader responses (all of which were opposed to the governor's plan). You didn't include the opinions of readers in favor of the plan. Furthermore, you chose to post the op-ed piece, even though the Chicago Tribune had an additional article that included the voices of people in favor of the plan.

Looks like selective editing to me. Oh look, the straw man is almost erect! [*tee hee!*]

I think ITJock makes a good observation with his last post.

I know what you meant. It was obvious I didn't edit the post within the confines of Outsports. It would have been time stamped had I done so. I had thought of posting the one or two letter writers who did agree with Blago's move, but because I intentionally wanted this thread to focus on the minuses of his decision, I left them out. It was to draw attention to yet another typical Illinois political move.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with this line of thought, for I must admit, I'm rather torn over this issue. The Pilgrim Baptist Church is so historical, and as somewhat of a traditionalist, I'd hate to see it not rebuilt.

Look, other churches with predominantly Black, Latino and White congregations have burned down or caught fire and been damaged across Illinois in the last ten years, and no, the state government and the federal government did not provide direct reconstruction funds. The reason Blago and others, wrongly I believe, have jumped aboard the case of Pilgrim Baptist Church is because it

1) was an architectural landmark, designed by one of the greatest architects of the early skyscraper, Louis Sullivan (with Dankmar Adler);

2) is a cultural landmark, as Thomas A. Dorsey, the father of "gospel" music, which is sung and beloved all over the world now, served as the choir director for 55 years and wrote numerous songs that are now part of the world's cultural and religious repertory, and Mahalia Jackson and Sam Cooke, among others, sang in his choir;

3) is an aesthetic landmark, in that in addition to being an excellent example of late 19th century Richardsonian Romanesque architecture, also contained rare hand-painted murals by the early 20th century Black painter William E. Scott;

4) and was a major historical repository, with extensive archives on gospel music, as well as documentation on the African-American community of Bronzeville, from which Lou Rawls, Pulitzer Prize-winner Gwendolyn Brooks, Jackson, Cooke, Oscar Brown Jr., and numerous other famous figures emerged.

As such, Pilgrim Baptist, despite appearing to some people as nothing more than a burnt-down "Black church," was one of the cultural treasures of Chicago, the cultural heart of the Midwest, and by extension, of the United States.

Saying all of that, if the funds are going to restore a cultural landmark, I don't see any problem with it. Public funds have gone to rehab Catholic cathedrals, Jewish synagogues (like the first one in the US), and other religious buildings with great historical value. If people believe that Pilgrim Baptist has no cultural value--and people of all races all across the globe sing the very gospel songs, with the very same arrangements, that Thomas Dorsey created and pioneered in Pilgrim Baptist (If you don't believe me just visit Australia, for example, and talk with people involved in their gospel-singing performances there)--then the church shouldn't get any federal funds.

[ January 11, 2006, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The church was also where that John Belushi Blues Brothers gymnastic-flipping, gospel scene was filmed, according to news reports. That alone should result in its being rebuilt.

Seriously, though, it was such a piece of Chicago history, cultural possibly because of its religious nature. I'm certainly not foaming at the mouth over this; I'm just disturbed by Governor Blago's way of going about it.

[ January 11, 2006, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

MIB, could you flip flop any more than you already are? You are seriously making me dizzy. As Fantomas said, Blago is giving them funds due to the landmark status of the structure, not necessarily because it was a "black" church. The title of this thread is rather negative. If I happened to visit Pilgram Baptist, would it then no longer be considered a "black" church because a white boy was sitting in its pew? What about my church...a racially mixed Catholic church...what would you consider that, according to your view of everything in "black" or "white"? I've said it before and I'll say it again...I would surely dislike being in your courtroom. If you really are a judge, you have to be one of the most partial and biased judges to ever sit behind a bench. Good thing for you this board is anonymous. I'd work overtime to get you off the bench.

Two quick notes:

1) As a card carying "kool-aid" drinker in your words, I can tell you there are those on the left his dislike Blago as much as anyone else, me being one of them. (When you live in central Illinois, and the governor doesn't think it worth his time to move to the capital, it can tend to rub you the wrong way).

2) When hasn't a politician pandered to one group or another to get re-elected? To this story I say *yawn* politics as usual.

No flip-flopping on my part, miller. My name's not Dick Durbin.

As I said above, there is a part of me that doesn't like what Blago is doing, though it's typical, but there's also a part of me that recognizes the significance of this quite historical church, where it is believed gospel music itself was born. Regardless of from where money does come, I truly do hope it's rebuilt, and in a way as close to the original as possible.

BTW, this school to which Blago is giving this money apparently has nothing to do with the church. In fact, this school, called the Loop Lab School, isn't affiliated with the church. It simply leased the space after moving from a downtown location. This school has already relocated due to the fire to a downtown location again. If this school isn't church-run, church-sponsored, or even church-affiliated, why is $1 million of anyone's money being spent on it? Just wondering.

And Illini, a fairer, more impartial and objective individual you will not find, despite what you may think. My reputation speaks for itself. I just play the devil's advocate for fun.

Wow. An example of a corrupt Illinois Democrat courting the black vote. I'll never look at politics the same way again.

LXN

Isn't that redundant?

Now there's a positive!

Fixed

Indeed.

>>>Fixed.

Most things in Illinois are.

LXN

...and thanks to Bush and his crooked cronies, we've now gone nationwide! Hooray for rigged elections!

I don't think Illinois politicans needed Bush & Co. to be corrupt. Illinois has been doing it quite well for decades.

Yeah, I would think living in Chicago where the dead vote you guys would be used to it by now.

Which is why I live in the burbs, thank God.

Funny how the negative comments about politics in Chicago comes from two people that DO NOT LIVE in Chicago. Ah, the irony is delicious! So, what's the special this evening at Olive Garden?

[ January 15, 2006, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

Millerbeach, I live in Illinois and have a pretty good sense of history. Illinois and Chicago politics have been corrupt for decades. We have the distinction of being the host to the 1968 DNC with the "whole world is watching" incident. I think that's enough, but the whole George Ryan trial adds to our distinction.

Edit: Also, your use of the word irony is flawed. It would be ironic if MIB or I were working to clear up corruption in Chicago but instead created more corruption. It is not ironic for two people to comment on the blatanly corrupt history of politics of Illinois or Chicago.

[ January 16, 2006, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

No, Illini-Fan, I said irony and I mean irony. I am well aware of the meaning of the word.

[ January 16, 2006, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

It is irrelevant if we do not live in the city per se, mb. When people of this area refer to Chicago, they don't automatically mean the city confines itself. When folks ask me where I'm from, I don't say "Naperville" or "Schaumburg" or "Cicero," etc. I say "Chicago." Why? Because the entire suburban area is considered Chicago in terms of a metropolitan area.

I may not live in the city, but I love to visit it. I enjoy what it offers in many respects (though I can't stand the parking).

Then why do you abuse it so?

In addition, why don't you tell us why we can't comment on political states in somewhere we don't live? Isn't that what, oh I don't know, every political pundit does in addition to all the wannabe pundits on this board?

Whoa, Illini! I never said you could or couldn't say something. You are granting me far too much power! Contact the Board Administrator regarding what can or cannot be said. I choose my words carefully. I meant to use the word "irony". I still think it's ironic that you criticize an administration that you cannot change. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Trust me, your keyboard will thank you. As for the parking, this is the second time this evening I find myself in agreement with MIB. (I'm gettin scared!) I too love the city, but hate the stupid parking restrictions in this city. All in the name of Homeland Security...HA! It's a scam to get everyone to park in over-priced garages. Where's Pam Zeckman on this one?

You post seems to convey you think I was angry. Don't worry, if anything on a messageboard actually made me angry I would quit the internet.

Oh! What a dream that would be...