If Ill. Sen. Rev. Meeks wants to quote Chi Trib as supporting him on school reform, he should do so carefully.  Trib opens craftily:

Illinoisans who fear that state Sen. James Meeks is a dangerous threat may not know the half of it. The Chicago Democrat is a threat, all right—to timid lawmakers who really don’t want to overhaul this state’s school funding formula and to a public education industry that is terrified of being held accountable for its failures. [Emphasis added]

“Nobody’s going to put a dime into this system without demanding some reforms,” Meeks told the editorial writer, who ran with this estimable assessment and implied goal.

Trib does not like his keeping kids out of school for Alinsky-style bus ride to Winnetka — scroll down — but they agree that Illinois pols have not pushed for “better educations for Illinois kids”:

That’s in large part because many of those politicians are hostages to the politically active teachers unions. Most Springfield Democrats would rather have Dick Cheney as their party’s candidate for president than risk alienating those teachers union.

Not Meeks, Trib hopes, citing the op-ed on the next page, which notes that the bus riders will pass “many Chicago public schools—charter schools—that are performing on par with top-notch suburban and downstate schools.”

Oh.  But Meeks took the lawmaker’s equivalent of the 5^th amendment last spring, when he “refused to vote on legislation that would have raised the Chicago charter school cap to 100” — effectively condoning the “ghettoizing” of kids in badly performing schools, to use a Trib word.

The problem is that unions have their monopoly and do not like trust-busting and as the huge political action committees they have become, they decide what lawmakers do, including Meeks, who is very cautious not to offend his patrons among the unions.  So he promotes a headline-grabbing cause that will be going nowhere, we assume, namely to force suburbs to take city kids.

[W]hile in Springfield last week, he filed legislation that would force suburban schools to accept any student who applies, regardless of whether the student lives within the district.

This is in the op-ed, by Collin Hitt, of the Illinois Policy Institute, a pro-charter schools operation which Chi Trib does not link, following its pattern and I assume policy of linking nothing but Trib stories. 

So Meeks wants Oak Park to open its schoolroom doors to kids from Austin, Berwyn, and the city north of north?  It is to laugh at the idea that even in ur-liberal OP that idea would gain traction.  Libs did go for Baby Todd Stroger 40% in the last primary, however.  You never know,

In any case, Chi Trib in its editorial would like to see Meeks declare support for charter schools.  We call it newspaper editorial ploy #4550, to assume the impossible best of a run-of-mill grievance-oriented politician.  Nice try!

The AP is on the story of apparent U. of Ill.-Chicago coverup of documents showing Obama and terrorist Bill Ayers working together to save Chicago schools:

University won’t open Obama-related records now

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 19, 6:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON – The University of Illinois on Tuesday refused to release records relating to Barack Obama’s service to a nonprofit group linked to former 1960s radical activist William Ayers.

The university’s Chicago campus said the donor of the records that document the work of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge has not yet turned over ownership rights to the material.

The U. didn’t know that, now it does, so records are closed.

The owner [donor of the docs] notified the university about the absence of a signed ownership agreement last week.

“The donor’s only concerns regarding the collection are due to personnel information that could include names, confidential salary information and even Social Security numbers,” said the university spokesman.

They are being vetted?

Nothing in Chi newspapers yet (8:50 am 8/20).  They’re working on it.  Give them time.

The Annenberg Challenge was $50 million.  Ayers got himself put in charge of it.  Mayordaley II, that old radical, loves A. for it. 

Question: Who gave the $50 mill?  Answer: the Annenbergs — The Honorable Leonore Annenberg, President and Chairman [of their foundation]; Wallis Annenberg, Vice President, Lauren Bon, Gregory Annenberg Weingarten, Charles Annenberg Weingarten.

Who put Ayers in charge?  These five signed off on it, presumably with guidance from staff:

Headquarters Office
Gail C. Levin, Executive Director
Joanne Cemini-Visintin, Assistant to the Executive Director
Linda Dunn, Operations and Accounting Administrator
Rachel Goldbaum, Grants Administrator
. . . . etc.

I’d start with Gail C. Levin, but for the heck of it, I’d go also to Walter Annenberg and his father Moses (Moe) Annenberg, to get the flavor of things, with special attention to the murderous Chicago newspaper circulation wars of the 1920s and Moe’s affiliation with mobsters and illegal gambling and his and Walter’s prosecution in 1939 in “one of the biggest tax-evasion cases in U.S. history” and Moe’s subsequent imprisonment after taking a guilty plea for fraud. 

Hey, this family has more going for it than the Joe Kennedy’s!  And now they give money to reform schools!  [”To reform” here as infinitive, not “reform” as adjective, though that might be something they should consider.] 

Is this a great country, or what?

Father Pfleger may be a crusader, but he also knows what side his bread is buttered on:

Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church . . .  gave Obama’s campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.

P. defends himself flimsily:

“At a time when less people vote than ever, I don’t think pastors should be silent on politics,” Pfleger said.

He wants to say fewer, not less.  I am shocked at that mis-usage more than at the money-passing, but am becoming inured to such violence to the king’s English. 

And to elementary logic.

Didn’t Obama the other day on the Meet Russert show condemn Hillary (remember her?) for promoting a summertime gas-tax moratorium, calling it “a political response . . . “ — pausing, searching, as he does, and me wondering in amazement, he’s going to say “economic” problem? (which it most surely is) — and finally completing his thought: “. . . that we have neglected for decades”!

Does he mean there’s no such thing as a political answer to a longstanding problem?  What does he think the 1965 voting rights law was? 

He’s a whippersnapper who should go back to Columbia or Harvard for remediation.