Did Ayers, Klonsky and Obama really share an office?The New McCarthyism is running full-throttle and it’s not just about Bill Ayers. Palin is now talking to the rabid ones about “pro-America” and “anti-America” regions of AMERICA and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachman has been equating liberalism with anti-Americanism and is calling for investigations of other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."
*****
Meanwhile the McCain/Palin wing-nuts have found hard evidence that Bill Ayers, Barack Obama and I all shared office space together back in 1997.
Wow! These anti-terrorist sleuth/bloggers are really good. How they solved the puzzle, you see, is that they went on our website and found the old address (115 S. Sangamon St.) of the Small Schools Workshop from back in the days when we were housed over at UIC (the University of Illinois at Chicago), in a mostly vacant building that was falling apart and was later condemned. So we all had to move. Then they dug even deeper into the public files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and found, lo and behold, that their address during that year, was also—you guessed it—115 S. Sangamon St. (evidence is shown above).
Whoop, there it is. Case closed. The commie, terrorist conspiracy from hell uncovered at last.
Except for two minor points, of course. One: Bill Ayers never worked in the Sangamon St. building. His office was in the Education Building at UIC, a mile away on the other side of the campus. Oh yes, and Barack Obama also never worked nor had an office at the Sangamon St. building, and as far as I know, never even once set foot in the building. While he was a board member of CAC and even president of the board for a time, the Sangamon St. office of CAC was for staff members. Obama wasn’t one and didn’t ever have a role in directing CAC funding.
But don't despair, all you wing-nut sleuths out there. I will readily admit that if Sen. Obama WOULD have had an office at Sangamon St. I probably WOULD HAVE offered to take him to lunch tried to sell him on the small schools idea, and even hit him up for a contribution, as I was wont to do back then.
Instead, our actual office mates were a nice bunch of folks from the area headquarters of ROTC and the University of Illinois at Chicago's ROTC program. I admit we had some fun office parties together where we shared some rather subversive ideas with top officers and rank and file cadets about education and politics, as we were also wont to do.
Gee, I hope my frank admission doesn't lead to a McCarthy-type, full-blown investigation of the entire U.S. Army circa 1954.
Isn't it amazing how the Republicans have been able to turn socially beneficial things like community organizing, school activism, and community engagement into negatives for Obama? The wreckage they leave will carry over, I'm afraid, long after they lose the election.
ReplyDeleteHey Klonsky, you really seem to take great pleasure in mocking the conservative blogosphere for this connection with the CAC and Small Schools address. Well, I guess you are in a position to know, since...you were there, man.
ReplyDeleteSince you are so keen to set the record straight, why don't you tell us then exactly where the CAC board meetings took place? And what did Senator Obama do if he didn't play any role in directing funding? And are you really saying that as founding President of the CAC, and ongoing Chairman of the Board, the Senator never visited with CAC staff?? That's real leadership, right there.
Lastly, while you are at it, why don't you comment on what you think the propriety was of the CAC sharing office space with one of the major, ongoing recipients of it's funding grants?
They must be so proud of themselves.
ReplyDeleteHey Wes,
ReplyDeleteActually, I do take great pleasure in mocking the wing-nut bloggers. Except that, it's just so easy. I mean, "discovering" the address of the CAC...Sometimes it's hard to find the words.
Anyway, thanks for your concern about the workings of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge board. You're wrong about one thing. I wasn't "there, man." I wasn't on the Annenberg board and can't really speak about board staff relationships. I mean, to paraphrase Marx,I wouldn't belong to any foundation board that would have someone like me as a member-- especially a board with so many wealthy Republicans on it.
I do know that foundation board members rarely directly manage staff. Foundation leaders should correct me if I'm wrong about that.
As for the common address with the Workshop, remember Wes, we were all housed on one huge university campus. CAC rented space from the University of Illinois for a few months until they found permanent space in a more upscale facility.
Now, are you saying that because the foundation and dozens of university -based education groups all shared space at UIC, that none of those groups should have been funded by the Annenberg challenge?
C'mon Wes. You can do better than that.
Wes is jut playing gotcha here. If Obama had come to Sangamon Street, he would be part of the vast left-wing "conspiracy." Plus you and Ayers could have influenced him. If he hadn't come, he would be a bad board member for not checking up on his staff.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, Mike. Board members usually leave staff management to their appointed director, in this case, to Ken Rolling. Members of foundation boards are usually rich business or politically-connected types who raise money, but are too busy to bother themselves with the prols who do the grunt work. I was one of those. I guess it's like any other business.
Mike, I notice you really didn't answer any of my actual questions.
ReplyDeleteAccording to available public records, the CAC shared an address with Small Schools from the formation of the CAC's operations in mid-1995 until early 1999. That's about 4 years, not a "few months". Can you explain this discrepancy?
...and that's a long period of time for a board chair/president to not have ever conducted a site visit.
Regarding your last point, can you name for me another group funded by the CAC that was also housed on the third floor of the building located at 115 S. Sangamon? Or any floor for that matter? Because I don't see the ROTC on the list of CAC grantees.
So yes, I do think that at best it was highly inappropriate for the CAC to share space with Small Schools. Especially considering that your co-director at Small Schools also led the Collaborative Group which "advised" the CAC on grant requests in general.
Explain to me again how this is not a clear conflict of interest when Small Schools received in excess of $1 million in funding over the life of the CAC. Am I missing something...or is this just the way things are done in Chicago?
A couple of things, Wes. First, I'm not really here to answer your questions. I'm doing this on my own time and for my own enjoyment--not necessarily yours. In fact, you should at least thank me for giving you this much access to all my readers. You're welcome.
ReplyDeleteA lot of your questions don't really answer because they are being asked in the wrong place and with the wrong assumptions.
It's obvious that you smell a terrorist, commie plot brewing over there on Sangamon Street back in '94 and that you're dying to be the one who finally cracks the case. It's clear you also have criticisms about the way Sen. Obama managed, or failed to manage the staff of the Annenberg Challenge, ie. how many visits he made to the old Sangamon St. office. I'm sure a letter to President Obama, after Nov. 4th, when he has a little time on his hands, would be welcomed.
It's quite possible you are right. You indeed may have even made made a better CAC board member or president than the Senator.
Or, if you really think it is an issue, why not write a letter to the newspapers or to the McCain campaign and try and make Obama's site visits (or lack thereof) to Sangamon St. a decade ago, a campaign issue. Who knows? It couldn't do any more harm than these robo-calls or the Joe The Plumber B.S.
Anyway, as I said before, I was never a member of the CAC so I can't really speak to their policy of funding groups that shared an office building or a university campus with their staff--either for months or years. I don't think that's an issue with most foundations, but maybe you could do more research into that question. If you find out anything good, let me know and i will gladly publish you findings here at SmallTalk.
Oh, one more thing Wes. We didn't "receive" money from Annenberg in the way you mean it. I mean, it wasn't a gift. Our grant money actually paid the salaries of some highly skilled, full-time school coaches (teachers and retired principals) who worked in CPS schools for five years, as well as for their materials, travel, yes--office space and phone calls.
The Small Schools Workshop at the University of Illinois applied for a grant to do professional development WORK with Chicago Public Schools teachers. To get that grant, we (and dozens of other groups--not sure what their addresses were) had to go through a rigorous vetting process and pass muster with a review team that graded all grant applications (I don't think your university address was ever considered as either a plus factor or as a "conflict of interest" in the application process.)
Wes, maybe you should write to the main educational foundations, ie. Gates, Broad, Walton, etc... and recommend that office address ought to be worth so many points in their application process and that any group say, that had an office in Gates' office complex is Seattle should be immediately de-funded over conflicts of interest.
Sen. Obama wasn't on the grant review teams so far as I know. So even if he was a secret terrorist cell member within the Small Schools Workshop, he would have had a difficult time funneling millions of dollars to his "socialist comrades-in-arms." Especially with all those conservative businessmen and university presidents on the board.
If you have any more questions about the internal workings of the Annenberg Challenge Wes, I'm afraid you're going to have to direct them either to the old Annenberg board members or to your super-sleuth wing-nut pals. I'm sure they can comb through the CAC records and answer them better than I can.
Good Luck,
Klonsky
Well, at least let it be said that Mike Klonsky is not someone afraid to engage in this type of discussion. I really do appreciate the time you've taken to address my questions, even if the all your answers have not been as direct as I would have liked. I also acknowledge that some of these questions would be better asked of other individuals. Maybe you can refer me to some people.
ReplyDeleteUnlike a lot of other people, my interest is not in unveiling some vast communist conspiracy, but rather shedding some light on what I believe is a significant relationship in Senator Obama's past. Our hardworking media could have saved both you and I the time had they done a more thorough job in researching and publishing the background material for all of this.
I just have to ask though if it bothers you that the Senator's campaign, and Democrats in general, ALWAYS disavow any sort of prior contact or influence they've had with activists such as yourself? Throw out the stuff from 40 years ago...you guys have been in the trenches working on educational reform now for a long, long time. Fighting entrenched and corrupt bureaucracies on a daily basis just to eke out incremental gains over time. From reading some of your blog, I can tell you are very proud of the work you've done, and the gains you've achieved.
Meanwhile the political leaders that have no problem benefiting from your intellectual support and social activism treat you like toxic waste when election season rolls around. Which is pretty much all the time now.
Seriously, how does this make you feel? You, your friends, and family are thrown under the bus, so to speak, while the Senator's campaign basically rides the enthusiasm of a popular youth movement into the White House. I'm sure you'll probably get some political satisfaction from this, but is it worth the price of your dignity?
Wes,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for this exchange. You seem like a decent, though awfully inquisitive guy. I wish you luck in your pursuits.
And thanks for thinking about my feelings. But really, it's not so bad down here under the bus. I mean, it's a little dark. And that oil from the leaky crank case drips on me every once in a while. But I have lots of company. Lots of good friends, interesting conversations. I've got my books, my music, and a computer to blog on. I mean, what else does an old, washed up, '60s radical need?
Maybe some day you can join us down here, when that "Straight Talk Express" breaks down.
While the "Weatherbaiting" of Obama should be opposed,Obama's characterization of the Weather Underground's acts of resistance to U.S. imperialism between 1969 and 1975 as "despicable" seems like an historically and morally inaccurate characterization.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Obama claimed he was only "8 years old" when Bill Ayers was involved in the Weatherman faction of SDS. But if the WUO's last act of anti-imperialist resistance happened in 1975, wouldn't Obama have been 14 years old when Bill Ayers was involved in Weather?
Rather on focusing on the phony issue of Obama's "Weather Underground connection," anti-imperialist working-class people in the USA might find it more politically relevant to examine the role that the Obama campaign's national finance chair, Chicago Billionaire Penny Pritzker (who also is a member of Harvard University's board of overseers), played in helping to create (as a board member of Superior Bank/Coast-to-Coast Financial Corp./Alliance Funding) the predatory subprime mortgage and securitization of mortgages crisis that led to the recent collapse of the U.S. financial system.
Also, anti-imperialist working-class people in the USA might want to ask Obama whether or not the Obama Administration will pledge itself to grant amnesty to all U.S. political prisoners on January 21, 2009.
Sorry Bob, but I don't see what is so "anti-imperialist" or "working class" about investigating Obama's connections with anyone, including Penny Pritzker. I mean, what is there to investigate. Is Penny some secret agent sent in to the campaign to turn Obama towards capitalism? A Bill Ayers in reverse? I think Obama will be the most vetted president in history. Why don't we get away from all that and judge him by what he does?
ReplyDeleteYour political prisoners idea ain't bad. Obama could start by closing down the torture chambers at Guantanamo.