Star Wars Wars

Shame on me for having so long avoided the subject of the construction of the George Lucas vanity museum known officially as the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art. Frankly it's a subject that hasn't exactly piqued my interest. Unlike the Obama Library which I think would be a tremendous asset to the city and the people of Chicago, I'm lukewarm about the Lucas venture. And unlike the plan to build the presidential library in an existing historically significant park, a move I strongly oppose, plopping down the Lucas museum in the Soldier Field parking lot, or on the current site of the old McCormick Place building, doesn't irk me much at all.

Plop away I say.

The real problem as I see it, is that the controversy surrounding the construction of the museum has become yet another symbol of the dysfunction that has come to define the way this city has been run for the past several years.

In an article written in Friday's issue of Crain's Chicago Business, Greg Hinz asks the question: "Who gets the blame for the Lucas Museum fiasco?"

According to Hinz, just about everybody involved is to blame and for the record, I couldn't agree more.

Hinz's list begins with Mayor Rahm Emanuel for his failure to make a convincing case to build a privately owned venture on Chicago's most valuable public land. He also scores very low in Hinz's book either for not anticipating the inevitable dispute over that land, or his sheer arrogance in believing that by the power vested in him, he could just steam roll over a century's worth of opposition to building on the lakefront.

According to Hinz, Lucas and his wife, Chicago investment banker Mellody Hobson are to blame because they also failed to properly sell the museum to the public, acting as if their "philanthropy" alone were just cause to grant them their every wish, including the location and choice of the design of the building. That design, to my eyes resembles a headless Jabba the Hut, clad in gleaming white Storm Trooper garb. Oh I forgot, this is not supposed to be a Star Wars museum so any resemblance must be purely coincidental.

Rahm-bashers come next on the blame list; you know them as the folks who according to Hinz, believe that anything the mayor supports, "has to suck."

Last but far from least in Hinz's opinion is Juanita Irizarry, the director of Friends of the Parks, the organization who has filed a lawsuit against the city to stop construction of the museum on the grounds that it violates the public trust doctrine, which grants title to all land created out of formerly submerged portions of the lake. to the state whose responsibility is to preserve that land for public use. In this case, one would be hard pressed to view the proposed site, currently the parking lot between Soldier Field and McCormick Place, as public space. In addition to the building housing the museum, the new project would add public green space to the site where there currently is none.

According to Hinz, the intransigence of Irizarry and Friends of the Parks, whom he claims, bear the biggest responsibility for the impasse, is due to their arrogance and myopia. They are according to Hinz,  "so utterly stuck on their own view of the universe that they ignore any other reality or need." The Rev. Michael Pfleger goes even further. He claims they are racist.

Excuse me?

Pfleger might just be parroting the views of Ms.Hobson, who along with her husband, Lucas Skywalker, has given a substantial amount of support to Pfleger and his church over the years. Hobson claims that the real losers, if her museum is not built, will be the "young black and brown children of Chicago." On the Friends of the Parks' actions regarding the Lucas Museum, Pfleger, not known for subtlety, says:

...it is unacceptable that a group of un-elected, unaccountable elites have the temerity to stand up and say they speak on behalf of our city's "public trust." 

Let me be clear—the Friends of the Parks have proven that they are no friends of Chicago. They have shown that they speak not for my community, not for the people who are dying every day in our city's streets; rather, they speak for a small group of elites obsessed with preserving the past and imperiling our collective future.

Now I buy into the idea that building the museum will provide job opportunities, directly through the museum and indirectly through the added tourists who will come to the city to visit. It will no doubt engage in outreach programs for disadvantaged children, a handful of whom will be inspired by the experience to do great things with their lives, just as kids today who come to similar programs in all the other major institutions in the city. But I'm not clear how the museum would address the needs of the people who are dying every day in our city's streets. Perhaps the Lucas's hired gun Father Han Solo Pfleger believes potential victims will learn self-defense techniques from the museum's proposed Jedi in training program.

As for Princess Leia Hobson, if she were truly concerned about the "young black and brown children of Chicago", one would think it would be of little significance to her on which side of Lake Shore Drive her museum was built. I'm not suggesting as many have to build the museum in disadvantaged neighborhoods on the far south or west sides (as if that would ever happen), which would really have had an impact on the communities that Father Pfleger describes. Rather I believe a good compromise would be to build it just a few hundred yards to the south and west of the currently proposed site, say on the recently cleared site of the former Michael Reese Hospital, a patch of land ripe for development. There the Lucas Museum would be a tremendous anchor to a burgeoning new community. 

Some claim that since it's the Lucas's money, they should get to choose where their museum goes and what it should look like. Well perhaps, but then please don't call the "gift" of the museum an act of philanthropy, call it an act of self-aggrandizement. 

On the other hand, while deep down I respect the Friends of the Parks and their mission, I do believe that in this case, they are going overboard with their assertion that the museum violates the public trust doctrine in any practical way. Since 1960 with the construction of the original McCormick Place (an egregious violation of the public trust doctrine), the ten block stretch of lakefront between the Field Museum and the south point of McCormick Place has blocked the view of Lake Michigan if not access to it. There are many who believe this unfortunate situation can and should be rectified by the demolition of the underused second McCormick Place building, built after the first was destroyed by a massive fire in 1967. The problem with that plan is the cost of tearing down the enormous structure, which would be borne by the taxpayers, would run in the hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps more. That would be a bitter pill to swallow, especially during lean times for the city and state coffers. If the Friends of the Parks win their lawsuit and prevent the construction of the Lucas Museum, it's more than likely that the site in question will remain in all its lackluster glory, barely distinguishable from the desert planet of Tatooine, for the foreseeable future.

Personally I believe the Lucas Museum would be a welcome if not particularly essential addition to the cultural landscape of Chicago. Judging from its PR conduit, its slick website, the Lucas people are bending over backwards to distance the museum from the Star Wars franchise. No, it is to be a museum featuring the vast art holdings of the Lucases, displayed with the intent of using them within the context of telling stories. The web site is vague in explaining how they intend to pull it all off, the only clue is the catch phrase: "this is to be a 21st century museum designed to change the way we think about museums."

Whatever.

All this talk about the cultural value of the joint is sure to sway some of the "elite" folks  derided by Father Pfleger. However I'm not so sure keeping Star Wars at an arm's length is such a good idea. If stimulating job growth and opportunity in this city by drawing as many visitors as possible to the place is the city's main concern, perhaps a Star Wars theme park would do a better job than a museum of narrative history. After all, George Lucas's place in history is as the creator of one of the most successful entertainment empires of all time, not as a museum curator. I'm sure name recognition alone will draw people to the place at the outset, but once word gets out that once there you can't participate in a mock light saber battle, enter a sound booth where you can change your voice into Chewbacca's, or experience hyperdrive behind the wheel of a virtual Millennium Falcon, people might lose interest.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be the end of the world if the museum doesn't get built in Cbicago. But as always, nothing is ever so easy. The failure of Mayor Obi Wan Emmanuel and the city of Chicago to secure the development of what should have been a no-brainer of an asset that would benefit many and harm no one, would send out to the world the unequivocal message that this city is an impossible place to do business. 

If that happens, rest assured the Friends of the Parks will bear the blame and their chairman, the dark lord Darth Juanita, will be placed in the unenviable position of being known throughout town as the person who crushed the hopes and dreams of the "young black and brown children of Chicago." Furthermore, the entire conservation/preservation community of Chicago will be held guilty by association for being impractical, unyielding, and an unwelcome obstacle to this city's development and progress. Rest assured that whatever credibility there exists between most of the people of Chicago and these groups will be lost.

For the Friends of the Parks, this is a battle of principle. To them, every inch of the lakefront must forever remain inviolate, regardless of the current status of the area in question. If the Lucas museum is built as planned, nothing of value will be lost, no dangerous precedent will be set, and if anything, the lakefront would gain public green space. If Friends of the Parks succeed in preventing the construction of the museum, the open lakefront movement would gain little if anything, other than bragging rights. I have nothing against fighting battles purely out of principle, but there are times when those battles are simply not worth winning.

In a short while. a federal appeals court will decide whether or not to proceed with the Friends of the Parks lawsuit to halt construction of the Lucas Museum. For the sake of the entire conservation/preservation community of Chicago, all the landmark parks, buildings and institutions in desperate need of our help saving, and especially for the sake of Friends of the Parks, I hope they lose this battle.

Race Bating

Commenting this week on the scandal du jour known as "Deflategate", Father Michael Phleger posted the following on his Facebook page:

Today ESPN reported that New England Patriots most probably deliberately DEFLATED the balls in the AFC Championship Game......If this is true then shouldn't the New England Patriots lose their title as was done to the Jackie Robinson West Team???? but, oh that's right the JRW team was all Black....silly me!!!!!!!! 

He was referring to investigations that have concluded that the National Football League champion New England Patriots tampered with balls used in the game leading up to the Super Bowl. At this writing, the NFL is contemplating punishments to both the team, and their quarterback Tom Brady, the alleged instigator of the transgression. Suspensions and fines most likely will be the result, not the stripping of their championship title, as was done to the Jackie Robinson West Little League team on account of rules violations.

I admire Father Pfleger, his ministry and his commitment to the predominantly African American community in which his parish, St. Sabina resides. I agree that the punishment to the JRW team was unnecessarily severe and bemoan the likelihood that the punishment to the Brady Bunch will probably be little more than a slap on the wrist. But I strongly object to Father Pfleger's defining the comparison of the two teams and their punishments around the issue of race.

First and foremost, the NFL and Little League Baseball are two unrelated governing bodies, the rulings of one have absolutely no relevance with the rulings of the other. Had LLB a history of letting off white teams for comparable rule violations, then Pfleger would have a point. However LLB already has a precedent of revoking the championships of teams who broke their rules. Had they given a lighter penalty to JRW, they most certainly would have been accused of favoritism toward an all black team.

Likewise, had a black quarterback, say Seattle's Russell Wilson, been accused of a similar offense as Brady's, and his team's Super Bowl championship from last year been revoked, the good Father would have been spot on. But neither the NFL, nor any other major American professional sports league to the best of my knowledge, has a precedent of revoking a championship for any reason.

If you look at the details of each case separately, I think it's clear that Father Pfleger's implication that race played into either decision is absurd. Last summer, the entire nation tuned in as two little league teams captured the public's imagination. The Taney Dragons of Philadelphia, featured Mo'ne Davis, a 5'4" girl with a 70 mph fastball. The other team was Jackie Robinson West, from the south side of Chicago. What was unusual about both teams as far as the Little League tournament was concerned, was that both came from big cities and were made up predominantly of African American players. The last part is particularly significant as organized baseball has witnessed a steady decline in the numbers of black players in its ranks for the past few decades. Nobody knows the exact reason for this but the attention paid to the two little league teams from Philadelphia and Chicago was seen as a shot in the arm for baseball in the African American community.

I don't have the numbers but I can't ever remember as much attention paid to the annual Little League Tournament held in Willimasport, PA. When the JRW team returned home to Chicago after capturing the American championship, they were hailed as conquering heroes, the celebration for them downtown was not unlike celebrations of Chicago's championship professional teams. Their championship was seen as a happy story which contrasted sharply with tales of violence and misery in much of Chicago's African American community.

With all the attention to youth baseball, all the good will generated, not to mention all the revenue gained from advertising and contributions brought through the efforts of the Jackie Robinson West team to the game, it's inconceivable to me that Little League Baseball would single out JRW for punishment because of their race. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that the opposite was not true, that JRW may have been given special treatment by receiving every benefit of the doubt, as the allegations of the team's fielding players from outside their district had been well known for a long time. It turned out that during the tournament, LLB simply chose to look the other way. It was not until long after the championship was awarded, when irrefutable evidence surfaced that the allegations of rules violations were true, that LLB was forced to act. Although I strongly disagree with the revoking of JRW's championship, LLB's decision was entirely consistent with their actions of the past.

There have been a number of instances where national championships have been revoked for rules violations in amateur sports organizations such as the NCAA. As a professional league, the National Football League has different commitments than amateur leagues, namely contracts, stock holders, team owners, and the most important source of revenue, the fans who pay for it all. A disqualification of a team's championship would go a long way to disrupt the ungodly revenue stream that comes into the NFL and other professional sports leagues. No one in the industry wants that. Unlike Major League Baseball, the majority of NFL players are black. A very large number of its fans are black. A different set of standards for blacks and whites would definitely not be in the best interest of an industry for whom the only color that matters, is green.

Father Pfleger does have one point. I said I do not believe that the ultimate decisions of the NFL and LLB were racially motivated, but the public's opinion, at least judging by the comments to Pfleger's post, is certainly racially charged. Unfortunately, most of the hundreds of comments the post received, seem to follow along racial lines; most of the black commenters supported Father Pfleger's implications, while most of the whites attacked him, sometimes in the most vulgar of terms. It must be pointed out that Father Pfleger himself is white.

Again, I applaud much of the work Father Pfleger has done at St. Sabinas, but I strongly urge him to tone the race bating down. There are plenty of instances of bigotry and racism in our society that deserve to be attacked. Finding racism in places where it does not exist, and further dividing us along the color line, is in no one's best interest, except sad to say, Father Pfleger's and others who seem to thrive on the attention it generates.

Fightin' Father Pfleger

These days, folks who live within the sound of the bells of the church at Racine and 78th Place on the South Side of Chicago refer to their community as Auburn-Gresham. My late Aunt Gertrude, (who has appeared in this space on numerous occasions, mostly on St. Patrick's Day), spent a great many of her 101 years in that neighborhood, but I'm sure the words "Auburn-Gresham" never crossed her lips. No, she lived in "St. Sabina's". The same goes for her best friend Ruth, several years her junior, who unlike Gert, was not a Catholic, but also came from "St. Sabina's".

Today in Chicago, and perhaps all over the world, the name St. Sabina's is far more well known than the name of the community it represents. That is entirely thanks to the man who has been its pastor for the last thirty years, Father Michael Pfleger.

Father Pfleger has been a tremendous force for good, not only at St. Sabina's parish, but in the entire community of Auburn-Gresham and beyond. As an activist, his has been a strong voice against many of the social ills that affect both the community and society at large; gangs, drugs, guns, violence, illicit sex, disrespect for women, racism, just to name a few. Not limiting his activism to the pulpit, Father Pfleger has taken cues from predecessors such as the Berrigan brothers. Like the anti-war priests that proceeded him, he has taken his activism into the streets, participating in acts of civil disobedience that has at least once landed him behind bars.

No stranger to publicity, for his efforts Pfleger has become something of a folk hero, (or villain depending on your point of view), in and around St. Sabina's and for that matter, the entire Chicago area.

Father Pfleger has also built up a strong Roman Catholic faith community within the largely non-Catholic African American community of Chicago. In a part of the city where Catholic churches are often taken over by other congregations, or shuttered and demolished, St. Sabina parish has flourished. It has sought and received little if any financial help from the Archdiocese of Chicago, and its finances remain in the black, even during difficult economic times. My own church on the other side of town cannot say the same about itself.

Given all of Pfleger's accomplishments, why one might ask, would Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago and spiritual leader of Chicago's 2.3 million Catholics, have his sights set on removing Father Pfleger from his post as pastor of St. Sabina's? Cynics would argue that the Archbishop is simply trying to use his power to silence a renegade priest who has often publicly expressed dissent with many of the expressed positions of the Church.

While it's true that the Cardinal has openly declared Father Pfleger at times to be a thorn in his side, he has also expressed praise and admiration for Pfleger's hard work and dedication to the faith and to his community. The fact is, over the past thirty years, every Catholic parish in Chicago, except one, has had to deal with the reassignment of at least one pastor, most likely more. While not nearly as well known as Father Pfleger, many of these men were just as vital, important and beloved to their parishes. Priests, including pastors, typically sign on for a 6 year stint at a given church, those who are pastors may have the option to sign on for another six years. That's it, twelve years at a parish and then it's time to go. That is, with the exception of Father Pfleger.

Many parishioners develop close relationships with their priests, and as I have experienced many times over, it can be difficult to say goodbye. The twelve year rule may seem to be arbitrary and unfair, but the cult of personality that develops around a popular priest can be problematic when that priest becomes the sole representative of the Church for his parishioners. By enforcing the rule, the Church is stating unequivocally that we Catholics are followers of Christ, and not of a particular priest.

The strong reaction against the Cardinal's decision to reassign Pfleger, by the parishioners of St. Sabina's and Father Pfleger himself, illustrate the Church's concern rather clearly. Pfleger has publicly stated that he may choose to leave the Roman Catholic Church, and implicitly stated that he'd take many of his congregation with him if the Cardinal persists in his actions. Which begs the question, do his parishioners see themselves first and foremost as Christians and Catholics, or Pflegerites?

By his actions, Pfleger has inadvertently made himself the poster child for support of the twelve year rule.

For his part, I believe the Cardinal has shown remarkable restraint and patience in his dealings with Father Pfleger. After all, Cardinal George was installed as Archbishop fourteen years ago, four years past Pfleger's twelfth anniversary as pastor of St. Sabina's, if my math is correct. He could have reassigned Pfleger from the get go had he chosen to do so. During the Cardinal's tenure in Chicago, he has had to publicly reign in Pfleger for several egregious comments made by the pastor. Once he threatened to "snuff out" a gun shop owner. Another was a well publicized racial diatribe against Hillary Clinton during her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. The candidate Pfleger supported, Barack Obama, had to distance himself from Pfleger and his divisive words. Father Pfleger later apologized for both comments.

As it stands now, the Cardinal has only recommended that Father Pfleger step down at St. Sabina's to become the president of Leo High School which is steps away from the church. The new post would allow Pfleger to remain in the neighborhood, be free to continue his activities, and on occasion at least, celebrate mass at St. Sabina's. Yet Pfleger and his parishioners continue to protest what seems to be a very reasonable compromise.

Pfleger made his comments about possibly leaving the Catholic Church on NPR's Tavis Smiley program. You can hear a snippet of that interview here. In response, the Cardinal has suspended Pfleger from his role as pastor for an unspecified period of time. I'll let the Cardinal speak for himself. Here in PDF form is Cardinal George's letter to Father Pfleger, telling him of the suspension.

To the parishioners of St. Sabina's I would say this. I have great compassion for your cause. Father Pfleger has been a beacon of light in a troubled world. He has brought hope, inspiration and along with it, much needed development into your community. While it is very difficult to lose a beloved priest, it doesn't sound like he'll ever be very fay away. But it is very important to understand that in the Catholic faith at least, the Church does not belong to the Pope, Archbishop or the Parish Priest, all of whom will one day leave. It belongs to God. All of us as believers, black or white, are members of St. Sabina on the far South Side and members of St. Margaret Mary on the far North Side. Whether we're African, Asian, or European, American or Australian, we all belong to the Body of Christ. And as members of one body, we need each other. You are in my thoughts and my prayers.

Finally to Father Pfleger I would add this, if he cares to listen. You have fought many gallant battles against all odds against terrible causes of evil in our community. More often than not, you have won, and for that we owe you a debt of gratitude. That is your legacy. It is better to build than to tear apart as you no doubt know and we are all stronger when we are together than when we are apart. Some battles are worth fighting. Respectfully, this one is not. May God bless and keep you.


POST SCRIPT...

At the end of May, Cardinal George reinstated at least temporarily, Father Pfleger as the pastor of St. Sabina parish. The controversial priest has agreed to work out a transition plan for sometime in the future. You can read more about it here.

It sounds like everybody wins.