Illinois marching band to play inauguration

Illinois marching band to play inauguration

BOURBONNAIS — Select students from a private Christian university in Kankakee County will be among the first to welcome Donald Trump to the White House later this month.

Olivet Nazarene University's marching band received word just before Christmas that it had been invited to perform in the 2017 Inaugural Parade in Washington, D.C., news that had one local Olivet alum wishing she hadn't already graduated.

Julia Ryherd, a 2011 graduate of Mahomet-Seymour High and 2015 graduate of the private school located 90 miles north of Champaign, participated in the marching band for a few years in college and called the news "fantastic."

"The implications of this are huge and I'm proud that we've been selected for such a prestigious event," she said. "I hope the members enjoy every moment of it, no matter where their political views fall. This is an honor and they're representing one of the best schools out there and showing off their talent as never before. That's an awesome place to be."

Last year, the school's marching band was invited to participate in the New Year's Eve Festival and Parade in London, which likely put Olivet a head above other inaugural aspirants, university President John Bowling said.

The school's band director, Matthew Stratton, started the application process in late October, before the results of the presidential election were known. While the news of Olivet's participation has received "mixed responses" from students and alumni — some even started a petition asking the university to not attend — Bowling said the band would have participated regardless of who was elected.

"The inauguration of a new president is not a political event, but a civic ceremony honoring the office of the president and involving every branch of government. It is an honor to represent the university and the state of Illinois on a national stage," Bowling said. "This selection reflects our band's long hours of preparation and hard work and provides a wonderful, rare opportunity for our students to see firsthand the peaceful transition of government."

Sections (2):News, Local

Comments embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on January 08, 2017 at 1:01 am
Profile Picture

Only The Best People, just like he promised.

CallSaul wrote on January 08, 2017 at 4:01 pm

That evengelicals and fundamentalists voted in such high proportion for Trump, beloved by white supremicists, neo nazies and bigots of every stripe, shows what the rest of us have always known: the vast majority of right wing Christians are hypocrites and bigots and they voted for Trump because he shares their bigotry, prejudice and hatred.

There's no way they can deny it any longer.

Homeboy wrote on January 08, 2017 at 6:01 pm

I think people voted for Trump because they didn't like Clinton. Plain and simple.

CallSaul wrote on January 08, 2017 at 7:01 pm

People would not have voted for Big Daddy Putin's little stooge if they didn't share his prejudice. When people say 'Trump says what I think' they mean that he accurately expresses their hatred and bigotry.

And remember that Lil' Poodle lost the popular vote by 3 million. Most people voted against his bigotry.

But most evangelicals and fundamentalists voted for his hatred and clearly, they did so because they share that hatred of so many different groups of people...

Homeboy wrote on January 08, 2017 at 9:01 pm

Don't think people only voted for him because they share his prejudice views. Lots of African Americans and latinos voted for him. If he was such a bad candidate and won what does that say about Hillary? He won the electoral vote and unless you are moving out of the country he is gonna be your president real soon. Better get used to it for at least four years.

CallSaul wrote on January 08, 2017 at 10:01 pm

Actually relatively few latinos and fewer black Americans voted for this bigot. And what it says about Clinton is that 3 million more Americans  of all races voted for her than for the soon to be installed minority president Lil' Poodle.

And thanks, I understand how the consitution works. But no, the majority of the country who voted against Putin's little lickspittle won't be leaving the country to the bigoted trumpkins.

What you better get used to is hearing from the majority who reject this bigotry. 

And make no mistake: whether Big Daddy Putin's Lil' Poodle actually serves out an entire four year term is still very much an open question...

champaign61821 wrote on January 09, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Regardless of political views, as soon as someone uses "clever" nicknames for a politician or public figure, they discredit their own argument. Saying things like "Big Daddy Putin's little stooge" and "Lil' Poodle" just make you sound unintelligent and petty. I think the same thing about people on the other side of the fence that say things like "Shillary" or "Nobama". 

You could have said exactly what I think you meant to say about Trump and Putin without resorting to childish name-calling. Quips like that being the norm now are why political discourse is so vile in this country, and why people are scared to dicuss politics with their own loved ones. It's sad, really.

CallSaul wrote on January 09, 2017 at 4:01 pm

I may not comment in a manner you approve of -- c'est la vie.

But if you seriously believe that admittedly silly nicknames like the ones I use --- and not that such a large minoirty of Americans eargerly support our new racist and bigoted president-elect ---are the real root cause of the current sad state of our politics, then I gotta say you're way off base.

No amount of nickname-free dialogue is going to magically end their bigotry and hatred...

champaign61821 wrote on January 09, 2017 at 5:01 pm

No, it's not going to end their bigotry and hatred. But, we are still decades away from any real movement on that front. Maybe once the baby boomers die off.

BruckJr wrote on January 09, 2017 at 7:01 pm

Of course.  Those baby boomers are such bigots.

Tom Napier wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

So, do you think insult-laden dialog is going to magically end bigotry and hatred?  Just the opposite, I contend.  You're polarizing opinion, promoting extremism.  This is even worse! 

If you feel that strongly, you should be advocating compromise and consensus among those of differing opinions.  Stop trying to make people dislike others even more than they already do. 

PSL wrote on January 10, 2017 at 12:01 am

I think the band should bring along the old racist mascot that used to dance around like a caricature at Illinois games 

Illiniwek222 wrote on January 10, 2017 at 9:01 am

How's that first Illinois mascot coming along?

PSL wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

It got banned for being racist

Illiniwek222 wrote on January 10, 2017 at 4:01 pm

Judging by attire on campus, the symbol to which you seem to be referring, is ever present.

PSL wrote on January 10, 2017 at 5:01 pm

It's true, there are still many people who wear shirts portraying the old racist mascot. It's funny, because the old racist mascot hasn't been allowed to do his clown routine for a decade, and it never will again. This makes a lot of people very grouchy, because they liked the old racist mascot a whole lot. All in all, a very funny situation!

Illiniwek222 wrote on January 12, 2017 at 10:01 am

You seem upset that a decade later, the Chief lives on. He'll still be around long after you've made your last lame comment.

Reykjavik wrote on January 10, 2017 at 11:01 am

Call Saul embodies what I hate about politics = kneejerk name calling and nastiness.

I didnt vote for Trump, do not like his appointments, dont like his egoistic style and potty mouth, skeptical that he will help his low-income supporters.  BUT I am keeping an open mind about his governance, which is what really matters.  If he can make things better for more Americans, I am all for it.

Those of us that voted for Clinton saw her flaws - lust for money/pride through the Clinton Foundation, arrogant handling of email, assinine personal appointments, disdain for "deplorables".  

CallSaul wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

So you're willing to overlook Lil' Poodle calling Mexican immigrants rapists, murderers and other kinds of criminals?

You'll look the other way over his proposed Muslim citizen registry.

You don't mind too much that he mocked a disabled reporter?

You don't mind either that he brags about grabbing women by the genitals and other instances of sexual assault?

You don't care about his eager support for the racist birther conspiracy that even got a former Champagin mayor booted from office?

You're not too bothered by his conspiring with Russia to subvert our elections?

You aren't too concerned about his promise to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans?

You don't mind that he'll go along with the radical right wing agenda to defund Planned Parenthood?

It doesn't bother you that he'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v Wade?

You're sanguine about him having his twitchy little fingers on the nuclear button?

You're ready to overlook his general racism and bigotry?

All of this and much, much more are not too concerning for you. But what really bothers you are some comments on a local small town newspaper because they are the real problem.

You're willing to give Trump a chance. I mean, how bad can things work out for you after all...?

It's clear where your priorities lie. You'll have to excuse me if I don't see things the same way...

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 11, 2017 at 8:01 am

Look, I agree with you politically, it seems. But they're right. The constant name calling undercuts your valid points.

Tom Napier wrote on January 11, 2017 at 3:01 pm

And yet, he/she persists, undaunted by input from other reasonable people.

CallSaul wrote on January 12, 2017 at 8:01 am

This from the person who fanatically supports the racist laughing stock that used to be the local university's mascot. 

Sealioning isn't reasonable, effective or a sign of any great debating skill or intelligence. It's just ham handed concern trolling.

Your hypocrisy and lack of self awareness is at least illustrative so thanks for that...

PSL wrote on January 12, 2017 at 7:01 am

Why does Tom Napier always seem like he's on the verge of tears in these comments?

Tom Napier wrote on January 13, 2017 at 11:01 am

It's disappointing that some participating in this forum are incapable of articulating a reasoned, thoughtful response to statements and opinions written in the context of the subject article. 





CallSaul wrote on January 11, 2017 at 11:01 pm

Meh. If someone says they decided to disagree with me because I use silly names like Lil' Poodle or Big Daddy Putiin then they weren't every really going to agree with me anyway. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 13, 2017 at 8:01 am

Then you're just yelling into the abyss with no real point.

CallSaul wrote on January 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm

Well, it's certainly true that assumptions of rationality and appeals to reason have turned this country into a progressive utopia over the last half century or so, but still nonetheless I've been feeling just a wee bit zany these past couple of months...

Tom Napier wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Callsaul needs a new disparaging nickname for Trump.  "Poodle" is already taken.

Anwar Sadat was known as Abdel Nasser's "Poodle" while Nasser ruled Egypt.  As Nasser was an avowed enemy of Israel, Sadat, "Nasser's Poodle," should be also be an avowed enemy of Egypt.  After all, aren't all Middle Easterners the same? 

But wait! Sadat signed peace treaties with Israel in 1974 and 1975 and Israel and Egypt have not engaged in war since.  Some "Poodle" he was!

My complaint with people like Callsaul is not their opinion of Trump; I don't like him either.  My complaint is the total absense of constructive criticism.  He/she is righteously right and the rest of us are all idiots.  My complaint is he/she thinks they're turning all these idiots away from Trump when, by his childish ranting, is convincing readers he/she is no more than a buffoon.  My complaint is that by categorizing all supporters of Trump as racists, he/she fits the very definition of racist -- but won't ever realize and acknowledge it.  My complaint is that he/she has stuck his/her head up ... a cloud ... pretending Trump isn't "their" president. 

But my greatest complaint is that he/she suggests no constructive action to change the political sympathies of the electorate.  Yeah, insult me.  Get all militant in my face.  That's the best way for me to summarily dismiss your argument as irrelevant. 

CallSaul wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

People who voted for Lil' Poodle did so knowing full well he's a racist bigot. That makes them, at the least, people who are just fine tolerating a racist bigot in the White House. In most cases, this is because they share his racism and bigotry.

Guess what? I'm under no obligation to speak respectfully to people who knowingly voted for the racist bigot.

Or to people who still rant in support of the racist old 'chief' mascot, Tom.

Now rant some more about how people who citiricize racists are the real racists because that's a very constructive and productive line of argumentation if there ever was one...

Tom Napier wrote on January 10, 2017 at 2:01 pm

And whom did I vote for President of the United States?  And you know this ... how?

Actually, you are under an obligation speak respectfully to people with whom you disagree ...  if you want anyone to give serious consideration to your arguement.   This respect is called communication.  It's called Politics (with a captial P).  It's called civility.  It's called diplomacy.   It's called engaging others with whom you disagree in a constructive dialog -- which is different from exposing them to a vitriolic  monologue.  It's called the way our society operates; by established standards and mores.   It's called co-existance.  It's called inclusiveness.  It's called respect.

Suporting your arguement with factual, or at least objective information is also highly recommended.

If you have no expectations of gaining the respect of those you insult and belittle, you're probably better off (certainly no worst off) standing in the shower, without the water running, shouting the things you write.  I'm sure you'll enjoy the resonance of your own voice.

Please see  I think you fill the Graham Chapman and John Cleese roles quite nicely.

Good day, sir.

CallSaul wrote on January 11, 2017 at 6:01 am

No one but you and people who share your worldview will be surprised that I'm not the least but interested in taking a lecture on respect for other people from a man who still fanatically rants in support of the racist old prancing 'chief' mascot.

Like many rightwingers, your fainting couch routine about 'respect,' civility and proper decorum is transparently disingenuous and just a clumsy attempt to tell people expressing views you disagree with to be quiet.

With the latest --- but no doubt not the last --- news of the Russisans blackmailing Lil' Poodle over his perversions, you better get used to hearing a lot of criticism of Big Daddy Putin's little stooge.

Tom Napier wrote on January 11, 2017 at 3:01 pm

"No one but you and people who share your worldview will be surprised that I'm not the least but (sic) interested in taking a lecture on respect for other people ... "

Unfortunately, not a bit surprised.  That you're not the least bit interested in respect is patently obvious.  Such is the way of The Activist.

You use the word "rant."  I think the established, accepted definition of the word (if you acknowledge such things) makes it clear who's ranting.

From Merriam Webster's dictionary:

"Definition of rant

intransitive verb

1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

2 : to scold vehemently

transitive verb

: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

Examples of rant in a sentence

“You can rant and rave all you want,” she said, “but it's not going to change things.”

He ranted that they were out to get him.


bluster, fulminate, huff, rave, spout

Related Words

sound off, speak out, speak up; blare, blurt out, bolt; bloviate, blow, declaim, harangue, mouth (off), orate, pontificate; carry on, rage, storm, take on


2 noun Definition of rant

a : bombastic extravagant speech

b : bombastic extravagant language

Examples of RANT in a sentence

After complaining about the hotel's lousy service, the woman went off on another rant about the condition of her room

Instead of addressing the current crisis, the mayor's speech was a lot of rant emphasizing his accomplishments


diatribe, harangue, jeremiad, philippic, tirade

Related Words

assault, attack, broadside, invective, lambasting, lashing, tongue-lashing, vituperation; berating, chewing out, rebuke, reprimand, reproach, reproof; abuse, castigation, censure, condemnation, criticism, denunciation; belittlement, deprecation, depreciation, disparagement, dissing; excoriation, execration, revilement; admonishment, admonition, lecture, sermon


Definition of rant for English Language Learners

: to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable


Definition of rant for Students

 : to talk loudly and wildly"


This online dictionary also includes a Comments feature, much like that of the News Gazette.  I find the following interesting, especially in the context of this article.  I removed the commenters names and locations.  

"Hillary Clinton, ranted yesterday 9-11-2016, calling 50% of Donald Trump supporters a "Basket of Deplorables."

Likewise, Donald Trump ranted during his campaign that Mexicans are rapists. That makes the two of them. LOL

A favorite noun for trolls with miniscule debating abilities and poor researching skills against those who have reasoned arguments and research to back them up."


Sorry, I couldn't pass this up. 

Tom Napier wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

In my second paragraph above, I mistakenly typed "Egypt" instead of "Israel."  That line should have read "Sadat would also be an avowed enemy of Israel," not Egypt.

My sincere apologies.

Illiniwek222 wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Apology accepted. Your "buffoon" comment hit the nail on the head.

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Well, the band will march and play, but they will not dance.  Dancing is too much like sex standing up.  For the rock and rollers, there will be Ted Nugent.

khbdab wrote on January 10, 2017 at 4:01 pm

Proud of them for nor bowing to the pressure and seeing this for what ot is, The opportunity to play an inaugeration is a once in a life time experience.

Liz wrote on January 13, 2017 at 9:01 am

The main stream media pinned Mr. Trump as a racist as they do all Republicans.  When it is was HRC who's meantor was a KKK member.  We spoke as a nation  and those of you that want to spew your insults need to get over yourselves.  This is a great thing for this band and we the people are not going to let the bully's on the left influence our decisions.  The irresponsiblity of the bias media and the ones who like to create havoc is responsible for the division in this country.  Fear mongering is what the left wing part of the democratic party  has done for years.   

Tom Napier wrote on January 13, 2017 at 11:01 am

I seem to have stricken a nerve with a couple commenters to this article, specifically with regards to insults and name calling aimed at those with whom they disagree.  Please let me take a different direction.

In comment #19, 2 days and 21 hours ago at this writing, Callsaul provides a littany of characteristics he/she attributes to Donald Trump, and to which he/she obviously disagrees.  His/her commentary is directed toward other commenters that he/she perceives -- rightly or wrongly -- to be Trump supporters, but nothing is directed toward Trump himself.

May I ask, politely and hopefully in a constructive fashion, what these commenters recommend the citizenry, the voting public, do to mitigate these undesirable characteristics or redirect the President Elect's performance once in office?  Two points:  1) name calling an insults are ineffective, and 2) what construtive course of action would be effective. 

I think these are entirely reasonable questions to ask and, therefore, ought to solicit reasonable replies.  Ought to. 


Objective Reporter wrote on January 14, 2017 at 9:01 am

So, how 'bout that band, huh?  

Westsider wrote on January 14, 2017 at 9:01 am

It is amazing to see people on here whining about name calling who supported the guy who coined the terms "crooked Hillary", "lying Ted", and "low energy Jeb". The name hypocrite comes to mind.

Tom Napier wrote on January 14, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Critizing one side of an argument does not constitute endorsing the other.

I didn't vote for Trump.  I think his personality, demeanor, egomania, reckless approach to foreign policy, among others, make him unsuitable to be President of the United States.  I agree his name calling is petty and bush league. 

The point is whichever side of this issue one is on, calling Trump supporters white supremicists, neo nazis, poodles, spittle lickers, racists, bigots, hypocrites, etc. is only degenerating to the same depths of infantile behavior.  Inflamatory rhetoric serves no purpose other than antagonize and alienate the opposition. 

A mature, thoughtful person should be capable of expressing themselves without the vitriolic rant; should be able to articulate a rationale for their disagreement or opposition; should be able to propose constructive actions to affect an improvement. 

CallSaul wrote on January 14, 2017 at 1:01 pm

What, I wonder, could possibly motivate certain people to ignore and by their silence condone racism --- or in Napier's case, fanatically rant in favor of the old racist mascot --- but rush to their fainting couch whenever someone else criticizes racism?

They even call those who decry racism the real racists. 

And they pontificate endlessly about respect and proper decorum in poorly executed attempts at sealioning.

What would be an accurate and well deserved description of people who fundamentally believe criticizing racism is orders of magnitude worse than actual racism...?