Like the Obama Presidential Center, Jackson Park was born over the furious objections of Chicagoans

Frederick Law Olmsted assumed Chicagoans making the journey to Jackson Park would
come by boat, so the Midway Plaisance was originally intended to be a canal.

   
     I've been blessed over the years to have access to one of the finest private research facilities in the world, the Newberry Library, which kindly permits me to be a scholar-in-residence. Using their resources really enhanced the following story — I probably would have never known about Frederick Law Olmsted's report on the future Jackson Park had I not bumped into an original copy waiting for me in the Newberry collection.

     The Obama Presidential Center had to overcome many hurdles before coming into existence, including continual protest and two federal lawsuits. The same is true for the parkland the center rests upon, which from the start sparked debate and litigation. Even the park’s name was once subject to “universal” outcry.
     When formed in 1869, the Chicago South Park Commission faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles. First, it had no money — its authority to raise taxes ended up in front of the Illinois Supreme Court. Second, it had no land: The property it wanted was in the hands of people who demanded "exorbitant prices" or passionately refused to sell. Third, its legal right to exist was questioned.    
     Or, as the Chicago Times wrote, reporting on the commission's first annual meeting in 1870:  

     "Many persons owning property within the park and others on general principles and for various reasons manifested strong opposition to every measure tending to produce this result and proclaimed that, as advised by 'counsel learned in the law,' the South Park Act was 
unconstitutional and void."
     But a bond of $1,642,000 was floated, with $918.87 for office furniture and $1,500 to Olmsted, Vaux & Co. to assess the suitability of the area around Drexel and Kankakee avenues as a future park for a city whose population had nearly tripled in the previous decade.

     The landscape firm was headed by Frederick Law Olmsted, famous for turning the ruins of "pig-sties, slaughter-houses, and bone-boiling works" into New York's Central Park and more recently carving 1,600 acres of Cook County farmland along the Des Plaines River into the nation's first planned suburb, aptly named Riverside.     

     In his 1871 "Report Accompanying Plan for Laying Out the South Park," Olmsted wistfully invoked "the great roaming grounds" of London and Paris before delivering the bad news about the barbell-shaped, 1,000-acre property that Chicago wanted to render into parkland. 
     "Your territory lies at the distance of six miles from the center of business of Chicago and quite beyond its corporate limits," he wrote — indeed, Hyde Park would not join Chicago until 1889. "Its neighborhood is mostly uncultivated country, much of it unenclosed and sparsely inhabited."
     The city could double and double again, Olmsted wrote, and yet the park "will not be much used by the citizens of Chicago."
     Here he was mistaken. While Jackson Park would never become the central civic feature that downtown's Grant Park would be, it would serve the recreational needs of the city's vibrant South Side, include including two popular beaches, and bask in international attention as host of the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. It would leave , leaving a legacy of one cultural landmark, the Griffin Museum of Science and Industry, and another frequently overlooked gem, La Rabida Hospital — , and leading eventually, despite furious efforts to thwart it, to the Obama Presidential Center.

Olmsted's task, and his obstacles

     Back in 1871, though, Olmsted bemoaned the land he was given to work with.
     "The first obvious defect of the site is that of its flatness," he wrote. What is needed is "a mountain glen with a dashing stream and cascades."
     That being impossible, Olmsted's view fell upon an undeniable "highly picturesque" feature already right there: Lake Michigan.
     "There is but one object of scenery near Chicago of special grandeur or sublimity and that, the Lake, can be made, by artificial means, no more grand or sublime."
     Olmsted envisioned a series of lagoons connected by a mile-long canal, the Midway Plaisance — an old French word for "pleasantness" — the assumption being that most Chicagoans making the journey would go by boat. The first L tracks wouldn't be laid until 1892.
     Fate had other ideas, namely the Great Chicago Fire of October 1871 that destroyed the South Side Park Commission office — along with most of Olmsted's plans.

To continue reading, click here.

We love your book! Now give us money...

    

"Fortune Teller," by Georges de la Tour.

     No column in the paper today. I'm taking a few days off. Of course, I will not leave you high and dry.

     Scams are so sad. That people grub their living — or, heck, roll in wealth, some without doubt, by defrauding others. That others are defrauded. They fall for this stuff. Their hope, their pride, their vulnerability draws them in. And they hand over their hard-earned money.
     And now scammers have artificial intelligence to help them.
     I was looking through my spam folder and noticed this subject heading:

     "Invitation to Feature Every Goddamn Day: A Highly Selective, Definitely Opinionated, and Tour of Chicago with Newtown Book Club"

     Already a tip-off. That's not the name of my book, but an AI garble of the actual full name: "Every Goddamn Day: A Highly Selective, Definitely Opinionated, and Alternatingly Humorous and Heartbreaking Historical Tour of Chicago" (believe it or not, the original subtitle the publishers cooked up was longer — it's a trend, related to search optimization, I believe. I begged University of Chicago Press to let me shorten it, and they did).
     The garbled subtitle. The friction between "feature" and "with." My guard was already up.
     Then the letter. Read it, and we'll list the red flags.

Hello Neil Steinberg,

      I hope you are having a wonderful week. My name is Mayo Taylor, and I’m part of the organizing team at Newtown Book Club, a community of readers drawn to culturally engaged, intellectually curious, and discussion-driven books.
     I was recently looking for thought-provoking books to feature for our upcoming community discussions, and Every Goddamn Day: A Highly Selective, Definitely Opinionated, and Tour of Chicago immediately caught my eye. A witty, raw, and unapologetic 365-day journey through the forgotten crimes, political scandals, and beautiful mutations of Chicago history.
     Authors receive many impersonal emails these days, so I want to be entirely transparent with you. We are a genuine reader-focused community that enjoys bringing people together through meaningful book discussions. Our goal is simply to connect readers with books that inspire conversation, reflection, and engagement.
     We would love to feature Every Goddamn Day: A Highly Selective, Definitely Opinionated, and Tour of Chicago at a future Newtown Book Club discussion if you are open to it. As part of the feature, we invite the author to contribute a short written Q&A to accompany the discussion. There is no need for travel and no live Zoom appearance required; we handle everything on our end to make participation simple, flexible, and low-effort.
     There is absolutely no pressure at all, but if this sounds like something you might be interested in, I would be happy to share more details about the timing, logistics, donation, and how the feature process works.
     Thank you so much for your time and for sharing your work with readers.

Warm regards,
Mayo Taylor
Newtown Book Club

How  many read flags did you get? I'll limit myself to six:

1: "Organizing team." What book club has an "organizing team."
2. The AI slop beginning "A witty, raw and unapologetic..." and ending with the telltale, "beautiful mutations of Chicago history." What would that even mean?
3. The preemptive "We are a genuine reader-focused community..." The guilty flee where none pursueth.
4. Using the garbled subtitle twice more.
5. Then the giveaway, a single word, "donation."
6. And what kind of name is "Mayo"?

I of course wrote back:

     Wow, sounds exciting. What are the details? Book sales are slow, I've had trouble keeping food on the table for my six children, and we'd welcome the boost of an important club such as yours. What is the next step?

Best,
Neil Steinberg

     Why should fraudsters be the only ones allowed to casually lie? The AI scammer flooded the zone. Feel free to skim:

          Hello Neil,

     Thank you very much for your reply and for your interest in learning more about the feature process. I would be happy to explain everything in detail so you can have a complete understanding of how it works from beginning to end.
     The purpose of our author features is to create a meaningful connection between readers and authors through thoughtful discussion. We select books that we believe will generate strong engagement among our members, and then we organize a dedicated feature around the book so readers can explore both the work itself and the ideas behind it.

     If Every Goddamn Day is featured, the process generally unfolds in several stages.
     The first stage is scheduling and preparation. Once an author expresses interest, we work out a suitable timeframe for the feature. This gives our members time to obtain the book, begin reading, and familiarize themselves with its themes, stories, and subject matter. During this period, we also prepare promotional materials and discussion plans for the upcoming feature.
     The second stage involves introducing the book to our community. We create a feature announcement that highlights the book, its subject matter, and the author. In your case, we would introduce readers to Every Goddamn Day as a unique and highly personal exploration of Chicago history, culture, politics, scandals, forgotten stories, and the city's many contradictions. The goal is to generate interest and encourage members to begin reading and discussing the book.
     The third stage is the author Q&A portion. This is the only contribution we typically request from the author. We prepare a list of written questions about the book, your inspiration for writing it, the research involved, your experiences with Chicago, memorable stories from the project, your writing process, and any broader themes you hope readers take away from the work.
     The questions are sent to you electronically, and you answer them whenever your schedule permits. There is no live interview, no travel, no video conference, and no public speaking requirement. Many authors appreciate this format because it allows them to participate on their own schedule while still giving readers valuable insight into the book.
     The fourth stage is the reader discussion itself. During the feature period, members discuss the book and the themes it raises. Readers often explore specific stories, historical events, writing choices, research methods, and broader ideas connected to the work. The author Q&A serves as an important companion to these discussions because it gives readers a direct connection to the creator of the book.
     The fifth stage is promotion and visibility. We promote the feature throughout our reader community and encourage engagement with the book. This helps bring      attention to the title and creates opportunities for readers who may not have previously encountered the work to discover it. Many readers enjoy learning about the author’s background, research journey, and motivations in addition to reading the book itself.
     The sixth stage is the completion of the feature. Once the discussion period concludes, the feature remains part of our community's reading history and serves as an additional point of discovery for readers who encounter the discussion later.
     To summarize the author's role, participation is intentionally straightforward:
     • Agree to a feature date and timeline.
     • Receive a list of written questions.
     • Submit written responses at your convenience.
     • Allow us to share those responses alongside the reader discussion.
     Everything else is handled by our team. We organize the schedule, coordinate the discussion, prepare materials, communicate with readers, and manage the presentation of the feature.

      I also want to be completely transparent regarding the donation mentioned in my original email. The donation is intended to help support the administrative, organizational, and promotional work involved in preparing and running an author feature. These efforts include coordinating the event schedule, preparing discussion materials, organizing reader engagement, formatting author content, promoting the feature within the community, and handling the logistics that allow the feature to run smoothly.

     The donation is not a payment for readers to read the book, nor is it a purchase of reviews, ratings, endorsements, or guaranteed sales. Our readers are encouraged to engage with books honestly and independently. The donation simply helps support the work required to organize and present the feature itself.

     Before any commitment is made, I am happy to provide the complete details regarding scheduling, timelines, donation information, and any other questions you may have so that you can decide whether participation would be worthwhile for you.
     I truly appreciate your interest and would be delighted to discuss the next steps if the feature sounds like a good fit. Every Goddamn Day offers such a distinctive perspective on Chicago that I believe our readers would find both entertaining and thought-provoking, and I would be excited to introduce the book to our community.          Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. 
Warm regards,
Mayo Taylor

Newtown Book Club

 I decided to feign confusion:

Dear Mayo:

Thanks for your quick and detailed reply. It all makes sense, except for the donation part — believe me, I'm grateful that you would set this up. I'm not expecting you to also pay me for the administrative work I will do to get ready. Though as I said, times are tight, so I am curious: how much money are you offering me?

Neil Steinberg

     At that, I expected the scammer, or algorithm, or whatever, to cut bait.  But no.

Dear Neil,

     Thank you for your reply and for your thoughtful questions.
     I believe there may be a small misunderstanding regarding the donation portion, so I wanted to clarify it as clearly as possible.
     When I referred to the donation in my previous emails, I was not referring to an honorarium or payment that our club provides to authors. Rather, the donation is a voluntary contribution associated with participating in a feature and helps support the administrative, organizational, and promotional work involved in preparing and running the feature.
     This includes coordinating the discussion schedule, preparing discussion materials, organizing reader engagement, formatting and presenting the author Q&A, promoting the feature within our community, and managing the overall logistics required to make the feature successful.
     To be completely transparent, Newtown Book Club does not currently provide honoraria or appearance fees to featured authors. Our features are intended as reader-focused opportunities that help introduce books to our community and encourage discussion and discovery among interested readers.
     I sincerely apologize if my earlier explanation created any confusion. That was certainly not my intention, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to clarify.
     If you are still interested after reviewing the details, I would be happy to explain the feature timeline, answer any additional questions, and provide further information about how participation works so you can decide whether it would be a good fit for you.
     Thank you again for your time, and I appreciate your interest in the discussion.
     Warm regards,
     Mayo Taylor
     Newtown Book Club

     That has to be, what? AI-cleaned up prose written in Ghana? I decided to let realization dawn.

    Dear Mayo: 

    Oh, I see. My apologies. My head can be cloudy with the chemotherapy. You want me to pay you. What is the recommended donation? 

     Best,

     Neil Steinberg

    Give them points for persistence.   

 Dear Neil,

     Thank you for your reply, and no apology is necessary at all. I appreciate your willingness to continue the conversation.
      To answer your question directly, the recommended donation for a standard author feature is $85 USD. 
     I want to emphasize that the donation is intended to help support the organizational and promotional work involved in preparing and running the feature, including coordinating the discussion, preparing materials, managing reader engagement, presenting the author Q&A, and promoting the feature within our community.
     That said, we understand that every author's circumstances are different. The recommended amount is not intended to create pressure or make participation uncomfortable. My goal is simply to be transparent about the process so that you can decide whether it represents good value for you and your book.
      If you decide to move forward, the next step would be for us to discuss scheduling and determine a suitable timeframe for the feature. After that, we would provide the discussion timeline and the written Q&A questions for you to complete at your convenience.
     I genuinely appreciate your interest in sharing Every Goddamn Day with our readers. The book offers such a distinctive perspective on Chicago's history, politics, culture, and character that I believe it would lead to a memorable and engaging discussion.
     Please let me know your thoughts, and I would be happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

Warm regards,
Mayo Taylor
Newtown Book Club

     Honestly, I started feeling guilty for whatever guy in a Mumbai boiler room or windowless Nigerian warehouse was cobbling this together. But perversely, I pushed on:

Dear Mayo:
That isn't bad. Two questions: is the money paid before or after the event? And "donation" means the payment is voluntary, correct? If I decide the book club wasn't beneficial, I can refuse to pay anything at all, yes?
And I guess I'm curious about your "$85 USD" designation. "US Dollars?" A strange way to say it. Aren't you located in the United States?
Best,
Neil Steinberg

    Give them credit. They kept plugging.

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your thoughtful questions. I'm happy to clarify.

Regarding timing, the donation is generally arranged before the feature begins. The reason for this is that the planning, scheduling, preparation of discussion materials, reader outreach, promotion, and coordination all take place in advance of the actual feature. Much of the organizational work occurs before readers begin the discussion.

As for the term "donation," I should clarify that while participation is entirely optional, the feature itself is organized around the donation-supported model I described. In other words, there is no obligation for any author to participate, but once an author decides to move forward with a feature, the donation helps support the work involved in preparing and presenting it.

The donation is therefore not structured as a pay-after-results arrangement where an author evaluates the feature afterward and then decides whether to contribute. Rather, it supports the organizational efforts that occur before and during the feature process.

Regarding the "$85 USD" designation, I use "USD" simply for clarity because many of the authors and publishers we correspond with are located in different countries and work with different currencies. Using "USD" helps avoid confusion about the currency being referenced.

Our community includes readers and authors from various locations, so I have found it helpful to specify the currency explicitly rather than assume everyone is working in U.S. dollars.

I appreciate you taking the time to ask these questions. Transparency is important to me, and I want prospective authors to understand exactly how the process works before making any decision.

Please feel free to ask anything else that comes to mind. I'm happy to provide whatever information would help you determine whether the feature would be a good fit for you and your book.

Warm regards,
Mayo Taylor
Newtown Book Club

Bored yet? Long ago I assume. As much as I'd be curious just how long I could string this along, the truth is, I needed an item for today, so decided to pull the plug on this. 

Dear Mayo:

Thank you for your interest in my work. But the fact is, as tantalizing as your offer is, I have a new book that I'm writing, due to the publisher in January, and so need to concentrate all my energies on making progress on that. Perhaps someday in the future, when it's finished.

Best, 

Neil Steinberg

     And if there were any doubt that I have been dealing with AI — there shouldn't be — the final response should put that to rest. No human would have bothered:

Dear Neil,

Thank you very much for letting me know, and I completely understand.

Writing under a deadline demands an enormous amount of time, focus, and creative energy, and it makes perfect sense that your priority right now is completing your new book for your publisher. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to engage with me so thoughtfully throughout our correspondence despite your busy schedule.

While I am naturally disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to feature Every Goddamn Day at this time, I am grateful that you considered the invitation and shared more about your current commitments. I have no doubt that your readers will be eager to see what comes next.

Please accept my very best wishes as you work toward your January deadline. I hope the writing process goes smoothly and that the project proves both rewarding and successful.

And, of course, if at some point in the future you feel that the timing is better suited for a collaboration, I would be delighted to reconnect and explore the possibility of featuring either Every Goddamn Day or your forthcoming book with our community.

Thank you again for your time, generosity, and the work you continue to share with readers.

Warm regards,

Mayo Taylor
Newtown Book Club

To get the full crock of shit, you must be online

     The 13th anniversary of this blog is at the end of the month, and it occurs to me a number of years has passed since anyone complained to me about its name, "Every goddamn day." Which means either a) I don't get out as much anymore; b) life in general is coarsening; c) candor is no longer in style; d) all three.
     My guess is "d." 
     The origin story for the name, in case you don't know, is that my column was running four days a week in the Chicago Sun-Times and on Sundays in the New York Daily News. "I'm already writing five days a week," I told my boss, Michael Cooke. "Why don't I write the other two and be the only columnist in the country writing every goddamn day? I even have the advertising slogan for you: "Neil Steinberg, every goddamn day: only in the Sun-Times."
     For some reason, he didn't bite at that idea. But I told it to Tom Serafin, the political strategist, and his eyes lit up. He asked: "'Every goddamn day' — do you own that domain name?" I didn't, but hurried from lunch to Go Daddy and bought it. 
      In the early days, I would occasionally hear from the genuinely hurt, expressing true dismay at this slightly off-color name. I felt truly sorry for them — if you're that sensitive, imagine what a prickly place the world must be.
     Once in a great while it caused trouble. When the University of Chicago Press published a book inspired by the blog, "Every Goddamn Day," in 2022, WFMT wouldn't carry advertising for it, and WGN asked me not to mention the title. 
     Radio stations and newspapers are among the last holdouts in this area, and the scruple leads to inanity. As Exhibit A and Exhibit B, I'd like to offer the headlines from Wednesday Sun-Times and Tribune. 
    The main headline on the front page of the Sun-Times was, "GRAND JUROR CALLS CASE A CROCK OF S—-" This is how the excremental obscenity usually finds its way into print — as a quote. Remember, Donald Trump called Haiti a "shithole country" in 2018, and many papers, including the Sun-Times, used the quote undashed, nudged forward by presidential prestige I suppose. 
    Checking our archive, the Sun-Times has printed the word "shit" 181 times since it first appeared in 1996, in a story by my esteemed former colleague Scott Fornek and Sharon Cotliar about a readers forum in Orland Park:

     "Bullshit!" yelled Frank Alletto, 80, a retired steel worker from Tinley Park, leaping to his feet to shout down Sullivan. "One guy gets $14 million, and then they lay off 60,000 people. Your corporations are full of shit." 

     Strong stuff, yes? Anyone crumble reading it? I didn't think so.
     The cliche is that standards of conduct grow more slack as the years go by, but that isn't always the case. When I ran a story about Chicago Symphony Orchestra percussionist Cynthia Yeh, quoting her describing how her job is viewed: "“The layman feels it must be so satisfying to beat the shit out of something,” the paper wouldn't run the word undashed (the CSO, for their part, was so aghast to see it come out of the mouth of one of their musicians, they refused to let me continue with a planned series looking at the musicians through their instruments. Like it was my fault she said it. And to think people accuse them of being stuffy).
     The Tribune, of course, was worse Wednesday morning, choosing a word that achieved the neat trick of being more than twice as long yet less precise. 'I thought it was a crock of (expletive)'. Of course any reader knows what word goes after "crock of..." They'd have done better with that ellipsis.
     The odd thing is, this isn't a president talking, but an anonymous grand juror, moving the story along not at all. Everyone already knew the case was bullshit. The news value of this development is zilch except for the colorful obscenity. Which isn't printed.
     An odd business, this, full of quirks. I guess limiting our vocabulary to that of a fairly-sheltered 7-year-0ld is one of them. What's next. "Go to (H-E-Double-Toothpicks)" says Trump." Something to look forward to.

      

New Obama Presidential Center tries to offer hope for a better world

"Hope" by Jack Pierson

      "This is the permanent home for hope," Valerie Jarrett, former top White House adviser and current CEO of the Obama Foundation, told an assemblage of reporters last week at the new Obama Presidential Center.
     Good, I thought. So if we lose all hope, we'll know where to look for it.
     "Hope." The word is the first thing you see, entering the center — a Jack Pierson artwork made from salvaged sign letters. The placard adds the note of melancholy that must accompany any clear-eyed reaction to the new institution: "Though the word's meaning is uplifting, the decaying materials can also evoke feelings of loss and longing for an era since past."
     The key question being: Is it the dead-and-gone-and-buried past? Or just stepped-out-for-a-cigarette past? I considered this, waking through the "Hope and Change Lobby."
     "Change." Another word whose inclusion here just assumes improvement. Things change for the better. But do they? There has been Much dramatic change in the past year. The country divided between those aghast and grief-riven at the changes, and And those who either are glad or don't care.
     With the Obama center's central tower being minutely critiqued, the thing for me to do, as a museum fan, was explore the museum, four floors of the tower's eight, the vanguard of an endless herd of thundering schoolchildren and aging liberals returning returned to breathe deep an era that can seem as distant as the Renaissance.
     The place is a marvel of museum craftsmanship, with tangible objects buoyed by blocks of text and plenty of videos to gaze at before moving on. You can fruitfully spend an hour here, or three.
     Nothing jarred, beyond the unfortunate sculpture of Barack and Michelle Obama, which didn't quite capture either — something off about the president's eyes, too close together perhaps, and that grin. While the former First Lady is unrecognizable.
     We start with the birth of our nation, "Toward a More Perfect Union," the opening sentence a nod toward our perilous times: "America has always been a work in progress."
     Let's hope so. I'd hate to think we've arrived at our final destination.
     We get a history of Obama's America. Watergate undercut liberal faith in government.
     "Everything seemed broken," said the 44th president, who narrates the exhibits.
     But change — the good kind — came.
     "It felt like the world was moving in a new direction," Obama says. "Then came political pushback from those that longed for a return to what they thought of as law, order and traditional American values. "
     Ronald Reagan is in some ways a stand-in for our current president.
     "We were told government wasn't the solution to the problem, it was the problem," Obama says. "That white Americans, men and conservative Christians were somehow being targeted by liberal elites. At the same time that these political divisions were increasing, new information technologies were changing the way we live, and work, and communicate. But again and again, we saw that change would not be denied."
     As Charlie Brown said, "How can we lose when we're so sincere?"

To continue reading, click here. 

Life puzzles #1: What to do with newspaper bags?

 

     Monday morning was rainy. But my newspapers were nice and dry, waiting for me at the foot of my walk, through the miracle of plastic bag technology. The New York Times in its regal blue bag. The Chicago Sun-Times in its yellow bag, echoing a previous color scheme as "The Bright One."
     The bags not only protect the papers from becoming a sodden, pulpy, useless mess — and anyone who has even had a bag with a hole in it on a rainy day has experienced that. But they also have a second life, for me, as doggie bags. The standard green doggie bags, on the little rolls, are fine. But they're small. And you have to tug them, hard, to get them off the roll, then find the opening. It's work, almost. 

     Not a problem with the newspaper bags, which are much more capacious. Your hand glides in easily. Though I do routinely pass them through a circle made of my thumb and index finger, to inflate the end, checking for the aforementioned holes, which you do not want to discover after picking up dog poop with them. Trust me.
    Honestly, I'd never given the bags much thought, and probably never would. But one of my readers raised an issue that had never crossed my mind, not once in a lifetime of subscribing to newspapers. He began by addressing me in the third person, which caused me to check if I were part of an email chain. No, just me. He writes:

     Terrific columns by Steinberg.
     Would you ask the appropriate person at your medium to explain to home delivery paper customers how to dispose of the plastic bags the delivery people put the papers in.
     Grocery stores except the plastic bags back that they put groceries in, but will not accept the colored bags that Newspaper delivery people deliver the newspapers in. Where can we recycle those?
     The Lakeshore recycling company which has the contract in the town where I live says these are not appropriate for its recycling.
     What’s the difference in the type of plastic and where can we take these Newspaper bags especially those of us who subscribe to multiple papers each day Via delivery?

     Then he signed his full name, plus place of employment. 

     Odd, right? "The appropriate person at your medium"? Who says that? And who is so stymied by this issue that he writes to his newspaper, seeking guidance? It seemed an issue an adult could suss out for himself, unaided.

     I considered my response carefully, nudged toward gentleness by his subscribing to the paper. Ordering the hounds of sarcasm back to their kennels, I wrote:

     That's a new one. And while I mostly just write stuff that goes in the newspaper, I suppose it's easier for me to respond to your quandary than to try to find someone else.
     Let's see ... have you considered buying a dog? I have a dog, and the newspaper bags make perfect vehicles for picking up dog poop, far superior to the tiny ones that come on green rolls. That would be my solution. A dog really enriches one's life.
     But if owning a dog is impractical, the bags can also be thrown away. Or if that is too hard on the environment, you could collect the bags and send them to me. My dog typically goes three times a day, but I only subscribe to two newspapers, the Sun-Times and the New York Times, so I am always in need of more newspaper bags. Let me know if that is the solution you prefer, and I will send you my address.
     I hope that helps. Thanks for writing.

     Alas, no response. Which is a shame, because I really do like to use those newspaper bags for Kitty's necessities. The walk when I'm without one, well, the experience is slightly diminished. Maybe he'll buy a dog — then I'll really be hearing from him. "These cans of dog food, how am I to open them?"

Have you ever actually been to Hammond?

     Do you know why Marshall Field's was renamed Macy's? Federated could have kept the Field's name after the 2005 acquisition — it's still on plaques on the downtown flagship store anyway. I happened to be on the editorial board when the new owners came by to ballyhoo the change.
     To save money on bags. If they kept "Field's," they'd need separate Field's bags, plus distinct advertising. That would cost money. Changing Field's to Macy's was simpler and cheaper.
     For them. For us, well, if it left customers alienated and heartbroken, welcome to capitalism.
     This came to mind as the Chicago Bears edge closer to moving to Hammond, Indiana. Prestige is trumped by parsimony. Sears fled the tallest building in the world in the heart of Chicago for a sprawling business park in Hoffman Estates. In the end, it didn't save them.
     I was resigned to accept Arlington Heights, even to welcome it. I myself am a suburbanite with city pretensions, the Chicago newspaper columnist living in a leafy suburban paradise. Life happens.
     But Hammond? I'm reluctant to register an opinion about Hammond, since it is filled with fine people, including loyal Chicago Sun-Times subscribers, all with interesting, rich lives. Laudable individuals, fully capable of writing angry letters to newspaper editors, explaining how wounded they are by the opinions of some clueless hack.
     So let me stipulate that I visited Hammond once, nearly five years ago, for two hours, and my opinion is based entirely on that visit. I am not the Jedi Council, nor the all-seeing eye. It was an initial impression.
     A... young man of my acquaintance was about to spend a year working as a humble clerk for the federal judiciary in Hammond. Taking a preliminary trip with this unnamed person to the city in question seemed the act of a loving... umm... associate. So I volunteered. He was planning to live on the near South Side of Chicago and commute.
     "Why not live in Hammond?" I suggested, breezily, as we drove. On my blog, I described our arrival this way:

     "Now Hammond, Indiana is not a garden spot of the world. Modest apartment buildings and town houses, homes, low industrial buildings, a trailer park as soon as you exit the freeway. A lot of liquor stores and cigarette stores and fireworks stores. Not poor, exactly, not prosperous either. Proudly hanging on. My mission was to go to the federal courthouse, a large brutalist gray concrete structure that could be used in a James Bond movie for the secret police headquarters in Bulgaria and the audience wouldn't blink."

     Looking for a spot to eat lunch near the courthouse, a sense of the area started to sink in.
     "What I said about living in Hammond, I retract," I said. "I don't even want you stopping for gas here."

To continue reading, click here.

Flashback 2003: Religion will ban everything, as long as we allow it to

     It's clear why I've never re-printed this before — a queasy glimpse at booze boy in action, perhaps best forgotten. But on June 16, I'll reprise a Bloomsday column written a week later that makes reference to this column. So I thought I would swallow hard and post it, in order to be able to link to it later. This column got me invited on, and then thrown off, Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."  Members of the synagogue also wrote, suggesting that I never come back. It must be a success, to piss off both Orthodox Jews AND right wing Christians. Though my in-laws, God bless them, never complained, as was their fashion.

     Most Saturday mornings do not find me in a synagogue, never mind an Orthodox synagogue. Not my table, as the waiters say. But my in-laws were marking their 59th anniversary, and my in-laws hold a place in my heart that God would envy. So there I was last Saturday, in a suit and tie, standing and sitting at the proper moments. I felt, as I always do, that vague sense of jealousy toward the tallis-wrapped men around me, who actually believe this stuff and weren't just marking time until the Kiddush — the festive spread when the service is done.

Cholent (By Gilabrand; CC BY-SA 3.0) 

   After a few hours, it ended. Whatever your opinions about the Orthodox, they do drink hard liquor at noon on Saturdays, and that's a brand of faith that makes perfect sense to me. I allowed myself to be swept over to the Crown Royal cart for a "broucha" — a blessing — and after enjoying a few blessings with a group of like-minded men, I elbowed my way to the buffet table, piling my plate with herring and cholent — a kind of meat-and-bean stew. As I began to dig in, someone tapped me on the shoulder, gestured to my plate, and said, "You can't do that."
     "Do what?" I said.
     "Mix meat and fish," he said. "I hope you don't mind my pointing it out."
     "No," I said. "But since when?"
     I knew pigs were forbidden, and mixing milk and meat was out. I knew about shellfish. Yet this was news to me. I almost added, "You're joking, right?" (I could just see one guy goad the other, "Hey, Nacham, go over there and tell that outlander he can't mix fish and meat. I bet he buys it.")
     I hastily grabbed another plate to separate the two foodstuffs. When in Rome. . . . Still, I was curious. The rabbi was at the end of the table, and I hurried over. In my best, humble-seeker-of-knowledge tone, I asked: Why, Rebbe, is it wrong to mix meat and fish?
     His answer, to summarize, was that there is a law regarding not doing things that are harmful to one's health. Meat and fish have different oils, he said, and affect the digestion in such a way that they shouldn't be combined.
     "It's the same reason you aren't allowed to smoke," he said. That made no sense to me, and I almost pointed out the incongruity of banning the mixing of fish and meat when the whiskey is flowing nearby. But why let quibbles spoil a happy occasion? And I admired the tremendous attention to detail. Religions are famous for that. They'll dictate the buttons on your coat, the shine on your shoe, if you let them. And we did.
     But for the past 200 years, the miracle of democratic government has been slowly stuffing religion back into its box. Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on anti-sodomy laws is another step. I found it highly amusing to see the parade on TV of Religious Right sorts decrying the decision — all Christians since, though Orthodox Jews officially hold the same beliefs regarding gays, Jews have enough trouble without going on TV to fight this losing battle.
     There are a dozen dissertations' worth of analysis in Thursday's TV coverage. Someone could note how the media — despite the fact that many of these laws banned practices that you and your wife may engage in — focused on gays. Or how gay lifestyle has become so ingrained in our society that opponents had to resort to extrapolation; that this was bad because it would lead to acceptance of bigamy, or incest. In the past, this would have been bad because it would have led to gay sex.
      Having read the Bible, in my youth, sometimes in Hebrew, I can tell you that it bans lots of stuff. Almost anything you can imagine is forbidden, and lots you can't. God kills one of Noah's sons because the son spies Noah, naked and drunk, in his tent. Rather mean, really, but that's how the Old Testament God comes off.
     It is always interesting to me that of all the edicts in the Bible — filling your day nicely with sins to be avoided and obligations to embrace, after uttering the proper blessing — the lines about homosexuality make such an impact on the fundamentalist mind. It isn't given that kind of weight in the Bible. It isn't printed in big red letters. Why fixate on this, and not the ban against meat and fish?
     As important as the Supreme Court ruling is for getting the law in line with where society already is, I think equally significant is how obviously out-of-step and just plain nasty the supposed supporters of "family" seemed, explaining why "public health and morals" demand that homosexuals be persecuted just as they have been for the past 5,000 years (the pro-family sorts harp that this change will "encourage" homosexuality. Well, it being a Biblical sin, and against U.S. law, and a societal taboo that could get you kicked to death by your friends, doesn't seem to discourage it, so perhaps homosexuality is neither created nor prevented by society, but something people are born with. Just a thought).
     I don't muse about God much, obviously. But when I do, I can't conceive of Him caring an awful lot about the various practices consenting adults do back in their bedrooms. Awful childhood diseases don't bother Him, apparently. No reaction on the Congo to date. Is he really steamed that Brad and Tim are frolicking? Not only don't I believe it, but I have a hard time believing that anybody believes it.
     — Originally published in the Sun-Times, June 27, 2003