Dirty politics, dirty soda and dirty Mormon wives

     The trouble with trying to keep tabs on what's happening, politically, is we've reached such a thunderous crescendo of jaw-dropping ineptitude that the only way to even touch upon it is with cursory glances. Over the long weekend, no fewer than five earth-shaking shocks reverberated, starting with our nation basically surrendering to Iran. Space is tight, so let's jump right in:
     1. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, less than 24 hours after ...
     You know what? I'm not doing this. Either you long ago grasped the full-blown disaster that hourly unfolds, or you never will. No reason to rub it in, for the former, nor annoy the latter by pointing out colors they can't perceive.
     Not when we can talk about dirty soda instead. I'd heard, vaguely, of the beverage, as some kind of mania in liquor-challenged Utah. The Sun-Times of course has been keeping up on the trend. But I never gave it much thought, until dirty soda arrived Saturday on Center Avenue in the form of an ambitious 11-year-old neighbor who, taking advantage of garage sale traffic jamming the street, set up a stand selling what I assumed was lemonade.
     Children's lemonade stands are my Achilles' heel. I have no defense against them. I could be bleeding, profusely, driving to the hospital with a tourniquet around my arm and, spying a stand, would still pull over and hurry to press money on the young entrepreneur.
     For one simple reason: When my younger son was a lad, he once set up such a stand at the foot of our driveway, on our little-traveled suburban block. The sight of my boy sitting there, with his pitcher and his cups and his handmade sign, wanly calling "Lemonade. Lemonade for sale" to the empty street broke my heart — truly, part of me died, right there, and my restless ghost seeks redemption for indifferent humanity by patronizing lemonade stands.
     So when, during weeding Saturday, I noticed the activity next door, I immediately stood up, pulled off my gloves, ran inside, grabbed cash and raced over.
     Only it wasn't lemonade. It was dirty soda — pop mixed with whipped cream and a variety of flavored syrups, garnished with a cherry and a gummy. The mom explained that dirty soda is a thing on a television show, "The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives." Mormons don't drink, generally, so they've taken to guzzling 44-ounce egg creams on steroids.
     Fortunately, my industrious neighbor child had Diet Coke — I'm dancin' with Mr. Diabetes, remember — so I took my dirty soda back to my office. It was actually quite delicious, though I only nibbled the gummy shark swimming in it — and began my research with Season 1, Episode 1 of "Mormon Wives."
     OMG. I'm not sure I can express the plot of the reality show in words. Four young Mormon women started making TikTok dance videos and, apparently, having unspecified sexual escapades with each other, or each other's husbands, or both. But that's like saying "Hamlet" is about a prince who is sad. It doesn't come near to capturing the spirit of the thing. "Mormon Wives" is a show about humiliating yourself and your friends online for profit.

To continue reading, click here.

The glass elephant

      The glass elephant was in my mother's purse when she died, one year ago today. 
      She'd had it most of her life — taken it to Europe with her when she went to entertain the troops, at 16, as a good luck token. I should have asked her the story of how she got it. It's two and a half inches long, pressed glass, cheap. Something won at a carnival in the early 1950s, perhaps. So let's say a boy won it for her or ... reflecting current sensibilities ... that she won it herself. Though frankly, I prefer the won-it-for-her version.
     She lent it to my father as he circled the world as a government scientist. Europe. Africa. Asia. Australia. Carrying the elephant guaranteed safe return. Nobody ever lost it. 
      My brother got to the hospital first, and ended up with the purse, and the elephant. Less sentimental than myself, he didn't want anything of hers. When we cleaned out her room at the dynamic senior living facility in Addison, we divided her effects between things to throw away, and things I was keeping. I envied him his strength. I'll throw it all away too, eventually. Or someone will. But not now.
     I let six or nine months go by — and how quickly time seems to pass, while crawling — then did ask  him for the elephant. At one of our regular lunches he delivered it. Though I was almost sorry I had. Back home, regarding it, I felt a deep pang, almost a shock, as truly sad about her passing as I ever was, because I realized, in that moment, that its locus of significance rested with me and me alone. Nobody else would ever know, or care. Like the glass trinket, her entire world, really, rested in the palm of my hand or, rather, some clump of neurons nestled somewhere in my head. Talk about a fragile weight, a glass elephant. Someday, it would be gone, and before then, I, or someone, would release this glass animal into the slipstream of life, and it would rush away to be, at best, treasured by someone who appreciated its  ... 
     I plugged the picture above into Google Image Search and — to my surprise — learned it is an L.E. Smith pressed glass elephant, made by a Pennsylvania glass company. Twelve dollars and twenty-five cents on eBay and it's yours. We have so much knowledge now.
     Not that it would be her glass elephant, which I added to a little menagerie of her elephants  set up on a shelf in my office. She collected them or, rather, expressed a fondness one, and they became our go-to gift. I moved the group to a better spot, to take a picture, and realized that one member of the herd was missing, a fine green stone elephant that my father bought in South Africa. I hunted for it longer than I should — so much crap in my office — trying to tamp down the almost frantic urgency by thinking of something she used to say when we'd lost things as children: "You'll find it when you're not looking for it."
     That never quite worked — I remember being more annoyed than anything else. And it didn't work very well now, as I hunted around in places I'd already looked. Finally I went off to do other things and, distracted, found some critical distance, and moved on. It occurred to me that I was frantically trying to keep my world together a little longer, in face of the great scattering sure to come. In the end, one less elephant might even be a good thing. Though I still hope to find it. When I'm not looking for it. My mother was a smart woman, in many ways.

'God's chosen vessel'

Barack Obama talks to the Sun-Times editorial board in 2004.

 

    Friday was the official opening day of the Obama Presidential Center, and the internet was alive with clips from the celebration of the evening before, with Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Wonder and, of course, stirring speeches by the former president and his wife.

      It got me wondering what I wrote about Obama back in the day, and I dug up these three fun chestnuts from when he was running for, and then newly-elected to, the U.S. Senate. The headline is a nickname I sometimes applied to him.

Race against nobody

     Senator-to-be Barack Obama stopped by Friday. I give him credit for going through the motions of campaigning against Alan Keyes, who, once the media got bored with the freak show aspect of his candidacy, has sunk into utter oblivion. I picture Keyes alone in some muddy Downstate boondock somewhere, lecturing chickens about how Jesus would vote.
     Beyond that image, I haven't decided yet if Obama is Jack Kennedy or Chuck Percy. You remember Percy, the "Wonder Boy from Illinois." He was also going to be president, but fate disagreed because — cue the "Twilight Zone" music — Percy turned out to be too liberal.
     I don't think that is going to be the problem with Obama. He's sharp enough to shave with — as Percy was — but he also has a steely practicality. I asked him to lay out his hit-the-ground-running plans for when he takes over in Washington, and rather than the "Gee, I'll have to get my sea legs and learn from the old hands" line of claptrap I expected, he carefully explained how his Democratic star status translates into fund-raising power, which in Washington translates into real power, which means he should have a lock on the plum committee assignments. Smart.
     Obama might have benefitted from the complete collapse, in quick succession of a) Peter Fitzgerald, b) Jack Ryan and c) the Illinois Republican Party. But he didn't blunder into where he is today, nor does he seem capable of blundering any time in the near future. Think of him as our ace in the hole. No matter how the presidential election turns out, we're still trading in the broken pull-toy duck of Fitzgerald for the souped-up Corvette of Obama. We should be glad of that.
         —Originally published in the Sun-Times, Oct. 4, 2004

Honeymoon's over

     Abraham Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, pepper his speeches with the tales of individuals — specific brave soldiers and such. While certain presidents later would inject their dogs — FDR's Fala, Nixon's Checkers — the trend of dragooning individual average Americans to lend luster to addresses began with Ronald Reagan.
     Now it's almost a duty. No politician can open his yap without it. Sen.-elect Barack Obama, in his as-always moving victory speech Tuesday night, evoked a 105-year-old supporter, marveling that her birth year, 1899, was before such modern conveniences as telephones and automobiles.
     Those present applauded, while I thought, "Wrong, pal."
     The Chicago Historical Society has not one but two city phone books going back to 1883 — white for homes, yellow for businesses.
     I don't fault Obama, particularly. Most of us labor under the impression that, prior to our enlightened age, our forebears crouched in caves and smeared themselves with berries. Not so. Phones were invented in 1876 and became almost immediately popular. And an 1899 Oldsmobile cost the princely sum of $650, but you could buy one. There were thousands of cars on the road then.
     Just like 74 percent of Illinoisans, I think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that he will one day rule a unified and peaceful world. But, as he will quickly learn in the Senate, you ignore the small stuff at your peril.
     — Originally published in the Sun-Times, Nov. 5, 2004

AND THEY'RE OFF . . .

     One of the sillier political questions is whether Obama will run for president. He already is running, right now, in front of our eyes. What they mean by the question, I think, is, will he officially announce his candidacy? But that too is silly, like standing at the five-mile mark at a marathon, watching the runners pound by, and wondering whether a leading athlete will decide to finish the last five miles of the race. Sure he will, assuming he doesn't collapse. Few fit marathoners — and Obama, if nothing else, has proved himself a political greyhound — shrug and give up after 10 miles. He might not win. But he sure is running.
     The politician that Obama is compared to the most is John F. Kennedy — similarly young (or, if you prefer "inexperienced"). Similarly eloquent. Similarly dynamic and beloved. Both Harvard men.
     And both men had a millstone around their necks that supposedly precluded them from the highest office in the land. In Kennedy's case it was his Catholicism. We view this as a dusty bit of history, but we should remember how real and raw it was, how many Americans were unashamed in their anti-Catholic bigotry.
     "Our people built this country," a Protestant lady in West Virginia told a reporter. "If they had wanted a Catholic to be president, they would have said so in the Constitution."
     Obama's supposed handicap is not that he's inexperienced, but that he's black. Not that his enemies will come right out and argue this directly. Rather, they hint around the edges. Just last week, a longtime Republican Party hack drew attention to Obama's middle name — "Hussein" — as if that were a secret, or significant. It isn't.
     This is right on schedule, and — unknown to those who would derail him — plays right into Obama's hands. Again, think of Kennedy, and his primary victory against Hubert Humphrey in West Virginia in May 1960.
     West Virginia was 95 percent Protestant, many of them sharing the mind-set of the old lady quoted previously.
     Rather than ignore his supposed handicap, Kennedy drew attention to it — just as Obama is drawing attention to his heritage, visiting Africa and such. Kennedy shocked people by talking about his religion — something one just didn't discuss — and how it was part of his personal life but didn't affect his political decisions. He wasn't going to take orders from the pope. Kennedy cleverly made the West Virginia primary into a referendum on the social progress of the state. A vote for Kennedy became a vote for a clear-eyed, unbiased future, while a vote for Humphrey was practically a vote to confirm West Virginia as a nest of Hillbillies. Naturally, Kennedy won.
     Obama could do the same thing — the more his enemies try to undercut him as a guy with a funny name and a Muslim grandfather, the more they allude to the fact his dad was black, the more Obama will seem to offer a fresh start from bias. You can vote for him and vote for a nation that unifies its diverse strands into one powerful whole. Or you can support his opponents, and surrender to the narrow bigotry that inflames so much of the world, and contribute to our nation's downfall.
     — Originally published in the Sun-Times, Dec. 4, 2006

Beatrice Lumpkin, workers’ rights leader and 'rock of the movement,' dies at 107

     

Beatrice Lumpkin addresses striking Starbucks workers in 2024 (Roberta Wood/People's World

Beatrice Lumpkin wasn't just liberal, or left-leaning, or a secret communist sympathizer. She was an open, enthusiastic, dues-paying member of the Communist Party for nearly 90 years, whose passion for workers' rights put her on the front lines of post-World War II labor struggles in Chicago, from working with Black Panther Fred Hampton to the fight to compensate employees abruptly fired at the closing of the Wisconsin Steel plant in 1980, to the recent unionization of Starbucks employees.
     "Bea was born and grew up and lived her life in the Communist Party," said Roberta Wood, former secretary-treasurer of the Communist Party USA.
    Lumpkin, 107, died in Hyde Park on Sunday.
     Mayor Brandon Johnson, who declared Aug. 3 as "Beatrice Lumpkin Day" in Chicago, called her "a towering figure in the labor movement, an unwavering advocate for fully funded education, and a continued source of inspiration for us all."
     "Spanning almost an entire century of public engagement, Lumpkin was deeply involved in movements for workers' rights, civil rights, and educational justice. She advocated for the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively, supported efforts to advance racial justice, and fought for policies that protected vulnerable communities," Johnson continued, in a statement.
     "As a teacher and organizer, Bea brought the lessons of solidarity into the classroom. As a math teacher in Chicago Public Schools and at Malcolm X College, she inspired generations of students while remaining deeply engaged building worker power. Through her leadership in the Chicago Teachers Union Retiree Committee and Climate Justice Committee, she built bridges between generations, reminding us that strong schools and strong communities are built through collective action and a steadfast commitment to justice." 
     She was born in New York in 1918. Her parents, Dora and Morris Shapiro, were Belarus radicals who emigrated to America after the failed Russian revolution of 1905 and ran a laundry. Lumpkin would say she was born "knowing which side I was on." By age 9 she was marching with striking textile workers.

     In her mid-teens, she joined the Young Communist League, and since then, she "never had a moment when there was nothing to do," she wrote in her 2013 autobiography, "Joy in the Struggle: My Life and Love." "There were always picket lines for workers on strike, demonstrations to demand food for a hungry family, knocking on doors to sell The Daily Worker, or bring people out to vote."
     She made speeches denouncing Hitler and fascism, was involved in the effort to free the Scottsboro Boys, the case of nine Black teens framed for a rape in 1931. She was first arrested leading a demonstration in front of a New York department store in 1935.
     She went to Hunter College in Manhattan, but found "union work was too important and too exciting" to waste time in school. She later returned and graduated.
     She moved to Buffalo in 1942 to work for Sylvania Radio. There she met a force in the Buffalo Communist movement, Hattie Lumpkin and, more significantly, her son Frank. They married on Oct. 22, 1949.

To continue reading, click here.

Curious creatures

  

     The other day we had dinner at Kie Gol Lanee — the one in Logan Square, not the one in Uptown.  The name struck me as vaguely Korean, though it's a Mexican restaurant. "Kie Gol Lanee" is the phonetic spelling of Quiegoloani, a small mountain village in the southern highlands of Oaxaca. It means "old stone" in Zapotec.

     Dinner was pretty good. I enjoyed the spicy grasshoppers — how often do you get the chance? My wife didn't, though more for the heat than the insect aspect. The pork chop with tamarind sauce over grilled onions had a nice flavor as well. I can't say I'd hurry back, but wasn't sorry we went.
     Though what really caught my attention was the yard near where we parked, a block north of Diversey. Someone had put a lot of effort into crafting a variety of robots and beasts. The result somewhere between art and craft. Folk art, I suppose. The robots were angry, the dragon, in full cry. I wondered if I would want to be greeted by this distressed menagerie every time I came home. Probably not. Though I'm not sure I'd ever get around to removing them either. It would take a lot of physical effort to haul the pieces away. Plus the psychic toll of effacing somebody's art. I'm not sure I could do it.

     

Happy birthday to me, her and Donald Trump

   

Ed Paschke, "Mid-America"

     My 66th birthday, my granddaughter's 1st birthday, and Donald Trump's 80th, all fell within the same week, and it is hard to resist juxtaposing these three very different occasions, to understand the values they display.
     Mine came first. I've been feeling low key, so my plan was to do nothing. I didn't want more stuff or a fancy meal Downtown. I don't need anybody to put on a show in order for me to feel good about myself.
     My wife, bless her heart, played along, though she broke down at the last minute and commanded, "Go to Sunset and buy yourself a cake," as she breezed out the door to the train. So I did — I'm good at following instructions — a little triple chocolate confection that served nicely.
     Otherwise, I ran errands — took the dog to the groomer — and spent much of the day in the basement, going over a wooden box with steel wool, buffing the finish. The box contained wooden blocks I had cut and sanded and finished as a 1st birthday present.
     Went by quick, right? I don't remark in print upon my grandchildren, other than the fact of their existence, because their parents, quite wisely, view the internet not as the balm and drug we old people do, but as a menace. Meta might be big now, but so was ketchup, and if enough young people avoid it, maybe the thing will also fade. Something to look forward to.
     Caution is the watchword. And it's contagious. The finish for the blocks was carefully chosen for its nontoxicity — plain shellac that comes from the thorax of the female lac bug. So safe it's also used to coat food, like apples. Though the finish was the second concern. My first concern, in designing the blocks, was to find out the dimensions that can't be swallowed by an infant — a cube 1.25 inches on a side — and so I made my blocks 1.5 inch cubes, with other sizes multiples of that.
     I suppose that buffing a set of blocks is not the peak, kick-him-in-the-chest masculinity we supposedly saw on display in Washington over the weekend. But then, the notion that there is only one way to be a good man, or woman, or person, or whatever, is a big reason our country is in such a mess. I'm not threatened by men oiling themselves up and wrestling in their underwear, whether in a UFC cage match or some Halsted Street club. Why should they care if a man builds blocks, or reads poetry, or bakes? Frankly, it seems like weakness on their part — lack of faith in their own path. Though the truth is worse than that: A key part of being a hater is positing imaginary harms to yourself in a futile attempt to justify your own bitterness.
     The next day we drove 400 miles to deliver the blocks and attend a party with cake and streamers. When fellow guests expressed wonder that we'd make the 800-mile round trip drive to attend a child's party, I replied with utter candor: Of course we did, Who wouldn't? The thought not to never crossed either of our minds.

To continue reading, click here.

Flashback 2003: Burying oneself in Joyce brings more than 1 benefit

      Today is the 16th of June, aka Bloomsday, the day in which the entirety of James Joyce's "Ulysses" takes place. I never did finish the famed cinderblock of a novel. To be honest, I never got very far into it. But that did't stop me from having fun with it.

     With potscrape, clump and a gurgle, the blackgreen was pipingily poured into a blazing white soft cup — O joi de cafe! Noir et chaud! — and together, cup and I, went brim-sipping, shuffling, striding, stepping over the iceblue speckled gumsmeared carpeting back to my officespace....
     Sorry. Too much time reading James Joyce. I had to try my hand at parody, mediocre though it may be. June 16 was not only my youngest son's 6th birthday, but "Bloomsday," the day of the year on which the entire action of Joyce's massive novel Ulysses occurs in Dublin in 1905.
     Realizing that next year will be the book's centennial, I started trying to read Ulysses — every few years, I've given it a shot, made some progress, then given up.
     Just like dieting.
     The book is not light summer reading. After more than two weeks of effort, I'm only about 50 pages into it, sawing through the text, still in the part where Stephen Dedalus drags his sorry self around Dublin, musing on Catholicism and his dead mother.
     Not that the book is without pleasure, in spots. Joyce is a good writer (that sounds obvious, but in modern society, we have room for one adjective attached to each person in history, and Joyce — impenetrable. Yet he often writes clearly, with memorable description. The sea has "molten pewter surf," a pier becomes, wonderfully, "a disappointed bridge." Dedalus tells his doddering, anti-Semite boss, "History . . . is a nightmare from which I'm trying to awake." I had heard that famous line before, unmoored from its context, and running into it in the middle of a page was a small joy, like that cliched wedding march popping out of Wagner's "Lohengrin").

Top 10 reasons to read Joyce

     I should pause here and welcome all the new readers picked up from my appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" earlier in the week. I put in a few paragraphs about Joyce just to turn off as many religious fanatics as I could — I figure, they'll start reading, decide their ox isn't being gored, then move on, sniffing the ground for the next thing to offend them.
     For those who missed last week's column, I used my visit to an Orthodox synagogue as a jumping-off point to argue that religion shouldn't be used in the government to, oh for instance, deny homosexuals their civil rights.
     That managed the neat trick of offending both the Orthodox, who resented — well, I never did figure out what they were upset about — and right-wing Christians, irked at the suggestion the United States isn't just an adjunct to church, like a big parking lot.
     As if I weren't being beaten down enough, I go on this show. My fault. I never watch that sort of thing, and only had a vague idea that "The O'Reilly Factor" is a big deal (a feather in my cap!) so I went on, not realizing it would be some Bible Belt boob asking me a question, then, as I started to answer, screaming at me. Jenny Jones for people who went to college, and punishment for the vanity of wanting to be on TV.
     The line that got me thrown off the show was, as best I can remember, "You have to understand, if you're not Christian, then Christianity is just another religion, just like a tree cult." In other words, it's possible not to believe. We are allowed not to. Right?
     As queasy as I felt after the show, viewer reaction made up for it. Yes, I heard from a few of those either enlightened by Christ ("Jew Bastard!" a guy screamed on the phone, hanging up) or embroidered with the richness of Orthodox Judaism ("I'd advise you not to come back to our synagogue," said a member of the unnamed congregation in my column).
     But in the main, most people understood that this is America, that people should keep their religion in its place, and not try to use the government to cram it down the throats of the unwilling. Just because the Bible tells you to poke your nose into somebody's bedroom doesn't make it your right.
     Frankly, now that the sour taste of appearing on Fox has passed, I'm left quite encouraged. The pendulum swings, but going rightward it never quite gets back to the Lost Eden that the fundamentalists are grasping so frantically toward, and swinging left a new group of previously shunned people somehow scrambles aboard and takes seats next to us, as we squirm against the window, for a while. Religion as a coercive force is on the wane outside of the Muslim world. The harder that America's home-grown mullahs push to go back, the more America swings away toward its accepting future.
     Some people jump from the beginning of a column to the end, so I should return to my subject at hand, just to throw them off.

More dull stuff about 'Ulysses'

     I should make it clear that I am not suggesting you go out and read Ulysses. Unlike some, my life is not enhanced knowing the world is exactly like me. Nor, if you are, say, reading the latest Tom Clancy thriller, am I putting you down. I wouldn't dream of writing to you, first damning your choice of books, then inviting you to join me in the rarified world of James Joyce. That would be pompous and insulting. But believe it or not, people do just that, though not so much with books as they do, oh for instance, with religion.

     — Originally published in the Sun-Times, July 4, 2003

'This is why people hate liberals'

 

     A detail can be intriguing and yet not fit into the story you are writing. A matter of tone. For instance, this sign, noticed in the men's room on the main floor of the Obama Presidential Center. At first glance, it might seem a harmless bit of virtue signaling — "Look, we are so environmentally conscious we collect rainwater on our roof." A big self-administered pat on the back and nothing more.

     No, not "collect." Too ordinary a word. They harvest the rain water. As if it were alfalfa or something. An overly-ornate word, like "curate" when applied to realms other than art. 

     That would be bad enough. But further context cast it in an even dimmer light. The sign goes on to urge readers not to drink the water, even though it appears, not in the main bathroom, by the sinks, where a person might conceivably drink, but in a toilet stall. The folks behind the Obama Presidential Center are not just bragging about the source of the water, but cautioning you not to drink it. Out of the toilet.  Because, apparently, they suspect that otherwise, unless you are fully informed about the situation, you might.
     "This is why people hate liberals," I muttered, snapping a few photos.

     

   

Obama Presidential Center aims to lift Chicago, and the nation

     This is the lead article from today's special section about the opening of the Obama Presidential Section. I imagine that by now the average reader might be reaching satiety on the topic. But the arrival of the center — which officially opens June 19 — is a development of significance for the city, and newspapers tend to flood the zone at such moments. I've tried to approach it from an unusual angle, and, as always, your indulgence is appreciated.

     In 1910, Black residents made up about 2% of the population of Chicago. The overwhelming majority of African Americans still lived in the South, where slavery ended in 1865, becoming brutal peonage under Jim Crow. They had freedom, of a very limited sort. They couldn't vote. They couldn't go to school with whites, or shop in most stores, or hold many jobs. With that part of history being scrubbed from the American narrative, it bears repeating.
     But they were free to leave — just get on a train and go north, encouraged by the Chicago Defender, the influential Black newspaper which held its "Great Northern Drive" in 1917, urging Southern Blacks to quit the land that oppressed them and come to Chicago, where there was work and dignity, at least compared to the old Confederacy.
     Yes, the reception was often chilly. "BLACK MAN, STAY SOUTH!" urged the headline on a Chicago Tribune editorial, calling the migration "a huge mistake" and claiming "the Negro is happiest when the white race asserts its superiority."

     Over the next half century, half a million Blacks came to Chicago anyway. In 1970, they made up a third of the city's population. of the city.
     A story so familiar we hardly notice. List the most famous people to come out of Chicago in the past 60 years: Muhammad Ali, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan. Notice a pattern? All Black Americans who came from somewhere else, arrived here, made the best of the opportunities they found and prospered.
     The most recent, and biggest name of them all, Barack Obama, was no accident — the groundwork was carefully laid for his meteoric rise to success. Illinois elected its first Black senator, Carol Moseley Braun, in 1992 — New York State has yet to elect one; the first from California was Kamala Harris.
     So it is also fitting that Obama expressed his gratitude by planting his presidential center on the South Side where his wife Michelle was born and raised, and where he cut his political eye teeth.
     The Obama Presidential Center is a lovely gift to the city. While the central tower has been was the object of derision — called "forbidding" and a "Klingon prison" — when first glimpsed looming out from behind the Griffin Museum of Science and Industry as you travel south on Stony Island, it is surprising and dramatic, then marvelous, with its grey stone tinted with the lightest pink.
     What will the new center being here mean for the city? It has three main audiences.
     For those outside Chicago, it is a definite tourist attraction. Not an enormous one. If the Obama Center gets the million annual visitors they hope for, that'll be roughly eight million fewer than Navy Pier gets. But nationwide there are millions of people who voted for Obama, who saw their faith in this country and its possibilities surge during his two administrations. They will be interested in visiting and being immersed in his story and the First Lady's story, well-told in the central museum — which is also a stirring call for involvement and action.

To continue reading, click here.

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.