Flashback 2008: "Sympathy for the Daley"

Managing all that stuff isn't easy. A room at the Northwestern University Archives in 2023.

     January is a cold month, and it should come as no surprise that death has been busy. Wednesday, the day the obituary for my esteemed colleague Rich Hein ran in the paper, a classmate asked me if I had heard that Pat Quinn died. I had not.
     Quinn was the archivist at Northwestern University, and given my affection for research, of course I knew him, and benefited over the decades from his enthusiasm and expertise. He was especially helpful when I was writing my pranks book, though whenever I visited Deering Library — a vast improvement over the tri-towered mess of poured concrete that is the university's main library — I would pop in and visit.
     When Pat retired in 2008, I noted it in the column, which I reprint here in full since it is — he said modestly — a hoot. Plus its general tone explains why my invitation to speak at Northwestern's commencement has been slow in coming. The original online headline was, "Sympathy for Daley — So he's not George Clooney — Chicago's scrappy mayor can teach Northwestern's pampered graduating class a thing or two."
     This was from when the column ran a thousand words and filed the page, and I've kept in the original headings.

OPENING SHOT ...

     What a bunch of babies.
     Even considering the constant embarrassment that Northwestern University has been inflicting upon its shuddering alumni lately, this is a new low, as NU's pampered undergraduates send up a chorus of complaint because their commencement speaker is Mayor Richard M. Daley.
     A "slap in the face to graduating seniors" one whined.
     Well . . .
     I've been writing about Daley since he took office, and I can't remember ever feeling as much sympathy for him as I do now. It's hard to write a commencement address and a pain in the ass to deliver one, never mind to a gang of 21-year-olds from Scottsdale and Connecticut who have their dander up because you aren't the Dalai Lama or George Clooney or somebody they can brag about to their chums at Stanford (Oprah Winfrey!) or Harvard (J.K. Rowling!).
     Say what you will about Daley, but being the son of the former mayor didn't guarantee him his job — not the way many spurning him will have their careers handed to them on a platter by Dad. Daley had his perks, but the long knives were also out for him after the old man died. Daley's path was uncertain, and he learned a thing or two that might help an ambitious graduate.
     Last year, Julia Louis-Dreyfus was the commencement speaker. Nobody howled about the TV star, but the embattled city mayor gets catcalls.
     This is what they call "a teaching moment." For years, Northwestern liked to festoon its official materials with the best advice a graduate can get, spoken by Adlai E. Stevenson:

     "Your days are short here," he said. "This is the last of your springs. . . . And don't forget, when you leave, why you came."
     Is that really why the Northwestern Class of '08 went to college? To bask in the reflected status of some rock-star commencement speaker?

SPRING 2008

     "Free Sun-Times!?" a bright young man in mod eyeglasses half exclaimed, half asked, poking a folded paper in my direction as I cleared the steps at Union Station and broke into the fresh air and sunlight of Madison Street.
     I subscribe, of course. But that copy stays at home with my wife, so I buy the paper at the Northbrook station. There's another copy waiting on my desk. So I'm covered, Sun-Times-wise. But I was so glad to see somebody waving the flag, that after weighing the merits of wasting a promotional paper vs. supporting the boys in the trenches, I smiled, thanked him and took it.
     The exchange slowed me down a couple of seconds, enough that, a few steps later, when I glanced down at the green water of the Chicago River as I passed the center of the Madison Street Bridge, I saw the front edge of something massive moving out from underneath.
     It was the Robert F. Deegan, out of Thorofare, N.J., a huge barge, its width spanning a third of the river.
     I settled against the rail to watch the enormous vessel pass under my feet, all gray metal walkways and red rust stains. Pushing it was a tugboat, the Donald C. Hannah — nearly 90 feet long, with a 2400 horsepower engine — out of Lemont.
     It took a minute for them to move a block south toward St. Louis. I watched the boats recede, joined by a solitary gull circling around. The barge and the tug cleared the Monroe Street bridge, and the gull peeled off.
     Taking its cue, I headed toward work, stepping into Harry's Hot Dogs at Randolph and Franklin to quietly set the folded newspaper on the orange linoleum counter, where somebody could find it.

MY WAR AGAINST BUCKTHORN

     Call it "buckthorn suppression," the stroll around my property, with its narrow stretch of woods on the east side, eyes on the ground, pausing to bend over and pull up the small buckthorn sprouts that grow everywhere no matter what I do. You need to catch them early, when they are 2 or 3 inches long, because very quickly they're 6 inches tall with roots so deep you have to dig them out.
     Having had to saw down several 15-foot tall versions of the gnarly, bethorned tree, I know the danger of neglect, but still am surprised by my zeal. It is against the law — the Illinois Exotic Weed Act, to be specific, as amended in 2004 — to "buy, sell, offer for sale, distribute or plant" buckthorns without a permit, and they will only be issued to those experimenting with new ways to kill it.
     As is common with zealotry, my animosity against this plant, with its deeply veined, oval leaves, is catching. When we went to the Brookfield Zoo last Sunday, it was my wife who kept pointing out that much of its 216 acres are choked with buckthorn.
     Deeply ironic that a facility dedicated to preserving creatures from natural habitats around the world would play host to this destroyer of Illinois vegetation — invasive plants crowd out and kill native species. In its defense, Brookfield Zoo is aware of the problem.
     "We don't have enough staff to keep up with it," said Nicole DiVito, a spokeswoman. "We're doing as much as we can. Occasionally, we're getting volunteers, and slowly getting rid of it."
     I asked her to let me know next time Brookfield has its Let's Kill the Buckthorn Day. I'll help. Because, really, what's the point of highlighting the biological diversity of the earth, if every plant is going to be the vegetable cousin of the cockroach?

PERSONAL NOTE

     Patrick M. Quinn, the archivist at NU for 34 years, is retiring today. As luck would have it, I called him to check the Stevenson quote, and he pointed out — in characteristic fashion — that Stevenson did not say it at NU, but at a senior dinner at Princeton in 1954, and that Northwestern, also in characteristic fashion, alas, seized it as its own, for years, until he stopped them. Thanks for all the help, Pat. Good luck and God bless.

     — Originally published in the Sun-Times, May 30, 2008

Is this column antisemitic? Gosh, I hope not

 

     I'm no semiotician — an expert in the study of symbols — but I am Jewish and know antisemitism when I see it. An octopus with a hook nose straddling the globe, its waving tentacles holding missiles and moneybags? Definitely. Particularly if it is marked with a Jewish star. That's a giveaway.
     Swastika spray-painted on a synagogue door? Absolutely. Elon Musk extending his arm straight out in a Nazi-like salute — well, he's an odd duck, given to weird jigs and twitches. And since he's gone on record supporting neo-Nazis in Germany, I'd say debating the meaning of a gesture is beside the point.
     Bottom line: Just as I cherish my right to speak freely, so I do not lunge toward offense, nor leap to stifle others. When I was passing through the Chicago Cultural Center last week, showing it off to a Chicagoan who had never been inside, we passed by the "U.S.-Israel War Machine" that this week is causing a fuss. I paused. My underwear remained unknotted. I took a photograph, thinking it could be used when addressing a certain kind of hysterical anti-Americanism. We moved on to look at the gorgeous Tiffany dome.
     A valuable skill, moving on. I was surprised, and disappointed, Thursday to open the Sun-Times and read a story about the puppet, and a nearby one of Benjamin Netanyahu, being labeled antisemitic by 50th Ward Ald. Debra Silverstein, the City Council's lone Jew (I was the only Jew in my elementary school. That's rough. I hope Silverstein isn't constantly being called on to stand up and explain what Hanukkah is about. Embarrassing).
     She asked the city to take the display down.
     Sigh.
     Debra, Debra, Debra. Did the creator of "U.S.-Israel War Machine" pay you for this bit of press agentry? Because you took a crude papier-mache caricature sitting unnoticed in a seldom-visited corner of the Cultural Center — remember my friend, who lives blocks away, had never set foot inside — and slapped it into the pages of the Sun-Times. Nice work. Maybe next you can organize a book launch for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
     I love Israel, I'm a Zionist, and I hope that a thousand years from now there is still a Jewish State of Israel. I also think Benjamin Netanyahu is the devil, that he left the door open for the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, and my big puppet of him would have longer fangs and more blood dripping off his fingers.
     Does that make me an antisemite? I suppose in some eyes. The same way my thinking that Donald Trump is a criminal who should be in prison instead of the White House makes me a traitor to many. I think it makes me patriotic.
     Sympathizing with yourself is common as dirt. If we look at the problems in our world, 99% of them are from people so enthralled with their own precious selves that they are unable to grasp the humanity of anybody who is not exactly like them. I don't understand why it's so difficult to accept that a lot of people with connections to the Palestinian territories, either through family or culture or inclination, are upset over the situation. I certainly am. And some of those people might want to express their outrage. With a pair of big puppets. At the Cultural Center.

To continue reading, click here.

Ending birthright citizenship will create a permanent, rightless underclass

 

     This column ran in the paper yesterday. 

     The cruelty of slavery was so extreme that every aspect of the shameful institution does not get proper consideration. Once you get past loss of personal autonomy, enforced labor without compensation, brutal punishment, separation of families, obliteration of culture ... there's more, but that will do ... there isn't much emotional space left to consider slavery's multigenerational aspect, though that certainly was one of the more horrific features.
     You were a slave because your parents had been slaves. Your children, even if fathered by the man who owned you, a common occurrence, would also be slaves. As would be their children. And their children. Onward into eternity.
     Take a moment and try to imagine how grotesque this is. As a parent, I take comfort that my boys are better than me in almost every regard, leading lives that are smarter, less troubled, an all-around improvement. I can't conceive of the agony of being certain your children would be doomed to a fate exactly like yours, to toil in a field. Or worse.
     If you're wondering why this bit of American history bobbed to the surface now — it's isn't even Black History Month yet! — that's because among the flurry of executive orders President Donald Trump issued after his inauguration Monday was one aimed at ending birthright citizenship.
     Enshrined in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment has been law since the Civil War. It begins, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
     In a nutshell, if you're born here, you're a citizen.
     Since even the president cannot change the Constitution — you need a two-thirds majority in Congress and approval of three-quarters of the states — the Trump administration is arguing that the 14th Amendment has "never been interpreted" to grant universal citizenship to those born here. Another untruth to add to the tally.
     The legal crack that the Trump administration is trying to squeeze through is the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. If your parents aren't citizens, the argument goes, then you are not subject to the oversight of the United States but an unwelcome interloper whose only relationship to the law is being sent back to wherever you, or your parents, came from.
     The American Civil Liberties Union has already filed a lawsuit against the order, calling it "an attack on a fundamental constitutional protection, and one that is central to equality and inclusion." The 14th Amendment, the ACLU said, "is the cornerstone of civil rights in the United States," and "every attack on birthright citizenship, from the 19th century until now, has been grounded in racism."

To continue reading, click here.

Rich Hein: Sun-Times photo editor whose theatrical work was art

"The Iceman Cometh," directed by Bob Falls, at the Goodman Theatre, 2012 (Photo by Rich Hein)

     Rich Hein looked through the lens of his camera into the hearts of people. He shot the city for nearly half a century, taking thousands of images that captured the human condition, first for suburban newspapers, then for 40 years on staff at of the Chicago Sun-Times, rising to become its photo editor.
     "Rich was a tough but fair boss," said Alex Wroblewski, pausing from shooting the inauguration of President Donald Trump in Washington on Monday for Agence France-Presse. "I wouldn't be where I am today without him. He opened the door for me. A sweet and gracious man."
     Mr. Hein, 70, died Sunday in Naperville. He had felt chest pains, drove himself to Edward Edwards Hospital, waved off a wheelchair, and walked into the ER, where he collapsed and could not be revived.

     "He was an all-around photographer, he could do anything," remembered John H. White, who won a Pulitzer Prize at the Sun-Times. "He could do any kind of news. I always called him 'The Professor' because he was a teacher; he'd explain things. He took the time to teach me many things. He was a great photographer, a great educator."
     "Rich was always so calm, just always chill and cool, easy to talk to, easy to be around," said Robert A. Davis, a Sun-Times staffer for 14 years before going on to become a top international photographer. "He never got too excited. Slow and steady."
     That steadiness was put to the test in 2013, when the Sun-Times abruptly fired nearly its entire photo staff — except for Mr. Hein.
     "He felt very guilty about it," said former colleague Rich Cahan. "He's sitting there, and everyone else is gone."
     Mr. Hein was left the photo editor — a term he hated — supervising one young videographer, and whatever freelancers he could rope in.
     "He didn't want to be the only guy left," said Ashlee Rezin, the Sun-Times' current photo editor. "His running joke was that, on his tombstone it would read, 'He complied.' Because he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But he did so much more than comply. He was the quiet, calming, level-headed backbone of the photo department."
     But it allowed him to do something he excelled at: nurture a staff of young, energetic photojournalists.
     "I think he really loved giving opportunities to young photographers," said Rezin. "He loved when somebody wanted to work, and wanted to do well and wanted to learn from him. He enjoyed that mentorship role. I used to ask him for a critique: 'How did I do?' Whenever I didn't do the greatest, he would look at me over the top of his glasses and say, 'Do you really want to know?'"
     In addition to his Sun-Times work, Mr. Hein was a fixture on the Chicago theater scene, shooting publicity stills for stage productions.
     "His photos for the theater community were artworks themselves; they were gorgeous, " said Bill Ruminski, a news editor at the Sun-Times.
     "He was a wonderful, wonderful guy, beloved in our community," said Robert Falls, the former artistic director of the Goodman Theatre.

To continue reading, click here.

Wait long enough, and deer turn into whales

Ancient whale skulls (The Field Museum)

     Honestly? I was busy Monday morning. A colleague died suddenly Sunday, and I set to work writing his obituary. I hate to be coy, but don't want to scoop the paper. You'll find out Wednesday. So until about 3 p.m., I was talking to colleagues and bereaved loved ones, checking archives, writing.
     When I was finished ... well, I just didn't have the bandwidth to listen to even five seconds of the speech. Doesn't matter anyway. Who cares what a chronic liar says or doesn't say? He freed all the Jan. 6 rioters. So much for law and order. Signed an order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as "the Gulf of America." An incredible self-own, like signing an affidavit to his own smallness, pettiness and triviality. What could I add to that? 
     Not that I don't have anything to add. I do: whales are descended from land animals. I learned this Sunday at the Field Museum. Actually, I misunderstood the plaque, and thought the take-away was "Whales descended from horses." Which would be truly marvelous, and had me wondering, almost indignantly, "Why has this information been kept from me?"

      But that isn't the case. The ancestor is a deer-like, hooved creature — the hooves threw me off, making me think "horses." They can tell by the ankles, apparently. 

      Somehow, small deer-like creatures aren't quite as delightful, though I don't see why that should be.  Maybe the "Ken Effect." Still, it shouldn't detract from focusing on what occurred. Food grew scarce, the deer-like beastie nudged itself toward the water to grab at fish, or plants, or whatever, and over a mere 10 million years ended up spouting plumes and being chased by Ahab. Dolphins did the same, evolving from a dog-like predator called a Mesonyx. The closest relatives of whales and dolphins now are hippos and cows. 

     Funny, I already knew whales were mammals. Rising to the surface to breathe, periodically. Live birth. And yet, somehow, never followed that through to its logical conclusion: how did mammals get into the sea? They were hungry, apparently.
     There is a message there that applies to our current fraught political situation, and I hope you won't mind if I spell it out. Life is a long, long time. Things change. A small deer can, in time, become a gigantic whale. If you wait long enough.

As Trump returns, be a Martin Marty, not a Billy Graham

Martin Marty in 2017

     Faith gets good press. But its real value depends on what precisely you put your faith in, and how you use it. As I've said before: religion is a hammer. You can hit someone in the head with it. Or build them a house. Same hammer. Your choice.
     Take two of the most prominent Chicago theologians of the past half-century, Rev. Billy Graham and professor Martin E. Marty. Each used their similar faiths to take vastly different approaches to the crises of their turbulent era.
     Graham, a minister ordained in the Southern Baptist church, used his popularity as a ticket into the White House. There he curled up in the lap of power and became the personal pastor to 11 commanders in chief, starting with Harry Truman and running through every president up to Barack Obama. He baptized Dwight D. Eisenhower and spoke at the funeral of his golfing buddy, Richard Nixon.
     He cast himself as a kind of spiritual adviser. But was really just a hallelujah chorus, offering moral validation. Graham sidestepped civil rights. He sneered at Vietnam War protesters. “It seems the only way to gain attention today is to organize a march and protest something," he reassured his pal, Lyndon Johnson.
     You don't need the perspective of years to see Graham ducking the great ethical challenges of his day. Martin Marty, a Lutheran religious scholar, saw exactly who Graham was.
     “A man in transit between epochs and value systems, he has chosen to disengage himself and distract us by shouting about the end of history,” he wrote in the Sun-Times in 1965.
     Marty's pulpit was far smaller than Graham's. But he used it vigorously to advocate for civil rights. When Martin Luther King personally invited him to Selma, he recruited colleagues and went. He not only opposed the war in Vietnam, but founded an organization, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, to do so.
     You can gauge the impact of each man by what he left behind. Graham left us with his son, Franklin, perhaps the coldest stone hater calling himself a man of God on the American scene today.
     Marty left us with the University of Chicago's Martin Marty Center, which works to encourage interfaith dialogue, viewing religion as something that should bring together people of different faiths, not drive them apart.
     Marty warned against acting as the "servant of a God of prey whose goal it is to annex and enslave."
     He reminds us:
     "Nothing is more important than to keep the richness of our pluralism alive. To be aware of many different people and different ways, and deal with it."
     I had lunch with Marty in 2017, when his book on Martin Luther's 95 Theses was published, and reached out to him to plumb his thoughts now. But he'll be 97 in a couple of weeks and avoids the public eye he used so well for so long. No matter, his voluminous writings — he is the author of more than 50 books — provide what we need.

To continue reading, click here.

Myths of Telephone History

      While waiting for the train downtown Friday, I noticed this bulletin from the Highland Park Historical Society, which is holding a commemoration of Elisha Gray Sunday night. I hadn't thought about Gray in years, and would certainly be there to honor him, but a prior commitment takes me to the city. Still, I spent a long time studying the man for my "Complete & Utter Failure" book, where he appears in the chapter on bad timing, "Myths of Telephone History."

     History is much more complex than the pap they feed you in school. Think of it as an onion. The outer, tough brown surface is the outline narrative we are all familiar with — what Voltaire called "the lie agreed upon."
     To get to the inner, fragrantly-human layers of the onion, where missteps and bungling and treachery and bad timing lie you sometimes have to peel. It takes time and thought, and most people don't bother — they have a hard enough time keeping the famous figures and buzzwords straight — but it is an exercise that, nevertheless, should be tried at least once.
     Consider the telephone.
     Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. We learn this in grade school. He was a teacher of the deaf, with a big beard, and he invented the telephone. After he invented it, the first words spoken over the telephone were "Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." Everyone knows this.
     The date was March 10, 1876. The reason Bell needed Watson was because he had spilled sulfuric acid on his clothes. The acid was being used to alter an electric current in response to shifting sound waves, the central element in the telephone Bell was using, a telephone he did not invent, but which was described the month before in an application registered at the U.S. Patent Office in Washington, D.C. by Chicago inventor Elisha Gray.
     And now we begin to peel.
     Gray, an electrician who founded the Western Electric Company, is one of those shadow figures of history, a person whose life comes into focus only when the light of failure is shone on the pages of the past. his telephone invention could have — perhaps should have — placed him among the pantheon of immortal American inventors: Fulton, Morse, Edison, Gray.
     Certainly Gray appeared to be the right man to invent the telephone. He had eleven patents to his name, all for improvements in the telegraph, and his Western Electric Company had the backing of the powerful Western Union, the biggest company in America. His people saw the telephone coming. In a New York Times article of July 10, 1874, detailing Gray's "musical telegraph," a device conveying tones over wires in the fashion of an electric organ, a Western Union official predicted that "in time the operators will transmit the sound of their own voice over the wires."
     They did, and quickly too. Within five years people would be paying to talk over a phone Gray had designed, but not over a phone that hadGray's name on it or put cash into Gray's pocket. Gray suffered a single slip, a stroke of bad timing on his march to glory, and it was enough to sidetrack hm into oblivion and ridicule. He is remembered today chiefly for his moment of lateness, a cameo appearance in what is, at first glance, one of the more astounding coincidences of history.
     On February 14, 1876, Gardiner Hubbard, Alexander Graham Bell's silent business partner, visited the U.S. Patent Office in Washington, D.C., and filed a patent application for "Improvements in Telegraphy," Bell's modest term for a transmitter/receiver that could send a voice over electrical wires — a telephone.
     Approximately two hours later, an attorney named William D. Baldwin visited the same office and filed a caveat for Gray, describing a device for "transmitting vocal sounds or conversations telegraphically" (a caveat was an announcement of a pending patent application). The filing fee was $10.
     The Patent Office had a policy for handling two conflicting claims. On February 19, it issued what was called an interference, meaning that both applications were frozen for ninety days to give the examiners time to weigh the merits of the variou claims.
     The two devices were quite similar. Bell's used a membrane that when vibrated by sound waves, moved a strip of iron through the field of an electromagnet, converting the sounds into an undulating electric current. Gray's was a little more elegant. Vibration of the membrane changed the depth of immersion of rod in acidified water, varying the current (most people don't realize that it was not the element receiving or broadcasting the voice which was the radically new part of the telephone, but the smoothly varying electrical current, as opposed to the simple on/off of the telegraph circuit).

     Neither man had actually conveyed speech through his device. Gray hadn't built his. Bell had, but his assistant Thomas Watson had only been able to make out "tones" from it. But in keeping with the standard procedure of their time — and ours — each had bolted off to the Patent Office to try to secure the right to make great gobs of money off his invention a soon as the idea had been conceived.
     How did these two men — one in Boston, one in Chicago — end up inventing similar devices with identical purposes and presenting them to be patented on the same day?
     Remember, neither Gray nor Bel was a solitary genius wrenching his brilliant creation from his unique intellect. It didn't work like that. The telephone was a by-product, gradually extracted from the telegraph. Neither Bell nor Gray had set out to bring the art of disembodied conversation to an eagerly waiting world. Party lines, call-forwarding, telemarketing and Rock Hudson/Doris Day moves were well beyond imagining. In fact, there was no perceivable public desire to speak to people who were far away. The public was still pinching itself in wonder over the miracle of the telegraph, invented just thirty-two years earlier.
     That was the problem with the telegraph — it was too popular. people wanted to send too many messages over the fragile web of wires crisscrossing the country, since a line could handle only one message at a time. Message requests were routinely backing up. There were delays....
     When more information is considered, the coincidence of Bell's and Gray's devices colliding at the U.S. Patent Office seems less and less startling, more like two runners crossing the finish line at the same time than a bizarre twist of fate.
     As soon as the interference was announced by the Patent Office, Bell hotfooted it to Washington to try to smooth things over in person. Gray stayed in Chicago — perhaps a fatal error.
     Bell found himself in a conference with Zenas F. Wilber, the patent examiner. And this is the core of the onion — what passed between Bell and Wilber has been the subject of great speculation and debate. Bell later admitted that he asked Wilber about the nature of the conflict, and Wilber pointed to a line in Bell's patent application suggesting the possible use of liquid to vary the current. Even this is suspect, as the line is handwritten in the margin of the original application. Bell claims that he forgot to include it in the text. But suspicion lingers — perhaps unjustly — since Wilber was a deaf-mute,well acquainted with Bell and, just maybe sympathetic to his cause. They could have added the line on the spot, conjuring up the truism "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." Wilber later admitted that he also mistakenly showed Gray's application to Bell, which, if not a great crime, was certainly a breach of ethics.
     By the time patent No. 174465 was granted to Bell, on March 7, he had constructed a working phone — based not on the iron-bar model described and pictured in his newly issued patent, but on Gray's liquid model, at best only alluded to in Bell's application in the handwritten addendum. This was the telephone Bell used in calling Watson, the telephone he displayed at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia that summer to an awestruck audience, including Elisha Gray, who, not realizing that Bell was using his device, slunk off in defeat.