Saturday, December 7, 2019

Flashback 2010: Today's outcast is tomorrow's icon



     Some delinquent scrawled graffiti on the bottom of the Northbrook water tower last week. Maybe they'd have thought twice before doing that if they knew the edifice's place in architectural history. There's much more to it than "SAVE FERRIS," as I discovered in this 2010 column.
     
OPENING SHOT . . .

     When we bought our home in the leafy suburban paradise of Northbrook—can it be?—10 years ago this June, third on my list of gut-twisting worries, right after all the urgent repairs needed and the busy train tracks right across the street, was the enormous water tower practically in the backyard.
     The thing is huge, and while not quite as menacing as, say, an atomic power plant cooling tower, it isn't something that might appeal to future buyers either. "Oh honey, look, it has that lovely humongous water tower in the backyard. Let's get it!"
     The 135-foot tall tower is, by my count, 150 paces from my yard. But the house is a block from the elementary school and a block from the train station. So I deemed the tower an acceptable eyesore.
     Cut to last month, when the village announced it will be building a new water tower, twice as capacious, over by the expressway.
     Tearing down the old tower will improve whatever property values remain after the Great Housing Bubble popped. But did I rejoice?
     Of course not.
     Human nature being what it is, I felt a surprising flutter of propriety concern—what would become of our water tower? A neighbor I quizzed, amazingly, feels the same. As do my boys.
     Not that we're trying to save it. Who would try to save an old water tower? Of course, this is no ordinary water tower—this one has a cameo in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," with "SAVE FERRIS" painted on the side. 

     Does that matter? Does it matter that the thing has a name? A Horton Waterspheroid, constructed in 1954, the first of 2,400 built nationwide by the Chicago Bridge & Iron Co?
     If I'm going to make a case for saving it—and I'm not; this is purely an intellectual exercise—I would frame my argument, not in historic, but aesthetic terms. Anyone familiar with the loss of architectural treasures knows that every single one was torn down because people—not everybody, but enough—failed to recognize them as lovely or important.
     Tastes shift—during the modernist mania after World War II, when we fell in love with sleek, unadorned expanses of glass and steel, it was easy to view the ornate Victorian buildings that we all appreciate so much now as over-ornamented monstrosities. So down went the Stock Exchange Building and the Garrick Theatre and such.
     Sometimes those in charge were merely philistines. We should always remember that the boors running the Chicago Theological Seminary in the 1950s were about to tear down Frank Lloyd Wright's sublime Robie House to make way for a dorm when saner heads rushed in.
     I can imagine a day in our sleek, iPod and electric car future when a waterspheroid suddenly seems prescient and monumental and beautiful.

'DESIGNED FOR BEAUTY'

     That's certainly how it was presented at the time.
     "The pleasing symmetry of a Horton Watersphere is fast becoming a symbol of progress, utility and good water service," touted an ad in the April 1955 issue of American City magazine. Other ads called it "striking" and "attractive."
     Someday, when Google starts buying up old water towers and jamming them with massive zettaflop memory banks and servers and routing switches, we might feel smart having kept it. Or we could mirror the tower and pay Anish Kapoor to sign the bottom—it would outshine the Bean in Millennium Park.
     I sat down with village officials in charge of public works, who are approaching this as a purely practical matter: What does it cost to keep and what does it cost to tear down?
     And rightly so. The math is surprising. I would have guessed that the tower would be far cheaper to paint every decade than to demolish, but it's the reverse; far more expensive to paint, by a factor of ten—$240,000 when it was last painted, in 2000, and probably $300,000 by now, compared with an estimated $25,000 to demolish (a cost lessened by selling scrap steel from the tower, which weighs about a quarter of a million pounds).
     And yes, they sometimes demolish a water tower by felling it like a tree, or blowing it up, or cutting it apart with hydraulic shears.
     The village hasn't made a decision yet.
     "We're still not to that point," said Kelly Hamill, assistant director of public works in Northbrook. "We've got a contract with the consultant."
     In the meantime, I've learned two things: first, to cast a newly appreciative eye on Horton, as I call him, glowing golden in the evening sun, filling my kitchen window.
     And second—and this really was a surprise—Northbrook, alone among the interior Chicago suburbs, draws its own water from Lake Michigan and treats it, independently. (Adding a bit more chlorine than the city. "We err on the cautious side," said Ken Gardner, the water utilities superintendent, a sentiment that could be our village motto.)
     My bet is that the old tower goes. And while it'll be missed, for a while, the truth is that life goes on. The Chicago Bridge & Iron Company is still in existence, for example, but now headquartered near Houston, Texas. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis -- the times change, and we change with them.

TODAY'S CHUCKLE

     When I was winding up my conversation with Ken Gardner, he asked if I wanted to know about the strangest call he's gotten in his 36 years with the village. I did.
     "Somebody once phoned us and asked if we could adjust the water temperature. Because they were having trouble getting hot water."
               —Originally published in the Sun-Times, Jan. 13, 2010


Friday, December 6, 2019

New book tells of city’s Poles including — łał! —Jews




     I believe I owe an apology to Dominic Pacyga, whose book, “American Warsaw: The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of Polish Chicago” was recently published.
     Before I even cracked the book open, I asked a question that was also a judgment:
     What if he ignores the Jews?
     Because if I have learned one thing from reading my mail, it is that being Polish and being Jewish are often viewed as mutually exclusive, at least by the former. Having a grandfather born in Bialystok — definitely in Poland — and other grandparents from Galicia and Belarus, which are sometimes Polish, sometimes not, means nothing. 
     If Pacyga overlooked Jews entirely, what would I do? Confront the distinguished history professor? I had so enjoyed his “Chicago: A Biography.”   

     Should I even venture into this realm? Polish Chicagoans can have a ... choosing my words carefully ... finely calibrated sense of outrage. I’ll never forget their indignation when I came back from Vilnius after interviewing the Lithuanian president. Vilnius being the nation’s capital led me to the ignorant blunder of assuming it is therefore Lithuanian, and not, as I was informed with various degrees of asperity, a Polish city under occupation.
     Still, I plunged in.
     I’m glad I did. Pacyga starts debunking untruths about Chicago on page one: “The city often proclaims itself as Poland’s second city, with only Warsaw containing a larger Polish population ... it is a myth...”
     Turns out my question echoes the book’s central premise.
     “Just who is a Pole,” Pacyga asks. “Could a Pole be an Orthodox Christian, a Protestant, a Jew, or an atheist? Was a Pole anyone who believe in a free and independent Poland, even if their first language was Yiddish?”


To continue reading, click here.


Thursday, December 5, 2019

Flashback 1991: Black Jews assert claim to faith

Rabbi Capers Funnye preaching in 1991 (Photo for the Sun-Times by Al Podgorski).


     Facebook dangles potential friends, and most I don't know so let drift on by. 
     But I could not pass up Rabbi Capers Funnye, because in the early 1990s I visited his synagogue and wrote about him.  I really liked going to his synagogue, and meeting people who follow my faith, not because of the accident of their birth, but because they found it themselves and embraced it. Judaism meant something to them. 
    I had just seen his tallis, a few years back, in the Smithsonian's collection of African-American artifacts, along with Dizzy Gillespie's angled trumpet and Oprah Winfrey's microphone (reflecting, somewhat smugly, that I had met all three: how often does THAT happen at a museum?)
     The story stands out for several reasons. First, an editor, Larry Green, did not want to put it in the paper. What, he wondered, was "the hook?" What made it news? It was news, I said, measuredly, trying to contain myself, because people didn't know about it. Then he wanted me to somehow include Sammy Davis Junior, as a topical peg. Cause he's JEWISH. That I would not do.
     And just to show that no good work goes unpunished, it ran, and the complaints rolled in. I had written a sidebar on the Falashas, Ethiopian Jews, and they were aghast that I treated their origins as subject to speculation, and not descendants of the Queen of Sheba, or whatever myth they choose to embrace. I think I heard from every Ethiopian Jew in Chicago. 

     Then, to top it off, Rabbi Funnye complained, quite vehemently if I recall. The photo, which I remember running on the front page. It showed him with his mouth open. He didn't like that, thought it was bad, and I couldn't convince him otherwise.
     Plus there was my own disappointment at how warily mainstream white Judaism treated people who voluntarily took up their heritage. It struck me as mere bigotry, and made me embarrassed, not for the first or last time, that organized Judaism can be as myopic, unwelcoming and mistaken as organized anything else.



     Exodus 25 is not the most exciting chapter in the Bible. It contains complex instructions on how to build the Holy Ark. It includes lists: "violet and purple, and scarlet, twice dyed, and fine linen, and goats' hair. . . ."
     Seven men in succession rise and read the ancient Hebrew words. Some read fluidly, almost singing. Others hesitate and struggle.
     When they have finished, Rabbi Capers Funnye Jr. stands before his congregation and explains how the 5,000-year-old Scriptures apply to the average black Jew living on the South Side of Chicago today.
     "Why are (the passages) so detailed in saying precisely these measurements of the sanctuary?" Funnye asks, marking off the air with his hands. "Why these measurements? They could have just said, `They built the temple.' "
     The two dozen people at Beth Shalom Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation, 5304 S. Winchester, listen carefully. Occasionally, someone cries out, "Teach on, Rabbi!" or, "Cane, cane," Hebrew for "Yes, yes."
     "It is to teach us to have perfection in our lives, that's why," Funnye continues. "It is so detailed because we're supposed to pay attention to the little things. To learn to take life a step at a time, day by day, mitzvah by mitzvah."
     The congregants of Beth Shalom, and those of at least eight other black synagogues across Chicago, practice forms of Judaism.
     But are they Jews?
     Mainstream Judaism for the most part says no.
     "You can't stand on the corner and say, `I'm Jewish,' and be Jewish," said Rabbi Mordecai Simon, executive vice president of the Chicago Board of Rabbis. "You can study Judaism, you can practice Judaism. But being Jewish is based on being legally a Jew. In Israel, 80 percent of the Jews do not practice Judaism, but they're still Jews because law says if you are born of a Jewish mother, or converted in accordance to Jewish legal proceeding, you're Jewish."
     Funnye said he was "rankled" by the idea that a person without knowledge of Judaism, whose mother is Jewish, is automatically a Jew.
     "He can walk into a Jewish community, and he would be accepted wholeheartedly, and I would have a problem," said Funnye, whose credentials as a rabbi are questioned because he received them from an unrecognized black school in New York. "They would have to quiz me to see what I knew."
     Chicago has as few as several hundred or as many as 8,000 black Jews, depending on your source and your definition of a Jew. Beth Shalom is without question the most traditional by mainstream Jewish standards. Funnye and his family have undergone ritual conversion to the faith. He works for the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, and his children attend Akiba Schechter Jewish Day School in Hyde Park, along with other children from his congregation.
     "He's very sincere, very committed," said Miriam Schiller, principal of Akiba Schechter, where seven of 44 children in elementary school are black. "He wants his children definitely to be Jewish and be educated Jewishly."
     Most black Jews were not born Jewish. Nor are they Ethiopian Jews, whose roots go back millennia (see story, next page). Rather, they were attracted to the idea of Judaism's sense of victory over slavery, an aspect felt particularly strongly at this time of year, with the Passover seder celebrating the Exodus from Egypt.
     "I could take you to the Torah and show you any number of places that apply to a people who had lost their identity, who came by ships," said Tyrone Handy, a member of Beth Shalom.
     Michael Bridge, born and raised a Baptist in Chicago, voiced the common black Jewish belief that it is the white Jews who are newcomers, historically, keeping the nest warm until blacks could return to the faith.
     "The converts came into it when the real people went to sleep," he said.
     "In the majority of blacks who identify themselves as Jews, there is a quest and a thirst that Islam does not satisfy," said Funnye, "that no form or facet of Christianity satisfies."
     Observant Jews would recognize most parts of Beth Shalom's service, which takes almost three hours. There is the reading of the Torah scroll, with the traditional blessings before and after each reader, and the reciting of the shma, the key prayer in Judaism. The men and boys sit on one side of the aisle, the women and girls on the other, as demanded by Orthodox Jewish law.
     The sanctuary—once a living room, with the blond wood paneling still in place - would be recognized also as a Jewish synagogue, albeit a modest one. The Ark is plywood, covered by a threadbare ceremonial curtain salvaged from a wealthier, white synagogue. Overhead is a simple eternal light. To the left, a menorah. To the right, a shofar (ram's horn) on a stand.
     But a few aspects would be unfamiliar. In this house of worship, God is called "Yah," from the original Hebrew name for God, unpronounced in white synagogues. There is a testimony, where members of the congregation stand, as the spirit moves them, and talk about their week. On this day one speaks of the death of his grandmother ("She is out of her pain"), another of the impact of Paul Robeson, and a third on the joy of faith ("It's a blessing to be in this life and have an idea what you are"). And Funnye and his congregation sometimes inflect their Hebrew with a hearty gospel growl.
     Other black Chicago Jewish congregations have looser definitions of themselves.
     "We're a different branch," said Rabbi James Hodges of the House of Israel Temple of Faith, 7130 S. Chicago, where congregants wear skullcaps and prayer shawls and observe Jewish dietary laws. "We don't profess Judaism in its religious sense; we profess Judaism in its national sense. We are Hebrew Israelites; the original Jews descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have constructed our own service form."
     Despite the publicity of tense black-Jewish relations, black Jews say they rarely experience anti-Semitism.
     "In our community, it's more a lack of understanding," said Charles Hickman, who also uses the Hebrew name Ben Cayil. "When they visualize `Jewish' they think of white guys with long beards. They don't understand how an African can be a Jew."
     He said that within the black Jewish community, there are differences in perspectives toward the religion.
     "The last time I went to Rabbi Hodges' synagogue, they weren't doing the week's Torah portion," said Hickman. "That is an integral part to me."
     Others include Jesus in their service, which baffles Hickman. "They've got off the path in some way," he said. "Ain't no God but God."
     "I think Judaism appeals to us because it is deeply rooted in the African heritage," said Rabbi Robert Nolan, who heads a congregation in Harvey. "I recall as a child growing up in the Southern part of the United States. There was this sense of Jewishness in the black community."
     "There are a wide variety of different kinds of black Jews," said James Landing, an associate professor of geography at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has been studying black Jews for years. "There are those who refer to themselves as Orthodox Jews, incorporating a lot of Judaistic trappings; symbols, skullcaps. They may speak Hebrew."
     He said others were Old Testament Christians or Baptists "under a veneer of Judaism."
     Landing said black Jews in Chicago did not display "a legitimate interest" in Jewish teachings in their contact with the mainstream Jewish establishment.
     "They wanted financial help," he said. "They wanted buildings. They wanted to be donated old synagogues. But they were not interested in participating in white Jewish life."
     Simon, who has been in contact with the black Jewish community for 20 years, disagrees: "It's not a scam. The black Jews I know are very serious and very concerned with their religious faith, which they describe as Judaism. The organized Jewish community has tried to offer assistance in religious education - supplies, books, texts - which have been received lukewarmishly. They don't want the incursion of the white establishment. They don't want to be patronized; they're proud of what the y're doing."
     Funnye finds it ironic that mainstream white Judaism, which itself is divided into four distinct varieties—reform, conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic—should deny black attempts to form their own interpretations.
     "There are four strands in the white Jewish community; each one of those had a right to define Judaism as they understand it," he said. "Yet, it seems they want to deny our right to define an understanding of Judaism. We have people who are learned, yet black Jews tend to be more an object of curiosity than accepted as sincere."
     Nolan said: "We feel that there is enough historical basis that we have a right to exist as Jews. We don't have to have the approval of someone else.
     "We want to develop and maintain close ties with all Judaism. Jews are the color of the rainbow. It's not a black-and-white issue.

        —Originally published in the Sun-Times, March 31, 1991

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Foxx and Fioretti in the same race — what’s not to love?



     Oh Kim Foxx, Kim Foxx ...
     There are so many reasons not to write about you, ever.
     First, the race thing. Why risk provoking the Carol Moseley Braun defense? You know, when pointing out obvious deficiencies of public officials who are black is portrayed as a form of bigotry.
     Thus, if I observe, oh, for instance, that Foxx wasn’t ready for the job — her main qualifications being a law degree and a cozy spot under the wing of Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, who elevated her for reasons mysterious — then suddenly I’m Bull Connor tightening my grip around an axe handle.
     When in reality, the defense itself is racist: the racism of low expectations, the unsupportable notion that certain public figures are exempt from the careful scrutiny that any full-fledged adult must expect when entering the political arena.
     To be safe, let’s bend over backward with Foxx.
     A definite improvement over Anita Alvarez — Javert from “Les Miserables” would have been a definite improvement over Alvarez — Foxx so thoroughly botched the Jussie Smollett case that it overshadowed her record, particularly when, as if for an encore, to show what she is really capable of, Foxx even more acrobatically botched the fallout to her botching the Smollett case.

To continue reading, click here.


Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Flashback 2005: The House on the Hill




     Holy coincidence, Batman. 

    Friday I was collecting my parents from the Sheraton in Northbrook. I parked the car  and noticed The House on the Hill, as I called it when I first moved here. I snapped a photo, and later tracked down the column mentioning it: exactly 14 years ago.
     The column was much longer back then—a whopping 11oo words—and filled an entire page. I'll trim out some dated topical fluff about Blago trying to ban junk food in schools, but leave in the non-House on the Hill prelude about immigration—our perennial national hobby horse—and Google's view of the word "googling."
Or if pressed for time—and who isn't?—you can just skip to the "Closing Shot" at the end. 

OPENING SHOT

     The president says we need to guard our borders. I say we need to look to Japan, where well-guarded borders have led to retirees overwhelming workers in a gerontocracy crumbling toward economic ruin. If we had a functional immigration service, we wouldn't have so many illegals and people could openly come here to keep our economy humming and our nation vital. Besides, most concern over immigration is our old friend Racism wearing his Sunday best and trying to pass in polite society.


GOOGLY EYES ARE OK, THOUGH

     Near the end of the 19th century, Germany's Friedrich Bayer and Company discovered acetylsalicylic acid was useful in treating pain. "Acetylsalicylic acid" is a mouthful, so the new product was marketed under the brand name "Aspirin."
     Over the decades, Bayer failed to zealously guard the name of its popular product, and it was seized by other companies, so that now any fly-by-night pill company with a few sacks of acetylsalicylic acid can start selling it as "aspirin" and Bayer can't say boo to them.
     This story haunts big business to this day. That's why if you write about "xeroxing" something, the Xerox Corporation will send you a starchy letter, scolding you that the proper verb is "photocopying," thank you, preferably on a "Xerox brand photocopier." Even the DayGlo Color Corporation—who knew?—of Cleveland will chew you out if you pretend their brand is a mere type of hue.
     Sometimes, these efforts border on the futile. "Rollerblading" is just too apt a word, and will never be replaced by "inline skating," no matter how hard Rollerblade USA of Hamilton, N.J., tries.
     With this in mind, I wondered how the popularity of the word "googling" was sitting with Google Inc., the California-based search engine company that suddenly is the biggest thing on Earth.
     They are supposed to be a young, hip, with-it company too busy changing the world to worry about wubbly old workadaddy worries such as trademark law. Yet they are still a company (by now worth more than all the other companies combined, I believe). Don't they see a risk that, without vigorous protection, soon people will be googling with Microsoft or Websites-R-Us or whatever? Do they fear the fate of aspirin? And if they do, how does Google, a company all too happy to push the boundaries of copyright law by offering pages from other companies' copyrighted books on the Web for free, go about protecting itself?
     Very quickly—as befits an enterprise that went from two guys in a dorm room to a world-bestriding behemoth in seven years—I found myself talking to Rose Hagan, senior trademark counsel at Google. I asked her if "Google" becoming a popular verb is a danger sign.
     "All trademark owners do have to worry their marks will become generic," she said. "It's not [a problem], if a mark is used as a verb. The test is what does the public perceive when they use it. We want to make sure, when people talk about googling, they mean searching on Google, as opposed to any other search engine."
     Clever—I bet Xerox is kicking itself for pushing "photocopying" all those years, instead of trying to define "xeroxing" as "using a Xerox machine."
     Hagan said that, like Xerox, Google has "a nice little letter" it dispatches if somebody starts manhandling the Google trademark. Foreign dictionaries, which tend to ignore the niceties of American intellectual property laws, have been a particular problem.
     So what about those who—hard as it is to imagine—use a search engine other than Google to surf the Internet? What verb should they use if not "google"?
     "'Search' is a nice easy word," said Hagan. "I don't think we need to complicate anything."
     Isn't that what lawyers are for?

CLOSING SHOT

     Sometimes it's better not to know.
     For five years, ever since I moved to the old leafy suburban paradise, whenever I would drive up Waukegan Road, after admiring the grandeur of Techny Towers, I would sneak a covetous glance to my left, to what I called The House on the Hill.
     The House on the Hill was a single building silhouetted against the horizon, utterly alone. A comfortable house, too far away to make out clearly, but in my imagination it had been there a long time, back when the area was undeveloped woodland, before it was sold off and fell to ferocious development (including a gated community, complete with a guardhouse, though what it could possibly be guarding against out here I can't imagine. Wolves, perhaps).
     Anyway, with big earth-moving equipment working toward The House on the Hill, with sprawl closing in day by day, I thought it time to drive up to the house and end the mystery. Maybe commiserate with its longtime owner, who I imagined to be a cross between Carl Sandburg and Robert Frost, a white-haired gent who might recall when the only disturbance was the clop of horse hooves and the creak of cart wheels.
     The road was difficult to find—tucked by the new Costco and the hivelike Glenview commercio-residential metroplex. But I found it, and slowly worked my way up a rather big hill -- almost a mountain, really, quite improbable for this flat part of Illinois. When I got to the top, I found The House on the Hill wasn't a house at all; it was the Willowhill Golf Academy. And the hill wasn't a real hill, either, but an enormous mound of landfilled trash.
     As I said, sometimes it's better not to know.

                —Originally published in the Sun-Times, Nov. 30, 2005

Monday, December 2, 2019

‘The more, the merrier’ — why we need babies and immigrants

New Americans show off their citizenship documents, Chicago 2013

     Did you have a nice Thanksgiving? I hope so. We sure did. One for the record books, actually. Two turkeys, one roasted, one fried. Three types of cranberry sauce. Four pies, that I tasted personally — slivers of pumpkin, pecan, cherry and key lime.
     Twenty-seven guests, from California to New York. Ranging in age from 87 (my dad) to 5 (the youngest of eight nieces, six of whom were there). Not counting my first great-nephew waiting in the wings, courtesy of a niece eight and a half months pregnant. Anticipation of the Big Event gave Thanksgiving 2019 extra sparkle.
     A baby is an increasing rarity nowadays — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced last Wednesday that the U.S. birth rate slipped again in 2018: down 2 percent, the lowest in 32 years.
     Why? Good question. Journalists immediately rounded up the usual suspects.
     “The birthrate is a barometer of despair,” one demographer suggested. Unemployment is low, but the jobs available tend to be marginal, benefitless, future-free gigs that don’t encourage those grinding away at them to take up the task of starting a new generation in between driving Uber fares and pulling lattes.
     Children are the ultimate luxury, more expensive than any vacation or car or most houses. Little howling money sponges, not to forget time-consuming, emotionally draining and physically demanding, if you do it right.
     That frank assessment should not discourage anyone from having kids. They’re the best. Like any difficult endeavor — climbing Mount Everest, flying to the moon — the satisfaction is commensurate with the difficulty. Now that old age is setting out its tools of torture and the standard markers of success —money, status, career — flicker and fade into insignificance, kids matter more than ever.

To continue reading, click here.
 

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Fatherhood



                               A military hair brush
                               My good friend Cate gave to me 
                               As a token of esteem
                               More than 35 years ago
                               Boar bristles. oval walnut handle
                               Form and function, a thing of beauty
                               For decades I used it to align
                               My gently thinning hair
                               Regularly admiring
                               Its solidity in my hand
                               Its understated elegance
                               Feeling rather elegant myself.
                               Just by proximity
                               The firm command of its bristles
                               Keeping me presentable
                               Through courtship and marriage
                               To someone else
                               Home, children.
                               An elder son, grown to manhood
                               And took a fancy to the brush
                               I can assume.
                               Because he brought it to college
                               Without a by-your-leave
                               Or perhaps fancy wasn't involved
                               Maybe it was the casual assumption
                               Of the well-loved
                               That the world will offer and he accept
                               Or not, as is his pleasure.
                               Anyway, I politely inquired after the brush then
                               Discovering its fate
                               Let the matter drop
                               "I would have given it to him,"
                               I told my wife.
                              "Had he asked."
                              Shrugged
                              And bought another brush
                              A six-dollar rubberized 
                              Bed, Bath & Beyond Conair brush
                              Neither cheap nor luxurious
                              Functional nylon bristles
                              Still up to the task of tending
                              My gently thinning hair.
                              Frankly, I forgot about my wooden brush
                              Until it reappeared, along with my son
                              For the Thanksgiving holiday.
                              He, a fine, sleek, 24
                              The brush, at least a decade older
                              On the lip of the sink upstairs
                              Showing its age, the wood dry 
                              Mottled, water-worn
                              The bristles thick with his own blond
                              Gently thinning hair
                              Did I consider swapping the brushes?
                              I did.
                              But that is not what happened.
                              What I did was bring up a bottle of furniture oil
                              And a soft cloth
                              Then gently rubbed the oil in the walnut handle
                              Twice, until it shone fresh
                              I took a comb and carefully removed
                              His gently thinning hair
                              And set the brush, renewed
                              As quality will do
                              Back upon the sink
                              And quietly slunk away
                              With a smile of paternal happiness.
                              I cannot give him much
                              In the way of stocks or bond or real estate
                              Few business contacts
                              Fewer objects worth inheriting
                              But I can give the gift of 
                              A military hair brush.