Bad News from Local Television 

By Patrick F. Cannon

Some of you may remember Floyd Kalber and Len O’Conner, the long ago anchor and commentator respectively on Chicago’s Channel 5 News. I remember both with fondness as entirely professional, no nonsense newsmen. Kalber was a particular hero of mine, as he once talked the folks at Channel 5 into letting him just read the weather report, rather than having a dedicated weather person stand in front of a map and parse the forecast for valuable minutes that could have been devoted to real news.

Predictably, his good sense approach to the weather forecast was doomed. Eventually, Kalber decamped for New York and the Today show, where he did the news every morning and reported occasional stories for NBC News. He later returned to Chicago and ended his career at the local birthplace of “Happy Talk” news, WLS-TV, Channel 7. It must have been bittersweet.

While the local ABC affiliate was the groundbreaker in softening and cheering up the news, all of the local Chicago stations now follow its lead. In a 30-minute newscast, with approximately 22 minutes devoted to content, there will be two weather forecasts. The first one will give the basics, but if there are any rain, snow or temperature extremes within 1,000 miles of the city, it will end with “the teaser of doom.”  In the later forecast, always longer and more detailed, the impending winter storm will turn out to be flurries. This is not to say that the weather folks don’t do a good job when there is an actual weather event; they do. But is there any excuse for devoting so much time to the weather when it’s just normal for the season? And for the seeming competition among female meteorologists to see who can wear the tightest dress?

While the overemphasis on weather is annoying, the flagrant promotion of network entertainment programming as part of the newscast is infuriating.  If ABC wants to promote “Dancing With the Stars,” it should do so in a commercial, not have its news anchors, presumably professional journalists, debase themselves by pretending that what fading actor is attempting to rejuvenate his or her career by dancing the tango with some hard body, is actually just as worthy of coverage as the latest failure of the political class to solve the state’s fiscal mess.

Thank God for newspapers, even though declining circulation and ad revenues make them a dubious investment for their corporate owners. What would television news directors do if they couldn’t depend on their local newspaper to uncover the stories that they piggy back on for their own content? Their own “investigative” teams are largely a joke.

Thirty years ago, newspapers were a hot investment item. Family owned papers began to sell out for the exorbitant amounts corporations were willing to pay for what were then considered cash cows. Then appeared the internet and a new generation that seemed unwilling to tear themselves away from their computer and phone screens, and who seem increasingly unable to tell the difference between unbiased reporting and opinion.

If great newspapers were still privately owned, they might be better able to weather revenue decline without having to worry about panicked stockholders.  I wish someone would buy the Chicago Tribune as a civic duty, just as Jeff Bezos of Amazon has bought the Washington Post. In the meantime, everyone who cares about unbiased reporting should subscribe to their local paper for the real news, and then depend on their local TV news for entertainment and the weather forecast.

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

Poor Little Rich Girl 

By Patrick F. Cannon

The recent divorce saga of Illinois billionaire Ken Griffin and his wife Anne reminded me of a similar story a few years ago. Another billionaire, who died last year and shall remain nameless, was in the news because his ex-wife had asked the courts to increase his child support payments for their daughter to $320,000 a month from $50,000.

We were told that the tycoon had the child out of wedlock in 1999. The gallant fellow agreed to make an honest woman out of her, but only upon the understanding that she would then file for divorce, receiving $50,000 per month for the child, but nothing for herself.

Now, the last time I looked, $50,000 a month only adds up to $600,000 a year. As we know, grown men make far more money playing children’s games like baseball and basketball, so it hardly seems fair that an actual child should have received so little, particularly a child who was both the daughter of a billionaire and lived in Southern California.

Although it hardly seems relevant, I should mention that the child was then three, the mother 36 and Mr. Moneybags 84.

If we examine the reasons for needing $320,000 a month (or $3,840,000 a year), all might become clear. Travel, for example, was projected at $144,000 per month. Surely, you might say, one would have to be on the road continuously to spend that kind of dough.   But this is to completely misunderstand the requirements of the rich, particularly the rich in any way associated with Hollywood (the father owned one of its major studios).

Travel broadens one, even a three-year-old. Let’s say a trip to Paris seems desirable. No child of that age can travel alone. She’ll need mommy, nanny and a security guard. Four first-class tickets from LA to Paris would be about $40,000. Upon arrival, mom and the kid would likely share a suite, say at the Ritz or the George V. A week could run another $30,000. Nanny and the security person would rate only single rooms, but two could add another $10,000. At Paris prices, meals could easily add another $10,000. I think that totals $90,000 for a week in Paris, leaving a mere $54,000 to last the rest of the month. It might well be even less, as a prudent mother of a billionaire’s daughter might well opt for a private jet to avoid any possibility of a kidnapping enroute.

“Parties and play dates” were estimated at $14,000 a month. For a child whose first birthday party cost $70,000, this does not seem excessive. As a child, I simply went next door and knocked on the back door to see if Jimmy could come outside and play. But of course I didn’t live in Bel Air or Beverly Hills. Can we reasonably ask a child to scale an electric fence with razor wire at the top to play with the kid next door?

An additional $2,500 a month was set aside for movies and outings. While movies may only be $15 a ticket, the usual entourage increases the tab to $60, not including popcorn. Because she lived in the film capital of the world, and her father was deeply involved in the business, we would naturally expect her to keep up with the latest releases and trends. And all parents know that Disneyland, Universal Studios and Knotts Berry Farm don’t come cheap.

Other expenses listed by the Associated Press seemed equally reasonable: $1,400 for laundry and cleaning, $1,000 for toys and books, and $436 “for care of Kira’s bunny and other pets.” Actually, Ms. Kerkorian might want to revisit the pet care costs. My own experience with a poodle of delicate health and constantly growing coat suggests it might not be enough.

You may have noticed that the expenses listed only totaled $163,336 per month. But of course that doesn’t include the costs of housing, food and staff, which could quite easily eat up the remaining $156,664.

Many of you will recall F. Scott Fitzgerald’s comment that the rich are different than us, and Ernest Hemingway’s famous rejoinder, “yes, they have more money.” Well, as you can see, they actually need it.

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

What’s in a Name?

By Patrick F. Cannon

Some years ago, I was driving from Munich to Vienna. The day was fine and the road splendid. After traveling for some time, I thought I should soon see a sign heralding my imminent arrival. Nothing of the kind. Thinking perhaps that I had somehow gone astray, I pulled into a rest stop and sought information from the Information kiosk. I explained my dilemma to the attendant, who laughed heartily, as Austrians often do. When he caught his breath, he told me that Vienna was actually Wien in German. Why then do English speakers call it Vienna I asked? Warming to the subject, he said that the Italians called the city Vienna and that since the English seemed to prefer the Italians to the Austrians, they had taken to using the Italian word.

I was on the point of asking why the Italians thought it necessary to come up with their own name, but decided I might never actually get to Wien, so I decided to leave well enough alone. I heartily enjoyed my visit to Wien, but it has caused me problems ever since. When extolling the virtues of Wien to my friends, I am often greeted with blank stares. Wien? Never heard of it! After patiently explaining that it’s often called Vienna by English speakers, I often have the feeling that they think that perhaps I had too much wine in Wien.

What to call things is a serious problem for travelers. The French call London “Londre”, the Italians “Londini.” On the other hand, the English spell Paris just like the French do, although they pronounce it with an “iss” instead of an “eee.” A Spaniard thinks he’s going to Nueva York instead of New York, but generally manages to get there anyway. One often wonders, of course, why there’s no Spanish word for “York.” Nueva Yorka has a music that Nueva York lacks.

Germany also presents problems. If you go there, you’ll discover that the locals call it Deutschland, which must mean “land of the Dutch.” I had always supposed that the Dutch lived in Holland, but perhaps I’m mistaken. It may just be that the Germans grabbed the name first, leaving the Dutch to settle for Holland, which must be a made up word. By the way, the French call Germany, Allemane, which makes no sense to anyone.

What one should name people is also a problem. Italians persist in calling Julius Caesar “Giulio Cesare.” But the English seem perfectly content to leave Benito Mussolini as it is instead of changing it to “Benny Muscles.” I wondered if the Italians call Alfred the Great “Alfredo il Magnifico,” but didn’t bother to check.

To give another illustration, we call the saint who could charm the birds out of the trees, Francis. The Italians call him Santa Francesco and the Spanish San Fernando. You would think that we would call the famous valley in California the Saint Francis Valley instead of the San Fernando Valley, but we don’t.

And I’m sure many of your friends have told you that “I’m off to England for a vacation.” But aren’t they really going to the United Kingdom, or is it really Great Britain? If you’re planning a trip to Ireland, is it the Republic of Ireland, or Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, but not Great Britain?

Of course, I haven’t even gotten to place names in the Orient. For these and other distant climes, let me refer to the standard reference work: The Thomas Cook and Company Guide to Curious Foreign Place Names, From Aachen to Zanzibar. Any respectable bookseller should be able to hunt down a copy. It may explain to you why the city is called Beijing and the duck, Peking.

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

Stuff I’ve Never Worn 

By Patrick F. Cannon

I’m not too quick to adopt new styles of dress or grooming. In fact, quite a few trends have come and gone while I decided whether or not to catch the wave. Here are just a few.

I never wore a Nehru jacket. While they looked good on him, I was never convinced that the look was appropriate in America’s heartland. Besides, I owned dozens of ties and worked for a company that preferred its executives to look more like the man in the gray flannel suit. Since Nehru wasn’t hiring in Chicago at the time, I took a pass.

I’m afraid I did buy a double-knit suit and sports coat when they were in vogue in the 60s. The suit wasn’t so bad, but I remember looking in the mirror one morning and asking myself why on earth I hadn’t noticed that the sports coat was orange – maybe the lighting at Marshall Fields was deceptive. I never wore it again. As for the suit, it started pilling after a few cleanings, so I donated it to the Salvation Army, that sad repository of failed fashion. Ever after, I’ve worn only all-wool or all-cotton suits.

Apropos of plastic, I never owned either a white belt or white patent leather shoes. I rather regret this, since it’s obvious that they would have lasted forever (based on what one sees in places where senior citizens gather).

This may seem perverse, but once I grew up, I never wore jeans again. In my mind, they’re associated with cowboys, laborers and kids. Isn’t there something vaguely silly about a sixty-year-old man (or woman) wandering around in blue jeans? (I know. Wandering around in anything but jeans seems silly to the majority.)

I have never worn a tie shaped like a fish, nor one that advertises a product, or celebrates a holiday like Christmas. I am guilty of wearing a tie with shamrocks (small, discrete ones) on St. Patrick’s Day. I owned a similar pair of socks, but even my Irish heritage wouldn’t get them on my feet.

I was drafted into the Army, thank God, so I never had to wear bell-bottomed trousers. Why so many non-sailors chose to wear them in the 60s and 70s is still a mystery to me. Ditto for the tie-dyed shirts that seemed to go with them and the horrendously clunky shoes that completed the look.

Those, of course, were the days of “flower power,” a definite insult to flowers everywhere. Men took to long hair, a fashion that persists in some quarters, along with biblical beards. Aging hippies can still be spotted on the streets, their graying, thinning hair gathered by a rubber band into a lank and ancient ponytail. The parents they were rebelling against are either dead or too old to care.

The rebellious young people of today seem inclined to basic black, bare flesh and mutilation. The earrings that sprouted on young men in the 70s have been augmented (in both sexes) by more ambitious piercings. Today, one sees rings and other hardware in eyebrows, lips, navels and tongues (and, I’m told, in more naughty places). And tattoos, of course, are epidemic.

These aren’t the tattoos that sailors have sported for generations. A well-bred young lady might have a charming butterfly on her shoulder or lower back or next to her navel, all areas in plain view these days. My son, for reasons known only to him, has a smiley face on his shoulder. I rejoice in this, for some parents see lurid skulls (or worse) on the fronts and/or backs of their sons and, increasingly, daughters.

I’ve never been even faintly tempted to get a tattoo. Frankly, I’m stuck in a time warp. When I was in high school, the so-called “Ivy League” look was au courant. For me, it has never quite left. Most of my dress and casual shirts still have button-down collars. My suits have natural shoulders and I have always owned a blazer. Stripes dominate my tie rack. My dress shoes could have been made anytime in the last 50 years. You won’t be surprised to discover that I wear no jewelry.   Even my watches had leather bands until I developed an allergy. And the thought of wearing one of those “skinny” suits with the short trousers and sleeves gives me the horrors

I find all this very comforting. Everything I’ve always worn is still being sold (although I have to concede that ties do seem to expand and contract a bit in width from decade to decade). So, if you see a gentleman of a certain age wearing powder blue linen slacks and a green silk shirt, with a pink sweater casually tied over his shoulders (along with Italian loafers but no socks), you can be confident it ‘s not me.

Copyright 2015, Patrick F. Cannon

Music for Kids? 

By Patrick F. Cannon 

I have written previously about the importance of exposing students to the widest possible variety of musical styles and periods as part of an ongoing education in the arts. The necessity for this was driven home to me once again recently when I read an article in the Chicago Tribune about how parents should introduce their children to good music.

The author, who was clearly in his late 20s or early 30s, was generally dismissive of much of the music written especially for young children, particularly toddlers and pre-schoolers.  His list of appropriate music for kids included a few familiar names, but many I had never heard of. But every one of them could be lumped under the heading “Rock and Roll.”

Now, my own children had several albums of music written for children, which they seemed to enjoy. One, which I remember fondly, was from the then-popular kid’s show, Captain Kangaroo. One of the Captain’s sidekicks, Mr, Green Jeans, sang a song which began “My Uncle Terwiliger waltzes with bears, what a terrible, terrible state of affairs.” What rock song could compare with that?

But they were also exposed to albums of classical, folk, and popular music from what has become known as the Great American Songbook (the work of Gershwin, Berlin, Porter, Rodgers, Kern, etc.). We also had Beatles recordings, which is exactly as far back in musical history as the Tribune author was now willing to go with his children. I feel sorry for them for having a clueless father. Imagine dismissing all painting before Andy Warhol, or all architecture before Robert Venturi, or all movies before Lawrence of Arabia?  Too bad for you, Van Gogh, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Citizen Cain.

Now, my children are now in their 40s. My daughter retains very eclectic musical tastes. My son, who was a classically-trained flutist, abandoned it for the guitar and rock and roll. That’s fine with me, since he didn’t make his choice out of ignorance.

I thought about all of this as I was watching Hershey Felder as Irving Berlin at the Royal George Theatre in Chicago. Felder, an accomplished pianist, has done several shows wherein he channels famous composers, including Beethoven, Gershwin and Chopin. Berlin, perhaps America’s greatest popular songwriter, wrote over 1,500 songs during his long career, a career that was mostly over by the time the Beatles appeared on the scene, But sorry kids, you’re never going to hear Blue Skies, What’ll I Do, Always, God Bless America, White Christmas, It’s a Lovely Day Today, or The Song is Ended (because it ended for you in 1962).

And Berlin was only one of our great American popular music composers. So, kiddies, your also never going to hear Embraceable You, Ol’ Man River, You’re the Top, Oklahoma, On the Street Where She Lives, The Way You Look Tonight, So In Love, Night and Day, My Funny Valentine, Maria, Just One of Those Things, Lady Be Good, Some Enchanted Evening, Baby, It’s Cold Outside, etc., etc., etc.

Felder (as Berlin) said he never wrote a song without a reason. They were written for revues, musicals, both stage and screen, or some special occasion, such as the birth of one of his children. Contrast this with the current practice of songwriter/performers who want to tell us all about their own love lives, both current and past. I can think of no reason why I should care about Taylor Swifts’ reasons for breaking up with another performer, who is likely to write his own song in rebuttal. Ms. Swift is now all of 25, and has been writing such songs since she was 14. Ah, the wisdom of the ages!

Good songs, of course, are still being written, many for the Broadway stage. In the past, the best ones would have been heard on the radio and would even climb to the top of the pop music charts. No more. Now we have separate lists for R&B/Hip Hop, Country, Hot Dance/Electronic, and (presumably for everything else) Pop. Artists rarely stray from their niche, although we occasionally find one crossing over from Country to Pop. Some of them are extraordinarily talented, but like so many actors, don’t feel they have to test themselves against the great music or drama of the past.

Regardless of the genre, the lyrics are too much about me instead of you. Once we had “you are the breathless touch of springtime.” Now, more often than not it’s “you are the S.O.B. who broke my heart.” The increasing vulgarization of lyrics is also noteworthy, but that’s a subject for another day.

###

Copyright 2015 by Patrick F. Cannon

Trumpaphobia

By Patrick F. Cannon

The country appears to be gripped by the fear that Donald Trump might actually get the Republican nomination for President, and even be elected. The fear, of course, is most intense among the left, but is shared by moderate Republicans, and haters of combovers everywhere.

Let me start to dampen the flames a bit by looking at some numbers from sources other than the political parties. First, the largest number of voters now consider themselves Independent, as follows:

Independent                           39 percent

                                    Democratic                             32 percent

                                    Republican                             23 percent

Of the Republicans, the consensus of national polls shows that approximately 29 percent of voters likely to vote in primaries favor Trump as of today. Even with my feeble mathematical ability, it seems to suggest that 71 percent favor someone else. So, Trump has 29 percent of 23 percent, hardly cause for immediate alarm.

Let me suggest that about 10 percent of Americans actually would love to have him as President, just as another 10 percent still believe Marxism will win out in the end. Another group would rather have anybody but Hillary Clinton as President.  It’s interesting to me that Clinton’s lead over her likely challengers is largest against Trump, and she is actually running behind Marco Rubio. Sensible Republicans and Independents will take notice. By the way, Trump even trails Bernie Sanders in the same polls.

Now, I do realize that in the real world things are a bit more complicated. Even though fewer voters than ever consider themselves Republican, the party now controls both houses of Congress and has the majority among governors and state legislatures. Obviously, many Independent voters prefer more conservative candidates locally and statewide. And – it’s been suggested — prefer a divided Federal government as a way to prevent a single party from imposing something like the increasingly unaffordable Affordable Care Act without a nationwide consensus.

Anyway, if you’re having nightmares or losing sleep worrying about Donald Trump, consider some of the actual numbers before you turn out the lights. It’s bad enough we have to put up with him during our waking hours.

But it’s good to have a backup plan. Mine is to claim my Irish citizenship and watch the Sun go down on Galway Bay.

###

Copyright 2015, by Patrick F. Cannon

Before I die…. 

By Patrick F. Cannon 

My darling wife hates it when I say something like: “before I die, I’d like to see Berlin, or travel to Amsterdam to see the Rembrandts…” or any number of travel destinations on my wish list (for the record, I did just that a couple of months ago).  Hates it, I suppose, because I’m in my 70s and “before I die” seems a bit more ominous at my age.

Even though I might be careful not to say “before I die” aloud to my wife, my health is good enough that I have some expectation of actually accomplishing some of the items on my wish list. For example, a few years ago I also saw Las Meninas, the great 16^th century painting of the Spanish royal family by Diego Velázquez at the Prado in Madrid. Strike another one from the list. I’ve also seen the Bears win the Super Bowl, but the memory is fading. And, to be honest, I haven’t seen the dawn come up like thunder outer China ‘cross the bay.

I am not as sanguine about two of the items on my wish list, but of course we must live in hope. They are:

*Direct election of the president, and

*Eliminating gerrymandered voting districts at all levels.

I have been voting in presidential elections since 1960, always in Illinois, although I’ve lived for short periods in other states and countries. I’ve voted both for winners and losers. I voted for President Obama in 2008, so I picked a winner, but if I had wanted to vote for John McCain, it would have been meaningless, because my vote would have had little effect in a state that would inevitably be counted in the president’s column when the appalling Electoral College met to cast their votes.

Appalling because it disenfranchises me.  I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. But, as we know, Al Gore actually received more votes and, in my way of thinking, should have been president. I could have lived with that, because it would have been fair, just as it (mostly!) is in every other election we participate in.

The only feasible way this can change is with a constitutional amendment (although I understand that some people believe it can be done on a state by state basis). Why, since fairness demands it, haven’t we had one? The answer is obvious – the political parties don’t want to change the status quo; they don’t want to be forced to fight for every vote, no matter whether it’s in Democratic Illinois or Republican Utah. Did you notice the dearth of ads for the 2012 presidential race in Illinois? What if the 40 percent of the votes that went to Romney would actually count? Ads would flood the airwaves (admittedly a dubious pleasure). Don’t you want your vote to count, whether you’re a Republican in Illinois or a Democrat in Utah?

And isn’t it time to put a stop to the racial politics that has raised gerrymandering to a high art? Why should an African-American only feel comfortable when he or she can vote for another African-American? Ditto Hispanics. Or white folks, for that matter. If we had computer-generated contiguous voting districts of roughly equal population, then candidates would be forced to seek votes and support from whoever ended up in their district. I might well end up in a district evenly split between white, black and Hispanic voters.

What in God’s name is actually wrong with that? The concept that we have to arrange voting districts to cater to voting blocs, thus ensuring that “one man, one vote” is some kind of alternative reality, is both absurd and insulting to all voters.

Again, politicians like to arrange voting districts to suit themselves. In Illinois, after the 2010 Census, the Democrats blatantly redistricted to insure safe seats for as many of their brethren as possible (alas, the Republicans likely would have done the same if they had been in the majority).  Predictably, the cowardly Federal courts refused to even look at this outrage.

My congressional district has been designed so that only a Democrat can win. If there’s a Republican even on the ballot, I don’t remember hearing about it. Is this “one man, one vote?” And I won’t even talk about my lack of choice at the state level. In Illinois, a fellow named Mike Madigan has taken care of that too.

So, here are two obvious failures in our system that can only be remedied with constitutional amendments. Who will take up the cudgels? It won’t be the politicians. How about our great newspapers? How about the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune? Aren’t they meant to serve the public interest? And mine? “Before I die,” I mean.

###

Copyright, 2015, by Patrick F. Cannon (who retains his optimism despite all evidence to the contrary)

(This is the last of a series. I promise that future posts will be a bit shorter!)                                              

Tolerance

By Patrick F. Cannon

Intolerance begins with difference, and is abetted by ignorance.  That difference could be of color, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, politics, or any of a number of things that set people apart. Like most people, I found it difficult at times to tolerate some of these differences.  Although the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have changed since I was educated in its schools, I was most certainly taught by the nuns that only Catholics could go to Heaven, and that Protestants and Jews were at the very least misguided, and maybe even willfully evil.  Needless to say, sex education was not part of the curriculum.

Since many of the kids in our building and neighborhood were Jews and some Protestants, it began to dawn on me at an early age that either both my brother and I were playing with a posse of the damned, or perhaps the nuns were overdoing it just a bit – thus, the beginnings of tolerance.  Tolerance of sexual orientation came later, since I’m sure I wasn’t even aware that such people as homosexuals even existed until I graduated from high school in 1956 and moved to Chicago. In those days, homosexuals were forced to live in a shadowy world, moving in very limited circles, including so-called “gay” bars. I’m sure I shared the general distaste with a sexual orientation I didn’t understand.

But, again, once I began to actually know, socialize, and work with gay people, I realized they were pretty much just like me, except for what they got up to in the privacy of their bedrooms. Since this didn’t affect me, why should I care? Yet, many people do, mainly on religious grounds. While the biblical evidence against homosexuality they are so fond of quoting is ambivalent, particularly in the New Testament, their real problem is that they confuse the Bible with the Constitution. The Constitution permits them to rail against homosexuals all they want on religious grounds, but it doesn’t permit them to also discriminate against them in the civic arena.

But people seem to struggle most of all with race. Although young people are notably more tolerant, their parents may have grown up in families with a history of casual or even overt racism. My own parents never (at least to me) expressed any racist sentiments. My father was a politician for a time and no doubt valued any vote he could get.

My mother would often take us to the drugstore at the bottom of our street in a Pittsburgh-area mill town for a soda or sundae, or to buy some candy. The druggist was known to us as “Doc.” It was only later in life that I came to realize that he was an African-American. Later, in high school, my best friend was an African-American (sorry for the cliché).

It was only when I moved back to the Chicago when I was 18 that I discovered overt racism. Chicagoans of a certain age will remember that many restaurants and other establishments refused service to African-Americans even into the 1960s. Discrimination in housing and employment were commonplace (and you could argue, still are). While middle- and upper-middle class African Americans are finding it easier to find housing in better Chicago and suburban neighborhoods, their poorer brethren are still stuck in highly segregated neighborhoods, where black on black crime is epidemic.

One often hears the argument that anti-discrimination laws and racial preferences have now leveled the playing field, so the African-American community has no one to blame but itself for any lingering problems. But ask yourself this: can we really pat ourselves on the back for waiting until the 1960s to take the first steps in making things right for a people who had been enslaved in British America from the early 17^th Century until the Civil War finally freed them in 1863? And even after they were freed, in much of the country they continued to be discriminated against for the next 100 years, with some of the discrimination even sanctioned by law.

At its source, racism is personal. Common sense suggests that each of us must acknowledge its long history in the United States, then pay more than lip service  to the idea that each person must be judged “by the content of  his character,” not his race. To the extent that it’s within our power, we must be sure that decisions we make on hiring, housing, education and especially friendship are never based on race.

Finally, we need to take a common sense approach to immigration reform. Where is the common sense hidden in the proposal that we can deport 11 million illegal immigrants?  Or that we should simply let anyone in who fly, walk or swim to our shores? The zealots who espouse these extremes are in the minority. The majority who support compromise must be made to realize they can find common ground that might not be perfect (compromise rarely pleases everybody) but that would represent real progress in providing some kind of legal status and dignity to those who are working hard to support their families.

It’s only common sense, isn’t it?

(Patrick F. Cannon has written five books on architectural subjects. He isn’t always so serious.)

More Common Sense

Education

Let’s leave the question of educational testing aside, and instead talk about education. What should every student learn, first in primary and high schools, and then at colleges and universities? What is the minimum that one should learn in order to be a contributing member of society?

First, every student should learn how to read, write and speak the English language.  Instruction should take place every year, and it should be rigorous. Age appropriate English and American literature must be included, both to show examples of how the language has and is been used, but also how literature has reflected the lives and culture of Americans. By the time a young person has graduated from high school, he or she should have read at least some of the classics written in English by writers of both sexes and all races that have contributed to the diverse culture of the United States. This means Shakespeare and Dickens, Twain and Hemingway, Emily Dickenson and T.S. Elliot, but also Richard Wright, James Baldwin and Sandra Cisneros. It also means the theatre and, yes, the movies.

Related to this is the ability to write clear English prose. Not English prose as the student wishes it to be, but as it actually is. Over the course of my working life, I reviewed literally hundreds of resumes from people who wished to be hired for writing jobs, but couldn’t in fact write grammatical English. How could this be, I wondered? How had they managed to graduate from respected universities without mastering this basic skill?  I could only conclude that none of their teachers had either bothered or cared. Permitting a student to be “creative” should only come after demonstrated competence.

Much more emphasis needs to be placed on history and civics.  No child should graduate from high school without passing a test on the Federal and state constitutions. And not only on the documents themselves; specific examples must be given to demonstrate how the various articles and amendments actually affect their lives.

History should not be taught until a child can reasonably be expected to understand concepts and connections, perhaps as late as the fifth grade. Then it should be taught in increasing levels of sophistication until a high school graduate should know the history of his country, with both its triumphs and tragedies. And no university graduate should enter the real world with a view of history and politics tainted by the ideology of professors who are more advocates than scholars. Not exposing students to all sides of an issue is a betrayal of the very idea of the university.  And that means that the study of history must be a requirement for graduation, not merely an elective.

The Arts

Literature is only one of the arts. At a minimum, a high school graduate should be exposed to the major composers of the past as a way of giving context to what is currently popular. The history of music in all its periods and styles is far too complex for most high school students, but exposure to the main strains is not. That means both Bach and Ellington. It means raising questions like: what influence did African rhythms have on the development of Jazz? In what ways did the blues influence rock? Just what is the great American Songbook?

Most high schools will have opportunities for musical performance – band, orchestra, chorus, etc. But even students who don’t have the talent or inclination for performance should be exposed to their musical heritage. And it’s important that such courses not be tested in the usual way. It should be enough to occasionally ask the student to write down what they think about a particular piece of music. No grades. If you show up and listen, you pass. The arts should be treated as enrichment, not burden.

I’m a great believer in the power of exposure. For example, my love for classical music began quite by accident. My first real job was setting pins at an Elks Club bowling alley. One of my extra tasks was to clean and buff the alleys on Saturday morning. After doing so one day, I was leaving the club when I heard music coming from a sitting room that contained the club’s television set. I stopped in the doorway, and what I heard and saw was Arturo Toscanini conducting Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. While a similar experience might have happened later in life, I can say with certainty that that experience changed my life.

Although perhaps much more complicated, an introduction to the visual arts is also important at every level.  While one could reasonably argue that actual courses in the history of art should best be left to the university level, works of art could well be used to illuminate other subjects, history and geography for example. Visual artists have and continue to respond to the events around them, particularly those that affect society most, like war and injustice. Instead of simply using their images as passive illustrations, why not discuss the artist and his or her reasons for creating the work in question.

Math and Science

Not every child will have an aptitude and passion for mathematics and the sciences, but just like the arts, every child should be exposed to them. The study of the various branches of mathematics teaches a child that there is indeed an actual answer to a specific problem. One and one will always equal two, not only when we want it to. There is also a scientific method, and every child should be taught how it works and what it means. I cannot stress this point too much in an era when the internet continuously exposes one to all manner of bogus scientific nonsense.

Alas, there are many private schools that permit parents to insulate their children from reality. Religious schools should, of course, be able to teach religion, but not as a substitute for accepted scientific fact. When I was in Catholic schools from 1944 to 1952, I was taught that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. Imagine my surprise when I later learned that the solar system was billions of years old. Religious schools must not be able to get away with this kind of stuff, but be required as a matter of state interest to have the same basic scientific curriculum as public schools.

While there may be some limited justification for home schooling, most parents do so through a fear that their children will be tainted by exposure to the school environment – fully 90 percent of those surveyed gave this reason. 75 percent said they home schooled their children so they could provide moral instruction, with 65 percent specifying religion as the primary reason. And while most states require these children to take the usual standardized tests to prove competency, they cannot test what else their parents teach them. I would suggest that home schooling be permitted only in cases of extreme physical or mental disability. Religion (or some quasi religious or mystical mumbo jumbo) can be taught at other times, but at least children will know that there is a fact-based world as well.

Despite the best efforts of the courts to put a stop to it, we even have some public school districts who believe that religion has a place in their curricula. Aside from the Pledge of Allegiance (the addition to which of the phrase “under God” was to me a great mistake), Gods or religion have no place in public education, nor does the teaching of anti-scientific courses in so-called “creation science.”  Let the preachers spew this nonsense from their pulpits all they want, but students must be made to face the reality of natural selection and the geologic record.

Of course, religion and its texts do have a place in the study of history and literature. How could they not, considering the effect – for both good and ill – that they have had, and continue to have, on the human experience?

###

Copyright 2015, Patrick F. Cannon, all rights reserved.

(Patrick F. Cannon is the author of five books on architecture. He also has an opinion on just about everything, hence this blog.)

Common Sense (With apologies to Tom Paine)

By Patrick F. Cannon

Common Sense is both the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775 to make the case for independence of the American colonies from the control of the English king, and a concept that says that there can be a reasonable solution to any problem, one that sensible people can agree upon.

Well, since so many of our problems, both politically and socially, persist, it must mean that the number of reasonable and sensible people is insufficient. Or, to put it another way, one man’s common sense appears to be another’s nonsense. In my long life, I have been guilty of my share of arrogant intolerance, coupled with an absolute belief in the rightness and, yes, the wisdom of my opinions. Over the years, my wife, who is both tolerant and sensible, has suggested that not everyone might agree with me on every issue, and for legitimate reasons. Now, I find myself occupying what I could describe as a mellow middle.

It has become axiomatic that we live in a polarized society. In politics, the common-sense center has seemingly lost its place. The far left of the Democratic Party persists in its belief that only government, financed by heavily taxing the rich, can solve our problems (problems as defined by them). The far right of the Republican Party takes the view that the government is the problem, so that the less it involves itself in people’s activities, the better. It’s a kind of “every man for himself, survival of the fittest” idea.

Those who hold these extreme positions are now considered the “base” of their respective parties.  Even a moderate politician feels he or she must pander to the extremes, at least on some issues, to get elected.  And pander they usually do, because no sooner are they elected to office than they begin campaigning for reelection. Although they were sophisticated in most respects, the Founders did not foresee the emergence of the career politician. There are always happy exceptions, but most office seekers now tailor their opinions to encompass the largest number of voters. If the base says the rich don’t earn their money, but steal it from the poor, then let’s take it away from them without a qualm. Or conversely, why should we subsidize a lavish lifestyle for people too lazy to make it on their own?

Both the far left and right practice what I call “knee jerk” politics. This involves speaking before thinking, automatically opposing the president and programs of the other party. Currently, this involves Republications opposing every action of President Obama, no matter how benign, just as the Democrats could find nothing positive about the actions of George W.  Bush. You have only to listen to the party mouthpieces that populate the “knee jerk” networks, MSNBC and Fox, to find proof of this.

Do you see yourself in these extremes? Then, my friend, you are indeed part of the problem. Gridlock is the result of your inability to believe there might be a middle way that would actually make some progress possible. What you see as bedrock principals are really only your opinions, aren’t they?

Views on tax policy help define the extremes. The left sees the so-called “one percent” as getting rich at the expense of the middle and working classes. If only we taxed them more, we could use their presumably ill-gotten gains to help the victims of their greed. The reality is that the top 10-percent of earners already pay 70 percent of the taxes, and that more than 40-percent of the rest pay no Federal income taxes at all. And the rate that the top 1-percent pay has consistently gone up over time. In 1980, they paid 19.29 percent of the total federal income taxes; by 2010, the percentage had risen to 37.38.

And because they own more property, and more expensive property at that, the top earners also pay a very high percentage of total real estate taxes (as do their evil corporations). And, of course, their lavish lifestyles fill sales tax coffers at a higher rate. The sales tax on that $200,000 Bentley you see tooling around Beverly Hills or Lake Forest would be about $20,000 in Illinois as opposed to $2,000 on our Ford Focus.

Nevertheless, a very small tax increase on the highest earners would not be a bad idea, as would an increase in the gas tax, which has not increased in decades. But this would be anathema to the far right of the Republican Party, most of whom have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Hovering over them like a dark shadow is a curious personage named Grover Nordquist, who apparently wields some sort of mystical power. I won’t even hope for tax reform, which everyone says is needed, but which hasn’t actually happened for several decades.

Political Courage

This would be a good place to pause and wonder why so few politicians exhibit political courage, which I would define as doing the right thing even when you know it might have serious negative consequences come the next election. Not being reelected would be the most serious, but there are others. A famous case comes to mind from Illinois.

In 1893, Governor John Peter Altgeld pardoned the remaining prisoners convicted of complicity in the Haymarket bombings. He, and later historians, concluded that they had been wrongly convicted. He also opposed the use of Federal troops in the Pullman Strike. For his stands, he was defeated for reelection in 1896. But who now thinks he was wrong?

In our own time, most people believe that sensible gun control laws would benefit the country. At the very least, serious background checks to prevent felons and the mentally ill from obtaining guns seems a common sense approach. Yet, it doesn’t happen, presumably because the National Rifle Association (NRA) doesn’t want it to happen. If they vote for gun control, legislators fear that the NRA will work to defeat them at the next election. In this, they are perhaps correct. But what if the majority had the guts to do the right thing and actually pass a stricter background check law that included everyone who sells guns, not just licensed dealers? Would the NRA have the cash and resources to run candidates in all those districts? And with a public that supports the measure, what good would it do them? Isn’t it worth finding out?

You might also try an experiment. During the next election cycle, follow the candidates and determine how their stands on the issues compare with those of the majority of their constituents. For example, if the electorate over time has come to believe that gay marriage isn’t so bad after all, has the politician come to the same conclusion, even though in the last election cycle he or she adamantly opposed the idea? You can do this on any number of issues, but don’t be surprised if their bed rock principles now seem just a bit mushy, Hillary Clinton’s turnabout on the Asian trade agreement just one case in point.

Religion

The concept of religious freedom seems to be particularly confusing to a good many people.  Let’s return to the ever-handy Founding Fathers to see what it’s supposed to mean. Most of them hailed from what is now called the United Kingdom, where whether you wanted to or not, you were required to financially support the established state religion, in this case the Anglican Church. This rankled, particularly if you happened to be a Methodist, Quaker, or, God forbid, a Roman Catholic or Jew. So, when they decided to free themselves from this and other depredations of the British crown, the Founders naturally were anxious to avoid establishing a state religion.

What they did instead was to tell religionists that they were free to practice their faith without interference from the government. Indeed, that non-interference has extended to a general freedom from taxation for most of their activities. That’s a pretty good deal, and common sense suggests that organized religions ought loudly to cheer the government and mind their own business.

Alas, as we know, large numbers of adherents really believe that governments at all levels should embrace the moral strictures of their particular religion. This belief seems strongest among the evangelical Christians, many of whom believe that “the word of God” as expressed in the Bible must be accepted at face value. Thus, for example, they can find support in it for rejecting homosexuality as a sin, just like murder or stealing.

Now, some of us may think this is ridiculous, but accept that such people are entitled to their beliefs.  But when those beliefs spill over into the public arena, it goes beyond protecting “the establishment of religion” to the use of religion to discriminate against a class of citizens. The legalization of gay marriage has brought these attitudes to the fore.  There have been many cases of business owners refusing to provide services related to same-sex marriages, and public servants refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Now, there exists a dwindling number or private clubs that have discriminatory policies. So long as they remain strictly private and do not offer their services and facilities to non-members, they are relatively safe from governmental interference. But a business that opens its doors to the public generally is deemed to be a public accommodation, and therefore cannot deny its services arbitrarily.  (There are exceptions, of course. If a jurisdiction has a law against public nudity, for example, a business owner can justifiably refuse service to a naked lady, no matter how attractive). And, of course, no public official, regardless of their religious convictions, should be able to flout established law, however personally distasteful. Resignation is always an option for those who put religion above their public duties.

The country’s embrace of religion has made it virtually impossible for an admitted atheist, or even agnostic, to successfully run for public office at any level. More than 90 percent of Americans profess a belief in some kind of God; and a majority actually believes that a politician who does not cannot be trusted to make moral and ethical judgments.  Thus, a politician who may be a non-believer is forced to profess belief, only one of many ethical compromises that he or she will sadly or gladly make to get elected. It might be instructive to study this diverse list of atheists to see how many have served time in prison for breaking one of the Commandments: Andrei Sakharov, Kevin Bacon, A. Philip Randolph, Dave Barry, Arthur C. Clarke, Katherine Hepburn, Sigmund Freud, Ira Glass, James Cameron, Steven Hawking, Niels Bohr, Joseph Conrad, and of course, Mark Twain.  None perhaps can measure up to the moral stature of religionists like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Haggard and Billy James Hargis.

Economics is Simple!

I took Economics 101 (I actually think that was the course title) at Northwestern University. I did whatever it took to pass the course, promptly forgot everything I learned, and went on with my life. And it was actually living that life day by day that provided the real education in economics. I can now define what I learned thusly: eventually you have to pay the bills. This applied to my personal life, and to the companies and organizations I worked for over the years. In my last job, I controlled a budget north of $15 million a year, money provided by dues-paying members. Our goal was to spend less than we had coming in, thus building a reserve for an uncertain future. When inflation and other factors suggested we could use more money, we asked the members to pay higher dues. Because they knew that we were careful with their money, they usually agreed.

It never occurred to us to borrow what we needed. Now, for-profit corporations do this all the time. If they’re well managed, the amount they borrow is in proportion to their sales and assets.  If it gets out of whack, there’s a danger that when the economy heads south, all that’s left is bankruptcy and happy competitors. We need look no further back than 2007, when there were roughly 28,000 business bankruptcies, up from about 20,000 the year before. By 2009, the figure was over 60,000.  As we know, these were not all mom and pop operations.

Then, of course, we have the government, or, rather, the governments. Let me posit a principal that would save everyone a lot of money over time. It’s this: vital services should be performed by the smallest unit of government that can actually provide them, vital being defined as those people can’t provide for themselves. Here’s a case in point. The State of Illinois passed legislation to provide park districts around the state with funds to do some good stuff.  My own community, Oak Park, naturally applied for some of the dough and was awarded a grant. When Governor Bruce Rauner was elected, he put a hold on these grants, mentioning the obvious – the state was broke.

The fund should not have existed in the first place. If Oak Park wants to improve its parks, it should ask its citizens directly for the money. Why should everyone in the state send money to Springfield, then send it to Oak Park?  If a community is too poor to provide adequate park facilities, why not have the county government take care of them? You get the idea.

The Federal government has been running a deficit for so long that we are entitled to ask a simple question: why?  If you asked economists this question, you would get a variety of answers, proving, if it needed proving, that economics is anything but an exact science. Some would even argue that having annual deficits and a huge national debt is a good thing. While I have not named names in this essay, except for the mysterious Grover Nordquist and Hillary Clinton, one Nobel Prize winner of a liberal persuasion argued that the $800 billion stimulus passed to help end our last recession should have been double that amount. And, more recently, he even urged that Social Security benefits be increased, even though the fund would be insolvent with current benefits by 2033 (or whatever).

While this isn’t the place to explore the pros and cons of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan (it’s too late for that), it is a place where we might reasonably ask why the country wasn’t asked to pay for them, instead of borrowing the money and going more deeply in debt? Why are our soldiers the only ones asked to show courage?

But let’s not get bogged down with these and other arguments. The reality is that the Federal government (and others as well) has for many years been operating on borrowed money. It does so because our politicians refuse to do either one of the two alternatives (or ideally a combination of the two) that could eliminate or at least stabilize the situation. One is to tailor the size of the government to its income; the other is to increase the income to match its size.

As mentioned, actual tax reform seems an impossible dream. In the short term, as already posited, a modest increase in rates, and the elimination of the more blatant deductions, would go a long way. And while it’s seemingly impossible to ever eliminate a program, the cost of their administration could be lowered. For example, the food stamp program has a large bureaucracy that decides who gets stamps, how many, and what they can buy with them. And there are several layers of government getting a piece of this action. Why not simply do away with the food stamp program altogether by deciding how much additional income a low income family might need in food assistance and make that amount part of the earned-income tax credit?  The people who worry that the “poor” might spend the money on booze or potato chips should find something more important to worry about. Given the chance, most people, even poor people, would choose not to starve to death.  It’s just common sense, right?

###

(Patrick F. Cannon writes about Chicago architecture and architects. His fifth book, The Space Within: Inside Great Chicago Buildings, will be out early next year.)