unPHILtered – Chicago Tonight Blogs

Recently Chicago Tonight lost a couple of young staffers to great, new career opportunities.  They were wonderful colleagues and, while very sorry to see them go, I am happy they are doing what all young people should do — explore new paths and learn more about themselves.  Each left graciously; there were teary eyes, good-bye celebrations, and everybody’s sincere wishes for their success.

But when someone leaves a job, I can’t help but think of my favorite passage in literature on the subject.  It comes from Of Human Bondage by Somerset Maugham.  Philip, the protagonist, has been miserable working as a clerk.  When he decides to leave, he has the following exchange with his immediate supervisor, Mr. Goodworthy:

“For ten months I’ve loathed it all.  I’ve loathed the work, I’ve loathed the office, I loathe London.  I’d rather sweep a crossing then spend my days here.”

“Well I must say, I don’t think you’re very fitted for accountancy.”

“Good-bye,” said Philip, holding out his hand.  “I want to thank you for your kindness to me.  I’m sorry if I’ve been troublesome.  I knew almost from the beginning I was no good.”

“Well, if you really do make up your mind it is good-bye.  I don’t know what you’re going to do, but if you’re in the neighbourhood at any time come in and see us.”

Philip gave a little laugh.

“I’m afraid it sounds very rude, but I hope from the bottom of my heart that I shall never set eyes on any of you again.”

How’s that for going out with candor?  No need for an exit interview, I would say!

All the hoopla about the Bears playing in London brings back a lot of memories from the first time the team played there.  It was back in 1986 when they played the Dallas Cowboys at the old Wembley Stadium.  At the time, I was a reporter for WBBM-TV Channel 2 and was sent to London to do “sidebars” — human interest stories — while the team was there.

Among the things I learned:  unlike their American counterparts, British television crews did NOT eat in their cars between assignments.  As the chief photographer of my crew told me, “If we can’t sit down for a proper bite, Phil, we’d rather not eat at all.”  Wow!

The accepted “personal space” to conduct an interview was much different in England than in America.  Here, chairs are set up just a few feet apart for an interview.  In Britain, my local crew regularly put me at least a couple of yards from the person I was interviewing.  As a result, psychologically, I could barely get a question out.  I just felt too far away.

Americans living there for years joked (and bemoaned) the fact that Brits they had encountered for years at their children’s school, for example, would still not speak to them because they had not been “properly” introduced.  Americans on extended assignment also said that in business settings, Brits did not shake hands nearly as much as Americans and that British men wore a lot less jewelry.  The list goes on.

I wish there’d been a book for me to read like Rules Britannia: An Insider’s Guide to Life in the United Kingdom by former Brit, now-Chicagoan, Toni Hargis.  Hargis explains the multitude of social differences between the two cultures.  The bottom line of the book:  Britain is not just America with an accent (and conversely, America is not just Britain without one!)

Even now when being technologically savvy seems to trump so many other skills, I believe the best grounding is in the liberal arts.  (I have a personal bias toward literature.)  Encountering the writings of great minds is a good way of modeling your own writing and speaking skills.  If nothing else, one’s writing can be enhanced by an occasional literary reference that shows you can, at the very least, connect the dots between what you’ve learned from others and what you’ve experienced personally.

There are several examples of that in the new book I’m reading, Arguably:  Essays By Christopher Hitchens.  For example, in an essay dismissive of Prince Charles and the British monarchy in general, Hitchens writes:

A hereditary head of state, as Thomas Paine so crisply phrased it, is as absurd a proposition as a hereditary physician or a hereditary astronomer.

For those of us not that familiar with Paine’s writings, the allusion serves several purposes:  It makes a point in a way that is relevant and funny, the reader learns something about Paine, and lastly, it shows us that the writer making the allusion has some academic chops and credibility.

Here’s another example.  In an essay about women and humor, Hitchens makes the point that Rudyard Kipling saw through the premise of male humor based on the notion that women are not really the boss, but are mere objects and victims.  It’s from Kipling’s poem “The Female of the Species”:

So it comes that Man, the coward,

when he gathers to confer

With his fellow-braves in council,

dare not leave a place for her.

Not that many people, I bet, can quote some of Kipling’s lesser known works.  Can allusions to one’s learning run the risk of making someone come across as an educated smarty pants?  Probably.  But, what a pleasure it is to have a writer regard his or her readers as adults who are not threatened by someone who’s bright, educated and can turn a phrase.  Smarty pants are okay in my book!

It’s a luxury to be able to take an occasional trip, and one of its many pleasures is in an airport bookstore purchase.  I did that recently when I picked up a copy of Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens.

Buying an airport book is not easy for me.  I’ve always been suspicious of books that have raised, gold lettering on the cover.  And I don’t easily gravitate toward fiction since–when I’m reading fiction– it’s hard for me to forget that it’s the product of someone pretty much making things up.  (I say that in spite of arguments that fiction can be the greatest vehicle for truth and that no genre contains more fiction than autobiography!)

Arguably is a big book and not cheap, 750 pages at $30. But two things appealed to me about it when I paged through it: first was the range of topics–from women and humor to an airplane ride Hitchens took with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Sean Penn.  The second was the length of the essays–anywhere from two, to six or seven pages; in other words, the perfect length for someone who sometimes only has time to read in bits and snatches.

And Hitchens, regardless of what you think of him, is a great example of the benefits of a liberal arts education. Some examples later.

In preparation for an interview that airs next week with PBS film-making team Ken Burns and Lynne Novick, I got a sneak preview of their new series, “Prohibition” which will air on Channel 11.  Chicago gets heavy face time in the series; some of the things I learned:

• It was prohibition and the structure needed to sell illegal booze that gave rise to the Chicago crime “outfit.”
• During the height of Chicago’s “beer wars” there was a drive-by execution in front of Holy Name Cathedral.
• During prohibition, drug stores could still sell alcoholic beverages if they were prescribed by a doctor and Walgreens went from 10 drug stores to 500.
• The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union was not just a one-note organization but was considered progressive and worked on many issues including womens’ education and rights, the rehabilitation of prostitutes and raising the age of legal consent to 16 from 10!
• Al Capone had three portraits in his Cicero office:  Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Big Bill Thompson, the crooked Republican mayor he helped put in office.

And the nuggets about Chicago abound.  The “Prohibition” series is a fascinating look at a subject which is surprisingly nuanced and which continues to bear lessons.  Ken Burns says one of those lessons is the power — and vulnerability — of single-issue movements.  Hmm.  The series airs on WTTW the nights of October 1st, 2nd and 3rd.  I give it four stars!

I recently had the opportunity to interview U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. He was in town to make an appearance at the IIT Chicago Kent College of Law and to promote his book, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View. The book deals with two main issues: how the public has come to accept the Court’s decision-making role as legitimate and what the Court can do to continue to merit the public’s confidence. The book is beautifully written — clear and accessible to a general audience. I recommend it; it offers compelling insights into the mind of a judge who appears to be at the top of his game.

But the real pleasure came in encountering the Justice himself. He was incredibly smart, articulate in a very accessible way and witty. But what really struck me about him is what a grownup he was. One of the points he made — and with passion — is that even though he’s been in the minority in several major cases, it is important to keep in mind that there are two sides to every case and that many decisions are closer than people might imagine. And he emphasized the importance of deciding the most contentious issues in the calmest possible way.

When one looks at the vitriol that is emanating from Washington, it was not only refreshing to hear someone so committed to a reasoned and civil approach to democracy, it was downright inspiring. He speaks eloquently about his regard for the Constitution, the country and its institutions and the sense that we are all in it together. And, as a member of the Court’s so-called liberal wing, he sincerely seems to hold no animus towards the conservative justices who currently hold sway. He’s clearly a big-picture person who loves this country. What a patriot. What a privilege to have interviewed him. Click the links below to watch the interviews.

• Part 1 of Interview with Justice Stephen Breyer
• Part 2 of Breyer Interview
• Part 3 (airs tonight)

How is the new mayor tackling key issues since taking office, including budget cuts, layoffs, crime prevention and education? And how he has communicated his strategy to the public and the media?

Those questions will be the subject of what should be a lively discussion among a powerhouse panel I will moderate tomorrow night:

- Mick Dumke, who covers City Hall for the Chicago Reader
- Kristen Mack, political reporter for the Chicago Tribune
- Carol Marin, Chicago Tonight segment host, Chicago Sun-Times columnist and political reporter for NBC-5
- Charles Thomas, political reporter for ABC-7
- Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times columnist and political commentator for ABC-7

The forum will be held Tuesday, Sept. 13, from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm at Loyola’s Water Tower Campus in Kasbeer Hall, on the 15th Floor of the Corboy Law Center, 25 E. Pearson Street. Click here for a campus map.

The event is sponsored by the School of Communication and Loyola’s Student Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. All are welcome. Hope to see you there!

Mother Nature made it pretty clear over the weekend that summer was over when she abruptly flipped the switch to fall.  And there was nothing subtle about it.  On Friday, it was in the mid-90s, and then over the weekend, I suddenly needed a long-sleeved sweatshirt to work in the yard.

Yesterday, Labor Day, everyone in my immediate family was together on a cool and sunny picture-perfect day.  And yet, I have to admit, that I suffered from a touch of melancholy.  I think the passing of the season had a lot do with it.  It underscored the larger arc of the passing of time–the realization that my children are all young adults, and no matter what our age, all of us are in the process of evolving to another stage.

And I won’t deny that all the coverage of the 9/11 anniversary is having an impact.  The stories can be ineffably sad.  The attack was traumatic and many people may still have something akin to post-traumatic stress disorder.  I know I find it painful to look at the images and–left to my own devices–would probably avoid the coverage all together.

But back to nature–the next couple of days are supposed to be beautiful, sunny and cool.  If summer is over, at least this stretch of weather will have been idyllic–a needed balm for a wistful week.

Last night, we did a segment with Sam Amirante, one of the lawyers who defended John Wayne Gacy at his trial.  Amirante has co-authored a book about his experience as Gacy’s lawyer, John Wayne Gacy:  Defending a Monster.  Amirante was a riveting guest with tales about the alcohol-aided conversation in which Gacy finally admitted to him the extent of his crimes and how Gacy used his rosary (which he always carried with him) to demonstrate to prosecutors how he would use a rope to strangle his victims.  If you didn’t have a chance to see the interview, click here for the link.

But he told me a story off-camera that I wished we’d gotten to during the interview. Amirante did not defend Gacy on appeal; other attorneys did.  Once when Gacy was on Death Row, he called one of his attorneys to complain about something.  Apparently that was not a surprise to the attorney, as Gacy apparently called her frequently.  This time he was calling to complain about the temperature  in his cell.  He told his attorney that it was so hot that the paint was peeling off the walls.  The attorney listened, paused for a second and then replied, “John, if you think it’s hot now, just wait.”

John Wayne Gacy went to his grave having convinced himself that he had not committed the crimes after all.  How he convinced himself of that is a mystery.  Also a mystery–the setting of his current thermostat.

I received a beautiful handwritten note from a person who was involved in teaching people cursive.  He not only taught students and teachers, but also was in the publishing industry producing textbooks on handwriting.  When I saw his letter, I asked him to send me a sample of his writing that I could post on this blog.  I find it beautiful, don’t you?

As you may know, teaching cursive is now optional in most states and actually forbidden in Indiana (because it’s not relevant to testing).  But as you look at the sample below, losing this skill would truly be a lost art, don’t you think?

A Vanishing Art?