Category Archives: personal meanderings

His and hers: Six tips for a happy marriage

This holiday was a big one for Rex and I. We celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary on Christmas Eve. Twenty-five years ago, we took the El down to City Hall here in Chicago and tied the knot in front of a judge. It was a lovely ceremony–just the three of us. I think the judge said a few kind words of luck and we took the escalator up from the basement and out into the empty Loop for a breakfast at Petros diner and later a flight to a beach house in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where my family was waiting, unsuspecting. We sprung it on them at happy hour and had a fabulous impromptu wedding dinner of fresh fish and a “wedding pie” for dessert.

Twenty five years later, Rex and I took the El down to City Hall to retrace our steps, but alas, Christmas Eve was on Saturday this year and City Hall was closed. Petros was closed as well. But it didn’t matter. We were still together in the empty Loop.

And now we’re off to Buenos Aires to celebrate, so the blog will be on hiatus until Jan 10 or so.

But before we go, and without sounding too sanctimonious I hope but with 25 years of it under my belt, here’s my 6 tips for a successful marriage, followed by Rex’s 6 tips:

My list, in no particular order:

  1. Marry a decent person with a sense of humor.
  2. Learn to change. Marriage is about two people. That means your way of doing things butts up against someone else’s equally good way of doing things. And life will throw curve balls. Adapt.
  3. Learn to let it go. In the heat of the moment, take a breath, hold your tongute, and force yourself to laugh (at yourself usually). Do. not. dwell.
  4. Do things together, even things you personally don’t like.
  5. Don’t think the grass is greener on the other side. It ain’t.
  6. Don’t overanalyze things. It’s really not that complicated. Ever.

And here’s Rex’s list–and seriously, we did not compare before we made this list!

  1. Don’t just settle for someone because you think no one who is right for you will come along.
  2. Recognize that relationships start from a sexual attraction but its the emotional attachment that lasts for the long haul. But don’t let the physical die altogether.
  3. Marry someone you like. (see #2–it’s surprising how many people miss this one)
  4. Don’t carry a grudge. Everybody has differences.
  5. Be willing to compromise.
  6. Don’t obsess about things because there are no hard and fast rules.

There’s no secret to a good marriage, if you ask me. It’s just learning to be happy with life however it comes at you. And it’s nice when it comes at you with someone whom you’ve grown to love so deeply.

So what are your tips to good marriage or partnerships?

We’re losing our sense of “we” in an iSociety

A few years back, a professor I know asked her Civics 101 students what “public” meant to them. Their answers are telling. To them, public meant poor people. Public housing, public assistance, public schools.

I thought of that as I read the latest salvo against our public schools, in this case the offers by private profiteers of a “choice” to dodge the public schools and flee to the safety of online courses–as chronicled in Lee Fang’s article for The Nation, and Stephanie Saul in the New York Times. It’s just the latest–but perhaps the most damaging– in a long line of retreat from public goods and into the arms of a world tailored to our unique selves.

This steady disappearance of the public systems we take part in daily is for many a sign of progress. But in this headlong race to privatize everything–and its cousin, tailoring everything to our circumstances, we risk losing the very fabric that stitches us together in a society. We risk losing the “public” spaces; the “we” in a rush for the “me.”

The daily interactions in public spaces, whether on a public bus, at the park, on our sidewalks and highways, in a classroom, at the doctor’s office, or at the DMV, are shared experiences, and ultimately meritocratic. Even Bill Gates has to renew his driver’s license. Our interactions remind us what we have in common with others–sometimes others we would not otherwise meet. The rules (wait your turn in line) and customs (say thank you to the bus driver) reflect back on us the order of our ideal society.

Public education is one of the most prominent of these public goods. It is in school that we learn to be part of a society, to share, to exchange, to take turns. It is where we forcibly shed the individual myopia and ego, where we first realize that there are better soccer players or spellers than us, or that not everyone is waiting with bated breath to hear our answer. It is where we realize that some kids have it harder than others.  We learn our ABCs and 123s, of course, but it is the physical togetherness and a shared experience that binds us. It is these shared experiences that make us feel so bound to our “Class of 1992″ or that makes us cheer wildly for our football team. It is this communal glue that provides us with an identity beyond ourselves.

When we whittle away at this public-ness, we run into trouble. When we carve ourselves off from public spaces via experiences tailored to our preferences and income level, it will nudge us ever closer to little islands of privacy–and disconnect us from the larger good. We will buy our way into a “concierge” medical service so we don’t have to “suffer” through a waiting room. We will gate ourselves off in our “own” communities so we don’t have to live next door to someone who might opt for pink flamingos in the yard. Or we can skip the classroom altogether and learn what we want online. The latter has been in the news of late as private corporations rush to offer “choice” to school children and their families through online classrooms.

The latest push to give children a choice to learn online instead of in a classroom is couched in language that suggests they will be rescued from the grip of the public. “Kids have been shackled to their brick-and-mortar school down the block for too long,” Ronald Packard, CEO of K12, Inc., a private company offering online courses (for a fee), told the New York Times, adding that for the first time, every child, regardless of where he or she lives, has a choice. (One hears in that choice a choice to withdraw).

Beyond the question of whether a private company, with a bottom line to attend to, can truly educate all children (aka, the public), there is the question I’ve been clumsily trying to make and that Tony Judt in Ill Fares the Land puts so much better: The “one-size-fits-all” public services, he says, might have had their faults, but “their provision was universal, for good and ill they were regarded as a public responsibility.”

There is no equivalent of a public bus or a public classroom online. In fact, the online communities are the exact opposite of public spaces. We self-select into the online worlds, balkanizing by interests, splintering down to the most specialized slices. You don’t have to ride with someone who is talking too loud, or who is softly weeping with her face to the window, or who is reading a book you never heard of. You might run across those ideas or people online, but you don’t have to sit with them for 30 minutes—time to wonder, to sympathize, and yes to fume. You click and you’re gone. Some will say that’s the exact reason they love the internet, or private taxis. They don’t have to be bothered. It is why we live in gated communities as well. In those havens, we don’t have to brush up against humanity if we don’t want to.

But the atomized “me” worlds that we retreat to are not community. They are not the building blocks to a society with a purpose and a sense of “we.”

If we can buy our way out of public spaces, or if we can tailor those “public” spaces to our own interests and prejudices, then what becomes of the larger purpose of building and sustaining a society? How do we convince people to sacrifice for a larger good? It gets harder, that’s for sure. Just look at the military. Without a national draft–a truly public experience– we have relegated the duty (yes, that old-fashioned word) to a smaller and smaller group doing endless tours of duty. Meanwhile the majority of us, untouched by it, don’t support– or protest– the wars. My 90+-year-old parents, who lived through WWII and its example after example of shared sacrifice, grow wistful at the memory. It was hard, but everybody was on the same footing. Everyone sacrificed. No one was able to buy a toaster. No one. And it was that sense of shared sacrifice that built a stronger society.

While libertarians likely cheer this “less public/more private” thinking, Judt reminds us that “the reduction of ‘society’ to a thin membrane of interaction between private individuals …was first and above all the dream of Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and Nazis.” And any society, wrote Edmund Burke, that destroys the fabric of its state, will soon be “disconnected into the dust and power of individuality.”

I fear that dismantling has been well underway for far too long. As the students in my friend’s class reveal, “public” is, in their minds, already “the other”—the “they” as Nietzsche put it. We have rushed headlong into a privatized, personally tailored world of a “we” and “they” — devoid of an “us.”

A bird, a hunt, …and new memories in the making

Alas, a rerun, but with a new ending this time. …

* * *

Thanksgiving is a great holiday. Food, no religion, no gift-giving pressure. Growing up, Thanksgiving was about getting out the good china, polishing my grandmother’s silver, and filching black olives from the appetizer tray–one for each finger tip. The windows steamed up, pots clanked, and my sister muscled through the  potatoes with a wire masher to the clackety-clack rhythm of a horse in a trot on a city street. Oh, who’s kidding whom? It’s a tense disaster of a day in our family.

The day would start innocently enough, with a parade on tv, and the big hunt about to commence. Bob White and his glam wife Ellie, would arrive from “the cities” in their 1970s-flotilla Lincoln Continental–their Bloody Marys ensconced in cupholders (way before cupholders were de rigeur) and Bob’s revered rifle in the trunk. Bob was a 6-foot 5 Mr Magoo. Always a little tipsy, he was a larger-than-life entertainer. He could tell a joke, improvise boogie-woogie on the piano, and tell a helluva joke. A grain dealer, he spent his days with a phone to his ear and his evenings with a drink in hand at the Little Wagon or Richards in Minneapolis.

But on Thanksgiving morning, he was in Iowa, for the big pheasant hunt. He fancied himself a Hemingway sort, hoping to relive some sort of male-bonding fraternity of his youth.  I’d beg and beg to go along, and more often than not I got my wish. It was more about being where the fun was than killing a poor pheasant, because as we all know, men have more fun than women on holidays. And my mother was not having fun in that kitchen.

Her turkey is seared in our memories. It would begin about three days before Thanksgiving when she’d put the rock-solid frozen bird in a pan in the garage to thaw out (on the logic that it was cooler in the garage than inside).  When sufficiently thawed, she’d move it in to the kitchen counter for a day because there was no longer enough room in the fridge. There it would sit, all pink-skinned and goose-pimply.

In the meantime (meaning about a week before–she’s’ a planner, that one), she’d cream some onions, bake the sweet potatoes until their skin was dry and cracked (no marshmallows for us), and do something nearly unrecognizable with Campbell’s cream of mushroom soup, canned green beans, and onion rings. All of which sat on the counter or in the fridge, uncovered (she has a distaste for aluminum foil or that new-fangled Saran wrap.)

Thanksgiving day itself would start before dawn, when that bird finally went into the oven. From then on, it was nonstop muttering and clanking pots.  We were banned, banned from entering the kitchen. If you dared to enter, asking, say, for some more nuts, the glare alone would drive you back to the television room nut-free. “What do you want more nuts for?” she’d bark. “They’ll just spoil your dinner.” (That, I believe, was the point. We’d been here before).

In the midst of this somewhere, we hunters would return, glorious in our prize. We’d have generously plucked the birds already, and Bob White–not understanding the code of behavior–would stride into the no-fly zone and plop the newly dead birds into the sink. OMG.

Any kitchen on Thanksgiving is a choreographed dance that only the host knows, and it’s best to take on a task like folding napkins or filling water glasses. I learned this valuable lesson at a tender age 8. Bob White never, ever figured that out.

My mother would take that pheasant, slam it into a pan, and shove it in the oven, with the pellets still poking out of its skin. She was having none of it.

Finally, a few hours later, Sally would be summoned to mash the potatoes and we’d know the moment was near when the bird would come out of the 275 degree oven, where it had been for the past 8 hours. Right behind it were the pheasants, now about one-third their original size, browned to a crisp.  “Dad,” she’d bellow, her voice dropping an ominous octave, “come and carve the [bleep-bleeped] bird.” A twinkle in his eye, and a wink, he’d kick down the footrest on his Lazy-Boy and say (with what I now think was a hint of dread), “I guess it’s time to eat.”

The kitchen was a scene of war-torn chaos. Dad in one corner, man-handling the bird with a blade that hadn’t been sharpened since 1948. Bob White looming, crest-fallen over his destroyed pheasant. Mom dodging people to get the green beans reheated while realizing she forgot to put the bread in the oven. Sue, my other sister, would be trying to wrest some semblance of order out of it all. And Elli, wise Ellie, would be sitting at the table, cracking a joke with a cocktail in her hand.

Dutifully, we’d take our seats at the table, where the sweet pickles, hunks of celery (bite-size were never in her vocabulary), and one remaining olive sat lonely on the “salad” plate. We’d tuck into the food, then someone would remember to say grace. We’d try to recall the words to a prayer and resort to “good food, good meat, good God let’s eat,” and we’d begin. Ten minutes later, done–with a few stray bb’s on our plates to attest to the grand hunt that morning. The bird? Well, we’re a family of dark meat eaters if that’s any signal.

After dinner, we girls would wash the endless dishes, cracking a window to let some air in the steamed-up room. Eventually a group of us hardy souls would take a walk, shivering in the moonless night, our voices carrying for seemingly miles in the crisp air. Back home, the table cloth would come off and a card game or a game of Pit would commence, a second round of food would make its way from the fridge, but eventually, like any holiday, it would end for another year.

I realize now that about as quickly as we ate that meal, time has passed. Bob and Ellie are both gone now, as are my sister Sue and her husband Jerry. The house  where we all grew up is owned by another family making its own memories. Dad shuffles down the hall with the help of a walker. The piano is silent.

But, gradually, we make new memories. This year, my niece-in-law Sunny is cooking the meal out at the family “ranch,” which once belonged to Sue and Jerry and is now where she and Eric (of birthday cake fame) live with their own kids. That house is filled with its own memories, of Jerry’s “put it on a cracker” happy hour concoctions, of Sue’s tidy kitchen and scented candles. Eric is shaking up tradition and planning to deep-fry the bird (no worries, he’s also one of the volunteer fireman in town). Tara, his sister, is bringing her own four kids, and my sister Sally’s son and wife and their kids are joining later.

The thing is, you can’t look back too long or you might miss the joy in the moment.

Steven Brill’s new book: a perfect example of never letting the facts interrupt a good story

I read a couple reviews (mostly negative) of Steven Brill’s new book, “Class Warfare,” on education and then had to read for myself. Can I just say, wow—and not in a good way. As reviewer Michael Winerip points out, not only are teachers–whom he lambasts as the crux of all our education ills–mighty, mighty scarce in his pages, but Brill is a poster child for one of my top pet peeves. (disclaimer: my husband is a inner-city public school teacher, so my hackles were up already).

As Winerip and others have noted, Brill wrote this book after his story in the “New Yorker” about New York City teachers sitting idle in rubber rooms, awaiting their fates after being accused of some infraction or another. Based on the huge response to the article, publishers flocked. They signed him up with a nice advance to deliver a book based on a “good story.” He had never written about education before, he had never taught school. Heck, his kids went to private schools. And yet, the publishers came calling on the mere whiff of the success of that article. And thus my gripe.

Publishers do this a lot. A story breaks big, and the publisher sign a contract before the story goes cold. Besides Winerip, this happened to Christopher Noxon of “Rejuvenile” fame and most recently to Don Peck, whose article in the March 2010 Atlantic on “the long shadow of the recession”  led to a rushed book, out this month (and another Atlantic cover story). Rejuvenile was thin, a book that came and went. Peck’s book at least is well-balanced and has some research behind it. But he felt squeezed for time, and it shows. There are many, many others.

This rush to publish is not good for us. There’s a lot in publishing that’s not good for us (anything about Snooki, for example), but I’ll limit my gripe to the nonfiction/big ideas end of things. What happened to well-researched –or at least well-conceived– books where the author isn’t rushed to beat a “fad” deadline or where the book is more than just an extended opinion piece?

Authors of course can have their opinions, but why should we be subjected to them unless those opinions also have some substance to back them up? Otherwise, it’s called “fiction” right? Hasn’t reputation and accuracy historically been the gate that publisher have kept? Where are the keepers of the gates today?

Brill has written a screed. There are times and places for screeds–education reform is not one of them. With education, we need big ideas, not polemics based on a reporter who stumbled on teachers in a rubber room. If those teachers were indicative of a larger problem, ok. But prove it. And prove it relentlessly. Don’t just repeat the “common wisdom.” Don’t just repeat the tired “truisms” that all union teachers are lazy, that they care more about their paycheck than the kids (laughable, given the paychecks), that they are biding their time before collecting a pension. His selectivity in facts, his polemic, his skimpy, skimpy understanding of the research–and more important, his skimpy understanding of life in the classroom— are appalling.

I won’t pile it on Brill. He’s a symbol. The blame lies with publishers who rush to sign writers based on a “hit” of an article. And the blame lies in all of us who believe any nonsense without checking the facts for ourselves. As my motto above says, doubt is what gives you an education.

 

The demise of civility, one tennis game at a time

It’s summer, and I’m on the tennis courts quite a bit. To me, tennis is a lot like my mother: it pushes my buttons in ways never imagined. I have a love-hate relationship with it, to say the least. It’s also a great microcosm of the social contract. And this summer, I’m here to report, the social contract is frayed.

Tennis is a gentleman’s sport, with its quaint rules and corny customs in this anything-goes world. Hit a shot that nicks the net and topples listlessly over into your opponent’s court, and it’s good form to show chagrin with the friendly raise of a hand, as in, “really, I didn’t intend that, what bad luck on your part.” Courtesy is expected. When your opponent makes a good shot, it’s customary to remark on it. Before the game begins, opponents warm each other up.  And, gin and tonics MUST follow a game. Oh wait, that’s not a requirement.

The rules and demeanor in the sport (think Roger Federer) are the demeanor of a well-oiled society abiding by a set of customs that might not benefit you personally at the moment but will in the long-run, in the form of a polite and civil community. The rules and spirit of tennis (even though it is a brutal mental game and a highly charged game of wills and skills) represent the bigger game we play every day, that of navigating through life amid people with competing interests. You play hard, acknowledge good shots, give the benefit of the doubt on close calls, and trot to the net to shake hands with your victor at the end of the game. In its form, tennis is society as an ideal.

Until it’s not. Something is happening on the courts this summer. I play on public courts in Chicago, whose summer is approximately 6 weeks long. Ok, technically it’s longer, but it doesn’t seem longer. We are all outside all the time. At 9 am on a Saturday morning, the joggers vie for space on the lakefront trail amid bikers and rollerbladers. The soccer fields are full, and the 16″ softballers are kicking up dust. And on the tennis courts, the rackets are hanging two, sometimes three deep.

In case you’re not familiar with the court reservation process, a player “racks up” by hanging a racket between two prongs marked “even” or “odd” (for the even or odd hour) on the rack outside the courts. There’s a rack for every court. Then, at the top of the hour, the courts turn, and you take your racket and go to the appointed court.  The rules are written in black and white at each court, but the learning curve is sometimes iffy.

In the past when there has been a dispute about who has the court, a mere mention of the “rules” and the new initiate would apologize and thank you for pointing out how the system worked. Not anymore.

Four times in about as many weeks, I have nearly come to blows with men about who has the court. Men. What is wrong with them? Are they so threatened by women’s advances that they have lost all sense of propriety? Or have they been reared with such an elevated sense of entitlement that they cannot fathom having to actually wait a turn? Have they learned the fine art of talking over people and bullying their way through life? And what has happened to chivalry (I’m 50, and these guys are in their 20s. If not gender, then at least age should earn me some respect).

Like I said, four times I have been bullied right off the court. Well, two of those times I stood my ground and shamed them into leaving. The first time it came to raised voices was when two twenty-something men, each about 6’3 and built, refused to leave at the turn of the hour. Their reason? They weren’t done playing.  They had arrived late, and they hadn’t had their hour yet. The man, red in the face, was within inches of my face while calling me a liar. There was no winning that one.

The second time came during a doubles match. My partner Ruth and were playing these two guys in a quasi-league match. We were well into the second match and I was flagging with a pulled back muscle. The guy serves a dink shot that barely drops past the net, which I can’t get to and hit it into the net. He laughs. Ruth calls him on the laughing. He says, and I quote: “ha, ha, ha. I can laugh any time I want.” The next hit he and I are at the net. He hits one right at me as hard as he can. I’m pissed. I admit it. I yell at him that that was unnecessary.

“That’s how the game is played,” he yells. I shoot back that it’s hardly how the game is played, but to no avail. I turn to go back to receive, thinking I’ll just shake it off. And then, he says, “maybe you should go and play with girls if you can’t hack it.”

Wrong thing to say. A fuse lit in me that I hadn’t felt since my days in the boxing ring when I’d get clocked by some unsuspecting right hook. I spun around and took him on, dressing him down and telling him he was a complete moron. Yes, we really do descend to the sandbox at those moments. He just yelled louder and talked right over me, never hearing anything, even when I was trying to be more rational. He just kept yelling and yelling. Finally I forfeited and told him to leave the court. His partner had to pull him away.

And most recently, Ruth and I were tuning up our game this last Saturday. We arrived 10 minutes before 9am, and there were no rackets on court 4 at all, so we went in and started warming up. At about 9:10, I see two guys walking purposely toward us. “Sorry ladies, time to leave.” They reeked of smug assuredness. Again, the argument was one of bald-face lies. They claimed they had racked up. They also said they’d been watching us play  since 8:30. Ruth picked me up from home at 8:30 and we made one stop before getting to the courts. But there was no use. His comfort with lying to get his way was well honed. What can you do against that? Furious, we left, grumbling to ourselves.

It just floors me that people can so convincingly lie to get their way, and if there’s a crack in their story, they just start talking over you, until they force an impasse and someone has to give. And it’s never them.

I guess I don’t have to look too far to understand what’s going on here. Tennis is indeed a reflection of the larger society, and that society is coming apart at the seams.  There’s s a bunch of three-year-olds in Washington, threatening to take their marbles and go home. There’s a sense of entitlement on Wall Street, where bringing the economy to its knees requires no humility, no wave of the hand to acknowledge a net ball. There’s an embrace of “truthiness” among the Right and the Tea Party, who put “fact” and “science” in quotation marks out of habit, making lying to win a point justifiable. Add to that a sense of vulnerability among the middle class and you’ve got … well, you’ve got bullies on the tennis court.

There are rules for navigating this grand human experiment of life in a community. Those rules don’t always benefit you, the individual. But they benefit the greater good. They make life more enjoyable. They make living among people more tolerable. So next time, future tennis partners, give an inch, quit lying, quit bullying, and go stand in line with the rest of us. Join the club we call civil society.

Small plates

The other night, some friends and I dined out at one of those ridiculously trendy new restaurants. It had all the tells of a trendy spot. It was packed on a Wednesday night. It had a chic bar scene. We had to yell to be heard. The bartender was called a mixologist.

And it had a menu of “small plates.”

Mind you, when small plates first hit the scene a decade or so ago (then called tapas), I loved it. The flavors! The tasty small bites! The variety! The experience of ordering a set of cold small plates and sharing with friends before moving on to the hot plates was novel. It felt so Barcelona. I imagined sitting in a Spanish bar, sipping a glass of red wine while munching on pistachios and a small plate of grilled squid as a prelude to the long night ahead. All for $5.

But better yet,  you didn’t have to choose between two favorites. You could just sample everything.

This particular restaurant on Wednesday focused on seafood, and as we sat down, our waitress gave us a quick tutorial in oysters. Yes, oysters. The fetishization of food has now advanced to oysters, those slimy little numbers that go best with a dash of hot sauce and an ice-cold beer or cheap white wine. The menu boasted oysters from the east coast (smaller but more intensely flavored, we were told) and oysters from the west coast (larger, with hints of orange– yes, she said that). They were $3 a piece. A piece. With a minimum order of six.

The small plates menu in this particular restaurant was a far cry from my $5 dreams of Barcelona. I was momentarily confused as to whether these were indeed small plates given that the typical small plate was $16 and the most expensive was $22. I’m not a skinflint when it comes to eating out, but the prices gave me pause. I flashed back to another small-plates evening at the Publican–another painfully trendy spot– that ended up with calculators and stunned silence as we tallied up the bill.

Beyond price, though, the small plates dictum of eating family style is a challenge. I mean, who really wants to be a diplomat all night. “Did you get enough?” “Who wants the last bite?” “Are you sure?” No, you take it.” In this case, diplomacy was of Cold-War quality since “small” in small plates  meant that the mac n’ cheese, with three artisanal cheeses and a smidge of lobster, came out in a martini glass.

But more generally, the small plates trend is just tiring. I’m a reforming “maximizer” when it comes to choices and 45 small plates options on a menu that once thrilled me now just exhaust me.

People don’t do well with choices. At some point, we reach saturation and then just become paralyzed, or its insidious cousin, buyer’s remorse. We wonder, what am I missing? Think card shops and toothpaste aisles. Oh how I crave the choice of simply Crest vs Colgate of my childhood small-town grocery store.

Sheena Iyengar, a psychology professor, recently published “The Art of Choosing” –a fascinating riff on her famous jam test. In that experiment, she set out 24 different jams on a table in a supermarket for people to try. Later, she took away all but six of the jams and charted reactions. Turns out, more people approached the table when there were a lot of jams, but more people actually bought jam when there were fewer choices. Barry Schwartz in “The Paradox of Choice,” came to similar conclusions.

It’s not, Iyengar says, that too many choices are always bad. Rather, finding that optimum number where we have some choice but not too much is key. As she put it, “In practice, people can cope with larger assortments …. After all, visiting the cereal aisle doesn’t usually give shoppers a nervous breakdown.”

Clearly, she hasn’t been shopping with me. I was once accidentally locked in a card store when the owner left for lunch and forgot I was in the store. I’d been there that long.

I’m reminded of Hegel’s quote about choice: “The ordinary man believes he is free when he is permitted to act arbitrarily, but in this very arbitrariness lies the fact that he is unfree.”  Amen, brother. And thus the beginning of my reform.

As my card shop experience belies, I used to dither and dither, never able to pull the trigger on a decision. Buying a pair of shoes or a coat was a process of going from store to store to check options and prices, in a long quest to ensure that I wasn’t missing something or that I wasn’t being duped, or that I was “getting a deal.”

Trip planning was probably the worst. And the internet has only made it more excruciating. I’d start my search at Travel and Leisure online, typing in  in my destination and then choose from a menu: articles, hotels, restaurants, activities, trips. Good god. I’d start with articles, read a few and follow some recommendations. First up, hotels. I’d click on a hotel and read the descriptions, browse the pictures of the rooms. Then it’s over to TripAdvisor to see what people thought of that hotel. And on it goes with the next option. By the time I was done, I practically needed a spreadsheet to figure out where I want to stay for three nights. Yet even if you manage to stay on track and make a decision, there was always that nagging sense that there was a better hotel that I was missing out on, or a better flight, or a better place to vacation, period.

But like I said, I’m reformed. I’m a satisficer these days, not a maximizer, to use Schwartz’s terms. I’m “content with the merely excellent as opposed to the absolute best.” Indeed, one of my happiest days was the Saturday we marched into Abt–an appliance store the size of three Best Buys combined– and walked out 30 minutes later with a dishwasher. We even had time for a leisurely lunch, and my feet didn’t hurt. I still love my dishwasher.

So perhaps that was at the bottom of my pique over the small plates (that and the $200 bill for two). Too many choices, too many opportunities to feel like I was missing out on something better (or in this case, missing out on more than one bite). Would the snapper carpaccio hearts of palm, with pickled ginger, have been better than the dungeness crab with bok choy, coconut white beech mushrooms and black tobiko (whatever that is)? (And can we get any more pretentious?)

Give me a short menu, a big-girl plate of food, and a choice of red or white wine, and I’m golden. Choice, my friend, is overrated.

Outrage. Enough is enough

Forgive the rant, but I am outraged. The Right has bamboozled the very people who will get screwed by their policies. They’re not looking out for Joe Sixpack. Yet there stands Joe, waving his Republican flag. Brilliant.

The Republicans are undermining the already-shrinking middle class with their pandering attacks on public sector unions, teachers, and others who still have the makings of middle-class security. They claim to want to balance the budget and “tighten government’s belt.” Really? Why? The ratio of GDP to debt was 110 (much higher than today) in the 1940s, and it dropped in the subsequent years even while the government spent money on things like education (GI Bill anyone?), pensions (Social Security), and infrastructure (interstate highways come to mind). Yet today we have to go into austerity mode (on the backs of the least secure citizens, mind you), why?  

We used to expand the pie for everyone. In the boom years following WWII, we were spending money, but we were also creating a solid middle class and investing in American workers. But that stopped in the 1980s, with Reagan, and it’s gone downhill ever since. We’ve lined the pockets of the wealthy and set up the system so the rewards flow up and concentrate at the very top. The game, my friends, is rigged. We’ve coddled the wealthy and kicked the little guy to the curb. Under Eisenhower–hardly a lefty–the income tax on top earners was 91%. Today, a top-25 hedge fund manager pays a tax rate of just 17% on his income. (loop holes). Hedge fund managers’ income–$1 billion each on average–compares to about $30,000 for a teacher’s salary. The teacher more than likely pays more in taxes than the hedge fund manager. And yet we rag on teachers. Incredible.

I for one am sick of this blatantly lopsided game the Republicans are playing. We need “good” jobs that pay decent wages. We need better roads and internet connections across the country. We need to invest, not divest, in education (and charter schools are not the answer). And all that takes some money. We can’t keep cutting and cutting and expect our middle class to do anything but whither up and blow away.

I feel helpless in this onslaught of slick messaging to an uninformed (shame on them) audience. I find myself back in familiar territory when I pick up the morning newspaper. What next, I think. What galling thing can the Republicans do now? This morning was eliminating the recyclable “green” forks in congressional dining halls because they weren’t “cost-effective.” If that isn’t blatantly political, I don’t know what is. After all, if cost-effectiveness were really the deciding factor, then let’s revisit the $35 billion defense contract to Boeing for a gas station in the sky for planes that no longer have a pressing strategic mission requiring such refueling.

Nearly 14 million Americans are still out of work–6 million of them have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. With every week they’re not working, they’re inching farther away from the beating heart of “normalcy.” For every week they’re unemployed, their resume moves farther down the pile. Before long, the routines that guide and shape our lives dissipate. Afternoon tv with its infomercials for DeVry and bankruptcy protection becomes the filler.  They slide into the forgotten fifth–those who, no longer working, lack an identity and become invisible to the rest of us.

Where is the outrage? Are we all just fatalistic? Do we really believe Republicans truly speaking for the little guy? Is anyone?

Cities and serendipity–a lesson for manufacturing?

A new book by Harvard economist Ed Glaeser is making waves. “Triumph of the City” argues that cities are where it’s at. A feature story in this month’s Atlantic Monthly will only fuel the buzz because in it, he stares down the Jane Jacobs’ and the anti-development people with an economist’s cold (and it must be said, whimsy-free) logic. [here's a quick interview on "Take Away"]

Skyscrapers, Glaeser argues, are good. Too-tight zoning is bad. Skypscrapers after all are simple supply and demand. When you build enough housing for people, prices remain affordable. When you limit housing–and when you limit the number and height of skyscrapers, you’re limiting housing–you make cities less affordable. That’s often why only those who have a rent-controlled apartment or who have managed to buy into a lovely building on Central Park are so adamant about zoning. They’re in, so who cares about anyone else.

The unlimited building permits, he says, are one reason why I can live on the lakefront in Chicago with a dazzling view, in a condo that is way, way, way, way, way less expensive than a similar view in New York. “The forest of cranes along Lake Michigan keeps Chicago affordable,” he says. Our former alderman was very keen on allowing development, that is true. (I doubt, however, that said alderman was a humanitarian, working to keep the city affordable. He was more likely interested in the lucrative prospects of working with developers, if you know what I mean.) But whatever the reason, it is true that I, a lowly writer with a teacher for a husband, can afford to live here.

But before the controversy of that position overtakes the larger message of the book, let’s backtrack. His larger argument is this: Cities are good because they magnify mankind’s greatest asset: our ability to learn from those around us. Cities, Glaeser says, “increase the returns to being smart: we get smarter by being around people who are smart.” When you put people together under the right conditions, magic happens.  Think about it, when you can rub shoulders daily with people who challenge you, add a wrinkle in your plan, or who have a different take on your idea, you benefit.

Cities make that shoulder-rubbing happen, either deliberately or serendipitously. Bumping into people–or being brought together by forces or others beyond your scope–helps us realize things we need to know that we don’t know already. Being in the right place the right time, having a fortuitous encounter–that’s the stuff of eureka moments, big and small. Cities up the odds that you’ll both meet more people and meet people working on similar problems as you. It also ups the odds of encountering some creative friction, which is always a good thing.

Of course you have to be adept at using this information (John Hagel and John Seely Brown and talk about this in the Power of Pull) , but it doesn’t happen without the opportunity to hang out in cafes or at a bar or in the market or to mingle with people at a fashion event or a conference. You never know who you’ll meet. In small towns, on the other hand, you’ll almost always know who you’ll meet. Serendipity, and creative leaps that follow, are less likely to happen there simply because there are fewer strangers, fewer actors, and after awhile, conformity sets in.

These creative leaps are the backbone of innovation, which we’re talking a lot about these days as the US sinks in rankings on education and other indicators. Our economy going forward is to be built on innovation, says the president and other leaders. We’re putting our eggs in that basket because we’ve largely abandoned manufacturing and making things here as supply and demand shifted overseas to cheaper countries. Therefore, we’re counting on our strength– creating the new ideas and new products that others will build elsewhere–to carry us forward. And innovation turns on creative tension, serendipity, and all those things that cities and hubs cultivate.

Yet we could be shooting ourselves in the foot. Just as cities bring  people together, which leads to innovation, so too do factory floors, albeit on a smaller scale. When people are tinkering around, making things, they strike on new ideas. Serendipity again. When an engineer talks to the person on the assembly line about the problems of a car door, the assembly worker often has insights that shed light on the problem, because he or she is assembling that door every day. They see things. Couple those solutions with a larger-scale problem–like how to improve gas mileage or build a better battery– and you get aha moments.

When the manufacturing moves elsewhere, those aha moments are less likely to happen. We break the chain of experience

As Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel (who, unlike Apple, continues to manufacture in the US) has argued, keeping manufacturing here is critical if we are to make the shift from idea to product, to new idea, and new product:

Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment. Equally important is what comes after that mythical moment of creation in the garage, as technology goes from prototype to mass production. This is the phase where companies scale up. They work out design details, figure out how to make things affordably, build factories, and hire people by the thousands. Scaling is hard work but necessary to make innovation matter….

…A new industry needs an effective ecosystem in which technology knowhow accumulates, experience builds on experience, and close relationships develop between supplier and customer.

We can learn from the nature of cities. They are the innovation chain writ large. They are the ecosystem where know-how accumulates, experience builds, and close relationships develop. Fostering growth in cities, says Glaeser, fosters creativity. Allowing skyscrapers to go higher means more people can afford to live in the city. A richer diversity of people means more serendipity and better ideas. When we succumb to gated communities and glide to work in a Town Car instead of public transport, we shut out the chance for serendipity. We break the chain of innovation.

Likewise, when we don’t rub shoulders with enough people on the assembly lines or on the production chain, when we don’t also manufacture the products of our imagination, we break the chain. When it’s just engineers, and not also bolt cutters and door hangers, we miss out on the rich mix of people and ideas that being thrust together in an ecosystem brings.

Adulthood is when you realize you hate snow

I had a lovely interview last night with Milt Rosenberg, the venerable host of Extension 720 on WGN radio. What a pro. I was humbled to be in such august company. (You use words like ‘august’ after an interview with Milt–what a vocabularly he has. I was scrambling to remember what “canard” meant during his intro/first question to me.) The most flattering thing for an author is when the interviewer has read the book, and Milt clearly had.

Rick and I also did the Leonard Lopate show yesterday (the Terry Gross of NYC NPR), which was fun.  I refuse to listen to myself after the fact, but people tell me it went well. With each one of these interviews, you get better and better. Thank you beta-blockers.

Sadly, the East Coast snowstorm is shoving us aside on other shows. CNN rescheduled–boo–as did a couple radio shows in NYC. As a Chicagoan, I can’t quite figure out the obsession with a snow storm. I grew up north of here where in the winter we put flags on our car antennas so other drivers could see your car behind the piled-up snow at intersections.

The NYC situation does, however, remind me of the 1979 Bilandic/Byrne kerfuffle here in Chicago. Our then-mayor Michael Bilandic–who had taken over after the death of the first Mayor Daley–failed to get the streets plowed quickly enough, and trains were so backed up that they kept running express from the suburbs, leaving African-Americans standing on the train platforms.  And since our mayoral election is in February, city residents, led by the black vote, canned his derrier and put Jane Byrne in power. So watch out Mayor Bloomberg. There are few things angrier than a person left stranded on an el platform in winter.

The problem with snow is that it stays past its welcome. It’s beautiful when it’s coming down, casting a hush on a metropolis, squeaking underfoot. Even the next day, it’s a thrill. But after that, not so much.

It’s perhaps the true definer of adulthood when you realize that snow is a pain. You have to shovel it. You have to dig your car out. You have to scrape the windows. You have to keep refilling the windshield fluid and deal with the ice-blue chunks of wiper fluid. Not to mention the crick in your neck from forever driving hunched over, peering through the one clear streak amid the salt crust on your windshield (why windshield wipers cease to swipe cleanly in winter I’ll never know).

In Chicago, we dig out our cars and then place an old lawn chair or milk crate in the space to save it for when we return at night. The stress alone of wondering whether your spot will be there and if you will be forced to defend it is enough to keep you housebound. Then there’s the roof (hello Metrodome).  And don’t get me started on navigating the curbs, where the shoveled snow has created a unleapable barrier between you and your destination. Fashion? fuggedaboutit.  And a special pox on those slackers who don’t shovel their walks. You’re making great time, striding down the sidewalks until–the slacker. Instant geisha walk.

So perhaps we should add to the list of markers of adulthood: hating snow. I’m an old fogey if that’s the case.

Where is “Main St. USA”?

With the elections (thank gawd) behind us, the attention has turned reliably to that biennial fit of confusion by the East Coasters over the broad midsection of their world known fondly as “the flyover” section. To put it in webspeak, they’re wondering: WTF? What is going on in the middle of the country? Who ARE these people?

That usually gets my hackles up, since lumping us midsectionals all in a heap is the equivalent of a white person saying all black people look alike. But I must admit, I don’t know who some of “these people” are either.

As I was perusing some magazines the other day, I saw a headline, Main Street U.S.A.  Now you usually think the accompanying photo of Main Street looks like this.

But the Main Street in his story was this:

And you know what– he is right. It might not be NYC itself, but for the majority of Americans today, Main St looks more like the second photo than the first. The vast majority of Americans live in cities, not small towns. Only one in five Americans live in a small town like the one above. Most of us live in the suburbs of these big downtowns, and do our daily shopping and living on strip malls and suburban centers that have cropped up by the train station. But the cities are where the heart beats. It’s where most of us still work and where we still go for the art, culture, and music that fills our ho-hum days with beauty and stimulate our dulled brains. It is where innovation happens, and it is where young people still flock.

Yet, say “main street” and most Americans, I would venture, think small town. Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe that’s where the confusion lies. Our iconography is out of whack. Especially here in the flyover section. I’m sitting here writing from Chicago. Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis are all within shouting distance. Cities all of them. But do people think of those cities when they think “middle of the country”? Nope. They think small town.

We’re an urban nation. We may all still want to flee to places where you can “breathe” but we’re tethered to these urban centers like a calf to a teat. Homespun wisdom, straight talk, golly-gee Mama Grizzlies are not who we are. They’re one-fifth of who we were, and in some mythical mind, maybe what we want to be. But we’re not.

As “The State of Metropolitan America” by the Brookings Institution reports, our nation’s large metro areas remain at the cutting edge of the nation’s continued growth. Between 2000 and 2009, they grew by a combined 10.5 percent, versus 5.8 percent growth in the rest of the country. Metro areas will both age faster and be the first to have a majority minority population. They will contribute the vast majority of our GDP, and they are home to the “assets that drive economic success: patents, advanced R&D, venture capital, college graduates, and air, rail, and sea hubs,” says Brookings Institution’s Bruce Katz.

Last night, I listened to the former CEO of Intel, Craig Barrett, give a talk about where we need to go in America and how to get there. To move forward, he said, we need better education and smart ideas, and most important, an environment that fosters creativity.  Cities do that.  The mere confluence and concentration of ideas and people are a spark to innovation. It’s what Richard Florida gets at in his books “The Rise of the Creative Class” and sequels.

The danger is that we create policies as if we were still this mythical small town America. We ignore high-speed rail, we give way too much money to farmers (now mostly industrial farmers), we don’t take seriously the need to rethink our car-centric culture (“if we don’t redevelop our cities and transforming our suburbs with mixed-use, walkable development, we will be condemned to years of stagnation,” says Christopher Leinberger over at The Avenue), we give too many tax breaks for building more and bigger homes (today’s call for the repeal of the mortgage deduction is a good start on this one). Here in Chicago, we generate 78% of the state of Illinois’ economic output. Yet our policies divert tax revenue to the rest of the state to subsidize inefficient investment elsewhere.

We in this big midsection are often portrayed as a bunch of yokels with homespun values, a gun in the pick-up, and a “red state” bumper sticker. But we’re not. Kansas City is a hub of high-tech manufacturing, Indianapolis is a center for life sciences, Chicago is emerging as a bioengineering center. There are many, many examples of these forward-thinking urban hubs scattered throughout the vast middle of the country. So let’s start designing policies for the way we live now, not how we once lived.