James Warren

Rites of Passage: A Yankee Family Story

2009-11-05T12:54:27Z

When I put my son to bed at around 8:45 Wednesday night, after watching a few innings of the World Series, I read him a story and unavoidably looked at two items I've placed in his room: a 1956 Sports Illustrated cover illustration of a young superstar, Mickey Mantle; and a dinky plastic Yankees helmet autographed by a now-81-year-old man in New Jersey named Gil McDougald.

The framed cover is on a wall and the helmet is atop a bookcase. Baseball was a potent vehicle for the assimilation of my German immigrant father into American culture. He arrived in New York from Munich in 1927, the year Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs.

He went to lots of games and, when he married late in life and had a son, he took the son to Yankee Stadium all the time. We'd walk to 86th Street and Lexington Avenue to take what I've always known as the Woodlawn-Jerome (now romantically renamed the No. 4 train), watch a game (for a few bucks, lower grandstand, between home and first), maybe two games on a Sunday, then head home.

]]>
Later on, I learned from my mother that when I was small, he called me "McDougald." That was in honor of Gil McDougald, a terrific 1950s Yankees infielder who is somewhat forgotten in history despite the sort of track record--.276 lifetime average, five-time All Star, dandy fielder--which would make him a millionaire many times over today.

When I married late in life and had a son, a close friend's son found the little autographed helmet on a sports memorabilia website and gave it to me as a present. It's become a fixture in the room of my son, Blair, whose first t-ball team last summer was, wouldn't you know, the Yankees.

A few years ago, I was feeling nostalgic and sorry that my dad, who passed away in 1988, wasn't around to see Blair and the little plastic helmet. I felt compelled to reach out to Gil McDougald himself with this tale of generational continuity. I found his address and wrote him a letter about my father loyalty to him and a little boy in Chicago who slept near the helmet he autographed. I never heard back but that didn't really matter.

Fast forward to last night, Nov. 4, 2009, and watching the sixth game of the World Series with my son, who had turned six the day before. To my wife's chagrin, he's picked up on my rather overt fidelity to the Yanks. I let him watch a few innings, then took him to his room and read him a favorite story about a peddler who wears a whole bunch of different colored hats.

"Daddy, will you tape the game for me?" he asked.

After watching way too many post-game interviews after the Yankees victory ("Alex, does it get any better than this?" was among the typically acute queries), I went back upstairs, brushed my teeth and headed down the hall to his room. There was Blair, spread-eagled above his blanket and sheets, grasping his favorite penguin.

I put him back under the sheets and blanket and, as I do each night after he nods out, gave him a kiss. Once again, I couldn't help looking at the plastic helmet and the Mantle illustration on the wall. I then remembered that, for good luck, I was wearing a 1950s Tiffany watch that was my dad's.

This morning, our five-month-old awoke in his crib and my wife brought him into our bed around 5 a.m. A few minutes later, there came the pitter-patter of little feet hustling down the hall toward us. It was Blair, wearing his baseball glove and holding his favorite yellow tennis ball.

"Did the Yankees win?" he asked. I said yes. Delighted, he announced, "The Yankees have won the World Series 27 times, Daddy!" He proceeded to kiss his baby brother, who was smiling, screaching and peddling some imaginary bike with his feet.

It just so happens that, after a long period of unemployment, I returned to work fulltime the other day. And, now, the Yanks have won again. Sometimes the past is prologue. Thanks, Dad, Gil, Mickey and, of course, little Blair, who can now be heard bouncing the ball in the family room.

Photo Credit: Flickr Users Ben Yankee and Thomas Duchnicki

On Bono, Favoritism and College Admissions

2009-10-16T16:54:10Z

It seems apt to open an exploration into favoritism by dropping a name: Bono.

Because of a friendship with him, I got complimentary tickets to a recent U-2 concert in Chicago where, shortly before he went on stage, we discussed a topic not traditionally associated with rock stars or their lyrics, namely private school admissions in New York City.

He told a funny tale of how his wife was grilled at one school about their "family philosophy" and how a son was interrogated as to any "special skills" he possessed; prompting the boy to apparently get up from a chair and humorously hop on one leg and bang his head with a hand. According to Bono, they were rejected at this school which, says its website, charges about $32,000 a year and aims to produce "global ethical leaders."

But the two sons of Bono, who himself inarguably rates as a global ethical leader, did get into a very fine place, nonetheless. While I suspect that the couple's offspring are as talented and decent as the parents, it obviously doesn't hurt if a parent or other sponsor is wealthy, talented and famous. And if the kids aren't somehow future Nobel Prize biochemists, would one be surprised that they'd be accepted most anywhere, even over boys and girls with better test scores?

]]>
Some folks clearly would be chagrined. Indeed, the whole business of admissions is touchy and what can pass for scandal in modern media has surrounded the University of Illinois in recent months. My old paper, the Chicago Tribune, disclosed that certain applicants were clearly admitted to the university as a result of odious "clout"; namely familial and other ties to trustees, politicians and various different species of citizens with influence (including Tony Rezko, the jailed real estate developer and onetime chum of a then-rising Illinois politician, Barack Obama).

There was a separate list of such insider applicants. Emails and phone conversations went public and, in the end, there were a bunch of resignations, including that of the university president.

There's a rich journalistic tradition of milking one's own expose and, here, the paper provided a daily dairy, apparently convinced that a higher education Watergate had been discovered. There were dozens of stories, many self-reverential, with editorials calling for the heads of much of the university hierarchy and board of trustees (most of whom split, though at least two didn't succumb to public relations pressure, refusing to quit and will remain).

Now, part of me felt like Claude Rains' Captain Renault in "Casablanca" ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"). If I stop to think about all that happens in our lives as a direct function of whom we know, I'd be thinking a very long time. I probably could dine at Chicago's Alinea (deemed America's best restaurant by the dying bastion of fine dining, Gourmet magazine) if I only had a buck for each of my friends' kids whom I've helped get either summer or full-time employment, never knowing how they rated against competitors. More often than not, I'm happy to put in a good word with somebody relevant whom I know.

I suspect that a Tribune editor or two, now outraged over the University of Illinois, might have to confess to a child or other relative having been accepted into a position due to the editor's own network of chums. Stop. I know that to be a fact.

At the same time, one is miffed when the shoe's on the other foot; when you, personally, or a spouse or child is seemingly aced out of an opportunity by somebody who appears inferior but has "connections." In Illinois, for more than 100 years members of the General Assembly have had the right to actually give out full scholarships to the state's public universities (the original theory had to do with assuring some statewide, geographical equity in admissions). In some cases, those tuition waivers go to kids of donors and of those who've worked on a politician's campaigns.

In Chicago, principals at nine elite, so-called "selective enrollment" public high schools can choose five percent of the slots. That is a function of a belief that there should be room for talented and unusual kids who just don't test well. A federal investigation is underway, apparently based on the suspicion that there's a gulf between the theory and actual practice.

We're naturally aghast because this is, after all, a meritocracy, isn't it?

Isn't it?

Shouldn't it be? And shouldn't all be fully transparent?

Bob Steele, an ethics specialist at DePauw University in Indiana and the Poynter Institute in Florida, concedes that there's no true meritocracy in most of our lives and that connections will always open doors to opportunities, including admissions and jobs. And even if one reflexively assumes that such ties largely benefit the most well-to-do, door-opening has always been rife, whatever one's location on the socio-economic ladder. Just consider all the kids who followed (mostly) fathers into the well-paying mills and auto plants, and into the trades. Ditto those who found coveted public sector positions in police stations and fire houses.

That's not to say that fairness doesn't, and shouldn't, remain a core value in professional and personal relationships, and in decision-making in general. It's just an early reminder that the matter is more nuanced than some might assume.

And it might indirectly remind us that American culture is different than many others in which reliance on friendship and family is not seen as suspect. Indeed, nepotism is not especially unusual elsewhere. It helps explain why international organizations, populated with officials from many nations, can become bollixed up over the definition of conflict of interest; a point broached by Rushworth Kidder, president and founder of the Institute for Global Ethics in Camden, Me.

"In these countries, nepotism is part of the culture and not anything especially unusual. It's a standard of loyalty and trust. You need not take a chance on a stranger. It's a family member. He'll work hard," says Kidder. "But we've taken to the opposite extreme. Perhaps it's our old Puritan heritage. We want to take personal [ties] right out of the mix."

The Illinois disclosures at least raise doubts about what Jeffrey Seglin, an associate professor and ethics specialist at Emerson College, notes is a frequent argument of college administrators; namely that "'preference' doesn't tip the scale to let in an otherwise unqualified candidate but adds to his or her overall profile when admission is considered." It's an argument hard to analyze from the outside since so little information is provided to the public, in part due to federal privacy rules when it comes to higher education records.

There was, too, the explicit suggestion in much of the reporting on the Illinois mess that public universities are essentially different than private ones. The existence of "secret political privilege," as one of the newspaper's editors puts it, is all the more unseemly since these are public dollars at play. The well-known "legacy" admissions of Yale, Harvard, Amherst, and other private institutions are not a basis of comparison since the private schools don't feed from the public trough, the assertion goes.

Of course, that borders on folderol, as widely-accepted as the differentiation seems to be. The little-understood reality is that nonprofits, like the Ivy League schools, essentially use lots of taxpayer dollars; or at least get to keep a lot of money that would have otherwise gone into government coffers were it not for the nonprofit status. If you rationalize a supposed lack of fairness in the admissions' processes of private schools, don't do it on the back of their non-public funding sources. In addition, what about the federal dollars those private schools may get for, say, scientific research, among other endeavors? A friend of mine, a former top official at a private Big Ten university, was especially proud of his effective lobbying for Defense Department dollars.

Missed, too, can be how economic necessity is eroding the demarcation between private and public institutions of higher learning. With state budgets in trouble, public universities are taking on the look and tactics of private institutions when it comes to fundraising. If the Harvards of the world have always been sharply focused on the cultivation of alumni loyalty, their public counterparts didn't have to be. Now, the public institutions surely have a greater appreciation of the longer term self-interest in being solicitous to sons and daughters of graduates in the quest for increasingly important donations.

So where might this leave the admissions process at the University of Illinois and elsewhere? Do we want to make test scores so important that any computer can spit out the winners and losers? Do we think that we can somehow make a quasi-science out of the system, putting aside the many reasons a kid with lower scores and seemingly fewer achievements might be a more valuable assets to the institution? And should we be blind to how a politician, wealthy individual or family ties could positively advantage the institution in the long run?

"I'm not sure that we're going to be a better country if, in some draconian way, we say that some kind of personal acknowledgment or understanding of individuals is something we should rule off the turf in the admissions process," says Kidder. "There's a level of intuition and wisdom that comes from sitting down with somebody, or knowing them for many years, that can't get manifested in numbers. I'm worried that we may be making too much of a science of this application process."

Finally, there's the matter of transparency.

"I have often believed that if an institution wants to engage in such practices, it should be forthcoming and transparent that it does so and how it does so," says Seglin, who also writes a weekly ethics column for the New York Times Syndicate. He cited the controversial, brief tenure of Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, as president of Harvard.

"For all his other issues, Summers was pretty clear that he saw no issue with admitting legacy students," says Seglin. Some estimates suggest that 10 percent or more of the student body at some schools result from legacy admissions, with no real way to speculate how many of them would have gotten in purely on their own merits. "If the leaders of these institutions have no problem with showing such preferences, they should be willing to be transparent about the process. And, if they don't want people to know about the process, what does that say about the practice?"

But there just might be some justifiable qualms about substantial, even full, public inspection. The qualms reporters have in going public with their sources, or that lawyers have in disclosing client matters, might have some counterpart here. Do we truly want everything that's said about an applicant to be known? Do we want the world to learn that fair-minded admissions officers thought Mr. and Mrs. Smith's daughter--- the one with the great grades and SATs and laundry list of extracurricular activities--- was a total, arrogant jerk?

Kidder has committed himself professionally "to a life in which the more transparency, the better." But he knows that leads him into thorny areas where Right may not faceoff so much against Wrong as it does against Right.

"The question beyond this is what happens when we face a situation in which both sides are right; if a powerful moral case is to be made for both Person A and Person B and we have to choose."

"I'm not calling for under-the-table activities," says Kidder. "But I want to be sure that people don't get treated unfairly because, somewhere in their past, there was a whiff that somebody who was a politician may have recommended them. There has to be flexibility. Maybe not much, but some."

(Photo: Flickr/Chaval Brasil)

A TiVo Challenge: Watching ObamaVision on a Sunday Morning

2009-09-20T15:38:39Z

For public policy mavens, a weekend which began with the passing of Irving Kristol, the influential conservative essayist, climaxed with President Obama being on most every talk show Sunday morning. And, throughout, there was Glenn Beck sticking out his tongue at us from the cover of the new Time magazine.

Kristol and Obama didn't have a lot in common ideologically but were united by a reflexive penchant for the systematic and analytical. Coming from different ends of the political spectrum, they each embodied an empiricist thrust; by and large looking at policies and wondering, "Does this really work?" In an age in which the provocative (Beck) can trump the smart and correct, one can imagine Kristol, who once called a conservative "a liberal mugged by reality," and Obama actually getting along for hours in some quiet den, shooting the intellectual breeze.

On Sunday, the aim of Cool Hand Obama aim was more tactical, namely in trying to cut through frustrations (and worrisome polling) with the health care debate in a less formal, less aggressive manner than in his address to the joint session of Congress. If one hadn't known what was up, it was clear in perhaps the most revealing of his ABC-NBC-CBS sessions, one with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, that this was surely one of those periods in which, "I've said I'm just not breaking through."

]]> Chicago, as perhaps was true in other television markets, your remote had better been fully charged since no sooner was his "Meet the Press" session with David Gregory concluded than his roughly similar dialogues with Stephanopoulos and CBS' Bob Schieffer aired simultaneously. Public policy ping-pong was now underway for some viewers.

But the talking points for all were self-evident: the status quo is economically unacceptable; the president's prime goals start with increasing insurance coverage; achieving insurance reforms is necessary; devising a deficit-neutral plan is a must; lessening health care inflation is inherent; the vaunted "public option" is not a "silver bullet"; we can now "narrow the differences" among competing Congressional plans in which, he again insisted, there's consensus on 80 percent of what's on the table; and, putting on his historian's hate, there was the reminder again (with mentions of Hamilton, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and others) that change is always hard and rife with controversy.

The questioning was, by and large, predictable: health care, former President Carter's claims of racism as impacting the debate, and possibly hefty troop increases in Afghanistan. All the anchors were characteristically firm but polite, tending to resort to the tried-and-true formulation of "some of your critics say," lest the interviewee think they actually felt that way.

As I clicked between CBS and ABC, Obama was rather interesting in proffering the notion to Schieffer that the passions evident in the health care debate are a "proxy for how much government should be involved in the economy," especially given second thoughts about its financial sector interventions. It was also a way, and most probably sincere, to downplay the matter of racist or other suspect motives by his opponents.

Gregory tried and came up short in pinning down the president on "hard choices" that must be made, though his exchange with Stephanopoulos was the most engaging since the host got down a bit more in the weeds; in particular, as to whether there were inherent tax hikes tied to increasing coverage and, also, decreased coverage for some with Medicare. He pressed and pressed, with a relatively defensive Obama deflecting the prime suspicion by likening an insurance mandate to our need to have auto insurance when we drive, as well as arguing that the host's reliance on a dictionary definition of the word "tax" was somehow itself evidence that the host was stretching. That assertion was not very convincing (nor was that of de facto ignorance concerning ACORN, the embattled grassroots advocacy organization).

And, yet, the three of five interviews taped Friday amounted to an impressive performance; again revealing a very smart, self-confident man willing to seeking certain progressive values by being empirical and cutting deals if necessary. It was so utterly contrary to the media culture which, he again reiterated, he finds so wayward in its heralding of the loud and extreme. There he was: quiet, modest, thoughtful, willing to diplomatically engage while still being firm.

Like Irving Kristol, Obama proved an anti-Beck on this TiVo-challenging morning. And, as Kristol's own legacy proves, every once in while the understated can wield more influence than we might imagine.

(Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

The Teacher-in-Chief Takes To the Bully Pulpit As School Is Back In Session

2009-09-10T02:09:53Z

If one had any doubt that school's back in session, one had only to listen to Prof. Obama Wednesday night.

Addressing us on health care, he reminded at least one longtime Obama watcher back in Chicago of the intellectual and philosophical reality beneath the caricature of either fire-breathing liberal or compromiser too willing to appease political enemies.

At heart he's a traditional liberal who's deeply pragmatic in search of progressive values. Whatever works. It's the same with a key consigliere sitting a few feet away and apparently fully enjoying a stick of gum, David Axelrod. Perhaps Obama is more inclined toward the empirical. But, for both, it's a willingness to put reflexive ideology aside and ask, "What's the best way to do this?"]]>
And, imagine, on the great GOP specter of system-sapping medical malpractice lawsuits, a Democratic president actually conceded that some doctors might be needlessly practicing "defensive medicine" as a result of their fears of meanie attorneys. To that end, he was directing the Department of Health and Human Services to dust off a test program initially proffered by a veritable Satan to his own loyalists, former President George W. Bush.

For sure, old-fashioned ideology was not absent, especially when it came to Big Business and the use of the anecdotal to portray them as insensitive creeps. There was an arguable anti-business current, even with a pro forma declaration that health industry bigshots weren't inherently bad souls, and one wishes there was a bit more explanation of the incentives to keep their ilk in the game.

Some of the initial television post mortems inescapably focused on the instant political ramifications in Congress. Would votes change? There was little seeming dissection of the merits of his case, which seems a strong one, even amid the pundits' cynical harrumphing over the Republican guffawing upon hearing Obama's admission that many details were left to be ironed out in what he was proposing.

Ultimately, the empiricist seemed to be relying greatly on a key analytical conclusion, namely that there was sufficient waste and inefficiency in the system to pay for his plan. Hmmmm. Live by the empirical, die by the empirical. If this passes in the rough form he outlined, we shall see if he's correct.

But as far as his final assessment that the status quo will only bring a burgeoning deficit, more bankrupt families and more businesses closing, he's probably on the mark. But, politically, it was an unwitting reminder that he's squarely matched against the most important force in the nation's capital: the status quo.

Check the coffers of dozens of lobbying and communications firms, recipients of head-turning riches in what's an unlikely golden moment for the insider class during a dismal recession for the rest of us. Check the pages of Roll Call, The Hill, Congressional Quarterly, Politico and a raft of other publications. Check the unceasing ads bought by interests which, by and large, hope precious little will actually happen.

Can empiricism topple filthy lucre? We shall see.

Photo Credit: Jason Reed/Pool Getty Image

Far from the Political Echo Chamber, Holiday Notes on a "Struggling Presidency"

2009-09-07T13:22:34Z

Perhaps it was the setting, a rather serene and playful backyard birthday party for a former federal prosecutor, but a Sunday barbecue across the street in my Chicago hood brought few hints of what the New York Times on Monday labeled Barack Obama's "struggling" presidency.

In fact, this distinctly non-focus group gathering lacked any mention of Obama, or the "public option" in health care, or the improbable, confusion-shrouded "Gang of Six" in the Senate. It was all the more notable since there was one U.S. Senate candidate (Democrat) and one congressional candidate (Republican) in the mix, enjoying the beer, sausages and our kids playing whiffle ball or cavorting on a small trampoline.

There was no mention of the Sunday talk shows, which featured administration aides talking health care and underscoring what would seem obvious to even a C-minus student in government; namely that there's a lot more to the legislation than pleasing Nancy Pelosi and others on the Democratic left.

]]>
The origin and empirical truth of such a narrative is unclear and the evidence unconvincing as far as its being shared by great swaths of the electorate, even if one is obsessed by the whip-lash-inducing polling now generated by virtually every institution in the society except the Subway sandwich shop on the corner. Yes, Obama's support is down from his inauguration.

But the decline is not even in the same universe as those of some past presidents, notably Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, seven months into their presidencies, as the Times correctly notes, albeit long after the assertion of a "struggling presidency."

Indeed, the paper concedes, "his overall standing with the public is still healthy." It is. Check the figures and, by almost all key indices, his standing overall and with various groups is in sync with the support he received on Election Day last November.

Now, go and check any vaguely similar polling pertaining to a truly beleaguered political species: the nation's governors and mayors.

With Congress willing to write virtually any check, Obama need not really worry about layoffs, fixing potholes, canceling orders for new public buses or closing mental health centers. You haven't heard Obama announce furlough days at the Department of Education or the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Such announcements, and accountability, are the province of the mayors and governors; two-legged dartboards for all of us frustrated citizens.

They're on the front lines, as opposed to most legislators, even if those legislators are members of the Senate's exalted "Gang of Six," apparent arbiters of our medical futures. Go check the polling on the elected officials in your political backyards forced to make people very angry these days amid a free fall in revenue. Many would crave to have Ocala's modest polling erosion.

It explains why the one constant topic at the barbecue across the street was jobs. It wasn't just the formal unemployment figures, but tales of friends and family forced to work part-time, or even some who've given up looking at the moment and thus don't show up, either, in the formal data. In a state like Illinois, that reality surely would jack up the real unemployment numbers into the mid-teens.

Does Obama have some reason to worry? Sure. But he seems a guy of good discipline, with some rather astute folks around him who know that the current downtick does not carry any inherent inevitability. If the economy is still in the tank a year from now, yes, they've got real troubles and the near certainty of losing a bunch of chums in Congress.

But, for now, many Americans will check out a parade, grab a hot dog somewhere and prepare those backpacks for school Tuesday. Monday will bring work to the White House, with hands on deck to offer tactical and editing wisdom for his health care speech Wednesday. For the rest of us, far from the D.C. echo chamber, there's a final day of holiday rest before returning to our real collective narrative, a crappy economy.

In a Small Michigan Town, Even Meryl Streep Has To Cool Her Heels Amid a Small Act of Decency

2009-08-13T15:48:14Z

Charlevoix, MI.---This is a town of fewer than 3,000 people, and it includes a dinky and charming movie theater with three small screens. After the previews preceding Julie&Julia the other night, the manager surfaced, the lights went back on and an unusual announcement came:

"Ladies and gentlemen, there are three cars parked right in front of Oleson's [a food market] in the lot across the street, and they're going to be towed if they're there much longer. So I just ask if the owners can move them somewhere else in the lot, then we can start the movie."

In Chicago or New York, it's safe to say that his counterpart wouldn't lift a finger even if he or she saw a small army of gang bangers breaking windshields, hot wiring the vehicles and brazenly heading down the avenue.]]>
There was no grousing among the 40 or so left behind. No big city egos on display. Of course, it would be hard to take issue with a manager (a politics maven who clearly devours MSNBC and recently simultaneously gave me my change and asked about Sarah Palin) whose daily, recorded message on the theater phone line is so informally alluring:

"Julie&Julia is here. Very popular, especially with middle-aged and older folks...G.I. Joe is for a younger audience, action packed adventure, no sensuality...Funny People, the raucous comedy, stars Adam Sandler....Thanks for calling. Air conditioning's on. Come on down."

And, would you believe, as we waited, there was apparently no cell phone calls or texting. People just talked among themselves until their fellow patrons made it back, the lights went down and wondrous Meryl Streep belatedly appeared on screen. Of course, the penchant to equate small-town America with the idyllic can be exaggerated. The local weekly paper, after all, informed me of the following that same day:

--A 19-year-old was sentenced to a year in jail for an attempted home invasion. --A 44-year-old man was sentenced to 270 days in jail for receiving and concealing stolen property of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000.

--A resident reported damage to a neighbor's dock, hoist and vessel at around 2 a.m. "It was thought that the striking vessel must have been damaged severely as well and could have easily sunk nearby."

There's no sign of the vessel. Residents who might have information on this apparent hit-and-run boating fracas are asked to contact authorities. Small-town decency clearly has its limits.

(Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/papalars/2973245705)

What do you get for a $15,000 dinner with the President? Try crab cakes, baseball highlights and a chance to debate the Honduran coup

2009-07-24T04:55:04Z

President Obama's perfect, four-hour homecoming Thursday included exulting in a Chicago White Sox no-hitter and raising around $3 million. But what was in it for your garden variety rich American?

Well, at the North Side home of Penny Pritzker, a close Obama chum and super fundraiser, there was a large, if culinarily unimaginative, early-evening buffet dinner, according to resourceful Mike Flannery, a reporter for Chicago's WBBM-TV and the best political journalist in town.

A highly-placed kitchen source told Mike that the buffet for the 100 attendees included rack of lamb, beef tenderloin; Ahi tuna; crab cakes; mushroom tart; lobster and shrimp jambalaya; flat breads with chutney and goat cheese; and rice crackers and seaweed salad.

]]> Mike, a cerebral Georgetown University graduate, will admit to not being a potential contestant on Bravo's "Top Chef." But my Pulitzer Prize-winning wife, a bonafide ace cook, sniffed that it sounded "like a buffet at Houlihan's." Ouch. That's a decidedly uninspired downtown restaurant that's a slight improvement over T.G.I Friday's. Then, again, she studied cooking in Paris.

As for dessert, it included tea cookies; fruit finger tarts; chocolate mousse; mini-cheesecakes; strawberries and blueberries; and chocolate éclair. Again, it wasn't Alinea, a nearby restaurant deemed the best in

America

by Gourmet magazine. But so what?

"You don't spend $15,000 for dinner," said Norman Bender, a plumbing magnate from Woodbridge, Conn., among guests who came from across the land and, in one case, London. "We got to speak to the President of the

United States

But before you did, you apparently had to watch highlights prepared for Obama of that afternoon's rare perfect game pitched by White Sox star Mark Buehrle. Obama, if you didn't know, is a Sox diehard. But since there was at least one woman who came all the way from London, I could only wonder about perhaps being a cricket fan and paying $15,000 to see the President, only to face the obligation of watching video of a sport you had no clue about.

Regardless, folks did have a chance to speak to, and have a picture taken with, Obama. And, at least in one case, there was the opportunity to exhibit some nerve.

The interview wound up on the cutting room floor due to time constraints but Flannery did buttonhole Chicagoan Sheldon Baskin, who indicated that he'd confronted Obama on U.S. criticism of the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. If you recall, Obama was very public and immediate in justifiably denouncing the action as illegal.

So that meant Baskin was making an argument for the coup?

At that point that Flannery raised his own assumption, the lady at Baskin's side interrupted. "Shelly, Shelly, don't talk about it!" she apparently declared.

But, wait. So how did the President respond, Baskin was asked.

"He disagreed," Baskin said.

Obama spent about 90 minutes at the apparently gorgeous Pritzker house before heading to a less intimate hotel fundraiser, then back to Washington. But he clearly reinforced the loyalty at the economic apex of his political base. What can be the reflexive journalistic penchant to ooh and aah over a $15,000 price of entry was dismissed by plumbing magnate Bender.

"Nobody in there was spending the college fund," he reported.

Of course, curmudgeons and Blue Dog Democrats would probably get dyspeptic over such distribution of funds on anything.

Now, if Obama, Rahm Emanuel et al. can only be as efficient in dealing with the Blue Dogs on health care as Buehrle was with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (dispatched in a wonderfully brief two hours and three minutes), there's hope for success on that front.

Of course, the growing Washington conventional wisdom is that Obama has played his cards wrong on health care. Relax. It's early. The D.C. echo chamber is running amok.

Hey, a left-hander selected in the 38^th round of the baseball draft in 1998, meaning his prospects were slim to none, pitched his second no-hitter Thursday.

(Photo: Pete Souza/Official Presidential Portrait)

Sex Degrees of Separation: The Fight for Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat

2009-07-21T14:45:02Z

When it comes to Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat, the movie might be called "Sex Degrees of Separation."

Admittedly, the nation's cable-fueled interest in Illinois politics expectedly waned after the resignation of Gov. Rod Blagojevich; his wife's exit as a contestant on a reality TV show; and the announcement by truth-challenged Roland Burris, the well-meaning mediocrity selected to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, that he won't run for a full term next year.

So now the race is a total muddle with only one sure thing: moderate Republican congressman Mark Kirk, who announced his candidacy Sunday, is supported by his newly ex-wife. This does serve as a reminder of the complexity of passions linked to this seat.

]]> Mark and Kimberly Vertolli-Kirk, an attorney and graduate of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, met while they were on intelligence duty at the Pentagon. And she did live with him for a period after he won the suburban Chicago seat long ago held by Donald Rumsfeld. But then she returned fulltime to Virginia in 2006. Several months ago, they were divorced.

Thus, one had to do a double-take Monday, especially given the recent sex scandals involving prominent Republicans Mark Sanford and John Ensign, when Kirk's formal announcement included a cameo appearance by his now ex-wife. In a move worthy of the late Michael Deaver, Ronald Reagan's stagecraft director, or more recent political maestros such as David Axelrod, she surfaced briefly from Kirk's childhood home, leaned over his should and announced, "I support him 100 percent. He'll make a great senator," then departed, no questions taken. Cecil B. DeMille would have been proud.

What is it about this Senate seat?

For those who don't know or recall, Obama's 2004 run for the position was rife with broken and disputed affairs of the heart. Blair Hull, a moneybags Democrat whom some saw as the favorite to win the nomination, imploded for various reasons, including word that the woman who was both his ex-wife No. 2 and No. 3 had taken out an order of protection against him. That prompted ex-wife No. 1 to rally to his defense, indicating he'd been great with the children.

Then the seemingly alluring Republican nominee, charismatic investment banker Jack Ryan, went down in flames when his divorce records revealed having taken his actress-wife to New York sex clubs.

Now we have Kirk, the source of much distrust among diehard conservatives. Already there's been whispering, most recent on a Chicago radio station, about the extent to which he represents "family values."

In sum, folks raise doubts about the marriage, and lack of children, and, ah, well, you can guess what Kirk is going to face. Do not bet how this will turn out.

A British Lesson for American Media: Just Say No to Boring

2009-07-21T12:27:13Z

LONDON -- The American print industry, both newspapers and magazines, is convulsed by an eroding business model, notably with advertising in free fall, and with executives scrambling to belatedly mull alternatives. Most notably, there's the inspection of different models of charging for online content.

At the end of a quickie trek to a nephew's wedding in Cambridge, and with unceasing rain allowing too many hours of newspaper consumption, I'm also reminded about a frequent self-inflicted wound back home: Too many of our papers tend to be a snooze.

]]> Not all, but many, and surely a higher percentage than one finds over here, regardless of whether one's scanning aggressively low-brow tabloids or higher-end broadsheets.

The Sunday Independent, which is the slightly-larger-than-tab size known as a Berliner, was a very rich potpourri on the state of manned space exploration tied to the Apollo 11 anniversary; lots of good analysis of the political travails of stumbling Prime Minister Gordon Brown; a tough assessment of the state of progress on London's preparations for the 2012 Summer Olympics, with evidence that much ballyhooed projects for London's poor aren't panning out; an investigation on asbestos in school buildings; a very harsh account of how defense spending cuts are really hurting Britain's efforts in Afghanistan; and lots of lighter but not silly fare on why Britain has so few successful female comedians. And, yes, there was lot of utilitarian fare on bargains and movies and TV shows.

Along the way, it covered all the previous day's news, mostly vividly underscored by the baffling (to me) obsession with cricket and, no surprise, the weekend fascination with American golfer Tom Watson's quest to turn back the clock and win the British Open (one tab's Monday morning edition included a rollicking column by a curmudgeon, declaring that the mere fact Watson, 59, almost won was the ultimate proof that golf isn't a real sport).

All in all, the Independent was a fun read, with much that was responsibly provocative, and I exited after a nearly 90-minute dissection without a sense I'd just engaged dutifully in some homework assignment. It was just informing and entertaining. Back home, we newspaper guys tend to get nervous with the entertainment quest, seeing that as potentially minimizing an air of authority, and have a devil of a time having fun in a smart, sophisticated way. When it comes to being truly fun, we're a bit repressed, consumed by honorable notions of balance and don't have the courage of our darker impulses. We tend to leave the really lighter or odder explorations of topics to our online versions (which, in the case of the New York Times, is now a richly more robust source than the print edition I reflexively devour each morning in Chicago).

Even Monday, a thin gruel of mostly weekend leftovers for most American papers, provided ample engaging material. Indeed, yesterday's Times of London free-standing features section (Times2) grabbed me by the nipples with a full-page close-up shot of a baby breastfeeding (one can envision dyspeptic U.S. editors holding multiple meetings just on the image), then made a strong case (not entirely new) that women worldwide are conned by the purported benefits of breastfeeding. The supposed ills of formula-feeding (fatter, dumber, more diabetic kids, etc.) is folderol, this argued, with some very solid questions raised about the premises of many breastfeeding studies.

"The problem with the studies is that it is very hard to separate the benefits of the mother's milk from the benefits of the kind of mother who chooses to breastfeed. In the U K, for example, the highest class of women is 60 percent more likely to breastfeed than the lowest, so it is not surprising that research shows that breastfed infants display all the health and educational benefits they were born into.

"In other words, breastfeeding studies could simply be showing what it's like to grow up in a family that makes an effort to be healthy and responsible, as opposed to anything positive in breast milk."

There was far more in Rupert Murdoch's flagship yesterday and, despite my smarty-pants friends' condescension toward what "HE's done to The Times," I found it informative and fun.

And, as we've known forever, they do tab far better over here. "Kate, her drug-dealing millionaire uncle and a deeply embarrassing episode for the royals" was the hard-to-escape headline on Monday's tab Daily Mail, giving me some juicy tale about the family of Prince William's lady friend. And, inside, I also immediately confronted nearly a full-page image of the potbelly of rocker Bryan Ferry, 63, sunning on an Italian beach with his publicist squeeze, who's27. It was all big and bold and unabashed slumming.

And, in the end, also gave me slight pause about the American obsession with niches. I know few smart executives or media observers who will not wax funereal when it comes to the general interest publication. Indeed, Michael Wolff, sharp media writer for Vanity Fair, brings this all up in an August issue's profile of the Washington-based political site, Politico. He harkens to 1993 comments by author Michael Crichton to the effect that newspapers were imperiled since they were dumb and aimed at general, not specific, interests.

Politico is seen as a symbol of the turn to specific interests. But I couldn't help leaving with a slightly different impression after consuming five and six papers here each day; namely that perhaps there's still a way to pull off a product whose premise includes what tends to be the variety of our personal interests.

We've been addicted to segmentation, including the mandates of marketers who hawk the need to segment all of us as consumers. But there's an inherent fallacy in that worldview and forgets what can be our comically eclectic impulses. The guy who goes to church may like fancy clothes or cars, reality television shows, a drive-time shock radio host and both the Economist and People magazines. He may go for Beethoven, U-2 and Politico.com.

So perhaps the trick is not going niche for niche's sake. Perhaps one can be provocative, smart and general interest at the same time. Hey, I read every word Monday about Prince William's girlfriend's wayward family, Tom Watson's brush with immortality, the British army's distinct shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan, and, yes, the supposed myths of breastfeeding. And I found it all rather fun, too. Thank you, Brits.

Sonia Sotomayor and the charade of the empty vessel: How naive are we?

2009-07-14T17:04:08Z

As the well-orchestrated hearing for Sonya Sotomayor hit the luncheon break Tuesday afternoon, replete with righteous pontificating so often disguised as rigorous inquiry by onetime lawyers on the Senate panel, one again viewed the Charade of the Empty Vessel.

The political strategy for any nominee who appears before the Judiciary Committee is crystal clear: Say as little as possible about your actual views of cases or your personal opinions. Of course, you should be prepared to be overtly contrite about controversial minutiae, specifically Tuesday morning hyperventilating over the now legendary "wise Latina" remark.

But why not? What about being open and candid about your views?

]]> Imagine being a friend who was on vacation with Sotomayor. "Sonya, what do you think about cameras in the courtroom?" the friend might declare between sips of a Club Med pina colada.

"Sally, it's a question that I'm sure I'd offer my views on if the issue comes up before the court," responds Sotomayor at poolside. "And I certainly think that a new gal on the block might bring a different pair of eyes to the topic."

"Oh, Sonya, pass the suntan lotion and, please, tell me what you actually think about cameras in the courtroom? Hell, we're on vacation!" Sally again inquires.

"Sally, it's an interesting issue and I would, in a collegial fashion, certainly engage in discussion about the matter if it comes up. Should we order a couple of cheeseburgers from that hunk over there?"

That's essentially what Sotomayor said Tuesday to an inquiry from Sen. Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin. She ducked the entire matter, one of the lower-priority topics she confronted. What's the big deal about stating the obvious, namely the Luddite aversion to cameras by the highest court in the land?

I know lots of judges. I have socialize with them and realize, Republican or Democrat, they have distinct opinions and articulate them to me. At a lunch with one federal judge a few months ago, I got his take on lots of interesting matters, ranging from mobsters on trial to the competence of certain colleagues. Ditto with a state judge recently. The latter left few doubts about her personal views on lots of matters relevant to her jurisdiction.

But I don't for a moment doubt those judges' ability to put all their personal views generally aside in assessing particular dispute. Hey, just take a look at the often opinionated public declarations of Richard Posner, the brainy conservative federal appeals judge in Chicago who is a fellow correspondent in this space. He's the same guy whom President Obama once tagged as the judge he'd most like to argue before because, Obama asserted, he'd give him the fairest shake.

"We're not robots," Sotomayor said at one point Tuesday, trying to make the point that her past would make her more open-minded, not less.

But why does the culture of the Supreme Court nomination process almost insist that the nominee leave the illusion that he or she is precisely that, a robot?

The rough justice of American politics: Senator Roland Burris exits, anonymity beckons

2009-07-11T13:14:08Z

Roland Burris, please meet Ralph Tyler Smith.

While waiting for a prosecutor friend in the Everett Dirksen Federal Building in downtown Chicago Friday, I noticed the small dedication plaque in the lobby. It indicated that the Mies van der Rohe-designed structure was actually rededicated in 1970 to honor the legendary U.S. Senator from Illinois after his death the year before. The only other person mentioned is U.S. Sen. Ralph T. Smith, who was in attendance that day.

I googled to find out that Smith was an Illinois Republican legislator who was appointed to fill Dirksen's seat and served all of 14 months before losing a special election. So perhaps the rededication was one of the highlights of his Senate career. I did not know his name.

An hour or so later, my friends at MSNBC called to ask if I could shortly opine on Burris' imminent public announcement that he would not seek a full six-year term after his controversial appointment by then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill President Obama's Senate seat. My prosecutor chum and I were nearly finished with our Chinese dim sum, so I said sure.

]]> I can be a bit of a problem for TV producers since I occasionally blab a bit too long. Friday there was no such threat. In picking the brain of my luncheon companion, as well as a political reporter chum, it was clear that the Burris decision was simple: No money, no credibility, no White House support. Brevity was my lone alternative.

It was thus a bit ironic to hear Burris then opine about the duress of fundraising, and how he would have to choose between doing the people's business in the Senate and raising significant sums just to run for election.

"Political races have become far too expensive in this country," Burris declared. He then added, "In making this decision I was called to choose between spending my time raising funds or spending my time raising issues for my state."

Please, Roland, don't assume we're all that naive.

Ultimately, his problem was not an unfair burden to raise many millions of dollars for a full-fledged primary and general election campaign next year. His problem was that he couldn't raise more than a few dimes, given the inept handling of his selection and his subsequent tall tales about his dealings with Blagojevich. He beat a perjury investigation, yes, but he still left the distinct impression that he'd been lying about that relationship.

So there'll probably be a wide-open Senate race for Obama's seat and, for sure, money will be important. Indeed, one can almost hear the sounds of the 32-year-old state treasurer, the irrepressibly ambitious and seemingly impatient Alexi Giannoulias, telling one and all, especially reporters, about his mounting war chest and all his supposed support from the White House. His track record, mostly in the family banking business, was thin and he was largely elected because of exploiting his ties to Obama (they were basketball-playing chums back in Chicago). But things are a long way off and he could win, maybe even serve "the people" well.

The White House preference had apparently been the state treasurer, Lisa Madigan, but she opted out last week, apparently in part due to a laudable skepticism about real estate prices, private school tuitions and just living in Washington. It's likely that she would have squashed Burris and Giannloulias like bugs in a Democratic primary, then done same with any Republican opponent.

As for Burris, he'll be able to spend his post-political years (he's actually not won an election since 1990) by being called "Senator," which his healthy ego will love. And he'll probably make sure that the moniker is engraved on the mausoleum he's already built for himself in Chicago's Oak Woods Cemetery.

If he's lucky, maybe we'll remember him a bit longer than Ralph T. Smith. If not, so be it. There's a rough justice for political losers.

The black, white and brown of retirement savings: New study underscores perilous racial and ethnic differences

2009-07-07T11:28:52Z

African-Americans and Hispanics confront the near certainty of sharply reduced retirement savings than whites and Asian Americans because they participate less in 401(k) plans and are more likely to withdraw money from them when they do, according to a study of racial and ethnic disparities in savings and investing behavior.

A provocative study of about three million Americans, mostly employed at Fortune 500 companies, is being unveiled Tuesday and was overseen by Chicago's Ariel Education Initiative and Hewitt Associates, a prominent benefits processing and consulting firm. It was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Titled, "401(k) Plans in Living Color: A Study of 401(k) Savings Disparities Across Racial and Ethnic Groups--The Ariel/Hewitt Study," it can be found at www.arielinvestments.com or www.hewitt.com.

As notable as the actual data appear to be, the study underscores a more fundamental reality, namely what has been the rather rapid shift to individual initiative and responsibility when it comes to dealing with retirement savings. Critical questions, such as whether one is saving enough or the impact of inflation on savings, simply can't wait until a worker is actually retired. Ignorance and inattention can be devastating, and may well prove to be for many minorities.

]]>

Ariel Education Initiative is a nonprofit arm of Ariel Investments, a very successful fund manager, whose president, Mellody Hobson, said in a formal release, "401(k) plans are

now the primary way Americans save for their golden years. Most are unaware there are significant savings disparities in 401(k) plans across racial and ethnic groups. This study reveals important differences that must be addressed if retirement security is to be a reality for all Americans."

The central explanations for the marked disparities, especially for African Americans, appear to include their suspicion of investing, especially in equities; a simple lack of experience; a tendency to take on greater loans than they can really afford; a generally higher rate of seeking hardship withdrawals from their 401 (k) plans; and a tendency to save less because they have less to save and confront competing obligations.

According to the study, 66 percent of African-American workers and 65 percent of Hispanic workers participate in the defined contribution plans offered by their companies, compared to 77 percent of whites and 76 percent of Asians. That disparity persists even after one accounts for age and income, it concludes, while African-Americans and Hispanics contributing at far lower rates than whites or Asians.

The study finds that, among the universe of those who save, whites contribute

7.9 percent of their income, compared to 6.3 percent and 6 percent for Hispanics and African-Americans, respectively, with Asians showing the distinctly highest contribution rate among all groups, at 9.4 percent. Lower contribution rates obviously prompt lower account balances. Examples cited in the study:

When it comes to employees who earn between $30,000 and $59,999, the following average 401(k) account balances were discerned: African-Americans ($21,224), Hispanics ($22,017), Asians ($32,590), and whites ($35,551). Divergences were found at far higher salary levels, with African-American workers who earn $120,000 or more saving an average of $154,902 in their 401(k) plans compared to $223,408 for white workers in that salary range.

One of several behavioral differences involves the attitude toward investing in the stock market, with African-Americans more wary of doing same. According to the study, they invested 66 percent of their 401(k) assets in the market, while whites, Asians and Hispanics invested 72 percent, 73 percent and 70 percent, respectively. The study highlighted those rates, given its assumption that "employees with long-term time horizons should have a significant amount of their assets invested in equities," given the traditionally strong performance of the market.

Similarly, African-Americans were found to be more inclined to take out a loan and far more likely to take a hardship withdrawal from their 401(k) plans. About 40 percent of African-American workers and nearly a third of Hispanic workers borrowed from their

retirement accounts, compared to about 20 percent of white workers. Asian workers were less likely than all to take out such a loan, with fewer than 20 percent doing so.

The study offers several recommendations. They include urging employers to voluntarily collect and report 401(k) data by race and ethnicity; changing government rules and thus trying to decrease defaults by lengthening the amount of a time a terminating worker can pay off a loan; teaching financial literacy in schools; and simply doing a better job in communicating with and educating workers.

Some of those proposals seem so very simple and obvious. But one does wonder, for example, whether the public education system would be able to oblige, given the many mandates it now has for teaching various subjects so kids can be prepared for various tests. Further, will employers, under the gun in a lousy economy and obsessed with the near term, find it in their self-interest to carve out time to intelligently communicate investment fundamentals to workers?

Regardless, it's a fascinating topic and the lengthy treatments at www.arielinvestments.com and www.hewitt.com are worth checking out.

It was ALMOST like my beating Tiger Woods: The U.S. ALMOST beats Brazil in soccer

2009-06-28T20:41:10Z

The United States on Sunday barely lost, 3-2, to legendary Brazil in soccer.

It came in a relatively inconsequential tournament in South Africa. But a soccer-crazy planet was surely stunned after a first half in which the low-rated U.S. was winning, 2-0. And it was all the more telling since we'd reached Sunday's tournament final by stunning the current best team in the world, Spain.

If you don't know soccer, and maybe don't really care a whole lot, our beating both Spain and Brazil would be a surprise akin to Ron Paul winning the Republican presidential nomination last year. Or Rahm Emanuel being named new boss of the Mormon Church. Or the White House putting some guy from the nearest Jiffy Lube in charge of General Motors Corp.

]]>

As for it being akin to 18-handicap me topping Woods, that's imprecise and even strained. Indeed, what Sunday underscored is the vagaries of team play. In many sports, the best team doesn't necessarily win on a given day. The team with the best players can be upended by lesser opponents who might, for an hour or two, exhibit more cohesion and desire and, perhaps, be helped by some luck.

The Americans do not have a single player who could start for Brazil or Spain, with the very possible exception of our goalie. Indeed, we probably don't have a player who could start for any of the top 30 or so club teams in the world.

But on Sunday we labored hard and scored a somewhat lucky initial goal when one of our guys perfectly redirected a pass into the far corner of the Brazilian goal. He could probably try that 50 times and not do it again. A second goal, by our best player, plucky Landon Donovan (who couldn't make it in the German league a few years back), was truly cool and impressive.

Could lightning strike twice in the second tournament?

At halftime, I called Cape Code to discuss matters with my college soccer coach, Peter Gooding, the retired Amherst College soccer coach and athletic director. He warned me that the Brazilians would come storming out in the second half and we'd best beware. While we were on the phone, a minute into the second half, Brazil scored.

They proceeded to overwhelm us with superior technical skill and creativity. They not only tied the game quickly but got screwed out of a third goal in a sport without our beloved instant replay. Then, they scored the winner, all the while showing their characteristic panache and artistry.

When they're on, Brazil is like Michael Jackson's "Moon Walk on grass.

We're skilled mechanics. The Brazilians are great musicians. And we almost won.

Darn!!

America shocks the world Wednesday. But it's got nothing to do with Mark Sanford

2009-06-24T20:27:21Z

The United States national soccer team stunned the soccer-loving planet by upsetting the best team in the World, Spain, and ending Spain's amazing streak of 35 consecutive games without a loss, including 15 straight wins.

No matter how convulsed some here may be by Mark Sanford's tale of his distinctly foreign adventure, nothing will match the horror in Madrid, Barcelona and other capitals around the world. The U.S. beat Spain?! For sure, it was in a tournament in South Africa without any real consequences. It wasn't like we won at the World Cup, the once-every-four years of soccer.

But it was a big stage, nevertheless, and came after we were abysmal in defeats to Italy and Brazil, only luckily qualifying for this game by defeating Egypt as Italy was demolished by Brazil.

I wrote here that we were boys among men after those first two games. I now happily eat red, white and blue crow. We may not have a single player good enough to start for Spain's team but we actually performed as a team and, on this South African night, were better. I'm sorry Mark Sanford didn't have nearly as good a day.

Kodachrome, the lush and seductive colors of our lives, dies at 74. Why we should mourn.

2009-06-23T04:43:42Z

Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday that it's bidding farewell to Kodachrome, its oldest and the first commercially successful film. At first, it seemed like another moment to engage in brief, Pavlovian nostalgia of the rotary telephone or monophonic record album sort.

There were pro forma histories of the film and mention of its invention by two young musicians; its early use by Hollywood; how sales are just a smidgen of Kodak's total sales; and how it's so difficult to process that only one joint in Switzerland and one in Kansas handle the film.

Then I wondered: Might this be different? Is there be a reason to be sad, even in this wondrous digital age in which hacks like me can stumble onto a great image, perhaps quickly juice it up and, then, voila, send it to every village and hamlet on the globe (not to mention CNN or MSNBC)?

]]> So I beckoned the smartest photography person I know, Mary Panzer, former curator of photographs at the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, in Washington.

Mary, please, tell photo-ignorant me, who never graduated past his Instamatic, what to think.

"It's not like getting misty -eyed about mono records, rotary phones, or black and white television," she said. Indeed, we're losing two things.

First, there's the quality of Kodachrome images, whether in the form of Super 8 movies or 35mm slides. "Kodachrome delivers a very distinctive range of colors (intense, saturated, slightly tilted to red and green), and a smooth grainless surface that simply looks more luscious than real life. And all thanks to the fact that someone interrupted the seamless flow of time and sealed it onto a little square piece of plastic in a cardboard mount (or onto a roll of film in a little round can)."

"Kodachrome is like make-up for the world, lips are redder, and eyelashes blacker, trees are greener, and fall colors are best of all, but no one cares that it all doesn't look quite real, because everything and everyone looks so beautiful."

"It doesn't look real, but it definitely looks like Kodachrome."

So, if you're looking for hot and seductive, nothing beats it, she contends. Of course, it's not perfect. "Ektachrome give you the feeling of daylight, cool and quiet, a refreshing drink of water rather than a heady glass of champagne. And Ektachrome is still around, at least for the present."

So, I guess, we can root for Ektachrome; much as we do for some aging star athlete still capable of the occasional grand moment. But, quickly, back to Kodachrome.

"The more important loss has to do with film itself. The rolls of plastic sealed in little cans with the tab sticking out, cut with sprocket holes that you loaded into the back of the camera, and then shut the camera and kept it shut, until you finish the roll, rewind it, and send the film out to be developed," Panzer says.

" When the film comes back, little squares stacked in a bright yellow box, you see your pictures. Eventually gadgets and pre-loaded cassettes came along to prevent us from making mistakes, like opening the back and ruining everything, failing to wind the film through the camera, shooting one frame over and over, exposing frames twice (I'm dating myself to confess that I have done all of this more than once). But the essential process remained the same: when you shoot film you can't see what you've shot until you finish the roll, send it off, and get it back."

"To get the picture you want on film you have to concentrate, be quick, be patient, and trust your instincts. I saw a little movie about the photographer Henri Cartier Bresson, in which the filmmaker followed him down the street while he was working. (It was not clear whether HCB knew the camera was on, but even so the performance was convincing.) HCB was like a dancer, moving along the sidewalk, snapping the shutter with reflexes that were almost as quick as a bird of prey. The victim never knew he'd been shot. "

Now, Mary, Our Lady of the Holy Image, tell us about digital cameras.

"Today, shooting with a digital camera offers some advantages --- you never have to run out of film. And you can see what the picture looks right away, no waiting. But when you shoot, stop, look, and shoot again, a different rhythm sets in. No momentum builds up, and you never have to trust your judgment. "

"With film you never knew you'd lost that key moment until you found out what the film looked like. But now, you might lose it while inspecting the shot that didn't work."

"I know that digital images can travel around the world in astonishingly brief intervals of time, and that for many reasons time is now our most precious resource. But in exchange for speed it seems to me that we're losing the ability to concentrate, wait, and seize the chance."

And that, folks, is why one might get a bit misty-eyed.Very soon, you'll even have a hard time showing folks what they're missing since the whole shebang of a medium will be gone. Yes, you'll have the actual photos, slides and movies. But there won't really be anybody around who knows how to recreate them.

For the moment, just don't ask me to say, "Cheese!" This is reason to mourn.