When faced with the task of finding two essays that are of interest to me, I immediately turned to my favorite columnist of all-time, Mike Royko (may he rest in peace). Royko wrote editorials for the Chicago Tribune, Sun Times, and Daily News for thirty years. He was beloved by many Chicagoans for his wit, casual sarcasm, and powerful knack for delivering an often blunt truth. I'm not entirely sure that an editorial qualifies as an essay, but Royko definitely has an opinion on the life and career of Mayor Daley, so I feel it satisfies the requirements.
In order to appreciate this essay, one must first understand the character that was Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago. Living his whole life in the heavily Irish Bridgeport Neighborhood, Daley served as mayor of Chicago from 1955-76. During that career, he initiated countless public works projects within the city, but was also famous for sometimes overstepping his authority or over-enforcing Chicago law. Daley governed one of the most politically corrupt, segregated, and ethnically diverse cities in the nation, and Royko captures the man, politician, and father of Richard J. Daley flawlessly.
Royko's tribute is a little rough around the edges, but then again, so was Daley, and so was Chicago. His unique way of describing some of Daley's characteristics had me laughing to myself as I read the column. When poking fun at Daley's often ungrammatical, inappropriate, or jumbled language, Royko writes, "So when Daley slid sideways into a sentence, or didn't exit from the same paragraph he entered, it amused us. But it didn't sound that different than the way most of us talk." That type of journalism is what made Royko famous.
The essay tells of Mayor Daley at his best and at his worst. One point Royko makes especially made me think. While Daley may not have always done what was in the best interest of morality, progress, or (some would argue) the Constitution, his actions were appropriate in the eyes of the average Chicagoan, if not outsiders. That made a lot of sense to me. Daley may not have always been a master of political correctness, but he was a master of representing his constituents.
The article was extremely amusing, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Sadly, gone are the days of Richard J. Daley, and gone are the days of Mike Royko, but this article was a happy, humorous reminder of both.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Theodore Rex
Edmund Morris captures the essence of Theodore Roosevelt better than I'm any other biographer could attempt to do, I'm sure. Although being extremely in depth (over 550 pages), Theodore Rex never once approaches "boring." Morris writes of one of my favorite presidents like a fiction book, with so much description that one could imagine the scenes quite vivedly. Aside from having started reading a little late and struggling to squeeze the whole book in by the end of the summer, I found reading this biography to satisfy my love for history.
While Morris deserves much credit for his imaculate storytelling, the book reads so easily moreso based on the fact that Roosevelt was one of the most interestingly childish presidents we've ever had. The President, at any time during his seven and a half years in the white house, could be found playing tennis against members of his Administration, trekking about the Rocky Mountains, bear hunting in Arkansas, or sparring with his jujitsu trainer. The impression I recieved of Roosevelt was that he was a giant ball of energy; every thing he did was punctuated with hearty shouts of "Bully, bully!" After a long succession of corrupt, stagnant presidents, Roosevelt was an accidental breath of fresh air that ultimately propelled the country infinantly forward.
The book is split into two sections, his first term and his second. Opening dramatically with President McKinley's assassination, Theodore Rex begins with "Teddy's" inheiritance of the White House and continues to recount the numerous acheivements the young president can be accredited with. These include setting a precedent by inviting Booker T. Washington to a private White House dinner, building up a sleek new navy and parading them about the Pacific, mediating an anthracite mining labor dispute, defending the Monroe Doctrine in the Venezuelan affair, pushing a Cuban reciprocity bill through Congress, securing Panama for canal construction, and appointing several African Americans to federal offices. This was just his first term.
Roosevelt's personality and character at times almost overshaddowed his accolades. He was exceptionally well read and had an obvious thirst for historical perspective in dealing with the activity of his day. Moral, fair, and ever advocating a "square deal" for all Americans, TR was an impassionate speaker, gnashing his teeth and pounding his fist into his palm as he delivered his epic oratories. I was absolutely captivated by the character, for it seemed Edmund Morris honestly couldn't have concieved a more attractive literary personality.
The President's second term was equally historic. He continued to prove to trusts that the federal government held power over monopolies--not the other way around. Roosevelt also started a consumer protection movement, forshaddowing the Progressive movement that would shortly follow. Abroad, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in arbitrating and bringing a Japanese-Russo conflict to compromise.
Theodore Roosevelt was a unique American president. Reading Emund Morris's Theodore Rex has only further cemented, in my mind, TR's place among the top five presidents this nation has ever had. He was a political force, an objective mind, and a go-getter all compiled into one statesman, and Theodore Rex was able to invite me into the Rooseveltian White House--a masterful biography.
While Morris deserves much credit for his imaculate storytelling, the book reads so easily moreso based on the fact that Roosevelt was one of the most interestingly childish presidents we've ever had. The President, at any time during his seven and a half years in the white house, could be found playing tennis against members of his Administration, trekking about the Rocky Mountains, bear hunting in Arkansas, or sparring with his jujitsu trainer. The impression I recieved of Roosevelt was that he was a giant ball of energy; every thing he did was punctuated with hearty shouts of "Bully, bully!" After a long succession of corrupt, stagnant presidents, Roosevelt was an accidental breath of fresh air that ultimately propelled the country infinantly forward.
The book is split into two sections, his first term and his second. Opening dramatically with President McKinley's assassination, Theodore Rex begins with "Teddy's" inheiritance of the White House and continues to recount the numerous acheivements the young president can be accredited with. These include setting a precedent by inviting Booker T. Washington to a private White House dinner, building up a sleek new navy and parading them about the Pacific, mediating an anthracite mining labor dispute, defending the Monroe Doctrine in the Venezuelan affair, pushing a Cuban reciprocity bill through Congress, securing Panama for canal construction, and appointing several African Americans to federal offices. This was just his first term.
Roosevelt's personality and character at times almost overshaddowed his accolades. He was exceptionally well read and had an obvious thirst for historical perspective in dealing with the activity of his day. Moral, fair, and ever advocating a "square deal" for all Americans, TR was an impassionate speaker, gnashing his teeth and pounding his fist into his palm as he delivered his epic oratories. I was absolutely captivated by the character, for it seemed Edmund Morris honestly couldn't have concieved a more attractive literary personality.
The President's second term was equally historic. He continued to prove to trusts that the federal government held power over monopolies--not the other way around. Roosevelt also started a consumer protection movement, forshaddowing the Progressive movement that would shortly follow. Abroad, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in arbitrating and bringing a Japanese-Russo conflict to compromise.
Theodore Roosevelt was a unique American president. Reading Emund Morris's Theodore Rex has only further cemented, in my mind, TR's place among the top five presidents this nation has ever had. He was a political force, an objective mind, and a go-getter all compiled into one statesman, and Theodore Rex was able to invite me into the Rooseveltian White House--a masterful biography.
Monday, August 30, 2010
A Vindication of the Rights of Women
After reading Wollstonecraft's essay, I was surprised I had never heard of her or her work in history class. She was extremely ahead of her time, and exceptionally thoughtful in analyzing the often sexist writings of French Revolutionary thinkers. What most impressed me about Wollstonecraft's essay was her fearlessness in stating her opinions. She often times used language that must have infuriated most men, and her essays were surely an important part of an early feminist movement.
Early in her essay, Wollstonecraft points out that women are taught from an early age that they are supposed to be gentle, amusing, and obedient of their husbands. The author primarily objects to this limited gender role, but also goes further to say that men employ this female characterization to enslave women, which is the basis of her essay. This was, especially for her time, a valid argument.
Wollstonecraft points out that women are deprived of a full formal education, but interestingly she argues that this, in some ways, better serves women's intelligence. Men are taught other people's ideas that are accepted as true, whereas women are left to observe and draw their own conclusions. In this fashion, men (and some women) believe that they are superior to women simply because they have been told so for generations. They fail to observe the sexes in an objective light; therefore, the accepted theory that women are inferior survives.
I was especially interested to read the author's opinion of what marriage should be. She explains that the ideal marriage is a mutual friendship, not a master-servant relationship. Wollstonecraft goes on to say that a marriage in which the spouses are best friends is a marriage that is much healthier and likely to last longer. When the women is forced to always attempt to please her husband, the relationship deteriorates. This holds true, even in present times.
On a whole, I found this essay the hardest to read, but also the most culturally significant. The dense text made the reading go much slower, but the essay was extremely forward-thinking for its time, so much so that Wollstonecraft also knew she had to convince women that they weren't inferior. We've come a long way...
Early in her essay, Wollstonecraft points out that women are taught from an early age that they are supposed to be gentle, amusing, and obedient of their husbands. The author primarily objects to this limited gender role, but also goes further to say that men employ this female characterization to enslave women, which is the basis of her essay. This was, especially for her time, a valid argument.
Wollstonecraft points out that women are deprived of a full formal education, but interestingly she argues that this, in some ways, better serves women's intelligence. Men are taught other people's ideas that are accepted as true, whereas women are left to observe and draw their own conclusions. In this fashion, men (and some women) believe that they are superior to women simply because they have been told so for generations. They fail to observe the sexes in an objective light; therefore, the accepted theory that women are inferior survives.
I was especially interested to read the author's opinion of what marriage should be. She explains that the ideal marriage is a mutual friendship, not a master-servant relationship. Wollstonecraft goes on to say that a marriage in which the spouses are best friends is a marriage that is much healthier and likely to last longer. When the women is forced to always attempt to please her husband, the relationship deteriorates. This holds true, even in present times.
On a whole, I found this essay the hardest to read, but also the most culturally significant. The dense text made the reading go much slower, but the essay was extremely forward-thinking for its time, so much so that Wollstonecraft also knew she had to convince women that they weren't inferior. We've come a long way...
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
This, for me, proved to be a slightly depressing essay. Mr. Carr's symptoms of the technologically-transformed brain, which he outlines toward the beginning of the article, most concerned me because I feel I've experienced some of them. Being born right on the cusp of the information age, I suppose I haven't truly known anything other than the Internet way of reading, but I can still say that I have a harder time maintaining focus when reading long texts than I used to. I couldn't imagine how late Baby Boomers' brains have been effected by the Internet reading style; they must be undergoing much more change than mine.
Mr. Carr explains that the Internet, with its hyperlinks and multiple-medium information, has essentially shortened our reading attention span. Over the last couple of years, our brains have been reprogrammed. They have become so accustomed to being able to access information instantly that keeping focus for traditional reading is much harder than before.
This, I would like to point out, is a difference in the way our brains now function. Mr. Carr, whether intentionally or otherwise, uses the adjective stupid in his title. While I agree with Mr. Carr that this change is not necessarily a good thing, it has nothing to do with our intelligence. Our brains are changing, not becoming stupider. I share the author's concern for the consequences of this transformation, but I resent the author's direct connection between how a brain functions and how well a brain functions.
I was most interested in the author's summary of past changes in communication styles and how they affected the way humans operate. It seems that each new invention opened a new Pandora's Box. Information would become progressively easier to access but our brain would change how it functions. This is the case with the Internet as well. Information is literally at our fingertips, and we have rapid access to it, but the trade-off is that using older methods of acquiring new information become more of a struggle.
The author sees this correlation. Mr. Carr worries about the end of the pattern more than the pattern itself. He brings up the example of Google's dream of creating a form of artificial intelligence as this end to the pattern. Carr feels that when it reaches this point, when the computer knows what information we want better than we do, we have have changed our brains too many times. At this point, the computer has become more essential to accessing information than our own brain. The author feels that the changes this would have on our brain are not worth the improved efficiency of information availability--and I would agree.
Mr. Carr explains that the Internet, with its hyperlinks and multiple-medium information, has essentially shortened our reading attention span. Over the last couple of years, our brains have been reprogrammed. They have become so accustomed to being able to access information instantly that keeping focus for traditional reading is much harder than before.
This, I would like to point out, is a difference in the way our brains now function. Mr. Carr, whether intentionally or otherwise, uses the adjective stupid in his title. While I agree with Mr. Carr that this change is not necessarily a good thing, it has nothing to do with our intelligence. Our brains are changing, not becoming stupider. I share the author's concern for the consequences of this transformation, but I resent the author's direct connection between how a brain functions and how well a brain functions.
I was most interested in the author's summary of past changes in communication styles and how they affected the way humans operate. It seems that each new invention opened a new Pandora's Box. Information would become progressively easier to access but our brain would change how it functions. This is the case with the Internet as well. Information is literally at our fingertips, and we have rapid access to it, but the trade-off is that using older methods of acquiring new information become more of a struggle.
The author sees this correlation. Mr. Carr worries about the end of the pattern more than the pattern itself. He brings up the example of Google's dream of creating a form of artificial intelligence as this end to the pattern. Carr feels that when it reaches this point, when the computer knows what information we want better than we do, we have have changed our brains too many times. At this point, the computer has become more essential to accessing information than our own brain. The author feels that the changes this would have on our brain are not worth the improved efficiency of information availability--and I would agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)