Chicago: aside from the guidebook staples (all of which are fine), I would recommend the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago for a remarkable collection of antiquities. A great recent surprise is "The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity" at the Biograph Theatre. You can google for the description. I'll just say that it's fun and sharp edged with on the money social commentary. Harry Carey's is a good place to eat. There are lots of good places to eat. If you have the time, there's an all day boat tour of the waterfront, Calumet Harbor, and the canals connecting to the Chicago River that will take you back in time to the grittier industrial phase and return you to a unique view of the skyline and under the downtown bridges to the Michigan Avenue mooring. Enroute, you pass the original plant that produced Cheerios as well as a variety of steel producers and folks fishing for small mouth bass, among other things.
IT and litigation: the efficiency of information gathering and storage has streamlined complex litigation in ways I wouldn't have imagined back in the day. Something that some modern practitioners seem to forget, however, is that it's still necessary to read, analyze, and figure out how to use the information collected. Electronic gadgets have made it possible to put on sophisticated dog and pony shows for judge or jury as in accident reconstruction, for example. Interestingly, however, depending on the subject, blackboards, marker on paper, and other such old fashioned devices can be equally effective. The question always is what best helps the decider to understand one's position and contentions. The biggest change, it seems to me, is the ease of document production, be it reports, briefs, or whatever. Then too, there is the fun of watching Bill Gates get tortured on cross examination from the content of his own emails. The old advice to be careful what you write continues to be wise.
Tricks in negotiating: the best isn't a trick; it's an attitude. Listen to what your counterpart is saying and try to understand what he/she needs as opposed to wants so that you can try to figure out how to meet that need without hurting your own interest or at least minimizing the hurt. Win/win isn't always possible but damage control usually is. Be aware of your counterpart's expectations as to the process. As a contrarian example of that, I sometimes advise young lawyers seeking to actually try the case they are handling to make their best offer immediately, right up front, in the expectation that their opponent will never believe there isn't more. When tried, it usually works. Of course, one needs one's client's permission to do this since the client may prefer to settle and that preference has to be honored.
The Constitution: I'd like to see a requirement for the executive and it's cabinet officers to have to appear regularly before a joint session of Congress to answer questions from the members much like "answer day" in Britain's Parliament. I've never been comfortable with the 2d Amendment but would not like to eliminate it entirely. I'd like to have some version or interpretation that would allow strict controls over the use and accessibility of weapons while still allowing ownership but I acknowledge the difficulty in accomplishing that. I would prohibit the filibuster. I'll probably think of something else.
Anthropology: I'm interested in the earliest discernible roots of human history and culture; the where did we come from anyway question that would include the biology of evolution as well as the development of cultural patterns. The latter first got my attention when, in high school, I read the abridged "The Golden Bough" by Frazer and got an inkling of the connectedness of human myths and practices. I'm not sure I'd write a dissertation. It's a lot of work. I'd rather audit the course and please myself with whatever theories emerged instead of "proving" something to the satisfaction of an academic supervisor. If I wrote something, it would be because I thought I had something to say.
