What's Obama Doing?

Leading. It's what leaders do. No surprise, most people don't recognize it because most adult Americans have never experienced serious presidential leadership. Last time it happened, sadly, was during the Reagan years. (Also sadly . . . .) (No. I was not a fan.)

President Obama is moving quickly (or trying to do so) and tackling short-term problems: He's facing the enemy at the gates. But he's also engaging in the second, and perhaps more important task, of a good leader: Trying to figure out how and why the enemy got there in the first place, and thus trying to prevent it from happening again.

Put another way, he's tackling the immediate issues, while taking the long view of the big picture. He's leading.

Go, Barack.

Random Rant, Econ 101, and Antidotes for Nausea

Silly me. Somehow I thought the troops would rally 'round the president. No. Instead, we've been subjected to a week of senators and representatives strutting around the capital building playing "Mine's Bigger."

Which I wouldn't mind, except -- Rome is collapsing while they're busy comparing dicks/clits/facelifts/whatever.... I belive that most people who run for "high office" start their careers with good intentions. (*1)

But then they get comfy and get used to the free health insurance and the gym and the drivers and the other perks and pretty soon they forget why they went there in the first place. Which is why there oughta be term limits for both House and Senate. (*2)

But I digress. Point is: someone needs to be thinking beyond dick-size and where the next cocktail party is.

For an antidote to your nausea, and some clear thinking/writing on the disaster that is our economy, some Sunday-morning reading:

This from Matthew Yglesias. Tyler Cowen's response.

Lots of ponderings from Patrick Emerson, but this in particular.

And then of course there's always Krugman.

(Yes, the internet improves our lives. Ten years ago, it would have been tough to find so much accessible clear thinking on such difficult topics.) (Gee, I hope the electrical grid holds up under the weight of so many internet connections, and that somehow we can figure out how to make high-speed internet affordable for everyone because clearly digital communication/debate and digital information creation/gathering/access are The Way We Live Now. (*3))

(Oh. Wait. That would require the House and Senate to stop dicking around and do something and . . . . ) (Oh. Never mind.)

_____________________

*1: There are, of course, exceptions. I'm pretty sure Palin, for example, only wants to sit in the Senate because it's good for her, not for her constituents. I'm not picking on her, mind you; there are plenty of Palin-types out there. But she's the only obvious example I can think of at the moment.

*2: For more information on term limits, see here, here, and here.

*3: Nod to my second-favorite Anthony Trollope novel. If you can't bring yourself to wade through it (it runs about a thousand pages), at least watch the BBC production, which is spectacular.

Must-Read On the (Possible) Future of the Economy

The lead essay in this week's New York Times Magazine is worth reading (assuming you've got 20 minutes to spare). It's certainly causing me to re-think my stance on Whither The Economy.

The author, David Leonhardt, focuses on the economy, but he inadvertently makes another point worth noting: Scholarship, research, and "higher education" matter. Leonha

rdt refers to and relies on the research of several intellectuals (aka “academics”) and treats their work with respect. That's refreshing. Americans have a long tradition of anti-intellecualism, but in the recent decades, it seems as though that strain as become more pronounced. State legislatures don’t want to fund “higher” education, and deride what seems, to them, to be inane, useless research.

I’m an escapee from academia, and I know that university campuses shelter more than a bit of bullshit. But the "pure" research being carried out in university laboratories and libraries is fundamental to human progress, whether social, political, moral, or economic. Nearly every aspect of life in “modern” society stems from the work of someone thinking hard about an intellectual problem, whether that person is an engineer, a physicist, an economist, or a philosopher. (Or, okay, a historian...)

When you hear an expert yapping away about this, that, and the other, chances are his or her opinions and ideas are based on primary research: Information and analyses developed by collecting raw data, creating and studying equations, watching the stars, or rummaging through old newspapers and diaries.

Paul Krugman, for example, now writes for a "popular" audience, but he won the Nobel for his academic "pure" research. The textbooks your kids read in school are “popular” translations of decades of hard research carried out by thousands of scholars.

So it’s good to see substantive scholarship being treated with respect. We need the scholarship, and the scholarship deserves our respect.

Books, Reading, Google, the Future . . . .

. . . and the whole ball of wax. I'm probably driving half of you nuts -- but.... What can I say? I'm a writer, so I think about this stuff.

"Media" as we know it is undergoing a profound shift and it's fascinating to live through the experience. Painful, but fascinating.

Eg, as I may have mentioned earlier, although I have a contract for the book I'm writing, I have no idea if the publisher will still exist in two years. Have no idea if, by then, that publisher or any other will still want to "publish" "real" books. Have no idea what "publishing" and "books" will be like by that time. 

Then there's the recent settlement with Google about its project to digitize the known universe. (This will affect just about everyone on the planet, so it's worth knowing about.)

No surprise, many people are weighing in on all of this, and I keep track of it, and so I offer this up to those of you who, like me, are living through a moment of historical import.

Some of these links below are now about a week old (I've been trying to put this entry together that long; the baby is a time sink), so you may have seen some of them already.

For a great introduction to the issues facing the publishing industry, this piece in Time magazine.

If you're up for more, this fascinating essay pondering the possible impact of the Google settlement. The author, Robert Darnton, is a historian (a considerably more refined, high-brow, and erudite one than am I), so his take is, uh, historical. If you can wade through the technical stuff at the beginning, the essay is absolutely worth reading. (*1)

And then this alt-view on the same subject from Nicholas Carr. Connected to all of this is, of course, the ongoing debate on "the future of the book."

Many people are thinking in detail about that, but one of the best efforts is that of David Nygren at his blog, The Urban Elitist. David isn't just some random, frustrated writer-wannabe. He works in mainstream publishing, so he's inside the belly of the beast and grasps the technical and logistical issues at stake. He's got many posts on this subject, so start with this, and then click on his "books" or "e-books" tags for more. He's also partnered up with another friend, and they're writing a series of cross-posts on the subject, so take a look at this if you have time.

I've also been enjoying the ruminations on these topics by Alan Jacobs at Text Patterns and the folks at Book Oven.

And finally, a sobering roundup of the latest newspaper closing/bankruptcies/etc. (I believe I owe Stan for this particular link, when he commented on an earlier post of mine.) (And for this.)

_____________________

*1: I'm puzzled, however, by the lack of links to relevant topics. Why in the world didn't the editors say "gee, this would be a great opportunity to use the web's power to enhance a piece that also appeared in print.

Global Recession, Alcohol Consumption, and the Moments That Neo-Prohibitionists Crave

This from today's New York Times.

As I noted here and here, context and historical perspective alter the picture. But it’s worth contemplating the preachy subtext of the editorial piece in the Times: Hard times = propensity to drink to excess. People who enjoy alcohol, and the right to drink, ought to worry about that subtext.

Historically, prohibitionist sentiment flourishes during periods of economic, social, and cultural turmoil. A century ago, for example, Americans were adjusting to the upheaval that accompanied the birth of the industrial economy, and the emergence of technologies like electricity and the telephone.

Prohibitionists had little trouble persuading a troubled, frightened nation that alcohol made life worse, and that eliminating it would make life better.

We’re living through an even more tumultuous era now, as digitization and the internet force us to re-imagine media, education, and the economy, and as globalization and terrorism rattle our psyches. Neo-prohibitionists will seize the moment, and prey on Americans’ insecurities. They're already working to build a dry America one step at a time: A new local tax here, a more strict licensing regulation there; elsewhere programs designed to teach children to demonize, rather than respect, alcohol.

As the recession deepens, and turns to depression, we can expect new “scientific” studies demonstrating the dangers of turning to drink during hard times. Drys will blame alcohol for upswings in, say, crime or domestic violence, whose rates typically rise when societies are in turmoil.

As global demand for food increases, and food prices soar, drys may argue (as did their counterparts a century ago) that valuable crop land ought not be “wasted” on hops or barley; that corn should not be “wasted” on beer.

In short, in hard times, prohibitionists argue for restrictions on drink -- for a more intrusive nanny state -- on grounds that those hard times lead adults to drink. Drinkers: beware.

____________________

Good source of information for all things alcohol: Alcohol Problems and Solutions

More On Saving the New York Times (Or Not, As the Case May Be)

In my never-ending attempt to keep this blog as unfocused, amorphous, and vague as possible, how about links to two interesting takes on the survival-crisis at the New York Times?

Start with this one at Silicon Valley Insider. A

nd then take a look at this thoughtful rebuttal at portfolio.com.

And then if you're still interested, follow up with the post that originally led me to those two: this by Matthew Ygelsias.

And by the time you've finished reading all that, well, hey, it'll be time for a beer. (See? I got us back on-topic.)