Oldsters, Unite! (Via Twitter, Please)

I KNEW there was something "off" about this whole Twitter thing! I knew it! The something that's "off" is, er, um, me. I'm old. Twitter users are not. According to the report:

Twitter and similar services have been most avidly embraced by young adults. Nearly one in five (19%) online adults ages 18 and 24 have ever used Twitter and its ilk, as have 20% of online adults 25 to 34. Use of these services drops off steadily after age 35 with 10% of 35 to 44 year olds and 5% of 45 to 54 year olds using Twitter.

The decline is even more stark among older internet users; 4% of 55-64 year olds and 2% of those 65 and older use Twitter.

So, what to do? What to do? Back out gracefully before I further embarrass myself? Or --- dive in full force and be one of those few who transform a technology into something for all of us? Decisions, decisions. Time's up. Made up my mind. I'm staying out there on the (leading) edge. (*1) Oldsters, embrace your inner digi-selves!

__________________________

*1: If only because, once I signed up for Twitter, and started playing around with it, I suddenly "got" how useful and, well, fun, it could be. And I'm all for fun.

Maybe It's NOT the "Housing Bubble"

We've all heard that the "housing bubble" is to blame for the current economic disaster -- well, the bubble and global shuffling-about-of-subprime-loans-from-one-investment-house-to-another.

Maybe. Maybe not. Might be that the housing mess simply proved the tipping point for something deeper that had been rumbling about underneath for a longer time. Think about it:

Ten years ago, we bought plane tickets from travel agents. When's the last time you did that? Ten years ago, we paid for newspapers.

Ten years ago, Amazon's 30% discount was just gaining "lift." Most people bought books at full price in a store.

Ten years ago, if I wanted to buy a pair of shoes, I went to a shoestore and paid (usually full price) for the shoes and a sales tax. Now? Zappos. Where I can buy and try on ten pair of shoes and return all of them -- pay zero for the privilege of doing so. No shipping to me. No shipping fee to return. No sales tax.

Translation: The digitization of life-as-we-know-it has nibbled away at our financial underpinnings for years. Nibbled. Rearranged. Undermined. Eliminated.(*1)

We live in a capitalist economy. Ain't supposed to be no free lunch. Something was, eventually, bound to give.........

______________________

*1: Apropos of nothing, it reminds me of novels set in 18th and 19th century England. When a monied character wants a suit altered, he assumes the tailor will provide the service, without asking for money upfront. Monied character pays tailor when he damn well pleases, if at all. Ditto for landlords and the always-present "char lady." They dole out the services, but mysteriously, buyers often neglect to pay. And everyone assumes, ya know, it'll all work out. (Usually the char lady and tailor are left holding the jacket, er, bag, pushing them deeper into poverty.)

Oh, The Twitt-abilities

Okay, this is the kind of thing that can/could/should make Twitter worthwhile. From David Nygren via Twitter, commenting on this story and photo in today's Times:

Are these head ads hyperlinked? . . .Will their heads explode if you click on them?

Damn! I wish I'd "tweeted" that comment! My new goal in life is to be as Twitterly-creative as David.

Have We Hit the Tipping Point When It Comes To Thinking About Drugs?

I wonder: Will Michael Phelps' cell-phone-documented encounter with a bong prove to be the event that finally -- FINALLY -- pushes Americans into a sensible, rational, adult discussion about drugs, legal and illegal?

Thirty years ago, Phelps would have been crucified (figuratively speaking).

Now? People are arguing that it was no big deal, and getoveritalready, and by the way, let's boycott Kelloggs. (I chose to link to this particular version of the boycott story only because it's completely mainstream. Ain't just a bunch of cranks like me talking about it.)

See, for example, this piece at the decidedly mainstream Big Money blog (and, as always, make sure to read the comments.)

And it's worth mentioning a point that's so obvious it's easy to overlook: When the Phelps story first broke a few weeks back, reporters covering the story assumed that the average reader/viewer/listener knew what a bong was. Thirty years ago? Not only would the average reporter/viewer/listener not known, but even if he/she did, he/she wasn't about to admit it. Prolly because, ya know, statistically speaking, a huge chunk of adult America is the much-hated baby boomer generation, and if you can find a baby boomer who doesn't know what a bong is, well, he/she is either lying or was so boring back-in-the-day that he/she isn't worth the time of day now. If that makes sense.

And another enormous chunk of the American population is the almost-as-large demographic known as the Echo Boom, and I'm pretty sure most of them know what a bong is, too.

Indeed, I think maybe illegal drugs are about to become hip. You wait and see: Any day now, Bill Clinton's gonna say "Oh, sorry, I lied about that. I DID inhale."

Thanks and A Shout-Out to Renee Cramer and Her Students

Yesterday, I spoke to a class at Drake University. The course, taught by Renee Cramer, is "From Cradle to College, Breastmilk to Beer: The Law, Politics, and Social Responsibility of What We Drink."

For the section on beer, the students read my book. I showed up yesterday to answer their questions. And they asked terrific, first-rate questions that covered a surprising range of topics.

Indeed, the roughly 70 minutes of class time ranged from here to there, from hither to yon, and back.

I have been thinking about some of those questions and plan to comment on some of them in depth here at the blog. Indeed, for some weeks now, I've been thinking about how to integrate my work into this blog.

What's that you say? You didn't know that I "work"? That I do something with my time other than ramble on day by day about this, that, and the other? I'm not surprised, because so far this blog has covered just about everything BUT what I do for a living: write history for a general audience.

So I'm plotting a strategy for incorporating what is the center of my professional life into this blog without boring people to tears and driving readers away. Thinking about creating another category under which I can file blog entries related to my work. (I know that sounds wierd, but I've realized over the past year that those category titles matter and thinking about what title to use -- "At My Desk"? "I'm Working On:"? "A Historian's Life"? -- helps me focus on what I want to accomplish with work-related blogging. (*1)

(I know what you're thinking: "Dear god, please! Not ANOTHER another damn blog series. Not more rambling on yet another apparently random topic." I promise: I'm gonna do my best to make it worth your while.)

____________________

*1: yes, I'm obsessive about organization. I have to be in order to keep track of the ocean of facts swimming in my brain and the stacks of books and papers sitting on my desk. Show me a disorganized historian, and I'll show you a historian who ain't thinkin' clearly . . . .

State Economies Go Crrrrrash! State Legislators Say Taaaax! [Corrected]

As usual, I'm "attending" to about seventy-five different things at once (write a thousand words today, pick up milk and eggs, think about commissioned piece on beer, acknowledge husband's existence, get some exercise, figure out what to fix for dinner, etc. etc. etc.....)

So: am not doing the greatest job in the world of paying attention to the Big Important Stuff -- but: it's not lost on me that a good number of state legislatures are turning their attention to revenue: how and where to get it. (In you've not heard the news, the state of California is nearly broke and will lay off about 20,000 employees this week. The state of Kansas can't meet its payroll on Friday. And so on....) [Correction: The state of California has told 20,000 employees that they may be terminated; it has not yet laid them off.]

No surprise, all of a sudden those "sin" taxes exude allure and charm. As we all know, cigarettes have taken the brunt of the "we need money so let's tax a sin" in the past few years.

Now it's apparently alcohol's turn. Many states are considering many options when it comes to taxing beer (and other forms of alcohol). But some of the best news coverage of such an attempt is coming out of Oregon.

So, for a good roundup of what's happening Oregon's legislature, see here and here.

And then for an excellent commentary on that activity, see Jeff Alworth at Blue Oregon. (*1)

As always, be sure to read the dozens of comments that Jeff's piece provoked. Jacob Grier, who also lives in Portland, is covering these developments from a different perspective, one that's worth thinking about. Also see his (only slightly) tongue-in-cheek idea for his share of the "stimulus" package.

[Added after the fact: When I originally posted this entry, I neglected to include a link to Patrick Emerson's blog; he, too, is discussing the economics of beer and taxes. He's got many entries on the topic, so here's a link to his blog, and then rummage around for the relevant content.]

To change the subject somewhat: Again, the commentary from Jeff and Jacob [and Patrick] are great examples of the upside to blogging, the internet, and the digitization of modern life. Back in the days of p.i.e. (*2), I wouldn't have known about either of them, and it's unlikely they would have had access to such a broad audience.

_______________

*1: Jeff typically surfaces here at my blog in his capacity at the blogger at Beervana, but in his "other life," he writes about politics at Blue Oregon.

*2: PIE = pre-internet era