Sunday’s New York Times Magazine has an interesting article on “The First Marriage”. No, that’s not Adam and Eve; they’re talking about the Obamas. It was a delightful thing to read in bed on Sunday morning, almost as good as a juicy romance novel. I mean, wouldn’t we all like to be tall, thin, rich (well moderately, anyway), have a great career and a spouse that adores us?
Oh, I meant Barack. No, seriously, I think the Obamas are a great example of middle aged love, one to be admired and emulated insofar as possible, just like I hold up Barack’s life story to my daughter as an example of someone who can take bad life events and make something beyond the ordinary out of them. But the story in the Times is really about effort, not romance. Here are two people with ferocious intelligence, significant ambition, and apparently tons of energy. That combination can equal fireworks or synergy, and it clearly works because of real effort to understand, make compromises and trades, and take the best available to them (as opposed to seeking perfection.)
Unlike the bombastic buffoon we were beset with for the previous 8 years, one of Barack’s salient traits seems to be the ability to shut up and listen. How incredible to have a President who actually thinks he has something to learn from other people, maybe even his wife! As is obvious from the interview, Barack is still struggling to understand Michelle’s needs, and she struggles to mesh her personality with the needs of his role.
It ain’t easy being a mom and having a brain. Michelle’s career has certainly suffered for her support of Barack. It strikes me as so sad that, although feminism has certainly opened doors for women never possible before the ‘70s, it ended up costing women a lot as policies were implemented. Traditional work place protections were swept away, women who had spent many years raising children suddenly found themselves eligible in a divorce for only “rehabilitative” maintenance (as if motherhood made them handicapped…well, come to think of it…) or (very temporary) alimony, and now we are expected not only to have a career, be a spouse and bear children, but also do all the housekeeping and nurturing that used to be considered already a full time job. When my mother was a single working woman in her 20’s, she lived in an apartment building that was designed for working women and had maid service, because someone working a full time job couldn’t be expected to clean a (small) apartment! Dream on…
The other societal support that feminism did not achieve was the establishment of quality, easily available child care. Any woman that wants to pursue a career usually has a part time job arranging for the safety and well being of her children. Here’s where Barack and Michelle really won lotto. Michelle’s mother, Marilyn Robinson, is the unsung hero of their marriage.
Think about it—if you had a devoted, non-working grandmother who adored your kids, probably didn’t need to get paid, and was still spry enough to chase after them and young enough to drive without running over people on the sidewalk, wouldn’t you feel a great sigh of relief? Okay, if you have that, I’m green with envy. My mom was 80 years old when I had the Nikipedia, and she babysat a total of 4 times during Nikipedia’s childhood.
So now we know the secrets of the Obama marriage. Well, it wasn’t exactly a big secret—they love each other and work at it. It may not be perfect, but, gee, I’d take it. Now, what’s the other secret about the Obamas that I’d really like to know? What exercises does Michelle do for those arms?
Showing posts with label Newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newspapers. Show all posts
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Fair’s fair—throw the bums out
The recent University of Illinois admissions scandal has the Chicago Tribune in a tizzy, but most of the reports I’ve seen are missing the critical ethical point. The press seems to be riled by, gasp, the fact that patronage and privilege has entered into college admissions. Next we’ll see headlines about rich kids doing better in school than poor kids. Or that the sun rose in the east this morning.
Influence, money, and where daddy or mommy went to school have always had a profound influence on where junior gets in. But not at STATE universities. Those are the ones that are supposed to be fair—that striving, hard working kids who are smart, get good grades, and test scores above a certain level can rely on admission (barring getting arrested, having a known drug habit, or plagiarizing someone else’s novel—which, by the way, don’t seem to bar you from some Ivies.)
If you were smart enough to get into Harvard, but your family had 8 kids and you spent your summers working on the loading dock, the University of Illinois was always a place you could depend on for a solid education, one that you might be able to pay for. Sure, maybe the dorms have the hardest mattresses on earth, and many of your classes will be taken with 200 of your favorite freshmen, but the instruction’s fine, the libraries extensive, and sooner or later you’ll cut the herd experience down to size via all the campus groups available. When we toured the U of I, it bothered me more to see the extensive tutoring facilities for athletes and the attention paid to them than the quality of the student digs. Sports bring in money and alumni loyalty, I guess. Never been a big factor for me at the University of Chicago, and maybe I’m wrong, but studying at the Sorbonne probably doesn’t have a big athletic component, either.
The University of Illinois has always been the place for smart strivers, a place where you could be certain you could get in on your own merits, not because you knew someone. It was pretty easy to figure out the rules—right GPA, right test scores, you’re in. No sucking up to daddy’s law partner, no beating yourself into meaningless volunteer activities just to look good. No wondering what you said wrong in an admissions essay read by a snooty admissions officer five years older than you. You got in based on what you had achieved, not whom your family knew.
The trustees and politicians who put the fix in have destroyed something good and true, fair and dependable, something truly democratic. If I were a University of Illinois graduate, I’d be organizing lanterns and pitchforks rallies in front of their homes.
Influence, money, and where daddy or mommy went to school have always had a profound influence on where junior gets in. But not at STATE universities. Those are the ones that are supposed to be fair—that striving, hard working kids who are smart, get good grades, and test scores above a certain level can rely on admission (barring getting arrested, having a known drug habit, or plagiarizing someone else’s novel—which, by the way, don’t seem to bar you from some Ivies.)
If you were smart enough to get into Harvard, but your family had 8 kids and you spent your summers working on the loading dock, the University of Illinois was always a place you could depend on for a solid education, one that you might be able to pay for. Sure, maybe the dorms have the hardest mattresses on earth, and many of your classes will be taken with 200 of your favorite freshmen, but the instruction’s fine, the libraries extensive, and sooner or later you’ll cut the herd experience down to size via all the campus groups available. When we toured the U of I, it bothered me more to see the extensive tutoring facilities for athletes and the attention paid to them than the quality of the student digs. Sports bring in money and alumni loyalty, I guess. Never been a big factor for me at the University of Chicago, and maybe I’m wrong, but studying at the Sorbonne probably doesn’t have a big athletic component, either.
The University of Illinois has always been the place for smart strivers, a place where you could be certain you could get in on your own merits, not because you knew someone. It was pretty easy to figure out the rules—right GPA, right test scores, you’re in. No sucking up to daddy’s law partner, no beating yourself into meaningless volunteer activities just to look good. No wondering what you said wrong in an admissions essay read by a snooty admissions officer five years older than you. You got in based on what you had achieved, not whom your family knew.
The trustees and politicians who put the fix in have destroyed something good and true, fair and dependable, something truly democratic. If I were a University of Illinois graduate, I’d be organizing lanterns and pitchforks rallies in front of their homes.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Newspaper Implosion
The seeming collapse of newspapers reminds me of the children’s story about the grain of rice, where the heroine asks the mean king to pay her with double the rice she has each day, beginning with one grain of rice. Of course, by the end of thirty days, she has a massive amount. So, too, the newspapers, but in reverse; for years they’ve been in trouble.
Because I took a hiatus from writing during the time I was raising and homeschooling my daughter, I have the Rip Van Winkle experience of returning to the “world” with a frame of reference 15 years old. But even when I was freelancing features 15 years ago, I heard all the same comments, “We can’t hire freelancers—we’re struggling to keep our full time reporters employed” or “We have to cut back on editorial, the ads just aren’t there” or “We can’t figure out how to make money on the internet.” Sound familiar? It’s clear to me that newspapers had plenty of warning, and that a new business model was called for long ago.
I’m positive I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a few ideas.
Freelancers vs. full-time
Here’s one where newspapers, some magazines, and many corporations still haven’t seen the forest for the trees. Maybe publications should consider that what they really need is a tiny core staff and a phalanx of freelancers—just the model that newer and more successful media uses. What they’d get is fresh, diverse style, a plethora of ideas, and a bench of people with their ears to the ground. Freelancers get variety, working conditions that can be tailored to optimum personal performance, and the opportunity to pursue passions and develop expertise.
Business costs
It’s no news by now that the elephant in the room is benefits. Even lean and mean companies are sinking under the weight of health care costs. Serious full-time freelancers are also crushed by the costs of individual healthcare. A change in healthcare policy could make a tremendous difference for individuals, start ups, and any struggling business. But we all know that, don’t we?
Reaching the audience
In their desperate attempt to clutch at readers who have moved to the internet, newspapers have transformed themselves into Life Magazine—full of pictures, little content. In doing so, I believe they’ve lost their core audience: READERS! Myself, I’ve gone from reading two newspapers a day to reading two on Sunday and the Economist the rest of the week. The book The Long Tail ought to be required reading for any publisher. The masses have moved elsewhere for entertainment and information about their interests. Newspapers are going after the wrong market.
It will be interesting to see how marketers of consumer goods are going to reach a mass audience without newspapers. Not only is readership down, but it’s easy to tell from six feet away that so is advertising—newspapers and many magazines are about half as thick as they once were. Add to that the proliferation of cable stations and it begins to seem like we are living in a “long tail” world. We are already seeing the proliferation of ezines, targeted websites, and (ahem) blogs. But I’m going to miss the sense of common conversation, exposure to stuff I didn’t know would interest me, and the pleasure of sitting on the porch with a cup of coffee and the paper. The computer screen just isn’t the same.
Because I took a hiatus from writing during the time I was raising and homeschooling my daughter, I have the Rip Van Winkle experience of returning to the “world” with a frame of reference 15 years old. But even when I was freelancing features 15 years ago, I heard all the same comments, “We can’t hire freelancers—we’re struggling to keep our full time reporters employed” or “We have to cut back on editorial, the ads just aren’t there” or “We can’t figure out how to make money on the internet.” Sound familiar? It’s clear to me that newspapers had plenty of warning, and that a new business model was called for long ago.
I’m positive I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a few ideas.
Freelancers vs. full-time
Here’s one where newspapers, some magazines, and many corporations still haven’t seen the forest for the trees. Maybe publications should consider that what they really need is a tiny core staff and a phalanx of freelancers—just the model that newer and more successful media uses. What they’d get is fresh, diverse style, a plethora of ideas, and a bench of people with their ears to the ground. Freelancers get variety, working conditions that can be tailored to optimum personal performance, and the opportunity to pursue passions and develop expertise.
Business costs
It’s no news by now that the elephant in the room is benefits. Even lean and mean companies are sinking under the weight of health care costs. Serious full-time freelancers are also crushed by the costs of individual healthcare. A change in healthcare policy could make a tremendous difference for individuals, start ups, and any struggling business. But we all know that, don’t we?
Reaching the audience
In their desperate attempt to clutch at readers who have moved to the internet, newspapers have transformed themselves into Life Magazine—full of pictures, little content. In doing so, I believe they’ve lost their core audience: READERS! Myself, I’ve gone from reading two newspapers a day to reading two on Sunday and the Economist the rest of the week. The book The Long Tail ought to be required reading for any publisher. The masses have moved elsewhere for entertainment and information about their interests. Newspapers are going after the wrong market.
It will be interesting to see how marketers of consumer goods are going to reach a mass audience without newspapers. Not only is readership down, but it’s easy to tell from six feet away that so is advertising—newspapers and many magazines are about half as thick as they once were. Add to that the proliferation of cable stations and it begins to seem like we are living in a “long tail” world. We are already seeing the proliferation of ezines, targeted websites, and (ahem) blogs. But I’m going to miss the sense of common conversation, exposure to stuff I didn’t know would interest me, and the pleasure of sitting on the porch with a cup of coffee and the paper. The computer screen just isn’t the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
