Why Read Topical Email?

[John Gelles <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

		WHY READ TOPICAL EMAIL WHEN MAGAZINES
		ARE SO FULL AND SO CHEAP?

	I'm reading Paul Krugman's opinion of Robert Samuelson's
	take on whether we live in the best of all possible worlds
	or the worst.

	The paragraphs hit topics of interest: "Inequality",
	"freedom", "law", "economics", "entitlements" and the like.
	Krugman's view coincides with my own -- it's a lousy
	world in need of beaucoup reform, including more not less
	government.  But only government effort that enhances the
	lives of individual people in the immediate, short and
	long run.  "How would you know that?", you ask.  By care-
	ful plans and thoughts that emphasize feedback to correct
	mistakes.  I see Samuelson, as Krugman reports him, to be
	out of touch with ordinary people and their lot.

	I like Krugman's style.  I wish we were sitting over beer
	or coffee discussing PK thought (or better just plain K
	thought -- albeit not K's thought).  Of course this can't
	happen.

	What's the next best thing?  Read more?  Or go at the
	email on PKT -- where you may not like the topic, but at
	least you're at the table?

	The topics you least like are overhead -- like this
	one:  Discussions of why have discussion in the first
	place.  The topics you like most (in my case) are
	practical reform of systems -- credit, tax, production,
	distribution, education, free elections, etc.  And
	especially "complete" economic systems.  But, it just
	so happens, you can't get to the topics you want without
	a heavy dose of overhead:

		a.  How many must be in an audience to lend
	satisfaction akin to applause when you enter into
	discussion?  More than the number of speakers?  Less?
	Or, the same number that speak?

			If you visualize the whole thing taking
	place at a table, you are actually uncomfortable if someone
	is silent, or another talks too much.  So talkers must be
	equal to listeners in number.  And bad listeners are a
	bummer.  Bad speakers are even worse.
	
			If you visualize the thing as a lecture
	hall, empty seats make you uneasy.  You want a ratio of
	a hundred to one -- with all the speakers hot.

			An email hall, like PKT, is a bastard
	form -- fitting neither model.  But we live in hope of
	hot speakers.

		b.  How can the universe of topics be wide enough
	to capture the times, and narrow enough to build an edifice
	for future readers of a whole archive?

			It must be fed by contributors who range
	far from the discussion pit itself.  They have to read.
	And they have to live.

		c.  So we come back to:  Why go interactive as an
	addict, when addiction to reading books and magazines
	improves the quality of topics and their treatment?  And
	the simple answer -- So you can sit at the table.

			And how many should you be at the table?
	Less than ten.  And how often leave the table and go to the
	hall?  Quite often.  But what if the topics stink and the
	speakers stiff?   I dunno -- but at least on PKT that
	hardly ever happens.

			What about applause in the hall?  You
	don't want to be spammed with 400 boos or even 100
	bravos.  Well, one solution is for someone moved to
	question the one with the floor to invite private
	interaction at a table.  That's what email allows.
	Bastard form it may be, but it does permit halls to
	create tables, and tables to go back to the hall and
	get the floor.

	Let me end on a word from the hall -- the place where
	Krugman took on Samuelson.  In another piece Richard
	Reeves observed the wisdom of a Republican friend who
	had come to a universal truth --

		Unless independently wealthy, people are going
		to work, going on welfare or going to steal.
		Some will do all three.  Government, business
		and labor would do well to cooperate so more
		of us just work.

		John Gelles     -     jjgelles@xxxxxxxx