Blogging suddenly feels very yesterday! Don’t know if this is a temporary or permanent hiatus, but please follow me on Twitter to see what’s on my so-called mind. Thanks.

The heart of the bit, of course, is that newspapers — emphasis on paper – are dead. Old. Yesterday’s news.

Perhaps they are, and there are certainly plenty of examples to prove the point, and observers smarter than I am to outline the argument. That said, however, I was thinking today about why it is that, for now, as much news as I consume online these days, I do not (yet?) want to let my hard-copy subscriptions go. And what I realized is, it boils down to rituals.

• I am not ready to give up the sound of my top-lock latch turning in the morning, so, in my still-half-asleep fog, I can reach down and pick up the papers that were delivered before dawn (unfortunately, as the papers have gotten slimmer, the pre-dawn muffled “thump” is barely audible any more). That latch-turn thing is right up there with the “ahhh!” of the first sip of morning coffee.
• I love spending Saturday and Sunday afternoons on  the couch with the newspaper. I am no more interested in spending those hours with a laptop or Kindle (or, god forbid, some teeny tiny screen in the palm of my hand) than I am in meeting a friend for a nonfat decaf cappucino or a non-alcoholic beer. For those weekend afternoons in a prone position, I need the paper version of the paper; and, too, who wants a Kindle crashing to the floor when the inevitable nap sets in? Newspapers slip nicely off my lap onto the floor, with just a whisp of a sound.
• The print edition is perfect for the endless E train ride out to JFK, and for the time spent waiting to leave the ground once I get there. No flight attendant has ever directed me to shut down or turn off my print edition so we can leave the gate.
• I like having a recycle pile – it makes me feel so “green”!

Guess where I scribbled down the first draft of this blog post? In the margins of today’s New York Times Book Review while waiting on line for a Circle Line ride. I haven’t yet met a device that’ll let me do that. For now, at least, as webby as I have become, I’m still gonna support the paper in newspaper.

Don’t teach social media tools, teach concepts behind them. Don’t teach Twitter, teach why Twitter.

I like that. Thanks, Suzanne.

NB: Suzanne’s post summarizes a panel discussion that included CUNY J-School Prof. Sandeep Junnarkar.

According to the latest research from marketing firm Packaged Facts, U.S. sales of packaged snacks will reach $81.6 billion by 2013 (up from $68 billion in 2008). And, Packaged Facts predicts, “salty/savory snacks should continue to eat away at the lead enjoyed by sweet snacks in sales.”

Why are we snacking with such gusto? Here’s their take:

Despite the dampening effects of global recession, consumers are snacking more than ever, thanks to pull-backs in restaurant dining, harried lifestyles that reduce opportunities for sit-down meals, and a growing consensus that several small meals or snacks during the day are actually healthier than the three-squares paradigm.

I’m not sure “salty/savory snacks” are what nutritionists mean when they suggest several small meals during the day instead of three squares.

In addition, as the sluggish economy fans job-loss fears, health insurance woes, and environmental and social justice anxieties, snack consumers are embracing a “value” mentality that prizes quality and “whole” ingredients, “better for you” recipes, and green production practices. While low prices are always a draw, consumers are looking for snacks with fewer additives or preservatives, and even spending extra dollars for organic and premium snack treats that can boost their flagging spirits over the long climb back to prosperity.

So, the tranquilizer for worries about unemployment, global warming and whatever “social justice anxieties” are, is expensive treats.

Fat is the new broke.

(photo: Ruth Fremson/The New York Times)

I don’t know how to fix, or “reform,” health care in America; I’ll leave that to the professionals (whoever they may be).

But I do know this: there is something wrong with this picture.

One morning earlier this week, I strolled into the Hospital for Special Surgery, arguably the best orthopedic hospital on Planet Earth, for my appointment with a doctor who is arguably one of the best orthopedic surgeons on Planet Earth. I was there because the pain in my left hip that started about ten weeks ago hasn’t gotten better, and I have come to accept that I have reached that magic age where these things really should be checked out.  So, having what these days is probably considered “gold plated” employer-provided health insurance, which doesn’t require even the simplest “referral” by a “primary care physician” (not sure why I am putting these words in quotes but they seem to call for it), I called and made an appointment with this highly-recommended (and highly expensive) specialist. Nice, right?

When I got to the clean, airy, and peaceful HSS, my first stop was the Radiology department, where what I imagine is one of the best x-ray technicians on Planet Earth took pictures of my hip bones with what I presume was one of the best x-ray machines on Planet Earth. I was given a nice clean gown, and gazed peacefully at sweeping views of the East River while I waited for the procedure.

Next, I went upstairs to Orthopedics, where, after filling out the new- patient forms while sitting in a special chair for people with aches and pains (who knew?), I was ushered right on time into the exam room. My x-rays, in digital form, were already up on the flat-screen monitor.

The doctor asked about my symptoms, watched me walk across the room a few times, gave me a short physical exam (”Does it hurt when I do this? How about this?”), talked to me about hip structure, and assured me the x-rays showed there is nothing seriously wrong (garden-variety hip flexor injury–phew). Then he wrote a prescription for twelve sessions of physical therapy–also covered by my health insurance.

When I left the best orthopedic hospital on Planet Earth, having had the best x-rays and diagnostics on Planet Earth, I had paid almost nothing. Just the co-pay; practically pocket change. As I said: nice, right?

But please, somebody tell me what I did in life to deserve it. The answer is, not much; I’m just one of the people lucky enough to be on the right end of a really screwed up health care system, in which some people, for no apparent rational reason, have the kind of health care I just described for a small co-pay, and other people, also for no apparent rational reason (unless you think being poor is a rational reason), are on the other end of the same system. Here’s what that looks like:

These images, which have been in the media all week long, absolutely break my heart.

And here’s the thing:  this tale of two health care systems is not morally sustainable.  And I don’t even understand how it can be financially sustainable.

When I go and consume hundreds of dollars worth of health care and pay only thirty dollars, somebody is paying for that. It may not be me, at that moment, but it’s somebody.  And at some point, that “somebody” — probably my employer — isn’t going to want to pay for it anymore.  And then what? At first, probably, the quality of my insurance will go down, but my fear is that, so long as the system stays the same, at some point, my insurance could completely go away.  All because what I have now is just too good to last. We have certainly seen, over and over again, that things that are too good to be true — mortgages for everyone! consistently high returns on investments that were never really made! — don’t last.

In addition, when tens of millions of my fellow citizens are either under- or completely uninsured, and have to mob a free health care fair just to get a cavity filled or have a vision test, somebody is paying for that, too, one way or the other. People in poor health cost money, whether it’s because they go to the emergency room or because they cannot be productive when they are sick and anxious.

The whole she-bang is just broken, broken, broken. I get no peace of mind just because, for the moment, I happen to be on the better end of a broken system. That system is just waiting to cave in like a top-heavy house of cards. What then? Then, I fear, all but the wealthiest Americans (and I’m not one of them) will be under- or uninsured. Health care will be rationed to the rich even more so than it is today.

I will do (almost) anything to avoid that. I will accept a lower level of coverage if it means the coverage will always be there; I will accept a level of coverage that says that if I want to make the Hospital of Special Surgery my first stop for a muscle strain, I’ll have to pay way more than thirty bucks for the privilege (yes, the HSS is a privilege, not a right). In exchange, I also want to see a tier of care that I have not been able to find: what I’d call middle-class care; care that doesn’t have to be as gold-plated as that which is available at the best places on Planet Earth, but quality care that’s widely available, costs less, and is covered.  And let’s at the same time give basic quality coverage to every American, partly because it is a moral imperative (I don’t want to see any more images like the ones at that health fair), but also because we’re paying for not having it.

This can be done. It just takes courage, leadership and yes, for some of us, short-term sacrifice for long-term security. Bring it on.

An article last Sunday about potential harm to civilian infrastructure in an attack on computer networks described the military principle of proportionality, in layman’s terms, as a rule arguing that if you slap me, I cannot blow up your house. In international law, however, the principle includes the concept that if you slap me, I cannot blow up your house unless the advantage from doing so justifies not using a lesser response.

Glad we straightened that out!

1. If (when?) most (all?) journalists are soon to be come independent “backpack” practitioners — you’ve got all the tools, you’re on your own, good luck! — who will rescue those who, either through youth, inexperience, stupidity, or sheer bad luck, find themselves under arrest and in big trouble? What if, say, they not only don’t work for an actual organization with actual resources and support systems; but also don’t happen to work for a guy who happens to know the former President of the United States? What then? Say what you will about (mostly) corporate-owned “old media” companies (I know I certainly do); they do have systems in place for preventing what happened to Euna Lee and Laura Ling, and when it does happen, they have a bunch of back channels for protecting their people and getting them home safely (yes, I know there are exceptions; see, e.g., Daniel Pearl).

2. In plain sight: Is it really possible that a creepy guy who couldn’t get a date can plot a mass murder in plain sight — with months of tortured blog posts and video rants — and still nobody sees it? Or worse, that somebody (or somebodys-plural) did see something but didn’t say something? Jocelyn Noveck of the Associated Press has a good story on what may have been a cybertree falling in a cyberforest.

3. Isn’t it interesting how different news organizations can find very different ledes for the same news event? On Wednesday, the American Psychological Association issued new treatment guidelines for mental health professionals working with gay clients. The AP story (as well as the APA’s own news release) headlined and led with the news that the APA had soundly repudiated “gay-to-straight” therapy, such as that promoted by organizations such as Exodus International, a network of ministries whose core message is “Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.”  While the AP’s version of the story does give it ample consideration, the Wall Street Journal’s take focuses almost exclusively on the report’s conclusion that

…if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his [religious] faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.

Well, I guess that’s better than shooting people at the gym.

In an editorial titled, “The Fat of the Land,” the Journal takes the government to task for its role in stoking America’s obesity epidemic, an epidemic that has become an increasingly large part of the nation’s health care spending — which the Obama administration is trying to tamp down.

The editors point out:

• 72 million Americans — that’s one out of every three — are obese.
• Obesity is associated with diabetes, heart disease, some cancers and other chronic illnesses.
• In this week’s “Weight of the Nation” report, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that obesity now accounts for 9.1% of all medical spending — $147 billion in 2008.
• The CDC also estimates that the annual per capita increase in Medicare spending attributable to obesity is 36%; for Medicaid, it’s 47%.

In short, Americans (this one included) eat too much.

Now, I don’t agree with everything in this editorial. But I do agree with this:

Congress should give up its own bad habits right now. Start by reforming agricultural “policy,” meaning subsidies that help make unhealthy food artificially cheap. Most of the new calories in the American diet come from processed foods, and taxpayers have underwritten them since the New Deal with huge price supports for commodity crops like corn and soy. These are processed into low-quality calories that make their way to consumers as refined starches, high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils and feed for livestock.

Thus, as a letter writer to the Journal says on the same page, “it now costs less to buy a corn-fed burger loaded with salt, flavor enhancers and other unhealthy additives than it does to buy an apple or peach.”

Before you “personal responsibility” advocates jump all over me and say that people should just bypass the tortilla chips and say “no thanks” to cookies and cake, let me say that, on the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the playing field for the individual American eater and the gigantic American food industry is not exactly level. It’s hard to just say no when Big Food constantly bombards us with cues to buy what David Kessler, in his new book, The End of Overeating, calls highly addictive “hyperpalatable” foods:

In a cyclical process, eating highly palatable food activates the opioid circuits, and activating these circuits increases consumption of highly palatable food.

In other words, Kessler argues, the consumption of hyperpalatable foods — many of them subsidized by the government — turns many of us into the equivalent of crackheads always vulnerable to the next fix.

If the President and health reform advocates want to keep costs down — and they say they do — why not start by taking the corn growers’ crack — government subsidies — away? I’m not saying I won’t binge on another bag of chips; but I’d have to spend more of my hard-earned money to do it, so maybe, just maybe, I would decide not to do it. And maybe, just maybe, people with far less expendable income than I have, and for whom the cheap cost of fattening hyperpalatable foods puts them at high risk of obesity, might decide to buy something else instead.

Hey, it’s a start.

The Elkhart Project focuses on the economy and unemployment in one hard-hit community as a way of putting the national struggle in a more personal context. Thus, most of the work I did this week was with an eye towards that issue, although we did post a couple of cute pieces of video on the Elkhart Facebook site.

On our first day at the fair, we asked fairgoers whether and how the recession had affected their experience at the fair, a longtime beloved annual tradition for folks in Elkhart County and beyond. Here’s what some of them told us. See also this longer article on fairs in general as an economic indicator.

The next day, we asked people what question on the economy or health care they’d most like to ask President Obama at the news conference he was to hold that night. They had no shortage of questions.

Finally, we watched the news conference with one family for whom health care is a particularly pressing issue–because they don’t have it. We wondered what they wanted to hear from the President on Wednesday evening, and then, when he was done, what they thought about what they heard. Meet Monica and Alan Cummings and their daughter Abby here.

Our technical resources were quite limited; all the video you see here was shot on a FlipCam, edited by me and a colleague, as well as processed and uploaded by us with some technical trouble-shooting assists from the video team at MSNBC.com headquarters in Redmond. I’ll never claim that any of this is award-winning video, but it was pretty cool to be able to post some 20 video clips in a matter of a few days with very little outside help.

A final word: on this trip, as on others I have taken as a producer and reporter, I was struck yet again by the disconnect between my world and the world I was visiting. When in Elkhart, and especially when sitting in a living room with a family that’s struggling to make ends meet and watching all the “inside the beltway” types ask questions on national t.v., it’s easy to see why so many have antipathy toward the “media elite;” what goes on in the White House press room, and among those of us in the New York City-Washington-Los Angeles media nexus, feels very far removed from the lives of ordinary Americans. We do live in something of a bubble.

On the other hand, so do Elkhartians.  I was asked by one local resident, a father who lost his job some months ago, about why Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is “against” white men. I heard all about why home schooling is the only way to instill “morals” in young people, how “illegal aliens” are taking the jobs of hard-working Americans, and how Barack Obama became President only because African Americans voted for him “just because he’s Black.” This, too, is a cultural mindset. Neither is more “real;” they’re all “real” to those whose perspectives they reflect.

We all live in bubbles of our own making, and let’s face it, we’re generally comfortable there. Maybe we all need to burst a few of our own bubbles.