Michael Swickard
Consider the manual typewriter. This fine technology did not need electricity to function and was “portable.” Newsrooms were full of the clatter of the typewriters when I was just starting in the news business. Some newspaper workers talked about getting to work on the “clackers” because of the sound that surrounded them. These seemingly old men all smoked, cursed, had a bottle of stimulant they consulted regularly in their desk drawer, and were at times cranky while pounding out stories on deadline.
When I broke into newspapers (while still in high school) I started as a photographer and back-up typesetter on an old hot-type system. I think I could still set type, even though the last time I did Lyndon Johnson was president.
I was thinking of this technology in the midst of the current budget debates in Santa Fe about what is needed and what is merely wanted. I suspect in the coming weeks the debate will be about how much money, at a minimum, it takes to run the state of New Mexico.
When I talk about the “old days” with manual typewriters there may be a temptation to ask, why did we replace the manual typewriter? Simply, it was nothing compared to a computer.
On a manual typewriter you had to listen for a bell to know when to hit the return and type on the next line. Typewriters were slow but very dependable. You rolled the paper into it, sometimes putting two pieces of paper with a carbon layer. No, the carbon used did not cause global warming then or now. Mistakes were quite a problem so the advice was not to make typing mistakes. Yeah, sure.
Compared to the computers I use today to research and type my column, my old typewriter is ever so very primitive. My mother bought this old Underwood Typewriter I have in 1940 and it still works today, but I find myself only mildly amused looking at it. At one time I could not do without it, but now it is more a decoration than anything else.
Perhaps we can call it a conversation piece since so many people have asked me why I do not just throw it away.
Doing without the latest and greatest of all things
Many years ago in New Mexico, in what I might be tempted to call the “old days,” there was not all that much technology to buy. Typewriters would last at least a decade or two without further budget support other than ribbons and an occasional cleaning. Today there is a quiet vicious battle shaping up in New Mexico government about workers who “need” smartphones to be able to do their jobs. They need big fancy offices, new cars, and smartphones, and they must attend conferences in famous resort areas.
Before anyone gets in a thither, I do use a smartphone and would lose about 99 percent of my effectiveness if I found myself back on the old manual typewriter. But if I was in the shape that New Mexico is in I might pull in my horns a bit and could do without the latest and greatest of all things. Bet I could do without a jet for sure.
There is most of five and a half billion dollars for the New Mexico budget, but according to some people, there is no way to spend less than, um, er, let’s see, everything we have and at least billion more. There is no amount of money that these people cannot spend. And the mantra is: We deserve this tax money and more.
The issue is not if New Mexico has the money for all that is wanted; it is, where does New Mexico have its priority? Despite the doom and gloom from Santa Fe, I see that New Mexico is still watering the grass and paving parking lots. I will know that there are true budget problems when parking lots revert to dirt in Santa Fe and the lawns are not watered.
The question becomes, what should be the last thing to be cut in New Mexico? That establishes the priority of the state. If the answer is nothing can be cut, it shows there is no priority, only raw desire for taxpayer money.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.
Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed