Seems to me like we always focus on the minutiae of political races. Who’s taken money from whom? What associations might we not see with the candidates?
In reality a big part of winning a political contest is the drive of a candidate and his or her followers. To win a race, either you or your supporters (and ideally both) have to want it more than the other guys. Part of that equation is the desire to lead and inspire. Another part is a passion to change something about government — or to maintain the status quo. Together, in the right combination, the parts lead to a winning campaign.
A lot of the key players in Maine just aren’t showing this kind of fire so far in the campaign. Mitchell doesn’t seem to be making much headway in the area, and Cutler, while showing some promise, seems more caught up in a race for second place than he does about winning the whole election. The state’s Democrats, for the most part, pretty much have everything they want right now: a liberal governor, massive new programs at the state and national levels, and a pretty solid lock on federal leadership (for now).
Right now (in Maine, at least) the drive is firmly in the corner of Republican voters. They’re tired of how things have been done in the state, and they want their leadership to change. LePage, the leader of their movement, doesn’t seem as passionate as some of the voters he represents, but he’s well aware of those who want to see a different kind of government. For them, he’ll do.
Conservatives hold the fire right now, but it hasn’t always been that way. Obama’s win in 2008 was largely due to the backlash from voters who wanted to move as far away from Bush’s policies as possible. In that race, Obama had the added advantage of being more charismatic and telegenic than his seasoned opponent.
The humor of this year’s Maine gubernatorial race is that LePage may be elected because of the same idea that worked for Obama two years ago. While the substance between the two is much different, the message is the same: the voters with the most passion and desire want change, and they want it now.
Ever since last week’s introduction of iPhone OS 4 by Apple, one section number has been swirling through the heads of developers around the world: 3.3.1. In Apple’s latest license agreement for software that runs on iPhones, iPods, and iPads, Apple has restricted any software originally built using any languages other than C, C++, and Objective-C.
Adobe (among many others) isn’t a fan of these new terms. One of the most anticipated features of their upcoming CS5 suite is the ability to use Adobe Flash and convert programs into apps that could be used on the iPhone platform — well, at least before the change in terms by Apple.
I’ve been reading through developer responses over the last few days. Some people support Apple. Some think the change is a ploy by the fruit company to lock devs into using Apple products and therefore drive more Mac sales.1 Some people seem to think that Apple just flat-out hates developers.2
Personally, I’m right in the middle. I think developers should be able to use whatever tools they want to build their apps, but I also understand Apple’s position. I think it’s pretty simple, actually.
The core of Apple
To understand why Apple made the change, you have to understand Apple. Sure, they want to make money and encourage people to stay on the iPhone platform, but I believe that Apple’s desire to uphold the user experience for users of their iPhone-class devices is just as important to them.
Yes, I’d prefer that Apple would accept non-C/C++/Obj-C apps and at least give them a shot at a review. I still wish there was a way for advanced users to hook apps into their phone without using the App Store, too. Apple would prefer an experience where everything has been tested for quality before it reaches users at all. Seems like Apple’s taking the “well, if you don’t like it, nobody says you have to write for our platform” approach with this one.
Apple’s all about the experience. They’ve published extensive interface guidelines for programmers that detail how every element — right down to submit buttons — should work. They’ve decided not to approve apps based on their inconsistencies with the “iPhone’s distinctive user experience.” And now (as John Gruber explains well) they’re limiting apps that most often don’t match the quality or user experience of those built specifically for the iPhone.
A common cry from developers opposed to the change is that Apple has placed the needs of developers second. That’s true. But Apple isn’t first, despite what opponents of the change would like you to believe. The user and his experience with the product comes first. And that’s how it should be.
1. I don’t agree with this point at all. Apple has encouraged – not limited – people to build web apps specifically tailored for the iPhone, and they can be made without any review or approval by Apple. iPhone web apps can do almost everything native apps can do (less any functions that depend on hardware, of course).
2. I don’t agree with this, either. There are over 140,000 iPhone apps in the App Store, and I’d bet that many of those were made by people who wouldn’t otherwise have that level of opportunity and exposure to make money with software development. In addition Apple’s development terms are, in many ways, much less restrictive than those of Nintendo or Microsoft.
With BarCampBoston3 coming up this weekend, I thought it would be a good time to do a little introductory post for anyone who doesn’t know me.
I’m Justin. I graduated from the University of Maine in 2005 with a major in new media and minors in computer science and psychology. I’m currently employed at Sephone Internet Solutions, a Web design and development company in downtown Bangor, Maine.
One of my weaknesses is that I’ve always been interested in too many things. In addition to Web development, I spend quite a bit of time doing nature and event photography around Maine (as seen on Flickr or Pine Tree Photography, my gallery site). There’s also a lot of evidence around the Web of small projects I’ve started and all-but-abandoned due to my struggle with Application-ADD.
I love having good conversations. I love people who are passionate about what they do and people who try to make the world better. I have a wide variety of focus topics, but a few always rise to the top:
Uses of today’s emerging technologies in tomorrow’s mainstream
Organization of complex data in understandable ways
Development and applications of creativity
Want to get a little better feel for who I am? Check out my Twitterstream or Collage, my aggregated collection of posts from around the Web. You can also always get in touch with me by e-mailing mail (at) justinrussell [dot] com. If you see me, feel free to say hi!
Y’know, I was 3/4 done a post about politics and then I decided to scrap it. It just didn’t sound right. This is my second try.
I don’t enjoy talking about politics in the course of normal discussion. The simple reason is because people are often so closed-minded when it comes to debatable issues that they very seldom open their minds enough to risk a change of opinion.
As I see it, there are just too many facets of government to be able to know everything about everything. I’ve developed a set of beliefs based on my past experience, but I like to think that I’m open enough to able to change my opinion if a better set of beliefs is presented to me.
Abortion is the perfect example for me. I’m pro-choice. Laura, one of my best friends, is most definitely not. For the past couple of years, we’ve had an ongoing e-mail conversation covering just about every detail of the topic: what we believe, why we believe it, what we believe should be done. After really diving into the discussion, I realized that although our views of the subject appear to differ quite a bit at the surface, there are really only one or two differences in our beliefs… the most notable of which being the point at which life actually begins.
In the end I believe real progress on political issues will only be achieved with a through, heartfelt conversation over the differences people have on any given topic. There are a lot of smart people in the world, and not all of them share the same views. In other words, there’s a very good chance that there are some very good reasons why people disagree with you on any given topic. Shouldn’t we all invest a little time to hear why others feel the way they do?
In 2004 I thought of an idea for a site that would act as sort of a political MySpace… a place where candidates for any race could sign up for a page, list their thoughts on issues, and allow people to find the best candidate. Facebook has done something like it, but I had wanted to open it up to anyone from presidential candidates to local sheriffs or school board members. I was quite honestly tired of not knowing what any of the local candidates on the ballot really believed. In rethinking my idea, I think I’d also want to open up a sort of issues garden: a place where people could go to thoughtfully supply the reasoning for their personal beliefs without attacks on the other side of the issue.
Obama said something that resonated with me during his little overflow rally this afternoon. It’s actually the first line in this video:
For those of you on dialup:
I will listen to you even when we disagree. We’re not going to agree all the time.
There needs to be less talking and more listening in politics. Maybe that’s what would get me interested in it again.
I don’t want to be just another person spouting off my political thoughts until November. Instead, I want to start a little mini-project to cause you to rethink some of the beliefs you may have. I’ll occasionally write a blog or a Twitter post marked “Politics Unusual” (and they’ll be in Collage, of course); these will be things that I believe will either strengthen your beliefs or cause you to reconsider them. If you have any thoughts for me, let me know.
I’ll admit it: I was planning to let my subscription of Wired run out.
This month’s Wired cover story features Sarah Silverman helping readers understand why so many parts of the world suck. I’m always impressed by their stories; they’re topical, fun, and really comprehensive. This month’s issue also includes the paper version of the iPhone story, so I thought I’d flip through and see which pictures they decided to use and how they decided to lay the story out. (I’m a bit of a page layout geek, too.)
Not surprisingly, I was interrupted on my way to the story by a stupid pack of magazine subscription cards stuffed annoyingly into the middle of a story. On the facing page I noticed Sarah out of the corner of my eye. I looked down, and she was surrounded on a couch by a plethora of the very same Wired subscription cards I now held in my hands. I cracked a smile, and I couldn’t help but shake my head and whisper to myself, “There’s no way.” I read the segment of the “Why things suck” story on the page underneath the cards:
“You know all the subscription cards cluttering up this issue of Wired? Well, um… sorry … The worst part about ‘em? They cover up some really good stories.”
I think my jaw dropped at that point. I’m not an expert on magazine design, but they either had to choose that page for the placement of the cards or lay out the issue so that the story would appear at that spot. They addressed an annoyance about the medium and had some fun with it.
I wanted to cancel Wired because each issue takes me about two hours to read and I have a pile of about twenty unread magazines collecting in my bedroom. I literally enjoy the magazine too much. Needless to say, the pile will continue to grow thanks in large part to that little stunt they pulled this month.
The question I’m asked most often is why I’m still in Maine. The answer to this question is a lot more complicated than you might think.
First you have to understand why I still do Web development. Although I have some pretty strong complaints and annoyances with this line of work, the fact is that I like to help people. Above all else, I like to help people. I like helping people understand this new world. I like seeing their face when they say, “You can actually do that?” I tell stories to try to make people understand what makes me excited about it all. And while Web development isn’t the closest match to my real technology interest, it’s a fairly secure way to have some sort of anchor in this world that I adore (and it’s something that I’d like to believe I’m fairly good at). I also like it because it’s a fairly reliable 9-5 job (although that sometimes doesn’t happen). The set schedule allows me to spend my non-work time exploring this space even further, trying new things, and being creative in ways that I just can’t while I’m doing business sites.
So why do I do it in Maine?
I am within a two-hour drive of what I believe to be the best national park in the country, a great city, and one of the best mountains in the East (and within three of one of the coolest areas in the world). We have some of the best people in the world here. We’re independent, we’re opinionated, and we do things our own way. We have snow, we have heat, we have rain, and we have thunder. It’s laid back. I honestly believe there’s no other place in the world that can match the place I am right now.
What happens if you combine the two? I have the chance to help the businesses I’ve grown up watching, visiting, and paying. It’s a way of saying thanks, and it’s a way to let other people know about the businesses that I love.
My final point is this: I do not do what I do where I do it for the money. It’s true that I could be making a lot more dough in the middle of a city, or if I tweaked my job a bit to become more specialized. Instead, I do it so that I can be proud of the work that I do. I do it so that I can enjoy the work that I do. The combination of those two serve as the barometer of my happiness; if I am enjoying work and am proud of it, I’m happy, but if either of those two fade, so does my happiness.
We have a lot of traditions in my family, and I enjoy them all: holiday baking, whale watching in the summer, apple picking in the fall, a hike up Mount Battie in Camden in the spring. We’ve done them for more years than I can remember.
Two years ago I started another tradition: a Christmas Eve trip to South Paris, Maine. I’ve spent the last two Christmas Eves with my friend Melody. We usually grab a bite to eat and catch up on what’s happening in our lives. We also visit the elk farm in West Paris.
The elk at the farm are amazing. They’re beautiful animals, and they’re used to being fed grains by people. They walk right up to the fence and will lick the grain out of your hand if you so choose; you can also throw it into a feeding trough. They seem to like being patted, and they’re lots of fun overall.
The other highlight of the trip is the drive back home. I stay in South Paris until around five, and then I make the three-hour drive back through Rumford, Farmington, and Skowhegan, stopping at the Irving station in Farmington for a cup of hot chocolate and admiring the Route 2 Christmas decorations along the way. On the radio for the trip is WHOM‘s “Home for the Holidays.” The leisurely drive on Christmas Eve with Christmas music in my ear makes me smile for the whole trip home.
On Monday I’ll continue my South Paris elk trip tradition. It’s one of the few new traditions I’ve started recently, and it really makes me realize what’s so special about doing the same things year after year: it evokes emotion. The drive back is a quintessential Christmas season experience for me.
Merry Christmas to you all. No matter what you practice, enjoy the season.
This is the letter I wrote CBS after I read and watched the piece:
I’ll be bluntly honest: I was offended by your 60 Minutes “Millienials” piece. As a 24-year-old Web developer, I find it outrageous that you stereotyped a whole generation based largely on the accounts of two twenty-somethings who make a living coaching its least productive workers.
Why, in a piece covering 12- to 27-year-olds, were a large majority of the interviewees not contained within that age range? Why was all the video footage of our generation illustrating the carefree, priority-lacking members of our generation instead of showing some of us who are passionate about the work that we do or individuals who have already had great success starting their own businesses and companies?
While watching the piece, I couldn’t help but think of those old sitcoms with a grandfather whose only line in the show was “kids these days” or “get off my lawn, you scoundrels.” I can only imagine what older generations would have said as the Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers entered the workforce for the first time. I imagine they lacked the faith in you that you obviously lack in our generation.
There’s no question why the people of our generation don’t watch much television – especially shows like 60 Minutes. Your “Millenials” piece makes it tragically clear that these kinds of shows are not for us. These kinds of shows can’t stand us.
A pair of questions for everyone who has interacted with me in any way over an extended period of time:
Out of all your interactions with me, when was I the most passionate about something (and what was it)? What would you say I’m the most passionate about in general?
I’d really appreciate a response via any means (comment, e-mail, Facebook message, 206-350-HI-JR, etc. etc.).
With 
I’ll admit it: I was planning to let my subscription of 
