Michael Braun's Blog

I’ve now had two Facebook friends (both from high school) become fans of a ridiculously stupid Facebook page – “Making Drug Tests required to Get Welfare.” It is, of course, quite possible that a very intelligent person created this page. But judging by his or her random capitalization (why is “required” not capitalized?), the person isn’t the brightest. This is further evidenced by the fact that the proposal is completely and utterly absurd. So, for anyone looking to criticize someone else for “fanning” this page, or for anyone who doesn’t get why it’s stupid, here are some reasons.

1. Innocent until proven guilty and the right against unlawful search and seizure. These concepts are basic to our legal system. In other words, the police can’t just search your house or your person without justified cause. Justified cause requires a reasonable suspicion that you have done something illegal (or in other cases, to protect the welfare of the officers stopping you). This basic right would be violated if we required drug testing to receive welfare benefits.

2. Equal protection under the law. If people who deserve welfare benefits have to undergo drug testing, then why not people receiving other benefits from the government? The government grants you the right to drive. Why not require drug testing before renewing your license? Driving and drug use don’t mix, so this seems very reasonable. The government grants you the right to private ownership and protection of ownership. Why not require drug testing before you can buy a house? We don’t want people turning their houses into meth labs, so this too seems perfectly reasonable. If you are an idiot.

3. This does nothing to help protect the innocent. One idea behind drug testing as a precondition to welfare receipt seems to have to do with protecting people. First and foremost should be protection of any children in the recipient’s care. If the person is using drugs, then he or she is probably not fit to care for children. But we already have laws on the books for the protection of children. This burden of drug testing may actually hurt children, as it could cause some deserving recipients to forego application due to fear of arrest, as well as add in a large burden for anyone who does go through the process.

4. This doesn’t help the taxpayer either. Take a look at the economy; it’s not doing so hot right now. That means there are a lot of very qualified people who can’t find work. Should they need help once their savings run out and they exhaust all other options, we have a social safety net. The same goes for people who aren’t well educated, don’t have savings, and can’t find a job. As taxpayers, how do we want these people living? On the street, begging on every corner? Breaking into our houses just to get something to eat and a blanket so they don’t freeze to death? Stressing public services like libraries? Filling emergency rooms when they get hypothermia? Of course not! That’s a big part of the reason we have welfare in the first place. If you need help, then there is some assistance available to you. Discouraging application for welfare means more of the problems we want to avoid.

5. Where’s the line drawn on welfare recipient behavior? At its core, the proposal favors a control on the behavior of welfare recipients. If you do drugs, then you can’t get welfare. But aren’t there many other, more common behaviors that would also be good to control? If you are on welfare, then you can’t have another child. If you are on welfare, then you can’t buy alcohol, or candy, or comic books, or clothes (unless they help you get a job). If you are on welfare, then you can’t hang out with your friends, or make long distance phone calls (unless they help you get a job), or read a book (unless it’s about getting a job). Slippery slope arguments are inherently weak, but in this case, if you really think drug testing should be required, then don’t these other things seem just as, if not MORE, reasonable? Maybe recipients should have to keep receipts for everything they spend the money on and then turn it in at the end of the month for strict accounting. Everything unaccounted for comes out of next month’s check. Maybe it could also be payable as a pound of flesh.

In the end, if you are my Facebook friend and you “fan” this page, I will remove you as a friend after critiquing your logic. If you too have Facebook friends “fanning” this page, then I encourage you to stand up to them. Don’t let people keep these ridiculous beliefs! (Further, take a look at the comments posted on the fan page; see how many seem racially-tinged. A lot did for me.) If we don’t confront this ignorance now, then who knows where it will lead.

I emailed my dad about the iPad almost as soon as it came out, saying that he should seriously consider buying one so that he can have a portable and useful internet device. He said that he’d looked at it and thought that it could be really good. But he also commented on the wide array of negative things that he had heard about the product. As a life-long Apple fan (Apple’s life, not his life), he felt the attacks were personal and uncalled for, going as far as to compare the attacks on Apple and Steve Jobs with attacks on other famous innovators who were similarly mocked. Clearly, we had been reading different sources. I have read mostly positive things about the iPad, ignoring criticism, whereas his popular press sources seemed to steer more negative (or at least more disappointed). I think people’s expectations have gotten way out of whack.

For everyone who expected the iPad to replace their laptop, are you that stupid? First, Apple’s laptop sales and share of the market is huge. That’s where they make a TON of money, especially because college students opt for laptops almost exclusively these days. A tablet that was a fully functional laptop would have either A) cannibalized sales of laptops, B) been way too expensive to appeal to a casual buyer, or C) both.

Second, Apple is innovative, but no one is innovative enough to completely redesign an operating system around touch only. That means that, had Apple released a laptop replacement tablet, you would have ended up needing a stylus and keyboard, and probably a mouse as well. Now, knowing what we know about Apple’s minimalist design philosophies, how likely would that have been? Anyone who spends even a minute thinking about Apple’s decisions in the past knows that they would never make such a jump.

For everyone who expected the iPad to have an infinite number of ports and connectors, have you seen the way Apple innovates in the past? They do it by eliminating features that they believe will become unnecessary in the future, not by adding whatever new technology is available. Look at the iMac – it caused a revolution because it didn’t have a floppy disk drive. But it wouldn’t take many more years before no one on earth used floppy disks. Indeed, recall the capacity of a floppy disk and compare that to the capacity of your smallest flash drive; there is no comparison.

Yes, if you want to use an iPad with a lot of different files, you will have to interact with those files without using a USB-based peripheral storage device. In this way, Apple has embraced the use of networked and “cloud” based files. Their dedication to data-via-networking prompted them to get rid of the optical drive on the MacBook Air, and this philosophy continues with the iPad.

For everyone who expected the iPad to fit perfectly into their life, realize that no Apple product can be everything to everyone. In fact, it is entirely possible that the way you use a computer is different from how Apple envisions most people using a computer. The world as Apple sees it has a distinct rupture between content and the devices we use to interact with that content. We have easy to use websites like YouTube running on full-powered computers. In Apple’s vision, the device actually makes the content harder to use, and thus less enjoyable. Feel free to try to dispute this thesis, but from this perspective Apple’s products make a lot more sense.

The iPad is restrictive and not a full computer so as to eliminate some of the barriers between the content and the device. Typing in a URL or accessing bookmarked sites does not require a full physical keyboard and mouse. Neither does using a calendar application or reading your email. Playing music, watching movies, looking at pictures – all these tasks and more are actually more natural to do without a full-power computer. This has been demonstrated by the incredible success of the iPhone and iPod touch – two devices with small screens and limited functionality that have, nevertheless, sold millions and millions. That same functionality has been replicated and expanded on the iPad.

Lastly, for everyone who expected the iPad to appeal to techies, get a life. Just like the market for hard-core video gamers is not enough to sustain the revenues video game companies need to survive, Apple cannot depend on the most tech savvy to keep the company afloat. Indeed, Apple has always prided itself on their intuitive combination of hardware and software to make the computing experience as seamless as possible. If you are the kind of person who wants to disassemble your computer, you’d best not buy from Apple. But if you’re the kind of user who wants to know how to use a product right out of the box, then take a peek at Apple’s offerings.

As a relatively tech savvy individual, I could not be more excited about the iPad. I am now 90% committed to purchasing one as soon as I possibly can. It most certainly won’t replace my laptop, but it will augment my computing experience. At the iPad’s price points, my expectations have been so far blown away, that I can’t even begin to find complaint at Apple’s newest product.

I’m head-over-heels smitten with the iPad. It has seriously captured my attention and will, most likely, put me over $600 in debt come the end of March when it is available for purchase. I’ve been consuming every bit of information about it that I can find. Even with all the information out there, I still have some unanswered questions about how the iPad will work. I hope to find out the answers to these questions before making the final plunge.

1. How do you get non-media files onto your iPad? Obviously iTunes handles a wide variety of data syncing for the iPad – music, movies, photos, even calendars, contacts, and bookmarks. But what about PDF and word processing files? Is there some way to sync these with the iPad? Will it work to put them in your email? Will there be an app that allows connection to a remote server? Clearly there is some way to get these files to your iPad, but I would like to know what it is specifically.

2. How does the iPad display PDF files? Every week I read a good dozen or more articles in PDF form. I also export a lot of my own documents as PDFs for printing on other computers (mostly because I create them using Pages, which my computer at school doesn’t have). If I can display these documents easily, annotate them as I’m reading, and keep them organized on my iPad, I will be in absolute heaven. If I can just display them, I’ll be a little disappointed.

3. What are the features of limited multi-tasking? Can I switch easily between Mail and Safari without having to fully quit them? Can I play music in iTunes and browse the internet at the same time? Can I pause a movie to read an email? I know that the iPhone OS allows Apple apps to do this kind of thing, but I don’t know how it works or how useful it is.

4. Does the screen stay clean with lots of finger touches? Supposedly the screen uses some sort of fancy glass that makes it resist smudging. But is this enough? Will I also need to invest in cleaning products just to keep the iPad looking good?

5. With some practice, how fast can you type using the onscreen keyboard? I have nothing against onscreen keyboards. But if typing will be a continual process of two finger pecking, then I will want to invest in an external keyboard right away. On the other hand, if I can type at 30 words per minute, then I can probably be satisfied doing most work without another keyboard.

6. What version of iLife do I need for picture syncing? I’m way behind the times on iLife, as I’m still running ’06. But a lot of the picture features on the iPad show pictures grouped by events, something that I don’t have on my version. To get that kind of support, will I need to upgrade my iLife, spending more money just to take advantage of the iPad’s nice picture features?

7. Will iPad apps cost more? This seems possible, but how much more? It’s a bigger screen, but that shouldn’t increase developer costs. One of the most appealing features of the iPhone is its wide collection of free and cheap apps. If the apps for the iPad cost significantly more, then the spur-of-the-moment software purchase thrill will be quite dampened.

I’ll probably come up with more questions as the release date approaches, and no doubt, Apple will start to answer some of these questions with more promotional materials. I could also get some of these questions answered by playing around with an iPod touch. Anyway, I’m looking forward to getting my hands on an iPad as soon as possible.

If you are sick of me writing about the Apple iPad, read no further. It’s just another boring technology blog post. Where’s my writing about the State of the Union?, you ask. Here it is: I thought it was great, and I still think Obama’s doing a great job. Tony’s point that Obama’s legislative efforts have come up short is very true; Obama could be better. But after one year, I’m mighty satisfied and excited for next year. Now back to our regularly scheduled boring technology writeup.

I just finished reading through some comments on an article about the iPad (and iPhone OS in general) being too locked down. And it is definitely locked down. On your computer, you can basically install any software you want, including viruses. You can delete files necessary for the function of your computer. You can basically tell your computer to destroy itself. There are some precautions to keep you from doing this, but not enough to stop you if you were hellbent on destruction. Not so when using iPhone OS. You are forced instead to purchase all the software you want to use through the App Store. Some apps are free, some cost money, and all are vetted by Apple.

In terms of computing freedom, this is a big deal! Apple has got that device locked down, and they make money by keeping it take way. Developers of apps for the App Store get 70% of the sales of their apps; Apple keeps 30%. The only way to be able to install your own software is to A) pay Apple $99 a year for a software development kit, or B) use other software to release your device from Apple’s grip, and also reduce your ability to upgrade the software on your device until the unlocking software is similarly updated. In many ways, your device is locked down very, very tightly. You have the options that Apple gives you and no more.

Is this a terrible thing? For some power users, it’s awful. For some other users, it can be an inconvenience. But for most users, I argue, it’s actually genius. The App Store is an amazing advancement for independent developed software the likes of which the world has never seen. Apple has created an entirely new market that could not survive in unlocked devices. Anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight.

First, consider the process of getting new software on your computer. If you want to run a new application, you first have to find that application. Maybe you know the title you want and can just go and purchase it. Maybe you know the functionality you want, but not the specific title. If that’s the case, you have to search for it online. Once you find the application, you can download and install it. Sometimes the application is free, sometimes you get more features if you pay, and other times you have to pay right away. Paying means putting in your credit card number to a service and giving authorization for a charge. That gives you a serial number to activate your new software. If you know how to do all this, and trust in the system, it’s not very difficult. But if you are unaware that there is a lot of software you can download, or simply don’t know where to find software, or don’t trust the process, then you are stuck with the software that comes installed on your computer. Your computer might as well be locked down because you don’t have the knowledge to install any more software. Let’s face it – this is the vast majority of computer users.

With the App Store, however, more users have access to a gigantic catalogue of software. Furthermore, it’s collected and organized all in one place, and can be accessed directly from the device or from your home computer. Your credit card is stored securely with Apple and a payment means application download and activation – no serial numbers to fiddle with.

Furthermore, because the process is so streamlined for consumers, tens of thousands of developers have signed up to produce iPhone OS-based apps. The process is onerous for developers, as each app is vetted by Apple often in an obfuscatory way. But the payment is simple and honest, and the software development kit is inexpensive. This has created a whole new source of livelihood for a wide array of developers. And because of the in-app payment that Apple has created, apps can be made to offer new content all billed through the same secure system. That means you can download a comic book application and buy new comic books through the app itself. This means further profits for developers and content providers.

This is how software distribution should work. It’s just that no one figured it could be a success until Apple. If there was something similar for your computer, I think it would be a huge success. Imagine being able to go to a simple website, with vetted and clearly described applications available for download, all with clearly stated prices, a transparent and simple order process, and guarantees of security for your credit card information. It would be a place that lots of people could find useful software, instead of being stuck using whatever came preinstalled on their computer or buying CD- and DVD-based install packages at the store.

Before the App Store, developers were stuck with lots of skills and little place to market them. Now with the App Store, a simple and stupid app priced at just $.99 can sell millions and net the developer a hefty profit. If that innovation continues, the developer can set aside other projects and focus on making iPhone OS-based software. That’s the American dream.

Certainly the locked-down nature of the iPhone OS is a big downside for a lot of people. Some even see it as a harbinger of future increased restriction. Even for me, I like the ability to change settings that aren’t initially user-configurable. (For example, I have “Dashboard” deactivated on my Mac – I never use it, and I hate how it can hog system resources.) But for the vast majority of users, the ability to install a wide variety of apps and pay for them through a simple, secure interface is a boon, not a bust. Apple is known for expanding and creating markets. They didn’t create independent software distribution, but they did make it accessible to the masses. A little bit of restriction lead to a whole lot of freedom. That’s a trade I feel pretty comfortable with.

Back in March 2009, amid rumors of an Apple tablet, I laid out my requirements for purchasing such a device; at the time, I called it an Apple netbook, though I was mostly thinking about a tablet form. I didn’t consider them too outrageous at the time, but after the updates to the iPod touch failed to produce some of my key desires, I grew less hopeful that Apple would actually design a tablet to meet what I wanted. But upon the release of the iPad yesterday, it’s almost as if Apple read my mind. Here’s how the iPad stacks up against my requirements.

1. “Small! I want a 7 to 9 inch screen and no bigger.” The iPad has a 9.7″ screen. That’s a little bigger than I specified, but pretty close. During the presentation, Steve Jobs made a point of demonstrating the use of the device while sitting in a comfortable chair. So maybe the iPad isn’t quite the perfectly portable device I was imagining, but it comes close. It’s small enough that I can use it on the bus without feeling awkward. It won’t fit in my pockets, but it will fit easily into most any bag.

2. “No physical keyboard.” Apple got this one totally right. There is definitely no physical keyboard. Instead, you input text using a large onscreen keyboard that supports multitouch. It looks like the software also features the same auto-correct that gets rave reviews on the iPhone. That means typing is decently fast and accurate.

3. “Better syncing technology!” Still not clear on this one. I stated that I wanted to be able to sync a variety of folders so that my mobile computing experience wasn’t hindered by two different versions of the same document. We know that it will sync music, pictures, contacts, bookmarks, and calendars. And because Apple has released iPad version of their iWork applications, it seems likely that there will also be some sort of document sync available. That comes reasonably close to what I want, though it’s not quite perfect.

4. “A careful balance between operating systems.” Apple hasn’t yet come through on this one. Though the iPad is much more powerful than the iPhone, it runs the same iPhone OS, instead of the balance between their full-fledged and mobile operating systems that I was hoping for. Of course, we don’t yet know what the iPhone OS 4 will look like. It may activate new features for the iPad including more multi-tasking options. That would be more what I am looking for, even if there doesn’t end up being any sort of file management system ala Apple’s Finder.

5. “More options for output.” Apple got this one totally right. With an adaptor (which, of course, costs extra) you can use the tablet with a regular projector. Now, instead of having to bring my laptop to display presentations in class, I can use my iPad. This seems to be exactly what I was hoping for.

6. “Bluetooth keyboard option.” Once again, perfect on this one. You can use a bluetooth keyboard or a physically attached keyboard (using Apple’s keyboard dock or an adaptor). This means that the iPad is a lot more than the iPod touch for actual daily use. It would be very slow to type a blog post using an iPod touch, but with the iPad and attached keyboard, it’s just as simple as using my laptop.

7. “The right price. This is obvious, but the device has to have an appealing price. It can be more expensive than the iPod Touch, but shouldn’t get over $700. I think something right around $600 would be quite perfect.” I pasted in more of the quote because I feel quite omniscient on this one. The 32 GB model that I’m eying is priced right at $600. The highest Wi-Fi enabled model is right at $700. Yes, the 3G versions cost more, but the one I want to buy is priced at exactly what I hoped for.

My final hope was for Apple to “make me want to spend some money!” On this note, they have fully and completely succeeded. It’s good that I have to wait, because I’ll make a more conservative estimate of the actual value of the product. If it was out today, then it’s likely I would be writing this blog post on the iPad, not on my laptop. Well done, Apple.

It was just two and a half years ago that Apple released the iPod touch. At the time, I was disappointed at its limited storage capacity. Because of this, I concluded that I would not be spending the money to buy one. But times have changed. Expectations have changed. And, though my income has shrunk, I’m rethinking what I will and will not spend money on. What changed all that? Apple’s release of their long-rumored tablet computing device, called the iPad.

First, the features. The iPad looks like a big iPhone and is essentially a portable internet and media device. It gives you easy access to the internet, email, videos, music, and pictures. It runs all the iPhone apps, including new apps designed to take advantage of that 9.7″ screen. It connects to keyboards, it connects to projectors, and it connects to the internet via WiFi and 3G. It’s fast, portable, and exciting.

Second, the price. Here’s where everyone was floored. 16 GB for $499, 32 GB for $599, and 64 GB for $699. That’s for the model that has only WiFi connectivity; the 3G capable model is more. That’s so much less than everyone was expecting. I was anticipating a price at $799, which was the highest that it could go for me to even consider purchasing one. For the largest model to come in $100 less is incredible. The model that I would consider buying is the 32 GB model, and it’s at a price so much lower than I had anticipated.

So what to make of all this? Does Apple have a hit on their hands? The product is available in 60 days (WiFi version), so we’ll find out soon enough. But here’s the fact that has got me excited about the future success of the product. At the price point, I’ll be pitching this to almost everyone I know. For example:

1. My mom has a desktop computer, but nothing portable. She travels with some frequency, though, meaning that a mobile device like this could be potentially convenient. An iPod touch is too small for her to use conveniently, but an iPad could be the perfect compromise. Now she can send emails and use the internet while away from home.

2. My dad has a desktop computer, nothing portable, and no internet access at home. But he does have wireless internet access at work and at the library. An iPad would give him the ability to stay connected in a lot more places and give him something inexpensive to do it with.

3. My sister is graduating from college in May. She has a laptop and a desktop, but because she’s going into the design-based field of landscape architecture, she has a need to show off her creative work. The iPad means an easy to use, beautiful to look at device, that she can easily take to share her work with employers or clients.

4. My teenage cousins spend a large amount of their lives connected to the internet. But the price of a laptop (and the lack of need for all its functionality) means they are often stuck going down to the basement to use their family computer. An iPad would mean great connectivity, combined with the productivity tools they could use. I didn’t mention it above, but the iPad runs productivity apps like Apple’s iWork suite. I would wager there will be plenty of other word processing applications out soon enough.

5. A professor of mine uses an Apple laptop and has an Apple desktop at home. But when traveling, she has no way of bringing along a wide variety of media, like books. But since Apple has announced a brand new store for books, she could easily buy books for her iPad and take them with her on any trip. It also allows for easy photo sharing with friends and family.

6. Me! Every day, I carry my laptop around with me. But how often do I need to access my entire music collection (12,000 songs), or my entire photo library (13,000 pictures), or every word processing document I’ve ever made? The answer is, of course, never; lugging around my laptop means 6 extra pounds on my back for a lot of functionality that I don’t use. With the iPad, I can work with word processing documents, display presentations, use the internet, and read emails, all with a device that adds almost no weight to my backpack.

In 60 days, the WiFi version comes out (90 days for the WiFi+3G), which means 60 days for me to save up some money. Of course, I won’t buy without some good product testing first. But right now, I’m on top of the world. It’s the features I want, with good design, and an irresistible price. For my money, it can’t be beat by anything on the market today. Nothing even comes close.

Here’s my vision for the start of President Obama’s State of the Union address tomorrow:

My fellow Americans, I wish I could stand before and say that our nation was functioning on all cylinders, that our economy was strong and getting stronger, that there was little that needed correcting. I wish I could tell you that our budget was balanced, that all Americans had access to good paying jobs, and that the American dream was alive and well. I wish I could talk about our foreign policy efforts as solely centered around negotiating and maintaining world peace and harmony. But because I can’t talk about those things tonight, I want to take time to explain myself, explain our government’s efforts to bring the nation back on track, and then talk about what our plans are for the future, so that starting next year, I can start to talk about real progress and not about hopes and dreams.

First, the issues. Starting in late 2007, our economy entered into its greatest recession since the Great Depression 80 years ago. Myriad problems, including irresponsibility in both the private and public sectors, brought our economy to a crashing halt. President Bush worked with the best economic advisors available to propose an emergency stimulus package. When I was brought into office, I worked with many of these same advisors and proposed an additional round of funding. This money has been well-spent, and much of the allocated funds remain unspent. There is lots of money left to help stimulate the economy. This is a good thing, because though economists may say that our recession is officially over, that our economy has grown in small increments over the last couple of quarters, Americans on the street know that growth in the financial sectors hardly translates to more jobs.

It’s easy to get frustrated by the lack of growth in the economy. Even among top economists, there is widespread sentiment that getting the economy going again is no easy feat. But we don’t need economists to say this; Wall Street’s perspectives are way behind Main Street’s, full of regular Americans who don’t need to read about the economy; they’re already living it. One year ago, I took office swept in by a large movement of people from around the country, from all different backgrounds, and with many different political philosophies. And though our message was change, it’s been no easy thing for my administration either. We know the realities on the ground, and we are working to change them.

But let’s keep this economic disaster in scale. The Great Depression started in 1929; we began to see signs of economic recovery in 1933; but the economy would not return to pre-Depression levels until another 6 years after that. The unemployment rate peaked at 25%, 25%! Even in 1940, it was still at 15%. It wasn’t until 1941, and the start of the United States’ massive involvement in a global conflict, that our unemployment rate dropped below 10%. This economic disaster that we are suffering today has caused massive hardship, but critics who say that the government can fix the problems ignore the massive scale of the problem. This is the greatest recession since the Great Depression, and yet, right now, our unemployment rate stands as less than 11 years after the Great Depression began. Our government is in a position of strength. Our knowledge of economic policy has never been greater. My fellow Americans, we are working to solve this massive financial crisis with a wide variety of tools.

My administration expects to see job growth starting later this year. We will be spending more stimulus money, as well as working on necessary and important reforms of the banking industry. We have extended the housing tax credit to encourage more people to buy a home. And we hear the voices from Main Street every single day. There is no greater priority for my administration right now. With that in mind, let no charlatan tell you he has a magical elixir for economic recovery. The solutions lie not in one path. Only tax cuts, or only government spending, or only increased oversight, or only large taxes on Wall Street bonuses, or only greater innovation from Americans will not solve the crisis. We need, and are using, all these tools, and we are starting to see results.

Naturally, in the pursuit of a narrative structure to the news, pundits and journalists alike have seized upon the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts as proof that the Democratic party is going down in flames. Thus, they look to President Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday as a last chance shot at fixing everything. Obvious criticisms of hyperbole aside, what is the truth of the importance of the speech? Are some in the media over-hyping it, or is this really the last chance for Obama to keep his party in power in 2010?

The president will command a large audience, as all major networks carry the speech live. That means he has, at least for a few days, complete control over media discussions. Even this alone makes the speech an important one. But the media’s narrative seems to hint at something darker – poll numbers falling, Americans unhappy, and stories of impending doom for Democrats. On this front, the president’s speech can do very little. He can’t recruit great Democratic candidates for each close race. He can’t force Congress to pass healthcare reform. And he can’t control the Republican party. It’s an important speech, but on it’s own, it can do very little.

But let’s say that the speech has legs. And let’s say it gets talking points out that resonate with the American people and are picked up Democratic contenders. Now the speech has extended its longevity. Recent news reports indicate that Obama is taking a more active role in party strategizing for the upcoming midterm elections. This speech could be a kickoff for that larger effort. Obama demonstrated that his words help to get rid of cynicism; he’s best when appealing to our hopes. A message of “America on the mend” could go far.

On the other hand, with each great speech Obama gives, the stakes get higher. Just as soaring rhetoric inspires people to action, it also gives them a lot of expectations. While I believe a large number of people prefer a pragmatic approach to governance, some want action now. (Whether you think this makes Obama simply a liberal Bush is another issue entirely.) Words without action can get even the most ardent supporters to tune out.

And there’s always the Republican wildcard. Right now, the party seems to be flying high after a victory in Massachusetts. The media has picked up the story and relates most Democratic troubles back to the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. While Obama’s speech will dislodge that main narrative, it still can be linked back. “Obama said X, Y, Z, because he knows the Democrats have lost their way.” It almost writes itself.

On the one hand, it seems likely that there is nothing Obama can do to steer the media away from these connections. He may even welcome them in his speech. On the other hand, the dominant narrative in the media needs to be supported by Republican efforts. In 1994, they had the “Contract with America.” It presented them as a party united against the efforts of a Democratic president. But will they be able to do the same thing in 2010? So far in the Obama presidency, Republicans have been really good at opposing Obama, but not so good at coming up with their own agenda. Partly this is due to their minority power, but it also has to do with general post-Bush fragmentation. Scott Brown, senator-elect, is a good example of this. His victory, despite Tea-Party endorsement, was hardly a victory for strong conservatives. Massachusetts wasn’t rejecting Kennedy’s legacy and voting in someone different; they voted for a social and economic moderate. But most of the Republican power comes from strong conservatives; there’s not a Scott Brown for each and every race.

Whatever the stakes, I’m looking forward to the speech. I generally watch the State of the Union every year, and having Obama deliver it makes it so much more exciting. And no matter what the press says, Obama is still the president until 2012 (and hopefully 2016). Poll numbers after 1 year have little to say about what the future looks like.

In a sleepy stupor a couple of weeks ago, I came to what seemed a revelation at the time. Upon further consideration, it’s less revolutionary than I had thought, but still worth analysis. First was the idea that it’s good to set goals for yourself each day. A lot of us do this regularly by keeping to-do lists, an up-to-date calendar, or via other organization tools – nothing too surprising. But second, you must actively structure your day to make your goals maximally achievable. It’s wonderful to say, as a goal, “I will work out for one hour today.” But if today also happens to be the day before a final paper is due, or the day of a play you have tickets to see, or the day you promised to help your sister move, then your goal is likely to go unfulfilled. Great goal, bad daily structure.

Anyway, with this advice in hand, I sought to reorganize my work and school lives. This is a common occurrence, as I usually come up with some new way to get more things done at the start of each semester. Sometimes the new ideas work, sometimes they don’t. So far, one week in, so good, for this new plan. Here’s what my organization efforts look like.

The night before each subsequent day I take time to evaluate my list of to-do items – moving some forward, eliminating others, and adding new ones. Then I look at my calendar and decide what time I have available. I write into my notebook (Moleskine, small, black, reporter style) each period of the day and what I intend to accomplish during that period. In the morning, and throughout the day, I check back to see what I should be doing. It keeps me on task.

The difficulty comes in over-scheduling. If I have an hour and a half period of time, how to I avoid putting down too much work for that period? I’ve dealt with this by thinking carefully about what it really means to schedule time and by keeping a complete list of daily goals in my head. For example, after dinner seems like a very long time in my head. Get done eating at 6:30, but don’t go to sleep until 10:30 – that’s like an entire afternoon! It’s easy to move tasks to that time period, something I’ve done a lot in the past. But because I have in mind my unstated goals (spend time with Lauren, relax, watch favorite television program, read novels, get to bed on time), I haven’t been overbooking my evenings. The same thing goes for periods during the day, when I factor in goals like socialize with professors, check technology news, and keep up with friends.

So even though I have another busy semester schedule, including finishing up my measurement instruments, collecting data, and writing for my thesis, so far I feel ahead of the curve on school work. No doubt that will change as things get busier, but with my new (albeit somewhat obvious) strategies, I’m hoping to accomplish more than ever.

I almost didn’t write this post, because I have a lot of trouble spelling Massachusetts. Anyway… yesterday, a special election was held in the Bay State to fill the senate seat previously held by Edward Kennedy. The Democrats ran the gaff-prone attorney general. The Republicans ran a Tea-Party endorsed state senator. And the Republicans won the race quite handily. That means that the Democratic caucus no longer holds 60 seats in the Senate. Without this “filibuster-proof” majority, it means that Republicans can stall legislation without much effort. So the question is, what do we do now?

First, make clear that this is not a repudiation of the president. It’s not even a slap in the face of healthcare reform, as Massachusetts already has widespread coverage for its residents under a program that their senator-elect voted for. This is not a sign that President Obama is failing, especially considering how weak the Democratic candidate was. Don’t give the media a story of weakness and let them run with it.

Second, regroup and reevaluate. What does this mean for healthcare reform? Maybe it’s time that Republicans were forced to actually enunciate their plans. President Obama can lay out the issues and then let the Republicans respond in kind. How will they help to cover more people, to control costs, to deal with the sick and the old? How do they propose to help all healthcare systems become more like the most successful? The election is a setback, but let’s be realistic. Democrats had 60 votes; now they have 59. Further losses still put them in the majority.

Third, figure out legislative options. The threat of filibuster is enough to call for 60 votes to end debate, or to scrap things altogether. But a filibuster is actually endless speeches, something that has not been enforced for some time. How’s this for an image? Republicans on the Senate floor for hours and hours “debating,” while Democrats talk about the problems that aren’t getting solved. It’s possible that Republicans could come out the heroes, but things didn’t go that way back under Bill Clinton; Republicans refused to vote on Clinton’s budget, leading to a government shutdown. The losers ended up being the Republicans for not getting the necessary work done.

Fourth, step your game up. President Obama won the election because a lot of new voters were really excited by his candidacy. Unfortunately, a special election in Massachusetts, complete with a lot of stupidly angry anti-government idiots, doesn’t go the same way. That means that Democrats need to do as good a job of recruiting candidates as they did back in 2006. Remember the moderate veterans who won election back then? We need these same people running today. The Tea Party is well outside the mainstream, but that only works against them when the mainstream is excited to vote.

Am I disappointed by the loss? Of course. And I am worried that possibilities of progress under Obama may now dim because of Republican blockades. But each time Republicans block legislation, it makes them out to be a party with no ideas. And spending a lot of time blocking legislation leaves little time to figure out just what exactly they do stand for. Democrats need to work harder, but one election loss is hardly a disaster. Ted Kennedy was a powerful senator, who couldn’t get healthcare reform passed. The senator-elect is a weak senator; so let’s not be too quick to declare him the dam holding up all reform.

Recently, a former coworker of mine emailed me to ask how I was doing. He had read my What is a Cult? series of blog posts and found them very interesting. He also mentioned that he had been let go from the company several months ago, as part of a “small downsizing” in his area of work (implementation for outpatient software), which included around 7 people in a single month. That, in and of itself, isn’t so revolutionary. But what’s interesting is that the company in question makes medical software, an area that’s supposed to undergo rapid growth because of healthcare overhaul and other economic stimulus activity. Further, this company has been heralded recently for its rapid, seemingly never-ending growth. So what’s going on?

On the scale from nothing to a lot, let’s start at the less interesting end. Every company has employees who need to be let go from time to time. Maybe things aren’t working out. Maybe it’s time for a new direction. There are lots of possible reasons to fire people. But the employee in question had been with the company for over three years. Why keep him around for that long if things weren’t working out?

It could be telling of a particular slump in business. Perhaps the company stopped hiring new people for this particular role a few months prior, and now had further reductions to make. Any increase in automation of the implementation process can mean fewer people required to do the work. Perhaps this move should be called excellent for the company’s future. If they are becoming more efficient, it means smoother installs and transitions for customers in the future.

On the far end, this may be a storm cloud in an otherwise sunny sky. As the article linked to above indicates, the company has been growing like a family of rabbits. That means hiring 100-200 new people every month, not letting people go. Indeed, in my 2 years working there, only two people I knew were ever let go; in both cases, it was related to competence, and the employees hadn’t been there long. Further, because these layoffs come in an area of the company required for sustained growth (implementation of new software for new customers) and in an area ripe for growth (outpatient clinics, many of which don’t use software yet), it may hint at leaner times ahead. What does this company know about its own future that they are taking steps to reduce their workforce?

If I had to guess at the significance of the layoffs, I’d lean toward the less interesting. But the company ought to be careful. Their excesses have been well-documented and are shown off to a lot of customers every year. To keep these layoffs under the rug may start some nasty rumors that all is not as clean as it looks. Rumors like that can hurt business and recruiting, and can keep people from working as hard as they might have. If the company is growing, you feel part of a good organization; if the company is struggling, you worry that you might be next to be let go. It’s something to keep an eye out for, anyway.

Here’s something that I don’t feel good about: in the past few days, I have been avoiding mainstream news websites like CNN and the New York Times because of their endless coverage of the horribly tragic earthquake in Haiti. I recognize that the event is excruciatingly devastating for the Haitian people, as their impoverished society has absolutely no resources to deal with the disaster. But, like most coverage of natural disasters, these news agencies have little to add beyond the classic “mass devastation,” “trapped people,” “limited supplies,” and “large global response” story lines. I end up feeling like there must be other news going on in the world that I am missing because of the singular focus.

But what would happen if the New York Times stopped covering the earthquake after just one or two days? The post disaster situation would grow increasingly worse, but without news coverage, the public would be largely unaware. After all, the news media does a lot to set the agenda for what people think are important issues. Given this fact, do news media agencies have a moral and ethical duty to continue reporting on a disaster, even if the reporting gets repetitive? This reporting likely drives donations and other forms of international response. As boring as it may get for hardened hearts like mine, it helps the victims.

I’ve never worked as a journalist, so I don’t know if news rooms have policies on how long a disaster should be covered. And if they do have policies, I don’t know if they take into consideration the beneficial aspects of news coverage. If their policies don’t, then they ought to be revised. Even in our age of hugely varied news sources, the mainstream media is still most people’s main source of information on world events. News rooms should embrace this power and recognize the important role they play in disaster response. And people like me, tired of the repetitive coverage, should recognize that role as well. Reduced news coverage won’t make the problems go away; increased news coverage, on the other hand, has a good chance of helping.

It seems that Sarah Palin is not the only one in her family with new business ventures. While Palin negotiated a contract with national rag Fox News, Bristol, Palin’s eldest daughter and mother of her grandchild, was busy starting a PR firm. In documents filed in September, Bristol signed as the organizer of an LLC called “BSMP” (which likely stands for Bristol Sheeran Marie Palin). The company is listed as a lobbying and PR firm. What in the world could this be for? Here are some possibilities.

1. Bristol obviously needs some way to make money; one way she’s gained income is by exploiting her child. Just this week she (and baby) was on the cover (with her mom) of In Touch, a tabloid magazine. She’s also a representative for the Candie’s foundation, an abstinence-promoting organization. Having a single entity may make it easier for her to manage her finances.

2. This could very easily be a money laundering front. It should be obvious to everyone that Bristol, the high school dropout and teenage mother, has no training, experience, or background in public relations. That means it is very unlikely that her business will attract any paying clients. Her mother, on the other hand, has the ability and organization to raise a lot of political contributions. Putting that money directly into a personal account is, of course, illegal. But hiring your daughter’s PR firm for campaign related business could be an ideal way to funnel money from the campaign or PAC directly into family bank accounts.

3. It could also be a fancy of an inexperienced, yet highly recognizable, teenager. If the likes of talentless Lindsay Lohan can start a fashion line, then why can’t Bristol start her own PR firm? As sleazy as PR can seem at times, it’s a popular career path, at least based on the number of students I’ve had who express an interest in that focus of a journalism major. It’s unlikely that Palin will say no to her daughter, and because it’s cheap and easy to set up an LLC, why shouldn’t Bristol do it? Here in Wisconsin, I think it just means one extra tax form.

Whatever the reason, it’s pretty comical. And if money starts moving from mother’s PAC to daughter’s LLC, I seriously hope the government is watching. IRS, FEC, anyone else… keep your eyes trained on these two; I think they may be up to no good.

For an English major, and general lover of American literature, I have been woefully undereducated on John Steinbeck, a seminal American author. I was never assigned on of his books to read in school, so have instead read his works on my own. I’ve read The Winter of Our Discontent in high school, Of Mice and Men, Travels with Charley, and East of Eden (one of the worst books I have ever read) in college, and have just now finished The Grapes of Wrath. My reactions toward the book occur on a variety of levels, but overall, I was disappointed.

First, on an artistic level, I find the book middling, at best. Steinbeck seems to be trying to do John Dos Passos, specifically Dos Passos’ U.S.A. Triology. Steinbeck weaves in descriptive, stream-of-consciousness chapters in between the narrative chapters, trying to imitate Dos Passos’ innovative pastiche works. I’m usually willing to scrap “brow”-based descriptions of art, but The Grapes of Wrath was published in 1939, and received a lot of mainstream attention. Therefore, I have no qualms about labeling it solidly middlebrow. Call me a philistine, but I skipped every one of those non-narrative chapters.

Second, on a story level, I didn’t care much about the plight of these poor Oklahoma farmers. Isn’t that terrible? Frankly, their decision to pack up and drive to California, the promised land, didn’t make much sense to me. And when they got there, they found no redemption, leaving me to conclude that they made a stupid choice in the first place. Maybe that’s Steinbeck’s point – there’s no redemption out west, the American dream is dead, blah blah blah; it’s certainly a theme he’s used before. But this is a narrative based on people we’re supposed to care about. It just didn’t work for me.

Third, for a depression era historical novel meant to draw attention to the plight of the poor, I found story elements that didn’t connect to a larger point. For example, several of the characters in the book are specifically seeking redemption: Casy, the preacher, for his having sex with women after holding revivals; Uncle John for the death of his wife; Tom for murdering and then skipping parole. But their transgressions distract from the terrible conditions they are forced to endure. Tom honestly seems like a cold-blooded killer, willing to murder without a second thought. Do I feel bad that California wants to keep people like him out of their state? Of course not!

Economic elements come to play as well. Farmers cut wages when there are a lot of workers. There is talk of forming a union, but people are starving and feel compelled to work. From an economic standpoint, those farmers should be cutting wages, and people should be leaving because there isn’t work available for them. In fact, you can almost trace California’s current budget problems to the influx of workers starting back in the gold rush days. California has way too many people and not nearly enough jobs, and it’s killing the state, quickly and surely.

I would not recommend this book if you have’t read it. It’s high school literature at best. If you are looking for books that capture the depression, check out John Dos Passos’ U.S.A. triology, especially the third book, The Big Money. Now there’s some real American literature.

I’ve been taken with the idea of a strong positive relationship between rights and responsibilities for some time now. Recently, in a class on test construction, my interest was further piqued by discussing the rights and responsibilities of test takers. This has lead me to incorporate the idea into my discussion syllabus for this semester. Here’s what I have so far:

You have the right to
1. Receive coherent and helpful feedback on assignments.
2. See your TA in office hours and to receive timely responses to email.
3. Have your hard work be rewarded.
4. Get out of the course what you put into it.

You have the responsibility to
1. Ask questions when you do not understand something.
2. Attend discussion section or inform your TA and group members when you cannot make it.
3. Try your best on each and every assignment and test.
4. Be honest about how much effort you put into the coursework.

I’m not sold on these as the final rights and responsibilities, and I may end up scrapping the whole idea. But the concept of students having both rights and responsibilities could be an interesting way to encourage students to be involved in the class. By emphasizing that students can expect certain things of the course, and have certain things expected of them, it may help students realize that their efforts in the class really do have an impact on their final grade.

One of the most frustrating things about any course is students who express a strong desire for a top grade but don’t do the work required to receive that grade. These students don’t seem to understand that their efforts are a strong predictor of their final grade. They may put in less work than required, pass up opportunities to gain additional points, or generally presume they will have no trouble earning the grade they want. Assigning grades at the end of the semester is made even more stressful when you know these students are likely to complain if they get a grade less than what they wanted.

By being upfront and honest about what is expected of students, maybe some grousing can be avoided. Is the student being honest about how much effort he put in? If not, then that student is failing in one of his key responsibilities. In general, students appreciate honesty and transparency. Rights and responsibilities may be a key way to increase this.

It could also lead to more trouble, especially if students misinterpret the framing. For example, if all students presume they will get an A if they meet their responsibilities, then 75% of students will end up really disappointed. Or if students see the rights and responsibilities as a sign that the course will be radically different from courses they’ve had in the past, then they may be disappointed when final grades still come down to percentage of points earned. In these cases, the instructors are likely to look back on those rights and responsibilities as causing a lot more trouble then they are worth.

I may or may not leave the section in, but overall, the idea has merit. Students, whether they know it or not, do have rights and responsibilities. It may be better to lay it out from the instructor’s point of view, rather than leave it up to students’ own interpretations. In the end, if it makes for better student-instructor interaction, then I’m all for it, whether it causes more grief or not.