Andrew Spittle

That’s an astounding number considering that until recently the app store had less than 10,000 apps in it. That’s an average of 30,000 downloads per app! Link to Macworld story.

Just found a great article on the Atlantic’s website by Todd Gitlin (link), author of “The World Is Watching” (an interesting look at the SDS, the New Left, and political change in the 1960s). In it he writes:

A president, of course, can do many things that a young state senator from Illinois cannot.  He not only promotes a moral and intellectual style, but is also the master molder of the political agenda.  To realize his transformative potential and consolidate a base for more, Obama must focus, bear down, deal hard, and  deliver four crucial results:  1) an economic rescue that not only delivers an exit from the credit disaster but generates a more productive, more egalitarian, less predatory economy; 2) a green regearing of energy, environment, and job-producing investment; 3) affordable, comprehensive health care; and 4) a decent exit from Iraq.

I agree with Gitlin here in what he sees as “the four crucial results” that Obama must deliver. Underlying these and many other of what ought to be Obama’s goals is the notion that he must create a government that can survive and prosper in the coming century. FDR got the country through the Depression and set the stage for what, up until September, has worked so far. What Obama must do now is create a new stage for government that will last and adapt to changes. The auto industry has shown what happens when corporations become so bloated that they can no longer respond to shifts in technology and consumption. The government created by Obama needs to be one that can respond to shifts in economics and international diplomacy without crumbling. It needs to be one that can make use of the present world and present technologies in the same, powerful way that Obama’s campaign did. Here’s hoping.

Obama on the campaign

Since the election over a month ago I have been torn about what to think of the transitioning Obama administration. On the one hand he is appointing some rivals to his cabinet, notably Clinton. On the other hand, though, some of his appointments, again sticking with the Clinton appointment, have simply continued the prevalence of “Washington insiders.” This has simply reaffirmed my hesitancies that caused me to actually not vote for either Obama nor McCain.

My concerns lie in the question of whether President-elect Obama will be bringing deep structural change to government or will he simply bring a vast cultural shift? While from my stand point as a liberal-leaning college student a significant change in culture would certainly be acceptable it is not the type of change that I believe is necessary after the current President Bush’s terms in office.

What I would like to believe the “Change” in Obama’s campaign stood for is real, structural change in the way in which the American government functions and regulates itself. This is why I am hesitant about appointments like Clinton’s: I fear that they will simply perpetuate the federal government current modus operandi. During the primaries I was hoping that Obama would be pushing for a critical reevaluation of federal spending and departments.

I hoped for more than reallocations of spending, but a new examination of the organization and operation of such agencies as the Department of Education. Using the example of the Department of Education I was hoping to see a reassessment of what the federal role in education ought to be. Instead, Obama is simply advocating a reform of the current laws. For example, in regard to No Child Left Behind Obama’s transition website states:

Obama and Biden will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama and Biden believe teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. They will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama and Biden will also improve NCLB’s accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them. (link)

This makes me worry that the type of change that Obama reiterated throughout his campaign will end up being something far different from a new form of governance. With a convincing electoral win as well as a Democratic majority in both houses Obama is presented with an opportunity to truly challenge the status quo of government.

It seems to me that he has the opportunity to affect the fundamental conceptions of what the federal government’s roles and duties are. He could redefine just what the role of the federal government is in things like education. He could either remove some aspects of federal involvement or even expand federal obligations and fully fund them. Instead, it seems that he will be focusing on what the perception of America is as well as what its culture consists of. I will not argue that America does not need a change in culture and mindset; I would love to see these things happen. After the last 8 years though there are many more pressing issues that deal with how and why the government functions. America needs a reassessment of its governmental structure so that it can survive the next century of change. A cultural shift is inherent within this, but it is not what should be given precedence.

While digging through some of John Gruber’s old articles today I came across this one which puts many of what I see as the most distinguishable and sometimes most frustrating differences between the Mac and Windows platforms into words. In it he diverges away from the title of the post and discusses the difference between an operating system being built upon a “windows-centric paradigm” (e.g. Windows) and one that is built around a “application-centric paradigm” (e.g. Mac). Money quote:

So the Mac paradigm enforces a three-level hierarchy: you’ve got the system, which runs applications, which display windows. The Windows paradigm tries to eliminate the middleman, presenting a system, which displays windows — i.e. the idea is not that your windows belong to applications, but that they belong to the Windows system itself. The problem with this is that it’s an illusion, in that Windows is still very much an application-centric system. It just doesn’t look like it. When it comes right down to it, Windows is almost every bit as application-centric as the Mac, but the Windows human interface attempts to disguise this, ostensibly to make things simpler.

Overall, the article is a great read and does a brilliant job of moving the Mac vs. Windows debate past the common “eye candy”, etc. themes.