Steve Jobs…then

Steve Jobs for Fortune magazine

Image by tsevis via Flickr

In this case, “then” means 1997. In January of that year, the New York Times wrote this profile of Steve Jobs based on an interview with him conducted in November 1996. In that November, he was running Pixar and Next. But he was talking about Apple. In December, 1996, Jobs returned to Apple, although not as CEO or Chairman of the Board. Read the article and consider what has happened since his return.

Excerpt:

The notion of ”taste” — he uses the word frequently — looms large in Jobs’s business philosophy. His is a very specific sensibility, honed by a breadth of experience and by his constant immersion in the popular culture of the time. When he graduated from high school in Los Altos in 1972, he says, ”the very strong scent of the 1960′s was still there.” In his 20′s, he dated Joan Baez; Ella Fitzgerald sang at his 30th-birthday party. When discussing the Silicon Valley’s lasting contributions to humanity, he mentions the invention of the microchip and ”The Whole Earth Catalog” in the same breath.

Great products, according to Jobs, are a triumph of taste, of ”trying to expose yourself to the best things humans have done and then trying to bring those things into what you are doing.” The Macintosh, he has said, turned out so well because the people working on it were musicians, artists, poets and historians who also happened to be excellent computer scientists.

And so Jobs’s return to Apple marks an opportunity to reintroduce certain standards into an industry that, in his eyes, has grown ugly. Jobs has never hidden his longstanding objection to Microsoft — not, he says, because of its dominance, or even Bill Gates’s billions. ”The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste,” he said last year in ”Triumph of the Nerds,” a television documentary about the history of the computer industry. ”I don’t mean that in a small way. I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don’t think of original ideas and they don’t bring much culture into their products. I have no problem with their success — they’ve earned their success for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products.”

The statement was quintessential Jobs: arrogant, frank, insightful and perhaps more than half right, though brutally overstated. Those same traits were both his strength and his weakness at Apple.

After the documentary was televised, Jobs called Gates to apologize, sort of. ”I told him I believed every word of what I’d said but that I never should have said it in public,” Jobs says. ”I wish him the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He’d be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger.”

And here is a video clip of Jobs making the comment about Microsoft’s taste (or lack thereof):

Squirrel seeks chipmunk

David Sedaris at a talk in Ontario.

Image via Wikipedia

David Sedaris has a new book out called Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk: A Modest Bestiary. It is a series of relatively short stories about the interaction between anthropomorphized animals, a sort of Aesop Fables for the 21st century.  And in the printed version (and the ebook version on the iPad) there are wonderful illustrations of each story, created by Ian Falconer.  Parts are funny and parts are dark (in fact, very, very dark), but the overall experience is totally unlike any David Sedaris I have read in the past. I loved it in both the audio and iPad versions.

Here is a great interview of Sedaris about the book and him from New York Magazine.

Excerpt:

Because you were in your mid-30s and you’d been working on this for so long, was there any temptation at all [when you got offers to write for TV or the movies] to be like, “Oh God yes, I’ll take the money and I’ll take that life.”
I understood the pleasure of listening to the radio. So that was one of the reasons I did that. I always wanted to have a book. I actually had one in the drawer, and Little Brown called and I said, “I got one right here.” I was pretty much covered in everything I ever wanted. It was very flattering to be asked. Something told me that writing for television would be a lot more complicated than it seems, and I thought, Well, I already have everything that I want. So I was very flattered to be asked. I think if I’d been younger, I might’ve said, “Oh yeah, I’ll do this and this and this and this and this.” But I was 35, so it wasn’t that difficult to say no.

One of the offers was from Sundance. They were coupling writers with screenwriters, and they would put you in a cabin in the woods and see what you came up with. I said, “That’s really nice, but why don’t you find someone who wants to do that?” Again, it was flattering. You think, Do I really want to do that? Because if you can write with someone, it’s a really special thing. Plus, I don’t know, I think for a movie to be really good it really has to have a gun in it. And I don’t really have any ideas that way.

For a movie to be good it has to have a gun in it?
I think so, yeah.

Can you think of good movies that haven’t had guns?
No, not a single one! Actually I liked that Let the Right One In, that Swedish vampire movie. Did you see it?

No.
There’s not a gun in it.

And it was okay?
Yeah. But most good movies have a gun in them. They don’t have to be all about people shooting at each other the whole time, but I like for someone to be armed.

I’m going to start keeping count now, about how many times that’s actually true.
I just gave my boyfriend’s mother a DVD of that movie Julia. Did you see that? Tilda Swinton in Julia?

That’s the one where she was with the Russian guy?
No, she plays an alcoholic. Part of the movie takes place in Mexico. You never doubt for one moment that she’s an alcoholic. Never for one moment. She does this thing, without any pants on, or underpants. She’s fantastic. And there’s a gun in that movie. A couple.

The day America went crazy

With his family by his side, Barack Obama is s...
Image via Wikipedia

Steven Thrasher, writing in The Village Voice, calls the date that white America went totally bonkers: January 20, 2009. The day that Obama was sworn in as President.  Great read.

As with other forms of dementia, the signs weren’t obvious at first. After the 2008 election, when former House majority leader Tom DeLay suggested that instead of a formal inauguration, Barack Obama should “have a nice little chicken dinner, and we’ll save the $125 million,” black folks didn’t miss the implication. References to chicken, particularly of the fried variety, have long served as a kind of code when white folks referred to black people and their gustatory preferences—and weren’t many of us already accustomed to older white politicians making such gaffes? But who among us sensed that it was a harbinger that an entire nation was plunging into madness?

Who didn’t chuckle, after all, the first time they heard that white people had doubts that Barack Obama had even been born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president? It sounded like one of those Internet stories in which some (usually white) writer does his best to prove something everyone knows to be true is actually the exact opposite. And you go along with it for a few paragraphs to see how long the writer can convince you that what you know is right is actually wrong.

The Tea Party: uncensored

Matt Taibbi

Matt Taibbi has a great new Rolling Stone article summarizing the results of his close-up look at the Tea Party. Highly recommended.

Excerpt:

Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it’s going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I’ve concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They’re full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry’s medals and Barack Obama’s Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.

***

In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American revolution, one that will “take our country back” from everyone they disapprove of. But what they don’t realize is, there’s a catch: This is America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change. The Tea Party today is being pitched in the media as this great threat to the GOP; in reality, the Tea Party is the GOP. What few elements of the movement aren’t yet under the control of the Republican Party soon will be, and even if a few genuine Tea Party candidates sneak through, it’s only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP’s campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation.

Update: Matt Taibbi has a book coming out on November 2, called Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America.  Can’t wait to get it.

The GOP (false) pledge

David Leonhardt
Image by The Aspen Institute via Flickr

The Pledge released by the Republicans promising fiscal sanity is false. David Leonhardt [pictured right], in the Economic Scene article this morning, calls out the lie. He doesn’t use that term, but he correctly notes that the pledge cannot credibly reduce the deficit by blocking tax increases and severely limiting the areas of the Federal budget that can be reduced. Great article.

Excerpt:

… remember, when politicians tell you that they are opposed to tax increases, Medicare cuts, Social Security cuts and military cuts, they’re really saying that they are in favor of crippling deficits.

Another horrible idea

A website blocked in Bahrain
Image via Wikipedia

Several politicians have announced a new proposed bill called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). It would create two blacklists of Internet domains: one created by the courts and a second created by government bureaucrats. Domains added to the lists would be blocked by US ISPs.

COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites “dedicated to infringing activity,” but that’s defined very broadly — any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are “central to the activity of the Internet site” could be blocked.

This is Internet censorship, pure and simple. Welcome to China.

You can sign a petition in opposition to this governmental censorship here.

Latest attack on privacy (updated)

The Feds are preparing to require a back-door in all encrypted communications, including  those over the net.

The Obama administration will seek a new federal law forcing Internet e-mail, instant-messaging, and other communication providers offering encryption to build in backdoors for law enforcement surveillance, the New York Times reported today.

Communication providers, apparently including companies that offer voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, would be compelled to reconfigure their systems so that police could be guaranteed access to descrambled information.

Very stupid idea, and reminiscent of the fight over  the “Clipper Chip” back in 1993. In that case, the Feds eventually backed down on a requirement that only encryption that could be broken by a Federal key would be allowed.

The Federal claim is that they are just trying to recover functionality that they had with the phone system.  However, keep in mind this quote from Phillip Zimmerman:

When privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

Update: Be sure to read Glenn Greenwald’s take on this proposal:

The new law would not expand the Government’s legal authority to eavesdrop — that’s unnecessary, since post-9/11 legislation has dramatically expanded those authorities — but would require all communications, including ones over the Internet, to be built so as to enable the U.S. Government to intercept and monitor them at any time when the law permits.  In other words, Internet services could legally exist only insofar as there would be no such thing as truly private communications; all must contain a “back door” to enable government officials to eavesdrop…

***

Then there is this article in The Washington Post this morning, which reports that “[t]he Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering.” Whereas banks are now required to report all such transactions over $10,000 or which are otherwise suspicious, “the new rule would require banks to disclose even the smallest transfers.”  “The proposal also calls for banks to provide annually the Social Security numbers for all wire-transfer senders and recipients.”  It would create a centralized database enabling the U.S. Government to monitor a vastly expanded range of financial transactions engaged in by people who are under no suspicion whatsoever of criminal activity…

Frugal Republicans build a courthouse (updated)

Marco Rubio, Florida Republican & former speak...
Image via Wikipedia

A new state court of appeals courthouse, in Florida, is a good demonstration of the type of tight financial management that Republicans have exercised recently. This courthouse cost $48 Million for 15 courtrooms, mostly with borrowed funds. It is called the “Taj Mahal” in Florida. Carl Hiaasen reports for the Miami Herald.

The boondoggle was a Republican operation from start to finish, and election-year amnesia has afflicted almost everyone involved.

Marco Rubio [pictured right], for example, was the House speaker at the time the courthouse bond issue was tacked onto a 142-page transportation bill.

For such a young fellow, Rubio has frequent memory lapses. Just as he supposedly couldn’t remember all those personal expenses he put on his GOP American Express card, he now says he can’t remember the hefty courthouse appropriation.

Rubio insists the project was a state Senate priority and that he had nothing do with it.

Unfortunately, his version of events is disputed by his old buddy and former House budget chief, Ray Sansom, now awaiting trial for allegedly steering $6 million in public funds to build a jet hanger for a rich crony (another suspect budget item that Rubio cannot recall).

Sansom says Rubio personally assured him that the new First DCA courthouse was a top priority, and that Hawkes repeatedly reminded him of Rubio’s interest.

Also at odds with Rubio’s claim of non-involvement is an e-mail circulated among the judges on the building committee for the new district courthouse.

The e-mail, obtained by Lucy Morgan of The St. Petersburg Times, identified the “heroes” in the Legislature who helped secure money for the opulent new structure.

Among four who were lauded as “especially helpful” was “House Speaker Marco Rubio.”

Related: Carl Hiaasen’s books are hilarious. I just finished his latest, Star Island, and it was a very giddy read. You can hear an interview with him about the book here.

Update: A now a grand jury in Florida has decided against opening an investigation relating to the project.

Cultural quote of the day

Coffeehouse in Palestine.

Image via Wikipedia

Although they be destitute of Taverns, yet have they their Coffa-houses, which something resemble them. There sit they chatting most of the day; and sippe of a drinke called Coffa (of the berry that it is made of) in little China dishes as hot as they can suffer it: blacke as soote, and tasting not much unlike it…

Sir George Sandys (1577-1644), on encountering coffee-houses in Turkey in 1610. (via Quotation of the Day Mailing List)

Tech quote of the day

Facebook logo
Image via Wikipedia

Critics contend I am unfair to Facebook merely because I have described it as an ocean of banalities shared among persons with lives so empty they echo. I defend my thesis but admit my evidence has been unscientific — entirely anecdotal — based on my occasional dips into this tepid, lifeless lagoon of dishwater-dull discourse.

But that has changed.

Gene Weingarten, from Sunday’s Washington Post. Follow the link for his scientific evidence in support of his proposition. I am convinced, but I already was.

No tea party in Connecticut

Promotional poster featuring Shane, Vince, Lin...
Image via Wikipedia

That’s right. I know you are stunned, but there is effectively no tea party in Connecticut.

So what is the excuse for the Republicans’ nomination of a multi-millionaire “professional” wrestling promoter as their candidate for the US senate?

Check out this interesting profile of Linda McMahon in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.

Pray for humanity

Anthony Doerr raises an alarm about our collective path to overall environmental destruction. He believes humanity is never likely to change our current behavior profoundly enough to make a difference, so we should prepare for what might seem radical solutions or face an end to human domination of the planet. Terrific read.

We—and by we I mean me, my friends, my older brothers, everyone I know under 45—we are the first generation that cannot claim we did not know. Silent Spring was published 10 years before I was born. At elementary school assemblies I was among the little curly-headed ciphers who read cheerful environmental tips into the microphone: “Don’t let the faucet run while brushing your teeth!” Freshman year in college we were handed Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature. During my sophomore year, 1992, 1,500 scientists, including more than half the living Nobel laureates, admonished in their Warning to Humanity: “A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”

So what have we done? Not much. From 1992 to 2007, global CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels rose 38 percent. Emissions in 2008 rose a full 2 percent despite a global economic slump. Honeybees are dying by the billions1, amphibians by the millions, and shallow Caribbean reefs are mostly dead already.2 Our soil is disappearing faster than ever before, half of all mammals are in decline, and a recent climate change model predicts that the Arctic could have ice-free summers by 2013. Unchecked, carbon emissions from China alone will probably match the current global level by 2030.

“The god thou servest,” Marlowe wrote in Dr. Faustus, almost four hundred years before the invention of internet shopping, “is thine own appetite.” Was he wrong? How significantly have you reduced your own emissions since you first heard the phrase “climate change?” By a tenth? A quarter? A half? That’s better than I’m doing. The shirt I’m wearing was shipped here from Thailand. The Twinkie I just ate had 37 ingredients in it. I biked to work through 91-degree heat this morning but back at my house the air conditioner is grinding away, keeping all three bedrooms a pleasant 74 degrees.

Side note: If you like his writing, you might enjoy Doerr’s new book Memory Wall: Stories. And for a similar and startling view, check out Bill McKibbon’s new book Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet and his recent appearance on David Letterman.