Results tagged “advocacy”

Sometimes I just can't resist amusing myself when talking in a public forum. My wife recently got a MacBook, which marks the first time I've ever had a Mac in the house. I actually like Macs, but I find the idiocy of platform wars so heart-warming that I like to troll play the part of a Windows afficionado sometimes.

This leads to unexpected consequences. Today, this story about the iPod's influence on the perception of Apple, especially by non-Mac-users, is linked on the homepage of Macworld.com. It features some quotes that make me look like a drooling Bill Gates fanboy, but unfortunately has not yet inspired any real frothing at the mouth by commenters yet.

Here's the best/worst of what I said:

To Dash, the iPod has helped transform his view of Apple “from a company that makes me roll my eyes because of all my zealot friends, to [one] that I buy things from regularly. Albeit begrudgingly.

The truth is, I’ve been around creative people or digital artists my whole life, exactly the people that have always been Mac diehards," Dash said. "And the fact that they acted like zealots was completely off-putting to me. I don’t want a lifestyle change, I just want to use computers!

"The iPod acted as a great gateway drug to Apple usage. It doesn’t require a wholesale change of my daily digital habits, and I don’t have to throw away my experience as a Windows expert—yes, those exist," Dash continued. "The best part is that the iPod can stand on its own merits; I don't have to drink the Steve Jobs Kool Aid to recognize it’s worth having."

Of course, the key here was working in the words "zealots", "Steve Jobs Kool Aid" and worst of all, "Windows expert". If I could have said "Windows just works for me", it would have been a Mac-trolling perfect storm. I should mention, this is all in good spirits. If I can get into PC Magazine on a similar story, I'll be sure to point out how Apple invented all of this 20 years ago. Just to keep everyone happy.

From the comments on one of my recent posts, here's a perfect example of the challenge of explaining technology. I'd provided a set of links for subscribing to my site.

From "AbC":

I hate something about this whole feed business. I see techies falling over themselves trying to use the simplest possible language to help the rest of us understand what feeds really are and how they work. It's like a lot of people dumb down the definitions and try to use terms they think we'll understand and be able to internalize.

Hell no.

Tell me exactly how these things work ... tell me a feed is like an HTML file that has the address/URL of where a site's latest content is posted and that you can specify exactly how you want to see the new content - snippets or full blow-by-blow.

I maybe wrong ... because techies are really muffling the real definitions with their softened, purpotedly easy to understand definitions.

I think AbC's wrong. Here's why, courtesy of Joanne:

Thanks for posting this. I've heard of RSS before, but it all seemed like black magic until I tried out bloglines. Your post inspired me to get started!

No offense, but somehow I find the argument (and potential readership) of the Joannes of the world more compelling.

I take it back, people do sometimes leave good comments. I'm thrilled with the comments on "A Malcolm and a Martin", as well as the conversations on other sites:

From Scott Berkun: (Buy his book now!)

My position is that you need attention to have influence, and radicals can bring attention to an issue that is being ignored. But there are other ways to get attention. You can earn it from people who learn to respect you for intelligent work you do, problems you’ve solved, or smart things you say.

Interestingly, I'd summarize a lot of Scott's argument as a plea for civility and accountability. Put succinctly, you catch more flies with honey. I don't disagree, I just think the honey-tongued are inspired by those with a gut full of bile.

From Timothy Johnson: (Buy his book now!)

In projects and in life, you need those people who will challenge the status quo with reckless abandon. And you need those people who will calmly assess the status quo against the proposed changes, analyzing and logically weighing the alternatives to provide solutions. It's about balance, but it's also about tension.

On another topic, my ramblings on Office 2007's big bet have indirectly led to my quotes in Information Week's piece on TransMedia. I like both hosted web apps and installed desktop apps, and think they complement each other well:

"Writely and Word each enhance the value of the other, but they're for completely different purposes," he writes via e-mail. "Kids in junior high write their papers in Word from the Student version of Office, so we're at best 10 years from the workforce including a significant number of employees who had their primary word processing experiences happen with an online app."

Dash says desktop apps continue to offer obvious benefits: the ability to work offline and responsiveness that's not dependent on the performance of distant servers or network traffic. Then there's the issue of trust.

"I think there's something a little deeper behind people's attachments to desktop productivity software," he writes. "Documents created in Word are often lengthy, involved efforts, ones that people put a lot of investment into. The combination of browsers and AJAX applications isn't yet a platform that most people trust."

Nick Bradbury had a great take on my Office post, too:

Usability is the most important feature of any application, and the improved usability of the new MS Office is by far its best new feature. I agree with Anil that Microsoft has made a risky bet by so radically changing Office's UI, and it's a bet that will pay off.

That post also had the side effect of putting me right under Microsoft for search resuls on "Office 2007". I really should do something with that, but I'm struck by the fact that, despite the marketing team's efforts to rebrand as the 2007 Microsoft Office System, this is still what people are gonna search for. Shouldn't you also be posting info under that name?

Anyway, it's not all butterflies and hugs, some of the feedback has ranged from "Who the hell calls software brave?" to Could you possibly be any more of a corporate sycophant? This is your life? I can't imagine why some people think the blogosphere is an unkind place. Sure, that's a normal reaction to a conversation!

I've been thinking a lot recently about how to be a good advocate or evangelist for an idea, movement, or cause. The short version is, you gotta have a Malcolm, and you gotta have a Martin. I've used the phrase before in referring, of course, to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., but more broadly to the idea that change requires both revolution and evolution.

Any cause or effort starts with people who are suggesting that we tear down the old and replace it with the new. But most causes actually succeed when someone who's more conciliatory helps make the change seem palatable, or even better, inevitable.

The downside of a movement requiring both an extremist and a moderate in order to advance is that many times, those two viewpoints, even though they share a common goal, can tend to see each other as their worst enemies. This is why a lot of more radical efforts are plagued by infighting and big egos. Progressives tend to be the worst in this regard -- instead of seeing the establishment or conventional wisdom as their enemy, they fight hardest against the person that's 99% in agreement with them. I guess that last 1% can seem like a big deal sometimes.

Now, this idea is pretty obvious to a lot of people. But I'm always surprised how often people don't realize they're playing one of these roles and are unwilling to consider the importance of their complement. The other thing that's surprising is how often people switch; It's often noted that by the time Malcolm became El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, he was closer in words and spirit to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s ideas than to where he started.

This is true in much more mundane realms than civil rights, of course. It can be as simple as trying to get people to pay attention to work you're doing, or to care about an issue that matters to you. Be aware whether you're the moderate progressive or the radical revolutionary, and recognize the value of those who have the same goals but are taking a different path. Being effective at persuasion is a really tricky thing.

But as I mentioned in my post the other day, you need to have someone hold an extreme position to get a moderate change. And whether you're being an extremist or not, you have to have pretty thick skin. The hard part with both of those constraints is that they make it easy to lose perspective when you're trying to make an argument.

I'm still a beginner at this stuff, but I thought it might be interesting to share what I've figured out so far. It helps me when I'm talking to a group of people and want to make sure I'm not antagonizing them or alienating them with my own position. And I figure having jotted this down here means I can refer to it in the future myself the next time I forget.

As I hope anybody who knows me can attest, I'm sick to death of the pointlessly partisan bickering preceding tomorrow's U.S. Presidential election. I'm annoyed by the assumption that I'm partisan. Sure, I have a preferred candidate in tomorrow's election, but like most sane people, I don't think either man (do they have to always be men?) is all right on all the issues, and I don't think the supporters of either side are particularly reasonable.

But more than all of this, I'm sick of shoddy advocacy. I've seen tons of URLs and video clips and a barrage of ads on TV all preaching to the converted. Here's a hint: When an analyst says a candidate is "speaking to his base" that means "he's talking to his own ass". The 10% extremists on either side are the ones who truly hate our freedoms.

And the worst thing about the candidates? They're fucking lazy. Nobody said to me "Vote for me because I'm most able to work with people in the opposite party who have good ideas, and that's how we make progress." These two guys are lazy in the way that can only come from men born into privilege afforded to one hundredth of one percent of all the people who've ever lived in all of history. Work for it, you sad sacks.

Despite all this, I'm voting. My mom and dad didn't travel halfway around the world for me to take their work for granted, and I still want to live in a world where having a civic duty actually means that you have an obligation. Plus, I don't want to be part of the mass bloodshed when P. Diddy has to murder 60 million people tomorrow night.

So, I'll post the platform that I wish someone had the brains or the guts to push at me months ago. I'm not saying I'm great at this, I'm just saying it's a hell of a lot better than any of the messages that got through to me from the campaigns thus far.

I'm in favor of a candidate who supports privatized, faith-based marriage. A lifelong commitment is too important and too personal to be left to any government institution. While the government can, and should, allow people to make contracts with anyone whom they please, it should be impossible for the government to make any laws in regard to marriage, and it should be impossible for churches to have any impact on contracts between any two consenting adults for any purpose.

I'm in favor of deregulated, free-market pharmaceutical sourcing. Protectionism and corporate welfare have no place when it comes to drugs that help improve or save people's lives.

We need a pro-small business foreign policy that considers the social environment for marketing American products and services abroad. Limiting the number of markets where foreign consumers are willing to purchase American goods is bad for our economy.

It's vitally critical to America's future that we preserve America's role as the worldwide leader in science and technology. To do so, we must allow a free market of unfettered research and exploration in every area of development, including the latest areas of genetic technology.

Finally, we need a pro-family health care policy that makes it possible for people to choose to spend time with their children if possible, and increases flexibility in staying under coverage even when unemployed or underemployed. Insurance companies and health care providers aren't properly incented to live up to their social responsibility right now, and a clear system of economic incentives would provide the right motivation to make sure every family in the United States could take care of their children without living in fear of a loss of coverage.

Though I'm an unapologetic liberal, this is (somewhat deliberately) a very conservative platform, and I've tried to couch it in the terms that make most sense to a conservative audience. But if you weigh these issues appropriately, it becomes clear that, of the two major party candidates vying for election tomorrow, John Kerry is the better choice.

Kerry opposes the Federal government mandating regulation of contract law to the individual states in regard to marriage. Kerry is in favor of letting the free market determine supply and demand for prescription drugs. Kerry is trying to encourage an environment where products and services from American businesses are welcomed by overseas buyers. Kerry has pledged a commitment to science over superstition when making decisions about American leadership in research. And Kerry has backed policies which will move us closer to an America where parents can think about kids instead of co-pays.

What is George Bush right on? He's right on not wanting to limit outsourcing. And he's admirably consistent in having a vision that he feels will address our nation's physical security. But I feel the overall military policies of both candidates will be sufficiently similar, due to the demands of our existing (over)commitments and despite protestations to the contrary, that the most sensible way to determine which candidate is best is by a sober assessment of their domestic social policies. Bush's policies are too fiscally irresponsible and not appropriately respectful of conservative values, in addition to being wholly disrespectful of social progressives, and this makes my decision easy.

I'm voting for John Kerry. I encourage you to vote tomorrow, too. And my prediction? We'll see over 290 electoral college votes for Kerry, but with as many as 3 states in contention due to the results being too close to call.

Despite having advocated the decisions of activist judges in 2000, Republicans will suddenly remember their love of states' rights in this year's dispute and ask the decision to go to the House of Representatives, as it has in every past Presidential toss-up except 2000. The Republican-controlled House will grant the disputed states to Bush, or perhaps two states will switch decisions and nearly cancel each other out, but it won't matter due to Kerry's significant lead in electoral votes.

And by the time the whole process has finished, most dumb, loud Americans will go back to hating their counterparts in the other party more than they hate Osama Bin Laden. The other 80% of us will shake our heads, be glad it's over, and get back to work.

Discussions about flexible straws, huh? Trivial? Absolutely. But what if there were, say, some larger point? What if I were pleased that my audience could accept that I'm both for and against them? What if we could use an example that pointless to see that maybe there isn't that much distinction between two apparently opposite schools of thought, or to understand that you don't have to be against something just to be for something.

I don't usually like to overexplain, but it would seem that sometimes it's a necessary evil. Those who would demonize me for my stance might be surprised to learn that I also hold the opposite one. Nuance? Subtlety? Complexity? Why, it's downright unamerican.

And the fact that allegory doesn't succeed in the weblog medium... it disappoints me. If this were part of the original series of Star Trek, I don't doubt that fans would have sussed out the meaning of these rather transparent posts. It's a weblog, yes, but first it's writing, regardless of form or technology.

Are we weblog readers so used to obvious, literal posts that we're unable to attempt less blatant pieces that reach their points obliquely? If so, that confirms my increasing suspicion that the weblog's future is in the literal (and boring) world of business, not in the realm of pointless personal sites.

It's not that we must have bendy straws, it's that we can have them.

There are simpler ways. There is the "good enough" of a utiltitarian assistant, delivering your drink with no fuss. But also delivering it, and this is the important part, with no grace. It's not too much to ask that the implements of our daily routine aspire to elegance. It's not too selfish to hope for beauty.

And beauty there is. An undeniable elegance that can only come from a curve. From the satisfying knuckle-cracking sound of a straw bending to accommodate, striving to make the mundane transcendent. "No, no, you stay seated right there," the bendy straw insists. "I'll come over and bring the beverage to you!"

It's a disciplined and unassuming helpfulness that the flexible straw exhibits. Not the forced smile vainly attempting to mask the grimace of a self-consciously scraping sycophant, nor the bowed head and tremulously lowered tones of the resigned subservient. It's a tip of the hat and an affrimative nod. This straw's just here to make it easier to wet your whistle.

That's what we aspire to, isn't it? That we might make these few precious days together that much more pleasant, that we might ease the everday burdens of life by doing just a little more than we have to do. That wasn't so hard, was it? Especially since that coy and coquettish little helper had been lying stealthily in wait, in an unassuming plain white wrapper, not advertising its charms, not asking you to hurry and choose its advantages. Holding on to a pleasant little surprise, for only the reward of the sparkle in your eyes. It would still seem that , at least in some of the smaller details of life, true love does wait.

Of course, you can just get by. There's life, I'm told, without art, surrounded only by the functional and the blatant. But why live without the grace of an effortless articulation? We're given this world that we may hope for a straw that shows through the flex of its neck that it wants to kiss us back.

Is it a luxury? Maybe it would seem so to those bereft of that hunger for the sublime. But now that I've seen that even in this flawed world, I might maybe be met halfway... now I think my thirst has been quenched.

This is the thing: bendy straws are like little plastic tubes of unfulfilled promise. The articulation, the flexibility, that's the appeal, right? But is it such a hardship to lean in on a drink when you're sipping? Is it, you lazy bastard? Do you need that kink to give your drink some lateral motion? Is that really what it's all come down to?

They're deceptive in the wrapper, too. You don't know that's the bendy lurking in there. It could be a plain ole' straw. That bulging in the wrapper where the ridges lie waiting... it's too subtle. Offer me some extra-wrapper affordance of the threat of articulation lying within!

You know how many times I've unwrapped a bendy, gone for the thumb-on-the-end jamming it through the lid of the drink move, and had the business end go akimbo because I hadn't noticed it was a flexible straw and I was pushing the wrong end through the lid? Plenty. Straws, in my world, ought to be bidirectional. Orientation insensitive.

You know who bendy straw wants to be? That fucking loopy thing. The roller coaster straw made of heavy-grade plastic that required your mom to wash it out when you used it to drink milk because otherwise it would've gotten stinky from old milk. That's the real deal, Holyfield. That's where the money is in nonlinear pneumatic beverage delivery systems. Plus, you get to watch the fluid navigate the hydraulic system on its way to your greedy face. You have the option of reversing the flow, too, and watching your toxic carbon dioxide flow out through the straw, pushing the milk back, back, back, away, until you're making bubbles in the glass. That's fucking science right there.

So crane your neck, friend. Extend over the cup and get your giraffe on. Don't ask the straw to throw a jaunty dog leg in its path just to bring that drink closer, ever closer, to thee. Put some effort in. Sure, every once in a while, indulge in that bendy. Grab the ends and pull it to its full length, undo the accordian and revel in the potential. But don't get lazy, don't lose site of the fundamentals. Stick with the straight straw.