To make as much as Mitt Romney made in one year, a minimum-wage worker working 40 hours a week for $7.25 an hour would have to start work during the Liang Dynasty and work all the way to the present day.

The case is made that it's not equivelant to a socialist economy based on eliminating individual wealth and property, but rather limiting the range of extremes that are possible.

It won't make rich Americans poor, nor will it call for an equal distribution of wealth. A maximum wage would simply be legislation that states an executive shouldn't make more than 10 times what their average worker makes. A CEO can still make $5 million dollars a year if they wish. It just means their average worker has to make at least $500,000 a year.

While I wholeheartedly agree that this is a dire problem for our country and our world, and that narrowing the gap is crucial for our collective well-being, what comes to mind is that old adage, "you can't legislate morality". These problems of inequality are ultimately moral challenges, and while I think our laws can reflect our moral values as a society, it's also clear that until our collective values change, problems like these will remain an uphill struggle, at best.

This problem of income inequality is a good example. If we were to pass such laws setting a cap on salary ratios, does anyone doubt that there would be a feverish effort to find the loopholes and develop mechanisms to bypass the new restrictions? While such laws might help, we won't truly overcome these challenges until we reset our moral compasses, and accept some fundamental principles, such as the fact that we are all members of one human family. If we truly believed and acted on that belief, would we allow such injustice and suffering to continue? Would we be satisfied if our own brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers were getting paid pennies while we lived in the greatest comfort? Of course not.

So here's the irony, and the rub. Many on the right side of the political spectrum have no problem with the idea of legislating morality, as long as the morals don't cross certain lines, such as threatening the wealth of those fortunate enough to have accumalated it. On the othe side, those on the left often oppose what they consider legislating morality, in terms of social issues like abortion or even legalization of drugs. How many would admit that laws to limit wealth accumalation are indeed based largely on moral arguments?

A big dose of honesty would be most welcome, along with a good look in the mirror. What kind of society do we wish to build at this critical and transformative time in our history? One that operates like a family, where the needs and rights of all are considered and honored, even when it means sacrificing something of our own? Or one that operates like a gladiatorial arena, where only the strong and fortunate thrive?

Ultimately, the real change will not come down to politics and policy constructs, but to changes in human hearts. Once that process starts, I believe we can build sustainable systems of policy and administration that reflect these values. Until then, we will suffer in a state of conflict with ourselves.

If you bite on everything they throw at you, they will grind you down. You have to ignore a certain amount of stuff. The thing I keep saying to them lately is: "I have to love you, and I have the right to ignore you." When my kids ask what I want for my birthday or Christmas or whatever, I use the same answer my father did: "Peace and quiet." That was never a satisfactory answer to me as a kid — I wanted an answer like "A pipe." But now I see the wisdom of it: All I want is you at your best — you making this an easier home to live in, you thinking of others.

Great stuff. He seems like a very cool guy.

But I feel tremendously sad today. This loss to Hartford, to the community, seems unbearable. And it is because he is a person who lived how I want to live: broadly. Wielding love in one hand and justice in the other. Doing what you believe to be right and being generous at the same time.

She captures so well how it felt to be a peripheral figure in someone's life, a supporting cast member, that I don't feel the need to say much more. I just wanted to capture a thought I had at the end of the benefit event Julia describes. It was an outpouring of love and appreciation for this one person, and it was striking in the sincerity and joy that was expressed.

After we left the auditorium, and before we went home, I wanted to say goodbye to Tate. I walked over and interrupted a conversation he was having. I gave him a big hug and told him what I realized. This wasn't just a benefit for him, it was a benefit for all of us. Tate, through his largeness of spirit and passion for what he believed, managed to connect so many other people. And it was a precious gift to have the opportunity to share that with each other, in such a direct and meaningful way. Sometimes such opportunities only exist because of tests and crises in our lives, and Tate gave us that gift.

I didn't know him for very long, or know him very well, but I see his effect on my own life, just in the web of relationships that I find myself in, here in Hartford. It's an amazing legacy, and it's hard to think of a better one that any of us could leave behind when it's our turn to fly the coop.

Thanks Tate.

Plan to be available for things unplanned. Don't hold too tightly to your “plans”. Be available to the people and things that are truly most important.”

~ Craig Freshley

Rather disappointing, if you ask me. I do like the shield shape and the black-and-white color scheme, though. I'd propose some changes:

And with the alternate "BKLN" text:

It's so great to have options and different ways to publish online, especially ones which require very minimal setup. The other benefit of these systems is that my posts are simply text files that live on my computer, so they're portable, editable in my text editor software of choice, and very simple in terms of formatting. In fact, to move from Calepin to Scriptogram, all I had to do was copy my files from one folder to another and make some quick edits to the formatting of the header block (title and post date) in each file. Painless.

So if you've been wanting a blog, or already have one but feel like trying an alternative, or maybe don't use it because it feels like there too much friction between writing something and publishing it, I encourage you try one of these simple platforms. It's a great approach.

That risk of diminished respect, as well as the implication that concepts traduce customers with a promise of a future that can never be fulfilled, is the core of the Apple Doctrine, but it's never served the auto industry well: car models are updated in substantial ways only every four to five years, not every one to two. Plus, electronics have iterated at a pace that has eclipsed the public's ability to anticipate what's next.

I disagree. I think it's high time car manufacturers put more emphasis on what they can actually deliver. The challenge, once they've started down this road, is to actually deliver great new cars on a consistent basis. Cars that are both daring in terms of design and innovative features, as well as reliable and practical. Flight of fancy concepts are fun, but I'm not sure that they really serve that much of a purpose. These are things that can be done cheaply in software now, and the vast majority of the public only ever sees images of concept cars anyways. I don't think it's any great loss. Unless the manufacturers are giving up on thinking big. In which case, I think the market will give them the necessary feedback.

Second, Marco Arment did a good in-depth review of the Fire. Go read it. He's better at this than I am, and I think he nails it.

Now, on to my subject, the Kindle Fire, from Amazon. I have one that I received as a gift. It was very generous of the giver, and I'm grateful. So please don't take this as whining that I didn't get something better. I don't need the Fire, and I hadn't been considering getting one, so these are just my honest impressions from using it a little.

The size is what makes the strongest first impression, especially to someone so accustomed to using an iPad. It falls almost exactly in the middle of my iPhone (3.5" diagonal screen) and my iPad (9.7"), so it really is a 'tweener device. When the iPad was first announced, I thought, "that's right between my iPhone and my laptop, that won't be very useful". As it turned out, I got a chance to use a borrowed iPad for a few weeks and I realized it was a great size that filled the gap very nicely. It's perfect for watching a movie in bed, or reading web sites and RSS feeds. So it's quite possible that my first reaction to the Fire is off-base as well. It feels like a size that's too big to easily pocket, and too small to be nice for a wide variety of media uses, not to mention applications like creating music or visual art, or doing work. That said, it's easier to hold than the iPad, and my son keeps wanting to pick it up and use it, mainly because of the size. So I can appreciate the appeal of the size, but to me it's too in-between.

Beyond the size, the hardware is the other significant factor when one first picks up the Fire. The soft-touch backing is grippy, but overall I find the case unimpressive. It feels a bit cheap, though not flimsy, and the bezel that is not flush with the screen glass is bothersome. The lack of volume control hardware buttons, as well as the placement of the power button (on the bottom, next to the USB port) are irksome as well. It's thick and heavy for it's diminutive size, but probably not so much as to be a major issue. Overall, the hardware looks unrefined and feels mediocre.

Where I really think the Fire falls short is in Amazon's execution of their Android fork. I found general UI responsiveness to be poor, and there are many areas where the interface is just plain confusing and clunky. For example, when you access books area, then tap on 'Store' to go to the kindle shop, there's a 'Books' button at the top right. This button takes you back to the books on your device. First, the top right is a bad place for it, especially when the UI animation shows you sliding from the left to the right to get to the store. But the icing on this cake is that when you tap that button, the screen slides again from left to right, not back the way you came from. Huh? I find this kind of inattention to detail and interface logic to be maddening. And that's just one example of ways in which the software exhibits a lack of care.

One other area of weakness is apps. The selection isn't great, and there just aren't many apps that allow the Fire to become wildly different things, that allow people to become a DJ, or a movie director, or a draughtsman. The iPad was initially criticized for being nothing but a media consumption device, but from the beginning it had the built-in power (hardware and software) to be much more, and enable an entirely new class of creative applications. The Kindle Fire really does seem like that narrow consmption device, with little room to transform itself into a multipurpose too. Equally concerning is the fact that the apps I've tried are poorly executed. I just don't see the quality, across a wide range of apps, that I've found on the iTunes App Store. If TweetCaster is really the best Twitter client, then there's a long way to go.

Finally, I want to touch on what I perceive as Amazon's reasoning behind producing and selling the Fire. It seems to me, and has been pointed out by many, that Amazon's game here is to treat the Fire as a loss-leader. They lose money selling the device for $199, but they plan to make it up selling products through their online stores. A frictionless Amazon shopping experience that's always nearby is worth more to them than making some profit on each piece of hardware. That's all well and good for Amazon's bottom line, but it makes me uncomfortable because it means that they are not really invested in the satisfaction of the customer with that device. Only time will tell how Amazon approaches things, but as long as Fire users are buying stuff through the online store, Amazon is accomplishing its goals. Personally, I prefer to buy a device from a company that is invested in my satisfaction with the actual product I'm paying for.

I know, I know, "Picky designer!" you're saying. Again, fair enough, but it's my honest take on the Fire. Chances are, if you get one of these for someone who doesn't have, or hasn't spent much time with, an iPad, wasn't hoping and praying for an iPad, and doesn't notice such details, they'll probably be happy with it. But knowing how much better and more powerful the iPad is, how much is possible with a device that is so affordable (relative to a full-fledged PC), I can't bring myself to recommend the Kindle Fire.

After responding to my friend with a link to ANTISPEC and some thoughts, the thing that occurred to me is that such contests probably seem one way to the organizations that run them, and I bet most will discover that they turn out to be pretty different in the end. A few things that such design competition organizers might be thinking:

It's easier

If you put together a contest then you just have to let people know, everyone will want to come up with awesome concepts and you'll have tons of good stuff to choose from, right? Just set it up and watch the submissions roll in.

In reality, it seems to me that there's a lot of work involved in running such contests. The rules and terms of the contest need to be carefully thought through and documented. This probably requires lawyers and lots of revisions and thinking through all the implications and problems that could arise. It means figuring out how you'll judge the entries, maybe providing a prize, and so on.

Once the groundwork is laid, the contest needs to be promoted well if there's any hope of getting a significant number of entries. This means hitting the social media bricks and getting the word out consistently over days and weeks. It means creating a good home for the contest on the Web, and answering lots of questions, and maybe dealing with the anti-speculative work backlash.

If all that is done well, the reward is a flood of entries. It could be hundreds, even thousands if you really knocked the promotion out of the park and you have a subject that a lot of people are excited about. All of these submissions need to be viewed, and maybe a bunch of them won't even meet the requirements for file type or media, so there needs to be a clear process for dealing with that. Is it best to take the time to respond to those designers and ask them to resubmit? Or maybe it's easier to just exclude those submissions. What if one of them is the Best Design Ever™?

That doesn't sound very easy to me.

It's faster

Once the legal documents, creating a web site, promotional campaign, social media strategy are done, then the waiting begins. Hopefully lots of great submissions come in right away, but there's a deadline, and it wouldn't be fair to close the competition early. On the other hand, getting the word out might take a while, and maybe submissions start coming in slowly, and it just makes sense to extend the deadline and try to get more submissions.

Once there are enough entries, they need to be sorted, reviewed, judged, and maybe selected for follow-up. Factor in some time for back-and-forth with the winner to get any further needed files, or maybe pass it off to your designer or agency so they can create new collatoral, and it will be a while before that logo is out there in the wild.

That doesn't sound very fast to me.

More is better

Having lots of concepts for a design is better than having few, right? With a sea of ideas to choose from there's bound to be a work of genius in there somewhere. Of course, that's if there's someone who was motivated to participate in the contest, and had some talent related to the need, and took the time to think about the organization and how to represent it's unique qualities (without benefit of actually working with said organization), and felt like sweating the details of a design that won't pay and may not even get used, and got the submission in on time.

That doesn't sound likely to produce a better result.

It's cheaper

To do a contest right means lawyers.

That doesn't sound cheap to me.

The alternative

This is going to sound old-fashioned, but I think organizations in need of design are better served by finding a designer or agency to work with.

It's easier because as a client they'll be working with one person or group over time and building a relationship. This means the firm should be responsive the the needs of the organization and every project won't require new rules to be drawn up.

It's faster because the focus is on finding a vendor that's a good fit and once a relationship is established new projects can move along swiftly, since the groundwork has been laid.

It's better because the agency knows the organization and is able to do more than slap something together that looks cool. A good agency will actually anticipate needs and seek opportunities, and be a real partner in helping the organization to meet goals in creative ways. On top of that, the percentage of quality work in a pool of contest entries will be very small, because the people who tend to enter such contests are not the same people doing great work for clients. Those people are busy.

It's cheaper because any good freelancer or agency will have standard contracts, and if a lawyer is needed to review documents, that will still be less expensive than setting up something new.

Finally, if the organization really needs design services for free, I believe it's much better for them to build a relationship with someone who is willing to provide pro bono work. There are lots of great designers and agencies who donate time to causes they believe in. Someone like this can be a long-term asset, whereas the chances of forming a lasting relationship with a contest participant is slim to none.

Many argue against such contests and spec work based on the need to value design. And I agree 100%. But I also say that those on the other side need to value their own time, as well as their brand. If you need design, find a designer to work with, it will be more rewarding to everyone involved.