TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. This is writing.

Marco Arment:

Gizmodo and the like probably don’t care that the Kindle is the perfect device for so many uses like this that people encounter on a regular basis in Real Life. But Kindle owners, and Amazon, don’t need them to.

He explains why the Kindle is his favored reading device.

This just points, though, to the reality that the Kindle is a niche device.

Most current digital publications are simple text (ebooks, online articles), so the Kindle’s e-ink screen functions well for this. The lack of color and inability to quickly refresh the screen aren’t an issue. But as we move more types of publications onto digital devices, this will change. Magazines don’t work on current e-ink screens and interactive elements certainly don’t work.

This may change as color e-ink-like screens with quick refresh ability develop more, but allowing publishers to publish their content in this manner would require a very serious platform. Amazon would have to invest an incredible amount of time and money into developing a publishing platform that can compete with others who are already know how to develop good software. It would be a tremendous risk for Amazon.¹

I don’t think Amazon’s intent is to develop the Kindle into a general publishing platform. Rather, they are trying to make a book software platform, so you can read your Kindle Store books on any device you have. In this view, the Kindle is just one device among many for reading your Kindle books. The focus is the Kindle Store, not the Kindle.

In this view, Amazon did not cut the Kindle’s price to $189 and add a WiFi-only $139 model just in response to the Barnes and Noble Nook price change, but also to serve as an affordable way to use the Kindle Store. The Kindle is the cheap gateway to the store. The more Kindle users there are, the more Kindle Store users there are, too. Amazon wants to dominate the store part.

Seth Godin thinks the Kindle should get even cheaper—closer to $50 than $140. So cheap that if your Kindle breaks, gets soaked in water, or you leave it on the subway, you’ll just go out and buy another one. Godin calls it a “paperback Kindle.”

That’s brilliant and is exactly what Amazon should be shooting for: a no-frills Kindle that everyone can afford. I would buy one immediately to complement my iPad.

1. Somewhat contradictory to this is Amazon’s Kindle developer program. They certainly could build a color, quick-refresh Kindle and use third-party developers to build richer publishing applications, but I don’t think this is the case. This would still require them to build a very powerful SDK and these applications would not function on other Kindle devices, like iPhone and iPad. ↩

37 Signals is hiring an iOS developer.

Hell of an opportunity.

E.J. Dionne has a dreadful piece in today’s Washington Post. He argues, first, that we need to tax families earning more than $250,000 (the “wealthy,” for Dionne) more:

The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States — the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years — are undertaxed compared with everyone else.

Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that “the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.”

The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.

The study found that the top 400 households “paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995.” We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.

So, his reasoning for why households with income more than $250,000 per year should be taxed more is:

1. their wealth is growing quicker, so the government should take more of it to… what? “Equal the playing field?”
2. the government is only taking 16% of the top 400 households’ income, which is no where near $250,000, so we should increase tax rates on them.

His first argument reveals precisely what he (and many on the left) truly believe government is for. Government is a tool to be used to change and order society into their perfect model. Not equal opportunity—he wants to level outcome, as well. He wants to create equality of outcome by reducing how much one person has rather than increasing how much the other has. Shouldn’t we be focused on progressing so the less well-off are better, rather than making the well-off worse?

His second argument is specious. He says, because the top 400 individuals have an average tax rate of 16.6%, we should tax households with income over $250,000 at higher rates. He is justifying taxing households with $250,000 income per year with evidence for individuals with $138 million of income per year. Forget sleight-of-hand. It’s just idiocy.

But worse, Dionne ignores that individuals have an effective tax rate of 16.6% not because their tax bracket has too small of a rate, but because (1) much of that income is likely from capital gains, and thus taxed at 15% (a lower rate encourages investment), and (2) due to the maddeningly-complex nature of our income tax law.

Our tax law is riddled with exceptions and deductions which allow people to decrease their effective tax rate. Increasing their tax rate is like turning the water pressure up on a leaking hose: yeah, you’ll get more pressure, but it is a hell of a lot more efficient just to fix the leak. His complaint only highlights that our tax law must be eliminated and replaced with a much simpler system at a lower rate. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America has an excellent plan for doing just that.

Dionne wasn’t quite finished, though. He then argues that the Senate should be reformed because:

Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?

When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it’s 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation’s population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it’s so hard to get anything done in Washington?

The filibuster is absolutely being abused by Senate Republicans, but Dionne isn’t targeting the filibuster with his angst; he’s criticizing the Senate’s fundamental structure.

Congress was set up with two houses for a reason. The House was meant to represent the people directly, a true representative democratic body, with advantages to larger states. The Senate, however, was not; it was meant to represent the states on equal ground. Not the people. The states, where Rhode Island has just as much power as Virginia. Or New York.

We have already severely weakened this arrangement by allowing popular elections of senators, but if we based representation in the Senate on population just as we do the House, there would be no reason to have a bicameral legislative body. There would be no difference between the two.

Dionne’s agitation at the Senate’s anti-democratic structure points to his misunderstanding of what the U.S. was meant to be, and to some extent still is. The U.S. was never intended to be a democratic nation. It was intended to be a republic, where democracy is utilized to preserve the rights of the people and welfare of the nation. “Democracy” in the U.S. is not an ideal; it is a means, a tool, toward achieving greater ideals.

Rule by the people is a good tool, but it must be utilized properly. Providing no check against larger states abusing smaller states threatens our union. This must not be forgotten.

The financial regulation bill exempts the SEC from public disclosure:

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.” Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

Change we can believe in.

If I didn’t know any better, it’d all make me believe Obama doesn’t really believe in transparency.

Roy Choi started a trend across the U.S. with Kogi:

The dish may have honest folk roots, but many Korean taco makers across the country recognize Roy Choi, a Kogi founder, as the pioneering force.

“Chef Roy was the alpha,” said Bo Kwon, who has been serving Korean Oregon Infusion BBQ from his Koi Fusion trucks in Portland, Ore., since May 2009.

“We just Portlandize what he did in L.A.,” said Mr. Kwon, whose menu borrowed from Mr. Choi’s in the manner that 50 Cent sampled Biggie Smalls.

Roy Choi is, absolutely, a genius. There may be a number of Korean BBQ taco places opening across the country, but the original is Kogi here in Los Angeles, and they’re incredible. Why else would I routinely drive to a random location at 10:30pm for a taco truck?

Choi’s newest place, Chego, is equally as amazing. He’s taken rice bowls, something tame and calm, into something completely new yet also familiar. The prime rib bowl with a side of ooey-gooey fries is an experience.

If you live around Los Angeles, and haven’t tried Kogi or Chego, you need to fix that now. You’re missing out on something special.

Marc Eisner on the CBO’s long-term budget projections:

Under this more realistic scenario, debt would hit 87 percent of GDP by 2020. “After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and noninterest spending,  combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to unsustainable levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2025 and would reach 185 percent in 2035.”
…
Indeed, under this scenario, in 75 years, revenues would reach 19.5 percent of GDP, expenditures would constitute 28.2 percent of GDP, leaving a fiscal gap of 8.7 percent of GDP (Table 1-3, p. 15).
…

• Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment—which in turn would lower income growth in the United States.
• Growing debt would also reduce lawmakers’ ability to respond to economic downturns and other challenges.
• Over time, higher debt would increase the probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would be forced to pay much more to borrow money.

But Paul Krugman says high debt levels isn’t an issue and we should add another trillion dollar stimulus on top of our current spending.

Tim Bray wonders how app stores can be better organized:

Even though Amazon is selling way more titles than any app retailer, the problem they’re solving is more tractable because there’s a whole ecosystem, which includes a big chunk of the world’s academic community, devoted to discovery and criticism of books and music and movies. It operates against a fixed background context, rich with powerful brands; examples include J.K. Rowling and Madonna and Johnny Depp. As we gaze across Amazon’s nearly-infinite virtual retail space, we’re all standing on a platform of largely-shared perceptions of what it is we’re looking at, and for. 

The app ecosystem just doesn’t have that. It’s being made up as we go along.

True, but don’t we have something similar with, for example, reviews provided by Macworld writers and users? iTunes reviews tend to be basically useless, but Macworld provides excellent reviews and their readers are likely much more informed than a typical iTunes reviewer. Why not factor Macworld’s ratings in, or at least display them, just like Rotten Tomatoes is shown for movies?

Dan Walker is doing a tutorial on Objective-C, and the first lesson is up today. It’s a nice introduction to C.

Subscribed. This should be quite helpful.

Senator Charles Schumer wrote an open letter to Apple regarding the iPhone 4 antenna issue:

“I ask that Apple provide iPhone 4 customers with a clearly written explanation of the cause of the reception problem and make a public commitment to remedy it free-of-charge,” Schumer writes in the letter, obtained by CNN. “The solutions offered to date by Apple for dealing with the so-called ‘death grip’ malfunction – such as holding the device differently, or buying a cover for it – seem to be insufficient.”

What a wonderful use of our government’s time. This issue certainly ranks up there with the recession, the deficit and the Afghan war. I’m just glad someone finally recognized this is something deserving of response from a senator.

Here is Donald Berwick’s ode to the NHS. Some have suggested that quotes used from it have been used unfairly. It’s rather clear they haven’t.

Berwick believes that politics provides for more accountability than markets, and is more just and honorable. Here’s how he describes how the NHS provides accountability:

Ultimately, the buck stops in the voting booth. You place the politicians between the public served and the people serving them. That is why Tony Blair commissioned new investment and modernization in the NHS when he took office, it is why government has repeatedly modified policies in a search for traction, and it is why your new government chartered the report by Lord Darzi. Government action on the NHS is not mere restlessness or recreation; it is accountability at work through the maddening, majestic machinery of politics.

And how he characterizes the market:

You could have obscured – obliterated – accountability, or left it to the invisible hand of the market, instead of holding your politicians ultimately accountable for getting the NHS sorted. You could have let an unaccountable system play out in the darkness of private enterprise instead of accepting that a politically accountable system must act in the harsh and, admittedly, sometimes unfair, daylight of the press, public debate, and political campaigning.

And:

In the United States, our care is in fragments. Providers of care, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, are entrepreneurs. Each seeks to increase his share of the pie, at the expense of others.

And:

I find little evidence anywhere that market forces, bluntly used, that is, consumer choice among an array of products with competitors’ fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need. In the US, competition has become toxic; it is a major reason for our duplicative, supply-driven, fragmented care system. Trust transparency; trust the wisdom of the informed public; but, do not trust market forces to give you the system you need. I favor total transparency, strong managerial skills, and accountability for improvement. I favor expanding choices. But, I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.

So: the political system is “transparent,” “majestic,” accountable, and somehow wonderfully competent, while the market is darkness and entrepreneurs are blood-suckers looking to exploit everyone else in a zero-sum game.

This is the man Obama appointed to run Medicare and Medicaid without so much as a single Senate hearing. Ironically, a man who praises the government’s transparency was appointed to office without a single opportunity for the public, and its representatives, to inspect his credentials and philosophy. Twisting the irony dial even closer to eleven—the man who appointed him, Barack Obama, won his election promising a new era of transparency.

I don’t think that’s irony. I don’t for a second believe that Berwick or Obama have any interest in transparency, except when it’s convenient for them. They are interested in controlling society, shaping it in their mold, and forcing every individual to bend to their will, because they believe not only that they know better than everyone else, but that they have the right to force their views onto us.

His nomination is no accident. This is what this administration believes in and ultimately wants to bring to America. And when a little Senate hearing, a little public scrutiny, stands in the way of their agenda, they’ll sidestep it. The ends justify the means.

Tapbots just announced their new application, Calcbot. It’s absolutely beautiful. Instant buy for me.

I don’t think these guys are capable of making anything less than fantastic applications.

George Friedman:

It is difficult to know what the Russian team was up to in the United States from news reports, but there are two things we know about the Russians: They are not stupid, and they are extremely patient. If we were to guess – and we are guessing – this was a team of talent scouts. They were not going to meetings at the think tanks because they were interested in listening to the papers; rather, they were searching for recruits.

Sounds right.

Rands:

I fall in love with newsreaders like I fall in love with productivity systems. The love affair lasts for three weeks and then I move back to reading via Tab Groups and keeping track of my day on a piece of paper. There’s an important lesson about human nature for both application domains that is going to make someone a pile of money.

Interestingly, I’ve fallen in love with Reeder for iPad in a way I never have with NetNewsWire. While NetNewsWire is a great application—utilitarian, unemotionally functional—Reeder is wonderfully functional and emotional. Reeder on the iPad feels tactile, like I’m reading a real piece of paper.

Part of it is the unique aesthetic and wonderful reading environment, but something much more interesting is how you interact with the application. Reeder reduces abstractions between you and the content—less controls, more… real things. While reading an article in portrait mode, for example, to move back to the article list, you don’t press a back button. You move the article page over to the right, which reveals the articles list.

Every time I do that, I get that odd twinge of excitement in my stomach, the one I get when I come across something unexpectedly perfect. That’s what the iPad offers: it’s not only a digital replacement for paper, but it can capture that same feeling printed works has.