adamyntium

Category: society

  • Pink, Plastic, and Pissed off

    Barbie’s not happy. Or at least her ‘parent’ company, Mattel, has not taken kindly to Aqua — the singing group that penned the infectious and goofy “Barbie Girl” parody song.

    Mattel’s lawsuit against Aqua recently made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and the judge there had some sage wisdom to offer:

    “The parties are advised to chill,” Judge Alex Kozinski colloquially noted.

    Beyond Kozinski’s trademark playful commentary, the ruling (from what little I’ve been able to discover about it so far) offers an interesting and somewhat contrary glimpse of goliath megacorps that are so often bullying the Davids of the world.

    And — don’t hate me — I still find the song pretty damn catchy 🙂

  • The desire for contact and connection

    I’m fascinated by the plethora of sites on the Internet that have been designed to facilitate something that our parents and grandparents did ‘naturally’ — meet other people. I’m not even talking about dating services here, like match.com and friendfinder and so on. Rather, I’m intrigued by sites like Ryze, MixerMixer, Friendster, just to name a (very) few! Oh, and of course, in its own league and rightly famous in San Francisco and elsewhere is CraigsList, a place where tens of thousands have snagged an apartment, bought stuff, found roommates, commiserated about love and loss, and — yes — made new friends.

    I know that many people, including my own loving and quite-bright parents, are unable to fathom the value and humanity of such sites. In their day, they had (and continue to have) absolutely zero problems in meeting people and having a rocking social life.

    Fortunately, the stigma associated with using the Net to make social connections has all but seemingly disappeared, at least amongst people my age (31) and younger. After all, what’s not to like about having free or inexpensive databases at your fingertips that, for instance, allow you to instantly spot people with similar interests living nearby?

    Of course, there are those who dysfunctionally take this sort of networking to an extreme… building ‘friends’ and ‘significant others’ from the ether without any corresponding physical contact to clarify and solidify the bonds. Indeed, I do firmly believe that neither true friendship — nor, certainly, true love — are possible without the in-person component. Combining the concept of one’s soul with one’s communicative presence, I think it’s reasonable to assert that there’s nothing “there” there if you’re, well, not there in person. After all… as we learned in my undergrad Communications classes, communication is more than 90% non-verbal. How can typed words on a screen possibly convey even the remaining 10%?

    Another problematic aspect of online networking is contact overload. Just as it’s possible to overeat at a gourmet buffet, so too can one be quickly stretched thin with too many contacts.

    When it comes down to it, networking is a process and perhaps imperfect art… online people-mining sites are amazing tools… and, ultimately, Balance is the key to the success of successful contacts and connection. It is easier to contemplate and write about, however, than achieve.

  • 9/11 victims assert grossly unfair demands

    This New York Times article discusses the lawsuit against the administrator of the government “wrongful death” funds for the families of 9/11 victims.

    Apparently, the families represented in the suit are outraged that they’re getting an average of only about one-and-a-half million dollars each.

    Rather than suggest that these families are greedy (which, frankly, is tempting), I’ll nonetheless risk reader outrage by instead insisting that the plaintiffs are grossly out of touch with the concept of fairness.

    The fact is, these families have suffered through the tragic loss of a father, mother, or spouse… none of whom could ever be replaced by 1.5 million or 15 million for that matter.

    At the same time, though, I must respectfully note that similar tragedies — the death of a breadwinning loved one — happen every day in our country.

    A father, killed in an instant by a drunk driver the week before Christmas.
    A mother, killed in a stomach-churning murder by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    These people have left grieving families behind just as starkly as have those who perished in the horrors of of 9/11.

    But there’s a critical difference. Unlike the families of those killed in the more nationally-visceral terrorist attack, the other families have no claim to significant governmental compensation of any kind.

    Even those families with spouses killed in the Oklohoma city bombing earned, on average, less than one-tenth those in the Twin Towers attack. Were their deaths somehow less important? Less tragic? Or is the cost of living in Oklahoma City really one-tenth as much as that of living in New York?

    All of this, then, leads me to ask: Are individuals’ worth based upon the quantity of media coverage that surrounds their deaths?

    According to our government handouts and apparent lack of public concern over these issues, the answer would appear to be yes.

  • Yep, tax cuts are the answer (NOT!)

    More than a million Americans will lose publicly funded healthcare. Crime-wracked Oakland, Calif., where the number of murders nearly doubled last year, is cutting more than $5 million from its police budget. Massachusetts won’t pay for dentures, eyeglasses or prosthetics for low-income residents anymore. Oregon public schoolchildren will likely attend 15 fewer days of classes. Ohio and Kentucky are closing prisons. Illinois is slashing child-care funds for welfare families by half. The Fire Department of New York, formerly the heroes of 9/11 but now just another costly line item in the city’s shrinking budget, is set to cut eight engine companies and reduce staffing on the remaining units from five firefighters to four.

    – From “The Fiscal Crisis” — an editorial by Joan Walsh in Salon.com

    Meanwhile, Bush pushes for more and more tax cuts. How can people not see the incongruity of this? From a selfish perspective, how can even those wealthier Americans directly benefiting from tax cuts justify the hastening of infrastructure collapse?

    Fewer cops = more crime.
    Substandard education = less-prepared workers and also, likely more crime.
    Less funding for poor kids = reduced ability to learn in school and, yes, probably more crime down the road.

    Seeing a trend here?

    Why are Republicans — who by and large are supporting Bush — so incredibly short-sighted? At risk of sounding melodramatic, do they not care about the world they’re leaving behind?

    And why are the Democrats — who have managed to doggedly roll over and play dead (barring occasional blustery rhetoric) — so damn spineless? Do they really feel it’s better to be re-elected than to truly serve the public interest?

    And is it any wonder that so many people become so jaded?

    When will Americans wake up and firmly insist upon respecting and protecting the future viability of our country, even our world?

    May it be in my time. Please.

  • Salon.com — Now you have no excuses not to visit

    Salon.com is one of the most important sites on the Internet. Luckily, it’s also one of the most enjoyable, too.

    Nowhere else, online or offline, have I found such engaging, insightful, and timely commentary and news. With columnists ranging from liberal to conservative to libertarian to simply unclassifiable, Salon.com distinguishes itself by offering information and editorials that go so much beyond the typical frustrating soundbites dished out by mainstream sites and broadcasters.

    A couple of years ago, Salon.com tightened its belt by charging a fee to have access to its “Premium” articles. At the time, despite my tight budget, I quickly ponied up $50 for a two-year subscription, and it’s been money very well spent. Salon.com is honestly one of my “must see every day” sites.

    I have regularly urged friends to subscribe as well, but understandably many were reluctant to do so, given that their finances were as bleak or even bleaker than mine.

    Therefore, I’m particularly pleased with Salon.com’s recent decision to make their Premium articles available to both subscribers AND to folks willing to page through a multi-page ‘sponsor ad.’

    I can now link to Salon.com’s Premium articles here, confident that all can view them. And in the meantime, I hope you’ll check out Salon.com regularly and bookmark their site.

  • More on getting the ‘short end of the stick’

    I posted a note here earlier about heightism, and was asked on another forum to expand upon the issues. I’ve included my updated note below.

    I’ll start by noting that I’m 5’6″. I often have a hard time finding pants that fit, and I end up having to have practically any dress pants I purchase hemmed. I’ve only dated a taller woman once in my life, and though she and I had a good sense of humor and confidence about the whole thing, I can’t tell you how many looks and often rude / un-funny jokes we got. Getting first dates — online or offline — has been considerably more frustrating for me than for my less height-challenged friends. I also had the uncomfortable feeling during job interviews via business school that — despite higher qualifications than many taller peers — I was given the ‘short end of the stick’ so to speak.

    Via articles from reputable sources, I’ve learned that it’s “not just me.”

    And it?s not all in our heads. As reported in their book, Stature and Stigma (Lexington Books, 1987), psychologists Leslie Martel and Henry Biller asked several hundred university students to rate men of varying heights on many different criteria. Both men and women respondents (short and tall) rated the short men (between five-foot-two and five-foot-five) less mature, less positive, less secure, less masculine, less successful, and less capable. Furthermore, according to a 1999 British study, men under five-foot-six have incomes about 10 percent below those earned by men about six feet tall, while the shorter men were also seven percent less likely to be married. These and other statistics reflect what short people, short men in particular, call ?heightism,? the prejudice that nobody takes seriously.
    – article from the Portland Phoenix

    Consequently, I’m not asking for federal laws, nor am I asking for sympathy. Instead, I’m just bringing up this topic so people are at least aware of the issues.

    DATING:
    Women prefer taller guys. Duh :D. Much of this is rooted in evolutionary preferences, so there is some truth when women protest “but I can’t help liking taller guys!” See also this WebMD article.

    The preference is far from minor. A few years ago, I created two test accounts on a dating site with stats identical excepting height. The 5’10” guy had more than 15x the matches of the 5’6″ guy. Lest you think the difference is only online, go to a bar and — forgive my bluntness — watch ugly tall guys get picked up much more quickly than average or good looking short guys.

    Oh, and this transcript from 20/20 is both humorous and — for us short guys — a bit depressing. In an admittedly not-very-scientific but still interesting study, women chose to date the tall guys in almost every instance, except when they were, say, child molesters.

    WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION:

    From an article in The Economist:

    Politics. In all but three American presidential elections this century, the taller man has won. By itself this might be a coincidence. And of course some short politicians thrive (examples include France’s Francois Mitterrand and Britain’s Harold Wilson). But the pattern is still clear, and is also found in:

    Business. A survey in 1980 found that more than half the chief executives of America’s Fortune 500 companies stood six feet tall or more. As a class, these wekepei were a good 2 inches taller than average; only 3% were peritsi, 57′ or less. Other surveys suggest that about 90% of chief executives are of above-average height. Similarly for:

    Professional status. Looking at several professions, one study found that people in high-ranking jobs ‘were about two inches taller than those down below, a pattern that held even when comparing men of like educational and socioeconomic status. Senior civil servants in Britain, for instance, tend to be taller than junior ones. Shorter people also have worse:

    Jobs. Give job recruiters two invented resumes that have been carefully matched except for the candidates’ height, as one study did in 1969. Fully 72% of the time, the taller man is ‘hired’. And when they are hired, they tend also to earn rather more:

    Money. In 1994 James Sargent and David Blanchflower, of America’s Dartmouth College, analyzed a sample of about 6,000 male Britons whose progress was monitored from birth to early adulthood. Short teenaged boys made less money when they became young adults (aged 23) than their taller peers – even after other attributes, such as scores on ability tests or parents’ social status, were factored out. For every four inches of height in adolescence, earnings went up more than 2% in early adulthood. Another survey, of graduates of the University of Pittsburgh, found that those who were 62′ or taller received starting salaries 12% higher than those under six feet.

    SAFETY / PREVALENCE OF ASSAULT:
    At least as kids, the shorter folks tend to be bullied more frequently than the taller ones.

    COMPARING HEIGHTISM TO RACISM:
    My comparison of this was not received well in a recent discussion I had on large forum, but I wanted to note that I’m not the only person who has linked the issues. Also from The Economist:

    In general, the kinds of discrimination worth worrying about should have two characteristics. First, bias must be pervasive and systematic. Random discrimination is mere diversity of preference, and comes out in the wash. But if a large majority of employers prefers whites, for instance, then non-whites’ options in life are sharply limited. And second, bias must be irrational: unrelated to the task at hand. If university mathematics faculties discriminate against the stupid, that may not seem fair (not everyone can master set theory); but it is sensible.

    In politically correct terms, people who share an unusual characteristic that triggers pervasive and irrational aversion have a strong claim to be viewed as a vulnerable minority group. Is the discrimination against SHRIMPs, then, pervasive? Plainly so. Is it irrational? Except in a few rare cases in which height might affect job performance, obviously. Is it hurtful? Just ask any of the parents who clamor to put their little boys on growth hormones. Will it disappear of its own accord, as people become more enlightened? Be serious. Try to imagine that a century hence, when genetic engineering allows designer children, parents will queue up for shorter boys.

    In some respects, indeed, SHRIMPs have it worse than members of ethnic minorities. Jews, Asians and other ethnics often favor each other for jobs, marriages and the rest. If they are disadvantaged within the majority culture, they may at least be advantaged in their own. But short men are disfavored by more or less everybody, including other short men. If they want to flee, they need to find another planet.

    Yet – no country seems to have any anti-discrimination protections for SHRIMPs. America now has laws that ban discrimination against 70% or more of its population, including women, the elderly, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific islanders, Aleuts, Indians, and the handicapped – extending to people with back problems or glasses. Britain bans discrimination against women and nearly every ethnic or cultural group, Rastafarians excepted. But SHRIMPs? The whole issue, if it ever arises at all, is simply laughed off.

    What are the ‘solutions’ to this issue?
    I don’t think there are any, frankly. The situation is unfortunate, but I don’t see it changing any time soon.

  • Short People Got… No Reason to Live

    So this afternoon, against my better judgement, I got drawn into an online discussion about racism. I added my two cents (bringing up the McWhorter Interview I mentioned in my blog here), and then also added my concerns about and frustrations with heightism.

    As shown on this Web site, short folks are not only the butt of jokes in songs, movies, and general conversation, but are also systematically discriminated against at work (hired and also promoted less often than taller people), as well as in the social and dating spheres. Not just anecdotally (though I have plenty of personal experience in this area), but statistically and scientifically.

    After my post, I was practically laughed and boo’ed out of the thread.

    How dare you even equate being short with being black, folks shouted at me. You’re talking apples and oranges, they insisted. Were you ever a slave, were you ever property?

    No, I responded. Were you? You, PERSONALLY? Didn’t think so.

    One kind fella came to my aid.

    So, the difference between the following two statements:
    I was overlooked for a promotion because I’m black.
    I was overlooked for a promotion because I’m short.

    Is? The answer: The black guy has legal recourse, and won’t get told to “just shut up because he’s imagining it.”

    As I noted repeatedly in the discussion I was having, I was neither attempting to minimize the impact of discrimination against minorities, such as blacks, nor even trying to argue that heightism is equal in scope or severity to such discrimination… particularly historically.

    But at the same time, heightism IS nonetheless a frustrating and insidious covert form of discrimination… and a form for which, I fear, there are no solutions. I can’t see mandating hiring quotas for short people, or forcing women to date guys under 5’8″.

    It’s one of those things that we short people just have to live with and adapt to.

    It’d sure be nice, however, if our frustrations were at least acknowledged and not laughed off as mere insecurities or paranoia.

    * * *

    Edited on November 7, 2009 to add this link to the strange-but-catchy Randy Newman piece:

  • The Free (and stupid) Market

    This evening I read about yet another large company, Cingular Wireless, discontinuing some basic perks for employees.

    No more coffee.
    No asprin to help with the caffeine withdrawal headaches.
    And no more company paid-for snacks of any kind.

    Total company-wide savings: Supposedly just over $1 million.

    That seems like a lot until you compare it against the combined salaries of the executive officers.

    $100 million, perhaps? Not unlikely.

    At competitor Verizon, compensation for the CEO alone was over $9 million in 2000.

    So here’s a radical thought. What if every executive earning over $100,000 at Cingular (and companies in similar predicaments) voluntarily contributed 1% of their salary to maintain “quality of life” perks at their respective companies?

    Morale would soar, you’d have a lot fewer sleepy or headache’y employees, and overall, the quality of output would probably improve or at least not deteriorate.

    Call it a “Worker Productivity Contribution” of sorts. And let’s face it… when folks are getting $9 million a year, is 1% off the top really going to affect THEIR lifestyles all that much?

    Then again, even post-Enron it seems that most Americans just aren’t very concerned about these sort of things. Sure, every once in a while there’s a “Fat Cat CEO Thrives as Company X Lays Off 12,000” story which results in some mumblings and ineffective rumblings for a short time. But nothing really changes with our screwy American economic system, which continues to so blithely reward those executives who, well, screw over the most employees in the short run and investors in the long run.

    The Invisible Hand is more like a pickpocket than a guide. Adam Smith must be rolling over in his grave.

  • The culture of Korea

    [ Though written in May of 2001, I think my friend Tamara’s list of observations on her visit to Korea is interesting and certainly relevant today, given the prominence of Korea in the news. I normally include in this blog only stuff I have written personally, but I feel this is a worthy exception. — Adam]

    A QUICK PROFILE OF SOUTH KOREA

    – high cell phone usage; cells provided mainly by a company called Cyon;
    most rings are answered immediately with no apology (incl. in restaurants,
    in the middle of conversations, in bathrooms, and on subways)

    – most kids have desktop computers with a DSL connection (unlike Japan,
    where people surf the web and answer email on their cell phones)

    – appearance is extremely important, esp. perfectly unblemished and light skin

    – the ENTIRE border to North Korea is lined with barb wire, military
    stations & spotlights… and North Korea has built huge apts. in sight of
    Seoul to show their economic independence (btw, all the apts. are empty)

    – cars tend to be Daewoo, Hyundai & Kia, which use either regular gas or
    ‘LPG’ (which burns slightly cleaner)… all foreign imports require heavily
    taxes (I saw only 2 BMWs in Korea)

    – Korean women dress trendy, not cute; however, their mannerisms can be
    cute (ok, except all school girls seem to look impossibly cute)

    – the myth is true: toilet paper, which is packaged in multiple ways, is
    used as a napkin, paper towel and face tissue — even in offices and
    restaurants

    – Koreans drink instant coffee 2-4x a day; don’t really drink any type of
    tea regularly (more a Japanese cultural thing)

    – Korean suburbs are actually HUGE apt complexes… 8-12 buildings per
    complex, each building 20 floors tall, each floor 4-6 apts.

    – no real concept of privacy or solitude, esp. when family is over… you
    are always “on” and engaged

    – countryside consists of rural high mountains, like West Virginia or parts
    of Colorado

    – the roles are still distinct between men and women… traditionally, the
    women will cook and eat after the men

    – women are expected to marry by 25 (latest 28)… I received many
    questions about the status of my “upcoming” marriage

    – all highways are toll roads, usually costing between $100-2000 won (about

    – most Korean men smoke and drink daily, something you never criticize in
    public

    – outside Korean cities, produce is grown in many greenhouses along rice
    patties

    – surprisingly, many men and women dye their hair, usually brown/copper
    highlights

    – kids spend 8-10 hours in school, then 2-5hrs in an after-school program
    (called hogwa)

    – if home, families are expected to eat and sit together

    – every meal includes a spicy dish, usually 2-4 kimchee variations (of 100+
    types)

    – every store will put its sign on its building — creating an overall very
    colorful, very cluttered look (think Las Vegas)

    – 1/5 signs are in English, 1/5 are in Korean spelling phonetic English,
    most highway signs include English “subtitles”

    – American movies are subtitled in Korean

    – most product packaging contains English mispellings for some reason

    – many Koreans study English in school (mostly written study) so they are
    willing to practice English in conversations

    – Koreans love small house dogs, but raise & eat a different type of dog
    for dog stew (uh-huh)

    – most of the houses and restaurants have heated floors (mmm) which creates
    very dry heat… in the winters, I’m told they burn coal to heat the floors

    – most Koreans sit on the floor, incl. homes and restaurants

    – cities have high levels of pollution due to many factories and constant
    traffic… if the U.S. pollution average is 100, Seoul is 2000 (my biggest
    challenge for the entire trip was a burned throat and a hoarse cough)

    – I have observed little attention to design, fengshui, space — Koreans
    have a similar concept called “pungso” (ex., most buildings face south) but
    it’s not really practiced

    – almost always, shoes are removed at the entrance of a home, template and
    restaurant

    – Koreans tend to be either Christian or Buddhist

    – most families don’t continue ancestor shrines but will honor dead
    (grand)parents in an annual ritual

    – overall diet tends to be healthy (rice, fish, soup, vegetables)… but
    Koreans actually love junk food (incl. their version of American hotdogs,
    fried potatoes, pizza which has corn and squid)

    – the music Koreans hear is all over the map… U.S. 80’s and 90’s, some
    recent hits, Japanese hits, Korean bugglegum pop

    – while their meals often takes a long time to prepare, Koreans eat
    extremely fast with little beverage and eat all day… the order food seems
    to be served is side dishes, meat/seafood, rice, a little water…

  • On being warm

    [ I wrote the following note in December of 1998 while living in Europe and immediately after traveling through Belgium and Ireland. The weather was cold, but interactions with the locals made my heart warm. — Adam ]

    I just came back from a relatively short vacation in Belgium and Ireland. Of course, I have a lot to say about my visits in these fine countries, but for now I’m just going to share one noteworthy tidbit.

    As I was hauling my 35 pound suitcase down a street in a suburb of Dublin, a kindly older woman smiled at me and said something. Though I had already become accustomed to and appreciative of the typical Irish friendliness I had been encountering during my stay… the suddenness of her comment and her deep Irish accent caused me to miss what she said.

    She stopped walking, smiled again, and repeated: “I hope you’ll be warm where you’re going!”

    Indeed, it was a bit nippy in Ireland at the moment, and so I suppose it was a rather unsurprising, though admittedly a bit random comment. But for several reasons, it stuck with me.

    The Irish had been good to me during my stay. Although I didn’t really know any Irish people before visiting, I greatly appreciated the cheerfulness and warmth of the natives, who patiently gave me directions, offered recommendations, and gave me extra-big helpings of good food 🙂

    In light of this pleasant environment, I took the woman’s comment in another context. While it’s not always possible to be physically warm in these harsh winter months (at least here in freezing Europe!), there’s definitely something to be said for keeping and spreading warmth in a broader sense.

    During the holidays, we typically exchange gifts, fill ourselves with good food, and sometimes even sing songs in this time of year in which even the most tone-deaf amongst us are free from ostracization and pained glances. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with these traditions 🙂

    But I’d like to put in a good word for BEING WARM… for figuratively lighting a warm fireplace for strangers with our smiles, our kind compliments, our seemingly tiny but still important thoughtful acts, and so on. This holiday season… instead of just being the life of the party, be the warmth.

    And as the wise Irish woman wished for me, I too wish for you: I hope you’ll be warm where you’re going… for the rest of this year, and beyond.