In case you weren't aware, yesterday was Information Overload Awareness Day - as if we needed to be made aware that we are overloaded....
This piece in The New Yorker does a great job at how many of us are [not] handling the deluge of e-mail we receive each day. Funny and brilliant.
Dear Friend, Family Member, Loved One, and/or Business Associate:
Thank you for your e-mail, which, if it is under three (3) sentences long, I have read. Owing to the large volume of e-mails I’m receiving at this time, please note that it will sometimes take up to fourteen (14) calendar days, though sometimes longer (and sometimes much longer), to respond to your e-mail; in the interim, please rest assured that I am attempting to address, resolve, or think about the matter you have described, unless, of course, I’m avoiding the matter entirely. Some possible reasons for this include:
—Thinking about the matter gives me a headache.
—Thinking about the matter takes longer than forty-five (45) seconds.
—Thinking about the matter is simple enough, and takes less than forty-five (45) seconds, but, when combined with all the other e-mails in my in-box, it creates a synergy of matterdom, exacerbating the headaches mentioned at the beginning of this list.
Please note that if your e-mail is more than three (3) sentences in length I have read the first three (3) sentences, skimmed the opening paragraph, and sort of eyeballed the rest of it. Please do not expect a response to your e-mail anytime soon, if at all, for I am not a mind reader, and therefore cannot guess the nature of anything beyond the first three (3) sentences. For those of you who continue to insist on sending e-mails longer than three (3) sentences, here is a Wikipedia entry on haiku. Reformat your e-mails accordingly, as in this example:
I am busy now; The Internet has stolen So much precious time.
Under certain circumstances, you may feel as though you cannot express the matter at hand in less than three (3) sentences. Below, please find some possible reasons for this, and their solutions:
I guess I have more US bias than I thought. I never would have thought we would be second worldwide in having the government demand information be removed from the web (or indexing). I also wouldn't have guessed Brazil would be at the top of the list.
David Frum posted a blog entry about an Urban Institute report that said that...
American children experience poverty than we might suppose – and... their odds of escape over time are much lower than we might hope.
More than 1 out of 3 American children will be poor at some point in their childhood.
You might imagine this experience as a brief or temporary one: the child on food stamps as his mother seeks work after a divorce for example. In fact, even children who experience poverty only temporarily tend to experience it recurringly: they cycle in and out of poverty, bad years following good.
Children born into poverty are much more likely to remain poor in adulthood than children who are not born into poverty.
Race predicts poverty: black children are 2.5x more likely to experience poverty than white, 7x more likely to be persistently poor.
Such sad statements about a nation as wealthy as ours...
Whites are projected to become a minority in the United States in the year 2050. It’s a terrifying prospect for Americans who fear the loss of their privileged status.
But the truth is that in 2050, “whites,” as most people understand the term, will still make up 74 percent of the population (if the projections are right). Only “non-Hispanic whites” are expected to become a minority. But there’s little chance that the designation -- which the Census Bureau only added in 1980 -- will live until that time. History tells us that “white Hispanics” -- light-skinned people with an Hispanic heritage -- will soon become, simply, “white people,” as part of the American “mainstream.”
In 2050, white people will not only remain a majority, but they’ll also retain their disproportionate cultural, political and economic influence. In other words, people freaking out about the loss of white privilege have no cause for alarm -- it is safe. As Chauncey DeVega put it, “whites are by definition the majority group in the United States,” and “while heavily policed,” the definition of “whiteness as a racial grouping is ever expanding.”
There's an interesting piece over at the website of Institute for Southern Studies today about the rise of multi-racials in Census data. When we got our form, I was fine with putting in a couple of different races but from a data perspective, I knew immediately that I wouldn't want to have to parse those data. From a personal and social justice perspective, I've told friends for a long time that I believe racism usually involves hatred of one particular group of people. I wonder if the rise of multi-racial Americans makes the problem of racism better or worse? Can you hate 30% of someone who isn't the same race as you? Or does this rise just lead racist people to insist on some purity test, as in all white or all black? It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out as politicians seek to draw in racial/ethnic voting blacs.
By Marisa Trevino
The U.S. Census released a report last week that showed something that everyone has known to be on the horizon for a while now -- the growth in numbers of people of color.
According to the U.S. Census' figures, which are still based on the 2000 Census and updated by Census staff using a variety of resources, the minority population now makes up 35 percent of the nation's population.
When the groups are looked at separately, it's no big surprise that the group seen with the biggest gain is Latinos, who now comprise 16 percent of the population versus the black population that only comprises 12 percent of the population.
However, what is a surprise for many is the rise of a new demographic -- multiracials.
One, don't set your privacy settings to public (Everyone). Two, don't click on ads in Facebook. Frankly, I never click on ads anywhere except in e-mail that I've already subscribed to. Seriously - it takes an extra two minutes to go to Google (not signed in) and do a search for whatever product was in the ad.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting on what could be a major scandal brewing for Facebook, MySpace and other social networks: despite assurances to the contrary, the sites have apparently been sending personal and identifiable information about users to their advertisers without consent.