The important thing is that you need to read to the end of the article or it’s just going to seem really weird.

" Ninety percent of Latinos said that they are friends with people of a different race, making them much more likely than the rest of America to reach across racial lines to make friends." The rest of the article goes on to talk about whites and blacks, but I think part of the reason Latinos tend to cross race barriers so easily is that Latino (or Hispanic) is not a race, it’s an ethnicity. Unlike the old world countries, we’re more likely to come from countries in which people are of all races. In other words, I’m less likely to see a Cuban-American as an other no matter their race; they’re part of my tribe. European whites tend not to have that as their countries are pretty much pure white.

I just found out from my brother that Alvarez Guedes died. I have almost the same story as the person who wrote the linked article. I’m not sure if I’ll expound on it in a longer post, but I wanted to pass along the link. He was an awesomely funny dude, my favorite comedian, and the world is less funny with him gone.

I was sad today when I realized I’d already forgotten about the Trayvon Martin case.

Orgzine has an article complaining that in the UK when crossing the border you don’t get the same protections as you do within the borders. This does not surprise me since we have the same issue over here and we tend to have more robust civil liberties than our cousins across the pond. (Hence why libel suits are so often filed in England - their definition of libel is slanted in favor of the company or star while ours is the other way around) Basically, if you’re going to England you better take a burner phone and burner laptop because:

I’m breaking my usual schedule because of the Trayvon Martin case. This story over at Gawker has an important point to make about how race played a part. Personally, I think that, like OJ, Zimmerman is free of jail, but may still end up guilty in a wrongful death lawsuit. After all, he did admit to killing Trayvon and he was told by the 911 operator to leave Trayvon alone. He might have not had enough of a burden of proof to go to jail, but he IS guilty of killing a kid. I am against the Nancy Grace crowd and the way she treats cases like this one of Casey Anthony. Look, we have a court system and we have to abide by its rules or we have chaos. Ken White of the law blog Popehat makes a VERY salient point about this that everyone who’s pissed about the Trayvon case needs to read. This case angers me personally because I have been the target of racism. It was only once, but it stung. I have a younger, adopted brother who is half black and lives in Florida. My parents are well off and my brother could definitely find himself in a neighborhood where people don’t think he belongs. I think I would only act more irrationally towards someone killing my wife or daughter than I would for someone killing my brother. It sucks that so many decades after the 60s we still have stuff like this going on. What bugs me more than anything each time I hear about this case is that Trayvon didn’t do anything to instigate violence - he was just walking through a neighborhood. Whatever he may or may not have done once Zimmerman followed him, he didn’t start anything and he still died. Again, we have a system and the system has chosen not to find him guilty in a criminal sense. Hopefully the system can find him guilty in a civil sense.

When I was still a young lad, we lived in Oregon for a while; just outside of Portland. I remember my mom making us chew these horrible tasting “vitamins”. I asked my mom what they were and she told me it was because they didn’t fluoridate the water. She didn’t want our teeth to get messed up and so we had to chew the nasty tablets until we moved back to Florida. My mother loved how laid back life was in Oregon when compared to the frenetic pace of Miami. Yeah, you’ll get that when you live with hippies. They also didn’t use reflective paint on the lanes in the road which made them dangerous to drive on when it rained (which was a LOT of the time), especially if it was dark. That reflective paint was bad for the environment and no one came up with any alternatives so I guess they considered it better for people to die.

I came across this story back in May, but things appear to be at a stand-still. Essentially, The New York Times came up with an awesome new way to tell stories on the web and when someone figured out how to duplicate it, they sued. Let me start by saying that one awesome thing about the NYT is that they are incredibly innovative at how they use the web. About 10 or so years ago they had a state of the art photo journalism blog that I frequented and LOVED. They were telling neat new stories and really taking advantage of the web. Snow Fall, the prototype for this new way to tell stories on the web is incredibly beautiful. Go check it out on that link. Back? OK, wasn’t that great? It is the NYT taking what’s awesome about the web - what it can do better than print - and making it beautiful. When I came across this site it made me feel like this is the future of magazine journalism. This is what Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc should look like on the web. Instead of ugly (in comparison) walls of text with a few tiny photos, this website really does everything right. It has animation and video and good margins, great fonts. I know it’s not appropriate for the daily news - at least when it’s a short story. But I am absolutely shocked that Rolling Stone magazine isn’t using it for their 5-6 page stories - I think their legendary photos would work so well with this format and it would provide a great transition to digital that would rival the print version. (And perhaps give a compelling reason to pay for the magazine?) Right now it’s like when you see those awesome prototype cars and then they never come out. It just sucks that someone out there has come up with something that could be a real order of magnitude shift in how we experience journalism and stories on the web and no one seems to be using it. Instead the news website and blogs are just slightly better than paper in that they have hyperlinks.

Over at Popehat they presented an interesting article about the Ideological Turing Test. The regular Turing Test says that a computer passes if you can interact with it and you don’t know you’re interacting with a computer instead of a human. One of the closest things we have right now are the chat bots whose eventual goal is to get you to some website. Well, the Ideological Turing Test tests:

whether a political or ideological partisan correctly understands the arguments of his or her intellectual adversaries: the partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number. If neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.

One of the earliest demands for justice children make is that of fairness. What parent hasn’t heard the complaint “That’s not fair!” uttered by their children? Scarlett isn’t there yet (shoot, she’s barely speaking so far), but I imagine one of the hardest things I’ll have to do in her toddlerhood is to explain to her that life isn’t fair. It must be such a scary moment for children. It’s the first time we realize that the adults in our lives aren’t always going to provide justice. It’s funny because it’s an extremely important life lesson to learn, but it often arises out of frustration when another child won’t cooperate in the fairness regime. And it’s a tough balancing act if you’re sovereign over both children between requiring fairness and teaching that fairness just isn’t in the cards all the times.