Apple takes the hit for the non-story about suicides at Foxconn

According to numerous press reports, Foxconn, the Chinese tech company responsible for the manufacture of the iPad, has seen 13 employees commit suicide so far this year. Every news report I have seen has implied that the pressure to produce the iPad has turned the company into a sweat shop, creating a high-pressure work environment that drives people to suicide. The press has been making comparisons between Apple and other American companies who, in the past, have taken advantage of foreign workers as a means of boosting profits regardless of working conditions.

Legitimate observation or complete bullshit? Let's do the math.

According to the World Health Organization, the annual suicide rate in China per 100,000 people is 13.0 for men and 14.8 for women. Foxconn employs a total of 800,000 people. You would expect that over the course of an entire calender year, the company should average 104 (13x8) suicides for men and just under 120 (14.8x8) suicides for women.

Based on the cultural average, the company should have seen 52 men and 60 women commit suicide so far this year. So my question is: why is the media making such a big deal over a relatively low number of suicides? Foxconn should be getting a commendation for having such a low suicide rate, not being lambasted by an ignorant press with accusations of being some sort of sweat shop.

And trying to throw mud on Apple over this? I don't believe I've seen worse business reporting in my lifetime. Getting some details wrong is to be expected; no news organization is perfect. But this? Un-frickin'-believable. While I commend some media outlets such as ZDNet.com for calling bullshit on the way this story has been reported, I lost a lot of respect for a lot of news outlets over the gleeful sensationalism with which they have followed this story.

The Supreme Court and handgun ownership

NPR had a fantastic and informative segment on their "Talk of the Nation" program yesterday regarding a Second Amendment case the Supreme Court is currently hearing:

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, gives individuals the right to own a handgun. Today, the court began what looks to be a long process of deciding where to draw the line on gun rights.

The 2008 ruling struck down the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, which comes under federal law. So the first issue is whether that decision extends to cities and states, specifically to the city of Chicago and its suburb, Oak Park, Illinois.

And if an outright ban is unconstitutional, does that allow handguns just in a home or just in a business? Would most people be allowed to carry concealed handguns in their cars or on the street?

You can listen to the segment by clicking here (link downloads a 30 min long, 14 MB mp3 file), or click here to read a transcript.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the current arguments for and against the right to bear arms has to do with how this constitutional right has been treated compared to other constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment right to free speech. Tellingly, the very next Amendment written by the Framers of the Constitution, guarantees individuals the right to own a firearm. These and other Bill of Rights amendments were both seen as protection for vital individual freedoms. And yet, proponents of Second Amendment freedoms are marginalized by our society as "gun nuts". As many of you would no doubt argue, the "gun nuts" are an unpopular group, seen as being "out of touch" with the realities our society faces in this day and age. Even from a historical and legal perspective, the more popular rights such as free speech still have restrictions on them that pass the Constitutionality test. By this logic, restrictions on the what and the how of firearm ownership are perfectly logical.

I would, however, point out that while enacting a few minor restrictions on firearms is very much in line with the idea of balancing the protection of personal freedoms with the safeguarding of our society's general welfare, enacting blanket bans on whole classes of firearms goes beyond the line between individual freedoms and the public interest. While Free Speech and other rights enjoy extremely limited restrictions, we have recently seen some extremely broad and invasive laws limiting Second Amendment rights.

Don't get me wrong. While I happen to own a firearm, I fully recognize the dangers in their unrestricted sale and use. I also happen to be a member of an ethnic group in which I am 7.5 times more likely to be shot and killed than any other member of the general population. Simply put, my issue with this issue boils down to a larger question affecting the application of Constitutional law: How should Constitutionally guaranteed individual freedoms be administered? Or, in other words: Where to we draw the line between the public interest and individual freedoms?

Many people have argued in the past that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the advances in weapons technology that have taken place since the Constitution was written, and that individual Second Amendment rights should be restricted because of the increased danger posed by modern weaponry. But consider this: if changes in our Second Amendment rights are necessary, why not simply enact a Constitutional amendment modifying how the ownership and use of firearms is treated under the law? The Constitution is designed to be amended as a means of allowing for societal changes; such changes have taken place numerous times in our past. By leaving things as they are and "reinterpreting" individual freedoms to fit current social conventions, we risk invalidating the letter of the law and making the guarantees protecting all our personal freedoms subject to the whims of a select group of individuals.

In my opinion, based on the current letter of the Constitution, restrictions on the kinds of weapons individuals have the right to own will probably be almost completely eliminated by the Supreme Court. I also expect many fashionable restrictions, such as the assault weapons ban and restrictions on certain kinds of ammunition, will also be struck down as unconstitutional. I might not be very happy about this, but I would be even more unhappy if the court sets a precedent of steamrolling individual rights and abandoning its constitutional role as "law interpreter" in favor of assuming the mantle of "law maker".

The focal point in this discussion is the letter of the law, that if you don't like it, you should change it or learn to live with it. No one should be allowed to simply disregard the parts they don't personally agree with, and our legislators should not have free reign to decide which parts of the Constitution should apply to their constituents.

An observation from That Guy; you know, the one who was always such a Good Friend when you were young?

Unless a man is sure of who he is and what he wants out of life, he is incomplete and has very little to give in a relationship. Maturity isn't simply an end to childish behaviors, but a level of personal understanding. In the face of their lack of maturity, you have to recognize the difference between the hope that springs from the dream of love, and the reality of love. If a man is incomplete, then you've fallen for the dream of what could be at the expense of recognizing the reality of what is.

And that will break your heart like nothing else.

Oh, and it hurts, but the pain that comes with that experience is only the mourning after the death of the dream. Just remember that the dream doesn't have to be wrapped up in one individual. It will take time, but the dream will return. And when it does, someone else will come along to share it with you.

Good luck and take care.

Why Google's China Gambit Makes Sense

In the midst of China's drive to become an economic power, Google's plight has quickly become a black mark on the business climate the Chinese government has been cultivating. While Google is an internet-based company, the internet has become critical to modern business operations. By threatening to pull operations from China, Google isn't threatening the government; they are calling into question that country's ability to maintain and safeguard EVERY company's business operations. They are leveraging their business clout against Chinese economic interest and changing the context in which foreign companies do business in China, potentially setting themselves up for a hefty competitive advantage in a growing market.

Google knows that even if the Chinese government is not directly involved in those network attacks, Chinese authorities will feel pressured to step in deal with those responsible. If the government fails to do this, they will appear weak and ineffective, two things this government in particular will bend over backwards to avoid. If China can't make Google happy, Google may very well become a symbol that will retard the economic growth China currently enjoys.

It is a mistake to paint this incident as a political issue. Far more important to the players directly involved in this story, this is a purely economic issue. As for whether or not the Chinese government is directly responsible for Google’s network attacks, the true answer is irrelevant in the face of what Google stands to achieve by publicizing this issue.

Intellectual Property and Fair Compensation

The author of a recent ARS Technica article entitled "Content Owners Need To Calm Down," some anonymous writer calling themselves "Free Audio Books" argues that content developers (writers, etc.) shouldn't get so worked up over others using their work without permission. To underscore their opinion, the author quoted copyright expert William Patry's concluding statement from a book onthe subject of intellectual property rights: “I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.”

Unfortunately for this person's argument, the copyright debate isn't about the creative process that produces original works; it is about fair compensation for the creation of a product. No one disputes the right for a farmer, for example, to be paid for the food they produce. If hordes of people simply drove up and grabbed as much corn or strawberries as they could carry and drove off to use them or sell them for a profit, they could be arrested (and rightly so) for theft. No one would sympathize with the thief; after all, they were trying to use the fruit of someone else's labor for their own purposes.

How does this differ from the unauthorized use of a writer's work? A product is a product, whether it is tangible or not. At the very least, laws governing ownership and commerce should be applied equally to all labor. Just because an idea doesn't take material form doesn't mean that it should receive lesser protections.

"But what can I do?"

Why do people continue to insist on lamenting how horrible the world has become? Were things really that much better 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago? Take it from an American of African descent, "the past" does not equal "a better time".

And on the subject horrible things in the world, I'm also pretty tired of the question "but what can we do about it?" Why do people even ask that question? Is it meant to be rhetorical? People ask this all the time, as if it's a mantra meant to absolve them of any guilt for having sat on their asses and never making any attempt to do something about the horror in the world. People, don't worry about how grand your actions are, just DO SOMETHING. No one said we have to be omnipotent in order to affect change. Do you really think you have to be able to throw lightening bolts or walk on water to have the power to affect someone's life? Do you really think it requires extraordinary circumstances in order to have an opportunity to make a difference?

Let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a skyscraper? Who in their right mind would believe one person could build something like that. Now think about how things like that actually get built. Welders, cement workers, electricians, and a multitude of other professionals show up and simply do the one thing they're good at. They contribute their unique skills, at a specific point in time, in specific areas. Over time, with each of them doing their part, a vacant patch of land becomes home to an immense structure.

Put another way, this is how all change in our history has come about. Everyone points to historical figures as "great men" with the ability to shape the world. These people are simply architects who applied established standards in unique ways. It was the small actions of the average person that constitute the change those "great men" are credited with.

Anyone who has ever had an idea as to what can be done to eliminate horrors such as those I posted from happening could be the next Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi or Mother Theresa. The difference between them and the average person? The number of people willing to actually DO what needs to be done, versus the number of people who simply throw up their hands, overwhelmed at the prospect of doing more than simply talking about how horrible the world can be.

High tech, low brow

I've recently watched as people have discussed the relative merits of video games that place their emphasis on shooting things or blowing them up. These games, commonly referred to as "shooters" are touted or panned, depending upon how original they are, with their proponents forever looking to avoid games that become "formulaic," copying the successful elements of past games.

With apologies to fans of this genre of video game, ALL shooters are formulaic. Enemy. Weapons. Terrain. All with a vaguely story-like framework to hold it together. Once you've played one, you've played them ALL. And no, I do not differentiate between, say HALO and Call of Duty. In the context of the broad potential games have in this era of technology, that would simply be splitting hairs, not comparing separate experiences.

But this is not what disappoints me about video games.

One source of irritation for me is the fact that video games are one of the last bastions of misogyny, gleefully flashing the same tired, juvenile, knuckle-dragging mentality that causes every comic book heroine to look like they just stepped out of the Playboy Mansion.

Game designers remind me of fashion designers: all women are essentially the representation of the early-developing girls these guys pined over when they first hit puberty: leggy, skinny, busty, with no hips. Either that, or they simply enjoy imagining 14-year-old boys with long hair and boobs. These are not realistic representations of women; they are simply a remnant of the pre-adolescent longings of geeks and horndogs.

In my life, I've seen one...ONE...game in which a woman was prominently featured and became a fully fleshed-out character rather than the product of a wet dream. For anyone with access to an X-Box, get the game Beyond Good & Evil. It was left in the dust because Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia were released at around the same time, but it remains every bit the equal of these games.

I mention this because, among other things, I am continually disgusted by the stereotypes I see constantly in video games. Like the Academy Awards, where the surest path to a nomination is to play a whore or an adulteress, women can't seem to appear in video games without being victims in need of rescue, ass-kicking men in the bodies of hot busty babes, side-kicks that serve as a moral compass for the player-hero, or some combination/permutation of those same, tired stereotypes.

This is one reason why even my extreme love for this entertainment genre hasn't sustained a fanatical interest in playing these games: the wondrous achievements in technology we all rave about and admire have yet to be equaled by comparable achievements in writing and characterization. Why do we get James Cameron-level technology to look at, but are still forced to suffer through Nickelodeon-level plots?

As of last year, the American video game industry surpassed the American movie industry in terms of revenue. Unfortunately, while motion pictures consistently manage to rise to the level of art, video games are still mired in the muck. I am not the only adult waiting for video games designed to push the boundaries of what is possible with story and interaction. If designers would only look beyond boobs, blood, and body counts, I might actually consider spending more money on games rather than cable, movies, or DVDs.

In the mean time, on the eve of the release of yet more sequels to such gore fests as God of War, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, and other mind-numbingly repetitive games, I'll take a pass and keep on walking. At least Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ends the pain after $8 and two hours of your time. Who needs to spend $300 on a game system and $50 on a title just to suffer through 20-30 hours of story even more shallow than that?