The New York Times reports that the Census Bureau has just released the 2007 edition of its annual Statistical Abstract of the U.S. that among other things, includes some new information about the lifestyles of the American population:

For the first time, the abstract quantifies same-sex sexual contacts (6 percent of men and 11.2 percent of women say they have had them) and learning disabilities (among population groups, American Indians were most likely to have been told that they have them). The abstract reveals that the floor space in new private one-family homes has expanded to 2,227 square feet in 2005 from 1,905 square feet in 1990. Americans are getting fatter, but now drink more bottled water per person than beer.

Taller, too. More than 24 percent of Americans in their 70s are shorter than 5-foot-6. Only 10 percent of people in their 20s are. More people are injured by wheelchairs than by lawnmowers, the abstract reports. Bicycles are involved in more accidents than any other consumer product, but beds rank a close second. . . . Adolescents and adults now spend, on average, more than 64 days a year watching television, 41 days listening to the radio and a little over a week using the Internet.

Among adults, 97 million Internet users sought news online last year, 92 million bought a product, 91 million made a travel reservation, 16 million used a social or professional networking site and 13 million created a blog. . . . How does all that listening and watching influence the amount of time Americans spend alone? The census does not measure that, but since 2000 the number of hobby and athletic nonprofit associations has risen while the number of labor unions, fraternities and fan clubs has declined.

“The large master trend here is that over the last hundred years, technology has privatized our leisure time,” said Robert D. Putnam. . . . “The distinctive effect of technology has been to enable us to get entertainment and information while remaining entirely alone,” Mr. Putnam said. “That is from many points of view very efficient. I also think it’s fundamentally bad because the lack of social contact, the social isolation means that we don’t share information and values and outlook that we should.”

There’s probably a whole lotta stuff to potentially analyze here, but for now, I’ll leave it to you to read and digest for yourself. I’ll probably have more to say on it later.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed suit against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for illegal raids against Mexicans who were believed to be illegal immigrants, but were actually targeted based solely on their Mexican ethnicity:

Federal immigration agents conducted illegal searches and relied on racial and ethnic profiling while carrying out a massive series of raids that terrorized residents of several towns in southeast Georgia in early September. . . The lawsuit charges that ICE agents illegally detained, searched and harassed Latinos solely because of their appearance -- in violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights -- during an extensive campaign to drive them out of the area. . . .

Bauer said hundreds of residents were traumatized by the raids. “Many children continue to live in fear that they will be taken away by immigration officials merely because of the color of their skin,” she said. . . . Another plaintiff, Ranulfo Perez, was standing outside of his home in Adrian, in Emanuel County, when he was suddenly surrounded by approximately 15 men holding guns. One of the men grabbed Perez by the shirt, jammed his gun into his side and threw him against his truck.

The agent twisted Perez’s arm behind his back and held him that way for 10 minutes while other agents searched his home and property. The agent then suggested Perez and his family should leave the area for two weeks to avoid any more such incidents.

Alas, we have more evidence that racial profiling is alive and well in America today. Whether it’s Black drivers being stopped by police at obviously disproportionately rates, or Arab and Muslims Americans being pulled off airline flights, or Mexican Americans suspected of being illegal immigrants, racial profiling seems to be as American as mom and apple pie these days.

I don’t know why I’m still surprised to read about these kinds of blatantly racist incidents against people of color -- they’re so commonplace these days that I should be numb to them by now.

For those who don’t know already, Rosie O’Donnell is an actress and talk show host who has seen her fair share of controversy through the years. The latest incident occurred on Dec. 5, 2006 on her talk show The View when she was discussing actor Danny DeVito’s recent drunken run-in with police and how she predicted that the story was being discussed around the world: “You know, you can imagine in China it’s like, ‘Ching-chong, ching-chong. Danny DeVito. Ching-chong, ching-chong-chong. Drunk. The View. Ching-chong.’” The video of the incident is below:

As the San Francisco Chronicle points out, predictably, the Asian American community was outraged and just as predictably, O’Donnell was absolutely clueless about why Asian Americans found her ‘ching chong’ comments offensive:

So far, she has not apologized for her Dec. 5 comments as Asian Americans in the Bay Area and across the country are demanding. But she has responded on her blog at www.rosie.com. She writes that she “wasn’t mocking / that’s my best impression” and that her “bad accent was not meant to insult or degrade / linguistic incompetence -- guilty / mocking -- never.” She tells one detractor to go “f- urself.”

Spoofing a language belittles the people who speak it, community leaders say. They also say it’s disappointing to hear such insensitivity from O’Donnell, who has championed gay and lesbian rights and taken others to task for being homophobic. “She’s shrugging it off, saying get over it, but it’s hypocritical,” said Pauline Sze, 20, a UC Berkeley student and an editor of Hardboiled, a news magazine focusing on Asian American issues.

I should be shocked at this particular incident but unfortunately, I’m not. First, many Americans are still completely clueless as to why making fun of someone’s language -- and by implication, their culture and identity -- is blatantly offensive and racist. But second, historically oppressed groups such as gays/lesbians are certainly not immune from being racist -- or at least being completely racially ignorant.

In other words, the same kinds of prejudices and stereotypes that are reinforced and perpetuated against Asian Americans among “straight” Americans are also reinforced and perpetuated among gays and lesbians as well. Being “oppressed” does not mean that you cannot be guilty of oppressing others. When that happened, as the SF Chronicle article points out, Rosie O’Donnell was exposed for what she is -- an ignorant and loud-mouthed hypocrite, plain and simple.

Have you really thought about what are the limits of free speech? Clearly, free speech doesn’t include yelling “fire” inside an enclosed public space. But does it include denying someone with whom you disagree the opportunity to express their views? These questions are at the heart of a recent commentary by a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle about how free speech can be anything but on many college campuses:

America’s college campuses, once thought to be bastions of free speech, have become increasingly intolerant toward the practice. Visiting speakers whose views do not conform to the prevailing left-leaning political mind-set on most campuses are at particular risk of having their free speech rights infringed upon. . . . Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal treatment.

The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being shuttled off by security.

The fact that the rioting students could be heard yelling, “He has no right to speak!” was telling. Apparently, in their minds, neither Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has a right to express their viewpoints.

The commentator goes on to describe other incidents in which conservatives such as David Horowitz were largely denied the opportunity to fully express their views, as were seemingly moderate Muslims who rejected violence against Israel and Jihad against the west.

I have always been a strong supporter of free speech, no matter what its content. As I’ve told my students, free speech belongs to everyone, not just to people with whom you agree. In other ways, the same freedom that allows people like Mel Gibson or Michael Richards to go off on tirades against Jews and Blacks also gives other people the opportunity to denounce their actions as incredibly offensive and racist.

As I also tell my students, extremism and narrowmindedness are not limited to conservatives -- liberals can also be guilty of arrogance, intolerance, and being close-minded. In fact, the incidents that the commentator describes are perfect examples of how liberals or at least left wing extremists can be guilty of the same intolerant behaviors that they supposedly denounce and fight against.

With this in mind, I would like to encourage everyone -- but particularly liberals -- to practice what they preach when it comes to free speech. We can vehemently disagree and criticize someone else’s views all we want, but denying that person the fundamental right to express those views crosses the line into totalitarianism.

Zogby International, the respected public opinion firm, has just released data on how Latinos/Hispanics voted in the recent 2006 midterm elections. The results show that in contrast to the 2004 elections when 40% of Latino voters cast their ballots for President Bush, these days, less than one-quarter of Latino voters feel that the Republican party understands their needs best:

Even among Hispanics who said they were themselves Republicans, just 76% said they thought the GOP understood them best. Another 8% said the Libertarian Party best understood them, 7% thought Democrats knew them better, while 10% of Republicans said that either another party better understood them, or that they were unsure. Among Democratic Hispanics, 83% said their own party better understood them, while 4% said Republicans understood them best.

Asked which political party is best equipped to manage a handful of important issues, Hispanics who said they had voted in the recent congressional midterm elections favored Democrats on each by wide margins, including immigration, where 49% said Democrats were better equipped to manage the issue, compared to 26% who favored the Republicans.

The longer the respondent’s family had been in America, the more likely they were to support Democrats over Republicans on the issue, the survey showed. While 43% of those not born in the U.S. said Democrats were better equipped, 56% of those who were fourth–generation Americans or greater favored Democrats, suggesting that the more familiar Hispanic voters were with Republican policies, the less they liked them.

That last finding is particularly telling -- the longer they or their families have lived in the U.S., the less Republican Latinos tend to be. It seems a little ironic that those Latinos who support the Republicans the most are recent immigrants -- the group that Republicans are likely to be the most suspicious of.

At any rate, the bottom line is that these trends do not bode well for Republicans, considering (1) Latinos are turning against them, particularly more “assimilated” ones and (2) as illegal immigration is likely to decline, both the proportion and total number of all Latinos who are U.S.-born are only likely to continue increasing.

In recent years, much of the talk in terms of age demographics has been in terms of issues associated with either the baby boomers or their children, the millenials. These groups -- or more specifically, their dollars -- have been touted as being the key to a prosperous economy. But as the New York Times reports, cities all around the country are now targeting a new wave of yuppies -- 25-34 year old professionals to revitalize their downtown economies:

Baby boomers are retiring and the number of young adults is declining. By 2012, the work force will be losing more than two workers for every one it gains. Cities have long competed over job growth, struggling to revive their downtowns and improve their image. But the latest population trends have forced them to fight for college-educated 25- to 34-year-olds, a demographic group increasingly viewed as the key to an economic future.

Mobile but not flighty, fresh but technologically savvy, “the young and restless,” as demographers call them, are at their most desirable age, particularly because their chances of relocating drop precipitously when they turn 35. Cities that do not attract them now will be hurting in a decade. . . . They are people who, demographers say, are likely to choose a location before finding a job. They like downtown living, public transportation and plenty of entertainment options. They view diversity and tolerance as marks of sophistication.

The article also has a graphic that shows the top cities that are ahead of the game in terms of attracting these new yuppies (i.e., Portland, Las Vegas, Austin, Charlotte, Atlanta) as well as those cities that lost the most numbers of the same demographic group to Atlanta alone. It’s interesting however, that nowhere in the article will you find the word “yuppy.” I suppose it’s because there is still a strong negative connotation to the term.

At the same time however, terms that have had negative associations have been successfully reclaimed and transformed (and vice versa). One example is how Mexican Americans reclaimed the term “Chicano” and turned it from a derogatory slur to one associated with ethnic pride. The same can be said for “queer.” On the other hand, we can witness how the term “liberal” has been transformed from one with positive meaning to a negative one.

My point is that these new “young urban professionals” also have a chance to redefine the term “yuppy” if they want to. As the article mentions, this new wave “view diversity and tolerance as marks of sophistication,” rather than being singly preoccupied with conspicuous consumption. Times have changed, fortunately.

For those of you who follow Formula One (F1) motor racing, you know that it is a sport that has traditionally been dominated by White Europeans. There have been numerous Asian drivers in the series before, most from Japan and one from Malaysia. Before the 2005 season, F1 added its first ever driver from India. Now comes word that f1 is about to have its first Black driver, Lewis Hamilton from Britain, whose grandparents came from the West Indies:

Backed by [Team Mercedes] McLaren for a decade, Hamilton showed dazzling speed and maturity beyond his years in winning at the first attempt this year’s GP2 championship that acts as a feeder series to Formula One. . . . Already hailed as Formula One’s answer to Tiger Woods, Hamilton has left it to others to comment about his skin color. “The way I see it, my color is an advantage in that it’s something people talk about,” he said earlier this year.

“But the bottom line is that it’s clearly not why I’m in this position.” [Team McLaren Director Ron] Dennis agrees with that: “His blackness isn’t important,” he said last year. “I have consistently said to him: ‘The moment that you exploit your blackness, you are going to have a problem with me.’ Basically, you’ve got to develop your career on your ability to drive a racing car.”

Having followed F1 for decades, I can attest that it is one profession in which there really is no affirmative action -- you either drive well, or you are toast. At the top teams like McLaren, there is no room for mediocrity. With that in mind, that makes Lewis Hamilton’s rise even more significant -- he is not the product of affirmative action but rather, he has the talent necessary to succeed in this cutthroat sport.

Congratulations and continuing success to Lewis and Team McLaren.

The Economist magazine has come out with its list of best democracies in the world, measured by “60 indicators across five broad categories: free elections, civil liberties, functioning government, political participation and political culture.”

Sweden, a near-perfect democracy, comes top, followed by a bevy of similarly virtuous northern European countries. More surprising are the relatively modest scores for two traditional bastions of democracy—Britain and the United States. In America there has been a perceptible erosion of civil liberties related to the fight against terrorism. Long-standing problems in the functioning of government have also become more prominent. . . .

Why the setbacks in democracy’s spread and quality? The pace of democratisation was bound to slow after the easy gains that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall. China and Middle Eastern autocracies were always going to be a more difficult proposition. . . . And America, which should be a shining example, has damaged its liberty-enlarging cause: its military intervention in Iraq is deeply unpopular around the world, Mr Bush is widely loathed and Guantánamo and other cases of prisoner-abuse have led to charges of hypocrisy against the United States.

Just another nail in the coffin of Bush’s administration and how, despite its fervent statements to the contrary, have made the U.S. less safe, more hated around the world, and in the eyes of the international community, less of a democracy than in administrations past. Bravo, neo-conservatives, bravo!