A Florida state representative, Ritch Workman, is pushing a campaign to lift the ban on “dwarf tossing.” The strange activity is it exactly what it sounds like, and (not surprisingly) often takes place in bars or other events involving alcoholic libations. In this activity, dwarves wear some sort of padded clothing, usually with Velcro, and are then thrown (or “tossed”), usually onto a mattress or similar surface coated in Velcro. It may come as no surprise that dwarf tossing is nearly universally banned, both in America and the world.

The idea of dwarf tossing is certainly not appealing to the wide majority of people, and Workman’s proposal has garnered considerable media attention, even getting picked up (and duly mocked) by Stephen Colbert. But, what may surprise you, however, is that Rep. Workman is not the only one who has proposed lifting the ban on this bizarre activity. For example, a French dwarf appealed the ban all the way to the UN in 2002, claiming that the ban violated his economic freedoms and human rights. His appeal was unsuccessful.

When asked why Workman was pushing for the overturn of this ban, he said in a local newspaper that he is “on a quest to seek and destroy unnecessary burdens on the freedom and liberties of people” and that dwarf tossing is “an example of Big Brother government.” Workman has gone out of his way to call dwarf tossing “repulsive and stupid,” yet he still doesn’t believe the government has the right to ban it.

Despite the initial shock that dwarf tossing causes, perhaps Workman does have a point. Does the government have the right to ban activities that are clearly “repulsive” because they believe them to be bad for people, or society? What implications would a successful repeal of dwarf tossing have on other government policies? Based off Workman’s argument is it within the government’s prerogative to ban certain drugs, or even prostitution? Doesn’t banning prostitution cut off the economic freedom of prostitutes, just as Workman claims dwarf tossing infringes on the freedoms of dwarves?

What do you think? Should the ban on dwarf tossing be lifted? Is Workman being outrageous, or does he have a real point to make about the role of government? Does the government have a right to ban seemingly “unethical” activities? What about ones that aren’t so bizarre…like driving without a seatbelt? Engaging in high risk behavior? Eating fatty food? Where can we draw the line between healthy paternalism and an overstep of the governments authority?

Photo credit: Christian Ferney

A video showing a Chinese dad forcing his son to run essentially naked in the snow has gone viral recently. The boy cried for his dad to hug him and instead his father told him to do pushups in the snow. It is a “training regimen,” the self-proclaimed “Eagle Dad” told the media, for his pre-maturely born son and that he has cleared this Navy SEAL-like routine with the doctors beforehand.

Quite a regimen for a crying four-year-old.

I’m sure this immediately reminded many of the Tiger Mom, the Yale professor who published a memoir of her controversial Chinese parenting style,* she used to teach at Duke, too. I would be terrified to have her as a professor. In fact, though it is a small sample size and certainly biased (remember, only angry people go online and post), here is her rateyourprofessor profile, with a five being the highest score.

It seems clear that both the Eagle Dad and Tiger Mom want the best for their kids and are implementing measures they consider most effective. It’s just that their measures are…extreme (Chua admitted that she has called her daughters garbage at times).

This certainly draws parallels with the “Botox mom” I wrote about last year, though the botox mom turned out to be a liar and just wanted attention and money, a similar question persists: what do we do in these kinds of situations? What makes Tiger Mom’s and Eagle Dad’s cases different, however, is that the children demonstrated clear forms of resistance.

So how do we determine the “mother-knows-best child abuse?” (Tangled, anyone?)

The Eagle Dad was not teaching his son how to make snow angels, but he has cleared it with the doctors beforehand to make sure his son’s health will be okay. So how do we say “that is bad” and at the same time saying that forcing our kids to take bitter medicine when they are sick is “good?” Or when we force young children to go through the difficult gymnastics training knowing that it is better for them in the long run?

I am certain that the value judgments on these parenting styles differ in cultures as well. Though Eagle Dad has created an uproar in both China and the U.S., Tiger Mom’s book has created varying opinions in the two different countries.

Perhaps the hardest thing to swallow is the fact that these harsh parenting techniques may be working. The Eagle Boy is, as far as we know, currently physically healthy despite pre-mature birth, and the Tiger Girls turned out to be phenomenal according to multiple sources. When I really think about it, it is really hard for me to rationally tell the dad that he is wrong when every part of me wants to put him in jail.

P.S. Some other things to think about: Asians and Asian American students have incredibly high cheating and suicide rates.

*Here’s an excerpt from an essay Chua wrote:

“Get back to the piano now,” I ordered.

“You can’t make me.”

“Oh yes, I can.”

Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu’s dollhouse to the car and told her I’d donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn’t have “The Little White Donkey” perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, “I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?” I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn’t do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.

Freely distributed Creative Commons image created by Occupy*Posters via Flickr

If it existed, I would imagine that official Occupy Wall Street merchandise would be the new I <3 NY – at least for a while. Everyone would have to have a t-shirt or a mug – the protesters, tourists and the people who stand in solidarity with the protesters because it’s always trendy to be anti-establishment. But doesn’t it seem strange that someone would be able to profit off of a movement started because of unfair moneymaking games?

Some people have sold merchandise online for the purpose of raising money for the movement. But one Long Island couple paid almost $1,000 to file a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last week for the phrase “Occupy Wall St” for their own business purposes. Additionally, Fer-Eng Investments, LCC filed an application with the USPTO  for Occupy Wall Street phrases. Fer-Eng trade is a sort of shell corporation for Vincent Ferraro, current VP for Kodak and former VP for Hewlett-Packard. (Most certainly part of the 1 percent) The couple, the Marescas, consider themselves to be part of the 99 percent, but wanting to use the protest as a (probably successful) business model is fishy.

The question is: should someone be able to trademark a movement or it’s catchphrase? Technically, you can. Twitter recently trademarked the word “tweet.” (Birds of the world, beware. You might get sued for trademark infringement sometime soon.) At the end of the day, though, I doubt anyone will feel seriously slighted because they can’t use “tweet” for promotional purposes – probably because it was implanted in their vocabulary by Twitter, a company. This “Occupy Wall St” phrase feels a bit different because it came to existence through a grassroots movement. It is almost as if the phrase belongs to the people.

Similarly, various forms of “Never Forget,” “Support the Troops,” “Let’s Roll” and other 9/11-related catchphrases are trademarked. To me, it seems peculiar that anyone would want to capitalize on one of the most horrendous tragedies that has occurred on American soil. I’m sure some Occupiers would say that major corporations and banks have committed tragedies against the 99 percent, but still this movement does not really belong to the whole country – not even 99 percent of it. So should someone be able to make a profit off of the movement despite the fact that it is rooted in financial disparity?

On the one hand, the Marescas couple could accomplish some of Occupy Wall Street’s goals. The Marescas argue that their intentions are in line with those of the protesters because they are struggling to make ends meet, and they have similar political sentiments. Richard Maresca used to be a union worker, but is now a stay at home dad of three children because he suffered a stroke and sustained work-related injuries nine years ago. One of the protesters’ arguments is that under the current model of corporate capitalism, small businesses are unable to be successful. If the Marescas get their trademark and are able to build a profitable family-owned business, it will only be made possible by the Occupy Wall Street movement. If the Occupiers protest the Marescas’ business, wouldn’t that be, in some sense, counterproductive?

On the flip side, the Marescas decision to open a business that is somewhat exploitive of the movement can also be considered counterproductive. The Occupiers say the current model of corporate capitalism is too competitive, so the protest is supposed to show solidarity among the entire 99 percent. So if one person decides to make a competition out of the movement, the camaraderie will unravel.

And if Fer-Eng LLC gets the rights to some sort of “Occupy Wall Street” phrase, it would be so ironic that it almost feels expected. It would be an ultimate form of vertical integration – the 1 percent is making a profit off of a problem that they created (well, according to the Occupiers, anyway).

Granted, it will take two to three months for these applications to even be reviewed – and who knows if the protests will even last that long. But still, their intentions send the message that even in a time of solidarity, when people are amassing to fight the powers-at-be (powers which have supposedly suppressed competition), competition is inevitable.

Photo Credit: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/

A caring single mother in San Francisco is one upping the neighborhood soccer moms by injecting Botox into her 8-year-old-daughter to reduce her wrinkles (apparently, 8-year-olds get wrinkles). She is a trained beautician and from what I can tell, really wants her daughter to be a superstar.

Oh, she also waxes her daughter too to get rid of her body hair.

Personally, I was shocked at the mother’s action in the most negative way possible: What kind of values is she teaching her daughter? Everything she is doing just seems so…wrong.

But wait, nothing she is doing is technically against the law nor is it really “wrong.” The mother sincerely believes what she is doing is the best for her daughter, and judging from the article, the daughter seems to be perfectly okay with it too. Parents send children to learn instruments from the best of the best hoping that their kids can develop into world-class players, and what makes preparing her daughter well for a beauty pageant so different from that?

This reminded me of an iThink discussion we recently had on “designer babies.” Essentially, parents can choose what their kids can look like (or even go as far to select for traits like talent, intelligence, personality, and immunity) because they sincerely believe (many accurately) that this would give their children the best advantages in the world.

So what makes this particular mother’s action seem so…not right to me? The mother knows what she is doing since she is a trained beautician, and I would be lying if I say “attractiveness discrimination” doesn’t exist. All the mother is doing is trying her best to give her daughter an advantage over her competition, and don’t we all do that? I feel like this is a case of moral intuitionism where my intuition is telling me that it is wrong though I cannot seem to make a legitimate rational claim of why it is.

I still can’t help but feel bad for the little girl because I feel that she is missing out on some important things – like how looks aren’t everything and that being “waxed” doesn’t mean you are an adult. The mother, in my opinion, is reinforcing a kind of unhealthy body image that is unattainable. But what position am I in to tell her that she is educating her daughter incorrectly?

But really? Botox in 8-year-olds?

Yes, I too thought that trolls were mythical creatures who only belonged under bridges in my childhood story, The Three Billy Goats Gruff.  Nevertheless, I have quickly learned that they are real, and they are everywhere!

What does an internet troll look like?  What will they do to you?

Check out the following video and find out:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-sSeqPywI]

Many of you may now be confused.  What does this horribly insensitive video have to do with trolls?  The answer is simple.  According to a March 15^th Atlantic Wire article, internet trolls post offensive videos to garner attention.  They thrive off negative feed-back and consider it fun.  The thrill of “trolling” comes from protecting your identity as a troll and tricking viewers into believing that you are the offensive character in real life that you portray in your video.

In light of the devastating losses of the recent earthquake in Japan, tamtampamela’s video has been lambasted by viewers.   She received so many negative comments and death threats that she was forced out of hiding and publically revealed her identity as a troll.  The internet community breathed a sigh of relief…another troll ousted.

Although the offensive nature of troll videos is clearly an issue, there are broader ethical implications. What is the ethical difference between posting an offensive comment you believe in and trolling?  Why is unforgivable for someone to believe that the earthquake in Japan was a benevolent act of God, but forgivable for someone who says it if she admits that she did for attention?  Is it the intentions or the perceptions we care about?

Apparently, we care about perceptions.  By “coming clean,” tamtampamela has come out of the scrutiny and criticism of the internet community.  Now that we perceive that her words are facetious, she is all of a sudden exonerated.  But, the nature of her words hasn’t changed.  The intention, if anything, is worse.  Being a troll isn’t a valid excuse from moral censure. We seem to normalize attention by transgression, and therefore, absolve trolls as simply misguided attention hoarders.  The reality is though that they have crossed a line.

This brings me to a second issue: how do we decide what type of trolling is inappropriate?  Many YouTube users satirize events or stereotypes for attention.  One of my favorite videos pokes fun at the sorority stereotype:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be3JM-fg4uE]

A recent Slate article also mentions comedians such as Gilbert Gottfried who use dark humor.

At first, I thought that offensive humor and trolling were completely separate, but now I am starting to think that they are really similar. They are both incredibly offensive by nature.  However, I wonder if there is a distinction.  So what’s the difference?  What makes us laugh and what makes us want to angry?

Gottfried wanted to make us laugh—the medium he chose was dark, ill-timed humor. Omgbekah wanted to entertain—she chose to do so by satirizing sorority girls.  Tamtampamela, on the other hand, wanted to gain attention; therefore she lobbed insensitive comments to enrage people. I think that the difference in intentionality is significant.

At the end of the day, we have to take trolling for what it is: a cry for attention.  Some trolls go overboard.  Beware—or help them from under the bridge.