Height Differences in the United States: A Reflection of Society's Priorities?

[Rach3]

This is the front-page headline of the New York Times, with the front-page photo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/w...&en=2b5c6e2fb2eb11b5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, July 30 — In addition to lofty issues of war and peace, the Senate is grappling with another urgent matter...

“I hesitate to say that it’s a big problem,” said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, shaking his head gravely...

 

[Astronuc]

I'm just curious as to how one can concludes that serious journalism died based on the article.

From my perspective, the NY Times is pointing out a situation in Washington that generally goes unnoticed by the public - that of access by lobbyists and influence peddlers to Senators whose actions have a profound impact on the course of the nation.

That seems pretty serious, even if done somewhat tongue in cheek.

Lobbyists have been known to park themselves outside elevators with attractive young women, the better to win invitations. To be sure, such tactics took place only in earlier eras, when senators held a less enlightened view of women.

So how do lobbyists work the Senate now?

 

[Rach3]

The very next sentence:

To be sure, such tactics took place only in earlier eras, when senators held a less enlightened view of women.

 

[Rach3]

As I read it, the article didn't focus on lobbyists and corruption very much - it was mostly a curiosity article with no merit. I couldn't agree more strongly that lobbyists need much more scrutiny in the media.

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, called the elevators “a tradition that has long since outlived its usefulness.”

Even so, tradition is a potent conceit on Capitol Hill, especially in the upper crust corridors of the upper chamber.

 

[Rach3]

This is actually quite disgustingly elitist:

Members of the House have their own elevators, too, but senators are fewer in number, are more recognizable and tend toward a tall aristocratic archetype. House members blend more seamlessly with the masses and are harder to recognize, which creates its own problems.

What is this, the 1830's?

 

[mathwonk]

it reminds me of the old testament account of king saul, who was apparently king because he was the tallest guy around.

maybe the dems should have recruited ken "too tall" galbraith as a candidate before it was too late.

but i also took a serious point from the article abut how out of touch those guys are. the poor working man and woman paid for the secluded elevator where the enron lobbyist argued for more tax breaks.

 

[mathwonk]

for people who think the ny times is a liberal tool and wonder how it got tht way, i recall when it was very serious and very conservative organ.

that was in 1968, just before mayor daly's thugs in police uniforms beat the reporters over their heads in chicago at the democratic convention.

the editorial tone changed overnight. apparently nothing radicalizes faster than a billy club to the skull.

 

[NateTG]

I should like to point out that 'conservative' and 'politically conservative' are currently very different notions. The neocon policy and agenda could accurately be described as radical.

As a consequence, its quite plausible that conservatives (institutions and individuals alike) will find themselves at odds with the Bush administration and policies.

To be sure, such tactics took place only in earlier eras, when senators held a less enlightened view of women.

I'm sure that any competent lobbying firm will hire attractive young men and women to cater to the tastes of all of the senators.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is funny! Here's the real problem

At times, senators even find themselves on public elevators, an ordeal fraught with the possibility of having to push their own buttons (the senators-only elevators usually have attendants).

I've mentioned this a few times now: The elevator operators play an important role in the subtleties of politics. I once heard this from a senator on Meet The Press... not sure who any more, but he joked and laughed about how every now and again a Jr. Senator will move to get rid of the operators, but soon they learn the real purpose of these go-between button pushers, and the issue is dropped.

 

[Mickey]

How's this recent NYT article for serious journalism?

The Allure of the Tool Belt

I think Althouse said it best:

... so many of the articles seem designed to titillate older women. This thing seems like porn plots reprocessed for ladies who want but can't bring themselves to watch porn. And it's not just the sex. It's the real estate.

Sweet, beautiful real estate.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is actually quite disgustingly elitist:

Members of the House have their own elevators, too, but senators are fewer in number, are more recognizable and tend toward a tall aristocratic archetype. House members blend more seamlessly with the masses and are harder to recognize, which creates its own problems.

What is this, the 1830's?

Interesting comment for the NYT. Is it even true? I know senators tend to have pretty hair (some consultants feel you can't run without it), and it could be that the "archetype" (bad term; somatype is more accurate) is also a consultant constraint. It is true, contra all liberal wishes, that Americans tend to treat tall people with more respect than short people. And "tall aristos / short peasants" was something of a stereotype in England, but not in France, where the noblesse were short. The English stereotype might have come out of the Viking invasions of England in the later first millenium.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

English men are as tall as there US counterparts, I'm not sure why but US women are slightly taller, perhaps they need to make the point that the US is the finest melting pot in the world and look their male counterpoints in the eye whilst they are saying it?

Personally I think the general public should use the stairs, that way they'll outlive there senatorial counterparts by being more fit, it's democratic evolution in progress