Tuesday, December 31, 2002

At the brink of the turning of another year allow me to wish you a very happy new year!

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Monday, December 23, 2002

NJ governor Jim McGreevy signed into law a "smart-gun" provision, requiring guns to use technology that doesn't yet exist. He called it a "common sense" law. How is something that doesn't exist considered to be common sense?

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

washingtonpost.com: Way Too Much Fantasy With That Dream House

Way Too Much Fantasy With That Dream House


By Deborah Roffman

Sunday, December 22, 2002; Page B01


Still seeking that perfect gift for a special young girl in your life? Well, look no further than page 50 of the FAO Schwarz 2002 holiday catalogue. For a mere $45, you can surprise and delight her with a Lingerie Barbie.

And what a Barbie Babe she is, decked out in her sexy black (or, if you prefer, pink) garters, stockings and obligatory stiletto heels. Even her PR is PG, giving the phrase "sex toy" a whole new level of meaning: "Barbie exudes a flirtatious attitude in her heavenly merry widow bustier ensemble accented with intricate lace and matching peekaboo peignoir."

Oh darn, reading this too late for holiday gift giving? Not to worry. Mattel plans a February launch for its sixth "limited edition" Lingerie Barbie, promising she'll be "simply sassy in a short pearl-grey satin slip trimmed in black lace" and "thigh-high stockings" that "add a hint of flair."

A middle school principal in New Hampshire first alerted me to Bimbo, uh, Lingerie Barbie (nickname courtesy of a seventh-grade boy who wanted to know, "What's next? 'Playboy Barbie'?"). I've been actively assessing the Lingerie Barbie gasp factor for several weeks now. It's huge. Teachers and parents (even among Barbie fans) can't believe their ears when they hear about this one: Disgusting! How dare they! Don't they have little girls of their own? Where will it all end? Enough!!

Many teens I know, and even younger children, have been equally outraged. High school students at one all-girls school in Tennessee where I recently spoke were moved to start a national letter-writing campaign to chastise Mattel for this brazen sexualization of children.

And girls I know are neither the slightest bit reassured nor deterred by the company's "for age 14 and up" disclaimer. "Get real," said one. "No 14-year-old girl would be caught dead playing with a Barbie Doll, 'lingerie' or otherwise. Who do they think they're kidding?" Said another: "Yeah, right. Maybe they mean 14-year-old boys."

As for Mattel, it seems to be playing peekaboo with its own LB marketing strategy. Says company spokeswoman Ria Freydl, "We're not marketing it to kids," and true enough, the "Barbie Fashion Model Collection" can be found in the more adult-oriented collectible section on Mattel's Web site. And yet, consider this tag line on LB #5's blurb: "Golden hoop earrings and high heels complete this simple but elegant ensemble, perfect for dress-and-play fun!"

"Dress-and-play fun" for adult collectors? I don't think so. At least, I hope not.

And though $45 is more than twice what a parent forks out for the average Barbie, it's still far more affordable (and more child friendly) than most of the other Barbie collectibles found in the Schwarz catalogue and those of other mainstream retailers.

One 10-year-old in my class wasn't buying any of it. He told me last week he'd actually been given one of the dolls by a 5-year-old cousin who had tired of it. "She gives me lots of toys she doesn't want," he said. "Most of them I give to charity. But not this one, no way. I threw it in the river. No child should play with something like that. They'll get all the wrong ideas."

Out of the mouth of babes -- real honest-to-goodness babes, not Barbie Babes. If 10-year-olds are "getting it," maybe, just maybe, the adults out there will begin to see it more clearly, too.

I had begun to wonder what it would take. During the past decade, there have been an unprecedented number of assaults on the whole concept of sexual boundaries (with Lingerie Barbie only of the more egregious examples), typically without so much as a peep from the adult world. Maybe we've just been too busy or too overwhelmed to notice, or perhaps we've become so adjusted to the ever-quickening pace of cultural change that the change itself is simply harder and harder to perceive.

How else to explain the gradual appearance of "soft porn" in perfume and clothing advertisements? How and when did that become "okay"? And when exactly did "fashion" stop being about getting dressed, and start being about getting -- or increasing the chance that you'll soon be getting -- undressed? About the same time, I guess, that Victoria's Secret decided that lingerie (previously thought of as underwear or private wear) was "fashion," too.

Wasn't it only a matter of time before we were treated to a prime-time Victoria's Secret lingerie "fashion show"? And, excuse me, but who was paying attention when the junior streetwalker/sex slave look became the predominant mode of "dress" among teens and even preteens? Or the wide-midriff, belly-button-baring trend for the 7-year-old crowd? Or short shorts, sporting phrases like "Hot Stuff" across the buttocks, for first-graders?

This doesn't seem to faze many adults these days, that's for sure. It was several of my students who drew my attention to a billboard ad for a local day spa: "Ladies Get Undressed!" Actually, it says "Ladies Get Unstressed!," but since the image is of a naked woman lying face down on a massage table, you be the judge. How different is that message from the one delivered by Lingerie Barbie's "peekaboo peignoir"?

You really do have to wonder how we arrived at this point, more than 40 years after the women's movement as well as 20 years and counting into the HIV epidemic. Then again, you might also say, so what else is new. Women are sex objects? Sex sells?

But there's plenty that's new in what's going on in America today. It began in the 1990s with the invention of the "tweens," a marketing niche composed of 8- to 14-year-olds girls and boys, who carry around an estimated $40 billion in their pockets yearly and influence many hundreds of billions more of their parents' buying power. Mattel, which sells about $1.5 billion worth of Barbies every year, is determined to hold onto its share of the tweens. Its brand new Barbie line, out just last month, is aimed at 8- to 12-year-olds. And no wonder: Barbie's biggest fans these days are now between ages 3 and 6. The preteen set, growing up ever so much faster, is a declining Barbie market.

The Mattel solution: "My Scene Barbie," a more "reality-based" doll that a preteen "can really relate to," in the words of company spokeswoman Freydl. See if you can guess the image: If you pictured a sexy, hip, low-rise-jeans-wearing Britney Spears wannabe, you'd be darn close.

This kind of deliberate targeting of younger and younger children and teenagers with sophisticated, adult-oriented messages has been a merchandising coup on a grand scale, and one that promises to keep grown-up "tweens" piling on the profits for decades to come.

It's also been a developmental disaster.

First of all, you'd have to be suspicious of anyone who wants to lump together 8-year-olds and 14-year-olds. Now hear this: Children are not preteens, preteens are not teens, and teens are not adults.

Of all the lines that have been blurred in our culture over the past 10 years or so, none is more dangerous (and sad) than this one. And it would be equally dangerous to chalk up this concern, as some do, to prudery or "the generation gap" or encroaching conservatism. What's going on here is nothing less than the violation of our children's most fundamental rights and needs.

A sense of clear limits is not just "nice" for children and teens, it's almost as important to them as oxygen. Limits and boundaries -- those brackets we put around our children's lives to keep them safe and healthy -- do for them what they are not yet able to do for themselves. A culture that screams "There are no limits!" at every turn puts children in great peril.

Those of us in the business of education have been worried about middle- and high-school students for a while. The stories of the past few years are harrowing: Oral sex in middle-school buildings; boys making videotapes of their sexual exploits -- without the knowledge or consent of their partners -- and showing them off; boys distributing, via the Internet, the names and telephone numbers of girls, along with how much they are known to "put out" sexually, and defending themselves by saying it's all in the name of fun; girls taking sexually provocative pictures of themselves and posting them on their Web sites; girls and boys speaking, dancing and moving in sexually explicit ways during skits in front of all-school gatherings, even with young children present.

The litany of stories I'm hearing now involving young children are even more disturbing: "freak" dancing or "grinding" at fifth-grade graduation parties in public school buildings, with adults as passive onlookers; 8-year-olds being taken to see R-rated movies such as "American Pie II"; elementary school children posting sexual jokes and messages online, even on school networks; mothers finding pornographic passages in their fifth-grade daughters' diaries; fourth-grade boys turning to fourth-grade girls in the cafeteria line and asking, "Do you spit or swallow?"

In many of these situations, it is clear that adults are complicit, either by their neglect, cluelessness or even subtle, if not direct, encouragement. Perhaps we adults, too, are being hoodwinked by the tweens marketing blitz. We conclude that children who look, dress and act older are actually more mature. We're fooling ourselves, and our children.

Some blame "the media," but that's way too easy on parents. One mom at a talk I gave recently complained that she'd wanted her husband to attend but he begged off, saying he was "just too uncomfortable" to talk to the kids about sex. I tried to advise her, but gave up and said (in a nicer way): Go home and tell him to grow up.

If we're uncomfortable, we need to get over it. If we don't know what to say, or how and when to say it, we need to figure it out. If we're feeling overwhelmed in the face of an all-powerful popular and youth culture, we need to reach out and work with other parents to reassert our rightful authority and responsibility for our children's well-being. And we'll need to begin at younger ages than we ever may have dreamed.

Ultimately, we'll need to create a society where our children's first and most important reference points about sexuality are families and schools, not their peers, the media or the Mattel company.

Let's start by heeding the uncommon wisdom of my 10-year-old friend: Not this one, no way.

Deborah Roffman teaches human sexuality at the Park School of Baltimore. She is the author of "Sex and Sensibility: The Thinking Parent's Guide to Talking Sense About Sex" (Perseus Books).

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

12 Politically Correct Days of Christmas (forwarded to me by Beth)

On the 12th day of the Eurocentrically imposed midwinter festival, my Significant Other in a consenting adult, monogamous relationship gave to me:

TWELVE males reclaiming their inner warrior through ritual drumming,

ELEVEN pipers piping (plus the 18-member pit orchestra made up of members in good standing of the Musicians Equity Union as called for in their union contract even though they will not be asked to play a note),

TEN melanin deprived testosterone-poisoned scions of the patriarchal ruling class system leaping,

NINE persons engaged in rhythmic self-_expression,

EIGHT economically disadvantaged female persons stealing milk-products from enslaved Bovine-Americans,

SEVEN endangered swans swimming on federally protected wet-lands,

SIX enslaved Fowl-Americans producing stolen non-human animal products,

FIVE golden symbols of culturally sanctioned enforced domestic incarceration,

FOUR hours of recorded whale songs

THREE deconstructionist poets

TWO Sierra Club calendars printed on recycled processed tree carcasses and...

ONE Spotted Owl activist chained to an old-growth pear tree.

Merry Christmas Happy Chanukah. Blessed Yule.Happy Holidays! (unless otherwise prohibited by law)*

* Unless, of course, you are suffering from Seasonally Affected Disorder (SAD).
If this be the case, please substitute this gratuitous call for celebration with suggestion that you have a thoroughly adequate ( or average) day

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

There must be a reason why K-Mart is open for 110 hours -- from Friday to Christmas Eve. Could it be the dozen or so last minute shoppers who were at my local K-Mart at 5AM? I should know-- I was one of them!

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Tuesday, December 17, 2002

JAG (New)
2 WYOU: Tuesday, December 17 8:00 PM
Drama, Action, Adventure, Crime, Fiction Christmas

All Ye Faithful
Events prevent the team from celebrating Christmas together at Bud and Harriet's place.

Cast: David James Elliott, Catherine Bell, Patrick Labyorteaux, John M. Jackson, Karri Turner, Scott Lawrence Director(s): Kenneth Johnson Executive Producer(s): Donald P. Bellisario, Charles Floyd Johnson, Stephen Zito, Mark Horowitz

Original Air Date: Dec 17, 2002


In the above description, what's the difference between 'Action' and 'Adventure'? And doesn't 'Crime' lend itself to either (or both)? And what of 'Drama'... isn't there some 'Drama' in every 'Adventure'? Seeing Donald P. Bellisario's name invariably makes me wonder: "Whatever happened to Sam on Quantum Leap? Wasn't there going to be QL TV-movies? I know Sam is on Enterprise and Al is the Sec. of Defense (or whatever) on JAG, but come on now. Of course, the ultimate TV-Movie would be Sam leaping into MacGyver... THAT would be 'Action', 'Adventure' and the right balance of 'Drama'. And can you tell that I am running on almost no-sleep??

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook




This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men—the poorest—would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1,
the sixth would pay $3,
the seventh $7,
the eighth $12,
the ninth $18,
and the tenth man—the richest—would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement – until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language– a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six – the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and The sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing,
the sixth pitched in $2,
the seventh paid $5,
the eighth paid $9,
the ninth paid $12,
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. “But he got $7!”
"Yeah, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar too, It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!."
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Wednesday, December 11, 2002

NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested commuters side their bicycles in the event of the threatened transit strike. I may not live in NYC anymore, but I can't picture many folks riding bikes in December.

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

BLOGGER

Once again, the Blog is back up. Hereinafter, whenever I have a thought I percieve would be mildly interesting, I shall place it here.

Your comments are welcomed.

C:

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

If you are reading this, then you know that after an 8 month hiatus, the Blog is Back! C:

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook