Strollerderby : LA Times

Octomom to Kate: Don't You Judge Me

Madeline Holler — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:34:00 GMT

It's a battle of the super-breeders! The LA Times is reporting that Nadya Suleman (aka: Octomom) wants Kate Gosselin, star of TLC's "Jon & Kate + 8," to stop judging her.

Suleman's comments come after a recent episode of "Dr. Phil." Gosselin, the mother of five-year-old sextuplets and two older children, said that Suleman would have a difficult time raising her 14 children without a husband or money. She was responding to a question about Suleman's situation.

Here's what Suleman had to say in response:

"Do I have to watch it? She reminds me of my mother," said Suleman, a resident of La Habra, in an interview with Radar Online released this morning. "I have moved past my mistakes. She has her own issues. ... She needs to stop being so judgmental and stop pulling at straws for attention." ...

Suleman said in the video interview that Gosselin should focus on her own life. "My children are extremely healthy, strong and happy. Don't you have, like, a lot of issues in your life? A lot of marital problems?" she told Radar.

Ouch!

Incidentally, Suleman signed on for her own reality show. But producers want you to know it's different. Ocotomom herself will be holding the camera much of the time. Oh, that can't be good. That can't be good.

'Jon & Kate' Under Investigation

Blogger Defends Kate!

Image: LA Times

Mother-to-Be: Save The Baby's Life, Not Mine

Madeline Holler — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:00:00 GMT

At some point during my last pregnancy, I was talking contingency plans with my homebirth midwife. She told me a funny story about another client who had said that were there to be some medical emergency that came down to choosing between the baby's life and her own, save her! Save the mom!

My response to my midwife was, "yeah, that sounds about right."

With that attitude, I started reading this LA Times piece, written by an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at UCLA, Linda Reid Chassiakos.

Chassiakos tells the story of a pregnant woman with a brain tumor who refused life-saving treatment that would have likely killed the 24-week-old fetus growing inside her. Doctors had told her viability for super-premature births is most likely after 28 weeks gestation and after the fetus is at least 2 pounds.

So the mom waited. And waited. Through brain swelling and continued growth of her tumor.

From the LA Times:

To our astonishment -- and joy -- the comatose woman "hung in" until the 28th week. At that point, an ultrasound showed the fetus was probably over the 2-pound mark, and her doctors scheduled the caesarean. Gasping for air, the child was born at a size and weight that would give her a fighting chance of life.

Over the next few days, the new father divided his time between the bedsides of his wife and his daughter. Neurosurgeons removed much of the mother's brain tumor, and the woman regained consciousness within a day. Her tiny girl did develop lung and gastrointestinal conditions -- common to extremely premature infants -- but responded to treatment and continued to grow.

The mother didn't do as well and died two weeks before the baby was released from the hospital at two months old.

The father is, of course, overjoyed with the little girl. As was the mother for the few weeks of their overlapping lives. But I still think I would have stuck with my original birth/death plan. Save me. Save me!

What about you?

Photo: mychildhealth.net

They Say: Hard Times, More Pregnancies

Madeline Holler — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:26:00 GMT

The economy has caused its share of hardships for sure. It's time throw accidental pregnancies onto the pile.

A new survey of more than 1,000 women that was commissioned by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found the recession has forced many women to give up prescription birth control due to expense or loss of health insurance.

This year, 20 percent of the women surveyed fear they'll get pregnant.

From the LA Times:

"Even 3% is a big number if you look at the entire number of women in that age group," said Dr. Iffath A. Hoskins, vice president of ACOG, who presented the survey results. "We're deeply concerned about the effect of the economy on women's healthcare."

A member of Obama's transition team, Dr. Rebekah Gee, an obstetrician and gynecologist, gets to the real problem. Birth control is expensive in the U.S. and it's not easily accessible.

"Birth control is unacceptably expensive," Gee said. Every dollar spent in the public health sector on contraceptives saves $3 in childbirth and newborn healthcare costs for Medicaid. But not all insurance companies pay for contraceptives, and women spend money and time on doctor's office visits to obtain prescriptions for the most reliable forms of birth control. "There are multiple costs associated with contraceptives that we don't even think about," she said.

What about you? Have you had to skip refills or switch to more affordable BC recently?

A Really Graphic Homebirth

Mattress Ad Features Homebirth

4 Mother's Day Gifts to Let Mom Know She's Haggard

Doc Doesn't Just Support -- He Recommends -- Circumcision

Photo: Nottinghamshire.gov.uk

Octuplets' Fertility Doctor Strikes Again!

Madeline Holler — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:01:00 GMT

The fertility doctor who is responsible for the birth of eight babies to a jobless single mother who already had six kids is in the news again.

The LA Times and KTTV Fox 11 are reporting that shortly after Nadya Suleman became pregnant with octuplets, her fertility doctor, Dr. Michael Kamrava, helped another mother get pregnant. She wanted one baby. But she's now five months along with quadruplets.

The mom-to-be's name has not been released, but here are the stunning details on her: she's 49-year-olds. She has no health insurance.

As with Suleman, Kamrava transferred eight embryos in treating this woman, who was recently hospitalized at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center, where she is on bed rest for the next two or three months.

From the LA Times:

The California Medical Board has said it is looking into the octuplets' case to determine whether a doctor may have violated any standards of care.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which has guidelines limiting the number of embryos that can be transferred depending on the woman's age and other circumstances, said it is also examining the doctor's practice. No laws govern this issue.

The guidelines apparently allow for the transfer of more embryos in the cases of much older women, which certainly raises some questions in the case of Suleman. However, the fact that this quads mom used eggs donated from a woman in her 20s means that the risk of carrying multiples was high.

Again, the Times:

"I do think it is concerning, and dangerous, especially to the mother. She is close to 50. When women get to be that age, our fear is the cardiovascular complications, such as stroke or heart attack. That's how serious this is," said Dr. John Jain, a fertility specialist with knowledge of the case.

The woman,an apartment manager, asks to be left in privacy and says her circumstances are different from Suleman's. She has three children from a previous marriage and her husband, a contractor in his 30s, has none.

A woman answering the phone at Kamrava's West Coast IVF clinic had this to say about the quads:

"If [a] mother wants to bring four kids, so what?"

So what? Just put'em on the tab ...

Ex-Employee of OctuDoc Shocked He's Still In Business

Photo: Telegraph.co.uk

Why the Octuplets Mom Went For It

Madeline Holler — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:34:00 GMT

Finally! An explanation why the woman with no job, no partner, no home of her own -- but with four sons and two daughters - would undergo IVF to conceive. As we're all aware, that pregnancy resulted in the birth of octuplets -- six boys and two girls.

Her mom spoke to the press explaining the seventh pregnancy:

She was "hoping for just one more girl." So she asked fertility doctor to transfer eight embryos to increase the chance of a girl.

The grandmother of 14 defended her daughter. From the LA Times:

Suleman stressed that her daughter "is not evil, but she is obsessed with children. She loves children, she is very good with children, but obviously she overdid herself."

Reasonable?

Photo: LA Times

Report: Octuplets Mom Used Sperm Donor, IVF for All 14 Kids

Doctors Who Delivered Octuplets Say 'Don't Look at Us'

Reports: Mom of Surprise Octuplets Already Had 6 Kids

No Great Outpouring of Support for Struggling New Mom of Quintuplets

Pulling the Plug on Plural Pregnancies

UPDATE: Time Warner and Viacom Reach Agreement, SpongeBob Saved

Brett Singer — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:52:00 GMT

The war has ended, and we are all winners -- the kids can watch Dora, the grown-ups can watch Colbert. Technically, the kids can also watch Colbert, and the grown-ups can even watch Dora.

Viacom and Time Warner have reached an agreement, terms to be fleshed out later, that will keep the various channels on the air for Time Warner Cable subscribers, according to the New York Times. Perhaps they took Dora's advice to "stop and think" for a minute.

One interesting idea did come from this, however, via the comments below: pay-per-minute television. I like it. They'll never DO it, but I like it. It would probably greatly reduce TV viewing in most households. "Hey kids, there's a Spider-Man marathon on! 65 episodes in a row!" (That was this morning, actually.) If you add, "It'll only cost us a dollar a minute!" I might just pick up a book, y'know?

Anyway, for now, everyone can keep watching their favorite shows. And thank goodness -- isn't there a new "Hills" spinoff? (Note: if there is, I don't know what it's called because I don't watch that show. But somebody must.)

Original post follows below:

*-*-*-*

If you get your TV service from Time Warner Cable and your kids love them some SpongeBob and Dora The Explorer, you might want to stock up on DVDs.

Viacom wants an increase in the fee Time Warner pays to carry their channels, and Time Warner doesn't want to pay it. The deadline is midnight tonight. What channels are those? A partial list: Nickelodeon, MTV, VH-1, Comedy Central. So no Diego for the kiddies, and no Daily Show and Colbert Report for you. (Or for your kids, if they enjoy a humorous take on current events.)

Unsurprisingly, both sides think they are right. In a press release, Viacom says the following: " Ultimately…if Nickelodeon, COMEDY CENTRAL, MTV and the rest of our programming is discontinued - over less than a penny per day – we believe viewers will see this behavior by their cable company as outrageous." The fee increase Viacom is asking for is "about 25 cents a month, or $3 a year, per subscriber for its package of channels," according to the LA Times. Time Warner says its about Viacom trying to make up for decreased ad revenue: the LA Times quotes Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley as saying, "Advertising revenue stinks so they are looking to stick our customers for the difference. We have to hold the line for our customers. They are holding our customers hostage for a bunch of networks with sagging ratings and only one or two good channels."

Personally, I've felt for years that it should be possible to pick and choose which channels you actually want to receive. For example, Comedy Central, sure. But no one in my house watches Nickelodeon, so that one can go. Of course, that's not how it works. Oh well.

The thing is, while both sides may or may not have valid points in this matter, customers don't really care. It's not like Time Warner will offer refunds if they drop the Viacom channels from their lineup (although I suppose they might if it lasts long enough). But I think it you ask cable customers, the vast majority would say that they pay too much for their service. Take away channels that they actually want to watch, and that makes it even worse. It's two rich companies fighting with each other over more money, and while they fight, I don’t get to watch "The Hills." (Note: I don't actually watch "The Hills." That's just an example.)

Anyway, midnight tonight. If Viacom and Time Warner can't come to an agreement by then, bye-bye Dora and Jon Stewart. Let's see what happens.

Source: LATimes

Disney Bails on Narnia

Miss Piggy Wants a Bailout For Christmas

Let Your Daughters Grow Up to Marry Princesses

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:01:00 GMT

I was particularly struck by a column in the LA Times that talks about the long road ahead to equality in the wake of California's recent ban on gay marriage. In a brilliant essay, gay rights activist John Corvino invokes one of the more popular, and insidious, ads used to defeat gay marriage.

In it, a girl comes home from school and tells her mother what she learned that day: that princes can marry princes, and that "I can marry a princess!"

The mother, of course, looks shocked. (The girl, for what it's worth, seems positively thrilled -- what little girl would not want to marry a princess? Only their bigoted parents and their tinhorn, ancient scriptures think that's not cool. Work on Sundays? Sure! Equals rights for gays? Whoa, slow down -- the bible says no. Hypocrites.)

Anyway ...

Corvino talks about the trend lines that will one day lead to equality for all. In 2000, 61 percent of Californians said no to gay marriage. This week, it was 52 percent.

"One thing is clear: That shift is on the side of gay and lesbian equality. More and more gay and lesbian couples are openly committing to each other, having weddings, and even calling it marriage. The word is important. Princesses don't dream about someday "domestically partnering with" the person they love. They dream about marrying him -- or, in a minority of cases, her."

In my view, it's only a matter of time. A new generation of wiser parents is raising a new generation of wiser children. As Madeline said the other day, our kids will fix it.

As Corvino says: "When the smoke from this battle clears, Americans will realize that gays are not interested in confusing children or in forcing princesses on little girls who don't want them. But they also will realize that, when girls grow up to love princesses, they deserve to live happily ever after."

It makes me wonder: If your daughter does grow up to "domestically partner with" a princess, what kind of fucked up, vile parent are you to point to a book and say, "You, my flesh, my blood, my all, are worth less now." Just because it's in a book, doesn't mean you have to believe it. Our daughters, no matter who they are, all deserve the happily ever after.

Dadcentric endorses Obama

Brett Singer — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:30:00 GMT

In a move that will shake the foundations of political pundits more than John McCain's choice of running mate, the blog DadCentric has chosen to endorse Barack Obama for President. (full disclosure: Famecrawlerer Whit Honea writes for Dadcentric. We support our own.)

The endorsement amusingly compares the Bush Administration to Applebee's, and takes great pains to point out that John McCain is not an inherently evil man, somewhat like Mr. Obama did in his speech last night. It will be interesting to see if the McCain campaign (the McCampaign? Nah, doesn't work) does the same at their convention next week.

Read the full post – and the remarkably vitriolic comments – here. And make sure you register to vote. This is an election year, people.

image: Droolicious

Shawn Johnson, Democrat? (UPDATE: Now with video)

5 coolest Barack Obama T-shirts and onesies for your politically minded little one

Political Nanny: Sarah Palin is McCain's VP Pick!

Political Nanny: Arena Obama

Beau Biden almost made me cry

Elizabeth Edwards slammed for keeping hubby's affair a secret

Beau Biden's Speech: Do it for His Dad

Elizabeth Edwards slammed for keeping hubby's affair a secret

Baby Penis Album only five bucks

Des Moines sex club shut down

Shawn Johnson, Democrat? (UPDATE: Now with video)

Brett Singer — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:00:00 GMT

While Michael Phelps is buying condos and making out with Australian swimmers (not that I blame the guy for having some fun, mind you), adorable pixie-person Shawn Johnson is in Denver, leading the pledge of allegiance at the Democratic Convention. The L.A. Times points out that Johnson hasn't declared an official party affiliation, "but the point is somewhat moot -- she's too young to vote." Jennifer Hudson ("Dreamgirls") sang the national anthem. (UPDATE: see the video below.)

As for why it looks like the event has moved outside, that's because it has. Obama's speech is taking place at Invesco Field (where the Denver Broncos play football) in order to accommodate a larger audience. The campaign expects 75,000 people to attend.

And yes, that's Al Gore standing with Shawn Johnson. He is tall and she is very short.

image: amny.com

Beau Biden almost made me cry

Beau Biden's Speech: Do it for His Dad

Did Michael Phelps actually win 8 medals?

Michael Phelps father in Baltimore, not Beijing

Political Nanny: Don't ... Stop ... Thinking About the 90s

Other Old Olympians

IOC orders investigation of Chinese Gymnast's age

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

Elizabeth Edwards slammed for keeping hubby's affair a secret

Why the puppy games are better than the Olympics

Nastia Luikin's mom watches from the stands (video)

Bela Karolyi likes to kill things

Ruling: Docs Must Impregnate Lesbians and Singles, Too

Madeline Holler — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:05:00 GMT

The California Supreme Court has ruled that fertility clinics may not turn away clients based on their sexual orientation or marital status. Yes, that's even if the doctors claim helping lesbians or singles become mothers is against their religion. Hallelujah!

What's incredible to me is that doctors turned away paying customers in the first place. But with the baby-making business booming, perhaps there was some wiggle room in the bottom line for bigotry.

The suit was brought against a clinic in California in 2005. Doctors told Guadalupe Benitez that they refused to inseminate her with donor sperm, first because she is gay and then later because she was unmarried. The doctors said they were exercising their freedom of religion in turning her away.

The ruling says anti-discrimination laws take precedence over doctors' right to religious freedom. Amen!

Now the question is, will those docs get out of the business, you know, on religious grounds? I doubt it, too, I doubt it, too.

What's your take?

Photo: LA Times

Political Nanny: White Talk, Blackface ... Barf

Madeline Holler — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:06:00 GMT

All that sexist energy Hillary Clinton revved up seems to have been poured into going after Barack Obama's minority status. Seriously, can't pundits and politicians get past the fact that great leadership doesn't have to come in a white guy package?

A couple of examples from this last week:

(1) This is just heartbreaking. Ralph Nader, defender of the voiceless, smart guy, articulate guy (!) sums up Obama's positions this way: "he's talking white." Huh? What does that even mean? Here's what he said more fully (from the Rocky Mountain News):

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

Obama hit back later saying it was Nader's attempt to draw attention to his third-party. Nader's got an arsenal of real things to say, so why go there, Ralph, why?

(2) Speaking to the LA Times, conservative agent provocateur Grover Norquist described Barack Obama as "John Kerry with a tan." How ever did he keep himself from invoking "blackface"? Norquist's director of communication called to do damage control.

Chris Rock could be Barack Obama's running mate

Photo: mistupid.com

Kitchenista: Lemony Fresh

Adrienne Martini — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:00:00 GMT

The arrival of the sweltering heat and omnipresent children means that I can legitimately put my summertime savior back in the freezer: Limoncello.

This year I'm making my own. With the dollar in the crapper, the imported stuff is getting too pricey for a liquor that I fully intend to dilute with Sprite. You can also add different combos of citrus when you make your own. Besides, most homemade eats are just so much better.

Fortunately, the LA Times understands. This weekend, I'm breaking out my microplane lemon zester and clearing some space in the pantry. By the time August -- my least favorite month ever -- rolls around, I'll have some homebrew to ease the pain.

Photo credit: Francine Orr /LAT

Breast Feeding Makes Smarter Kids

Cole Gamble — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:00:00 GMT

According to a study of nearly 14,000 children, increased breast feeding in the first months of life can raise a child’s verbal IQ. The study found that breastfed six-year-olds scored an average 7.5 points higher on the verbal IQ than the control group.

So that’s it, the final piece of evidence that absolutely everyone should breast feed, right?

On a personal note, my wife didn’t breastfeed our two children. It just didn’t work out, but they are healthy, strong and whip smart. We did try to eek some breast milk into their formulas, but regular old breastfeeding wasn’t happening. But say you didn’t breeastfeed out loud and you might get quieted by a hiss of disapproval. Breastfeeding has becoming a very important issue. I think perhaps there was once a backlash against women who breastfeed, that breastfeeding was to be kept quiet and behind closed doors, that it was passé. Now I think we have overcorrected, that there is a backlash to the backlash. We live in a time in when we have made breastfeeding the penultimate parenting issue. It’s not. Not breastfeeding does not make you a bad parent. I do not believe, like a certain PSA asserted, that the choice to not breastfeed is tantamount to a pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull. That’s not a PSA, that’s just fear mongering propaganda. Is breastfeeding good? Yes, that would appear to be the case but the social pressure to do so far outweighs the benefits. Even studies like the one mentioned here can not determine if it is the breast milk that makes the brainy difference, or if perhaps unrelated qualities like nurturing and attentiveness that might just be common in the type of mother who chooses to breastfeed.

How about you? How important is breast feeding to you?

Political Nanny: Take My Candidate ... Please!

Madeline Holler — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:35:00 GMT

The three front-runners walked into a bar ... OK. That's not how this joke starts. But who else besides Political Nanny is stunned that jokes like this still exist? She thought it was all snark and John Stewart all the time!

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Mc Cain are flying together to a debate. Obama looks at Clinton, chuckles, and says, "You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out of the window right now and make somebody very happy." Clinton shrugs and counters, "I could throw ten $100 bills out of the window and make ten people very happy." McCain pipes up: "So? I could throw 100 $10 bills out of the window and make a hundred people very happy." Up front, the pilot mutters to the copilot: "I could throw all three of them out of the window and make 156 million people very happy."

G'head and use it at the weekend BBQ. Just be sure to credit Political Nanny (who credits LA Times Top of the Ticket, who credits some random email ...)

Ranch for Adopted Kids Gone Wild

Madeline Holler — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:02:00 GMT

This is one of those things where you're happy that there are people out there doing good things so that you can live in complete and comfortable oblivion about the problem they live with and deal with and try to make better on a daily basis: a ranch for adopted children whose desperate families cannot handle them.

It turns out, a statistically small but growing number of adoptive families -- particularly those who adopted internationally -- are pushed to the point of wanting to give up their adopted child. They realize that their adoption agencies glossed over or falsified their child's history of abuse or living conditions, all of which wind up contributing to abusive and dangerous behaviors the children start exhibiting in their tweens and teens.

Which is how Ranch for Kids in rural Montana got started and also why it's therapy of hard ranch work and responsibility will likely be needed for years to come.

The Ranch isn't a first stop for adoptive families whose children are going through hard times, of course.

The LA Times:

Most had already logged countless hours in psychiatric units, wilderness programs and residential treatment centers, searching for answers to their disturbing behaviors. The goal is that, through intense intervention and structure, their conduct will improve enough that they can go home.

But some will never return, moving on to new families. They are part of an expanding phenomenon known as adoption disruption -- the official term for parents attempting to return their adoptive children.

It's heartbreaking, as is this story in Newsweek a while back of an American adoptive mother who is in prison for beating her adopted daughter to death. Also a tragedy, also the result of a lack of real information about her girl's early childhood history, which may have been helpful in understanding and treating her subsequent behaviors.

The ranch, started by an American woman who lived and worked in Russia, where she also adopted her daughter, has a pretty good sucess rate. Of the 150 kids that have gone through the program, which is not cheap, only six have gotten the boot (all, incidentally, within the last year). One third of the kids go back home after their stay at the ranch, another third, usually teens, go on to Job Corps, a government program that trains them for work. The last third, sadly, wind up being relinquished by their parents.

Sometimes, the task of telling a child he or she will be joining a new family falls to Bill Sutley, an electrical engineer by training. "I just say: 'This is not your fault. You have a screwed-up brain.' And then I do my best to explain why the current situation isn't working."

Which is when yet another group is called on: A Child's Waiting in Akron, Ohio -- one of the few adoption agencies that works with youth they did not originally place.

The kids are rated according to levels of difficulty and then the search for a new family or living situation is begun.

Truly, truly sad.

Does anybody have any experience with this or adoption disruption?

Photo: rainbowkids.com

Save the Receipt -- Return Policies are Changing

Madeline Holler — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:25:00 GMT

People are just jackasses … am I right or am I right? I mean, this article in the L.A. Tiimes illustrating why stores are cracking down on merchandise returns had me panicking for a second. I recently returned a set of towels that shredded after one washing – and after I had tossed the tags, receipts, etc. I figured the new policy they would be talking about would have precluded me from getting my money back. Meanwhile, shitty towels are such a rip-off!

But nevermind, I'm off the hook on this one.

Apparently the returns policies that the major chains are revising are ones that let you bring back just about anything, anytime, no receipts, no problem. Stores are promising to crack down on “serial returners” and folks who want free electronics upgrades or larger sized kids clothes in place of the gently used ones because they’re losing tons of money.

One San Diego attorney admitted he took advantage of generous return policy at Costco, buying high definition TVs and returning them as the prices got lower and the technology got better. Once, he waited in line behind a guy returning a grill – complete with burn marks from frequent use.

Or this:

At Shoe Pavilion … One women came back with a $9.99 pair of shoes three months after she bought them, demanding a refund because, well, they looked as if someone had been walking in them for three months, he said. "Basically, she wanted us to give her a free pair of shoes."
I mean, when you go out and buy the first version of an iPod – or iPhone or latest gadget – you have to know it’ll be one bettered in about five minutes or during the next quarter, whichever comes first. Nobody owes you an upgrade!

And yeesssss, for all my sanctimony here, I’ve pushed it on returns a time or two (yeeeeeears ago, in my youth, I swear), taking back a coat that I said wasn’t warm enough (wore it and didn’t want it anymore) and shoes that pinched when I tried them on and – surprise! – continued to pinch when I wore them home and the next day.
So yeah, it’s probably good that they’re changing the policy. What will those people who buy and use rugs from Ikea -- and then return them -- ever do?

How about you? Do you take advantage of store return policies? Do you do it in front of the kids?

New Reality Show Taints Mother-Daughter Activities Everywhere Forever

Kelly Mills — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:08:00 GMT

Forget sack races and girls outings and mommy-and-me music classes: The CW network has just killed the sweet, innocent joy in every mom-and-girl activity by taking the most grotesque thing ever and televising it. Tonight is the premiere of Crowned. Mom and daughter teams live in a house, hiss at the other family units, and compete in--ta da!--a mother-daughter beauty pageant. Because beauty pageants and stage moms and women who fairly panic about losing their looks aren't nearly sad enough on their own: We have to see a combination, and then some. As Jessica said, "I just can't wait for the stretch mark montage where the moms cry about how their 'badges of honor' have all been worth it now that their daughters are anorexic and compulsive exercisers with tiaras and sceptors and then the daughters cry about how they hope they never get stretch marks like their moms even though their moms are like, otherwise, totally awesomely cool people." Sure enough.

In case you were wondering what the critics think of the show, please check out Jezebel's neat round-up of the unanimous barfing this show induced. I like what the LA Times said: "If any of the negotiating members of the Writers Guild and studio alliance are reading this, I'm begging: Please return to the bargaining table and end this strike. Because the CW's Crowned: The Mother of All Beauty Pageants debuts tonight and I'm telling you, as a television consumer and a human being, the center will not hold." It's a good reminder that there's cheesy, awful reality shows that are fun to watch, and wretched, nauseating reality shows that just necessitate a shower and a lobotomy.

Kid Nation, Every Parent’s Dream?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:38:00 GMT

I won’t be watching Kid Nation when it premieres on CBS Wednesday night, but not as a silent protest of the alleged exploitation or broken child labor laws (though I’m certainly opposed to both). No, I watch my daughters go Lord of the Flies about six hundred times a day. I’m not interested in an extra hour of it on TV.

But I did read with interest Meghan Daum’s take in the LA Times on the controversy surrounding the show and the question: what kind of parents would willingly turn their children over to producers, writers, directors – and worse, other children -- after signing what amounts to accidental death consent forms?

Looking at the 40 Kid Nation stars’ parents, Daum sees a generation whose life goal, in this decades-long era of celebrity worship, was nothing more noble than to be famous. Success, we're told these days, is not just about achievement but public (preferably televised) achievement, she writes. Alas, these parents never became household names. So they offer up their offspring to Hollywood in order to protect them from the fate we’ve come to fear most: invisibility.

What about you? Doctor or Hollywood starlet? Teacher or NBA superstar? Wouldn’t you like your kid to be president – or a host on Good Morning America – some day?