Strollerderby : NY Times

The Orphan Trade and International Adoption

Madeline Holler — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:26:00 GMT

E.J. Graff has investigated and written extensively about international adoption, and what she has found is hardly a feel-good story of child rescue. Rather, she concludes that hopeful parents from wealthy nations (the U.S., European countries, Australia) have created a market where babies are bought and sold.

Here's what she has to say, in a New York Times editorial, about international adoption and Madonna's latest attempt to add to her family.

But in trying to adopt a child who already has a family, Madonna is inadvertently exposing the seamier underside of international adoption: the fact that, too often, the amounts of money that Western adoption agencies spend in poor countries is helping to defraud, coerce or kidnap children away from families that wanted to raise them to adulthood.

Graff writes that happy families created in the adoptive countries have, in countless instances, left anguished ones in search of their missing children. Even more heartbreaking is that families who search for -- and, against all odds, eventually find -- their stolen children aren't necessarily reunited with them. So has been the case of a number of children born in Nepal and adopted in Spain.

In a slideshow on Slate, Graff tells the stories of some of the families who were affected by an often corrupt international adoption system.

So how has this happened? With millions of abandoned babies and toddlers throughout the world, how could a baby-selling market thrive? For starters, those millions of babies? Total myth, Graff writes.

From Slate:

Westerners have been sold a myth that poor countries have millions of healthy abandoned infants and toddlers who need homes. But it's not so. In poor countries, as in rich ones, healthy babies are rarely orphaned or given up—except in China, where girls have been abandoned as a result of its draconian one-child policy.

Yes, tens of thousands of needy children around the world—many languishing in horrible institutions—do need families. But most children who need new homes are older than 5, sick, disabled, or somehow traumatized. Quite reasonably, most prospective Western parents don't feel prepared to take on those more challenging kids, preferring to wait in line for healthy infants or toddlers.

The result is a gap between supply and demand—a gap that's closed by Western money. Adoption agencies spend sums in-country that are enormous compared with local per-capita incomes. In poor countries without effective regulation or protections for the poor, that can induce locals to buy, coerce, defraud, and kidnap healthy children away from their birth families for sale into international adoption.

To use the language of globalization, orphans are sometimes "manufactured": Children with families are stripped of their identities so that Westerners can fill their homes....

Families who lost their children aren't the only ones who suffered. More than one adoptive family has found out -- once their child learned English -- the circumstances they truly left behind, including a mother, father and siblings.

Still, others argue that shutting down international adoption ignores the needs of children who truly are abandoned or facing a childhood of institutional living. Four others who work in adoption or study the laws and consequences weigh in on the international adoption in the Times "Room for Debate" feature. Some argue, like Graff, that a lack of oversight and regulation has created this baby market. Others defend Madonna and other families who look overseas for children, saying forget politics, forget money, these kids just need a loving home.

Be sure to check out antiracistparent.com for arguments against Graff's conclusions.

Second Parent Adoption Legislation Moving in Michigan

Crocheted Doll Gives Birth

Should You Take Your Bump on a Date?

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

They Say: Episiotomy Rate ... Cut!

Photos: NY Times, Slate

Nursing Mom Calls for Breastpump Ban

Madeline Holler — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:06:00 GMT

Last week, New York Times columnist Judith Warner weighed in on "The Case Against Breastfeeding," Hanna Rosin's article in the Atlantic, in which she argues that the benefits of breastmilk are wildly overstated. We discussed the article and accompanying podcast here.

Warner agrees with all of the points and conclusions of Rosin's article, especially when Rosin says in the video that she hopes breast pump companies will just disappear.

Then, Warner takes it one stop further: she calls for them to be banned.

From Domestic Disturbances:

In fact, I hope that some day, not too long in the future, books on women’s history will feature photos of breast pumps to illustrate what it was like back in the day when mothers were consistently given the shaft. Future generations of female college students will gaze upon the pumps, aghast.

“Did you actually use one of those?” they’ll ask their mothers, in horror.

And the moms, with a shudder, will proudly say no.

It's not suprising Warner feels this way, since she characterizes pumping breastmilk as this:

... the grotesque ritual carried out behind closed office doors nationwide by beleaguered working mothers who are fully “committed” (as the lactation consultants put it) to the goal of long-term, exclusive breast-feeding.

She also hints that breast-feeding, or maybe just pumping, is undignified.

Listen, I'm not excited when I have to sit down to pump but I would hardly equate the Medela with a corset. Neither, I'm guessing, does this woman. But even if I couldn't stand it -- or thought it was undignified -- it still wouldn't be up to me to take away that option from other families.

Anyway, if it weren't for a breast pump, I really WOULD be tied down to my baby 24/7, which is what Rosin and Warner argue the breast pump winds up doing -- and for no result better than being able to say, "I don't give my kids formula." I know, I know. Their point is that it wouldn't be so bad to use formula. But it kind of is for someone very accustomed to an exclusively nursed baby.

I'd have to figure out which brand and type to buy, monitor the use-by dates and adjust to the different kind of poop in my kid's diaper. It's not worth it to me since I am able to (physically and logistically) nurse exclusively. For me, the trade-off of adding in formula isn't that fabulous and it adds a layer of complication (and if you're tempted to say "it's not that complicated," know that I'm a simple, simple person and yes it is).

Admittedly, I'm a big old breastfeeder and I'm more than happy to support any woman who wants to give it a try. But after years of nursing mine and watching other women feed their babies -- and seeing no obvious, long-run difference between my 8-year-old breastfed babe (now weaned, I swear!) and her formula-fed classmates -- I can totally get behind the decision to feed a baby formula instead or in addition to. (My big beef is when women really, really want to nurse but they get bad information about it or they don't get any support or facts or assistance in doing so.)

What baffles me in this new discussion aimed at getting realistic about the power of breastmilk is how ridiculous the idea of breastfeeding exclusively now is to them. They seem to want to say, "eh, formula ain't so bad. But breastfeeding exclusively definitely is (because it harms the mom! And a harmed mom is a harmed baby!)." Even if Rosin's right -- that it's not the milk that's the added benefit when nursing -- that doesn't mean breastmilk is bad. Or that it isn't really good. (In this scenario, formula can be really good too. Different. But good!)

What I'd like to see is Rosin or Warner saying "damn! I hated pumping! And then make their case for giving their babies a fat juicy bottle of Enfamil before heading off to work.

But I don't want them relegating my Pump in Style to the trash heap of working-motherhood history. Even if American families had a decent maternity/paternity leave law, I'd still have a few more ounces I'd want to squeeze out.

Photo: thesun.co.uk

Blended Family Works With Therapy

Brett Singer — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:30:00 GMT

Here's the story / of a lovely lady / who was living with three very lovely girls…

And so on. You know it, don't you? If not, here's a refresher:

And here's Jamie Foxx singing it, just because it's funny.

For the Bradys, it looked so easy. Real life is rarely that simple. So Claudia Gryvatz Copquin and her boyfriend Glen Ames decided to move in together, they sought help from a therapist.

In general, I'm a believer in therapy. I find that it helps me, and I've known many people who benefited from talking things over with a professional. But when someone says, "I wish the therapist could move in with us," my eyebrows go up like Mr. Spock when Doctor McCoy says something particularly illogical. (Except that I can't raise just the one brow the way Spock does. Must be a Vulcan thing.)

But things like who sleeps in which bed? That's too much. Seriously, what happened to, "This is what we're doing, deal with it"? If that seems harsh, or unrealistic, OK, maybe. Still, where do you draw the line? Do you call the therapist every time?

Apparently this couple does. In fact /They didn’t commit to living together until receiving a go-ahead from the therapist. “It gave us confidence,” Mr. Ames said./ And Ms. Copquin told the therapist "I wish you could move in with us."

I'm sure the therapist is thrilled. Mo' money! But I think that's too much dependance on outside help. If each person had their own shrink, I might feel differently. I'm not sure why but that seems more productive. If you trek the whole family over to the office whenever there's a fight over the remote control, what kind of life is that?

Source: NY Times

Image: Wikipedia

Husband Loses Job, Wife Loses Respect For Him

They Say - Older Fathers Spawn Dumber Kids

Kate Gosselin Dreamt Of A Husband and Children - Did You?

Letting Kids See Watchmen

Brett Singer — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Lisa Belkin wonders if her 15-year old should see "Watchmen," this weekend's number one movie. His 18-year old brother saw it and pronounced it brilliant. I won't keep you in suspense (I know, you were on the edge of your seat), but Lisa eventually capitulated and let the younger son go. Spoiler: he liked it.

Having seen the film, I can say that it is definitely not for kids. The R rating should deter parents, but really it's the subject matter that they should be looking at. For the record, I enjoyed the film version of "Watchmen"; it's very faithful to the original comics (aka "graphic novel"), has some flaws, but overall is very much worth seeing. This column at The Onion AV Club by Tasha Robinson does a great job of breaking down the differences between the two, points out some missteps, and is good reading if you're interested.

For our purposes, the question is "how do I decide whether or not a movie is appropriate for my child?" Movie ratings help, but only up to a point. A commenter at the Times' website points out that "Dark Knight" was rated PG-13, which in my opinion is absurd. Great film, one of the best I've seen, and Heath Ledger's performance was incredible and deserving of an Oscar. Part of what makes his Joker so amazing is that he is really, truly disturbing, more so than the bone-popping-out-of-an-arm style of violence on display in "Watchmen." To me, and I believe to my kids, psychological violence is more troubling than physical violence. Not that I want them to see the extreme grossness that "Watchmen" has. But a movie's rating doesn't always tell the whole story.

What I do with superhero movies is see them first. I know. I make the ultimate sacrifice, go on opening weekend with a bunch of guys wearing Captain America t-shirts, and decide whether or not the flick is kid-friendly enough. "Iron Man" was, although the opening sequence is questionable. "Hulk" was borderline, but my then 7-year-old didn't want to see that one anyway. (Although he does love my blog post written from Hulk's point of view.) I thought "Spider-Man 3" would be too scary for him (Venom), but he was unfazed; actually, I think he was a little bored (the bizarre musical number).

What makes this part of my parenting job easier is that I actually want to see superhero movies. Belkin, not so much: when asked by a commenter why she didn't just see "Watchmen" first if she was so concerned, she replied: "You are right, I should have seen it if I felt so strongly about helping to give context to the message, but, frankly, I couldnt [sic] stand the thought of sitting through it." At two and a half hours, I can't really blame her. But if she had seen it, she would have found out that along with the cartoonishly graphic violence (not a lot, but what's there includes someone having their hands cut off with a power saw) is a very violent rape scene, a moment is that is much more graphic than the one in the original comic. Do I think most fifteen year olds have seen something like that in a movie already? Probably. Does that mean I want them to see that without me telling them what's wrong with that behavior? Probably not. For me, seeing a film is the best way to determine whether or not you want your child to see it, no matter what age they are. Fifteen may be too old to be concerned about what sort of entertainment your kids consume. But even if you don't censor it, it's probably a good idea to know what they watch.

Source: NY Times

Image: AVClub.com

Cookie Monster Cupcake

Angelina Jolie Could Always Use an Extra Baby

Should Chris Brown Be Getting Out the Kids' Vote?

Soldier Gives Birth At Army Barracks

Kid Forced To Stand In Public Square For Bad Grades

Brett Singer — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:00:00 GMT

The amusingly named General parents (Don and Tanyeil) couldn't get their son Trenton to pay better attention to his schoolwork. So they tried something different.

"His parents were about to take the cell phone away — again — recently when they offered their son a choice. 'His cell-phone for two weeks or a corner for two hours,' Don said. 'He chose the corner.'
"'The corner' was not a quiet spot in his room, but rather a very public intersection in the middle of town. There Trenton held a hand-lettered sign that listed his grades — an E in English and math, a C in science and an A in phys ed. At the bottom of the list the sign said, 'My future = shaky!'"

Pretty rough punishment. It's not physical abuse, but isn't it mental abuse? Commenters on ParentDish seem to think that the punishment is OK, with one saying that "public humiliation is quite effective…the parents [did] the right thing." Child Protective Services has visited the family, so they must not agree.

I was a horror in high school, but since I transferred from private to public school, the work wasn't terribly difficult so I was able to get away with not working very hard. In college, however, I stumbled badly my first year. I clearly recall a phone conversation with my mother where she informed me that she "was not going to pay for C's", and that if I wanted to get grades like this I could live at home and go to a community college, one I could pay for with the job I would need to have. She wasn't joking. Guess what? I got my act together.

The problem with threats is that they don't work on all kids. "If you do this we'll take your cell phone away" sets up a benefit/reward structure that doesn't really speak to the value of school, or the fact that you are supposed to do your best regardless of reward. Of course, sometimes nothing works, and in that case, maybe a seemingly crazy punishment like the General's could have some results. Until CPS finds out of course.

Were the Generals wrong? Or should CPS leave them alone?

Source: NY Times

Image

Bart Simpson-Scientologist

Teen Dad's Father Wearing Halloween Mask In Public

Comcast Super Bowl Surprise

OctoMom Says No Dating For Her

VIDEO: O'Reilly Upset About Two Year Old Bashing Bush

Special Court Says Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Brett Singer — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:15:00 GMT

In a decision that will infuriate many parents (including readers of this web site), a special court has ruled that the MMR vaccine did not cause autism in three children.

Special Master George Hastings of the Department of Justice wrote that, "The evidence does not support the general proposition that thimerosal-containing vaccines can damage infants' immune systems." The ruling comes from The Vaccine Court Omnibus Autism Proceeding. (Aside: "Special Master"? "Omnibus"? It sounds like a comic book.)

Addressing one of the children whose parents say became autistic after receiving the MMR vaccine, Hastings said, "I further conclude that while Michelle Cedillo has tragically suffered from autism and other severe conditions, the petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that her vaccinations played any role at all in causing those problems."

There have been over 5,000 cases filed by parents seeking compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a $2.5 billion fund that was created through a "75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines," according to Reuters.

Everyone's least favorite vaccine guy Dr. Paul Offit hailed the decision, saying, "it's a great day for America's children when the court rules in favor of science." I think there are a few parents out there who will disagree with him.

Does this put the issue to rest? I doubt it. I myself am highly skeptical of the notion that vaccines "cause" autism, mostly because so far the studies that I have read about can't find a link between the vaccines and autism. Of course, it doesn't help the anti-vaccine movement's case that the doctor who conducted a landmark study on the matter faked his data.

I know that many of you have strong feelings on this issue. Does this court ruling change your opinion at all?

Source: Reuters

Image: USA Today via Babble

Researcher Fabricated Autism Link in Vaccine

What Does a Smile Mean? Teaching Emotions to Autistic Children

They Say: Vaccines are Safe - Take That Jenny McCarthy

Pregnant Tenant Evicted For Criticizing Landlord Online?

Brett Singer — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:54:00 GMT

David Griffiths, whose wife Katy is pregnant, was told that the lease on his Queens apartment would not be renewed. As a result, the couple moved from a "luxury tower" to a "Brooklyn walkup," according to the New York Times.

No matter how luxurious the tower, I bet it has an elevator, which beats the heck out of a walkup. Especially when you are pregnant. Oh, and after you have the baby. Ever try getting a stroller, a kid AND groceries up five flights of stairs? It's really fun. And by "really fun" I mean "a recipe for back injury."

So why was the couple tossed out, with the landlord requesting that they… never… return? Because Mr. Griffiths said unkind things online about the landlord, Rockrose Development Corporation. (Allegedly. He was evicted for this reason allegedly.)

Griffiths claims that a Rockrose employee told him, "Dave, we understand that you’re not happy living here, so we made the decision for you." Rockrose denies this, although they do admit that they decline to renew about 10 tenants every year for being, well, annoying. Rockrose's senior vice president for marketing, Sofia Estevez, uses the words "hothead and a troublemaker." (Non-rent regulated apartment dwellers do not have to be offered lease renewals; it's only the person paying $300/month for an Upper West Side two bedroom that can't be thrown out – but I digress.) Estevez told that Times that there was no evidence that Griffiths had been a troublemaker, but – and here's the kicker – "that a Rockrose employee does monitor tenant complaints on the Web."

Monitoring customer complaints can be a good thing. For example, Comcast employee Frank Eliason is, as one blogger put it, "helping Comcast suck a little bit less" by responding to complaints via Twitter. But if Rockrose actually declined to renew a lease because of something someone wrote about them online, that's a really bad idea. An even worse idea is telling the tenant that.

There's another part of this, of course, which is that perhaps it's not such a good idea to be posting comments about your landlord online. It may be legal but why bother?

The issue with the wife being pregnant makes it more interesting, since that will probably help the couple get some sympathy votes that they might not otherwise receive. It's one thing for a landlord to tell some dopey 23-year-old to get lost. But a mom-to-be? Watch out. (Note: that is, obviously, not a legal opinion.)

Source: NY Times

Morning News - Obama, Limbaugh, Cheese

Sarah Palin Says Leave My Kids Alone

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

New Pro Vaccine Book Author Getting Death Threats

Kid Named Hitler Taken From His Parents By Family Services

Bronx Students Question Obama Through Poetry

Brett Singer — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:16:00 GMT

It's one thing when Rush Limbaugh attacks the idea that Obama is going to bring "change" to our country. Of course Limbaugh doesn't want change – as far as he's concerned, everything is fine. But it's a little different when high school students from the Bronx wonder whether or not our new President is really going to be all that different from those who held the office before he did.

These kids are a little bit older than those we usually talk about on Babble, but this video kept my attention from beginning to end. The poetry the students recite is pretty raw; to put it mildly, this isn't exactly Robert Frost territory:

Calling Mr. Obama, Calling Mr. Obama
Please Mr. President
Come In
…
Do you understand where I'm coming from Mr. President?

When one student says this in an interview:

"Just because your skin is dark doesn't mean your morality, your ethics are different from any other person."

That got to me. It's not cynicism, it's reality. When life isn't good, and everyone is talking about "change" this and "change" that, it's not unreasonable to wonder whether or not the problems in your life are going to get some of that "change." Combine that feeling with the general angst of being a teenager, and you get some pretty strong words.

The video isn't embeddable, so click here to watch it. If nothing else, it's certainly a different perspective on Obama's election.

Obama/Spider-man Comic Book Sold Out, Reprint Planned

Obama Says His Kids Are Cooler Than He Is

The Obama Kids First Day Of School

Kids to Obama: Read Books, Eat More Ice Cream

It's Official: White House To House First Grandmother

New Pro Vaccine Book Author Getting Death Threats

Brett Singer — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

A lot of parents feel very strongly that vaccines cause autism. And they are very vocal about their feelings. So Dr. Paul A. Offit, author of "Autism’s False Prophets", probably expected a certain amount of resistance to a book that posits a different theory.

What he might not have anticipated are death threats.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Offit has in fact received death threats. Some members of the antivaccine movement dispute this, however. One of them is J. B. Handley, the founder of Generation Rescue (although a Google search calls it "Jenny McCarthy's Autism Organization"). Handley told the Times: "We have hundreds of fully recovered children. I’m very frustrated that Dr. Offit, who’s never treated an autistic child, is spending his time trying to refute the reality of biomedical recovery."

Offit is called "Dr. Proffit" because he created a vaccine himself and receives "millions in royalties" from it.

I have no idea if the vaccine that Dr. Offit helped create is one that is given to all children, or how much money he makes from it. If Generation Rescue's members believe that Offit's book is just self-promotion, they have a right to question his motives.

It's the fervor that I find disturbing. When you attack anyone who disagrees with you with name-calling and insults, it becomes difficult to convert anyone to your way of thinking. Numerous scientists and doctors feel that autism is a genetic condition, and there is evidence to back this up. It's not possible that there is a similar body of evidence to support the notion that vaccines are a cause of autism simply because the concept hasn't been around long enough to be studied as much as genetic causes. That isn't to say that it's impossible, or that the antivaccine crusaders are wrong. I'm only pointing out that the body of evidence isn't there.

Another reason could be the conspiracy theory version – that vaccine makers work to keep such studies from happening. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that than I am to believe that vaccines cause autism. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but our dependence on foreign oil is partly fueled (no pun intended) by an automobile industry that doesn't want to make electric cars. (That's an oversimplification; my point is that sometimes even the weirdest-sounding conspiracy theories can be at least partly true.)

There was a time when doctors told us that smoking was healthy. Or that eating lots and lots of red meat was a great idea. So yes, sometimes doctors and the entire medical industry make mistakes. And Dr. Offit does sound a tad smarmy in the Times article: "I’ll speak at a conference, say, to nurses. But I wouldn’t go into a bookstore and sign books. It can get nasty. There are parents who really believe that vaccines hurt their children, and to them, I’m incredibly evil. They hate me." And, referring to the vaccine he helped create: "When Jonas Salk invented polio vaccine, he was a hero — and I’m a terrorist?" he jokes, referring to a placard denouncing him at a recent demonstration by antivaccine activists outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Well, polio was a bigger disease. Also, you're not funny. But maybe that's doctor humor.

I suppose its possible that Dr. Offit is lying about the death threats, but I doubt it. As Dr. Gregory A. Poland, chief of vaccine research at the Mayo Clinic, says in the Times piece, "a few years ago this ceased to be a civil scientific discourse and became about crucifying individuals." The key word there is "civil". Parents can get very emotional when their children are involved; I know I can get a little crazy when anyone is doing something that I feel is harmful to my kid. But I've learned that I get better results when I calm down and try to figure out the best way to solve whatever the problem is. It's not about expressing my anger or frustration. It's about getting something done. If someone really and truly feels that vaccines, which are given to millions of babies every single day, are a cause of autism, that is a very serious charge. It should be taken seriously by those making the claim. If you want to convince someone that what you believe is true, calling them names and making threats is not a good way to do it.

Source: NY Times

Image: Amazon

Pregnant Woman Arrested For Fighting At Chuck E. Cheese

U.S. Children's Health - Biggest Study Ever

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

New Study Says Autism is Environmental

In Light of Jett Travolta Tragedy, The Truth About Kawasaki Syndrome

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So. We have third-hand smoke. It's bad. And so on. More fuel for anti-smoking activists. And when someone says, "We're protecting helpless children!" that makes it harder to argue that they are intruding into our personal lives. Right?

A town in Washington State (can't ban smoking in D.C. – Obama's a smoker!) is considering a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children.
From the AP: "A member of the Tobacco Advisory Board of Pierce County, Leonard Sanderson, told The Olympian the proposal would make it a secondary offense, meaning smoking drivers could be ticketed if they were pulled over for another offense, such as speeding."

I was surprised to learn that California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine have all made smoking in cars that have kids in them against the law.

Here's the problem. There's no doubt that smoking around children is bad for their health. I get it. But unless you make smoking illegal (not gonna happen), how is this not a privacy violation? You can't drink and drive, but that's all the time, not just around children. Talking on a cell phone while driving has been deemed dangerous, so most states have laws that say you have to wear a headset. Driving without a seatbelt is dangerous, so if you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. And so on. None of those laws, however, are specific to children.

Does the law apply to your own children? What about other people's kids? Can you smoke in the car when there are no kids there? Now that we know about third-hand smoke, won't the little tykes be at risk anyway if they ride in a car that was, at one time or another, smoked in? And at what age is it safe to be exposed to second-hand smoke?

And how about bacon, or other smoked meats? Those aren't good for children, right? I mean, come on.

(In case you were wondering, most of that was me going off the deep end for comic effect. Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

I think it would be great if nobody smoked. It's unhealthy, creates enormous costs for health insurers as those smokers age, and there's the second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand (just wait, it'll happen) smoke to contend with. It's a bad habit. But it's still legal. Until it isn't, this seems like an unreasonable law, like the one about smokers not being allowed foster children (which, considering that some kids are writing letters to woo potential foster parents, seems like an unfair restriction).

What do you think? Is this too much of an invasion of privacy? Or does it not matter if it's to "protect our children"?

Source: AP via nwsource.com

Image: Church Times

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Third Hand Smoke Can Harm Your Kids

Brett Singer — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Do you smoke, or do you know someone who smokes? Do you think your kids will be OK as long as they don't smoke around them?

Well, you're wrong.

Everyone knows about second-hand smoke. It's easy to avoid – just don't spend time with smokers when they are, in fact, smoking. However, there's a new danger – third-hand smoke. This new term, coined by doctors from Boston's MassGeneral Hospital for Children, describes, "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room."

And it gets even more fun: "The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor." Cuz kids never play on the floor.

Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York added, "simply closing the kitchen door to take a smoke is not protecting the kids from the effects of that smoke." See, that much I think people knew. But that gross lingering scent that clings to your clothes and hair after you spend time at a bar that still allows people to puff away freely? Who knew that was dangerous too?

So what to do? Avoid smokers? Avoid rooms where smokers have been? Don't go anywhere that smokers congregate? Live in a literal bubble?

I've found that avoiding smoke is fairly easy, but I do know people who smoke. And they smell like it. The fact that's more than just gross might make me think twice before I let them in my house to sit on my furniture. That should be a fun conversation.

Source: NYTimes

Image: MSNBC

Who Buys The Baby Products In Your House?

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

Two Pictures Of Kids In Gaza

Brett Singer — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:30:00 GMT

Warning: These shots will probably make you want to hug your kids immediately.

For me, the hardest part of any war/conflict/disaster is the human side. Now that I'm a parent, if that human face belongs to a child, it's that much harder to see.

This photo was on the front page of the New York Times today. Here's the caption: "A Palestinian boy with Russian citizenship was among the foreigners whom Israel allowed to leave Gaza on Friday." (source)

Here's another shot of kids leaving Gaza. (source)

MSNBC is reporting that Israeli ground troops are crossing the Gaza border (source, breaking news). Regardless of how you feel about the situation, seeing these photos of kids caught up in the whole thing should make you wish for a speedy resolution to it all. Or at least one that lets the kids get out while they still can. I never really understood the idea of "women and children first", something that I remember hearing a lot on old cartoons and disaster movies (and cartoons that were parodies of disaster movies). These pictures definitely drive that point home.

Photos: New York Times

China Detains Dad of Baby Sickened by Tainted Milk

New Year Morning News

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

Boy Saves Brother's Life With Bone Marrow

Infant Twins Safe After Newark Carjacking

Babysitter Made Pornographic Film With 2 Year Old

Where We Recuse Ourselves From Obama's Application Pool

Madeline Holler — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:02:00 GMT

Perhaps we at Strollerderby should quit our day jobs? But not to go work in the Obama administration.

After a cursory glance of the application's questions [pdf], leaked to the press a couple of days ago, each of us immediately knew we'd be disqualified -- and not for a lack of foreign policy experience. We give you the details below.

First, let's take a look at the crucial questions: #16, where you list the organizations you've belonged to or, worse, #20, any organizations that you or your spouse may have belonged to that might embarrass the president-elect (Amy Kuras, Shannon, me, the folly of youth!). Also, question #32 asks you to list gifts received of more than $50 in value (Sunny can hardly keep track).

#45 wants to know whether you've been investigated, arrested or charged for a crime; #46 wants to know whether your spouse has.

Section VII deals with domestic help -- who you're hiring and whether you're paying taxes. Jesus, we're parents. Of course we've paid (most likely undocumented worker) people under the table to watch the kids/clean the house/mow the lawn/pluck our eyebrows and/or paint our nails.

There's #57, which requires you to list any cohabitants with whom you shared, ahem, "bonds of affection." Here's where Miriam gets in trouble. So devoted is she to involved parents and in-tact families (which Obama is def. in favor of), she's got not one but two partners, cohabitants with whom she shares parenting responsibilities AND "bonds of affection."

#59 wants to know about family members who own guns (Jeanne hails from God's country. Remember, that's where they're clinging hard.)

#63 sinks us all, probably you too. That question asks whether there is anything about you or your family that could embarass you or the president-elect? We're parents of young children. Of course we'll embarrass him. If the kids aren't asking the rather butch Target employee whether she's a boy or a girl," they're screaming "I see he penis," when a rather testicularly endowed ape turns around at the zoo and walks away. Bill O'Reilly could totally Spin Zone that stuff.

For the sake of the country, we're stepping aside.

The rest of our disclosures:

Brett Singer: I ripped tags off pillows. I attended a fair amount of protests, including a couple of "legalize pot" marches and a movement to re-hire some crappy sociology teacher when I was a sophmore in college.

Miriam Axel-Lute: I crossed the line twice onto Ft. Benning, Georgia, in civil disobediance protests of the School of the Americas. I participated in organizing the big anti-IMF and World Bank protests in D.C. in 2000, during which my partner and number of good friends went to jail. I've been to dozens of other protests where I'm sure the FBI was taking names.

My home birth was illegal (for the midwives), and my wack-ass family structure represents the bottom of the slippery slope that gay marriage would lead to (well, OK, not the bottom: no incest, no besitality. But I mean, we're short step away, right?).

I got kicked off the boardwalk on the Jersey Shore once for disorderly conduct (involving no alcohol, I'll have you know).

My mom is friends with a Communist.

And dear Lord, my journals would embarass anyone if made public, but no one more than me. Especially the teenage ones.

Jeanne Sager: Many gifts over $50 - I outfit my daughter with my swagwhoric sycophancy (see my blog for more details).

My husband works in banking -- not for any of the big names, but he's probably hit a button on the keyboard that's sent money off to an account in any and all of them. You might as well say he's in bed with them.

He was investigated for talking on the cell phone while driving. Case was thrown out when they discovered he was merely scratching his face and yawning at the same time -- it being 8 a.m. on the way to work and all.

Any immediate family members who own guns: how about all of them? They like to shoot the dern'd squirrels that get in the attic. They've been known to (shhhhh) shoot deer too. In fact, we had the first day of deer season off from school my entire 12 years I spent in public school.

Nanny issues: Yes, I have an issue with the fact that I can't afford one. If they could fix that, it would be grand. I'd accept the gift -- assuming it would total well over $50.

Sunny Channel: Got a ticket and had to see a counselor at juvie for underage drinking and drinking in public. Me and my friend were 15 year olds trying to celebrate Fat Tuesday. We were really proud that we got busted at the same spot that appeared on the cover of Richard Brautigan's "Trout Fishing in America." Yeah, I was a pretentious 15-year-old. Since I was a minor, my record has been sealed ... but I'm still pretentious.

Doing reviews of stuff I receive ...many "gifts" in the form of samples (diaper bags, toys, hippo plush kid's chairs) that are valued over $50.

I embarrass myself on a daily basis, via email, text message and instant message.

Shannon LC Cate: I protested the first GW Bush inauguration with a big "Hail to the Thief" sign on the parade route.
I have close, personal ties (I was his ghost writer for over a year) to the president of a large, U.S. Muslim organization who is currently serving a 30-year prison term as John Ashcroft's scapegoat. The judge in his case declared him completely non-dangerous and a credit to his community (the conviction had to do with a tax thing), but Ashcroft called his conviction a great victory in the war on Islam, I mean, "terror."

I have at various times throughout my legal adulthood been a card carrying member of the ACLU, the Democratic Socialists, Amnesty International and the Episcopal Church USA. Also I dress my children in T-shirts featuring Che Guevara.

Geez, between this all the under-the-table babysitting payments, I'll never be confirmed, will I?

Amy Kuras: I have a second cousin who was on the FBI's Most-Wanted list. (She's come out of hiding and has long since served her time, but it was a 1970s era domestic terrorism thing. I remember spending Christmas Eve with her at least once before she went on the lam.)

I attended meetings of the Social Democrat party in college. They are actual socialists, instead of just pretend ones like Obama.

I have several acquaintances who have been arrested for protesting at nuclear weapons sites, as have several members of the order of nuns who educated me. I'm at least as close with these people as Obama is with Ayers.

And that leaves aside any, ahem, recreational substances I may have participated in.

Madeline Holler: I, too, attended some Democratic Socialist meetings in grad school. In my defense, it was a really lonely time in my life and the meetings were billed as some kind of abortion rights deal. (I also quit when the leader, Hadassah, called one too many times in the middle of the night to "argue.")

My neighbors have heard me yell at my kids (it's densely populated, and my voice tends to carry).

I've not done well during the last five years' low-rise pants craze. I've shown a ton of crack and stopped caring a while ago. But I know the president-elect takes issue with low-slung jeans, etc., so unless mom jeans make a comeback, I am, literally, a walking embarrassment risk for him (not to mention, myself).

How have you been DQ'd?

Photo: Americamagazine.org

New York Times Anthrax Update

Brett Singer — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:33:00 GMT

We have a source inside the building. Here are a couple of quotes of what it's like inside.

"They just sealed off the lobby... nobody but emergency workers in or
out of the bldg...Counted four hazmat-style trucks down stairs."

"For people that really need to leave, they're telling us to take the
freight elevator to the basement, then exit through one of the garage
doors."

I think I'd be one of those people that "really needed to leave" but who knows. This isn't one of those situations that calls for heroism in my opinion.

The original post is below:

One of the weird aftershocks of 9/11 was when anthrax-tainted letters started showing up across the country. The New York Times got a few of them, which led to the company microwaving all of their mail as a precaution. After awhile, the fear subsided and things went back to (sort of) normal.

This morning, Times employees received the following email warning them of a suspicious package:

From: NYTIMES MAIL
Date: Oct 22, 2008 12:24 PM
Subject: Note from Dennis Stern re the Building
To: NY TIMES NOTES

Folks,

At about 11:30 a.m. today an employee on the 13th floor of our headquarters building in New York opened an envelope addressed to The New York Times. A white granular substance was in the envelope. The New York City police were called and are now on site investigating. The 41st Street side of the lobby is closed but people are able to get in and out of the building. We will keep you updated on any developments.

Gawker reports that, "The cops are there and the lobby is closed." A source in the building says that the NYPD Hazmat trucks are arriving as I type this.

Without making light of the situation, I will say that using postal mail to create terror can't possibly be as effective as it was 6 or 7 years ago since there's just less paper mail that gets used. That said, I know I still get a ton of it every day, so maybe I'm wrong.

Scary stuff. Hopefully everyone is OK, and I hope it's a false alarm.

Source: Gawker

Image

Santa Claus says: Smoke More

Brett Singer — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:45:00 GMT

Well, that's what he used to say. Check out some of these vintage cigarette ads that were recently profiled in the New York Times.

Of the numerous cancer stick advertisements that now look completely ridiculous, my favorite are these two.

First, the baby:

Yes, I wish my kids would tell me to smoke more.

And of course, there's Santa Claus:

Clearly Santa's throat was scratchy from spending all that time in chimneys. Not the Pall Malls.

Source/images: NYTimes

iPhone app for nursing, diapers, wedding day

YOU say: I got fooled (update to "They USED to say: give babies cola")

Mom finds hairy Goldilocks in 2 year old's bed

More stuff my 3 year old broke

Enormous baby sculpture

Stuff my 3 year old broke

Kurt Warner, family quarterback

Brett Singer — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:00:00 GMT

We hear a lot about football players who behave badly, so it's always nice to read about those that don't. Kurt Warner, the Super Bowl winning quarterback who is currently having a late-career resurgence in Arizona (he's 37, which is old for the NFL) is also a father. A father of seven. Two of the seven were from his wife Brenda's previous marriage; one of those two has special needs (not mentioned in the Times article).

Warner is a great sports success story; he was stocking shelves at a supermarket before joining the Rams and leading them to a Super Bowl. He's living proof that NFL players don't have to be highly touted, heavily recruited college athletes in order to play well. If the Times article is to be believed, he and his wife Brenda are also pretty good parents.

Kurt and Brenda (a former Marine) have a list they call, "Eight Rules for Being a Warner Daughter or Son." Some highlights:

1. Everyone has to agree on which strangers’ meal to pay for when dining at a restaurant.

The Times describes a situation where the Warners pick someone and pay their tab, without their knowledge. In other words, if you see Kurt and Co. at a restaurant, you might get a free meal.

4. After ordering at a restaurant, be able to tell Mom the server’s eye color.

5. Throw away your trash at the movie theater and stack plates for the server at restaurants.

I like these a lot, especially the eye color thing, since I've never heard it before. I see people treat those in the service industry (waiters, waitresses, taxi drivers, etc.) like crap all the time, and I see kids do it as well. Forcing your children to pay attention to these folks and treat them with respect is important, and knowing their eye color is an interesting way to do it.

This isn't to say that I plan on tacking a copy of Warner's Rules on our door, but it's food for thought.

Source/Image: NYTimes

Man ejected from Yankee Stadium for lack of patriotism

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

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

Do kids do better on tests if they get paid?

Michael Phelps to endorse Frosted Flakes

Flashback - Peyton Manning on SNL

Hockey Mom vs. Soccer Mom vs. Basketball Mom - A Unscientific Analysis

Palin for aerial wolf hunting

Sarah Palin, Sportscaster

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

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

IOC orders investigation of Chinese Gymnast's age

Bela Karolyi likes to kill things

Morning News: Sarah P. Soothes Some, Induces Spit-Takes in Others

Madeline Holler — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:00:00 GMT

If you like Sarah Palin, then you think she nailed her first one-on-one interviews as a vice presidential candidate. Everybody else is doing spit-takes. Today in Morning News, we'll set you up with video links and transcripts and a fantastic essay on the sisters of the traveling Palin.

You know, it's almost the weekend and we need to lighten up a little, too. We have uncovered the most overpaid Hollywood actress -- she's a mom. We would also like to announce the birth of a new baby -- he IS the greatest. And, finally! Someone has determined where the most beautiful people live (settle down, Cleveland, you didn't win). Also, we hand you the one key to a happy marriage. (PS: Not a key to a happy marriage? Changing large animal diapers.)

OK, progressives, you've been warned. Finish your coffee before reading more.

In our Daily Palin, it's all about her interviews with Charlie Gibson, which they're sprinkling around the network -- last night on World News and Nightline. This morning Good Morning America and the later 20/20. You can watch short clips or read the transcripts all over the ABC site (reading makes her sound more steady than she actually appears in the clips.) Here's the clip [via CNN] that has the war weary apoplectic -- she says war with Russia might be necessary.

Now, if you're wondering about these droves of Palin supporters -- who are they? what's their deal ? -- we think this is one of the best pieces written so far trying to articulate it. Basically, these women don't care what wave of feminism we're in or really much about the history of the women and power or even history of really anything. They just know that Sarah's like them! And they're good people! Good people who are good to other people! Also, Palin does not wield a big brain around and smash others over the head with it. Palin works hard. Laughs easily. Cares about her hair. She doesn't put her kids above all else (you're surprised, but this is an important matter to many.). Charlie could press her on the Bush Doctrine (as he did), she could flail (as she did), and these supporters wouldn't care one bit. Why? Because they don't know what the Bush Doctrine is either! The upshot? Sarah Palin is the candidate you'd most want in your book club (just like W. was the candidate you'd most want to have a beer with).

Obama, this guy's got some tips for you. Sounds like you might try some.

Good God-planned-global-warming! That wasn't Morning News ... that was Morning Commentary! Pardon us, please. Dragging ... self ... from Palin ... vortex.

... Guess who the most overpaid celebrity is? Her movies earn $1 for every dollar she's paid. A few years ago, she brought in $8 for every dollar she took home. It's Nicole Kidman. How embarassing. But her new baby probably doesn't care. Jennifer Garner and Tom Cruise came in second and third.

Not embarrassing is this news: Laila Ali gave birth to a son in late August. His name is Curtis Muhammad Conway. Prediction: considering his DNA, "CJ" (for Curtis Junior) will be a bad-ass.

Do you look around and say, "Damn, the world has gotten ugly"? Then you clearly don't live in Miami. Travel + Leisure ranked the city No. 1 in most beautiful residents. Dead last? Philadelphia (again! Second year in a row ... the City of Brotherly Bags Over Their Heads?).

Is your marriage falling apart for reasons you can't explain? Maybe you should see a financial adviser rather than a marriage counselor. Financial soundness is apparently the key to a happy partnership.

Finally, we know you're sick of the diapers -- what parent isn't. But here's a little perspective. Some horses in the U.K. are now required to wear equine Depends and, well, at least you don't have to change those!

Morning News: The Daily Grind of Sex and Politics ... and Lipstick on Pigs

Morning News: Fully Caffeinated With a Hint of Sarah Palin

Photo: NY Times

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

Brett Singer — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:00:00 GMT

An article in last week's New York Times discussed a major hot-button issue in schools across the country: evolution vs. creationism, or its offshoot, intelligent design.

It's a long article, and certainly worth reading. I won't try to summarize the whole piece in this post, but the big surprise for me was that it was less about two competing theories/beliefs, or even about science versus religion. It was about a teacher who, in my opinion, has the patience of Job.

That teacher is David Campbell, who teaches Biology in Orange Park, Florida. The story the article tells is not of him fighting with parents, the school board, or local churches. Actually, he's not fighting with anyone. This quote sums up his attitude nicely:

"He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew from years of teaching high school in this Jacksonville suburb, had been raised to take the biblical creation story as fact. His gaze rested for a moment on Bryce Haas, a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium.

"'If I do this wrong,' Mr. Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, 'I’ll lose him.'"

His main concern is not "proving" anything one way or the other. It's teaching.

"'Faith is not based on science,' Mr. Campbell said. 'And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks. But I do expect you to understand it.'"

That, to me, is the bottom line. Campbell's students, although they probably don't think so, are incredibly lucky to have him.

image/source: NYTimes

Are your kids aware of the election?

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Palin family online - real or fake?

McCain, Palin oppose teen pregnancy aid and sex education

Toys R Us Says Government Safety Standards Not Good Enough

Teaching Abstinence Doesn’t Work: Palin’s Preggo Kid.

Dad arrested for leaving son at McDonald's

Green products that don't work

For a good marriage, women need to stay home

33 year old mom wins silver medal, saves son from leukemia

They Say: One Kid, One Sport ... No Good

Madeline Holler — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:29:00 GMT

Think you're solving all your kids potential health problems by getting her interested in a sport early on? Well, maybe not.

Sure, experts say the enthusiasm for exercise and just getting out there and moving around is great. But the injuries ... oooooh, the injuries!

It turns out, singular focus on one sport increases the likelihood of repeated stress on specific bones, ligaments and muscles in the body, making the player more vulnerable to serious injury at a very young age.

From the NY Times:

Growing bones can’t handle the same stresses as mature bones. When a child specializes in one sport early in life, certain body parts — the arm of a Little League pitcher, the spine of a gymnast — are subjected to repetitive stress and overuse. Especially among young soccer players, there has been an alarming rise in injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament, the main ligament that stabilizes the knee joint — a particular concern because repair involves drilling into a growth plate, an area of developing tissue at the end of the leg bone.

Lots of coaches say not to worry, that these serious injuries are seen in only the few number of kids who are already at the top and practicing six to seven hours a day in a single sport. Gymnastics coaches in particular are facing criticism. A new study in Pediatrics shows an alarming number of serious injuries in that sport.

So experts recommend that kids take a break from serious training for sports, allowing one to two days between practices and also taking off several months each year from the sport all together so that the kids can exercise other muscle groups.

Yes, but moderation doesn't get the gold, right?

Photo: Time

They Say: We're Fatties Because We Eat More Than Ever

Madeline Holler — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:03:00 GMT

I kind of consider the 70s as a real meat and starches gorgefest. Sure, I was just a little, little kid during that decade, but I remember lots of steak, lots of refined sugars, lots of sweetened iced-tea and Kool-aid. Basically, lots and lots and lots of food.

But I'll be damned. Turns out, Americans eat nearly two pounds of fat-loaded food per week MORE than we did back in the pre-aerobics, pre-low-fat, pre-low-carb, pre-food/exercise obsessions era launched in the 80s.

Wait! There's more!

In 2006, we ate an extra half-pound of fat -- FAT! -- a week, which does not include the fat found in the extra quarter pound of meat we eat every week. Now, to be fair to the gluttons of this great land, we did decrease consumption of one food group: dairy. Mainly because we've basically stopped drinking milk (guilty!). Wait, not such a drastic drop since we've upped our intake of cheese (groaaaaan ... guilty there too!).

The bottom line, from the NY Times:

The numbers don't reveal how much grain went into bread versus cookies, or how many chicken breasts became chicken nuggets. But the overall increase in eating does suggest a link with the rise in Americans' weight over the same period. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 15 percent of adults age 20 to 74 were obese by 1980. By 2007, that had more than doubled.

Come to think of it, those 70s steaks weren't all that big. And they were a tiny bit of a splurge. I mean, do we ever talk about stretching the ground beef these days? Or do we just head out to Costco for the crazy-huge family pack if we need a little more on the platter?

Photo: everydayweekender.com

Jobs you don't want – Camp Parent Liaison

Brett Singer — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:00:00 GMT

The Times article about parental over-involvement at summer camp mentioned a job that was new to me.

To combat the plethora of parental phone activity, some camps employ a "parent liaison." What does this person do? Field calls from moms and dads who, shall we say, need someone to talk to.

For example: One parent called after seeing a photo of their child that the counselors had posted online, expressing concern that "they saw their child in the background of a picture of other children and he didn’t look happy." Or the parent who "did not like the sound of her child's voice during a recent conversation." Or the one who "needed to know – preferably today – which of her daughter’s four varieties of vitamins had run out."

When I was in summer camp (sometime between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods) the only way to get in touch with your parents was via the pay phones. Usually you called home, collect, and then mom or dad called you back. This wasn't an every day occurrence; if I recall correctly, it was once a week. Another camp I attended actually did not allow any parental contact at all, but (a) we were only there for one week and (b) the camp was run by Satan (it's a long story, just take my word for it).

What type of salary does one get for this gig? Karin Miller, a liaison mentioned in the Times article, receives a $6,000 stipend for the summer, and also free tuition for her two daughters, which is another $20,000. Not a bad haul for one summer, I guess, but what a crappy job.

source: nytimes.com; image: nytimes.com

More stuff YUPPIE parents like

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Here's to the laddies who lunch

When Granite Attacks

Five things my son taught me about living green

How to be an annoying camp parent

Brett Singer — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Inspired by a recent New York Times piece about parents of children who go to sleep-away camp, here are a few tips for those who want to emulate their behavior. Note that all of the incidents described here are mentioned in the Times article.

1. Don't tell the camp about your child's medications: Hey! Johnny is going to camp! Let's see what happens if he doesn't take his Ritalin all summer! To add to the fun, let's not tell the counselors, so that when he acts out even stronger than he did before he started taking medication, they'll have no idea what's going on!

2. Call constantly: One parent in the Times piece is quoted as saying, "I called the camp at 7 a.m. and Dan [the camp director]…said…'are you going to call me every morning?'" The answer, of course, was yes, to which the harried director replied, "do it at this time of day, it’s when I have some free time." Some camps employ "parent liaisons" to field the barrage of calls.

3. Send two cell phones: campers are not allowed to have cell phones at camp, but why should the rules apply to everyone? Some parents in the article give their kids two phones, so they have another "if they get caught with the first one."

4. Ignore schedules: If visiting day is a Sunday, but that's inconvenient, why not demand to visit on a different day? It's all about you, right?

5. Question everything: Why didn't my child get the top bunk? Why can't she have private guitar lessons at 2pm every day? What exactly is in the bug juice? (OK, I made that last one up.)

I haven't had to deal with sleepaway camp yet, but when I do, I really hope I don't act like this. If I do, you all have my permission to give me a good kick in the tuchas.

image: New York Times

More stuff YUPPIE parents like

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Here's to the laddies who lunch

When Granite Attacks

Five things my son taught me about living green

When Granite Attacks

Brett Singer — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Those shiny granite countertops in your kitchen may be emitting harmful radiation, as well as radon, a radioactive gas.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to a piece in today's New York Times, "there have been…reports of 'hot' or potentially hazardous countertops" in recent years. Granite countertops have become extremely popular in homes across the country.

Now, before you grab your sledgehammer, it needs to be pointed out that not all granite emits nasty, invisible, and difficult to detect radiation. (Anyone seeing why this is freaking me out a little bit?) The Times says that "the more exotic and striated varieties from Brazil and Namibia" are more likely to contain the bad stuff than other types of stone.

Then again, who knows? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that radon gas levels higher than "4 picocuries per liter of air" is potentially hazardous – "about the same risk for cancer as smoking a half a pack of cigarettes per day." HALF A PACK PER DAY. (Sorry, but like I said, this freaks me out more than stories like this usually do.) One former granite-kitchened individual in the article had readings of "100 picocuries per liter". So that would be, what, 250 cigarettes per day? (Math isn't my strong suit; sorry if that's incorrect.) And Lou Witt from the EPA is quoted in the Times as saying, "There is no known safe level of radon or radiation…any exposure increases your health risk."

What to do? The article says that you can hire a tester from the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists. If you want to test for radon yourself (note that this doesn't test for radiation) you can visit http://epa.gov/radon or http://epa.gov/iaq/whereyoulive.html. Something tells me that the testers may get a few calls after people read today's Times.

Source/image: NYTimes.com

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Stuff White Parents Like

Interview: Larry Martinek of Mathnasium - Part 1

The Baby Penis Known Around the World

Savage stands by his stupid words

Kid Food Is Mostly Crap, and It's a Little Shocking

Greenhouse: Organic on the Cheap(er), For Reals

Stay out of my room or I'll pee on your tree

Brett Singer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT

I've tried to write a summary of this story but I haven't been able to come up with a better intro than this one (from the New York Times):

When the men of the Phoenix Country Club saw their feeding ways in peril, they did not tarry. Some sent nasty e-mail messages, hectored players on the fairway and, for good measure, urinated on a fellow club member’s pecan tree.

As you can probably guess, it was that last one – the whole "urinating on a tree" thing – that grabbed my attention. What caused otherwise civilized men to make pee-pee on the pecan tree? Why, it was the women! They want to eat in the same dining room as the men! Well, if some chick wants to do that, I'm going to take a leak on her tree! That'll show those nosy broads.

The specifics are as follows: the Phoenix Country Club in Arizona does not allow women to eat in the men's grill room. According to the New York Times, this grill room is where high-level business deals are conducted, not to mention more pedestrian activities such as lunch. Well can't these persnickety hens go somewhere else? Actually, no. The "ladies' grill" has "a hot plate, some card tables and no bar." That's right. A hot plate.

Now, Arizona, Arizona… who's from Arizona? Oh! John McCain! Well, he's not a member. His son Andrew is, and so is Alice Cooper. (Kids, Alice Cooper is this rock star-type guy who used to really upset people because his act featured images of death and stuff. Yeah, we were pretty silly back then. Check out his Muppet Show episode, it's a lot of fun. And for those of you who remember Alice Cooper, yes. He's now a member of a country club that doesn't let women eat with men.)

This issue came to a head when Barbara Van Sittert and her husband Logan "appealed to the board of the club" to change the rules so they could have breakfast together. When they were told to stuff it, they went to the Attorney General's office, which recently issued an "advisory legal opinion that the club needed to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws." That doesn't mean anything yet; the club has 30 days to try and settle the matter before the AG gets all legal on them.

So remember guys. If women want to do something you don't want them to do, whip it out and pee on their lawn. That'll show 'em.

image: progressivemajoritywisconsin.org

Dick Cheney whispering hush: Goodnight Bush

Political Nanny: White Talk, Blackface ... Barf

McCain Finds Humor in Domestic Violence

Here's to the laddies who lunch

Brett Singer — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:00:00 GMT

An article in the New York Times Style section discussed a group of men who got together for breakfast after dropping their kids off at school. The men are Manhattan-based primary caregivers, and one of them describes their jaunts as "like 'Sex and the City' with coffee instead of cosmos."

Here are a couple of other possible descriptions:

"Like 'Sex and the City' with more body hair."

"Like 'Sex and the City' only we don't talk about penises."

Wait – actually, they do! The article details the dads discussing the pending bris of one of their sons; a debate about the merits of circumcision follows, with one dad defending the practice by saying, "You don’t think that with our technology you won’t be able to get a better foreskin?"

Then there was this line: "We do more parenting than our type-A wives and feel we’re justified." That killed me, or more accurately, would get me killed by my wife if I said it in the Times. The speaker was referring to the fact that they go out for breakfast with other dads on a regular basis. Another gem: "This wouldn’t exist with us if there wasn’t this need that in a sense is repressed…People are conditioned to feel that it’s sophomoric: now that you’re a grown-up, you’re supposed to spend time with your family, not your friends." Um, or you're too busy to putz around. (The article does point out that the men have nannies and housekeepers, so they have more time for dining out than other sad SAHDs might.)

How do the wives feel about it? One of them says, "It’s very nice — it feeds Josh’s soul…If it makes him less productive, that makes me resentful, and it has the potential to veer in that direction."

What I want to know is this: why does everything have to be a "thing"? It's not that I begrudge anyone their desire to hang out with like-minded folks. I would blame the 'Sex and the City' comparison on the author of the article, but it's a quote from one of the men.

And guys? You're not "entitled" to brunch. It's not a constitutional right. Sure, if you have time, hang out with your friends. Whatever. But "We do more parenting than our type-A wives and feel we’re justified"? How about "they go to work and you stay home so they're justified"? It's always funny to me that the non-traditional man stays at home with the kids scenario often devolves into the man not cooking or cleaning, and having time to linger over brunch. When women used to do this, it was derisively referred to as a kaffeeklatsch. But the men "feel justified."

As for me, I'm often the only father picking up at school, and that's fine. Sometimes there are things that "the moms" do, and I will publicly state that it's OK, I don't want to go. Not because I don't enjoy their company, but men and women sometimes do different things. Besides, maybe they want to chat without some bald guy around. I didn't even watch 'Sex and the City', why would I want to behave like the characters?

The only all-dad activity I can recall was a late-hours basketball game, which I skipped because one of the fathers involved looked at me, deadly serious, and said, "We don't get that competitive. Nobody's gotten hurt in a couple of years." Take my word for it, he wasn't kidding. I have friends with children of their own, and we talk about the kids. But it's just life. It's not a "thing," as one of the men in the article calls it (somewhat derisively, I should add.)

There has to be some middle ground between brunching and the shooting range. Or maybe there isn't. Me, I have work to do.

(Source)

image: Sex and the City poster that I goofed around with in Photoshop