Strollerderby : advertising

Single Mom Sells Ad Space On Her Body on eBay

Brett Singer — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:30:00 GMT

One of the things I've always admired about myself (stay with me here) is my ability to work. Ever since I was 16, I've had a job of some sort. Part of that is my skill set -- being able to yak on the phone enabled me to have an embarrassing number of telemarketing jobs, for example -- and part of it is my willingness to find a job and do it, even if its not something I have any interest in. If you need money, you get a job. This isn't to say that this is easy, especially in the current economy. But my feeling was always that no job was beneath me.

My point here is not to toot my own horn. But I was thinking about my job experiences when I read this story on MomLogic about a single mom, BillieJean Irizarry, who tried to sell advertising on her body via eBay. In her mind, this was the best way to make money to support her family.

That can't be the best way to make money. It just can't. I find it hard to believe that there is nothing woman can do. This is someone who, in my opinion, wants to be famous. Now she's "the single mom who tried to sell ad space on her body." Whoo-hoo. Mission accomplished.

Proving my point (sort of) is this: BillieJean was asking $2000 but only got offers of $250. I guess that's a faster way to get $250 than working for minimum wage, but how often can you do that? She has accepted this, telling MomLogic "This idea isn't selling, so I am thinking of doing something else to make money." Oh! Great news. BUT... "I am not sure what it is at this moment, but stay tuned to my eBay page."

If you need money, get a real job. Sorry. Yes, there are circumstances -- living with her who have health problems and are unable to help her watch her three children. But there is absolutely no way that the only option available is eBay. Maybe if she were trying to sell her possessions online, that would be better. But that's it? That's your idea?

What do you think?

Source: MomLogic

Poolside Breastfeeding Violates No Food Rule

UPDATE: Dad Who Forced Son To Get Tattoo is Arrested

Women Switched at Birth Find Out 56 Years Later

Hey Look! Mom Is On The Net!

Brett Singer — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:00:00 GMT

In various outlets (OK, mostly just VH1) people express their nostalgia for the 90's.

But music and movies aren't the only thing from the Whatever Decade (I just made that up) to get all misty-eyed about. There's also the commercials. Like this one.

It's not clear what is being advertised. But one thing's for sure -- these moms know all about technology!

You have to hang in there until the end of the video, when some random long-haired guy arrives. Just trust me on this one.

Source: Buzzfeed Via Everything Is Terrible (Or maybe it's the other way around. I get confused by all this WWW Dot Com Stuff.)

A Really Graphic Homebirth

We're Not Judging You, Pinky Swear

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

10 Year Old Burned By Tanning Bed

Abortion Ads On Television?

Brett Singer — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:00:00 GMT

British TV viewers may soon see "adverts" for abortions alongside the more typical commercials for tea and crisps.

According to ABC News, "the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practices [in the U.K.] is considering rewriting the TV rules regarding advertising as a way of tackling the problem" of an increased rate of teen pregnancy. Rules on condom ads would be relaxed as well; currently prophylactic TV pitches are only allowed to air after 9pm.

Groups like the British Pregnancy Advisory Service would applaud the changes, with chief executive Ann Furedi saying, "Why would we not want women to be able to know quickly and simply where they can get pregnancy testing and referral for abortion treatment or antenatal care, depending on what they decide is best for them?"

Speaking for the other side is Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship. "This is like having the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to deal with the casualties rather than putting up a safety rail at the top of the cliff to stop them falling off."

Well, not exactly. It's more like telling people the ambulance exists. While it's true that if there were no abortion clinics, there would be fewer abortions, is it really so wrong to actually let women know what their options are? Of course, cigarettes exist, and we don't allow television ads for those. (That's true in the United States at least; I don't know what the rules are across the pond.)

Should the rules be relaxed, and should ads for abortion clinics be allowed on television?

Source: ABC News, BBC (Video report)

Image: SXC

Baby Born in Penn Station During Rush Hour

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Surrogate Agency Disappears With Potential Parents Cash

Is Shame the Answer to Childhood Obesity?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:00:00 GMT

The creative geniuses behind the anti-childhood obseity ads featuring Barbie certainly seem to think so.

Perhaps the Active Life Movement, the (well-intentioned) organization behind the ads, could benefit from this Onion video--a roundtable discussion of the question, "Should We Be Shaming Obese Children More?"--which uncovers the pros and cons of teaching kids through negative reinforcement.

(Hint to the Active Life Movement: the Onion was kidding!)

Photo: New York Times

Microsoft Says Computer's So Easy a Kid Can Do It

JeanneSager — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:53:00 GMT

It's supposed to answer all those Apple claims that PCs aren't user-friendly with the simple premise - Microsoft has made it so even a kid can do it. Does that mean the computers got easier or kids just got a whole lot smarter?

It doesn't become clear that the four-and-a-half-year-old taking a picture with a digital camera, uploading it, using editing software and e-mailing her shot off to her parents is an advertisement for Windows until the tail end. Considering they're signing middle aged folks up for college classes in how to use Facebook, maybe this is just the right approach. You might be completely computer illiterate, but your four-year-old can figure it out!

Except, parents - who, it can be argued, are more likely to tune in to commercials featuring kids - are more and more computer literate these days. At least the parents of kids whose ages fall in the range of the new Microsoft "rookies" commercial stars (four-and-a-half and seven). The nineties hinting that if you can't figure out your cell phone, you can always call your kid in to do it has been replaced - by those "kids" of the early nineties HAVING kids in the new millennium. Even so-called "older" parents are more likely to be computer literate; because while they were waiting to have children, they were working . . . in a corporate environment where computers are ubiquitous. I highly doubt President Obama called on Malia the first time he unleashed that Crackberry.

Of course kids in 2009 might be even more technologically savvy than their parents were as teens in the early nineties. Many of us wonder if our kids would recognize us without the glow of a computer screen forming a halo 'round our heads, and just yesterday my three-year-old grabbed the USB cord to my iPod and slipped it directly into the slot on the PC tower - no questions asked. Just like Microsoft's rookies, apparently she too is a PC.

If you've got a decent-enough handle on computer literacy, do you think your kids are gaining on you?

Image: Microsoft

Ty Company Discontinues Sasha and Malia Dolls

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:01:00 GMT

Even Ty Warner has to answer to someone. The Ty Warner Company has decided to retire the Mahvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha beanie babies, due to objections from the White House. The First Lady had a hunch that those dolls’ names were no coincidence, despite the Ty Company’s assurance to the contrary.

One could argue that there’s nothing wrong with little girls seeing Sasha and Malia as role models—and if that means having doll versions of the First Daughters, why not? But Michelle Obama is making an important point about the crassness of using children to turn a profit. (Anyone see the latest Toddlers and Tiaras?)

Fear not, beanie baby-loving parents: Precious Paris and Bubbly Britney are still available, and they are more than happy to stand in as your children’s very expensive role models.

Photo: New York Times

Michelle Obama Objects to Sasha and Malia Dolls

Sasha and Malia Beanie Baby Dolls

Caylee Anthony Doll, the Worst Toy Idea Ever

RIP Wondertime

Amy Kuras — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:01:00 GMT

Yet another casualty of the recession – word came late last week that Disney was suspending publication of Wondertime magazine.

This was unhappy news to me. I’d always liked Wondertime, in part because it was so, well, not Disneylike. Unlike the other parenting mags out there which seem to push a really standard, plasticized, product-driven view of perfect parenting (not to mention all those ads, aka why it’s no mystery that some have shown up unbidden in my mailbox during both pregnancies and the infancies of both my kids), Wondertime published good writing and was beautifully laid out with nice photography. Basically, it was similar to Brain, Child with a huge budget and lots of advertisers to please.

Like all parenting mags, of course, it presented a vision of unattainable perfection none of us could hope to achieve, which is one of the reasons I think half the people I know are depressed. If you can’t afford the charming character-filled home at which you entertain your wide and attractive circle of close friends, don’t drive the Volvo or push the $800 stroller, magazines can reinforce that feeling of being the last kid picked in gym.

According to Ad Age, the website will go dark too, although Disney plans to move some Wondertime blogs and community areas to other sites such as FamilyFun.com and iParenting.com. Interestingly, its ad pages expanded 20 percent in 2008, which was a terrible time for ad-page sales. Average paid and verified circulation was just below 400,000 copies in the first half of last year according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Desperately Seeking . . . Grandparents

JeanneSager — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:39:00 GMT

There's no question kids who have them love their grandparents - they spoil them rotten. But if your parents are gone, or might as well be, would you be willing to use the term "grandparent" loosely?

What about letting a perfect stranger stand in, just so your kids can have a grandparent?

A growing number of parents are doing just that. They're setting up personal ads; only instead of "SBF seeks SM for long walks on the beach, non-smoking, non-freaks" they're advertising for older folks who have been aching for a youngster to play with.

Matthew Gray, deputy director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, says it's largely distance and family breakdowns keeping kids and grandparents apart, but also playing a major role are the parents who have put off babymaking. The older first-time parents are, the older their own parents are - leaving grandchild-hungry parents waiting, and sometimes leaving first-time parents without their own Mom and Dad when they're finally ready to start having children.

But parents are no less interested in exposing their kids to another generation, and those who live far away from their own parents still need the extra hand that a grandparent who is nearby is often willing to offer. Hence the advertising.

"I've got two small children now and my father lives away from us and my partner's mother is not very involved," Debbie Fitzsimmons told Australia's Daily Telegraph. "I grew up with two sets of grandparents which I benefited from big time."

Other parents say the process is equally beneficial to the surrogate grandparents; after all, being with the young is said to keep you young. For older folks who don't have family nearby, simply having a young family around to check up on them can go far in helping them maintain mental acuity and a connection with the outside world. In turn, the kids learn the importance of community and caring for our geriatric population - besides the stories of days gone by and the candies palmed when Mom isn't looking.

Would you consider adopting a grandparent or letting one adopt you so your kids can have that experience?

Image: AwardPHP

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

Family Adopts Eight Siblings Separated by Foster Care

Duggar's Eldest Married: Babies on the Way?

Maybe The 80s Are Retro

Brett Singer — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:30:00 GMT

When I first started to notice that television producers and marketing executive was using the 80's to induce nostalgia and/or referring to it as retro, I was annoyed. Eventually I got used to it, but still found it troubling. Come on, I said. It wasn't THAT long ago. Sure, lots of things have changed. But 1988 was only 20 years ago. That's not retro, is it? Translation: I'm not THAT old, am I?

Take a look at these TV commercials from 1988.

That hair. Joe Isuzu. Geraldo Rivera braying that our children may become victims of a Satanic cult.

Ouch. I guess I am that old.

Barack Obama Asked If Bill Clinton Was The First Black President

The Candy That Time Forgot

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Babble Podcast for November 3, 2008

Japanese Spiderman Video

Is The Incredible Flying Baby Video Real?

Teacher Sells Ad Space on Math Tests to Cover Budget Shortfall

JeanneSager — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:34:00 GMT

Tom Farber had three choices. The California teacher could pay for paper to print his students' tests on himself. He could cut out the practice sheets he's traditionally given the kids to help them bone up on their math skills.

Or he could sell advertising space on the math tests.

The school budget was so tight this year, the nine-year veteran in education chose option three. He told parents on open house night this year that they could buy a line on the bottom of the sheets he'll hand out to his one hundred sixty-seven students this year. Space on a quiz went for $10; $20 for a test sheet and $30 for the end-of-semester exam. In one night, he raked in $270.54. That's just 54 cents over the amount he's estimated he'll spend on the nine thousand eighteen pieces of paper necessary to get through the year. It's just over $112 more than he was allotted by the school district for paper costs this year.

I'm sure there are parents reading this who drew in their breath with shock. But I say good for him. Because a teacher's job is to educate his (or her) students. How they manage that with a funding shortfall sometimes makes me wonder if part of the master's of education degree is a course in witchcraft. And yet, as a taxpayer in the state reported to have the highest property taxes in the nation (New Yorkers fund schools through property taxes), I'll admit I struggle with the raising school budgets year after year.

In states where taxpayers are feeling like stones being squeezed for yet another pint of blood, the funding has to come from somewhere for the sake of the kids. And the answer isn't in making kids sell more oranges and wrapping paper . . . to the taxpayers. So what's wrong with selling advertising? In Farber's case, parents could fund inspirational slogans on the bottom of a test paper or businesspeople could put in a promo. The money ensured the kids still got their practice sheets. At the very least, the money was benefitting the kids on an academic level.

Now think about how many advertisements get thrown at our kids inside a school building without one single dime actually benefitting the district, and therefore not helping the kids' education. Do the teen boys get a flyer from the local formalwear shop come prom season? Is there a brand name on the basketball they bounce during gym class? How about on the milk carton at lunch or the cereal box at breakfast? As ubiquitous as branding is in our society, there's little we can do to protect our kids - even in a school building. Yet little of that advertising benefits anyone besides the company selling its products.

So did Tom Farber really do anything wrong?

Image: Arts Journal

Recess One Step Closer to NJ Lawbooks

School's In Session for Boys Who Want to Be Girls

Kids Yell Assassinate Obama on Idaho School Bus

High School Teacher Gets a Little Too Hot With Strip Tease

The Breakfast Club: In NYC Schools, It's a Hit

Republican Candidate Uses Porn-esque Robocall

Brett Singer — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:00:00 GMT

I don't let my kids answer the phone, but a lot of people do. Now imagine if they picked it up and heard this:

"Mike Thompson's been a baaad boy ... we all said no to the bailout, but Thompson backed Bush, just like he did for the Patriot Act. Vote Yes for Zane."

Here is a link to the audio (wav file). You really have to hear it. Basically, it sounds like a low-rent phone sex operator. (Not that I know what a high-rent phone sex operator sounds like. Or any phone sex operator. I don't. Hey! Off-topic!)

The robocall ad was produced by the Zane Starkewolf campaign. Zane is a "self-described Green Republican" candidate for Congress in California and also a Chemistry graduate student. His explanation for the call is utterly bizarre:

I acknowledge that the idea behind the ad, and indeed the execution of the call, was not the safe route to take. And if my run for office was simply for personal gain, I would not have taken a risk.

What? A robocall political ad produced in the style of phone sex somehow shows that you are not running "for personal gain"? Is that because you know it won't work?

But the content and the facts within the message were there and need to be discussed. Hopefully this call opens up the forum for discussion on the issues and on the representation which is so essential to our system.

Meaning… what? That by putting on a pseudo-sexy voice we'll all get turned on to politics? Bad fake porn as a gateway drug to insightful political discourse?

This is the closest thing to an apology in his statement:

The unpaid staffer who recorded and submitted the message may have been a little overly enthusiastic in the delivery, but I believe it is good to get enthusiasm back into politics.

First of all, the woman who recorded the call sounds like she might be on drugs or mentally ill. At the very least, she's meshugeh ahf toit (click here for a translation, or go ask Madonna, she knows what it means). So "enthusiasm" isn't the word I would use. Second, "back into politics"? With weird robotic phone-sex calls? Yes, I remember when Truman did that back in 1948.

He then uses the phrase that is the number one justification for dummies who think they're smart – "Let’s think outside the box." Well, I guess you've done that. Maybe this idea should have stayed IN the box. A locked box. With no key.

I can't stand these robocalls and I think they should be outlawed. Not just the really wacko ones like this, but all of them. We used to belong to a temple that used them to notify people of events. They're irritating and pointless. It's as if someone said, "How can we make telemarketing even MORE annoying?"

One more thing. Not to be an old fart before my time (when is that time, anyway?) but remember the phrase from the 60's about not trusting anyone over 30? When it comes to government, how about we don't trust anyone UNDER 30? Zane is 27. This is definitely an idea that only a tremendously immature dope could come up with.

Source: Wired

N-Word Flies at Palin Rally

Babble Podcast for October 27th, 2008

Parents Upset About McCain's Robocalls

Babble Talk: The Candidates Health Plans

Which Candidate Has The Best Name?

They say: no one with a uterus should vote for McCain

They say: McCain not thrilled with Palin and she wants to run in 2012

Best political shirt ever - Everyone Poops

Should DirecTV Go Around Reincarnating Dead Child Stars?

Jen Chaney — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:26:00 GMT

We're all familiar with those clever movie-related commercials DirecTV runs on television, the ones that take a famous scene from a film like "Aliens" or "Back to the Future" and turn the characters into shills for satellite television. (Okay, they sound less clever when I describe them that way.)

A few weeks ago, DirecTV started airing a new commercial, one that riffs on the 1982 horror classic "Poltergeist." But here's the part that's really creepy: Heather O'Rourke -- the girl who played Carol Anne in the movie and, sadly, died at the age of 12 due to a heart attack brought on by septic shock -- appears in the ad. Watch below and you'll see what I mean.

Even though it's supposed to look like a scene from the 26-year-old movie, the spot subtly implies that O'Rourke is still with us. Which is a long way of saying: This commercial gives me a case of the heebie jeebs. And I'm not the only one. Bloggers and others have been whipping up a frothy brew of Internet outrage over this clip during the past few weeks.

"I think it’s in poor taste," writes this blogger at San Diego City Beat.

"Truly declasse," says slashfilm.

"I just think a dead child should be off limits," adds a commenter at Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch blog.

Reportedly, O'Rourke's mother, Kathleen, approved the ad. So one could argue that if it's fine with the O'Rourke family, it should be fine with us. And it's a valid point that this is footage from a movie in which O'Rourke played a character, so it lives on in a different realm -- so to speak -- than the actual Heather O'Rourke.

I hear all that. Yet I still can't shake the fact that there is something spooky and altogether ooky about this. Maybe I'm just freaked because "Poltergeist" scared the bodily juices out of me when I was a kid. But the bottom line is that I don't think a deceased star, especially one who died so young, should be resuscitated solely to sell premium and HD channels to the masses.

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

Brand Names Play Increasing Role in Bullying

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:25:00 GMT

A poll by the British Association of Teachers and Lecturers found that the products kids want to own are largely determined by a desire to be accepted by their peers. And this is an understandable, given that almost half of teachers report that kids who can’t afford the “right” clothes are ostracized or bullied.

While bullying is unfortunately as old as school, brand bullying appears to be on the rise. What, you ask, could possibly have led to this increase? Well, here’s a possibility: more than 70 percent of teachers say that advertising affects young people more today than it did 10 years ago, and almost all teachers believe that ads directly target youth.

Photo: Shoe Market

The Breakfast Club Would So Not Shop at JCPenney

Jen Chaney — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:32:00 GMT

I have a question for the marketing team at JCPenney: Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe? Or, to put it another way, do you know how offensive it is that you are completely ripping off "The Breakfast Club" in your latest back-to-school ad campaign?

I'm all for younger generations appreciating the masterful work of Molly Ringwald, Emilio Estevez and co. Truly. Everyone should be exposed to Anthony Michael Hall's "Chicks can not hold they smoke" speech, or the elegant way Ally Sheedy flings a piece of bologna in the air. But there's a difference between that and outright co-opting the quintessential Gen X movie so you can sell some crappy American Living sweatshirts. The fact that one of the undernourished teen girls in this commercial is wearing a Nirvana T-shirt just adds further insult to injury. (See video of the debacle at the bottom of this post.)

For those of us who came of age in the mid-'80s, when "TBC" made its debut, this movie wasn't merely well-regarded or popular. It was important. It gave voice to our adolescent insecurities. It reflected the way we spoke. It acknowledged that Simple Minds was freaking awesome. And when Judd Nelson pumped his fist in that final freeze frame, it felt like a vaguely subversive triumph over The Man. You know, as much as one can triumph over The Man in a movie distributed by Universal Studios, which, as we all know, is closely affiliated with The Man.

Some things are sacred and should not be borrowed for the sake of advertising, especially for a second-rate department store. "The Breakfast Club" is one of those things.

For committing this offense, I hereby give JCPenney a full Saturday of detention. You must write an essay, of no less than a thousand words, describing to me who you think you are. And when I say essay, I mean essay. I don't mean a thousand words repeated.

Hopefully you'll learn a little something about yourself. But more than anything, I hope you learn that it is completely uncool to mess with the John Hughes canon. Your commercial claims that "every day matters." Well, this movie matters even more.

Sincerely yours,

Jen Chaney, the Breakfast Club and that dude who played Carl the janitor

Suave Isn't Hawking Hair Products, They Just Wanna Help a Martyr Mom Out

Kelly Mills — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:00:00 GMT

First, thank you to Mom2Two for pointing me towards this ad campaign by Suave (I have Tivo, so I see nary a commercial these days.) It goes like this: Rapid shots of lady looking pretty, lady then in wedding dress, pregnant lady, harried lady-mom in assorted outfits, mom-lady looking a little haggard, mom-lady fixed up purty by Suave styling products. The campaign line is: "Motherhood Isn't Always Pretty" and the ad says "89 % of moms admit they let themselves go... 100% can get themselves back." Wow, and 100% of moms in my house got crabby when they saw this.

Can you imagine if this campaign was aimed at dads? Dads, did you let yourselves go? Would a styling product help you get "yourself" back? Because this is a theme we've seen like, a billion times: Moms are martyrs who sacrifice even their looks for their families. And so making yourself beautiful again through the latest cream or shampoo or surgery isn't a question of feeling the external pressure on women to be beautiful, or even swallowing what advertisers want us to buy, oh no--it's an act of self-love. It's getting in touch with yourself, the real you, the pre-family you, the you who can only be uncovered when you look hot.

Yeah, 100% of moms can get themselves back, just by using styling products. You tired from all that sacrifice? Well, there's this hairspray that will do what a living wage and quality childcare and affordable housing and a good educational system and real healthcare won't do. It will totally take the place of a community that raises children, saving families from the isolation that hits us hard. And on a personal level, being pretty will give you that sense of personhood and satisfaction you'd never get from a society that values motherhood and parenting in general and encourages moms to be people, not endless fountains of sacrifice. Yippee for my friggin' Suave shampoo. Now, could we get a new way of selling crap to moms? Because I can only be so strident for so long.

London Underground Bans Man-Breastfeeding Advert

Karen Murphy — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:27:00 GMT

The Tube has no sense of humor. Or a stiff upper lip. Or something.

The London Underground has banned a new ad campaign by bookie Paddy Power promoting its new online bingo business, because of the "potential to offend public decency". Advertiser Paddy Power has been in trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority before with two previous campaigns judged having a "potential to cause widespread offence". One campaign featured DaVinci's "Last Supper" on a casino table, and the other portrayed two grandmotherly types crossing a busy street with odds posted over their heads.

So are you offended by this?

Seriously, are you offended?

(The tagline of the ad, by the way, is "Where have all the women gone?")

So what is the problem here?

1. The idea of a man breastfeeding.
2. Women gambling.
3. Ugly semi-nude guy.

I can't figure out where the problem is myself.

Is It Food or Entertainment? Kid's Foods Crossing Borders of Taste

Karen Murphy — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:02:00 GMT

Oh, what delights have I been missing out on in spurning TV and the cereal aisle at the grocery store? Apparently, a lot of them. Dinosaur eggs that hatch in oatmeal? Gross. Who came up with that one? Fruit snacks that leave a tattoo on the tongue? C'mon, people, weren't you satisfied with Pop Rocks?

So how come food manufacturers think kids need to play with their food? Do you buy this stuff?

Not surprisingly, 89 per cent of the "fun" food products marketed to kids were of poor nutritional quality because of high sugar, fat or sodium, as reported in a study published in the upcoming issue of Obesity Reviews. Which is of course making our kids fatter. And some of this stuff isn't limited to the junk-food aisles: I imagine that the organic frozen chicken nuggets, for instance, aren't much better nutritionally than the non-organic kind. Though at least they're not blue. The proliferation of weirdly-colored foods is a trend I find disturbing. How are kids ever going to want to eat, let alone appreciate, quality "real" foods if all they ever get is oddly-colored junk?

I suppose manufacturers will quit making this stuff if people don't buy it. Good luck on THAT one.

Healthy Eating Campaigns Dying on the Vine

Alisyn — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:16:00 GMT

In a classic case of "too little, too late", research says that the $1 billion that the federal government is spending each year on "healthy eating" campaigns isn't doing jack for today's overweight kids, according to The Consumerist.

Childhood obesity rates in kids ages 6-11 have quadrupled since the '70s, and show no signs of slowing down. With the odds stacked against kids voluntarily choosing fresh food options, parental guidance is the driving force in keeping kids healthy. But unfortunately, their own lack of food education, combined with the fact that junk food is cheap and readily available (not to mention heavily marketed) to kids, and often times tastes better, means that fruits and veggies are not even an afterthought to fast food families.

Last year, a federal program "introducing" fruits and veggies to 5th graders failed miserably because "they didn't like the taste." In Pennsylvania, school administrators were giving away prizes for fruit and veggie eaters, who, when the prizes were no longer available, went right back to their crappy eating habits. And kids who reported that they were "eating better" and exercising actually showed no change whatsoever in blood pressure or body size.

But with the federal government refusing to curb advertising campaigns geared towards kids, and feeding them cheap, highly processed and flavorless foods in schools, kids today show no signs of getting healthier. Good thing they have free universal health care to depend on later in life! Oh. Wait...

Kid's Nutrition Education Useless: They Still Eat Junk

Karen Murphy — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:50:00 GMT

Over $1 billion spent this year alone by the U.S. government on nutrition education for kids, and just about all of it will go to ~~waist~~ uh, waste. The Associated Press reviewed 57 scientific studies about the various nutrition programs across the country and found only 4 exhibiting any sort of success. Despite dancing carrots and broccoli, prizes for eating vegetables, and kids who lie about their habits, kids are still eating junk and they're still fat. Obesity rates in kids ages 6-11 is five times what it was in the 1970's, and for kids ages 2-5? Three times what it was back then. I'm still astounded at the thought of an obese toddler: don't they burn zillions of calories simply by existing (whining, mostly)?

So if these federally-funded nutrition programs don't work, how come?

1. Parents. Yeah, blame the 'rents. But how can you expect kids to eat broccoli while the parents are chowing down on Doritos? That hardly seems fair. Plus, prenatally, babies will develop a taste for what mom eats during pregnancy. Which explains my kids' tendencies toward cupcakes, bananas, and pineapple.

2. Poverty. Sad but true: junk food is cheaper and easier to find than the good stuff. Highly urban, low-income areas tend to have fewer grocery stores where fresh food is available. And there aren't a lot of good choices for kids to play outside in inner-city areas either, and sports teams cost money. What's to do, then, besides sit inside and watch TV and have a snack or three?

3. Advertising. Have you ever seen an ad for vegetables? I don't remember many either. 'Nuff said.

But here's some more heartening news, which perhaps will help bring on some real change: "This spring the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced plans to spend $500 million over the next five years to reverse the trend of childhood obesity. It will fund programs that bring supermarkets into poor neighborhoods, studies that measure the weight of children who exercise more at school, meetings of advocates who are seeking to restrict junk food ads." In other words, by cutting back on ads, bringing more "real" food to those who need it, and getting kids to exercise more, there just might be some change to this alarming, and, uh, growing trend of childhood obesity.

Kids and Cigarettes: A Match Made in Heaven

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Tue, 29 May 2007 12:29:00 GMT

When we were very young and very stupid, and when we couldn't pilfer smokes from older brothers or fathers, my friends and I would find discarded cigarettes outside of stores and strip clubs and hepatitis clinics, give them a good brush on the jeans and light them up.

I think we were role models for the cigarette industry -- the perfect dupes so enthralled by the coolness of smoking that we risked contracting scary hobo germs to do it.

Just one. That's all the industry is banking on. That just one of us would get hooked. The Seattle PI's daddy blog -- "Working Dad" -- links to a scary stat showing that 4,000 kids smoke their first cigarette each day -- and 1 in 4 of them gets hooked.

Thank god Joe Camel is dead, right? Kids no longer have anything to fear.

Think again.

The anti-smoking group The Truth has a new commercial showing the impact mascots can have on kids. And Camel has again come under fire for its No. 9 brand -- marketed in hot pink toward girls. "Barbie Camel," it's being called.

I have no idea what I'm going to tell my daughter when she tries her first cigarette -- and she will at some point or another, I don't think any amount of parenting can stop that. I just hope she won't become the just one.

Stretching the Term Healthy Role Model: Shrek

Melissa Summers — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:23:00 GMT

Have you seen the public service ads featuring Shrek encouraging kids to exercise? The Department of Health is running the ads as part of the Small Steps initiative featuring Shrek and crew exercising and encouraging kids to make sure they get exercise too. Of course Shrek is also awfully busy promoting all sorts of other foods which aren't exactly in keeping with the 'Healthy Food' part of the Small Steps program. Things like Sprite, Keebler cookies, M&Ms and even a promotion with McDonalds.

Jimmy Moore at the Common Voice directs us to other people who think this odd pairing of promotions is ridiculous. The Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood have organized a petition drive telling the Department of Health to fire Shrek and get "serious" about combatting childhood obesity. Susan Linn, Commercial-Free Childhood campaign director said,"Surely Health and Human Services can find a better spokesperson for healthy living than a character who is a walking advertisement for McDonald's, sugary cereals, cookies and candy."

Health and Human Services spokesperson Bill Hall replied, Too bad, we're using him. (Not in those exact words.) The Department of Health and Human Services believes Shrek is an excellent role model for kids as he's not in shape or an athlete, he's just a regular ogre who needs to get moving.....and eat a lot of candy and pop tarts and garbage while doing it.

Maybe Dreamworks should look into marketing Shrek 3 with green vegetables instead. Eat broccoli, turn green like Shrek!

Be Good to Kids ... Or Peyton Manning Will Ruin Them

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:21:00 GMT

Time-outs in Port-O-Potties. Lessons on killing snitches. Breaking into cars. Picking up women. What has become of the United Way? It used to be a middle man for kids who need mentors. It has definitely turned a corner. A dark, sordid corner.

I was watching a commercial last night during some earnest, topical Saturday night show or another and I don't know if appalled is the right word -- but it comes pretty close. Peyton Manning should be ashamed of himself, and the United Way should be, too.

I'm not sure what type of "lessons" he's passing onto children by hitting them in the back of the head with a football and then telling them, "You suck. Get the F--- out of here." But I'm guessing that's not the kind of mentoring these kids were looking for.

They just needed a helping hand. Instead, they wound up with permanent tattoos of Peyton Manning on their calves. (As if they don't see enough of him on TV already, right? Geesh!) They needed a friend. Instead, they wound up on the ground, cowering in fear as the NFL quarterback hurls footballs at their backs. My favorite appalling part? Learning about Manning's snitch justice over beers. Poor, poor kids.

The commercial urges parents to spend time with their kids, otherwise Peyton Manning just might. That's a pretty good lesson for us all.

Siren Thong Song Thwarts Girls Development

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:44:00 GMT

A few days after my daughter was born a friend called, "Just remember what Chris Rock said: Your job is to keep her off the pole." Great. Thanks. It wasn't enough to worry about breastfeeding problems; I also had to worry about my newborn's career choice and whether it would involve brass poles, dim lights and too revealing clothes -- or none at all.

Turns out my friend and Chris have a point. Today's girls grow up in a sexualized atmosphere that is stunting their development -- both intellectually and sexually. Though anyone who's ever seen a music video might say, "Duh?" -- it's still an eye opener to hear it from scientists. Sex pressure leads to depression, eating disorders, poor academic performance, shaving your head and generally acting like a moron.

From Bratz dolls to the Pussycat dolls, young girls are bombarded by the idea that only sex matters -- and it's messing with their minds. How I'm going to thwart this process in an age of Internets, big-screen TVs and dumb-ass movies is beyond me.

Who's on Your List of Best Horror Show Children?

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:12:00 GMT

A few nights ago, our almost 10-month-old daughter looked up from a pile of blocks, smiled eerily and hissed the word, "Daaay-Naaa." It was her first word -- but it scared the living hell out of us because of the way she said, as if some poltergeist had invaded our sweet child's body or she had suddenly acquired the ability to see dead people. It wasn't until we put her down for the night and flipped on the television that our prognosis was confirmed: Our child is possessed. The good news is she could be a movie star.

You see, we saw a trailer for the new movie "The Messengers" -- which stars the creepiest looking boy this side of "Webster." The promo said something like children are "susceptible" to paranormal phenomena and they are trying to warn us. While that's certainly kind of them, the idea creeped us out to no end -- we even considered locking our bedroom door, just in case our daughter decided to "warn" us with a knife, a hockey mask or a gloved hand full of razors.

Still, it got me thinking: Who's the creepiest child villain ever to grace the silver screen? The doe-eyed boy from "The Messengers" would make the list in my book, but I know there's more out there. The girl from "Poltergeist?" Anyone from "Children of the Corn?"

Who's on your list of the best and creepiest horror flick children ever?