Strollerderby : controversy

Morning News - GOP Calls Sotomayor Racist

Brett Singer — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:00:00 GMT

The Republican/Conservative Hive Mind Coalition has decided how to attack Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. What is it? Drum roll, please... She's a racist! This comment from Rush Limbaugh is... well, you decide: "Limbaugh called the president 'the greatest living example of a reverse racist,' and said that he has picked another for the Supreme Court vacancy of retiring Justice David Souter. Limbaugh later equated Sotomayor to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke." David Duke? Huh? The comment Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Hive Mind members are clinging to is one that Sotomayor made at a Duke Law School symposium in 2001: "a wise Latina woman would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I haven't read much about Judge Sotomayor, but I think the GOP Hive Mind is grasping at straws by clinging to one quote that she made. How difficult would it be to review cases that were before her while she served as a judge, and to talk about those? I've said plenty of things that I wouldn't want thrown back at me if I were up for an important post. (Supreme Court seems unlikely since I don't have a law degree, but maybe I could be the head of the Department of Video Games and Comic Books.) Also, as a white man who grew up in the Bronx and worked for two years at a job where there were many Latina women, I can honestly say that a great many of them reached better conclusions than I did. So there.

Speaking of the GOP, Mitt Romney seems to think he's still running for President. He's mad at President Obama for the way he's handling our foreign policy. (Grrr... Mitt is angry... Grrrr...) I love how it's OK for people to criticize the President when said President is a Democrat. Remember how we were all supposed to support President Bush because we were a nation at war? That attacking the Commander-in-Chief of the United States could be damaging to troop morale, and make us look bad in the eyes of foreign leaders? I guess that doesn't matter anymore.

One more political item -- Dick Cheney (aside: if my name were "Richard" I wouldn't use "Dick" as my nickname) admitted that there was "no link" between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. But he still thinks we did the right thing by marching into Iraq. He, too, took issue with President Obama's policies. I'm not 100% positive about this, but didn't various Bush administration officials and the Republican/Conservative Hive Mind spend a lot of time and energy telling the public that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, involved in the September 11th attacks? If so, what is Cheney saying now -- sorry, my bad?

On to less important matters. Susan Boyle checked into the hospital after losing "Britain's Got Talent." She is said to be "suffering from exhaustion," which I think officially makes her a real celebrity, since I have never heard of anyone other than a celebrity checking into a hospital because they were tired. (I know, that's reductionist, and an over-simplification, and probably other words that basically mean the same thing as those two. Bear with me, I'm exhausted.) The funny thing about Susan Boyle? She didn't "lose." She came in second. She was a complete unknown and now she's famous enough to check into a hospital for exhaustion without being laughed at. She will certainly have some sort of career in the entertainment business if she wants to. How is that "losing"? A year from now, let's see who has had a better career -- Susan Boyle or the dance troupe Diversity. My money's on Boyle.

OK, one more serious thing: a federal judge has ruled that "Guantanamo evidence must be made public." This is "the unclassified evidence that it says justifies the continued imprisonment of more than 100 Guantanamo Bay prisoners." So, you know. So there.

Here's a headline you don't like to see: "Federal Reserve puzzled by yield curve steepening." It's one thing if I'm puzzled by financial matters facing our nation. But the Federal Reserve? They shouldn't be puzzled. They should know stuff. Lots of stuff.

Finally, something silly and utterly unimportant. Kathy Griffin says that Eminem walking out of the MTV Movie Awards was "a stunt." What happened? Sasha Baron Cohen, aka Bruno, stuck his heinie in the rapper's face.

Here's what happened:

And here's what Kathy Griffin thinks of it:

See? Now you know everything you need to know to start your day. Enjoy!

Image: Latina.com

Dad Charges Daughter With Grand Theft Auto

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

UPDATE: President Obama Issues Statement About Dr. George Tiller

Brett Singer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:36:00 GMT

President Barack Obama has issued a statement about the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Well said, Mr. President.

TheRoot.com points out: "It's fairly unusual for the White House to comment on this type of local story. But the news of Tiller's murder, allegedly by an anti-choice activist apprehended this afternoon by local and state police, has reverberated across the country in a matter of hours—and inflamed a longstanding debate about abortion rights in America."

Methinks this won't be the last we hear about the matter.

Original post follows:

*-*-*-*

Sad news from Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while ushering at church. A suspect is in custody.

From Huffington Post:

WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Wichita church on Sunday.
Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion, making him a favored target of anti-abortion protesters. He testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

Anti-abortion group Operation Rescue was no fan of Dr. Tiller; there is a "Tiller Watch" page on their web site. The group has issued a statement condemning the murder.

Tiller was recently tried for "allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly 'independent' as required by Kansas state law." It was a big deal case (we covered it on Strollerdery), with both sides tossing out big deal rhetoric. "Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals, while NYU Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as 'a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.'" (Source for both quotes: Wikipedia)

This is an ugly end to an ugly story. Hopefully the police have the right person and they will be punished. That won't bring anyone back to life, of course. No matter what side of the abortion debate you are on, I hope you agree that shooting someone in cold blood is a horrible thing to do.

Source: Huffington Post

Image: CrooksAndLiars

Finish Line - Creepy Cakes, Sesame Street, And Much More

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

No Hugs For You At Some High Schools

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

Finish Line - Cars, Baby Food, Panties

Brett Singer — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Wow, what a week. For reasons that I don't completely understand, this one was very draining. For me. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Here's some of the excitement on the 'Derby the past few days:

Keri told us about a mom who actually went through with the threat we've all made -- "I'll stop this car and throw you right out!" Some people took her side, implying that this was just another example of "free-range kids." The only time my mother ever tossed me out of the car was when she was teaching me how to drive. But I was 17 at the time. (Of course, I still don't have my license. That's not her fault, though.)
One word: PANTIES! Thank you Madeline.
Amy wrote about homemade baby food, and judging by the comments, this is the next battle in the Mommy Wars. Note to self: if you want to get people going, use the phrase "get a grip." Seems to work wonders. (Which is fine, by the way.)
Kate wrote about some proposed new rules for corporal punishment, aka spanking. See, spanking the kids is one thing, but what about the more recrational forms of spanking? Will there be laws against that? (Don't answer that question, actually.)
Hannah tugged at our heartstrings (no pun intended) by telling us about a little boy named Tucker, with Parents Find Unique Way to Pay for Child's Heart Surgery.
Sunny wins the Headline of the Week award with Pregnant Woman Escapes Bear Attack - Gets Hit By Car. I have to agree with maeby, who questioned why a pregnant woman went for a hike in "bear heaven."
Jeanne told us that chewing gum is a GOOD thing, despite what your teachers told you. So there, Mrs. Morrison! Take that!
As for me, in honor of food week, I told you what I served my kids every day. I even tweeted it. No really. I did. There are pictures and everything.

More to come next week, I'm sure. Now go take a nap, will ya? Oh wait, I meant to say that to myself. Sorry.

Read more:

Jamie Foxx Jokes Miley Cyrus Should Make A Sex Tape

Boy Calls 911 When Mom Drives Drunk

Finish Line - April Fools And More

Finish Line - Pirates Are Back

UPDATE: Jamie Foxx Apologizes To Miley Cyrus

Brett Singer — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:30:00 GMT

Jamie Foxx issued a mea culpa on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno. EOnline.com reports that Foxx responded with a "Yeah" when Jay Leno asked him "Did you say something inappropriate?" Here's the rest of it from EOnline:

"I so apologize to [Cyrus], and this is sincere...I am a comedian, and you guys know that whatever I say, I don't mean any of it. And sometimes, as comedians, as we do, we go a little bit too far. I have a radio show...We're really the black Howard Stern. We go at everybody. There was a situation with Miley Cyrus, and I just want to say, I apologize for what I said. I didn't mean it maliciously. You know I'm a comedian."

Then, looking at the camera, "Miley, I apologize, so I'll call you. I got a daughter too, so I completely understand."

So there you go. Good enough? I think so. Do you agree?

Original post follows below.

*-*-*-*-*

So, like, hey now.

A little background. Jamie Foxx has a channel on SiriusXM Satellite Radio where he does a show called The Foxxhole. He said some... things about Miley Cyrus (aka Miley Ray Cyrus Hannah Montana Stewart Lipschutz). Someone called in and mentioned Miley's little dustup with Radiohead (she wanted to meet them, they said no, she got pissy and yakked about it on some radio show). The Oscar-winning Mr. Foxx then went off a bit. Here's the audio, which is not safe for work. At all. Seriously. You have been warned.

So yeah. He said it. There are a few other people in the mix, and I'm not sure who said what. I'm fairly certain it was Jamie Foxx who said that Miley should make a "sex tape", and then a female voice added "with your dad." "White bitch" was in there. Also something about doing heroin "like Britney" (I must have missed that headline about Brit nodding out), as well as a suggestion that Miley catch VD from a bicycle seat. (I didn't think that was possible, but hey, what do I know?)

A few things to say here. First, Foxx said this on his radio show this past Sunday. It appears to only be coming out now. That doesn't diminish it, but it does mean that not a lot of people heard the comments. Second, he was trying to be funny. That doesn't excuse the comments at all, of course. But in theory performers get more latitude when it comes to humor.

As for what was said: it was completely inappropriate and in incredibly poor taste. I'm not a fan of Miley's; I think her music is horrible, and the message of her entire persona seems to be that fame is a goal worth trying for, which is something I don't agree with. (That's the short version of a longer thought that I'll share one of these days.) In my opinion you can make fun of anything and talk about whatever you want. But when its an underage person, boy or girl, and you start saying "white bitch" and suggest that she make a sex tape with her dad, that seems unnecessary. He has the right to say it. But why would he? (A commenter at LATimes.com says that the Foxx clip is somewhat out of context, but, like the Rodney King video, I'm not sure that context matters in this case. Maybe it does, but I doubt it.)

There's also plenty to make fun of when it comes to Miley. The Radiohead thing. The fact that she sleeps in her parents bed sometimes, despite being sixteen years old. Her music. Her TV show. Lots of material to work with before you go to "white bitch" who should do heroin and make a sex tape.

What do you think? Should underage famous people be off-limits, at least in some ways? Or did Miley deserve it?

Source: EOnline

Image: Amazon

Miley Cyrus Does It, But Would You Let Your Teen Sleep in Your Bed?

Jamie Foxx Trashes Miley Cyrus On His Radio Show

Man Jailed For Spraying Urine On Food And Children's Books

4 Year Old Brings Pot To School, School Bans Backpacks

Girl Scouts Use Cookie Money For Soldier's Care Package

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

Steve Martin Funds Banned High School Production of his Play

Brett Singer — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:40:00 GMT

I always liked Steve Martin. One of my first R-rated movies was "The Jerk," and I listened to his comedy albums "Comedy Is Not Pretty" and "A Wild and Crazy Guy" over and over again. (Two words - cat juggling.)

More recently, Steve (he lets me call him Steve - well, we've never met, but I think he'd let me call him Steve. Maybe.) has written a few plays, including "Picasso at the Lapin Agile", which ran Off-Broadway for awhile and has since had many productions around the world. Students at LaGrande High School in Oregon were rehearsing the play when 137 people signed a petition protesting the show. In a bold move, the school stopped the rehearsals.

So Steve (for now, I'll just call him Steve, OK?) offered to pay for a production off campus, far from the reach of the long arm of the educational law.

What was the perceived problem with the show? It features "people drinking in bars, and treating women as sex objects." Now, far be it from me to tell a local high school what they should and should not allow on their stages. But any Shakespearean tragedy features murder. Does that mean it can't be performed? How about the perennial high school musical favorite "The Pajama Game"? Unions. And we all know that "union" is code for "communism."

Steve wrote a letter to the local paper defending his work.

"Because of the controversy, I recently reread the play, and, frankly, I could understand how some parents might object to certain lines if they were to be delivered by a 16- or 17-year-old. Yet I do believe that the spirit of the play and its endorsement of the arts and sciences are appropriate for young eyes and minds.
"So while the question of whether students should perform the play at their high school remains something to be determined by the community, I firmly believe that seeing the play will bring no harm to them and might well uplift them — and acting in the play, if they are permitted by their parents, would also bring them no harm, and may help them to understand the potency, power and beauty of the arts and sciences."

The fact that he decided to go the extra mile and go all "Hamlet 2" and rent a theater off campus is kind of amazing. On the one hand, why should he care? On the other hand, if he believes in freedom of expression, why not put his money where his mouth is?

I bet the students are pretty excited. I know I would be.

Source: The Onion AV Club

GMA Tweets Details On Levi Johnston And Son

Oprah Gets It Right On Chris Brown

Letting Kids See Watchmen

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

Smackdown: Boob Nazis - Is Breastfeeding that Big A Deal? NO!

Cole Gamble — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

By now you’re probably thinking, “Why are two DUDES arguing the merits of breastfeeding? Where do they get off?!” Well, here’s where I get off (that sounds weird): I offered to tackle this subject with any of the ladies at Strollerderby and they were all too scared. The ladies were too scared to argue about breastfeeding. That’s why, for better or worse, you’ve got Brett and me. What would we know about it? We have children and wives who birthed them, don’t we? We were first hand throughout the breastfeeding process and we did the research right along with our partners. So, I’m gonna say we’re qualified.

My biggest beef with some of the breastfeeding advocates is guilt. I’m not a big fan of guilt as a motivator and I’m even less of a fan of fear tactics. You know, like that pro-breastfeeding commercial that had a heavily pregnant woman thrown from a mechanical bull—equating that with not breastfeeding. I’ve also got no love for bullying, as in the La Leche League member who met my wife at a party and upon learning breastfeeding didn’t work for my wife, ended the conversation, turned on a dime and proceeded to belittle my wife throughout the rest of the party. (This woman is still breastfeeding her 5-year-old. Let that sink in)

But my appeal here won’t be emotional. That’s too easy. I’m gonna give you the facts. The cold hard facts that boob pushers and breast bullies obfuscate or completely deny.

1) Mastitis. An inflammation of the mammary gland occurring in lactating mothers. Nipple can get infected and turn into an abscess that must be surgically removed. Although this can occur in non-breastfeeding women, it’s more likely in breast feeders.

2) The Psychological Benefits are False. The conventional wisdom was breastfeeding led to a more focused, less hyperactive child adept at forming peer relations. However, an exhaustive study recently proved these assumptions wrong. Experts and laymen presumed that the constant physical closeness involved with breastfeeding would do all kinds of psychological wonders. Nope.

3) B-Milk in the Bottle is Just as Good. Some women can’t get their kids to latch. Some women simply don’t like the feeling of breast feeding. No problem, just pump a bit of that magic elixir and give it to junior via bottle. Not only is there no shame in it, but now that we know the physical act of breast feeding comes with no special benefits, the bottle is more acceptable than ever.

4) Where’s the D? This news is hot off the presses: there is insufficient vitamin D in breast milk. A lack of vitamin D can lead to rickets. So, if you breast feed, your kid will become a pirate.

5) You Should Never Do Anything Just Because of Peer Pressure. Like I said above, breast feeding is a choice. If you want to get a little breast milk to your kid but can’t or don’t want the suckling, that’s your business. And if you don’t want to do it at all, you are not abusing your child.

The Other Side and More BF articles:

Smackdown: Breastfeeding -- Why Not?

Smackdown: Damned if You Do, Doomed if you Don't

5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi . . . And 5 Things That Don’t

More by this Author:

Should You Take A Risk on Orgasmic Birth? (Orgasmic Birth Video included)

Anti-Abortion Group Up In Arms Over Krispy Kreme Abortion Donuts

"I Ate Little Black Girls for Two Years"

Bizarro News: Flaming Squirrel Sets Elementary School on Fire

4 Ways Birth and Breastfeeding Will Ruin Sex

Smackdown: Breastfeeding -- Why Not?

Brett Singer — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:15:00 GMT

Cole challenged me to a Smackdown on breastfeeding, and of course I said yes. I never back down from a challenge, at least not one as harmless as a blog face off. (In other words, don't challenge me to get in the ring with Mike Tyson. That, I will decline.)

Breastfeeding is a controversial subject, but it wasn't always. Back in the day (as in, black and white televisions, Uncle Milty, etc.) many women took a pill to dry up their milk ducts. They didn't feel guilty about it, and those children grew up to live happy lives despite being denied breast milk.

There was also a point in our history when women didn't have the right to vote. In other words, times change. We've learned a lot about human health, and there is definitely evidence that breast milk CAN be good for your kids. Is it conclusive? No. So what? If you are able to breastfeed, isn't it worth the potential benefits?

Now for some specifics:

1. The Guilt Factor: No disagreement here. It's wrong to bully a woman, especially a new mother. However, let us not ignore…

2. The Laziness Factor: There are a number of reasons why some women don't breastfeed their kids. I've heard at least one new mom who said that breastfeeding her child made her feel "gross"; she had no problems with her child latching on, she just didn't like having a baby suckling at her "teet." It made her, "feel like a mammal." When someone says that, I want to ask them a simple question: If you are able to do something that has potential health benefits for your child, why wouldn't you? If you can't breastfeed, you can't breastfeed. But if you tried once and just bailed, that seems like a cop-out. Some of the La Leche people may be a little nuts, but many lactation counselors are very good at what they do. If you have trouble with latching or other breastfeeding issues, it's worth trying a counselor just for the potential health benefits.

3. Expressed Milk in a Bottle: Cole, I love ya, but sometimes I wonder if you've been sipping from a different type of bottle. (A glass one. Filled with bourbon.) Who says that expressed breast milk is a bad thing? As I understand it, the debate is usually between breast milk and formula. And I have yet to see a study that says formula is undeniably better for the child. At best, some say that breast milk may not have the benefits that some claim. Which brings us to the next point:

4. "No Proof That Breast Feeding is Healthier": Is there proof that it's harmful? There is certainly evidence that breast milk is good for babies. Again, why not give it to your children if you can? There was a time when doctors said that smoking was healthy. Look at how that turned out.

5. Formulas Aren't Perfect Either: I haven’t done extensive research but I know that whenever there is a product that is mass-produced, there is the potential for problems. Remember the Chinese milk recall? Ever heard of a breast milk recall? I didn't think so.

There's a difference between "can't" and "won't." No one should be bullied into breastfeeding (sorry, La Leche). But if you won't even try because you just don't want to, or you feel like you want to "rebel" against the "breastfeeding nazis", maybe you should rethink your position. Cole is right -- you shouldn't do anything JUST because of peer pressure. But if everyone isn't jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, that doesn't mean you should. (Think about it for a minute, I'm pretty sure it makes sense.)

Read Cole's take on the matter here.

Read Madeline's take on the matter here. (And I didn't say that ALL women who don't breastfeed are lazy. I mean, c'mon.)

What do you think? I'm right and he's wrong, yes? (Even if you think I'm wrong, let us know in the comments.)

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

Smackdown: Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don't (Breastfeed, That is)

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

New Pro Vaccine Book Author Getting Death Threats

Kid Named Hitler Taken From His Parents By Family Services

Woman Arrested For Breast Feeding At A Bar

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

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Brett Singer — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:00:00 GMT

We do a lot of stories on Babble about the potential dangers of vaccines, and about people who are trying to raise awareness of those dangers. Nothing wrong with that. But sometimes it’s a good idea to show the other side of things.

A recent article in U.S. News and World Report points out that deaths from measles declined by 74 percent from 2000 to 2007. The article actually used the word "plunged", which for once was not hyperbole. A 74 percent drop is big. The data comes from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, which stated that "the number of deaths fell from 750,000 to 197,000." In some countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan) the drop was as high as 90 percent.

Now here's a stat to make you cringe – "worldwide child deaths from measles have dropped to 9.2 million," according to Ann M. Veneman of UNICEF.

What's cringeworthy about that? Later in the same article, Veneman puts it another way: "It is estimated that 500 children a day die of measles. This is an unacceptable reality when there is a safe and effective and inexpensive vaccine to prevent the disease." Unacceptable? No kidding.

While there are very few measles deaths in the United States, the disease is on the rise here, with 130 cases reported in 2008. Says U.S. News and World Report: "Almost half of these cases were among children whose parents declined vaccinations."

I wonder about that last line. "Almost half" implies that more than half of the cases were from vaccinated children – right? Which would seem to conclude that the vaccine is less than perfect. But let's look at it another way – the more parents refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated, the more measles cases there are, and so on. Is there a point when the potential dangers of vaccines outweigh the potential risks?

I feel strongly that the devil lies in the details – for example, is it possible to make vaccines without mercury, one of the substances many people feel is dangerous? Rather than a "vaccines or no vaccines" debate, we could have a debate about the particular vaccine itself. But that doesn't make for an easy headline.

The link to the U.S. News and World Report article was suggested by a commenter on this post by Hannah about a toddler who died after an MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination. The parents blamed the vaccine for the 18 month old's death; the coroner's report later found "no link" between the tragic death and the vaccine. While stories like these can inspire parents to refuse to get their children vaccinated (regardless of what the coroner's report said), it is worth remembering that vaccines have enormous benefits as well as risks.

Source: U.S. News and World Report (Thanks to commenter gpgirl for the link.)

Image: helpyourautisticchildblog.com

Defying Doctors, Parents Blame Toddler's Sudden Death on MMR Vaccination

No Christmas Specials for Some Jewish Kids

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say – Raise Kids Who Care

Boy Saves Brother's Life With Bone Marrow

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Brett Singer — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:30:00 GMT

For most of these, we'll assume that you are speaking to your significant other, unless otherwise indicated.

- “Can I get a squirt of that?” The answer is no. If you're desperately curious about the taste of breast milk, try some that the mother of your children has expressed into a bottle.
- Two words that should never go together: “Tittie milk.” Not funny. Trust me.
- “How far can you squirt that stuff? Can you hit this cup on the shelf? How about if I move it closer? Honey? What are you doing with that hammer? OW!”
- “You and the baby are being really loud. Can you do that someplace else? I'm watching TV.”

And here are a few things not to say to a woman you don't know if you see nursing in a public place:

- “Ew! Gross!”
- “Niiice.”
- "Hey baby. Get it? Hey... baby...?" (It's not funny. I know you think its funny. But it's not.)
- A blank stare.
- A lascivious stare.
- Any sort of stare at all.

Anything to add? Remember – it takes a village.

image: Flickr

Unusual toddler gifts

Mom blackmails daughters ex with nude photos

Woman leaves toddler in car while she goes to a bar

Santa Claus says: Smoke More

Is a happy ending massage cheating?

Woman changes her name to Cutout Dissection.com

Have you ever told your kids to shut up?

Cheetah Girls Banned From Macys Thanksgiving Parade

Brett Singer — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Fans of Disney Channel girl group The Cheetah Girls will be disappointed to learn that the trio will not be appearing at the Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade this year.

The reason? Semi-nude photos of Adrienne Bailon, who plays Chanel Simmons in the band/movies about the band/TV show about the band/something or other (I don't fully understand all of the identities involved here so forgive me) that have appeared all over the Interwebs.

Particularly weird is the possibility that Adrienne had a publicist leak the pics and then claimed that her laptop had been stolen. Jonathan Jaxson, a publicist and/or blogger, claims that he was hired by Bailon to release the steamy snaps (sorry, dropped into gossip-language there for a moment) so that Bailon could "distance herself" from Disney and start developing a more "adult" image. This story doesn't appear to have been confirmed by Adrienne or her people, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Many news outlets are comparing this to what happened with Miley Ray Hannah Montana Stewart Cyrus Lipschitz and Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical), two more Mouse House mamacitas (ouch! Gossip talk! Stop that!) that had nude (Hudgens) or semi-nude (Cyrus) photos appear in the wild. But there are a couple of differences. First, Miley Ray Hannah Montana Stewart Cyrus Lipschitz was under 18, and some of the "controversial" photos appeared in Vanity Fair, and the ones that didn't certainly looked like they were candid cell phone snaps. Hudgens was just 18 when her nekkid self showed up on the web. Also, HSM's Hudgens (ah, I give up, gossip speak will happen on occasion) immediately apologized for the racy pics. So if it was a nefarious plot to let the entire world see what she looks like in her birthday suit, it was a well-hatched one.

Why does their ages matter? Because teenagers do dopey things sometimes. So do people in their mid-20's, but if Bailon, who is 25, actually did have someone release these pictures on purpose, she's a huge dummy.

I know this is becoming a trend, but I have mixed feelings about this story. On the one hand, who cares? On the other hand, I would have preferred not to have to explain to a 7 year old what a DUI was when Yankees pitcher Joba Chamberlain got pulled over a couple of months ago.

Today on the Howard Stern Show on Sirius XM Radio, Robin Quivers theorized that some of the young actresses on the Disney Channel are so desperate to be uber-famous that they'll do anything to get there. If it turns out the photo thing was a leak and not an accident, I'd say she's right.

Should Macys keep the Cheetahs out of the parade? After all, one of their members may be have contributed to the downfall of civilization by putting out pictures of herself in a bra. (Or maybe not. Like I said, I'm conflicted.) More importantly, are they as popular as the amount of news stories about them would indicate? My kids don't want a lot of Disney Channel, but Hannah Montana I know about. The Cheetah Girls, not so much. Any fans, or parents of fans, out there in Internet land want to set me straight? Or even just explain the whole dual-identity thing?

Source/Image: Fox News

Suri Cruise: Most Powerful Child On The Planet

Malia and Sasha, Meet Miley

Matt Lauer Talks To Sarah Palin In The Kitchen

About Ann Nixon Cooper

Babble Podcast for November 17, 2008

Do You Take Your Baby Bar Hopping?

Alex Rodriguez Writing Love Poems To Madonna

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Is The Incredible Flying Baby Video Real?

Sarah Palin Gets Pranked By Canadian Radio Hosts – Video

Rocco Ritchie wears Yankee shirt, Guy Ritchie weeps

Angelina, Brad & Brad's Porn 'Stache Do England

Jay Thomas Reunites With Out of Wedlock Son

The Babar Controversy - Really?

SunnyChanel — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:02:00 GMT

I have always loved Babar. The Babar books by Jean de Brunhoff were some of my absolute favorites growing up, and in turn I have passed copies of “The Story of Babar and “Babar the King” on to my own elephant loving offspring. I had no idea that there could be any kind of “controversy” in left wing watchdog circles in regards to these simple and lovely tales. The New Yorker (found online) features a piece entitled “Freeing the Elephants, What Babar Brought” by Adam Gopnik. In the piece he states that “… critics have read in the Barbar story an implicit endorsement of the civilizing effects of French colonialism.” Who knew? I sure didn’t.

He states that “in the past few decades, a series of critics on the left, most notably the Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman, have indicted Babar in the course of a surprisingly resilient and hydra-headed argument about the uses of imagery and the subtleties of imperialist propaganda. Babar, such interpreters have insisted, is an allegory of French colonization, as seen by the complacent colonizers: the naked African natives, represented by the “good” elephants, are brought to the imperial capital, acculturated, and then sent back to their homeland on a civilizing mission. The elephants that have assimilated to the ways of the metropolis dominate those which have not.”

A political statement alive, well and being disseminated to the masses via the pliable minds of our children? I think it’s a stretch. I’m a believer that it’s a story of a sweet elephant getting’ by the big city. If you aren’t into burning your Babar books, then you may enjoy the upcoming exhibit at New York’s Morgan Library & Museum (September 19 - January 4th) "Drawing Babar: Early Drafts and Watercolors".

For a lovely history of the books and more discussion of the politics involved, check out the full article here.

Babies R Us tells breastfeeding mother to get out

Brett Singer — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:30:00 GMT

A reader sent us a link to this post on Consumerist. Basically, a woman shopping at a California Babies 'R' Us tried to use a nursing chair, "for its intended purpose, she was told that she was not allowed to breastfeed on the sales floor." Apparently, this is illegal under California law. Something similar happened in New York at the Times Square Toys 'R' Us; that time, the ACLU got involved, since the New York law is similar to the one in California – breast-feeding anywhere, anytime.

I admit to being a little torn on this one. While I agree that all companies should follow the law, and that it's not unreasonable for a woman to breastfeed in public, I've also seen situations where I felt like it was a bit inappropriate. I can't imagine anyone wanting to nurse a baby at the Toys 'R' Us in Times Square, for example. (I also can't imagine anyone wanting to spend any time there at all, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask about this.)

The comments on the site are similarly divided. The first one was 'disemvoweled', but I think it used to say something like, "So, they provide a room and that still isn't good enough?" along with something about "self-righteous parents." ('Disemvoweling' means the vowels were removed; this is the preferred fate for potentially offensive comments on many sites. If you don't know what that means, consider yourself lucky that you have better things to worry about; if you want to know, click here.) Not very nice, but does he/she/it have a point?

A more measured approach is shown in this comment: "Personally, I would use the room. I don't see the point of breastfeeding in public when a private room is available. It's not that breastfeeding is 'dirty' or 'wrong'…[but] it's not something I'd like to share with other people who could gawk because of their own insecurities."

And the award for the best comment on that post goes to: "First rule of Fight Club is: Don't get the La Leche League on your ass."

Now, obviously the employee was, at best, a jerk, and at worst was violating the woman's civil rights. (I'm not a lawyer so forgive me if I've used that term incorrectly.) But is the woman in the article going a little too far as well? What do you think?

source: Consumerist, via a reader (thanks!)

image: msnbc (not related to this story, its from a "nurse-in" in 2006)

Kid Rock says kids should steal everything

Mom leaves kids in a Jersey parking lot

Airline removes life vests

Creepiest spam message ever: "we have hijacked your baby"

Anything to Conceive

Teen and Tween Legally Abandoned Under New Law

5 Reasons Breast Feeding Isn’t That Great (and 5 Reasons Why It Is) Part 1

Michael Phelps to endorse Frosted Flakes

For a good marriage, women need to stay home

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

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

Why the puppy games are better than the Olympics

Brett Singer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:00:00 GMT

OK, that's not true. But if you haven't seen this dopey show on Animal Planet, you're missing out on something very cute.

Here are a few highlights:

1. Commentary: "It's going to be tough to impress the judges." True – because they're goldfish. "This is like a chess match." Indeed – if chess opponents gnawed on the pieces and sniffed each others' butts. Bob Costas doesn't get lines like these.

2. No controversy: As far as we know, the opening ceremonies were real, no protesters, journalists or grandmothers were arrested, and no one is complaining about the puppy's potentially sexist costumes.

3. Who won? Who cares?: They're, you know, dogs. They have no idea where they are or what they're doing. You can still cheer for your favorite breed (the Cocker Spaniel is really cute) but at the end of the day, it's all up to the judges… who are goldfish.

4. Two words: Waterbowl Cam.

Not sure if they're going to air this again or not, if so, I highly recommend watching it. There are a bunch of video clips on Discovery.com; here's one of the Gymnastics event.

source/image: Animal Planet

Other Old Olympians

Olympics Opening Uses One Girl's Voice, Another Girl's Face

Bela Karolyi likes to kill things

Did Michael Phelps actually win 8 medals?

Michael Phelps to endorse Frosted Flakes

Olympic Athletes To Be Tested . . . For Gender

Jon Stewart Tackles Olympic Controversies

Michael Phelps father in Baltimore, not Beijing

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

Dara Torres inspired two current Olympians

Aussie Rower keeps his kids close

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Whole lotta fakin' goin' on at the opening ceremony

Shawn Johnson more mature than her coach

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

Brett Singer — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Remember Danny Almonte? How about Matt Cerda?

You'd be forgiven if you didn't remember either one of these names, especially Cerda's. Almonte was a pitcher on the winning team in the 2001 Little League World Series. In a scandal somewhat like what may soon envelop Olympic gymnastics, it turned out that Almonte was 14, 2 years over the allowed age for Little Leaguers. Cerda was barely 11 when he struck out to end the game, leaving the field in tears.

Then 9/11 happened, which of course took the focus away from this story. Still, it is interesting, which is why ESPN's "Outside The Lines" aired a piece on where these two young ballplayers are now. Turns out Almonte, despite his early promise, hasn't managed to make it to the big leagues. But Cerda has – he was drafted by the Chicago Cubs at age 17. Amazingly, Denny Henderson, a scout for the Cubs, remembered Cerda from that game in 2001, when he played catcher. Despite not having played the position since then, the Cubs decided to take him on, moving him from shortstop to behind home plate.

A video report is below; if you like, you can read the (somewhat long) article on ESPN.com.

ESPN - Revenge of the Baseball Gods - E-ticket
"Outside the Lines" revisits the battle between Danny Almonte and Matt Cerda in the 2001 Little League World Series.

image/source: ESPN

IOC orders investigation of Chinese Gymnast's age

Other Old Olympians

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

Do All These Chinese Gymnasts Look 16 to You?

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Shawn Johnson more mature than her coach

Michael Phelps father in Baltimore, not Beijing

Dara Torres inspired two current Olympians

Whole lotta fakin' goin' on at the opening ceremony

IOC orders investigation of Chinese Gymnast's age

Brett Singer — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:54:00 GMT

He Kexin won a gold medal in the uneven bars and also contributed to the Chinese beating out the U.S. in the team gymnastics event. She looks really really young, and there have been questions about her age for awhile now. The IOC has begun to formally investigate whether or not, "Chinese authorities covered up the true age of their gold-medal winning gymnastics star because she was too young to compete," because of, "'discrepancies' that have come to light about the age of He Kexin." You kind of have to wonder what took them so long, but apparently someone, described as an "American hacker" by the U.K.-based Times Online, has uncovered documents that offer proof that Kexin is too young.

Watching the games, the judging also seemed biased, although that's more subjective. Still, I'm pretty sure I saw a member of the Chinese team fall in one event and not get any deduction, whereas an American who had a similar fall lost points. Béla Károlyi told Bob Costas that, "The lack of competence of certain judges is obvious," and it was tough to disagree.

Károlyi's wife Marta has attacked the age issue the way her gymnasts attacked their events, and while I think she went a little overboard, I agree that the whole thing is very suspicious.

Would the Chinese government lie about an athlete's age in order to gain a competitive advantage? And if so, what happens? The medals get stripped, but should they be banned from the Olympics for a time after that?

So – how old do you think she looks? 14? 16? Do I hear 12?

Source/image: TimesOnline

They Say: no junk food ads at the Olympics

Michael Phelps father in Baltimore, not Beijing

Dara Torres inspired two current Olympians

Whole lotta fakin' goin' on at the opening ceremony

Some Parenting Lessons From Michael Phelps's Mom

Gold (OK, Silver) Medal Girlcrush: Dana Torres

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Jon Stewart Tackles Olympic Controversies

Olympics Opening Uses One Girl's Voice, Another Girl's Face

Do All These Chinese Gymnasts Look 16 to You?

Aussie Rower keeps his kids close

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Team more mature than coach

Did Michael Phelps actually win 8 medals?

Brett Singer — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Usually when an athlete is accused of cheating, it's a doping issue: this year alone, at least four athletes have been caught using banned substances. But in Michael Phelps' case, there may be something else going on.

Here's the deal, as reported in the New York Times:

The race in which Phelps won his seventh medal, tying Mark Spitz and setting him up to break the record for most gold at one Olympic Games, was decided by 1/100th of a second. Despite some "controversy" (that's what the article says; I don't recall hearing anything about this when it happened) over the results of the 100-meter butterfly, the authority that oversees swimming (FINA) decided not to release video images to help "prove" that Phelps was the winner.

What does this have to do with Michael Phelps? Well, Omega is the official timekeeper of the Olympics. They are also one of Phelps' sponsors. As the New York Times puts it, "The most visible athlete at these Games is getting a paycheck from the same company whose equipment decides the outcome of Phelps’s events."

To me, this is much ado about nothing, and an attempt to create a problem where there isn't one.

In the first place, FINA doesn’t typically release images of the races, which the Times article mentions but not until the middle of the article. Second, Omega didn't make the decision, FINA did. And third… I don't know, is anyone all that upset about this? Is that because we desperately wanted Phelps to break Spitz's record? Maybe. Personally, I didn't care that much; although some of the races were a lot of fun to watch (like when we beat the French in the relay after they had said they would "crush" the U.S. team – put that in your beret, Frenchie!), by the time Phelps won his eighth gold medal I found I had a certain amount of Phelps Phatigue. That's not to take anything away from him; I just think the coverage got to be a little bit overblown.

If you want to talk about weird judging issues, what about the gymnastics, where the judges clearly favored the Chinese team? (Béla Károlyi, despite being a little bit scary, was right on with much of his analysis.) And if you want to say that there are potential conflicts of interest between certain parties at the Games, I'm sure there is plenty to talk about. I'm not sure, however, that this is an actual controversy.

On the other hand – isn't it fun to have two opinions on the same topic? – why not just release the images? The photo shown here certainly doesn't do much to dispel the notion that perhaps the end result of the race wasn't what we were told it was. Sports ethicists (there's a job I want) interviewed by the Times say that FINA should release whatever information is necessary to keep people from thinking that the results were tainted, especially in this case, since it is so high profile.

Image/source: NYTimes

Other Old Olympians

Michael Phelps father in Baltimore, not Beijing

Whole lotta fakin' goin' on at the opening ceremony

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Dara Torres inspired two current Olympians

Elderly Chinese Women Sentenced to "Re-Education"

Some Parenting Lessons From Michael Phelps's Mom

Gold (OK, Silver) Medal Girlcrush: Dana Torres

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Table Tennis Women, Flaunt Your Stuff!

Baby survives tornado

Aussie Rower keeps his kids close

Team more mature than coach

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Brett Singer — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT

While we wonder whether or not the Chinese gymnasts are the age the government says they are, there's some other stuff happening over in China.

First up, British protesters were arrested for unfurling a "Free Tibet" banner (video below):

Second, and perhaps more disturbing, is this video of a British journalist being detained for covering said protest (video below):

But hey, what about that Michael Phelps? He won another medal, right?

Source/image: Daily Telegraph

It all started when Mary needed a laxative

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Shawn Johnson more mature than her coach

Should Countries be Allowed to Ban Women from the Olympics?

Jon Stewart Tackles Olympic Controversies

Olympics Opening Uses One Girl's Voice, Another Girl's Face

Bored games

Is it ever OK to hit your kids?

Brett Singer — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:25:00 GMT

Hannah's terrific post about whether or not to step in when you see someone hitting their kids reminded me of a post I'd wanted to write for awhile now.

Over in the Babble forums, a thread titled Smacking my 2 year-old is up to 155 replies. As someone who was slapped once by my mother (I think it was more traumatic for her than it was for me) and was only spanked by someone else's mom (the less said about that, the better), hitting kids is something that isn't really on my mind. Now, I'd be lying if I said I didn't understand the urge, especially when it's your first child and the stress level is much higher (that was my experience, anyway). But I always resisted, not because I wasn't angry enough, but because I felt it was wrong.

Beyond my personal feelings about smackage, I had, perhaps naively, thought that corporal punishment had gone the way of the dodo. To be fair to the person who started the thread, it doesn't sound like s/he was beating the kid. It was more of a "snap out of it" type of slap – interrupting a massive crying jag. It also worked, and, as parents, we all know how tempting it is to try something again if it actually MAKES THEM STOP SCREAMING.

So what was the upshot of the discussion? Most of the users who replied felt that hitting children was wrong no matter what. Some took issue with the "holier-than-thou" attitude that they saw in certain comments, such as, "The only thing more insulting than being smacked in the face is being spat on. I'm shocked, quite frankly."

In the same vein, some wrote that since the person asking for advice was "not writing this so that I could be criticized, but for advice" that meant that no one should pass judgment. Unfortunately, this is even more naïve than me thinking that people don't hit their kids. As anyone who spends time "interacting" with any website knows very well, once you put yourself out there you open yourself up to criticism as well as whatever it is you've specifically asked for, especially when the topic is as nuclear as this one.

So – let's go nuclear, shall we?

Is it ever OK to hit your child? If not, is there hitting that is acceptable, or is it all bad?

image: middlezonemusings

Oy vey, Miley showed her tuchas again

5 things that would make parents' lives easier

5 ways to get revenge on your kids (NOT hitting them!)

What about his taste in women?

20 Disturbing Baby Products

S&M Barbie

Man locks daughters in cage while he works

Savage stands by his stupid words

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Woman goes to jail for adopting children to get money

Savage stands by his stupid words

Brett Singer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Michael Savage meant what he said and he said what he meant. He's really a moron, one hundred percent. (Apologies to Dr. Seuss.)

To paraphrase Tom Petty, Michael Savage won't back down on his "autism is a racket" rant. Here's the latest clip, from Media Matters.

What's so fascinating about people like Savage is the way they defend themselves. He says that he is just being a "skeptic" about issues such as autism, or the "global warming fiction" of Al Gore. "I don't know when it became illegal to be a skeptic," he says.

Michael – can I call you Michael? – no one is saying that what you did was against the law. They are taking issue with what you said, and the criticism ranges from "factually inaccurate" to "deeply offensive." You must have known that you would get a strong reaction when you said it, just as you are getting a strong reaction now. You say, "to thine own self be true" and that you "can't please everyone…but you can please yourself." Standing by what you said is, in a way, admirable. Of course, there's also no shame in admitting that you made a mistake. 99% of autistics are faking it? Really?

In the same clip he bashes pediatricians for prescribing drugs to children with ADD, and other fun stuff. He's a real piece of work, Savage is.

It's worth pointing out that this isn't a free speech issue. No one is saying that Savage can't say whatever he wants to. But he may not be able to say things that are both incorrect and hurtful and continue to make millions of dollars doing it. Radio is a business, and advertisers are dropping out of his show; many radio stations are pulling him off the air. Whether he wants to believe it or not, there are some things that, if you say them in a public forum, can cause you to lose your job. (At least I would think that you would know that, since it already happened to you.) Whether or not you cast yourself as a "hero" of some kind is irrelevant. It's a job. When you tell me you'll do it for free, then maybe we can talk about "free speech."

Media Matters – a group that Savage refers to as "the homosexual mafia…fascist, homo" – is encouraging listeners to call their local stations and ask that Savage be removed. If you want to find out where he broadcasts in your area, click here.

image: Youtube

Michael Savage says kids with autism need to get over themselves

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Woman goes to jail for adopting children to get money

20 Disturbing Baby Products

S&M Barbie

Top 10 Disturbing Action Figures Marketed to Boys

Creepy Lifelike Dolls Help Owners Grieve

Celebrity Baby Naming Hits New Low

Schools tying up autistic kids

Brett Singer — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:30:00 GMT

This is something that you would hope wouldn't happen anymore, like lobotomies. This isn't that bad, of course, but the fact that it happens as often as it does is pretty alarming.

According to an article in the New York Times, a large number of students with autism, ADHD and other diagnoses are being forcibly restrained when they misbehave. I say "misbehave" because, according to the Times, "defying a teacher’s instructions – 'noncompliance' – can invite a takedown or time alone in a locked room."

And before you say, "well, look, what's the big deal?" the article mentions three children who died because of these "disciplinary measures", including a 9-year-old autistic boy in Montreal who suffocated under a weighted blanket that was being used to restrain him. The harm done is psychological as well as physical: Tim Miller, a 12 year old boy with Asperger's from upstate New York, told his father that he didn't want to go to school anymore "because he thought the school was trying to kill him."

Isn't it illegal to tie kids up? Nope. "Federal law leaves it to states and school districts to decide when physical restraints and seclusion are appropriate, and standards vary widely. Oversight is virtually nonexistent in most states, despite the potential for harm and scant evidence of benefit."

OK, but these are just a few isolated incidents, aren't they? Wrong again. The article states that "one or two a week surface on some parent e-mail lists," which sounds like a lot to me. The Times also implies that for some kids, locking them up is the norm. An 8-year-old California boy was locked in a "seclusion room" 31 times – "at least" 31 times. His parents only found out when another parent "saw the boy trying in vain to escape."

Frankly, once a kid dies, you would think that would spark a major outcry, but that doesn't appear to be the case. This makes the incident where the teacher called a kid to the front of the classroom and invited the other children to berate him seem almost mild by comparison.

While there is a legitimate point about teachers not being properly trained to deal with special needs children, why is violence and dangerous restraint ever the answer? I went to a New York City public school, and I saw some pretty intense behavior, some of it violent. As far as I know, nobody was ever put in restraints or locked in a room. While I of course don't think its appropriate for one child's behavior to dominate a classroom, whatever the reason, there has to be a solution other than what's described here.

image/source: NYTimes

Woman goes to jail for adopting children to get money

Man locks daughters in cage while he works

Mom Arrested After Withholding Cancer Treatments From Autistic Son

Autistic Kids Booted From Yearbook

North Carolina Accused Of Illegally Seizing Autistic Boy

Baby Cages: The 5 Baby Products that Should be Illegal

Green Our Vaccines: Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy Get Political

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Michael Savage says kids with autism need to get over themselves

Brett Singer — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:30:00 GMT

Ah, talk radio. A world where measured political reflections are shared between like-minded folk who only want to make the world a better place.

Survey says: nope.

First, some background. Michael Savage is, according to various news reports, the third most listened to talk show host on radio (numbers one and two are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity). Like many of the people who have followed in Howard Stern's wake, he has no clue how to be funny or interesting on the air, so he resorts to spewing bizarre and hateful things at anyone who will listen. For example, he once told a caller to "get AIDS and die," and to "go eat a sausage and choke on it." That got him fired from his television show.

Last week, in a bizarre tirade, he said that autism was "A fraud, a racket. ... In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out." What hasn't been reported quite as widely is his statement about asthma, where he says that "everyone had asthma from the minority community" because "The children got extra welfare if they were disabled." No, really. He said it. Here's a clip:

I often wonder if these people actually mean what they say or if they're just trying to get attention but saying something outrageous. Autism is a "racket"? If you want to talk about an increase in diagnosed cases, the expansion of the autism spectrum, maybe there's a valid point to be made – MAYBE (really, really, really BIG maybe). But this: "What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.' "

Sounds like somebody has some daddy issues to work out. Personally, I'd prefer he do it in private.

UPDATE: he's standing by what he said. What a guy.

image, Youtube, video source: MediaMatters