My Night Before Christmas

My Night Before Christmas

'Twas the night before Christmas for this crafter of blogs,
And what needed a break were my mind's gears and cogs.

I'd spent the year banging at these keys with delight;
Sometimes laughs I'd elicit; sometimes ire I'd incite.

But I wanted to take some time off for a rest.
I wanted to start the New Year at my best.

Remote in my hand, 'fore my TV I plopped,
With my martini chilled and popcorn freshly popped.

I wanted a movie - I didn't want news.
A break from debate was what I could use.

When what to my wondering ears did I hear?
Not my home theater's speakers, but something quite weird.

It sounded like hooves tearing up my front grass.
In a fluster, I almost tipped over my glass.

Then suddenly helping himself to my couch
Was dear old St. Nick. What the heck's that about?

"Hey, Santy Claus," I said with a smirk,
"I don't mean to pry - why aren't you at work?"

"Hello, little boy," he said to this man.
"I'm here to bestow just one gift, if I can."

"I made you a present; it took but a wink:
The chance to make everyone think like you think."

"Every piece that you write, every column you post,
Will meet with agreement from East to West Coast."

I wasn't sure how my response should begin.
I said, "Are you kidding?" I sniffed at my gin.

"Your drink's not been spiked," Santa went on to say.
"And you haven't had too much...not yet, anyway."

I said, "I thought miracles were what's-His-name's game;
The one whose day of celebration's the same."

Santa said, "Sure. He's got miracle clout.
But every so often I like to stretch out."

"So I'm here to tell you dissent won't exist;
Not one single misspelled retort will be missed."

"Put pencil to paper, boy; soon you will see
That with all of your words the whole world will agree."

The offer was tempting as it laid there unfurled.
I think I'm right - why not the world?

But I just looked at Santa, and all I could ask:
"What good is opinion not taken to task?"

We must all offer comment, we must all criticize.
We must cross uncrossed T's and dot dotless I's.

We should stand and defend that in which we believe;
To do anything less would be simply naive.

"I thank you, but no," I said to Old Claus.
"And destroy that gift now, with great haste and no pause."

"Not one single man should have such verbal might;
And all should be ready for an opining fight."

"Are you sure that you're sure?" Santa asked with a grin.
"You know that this offer will not come again."

But I just said, "Hey, while it's tempting, for sure,
Life without debate would become quite a bore."

Then Santa flew off in his red hat and coat.
So I fired up the PC and ditched the remote.

"I take issue with something..." I started to write.
Merry Key-Banging to all, and to all a good night.

Happy Holi...no. Merry Chri...no. Merpy Holimas! Yes!

I woke up one Saturday morning and realized that I needed to go Christmas shopping. I could have surfed the Internet, but it wouldn't have been the same.

I wanted to risk a hernia by lifting the circular-stuffed newspaper. I wanted to jump in my car and choose a radio station that played Christmas music all day, interrupted only by commercials that promoted nothing more than an overrated cleverness at rewriting the words to "The Twelve Days of Christmas" so that the last word of the jingle rhymes with "cordless."

I wanted to battle traffic, with lead-foots behind me and lead-brains in front. I wanted to spend three hours searching for a parking spot, and then settle for a space farther from the mall than my house is. I wanted to be greeted by the ringing of the Salvation Army's Bell of Holiday Guilt. I wanted to dodge department store perfume commandos. I wanted to apply swift, defensive leg maneuvers on coupon-bearing elves. I wanted to fight my way through the food court's throngs of patrons (who really don't need to court anymore food to begin with). And I wanted to find everything I needed, provided everything I needed was in the wrong size, wrong color, and wrong price-range.

It was August 23rd.

Okay, I exaggerate; but, Christmas WAS in full swing in many stores on November 1st, leaving no time for the good Halloween candy to be devoured, and the bobo candy to just sit there in the bowl, forever unwanted. Given the cyclically-changing song sung by the retail industry at the end of every third quarter (break-even in good times, desperation in lean), it comes as no surprise that each year, the day many reserve to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ has been transformed into the months (yes, plural) that will pull the butts of box stores and boutiques alike out of another year's red ink. No sooner is Frankenstein folded or deflated or peeled off the glass, Santa Claus is there in his place, and every retail outlet is awash in a sea of red and green and silver and gold, piping in holiday standards by the likes of Bing Crosby, The Carpenters, Harry Connick Jr., and John Tesh. Oh, the horror of Tesh.

But all of this, and so much more (MUST Santa arrive at the mall by parachute?), is at the root of what puzzles me about one particular "front" in the so-called "War on Christmas." And I'm not picking one side over another here; both sides puzzle me.

The particular front I'd care to address concerns the utterance of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" when a store employee offers a greeting or a valediction to a customer. In the corner to my left are those who think that when a store clerk says "Merry Christmas," that clerk is using the occasion to force Christianity down the customer's throat. In the corner to my right are those who think that when a store clerk says "Happy Holidays," that clerk is using political correctness to undermine Christianity.

The puzzling part is that both corners are so busy being offended, neither can see that they are both to blame for the very problem that has introduced military euphemisms into the season of peace, love, and snowflakes. The problem is that a long time ago, someone put their secular chocolate into someone else's spiritual peanut butter, and Christmas became a religious day enrobed in materialism.

You folks in the right corner helped create this dilemma when you shared your day with Macy's, Gimbels, et al., in a move that could be considered a precursor to stadium-naming rights. No, Christmas Day is not called "Sears Christmas Day," but the materialistic mentality of retail is associated with Christmas at a Pavlovian level. In fact, Christmas has become the movie star of holidays, and you must take some of what you think is negative along with all of the good press the day gets. If that means sometimes hearing "Happy Holidays," that's on you.

You folks in the left corner aren't without blame, either. Even though you've lived there for decades and you've earned a certain latitude, you can't rent a house and then complain that the owner doesn't like what you've done with it. Sure, you can argue that thanks to spectacular advertising campaigns and deep discounts, Christmas Day gets more exposure than every other Christian holiday combined (including Easter), but you have to consider what made you pick Christmas in the first place, and at least have respect for the day's origins. If that means sometimes hearing "Merry Christmas," that's on you.

What we (and by we I mean all us, whether our church has an altar or a cash register) are left to contend with is somehow separating the chocolate from the peanut butter on this Reese's Cup (Jesus Cup?). Unfortunately for both sides, that isn't going to happen overnight, if at all. As I see it, there are three options.

The first option is for the folks in the right corner to move the holy day of Christmas to another date and return it to its humble, spiritual beginnings. Part of me thinks that this would serve you right for subletting such an important day, sometimes to patently cheesy ends (Exhibit A: the Fisher Price Nativity Set). However, you had the date first, so you get first dibs. I'll go out on a limb and guess you'd like to keep your date.

The second option is for the folks in the left corner to take Secular Christmas and not only move the date, but rename it as well. I recommend calling it MichaelNaz Day and shifting it to August, where there are no holidays to be found. This, too, is unlikely to happen, as too many good Secular Christmas songs reference the cold, and the last thing I want to think about in 100-degree August heat are chestnuts roasting on an open fire. Plus, the first boy to buy one of The Girls a string bikini for Chri...MichaelNaz Day would create a conflict so great, it would simply crush any and all holiday cheer. I can't have that.

Since you are stuck with each other, you are left with the third option: Get over it. Both of you.
Hey Left, stop being paranoid. Christians are not secretly trying to recruit you into Christianity through mystical verbal hypnosis. Saying "Merry Christmas" is, at the very least, a long tradition that is done with best of intentions. Besides, a statement of "Merry Christmas" by the woman who just sold you three-for-one smelly soaps is about as far from Jesus as you can get. And you spent enough money to get the free tote bag, so be merry.

Hey Right, stop being paranoid. Stores are about making money, not spreading the Good Word. If a store owner thinks the best way to make money is to be as inclusive as possible, and if a store owner thinks that saying "Happy Holidays" is more inclusive, then it's a business decision, not a religious one. Besides, with the shopping season covering three major holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day), "Happy Holidays" is pleasant, accurate, and a little more digestible on November 1st, some 54 days before Christmas (imagine saying "Happy Halloween" on Labor Day). And you got a free tote bag too, so be happy.

Merpy Holimas, everybody!

A Direct Challenge To Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, PART II: THE SECULAR ARGUMENT (Thank God)

Previously, on MichaelNazSays...

In the wake of the November 4th passing of California's Proposition 8, I issued a few challenges (see PART I) to those who use the Bible as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Despite some readers' interpretations of my piece, the challenges were not intended to disprove, or disapprove of, the Bible or God or faith; they were meant to get those people who use the Word of God as the basis for this position to consider how they use - or don't use - that same Word of God in other aspects of their lives.

The responses I received ranged from bigoted missives (from both sides of the issue) to intellectual debate (also from both sides of the issue) to the typed equivalent of yelling the same thing over and over again. But even at its most heated, the rage only covered half of the debate.

(CUE THEME MUSIC)

My children have the benefit of satellite TV, something I didn't have at their age (like, among other things, MP3s and squeeze ketchup). Because of satellite TV, The Girls enjoy 24-hour educational programming. Me? I had to rely on daily doses of Sesame Street and The Electric Company; a weekly lesson in love, crime-solving, and asset management from Hart to Hart; and, on Saturdays, Schoolhouse Rock shorts.

Schoolhouse Rock shorts were like cartoon CLIFFS NOTES for every class in school. I'm Just a Bill showed me how ideas become laws, The Great American Melting Pot celebrated America's diverse cultural heritage, and Electricity, Electricity taught me about...well...electricity. But the mother of them all, the FIRST vignette, was a little ditty known as Three Is A Magic Number. The short's groovy tune extolled the unique virtues of the number three, citing its importance to tripods, tricycles, time (past, present, and future), and even spirituality (faith, hope, and charity). It also sang about the importance of the number to the traditional family unit:

A man and a woman had a little baby / Yes they did / They had three in the family / And that's a magic number.

But just as I'm Just a Bill failed to provide tips on how to handle those awkward airport bathroom situations, and The Great American Melting Pot never hinted how some people would rather the recipe be written in English only, and Electricity, Electricity didn't stop me from sticking a fork in the toaster, Three Is A Magic Number never pointed out that, as is the case with all magic, things are not always what they seem.

That lyric from Three Is A Magic Number neatly summarizes the foundation of the non-religious argument against same-sex marriage:

a) "A man and a woman..." represents love and marriage.

b) "...had a little baby" represents procreation.

c) "They had three in the family" represents what has come to be defined as a traditional family structure.

And it is within the context of these three things that you will find PART II's sole secular challenge. I welcome your dissent and your discourse, but please, I ask that you refrain from invoking God or His Word as it relates to this debate. That bus left last week. Let us proceed.

The other popular argument against same-sex marriage is that it defies nature and the natural progression of humans, their relationships, and the perpetuation of the human species. The argument states that the reason why nature gives men and women their unique plumbing is for the purpose of procreation (to keep humanity going), that love and marriage are natural steps toward that end-goal, and that homosexuals can never reach that end-goal. With thanks to someone with the screen name of "syscore" for taking me back, I'll leverage my childhood memory again and call this the "Rule of the O.P.S." (Old Playground Song), which says, "First comes love, second comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage." Despite the obviousness of the rhyme - we fall in love, we marry, we procreate - humanity is nowhere near that simple, and it is foolish to think that this is the rule of nature as it applies to humans.

With that, I CHALLENGE YOU to refute my following argument:

Love, marriage, sex (as the mechanism for procreation), and procreation itself are all mutually exclusive; each can exist on its own without the other three, or in some combination thereof. Committed couples fall in love, have sex, and have children, but skip marriage. Single women get pregnant through artificial insemination, and bypass love, sex, and marriage. Whole cultures arrange marriages and force couples into relationships where love doesn't exist, but sex and children do. Folks fall in love, marry, and have sex, but use birth control to prevent conception. And then there are the people who have never married, who aren't in love, and who do not want children, but have healthy, active sex lives.

If you are so inclined, refute my argument and declare these people as being unnatural. But if you do, remember this: so prevalent are these scenarios that chances are good someone you know falls into one of them. Maybe it's your boss. Maybe it's one of the guys you tailgate with. Maybe it's your doctor. Maybe it's your child's teacher. Maybe it's your brother. Are they unnatural?

Maybe it's you. Are YOU unnatural?

Oh, and then there are the divorcees. I don't want to dwell on this, other than to ask you if you have ever seen any nature program on the Discovery Channel that talks about a chimpanzee demanding a prenup, or a lioness getting half-plus-alimony.

As for those who think that the traditional family structure of man/woman/child is also the law of nature and the only legitimate family environment, then I'm looking for a volunteer who is willing to lecture the president-elect on how woeful his life was having not had this type of childhood, and how this dearth of structure will lead to his social demise. Whether a single-parent, same-sex-parent, or adoptive-parent home, love is love, and I think most people would rather be in a loving and nurturing environment with a unique parental situation than have opposite-sex parents who exist in a cold, loveless marriage that they are keeping together - on paper, not in practice - "for the kids." The bottom line? You can't measure love with census data.

All of these possibilities are what separate humans from the rest of nature, and what makes the "defies nature" argument so feeble. Our intellect, our logic, and our decision-making abilities are only three examples of what separate us, greatly, from the rest of nature's pack. The "defies nature" argument simply cannot be applied to humans. We are too advanced and too different a species to be compared to the creatures of the wild.

Look, I followed the blueprint of the Old Playground Song - I fell in love with Baby, I married her, and we had The Girls. And if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. And maybe your path was the same, and others' paths were, too. But while you and I might have what many others have, that doesn't mean that Three (or Four, or more) is magic for everyone, nor does it mean that anyone is any more or less natural than the next person.

A Direct Challenge To Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, PART I: THE HOLY TRINITY

When it comes to the practice of people pretending to be what they are not, and then being rewarded for it, it's no wonder that Halloween and Election Day are so close together on the calendar. Think about it: A stranger (trick-or-treater / politician) visits you (to your front door / through your TV), wearing a mask (Spider-Man / fake smile), asking you to reward him (candy / vote), and as soon as he has what he wants, the mask comes off (usually that night / usually when it comes time to actually govern). But just as some of the scariest masks on All Hallow's Eve are worn not by the trick-or-treaters but by those who dole out the sweets, some of the scariest masks on Election Day are worn not by the politicians, but by the voters.

I've spent nearly a week trying to articulate my opinion on the passing of California's Proposition 8, which, technically, defines marriage as being valid only between one man and one woman. But really, for all practical intentions, it is a ban on same-sex marriage.

For the record, I believe Proposition 8, and any other new or existing legal measure that prohibits gays from marrying, to be nothing more than bigotry masked as the will of the people; hate scribed on parchment.

However, I've had trouble banging the keys on this issue. I've read tens of thousands of words about this, both online and in print; words ranging from pure polling statistics to Constitutional debates to arguments of rights vs. privileges to venomous and hateful blogs. So much has been written about this issue, I wasn't sure that I could add anything new. Plus, I've railed against this type of hatred before, and while the issue certainly warrants ongoing discussion, I usually try to look for different topics to comment on. Besides, a prescient argument was excellently crafted by Mark Boggs in The Salt Lake Tribune on October 18.

Then I noticed a pattern. Throughout many of the comments I have read, there are common defenses made by those who approve of the ban: homosexuality is a violation of God's word; homosexuality is a threat to marriage/procreation/family; homosexuals are okay, it's homosexuality that is the problem; homosexuality is a choice.

But it wasn't what I read that finally got me going; it was what I DIDN'T read. Sure, those in support of gay marriage have made fine arguments for their cause, but beyond the usual pro-gay language and basic name-calling, not one supporter of gay marriage has really taken one detractor of gay marriage to task for his or her negative opinions. I thought maybe someone should.

I thought maybe I should.

I've always believed that people who discriminate against gay marriage - and homosexuals - are not true proponents of God's Word, nor protectors of marriage and family and children, nor sympathizers of the gay plight. I've always believed that people who discriminate against homosexuals are misguided at best and ill-willed at worst, and use "God's Word" or "protection of marriage/procreation/family" or "love the sinner, hate the sin" as threadbare rhetoric to mask darker feelings that might otherwise invite unwanted social persecution.

But I'm a fair guy. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In PART I: THE HOLY TRINITY, I will give those of you who declare that your opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is not hate-based, but is indeed based on God's Word, a chance to do more than just quote Scripture; I will give you the chance to affirm your conviction. Below is a holy trinity of challenges that, should you accept them and live by (or up to) what they ask, will make you aces in my book. If you cannot execute all of these, you are nothing more than a poser, and possibly a hater. With that, let's begin.

First, I CHALLENGE YOU to live by ALL the Words of God, not just those that suit your particular agenda. And by "all the Words of God," I don't just mean the Ten Commandments and one cherry-picked quote from Leviticus (18:22). I mean all of them, including the obvious, like "Do unto others...", and the easy, like "Let he who is without sin...," as well as the not-so-obvious, like killing adulterers, and the not-so-easy, like completely disassociating yourself from women who are menstruating. Remember, you consider Scripture to be the rulebook, so it is only fair you play by all of the rules in it.

Next, I CHALLENGE YOU to take umbrage with everyone who violates any Word of God. If you are going to boycott gay marriage because you believe homosexuals violate the Word of God, then consider boycotting professional football, whose players violate the Word of God by playing on the Sabbath. While you're at it, boycott all other people who work on the Sabbath, like policemen, firefighters, and ER doctors. Just remember to take a moment to pray that no crisis befalls you on Sundays, because if your house is burning down, 12:01 AM on Monday won't come soon enough.

Finally, I CHALLENGE YOU to contact your local, state, and federal politicians and demand a ban of every other religion that isn't your religion. There was a great line in the TV show HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET, where, at the end of a religious debate between two men of different faiths, Detective Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) says to Detective Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor), "If my God wins, you're screwed." Is this not the perfect summary to the great, unspoken hypocrisy of modern faith? Publicly, members of one religion respect the beliefs of other religions, even when the basic tenets are vastly different. But behind closed doors, each swears all others are patently wrong. Why bother dancing this dance? If only one religion will win come Judgment Day, why not make sure it's yours, and why not make sure today?

I think that should do it. Let me know how you make out.

NEXT WEEK: PART II

What Would Jesus Cling To?

If Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

You know what? Let's save that for later.

Of the 14 punctuation marks in the English language, I have a particular fondness for the ellipsis. Why the ellipsis above all others? Well, the period never starts anything new; the question mark is too nosey; the exclamation point is constantly yelling; the apostrophe is SO possessive; parentheses, brackets, and braces never want to let go; the comma, colon, and semicolon are a little too nepotistic; the dash and the hyphen are too busy comparing length; and quotation marks are nothing more than copycats. But the ellipsis, that set of three dots, is downright...dangerous.

That's right. Punctuation can be dangerous.

To show a pause in thought - as I did above - is one use for the ellipsis. But the more common use is to represent words that have been omitted from source material without changing the main point of that material. "Satch drove his two-seat convertible from his beach house to the golf course" becomes "Satch drove...to the golf course." The point of both statements remains the same - Satch goes golfing - but the latter is more efficient, especially when the intent of the quote is needed but the column space available is limited.

However, when used deceitfully, the ellipsis can change the intent of a statement entirely. "This movie is abysmal, especially when compared to other films more Oscar-worthy" becomes "This movie is...Oscar-worthy."

See what I mean about being dangerous? Take that, wimpy old period!

Now, if you raise the stakes by changing deceit to malice, plus throw in a corresponding audio snippet, you get danger on another level. Is the following familiar to you: "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...."

The quote, such as it is, is now infamous. In April 2008, during the primary phase of what I like to call the "Hundred Years Campaign," Senator Barack Obama made a comment about blue-collar, economically oppressed, small-town voters. Obama's Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as many media outlets and conservative Obama detractors, got a lot of mileage out of that quote, and some are still trying to use it against Obama today. The quote paints Obama as portraying those gun enthusiasts and Christians as being bitter.

However, ellipses don't kill people's characters - people do. The full quote about those voters reads as follows:

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Before he was misrepresented, Obama was trying to convey that when times are tough, when things are bad and getting worse, when solutions are beyond the scope of understanding, people seek comfort in the things they best relate to, the things that most define them, the things they know. Those things could be the empowerment of gun ownership, the inspiration of religion, the escapism of movies, the camaraderie of league night, or the raucousness of tailgating on Sundays, or any other thing that gives people any sense of certainty in uncertain times.

I can speak to this with some authority. Two weeks ago, I was laid off from my job. No kidding. My future is uncertain. I have Baby and The Girls to worry about, and my employment represents 75% of our household income and 100% of our health benefits. Given the current state of the economy, my life feels a little out of control right now. Still, there are things I cling to - like banging these keys - that represent certainty in my life, and I'll take any certainty I can get at this point.

It was Obama's full quote that also helped me put into perspective those people who wish to make English our country's national or official language. I no longer believe it to be simply an issue of language; I suspect that most people in the English-only camp are "clinging" to the language - despite the inability of some to speak it or write it very well - as their way of dealing with the illegal immigration issue, or an immigration policy they oppose, but simply cannot directly address as individuals.

At least, I thought I understood those folks. Now, I'm not so sure how much of the English-only platform is catharsis and how much is...something else.

You see, I never hear people complain that ATMs allow users to make transactions in myriad languages, even though the machines dispense American money to Americans in America. Nor do I hear people commend foreigners for learning the English they demand those foreigners to learn. But, as soon as you inject "Press 1 for Spanish" into someone's telephone conversation, people line up to join the Border Patrol.

And therein lies what might be the core issue here; not proficiency of language, but point of origin. This ultimately begs the question, Is the clinging to English embracing certainty or masking bigotry?

In a September 29, 2008 column on DelawareOnline.com, entitled STATE BEEDS NURSES WHO SPEAK SPANISH, reporter Hiran Ratnayake of The (Wilmington) News Journal writes about a growing issue in Delaware: a shortage of Spanish-speaking nurses at government-subsidized medical facilities. In short, over 22% of Hispanics do not seek medical care when necessary, thus jeopardizing their health or risking their lives - or the lives of their unborn children - simply because of a language barrier. When care is sought, the language barrier poses challenges to healthcare providers to ensure that proper care is administered.

What follows the story is a series of 244 reader posts, reacting to the article and/or the posts of other readers. I only got through about half of the posts, but more than 90% of those were anti-Hispanic, with most posters making the leap, either directly or by insinuation, that Latinos - not French, not Germans, not Italians, not Ukrainians - who don't speak English MUST be in this country illegally.

The comments range from the common ("LEARN ENGLISH or LEAVE," or some variation of that message); to the resentful ("Article should be entitled 'More evidence that Delaware has too many damn Mexicans'"); to the unintentionally funny - my personal favorite ("If you can't speak english, you can't get no services."); to the geographically misunderstood ("I guess Mexican nurses can't swim?"); to the appalling ("Let them learn ENGLISH, DIE or GO HOME.").

That last one kind of grabs you, doesn't it? "Let them learn English, die, or go home."

I don't dispute that this country has an immigration problem, and I suspect that the solution is not as easy as either extreme suggests ("send them all home" vs. "grant them all amnesty"). But I know that denying someone medical care because they don't speak English is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care because someone else thinks that "only speaks Spanish" equals "illegal alien" is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care, and instead issuing an ultimatum of "Assimilate or Perish," is inherently wrong.

Were our immigrant parents and grandparents treated as such? Sure, you might argue that they learned English, and I will agree with you, but only with the caveat that they learned English eventually. Were our immigrant parents and grandparents told to learn English, die, or go home? I never heard THAT off-the-boat story from my family.

Cling to language all you want, but please, don't cling to hatred. Forfeiture of our basic humanity will not solve the immigration issue.

So, if Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

I told you that ellipsis could be dangerous.

God, Guns, and Gays: An Unlikely Ménage à Trois

Pop quiz! According to Amazon.com, the inside flap of WHOSE book includes the following text:

"In ten practical, down-to-earth chapters, [the author] gets back to basics, mining the insights of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do."

If you answered "Chuck Norris" then go to the head of the class. Norris' book is called Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America. Seriously. As for the rest of you, meet me after school to clap erasers.

While I don't place any more value in Chuck Norris' solutions for this country than I do in Nancy Pelosi's martial arts techniques...embrace the visual...I am concerned that people will listen to him simply because he is Chuck Norris, especially since I read an answer he recently gave during an interview with Reed Tucker of PAGE SIX MAGAZINE (September 7, 2008).

Tucker asked, "Do you think people are born gay?" Norris answered, "Yes, I believe many of them are. I don't think all of them are. I believe that they have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gay community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gay. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

This notion of homosexuals supposedly "making a big issue" of their lifestyle has always perplexed me. When people make accusations like Norris', statements that usually include the word flaunt, I often wonder how, exactly, they define "flaunting homosexuality." A public display of affection? A bumper sticker? A public gathering in support of the cause? Regardless, the message seems clear: live and let live, just don't flaunt it.

Then I came across a September 6, 2008 story by Bill Vidonic for the online edition of the BEAVER COUNTY TIMES and the ALLEGHENY TIMES (www.timesonline.com). The piece reports how John Noble, a Beaver County (PA) man, was arrested - some claim falsely - near an outdoor rally for presidential nominee Barack Obama. The arrest occurred because Noble showed up with a gun strapped to his hip. He did not violate Pennsylvania's open carry law, he claims he has worn his gun in public before and always without incident, and he declared that, according to the piece, "...Obama's constitutional rights didn't take precedence over his."

Listen, I'm not a gun guy, but I respect the Second Amendment. In fact, I feel kind of sorry for Mr. Noble. I mean, all he wanted to do was...oh, what's the word? He just wanted to demonstrate something that is important to him...you know, make a big issue out of it...and yet, he was punished for it. What IS that word?

Anyway, I came across another story, this one involving police. According to reporter Julian Walker of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (www.pilotonline.com), in a September 25, 2008 story, Virginia state troopers who volunteer as chaplains for the force were told that at "sanctioned government events," they were no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ; any public prayers may be spiritual, but they must remain non-denominational. In private prayer matters, though, the troopers can still speak of Christ. As a result of the rule change, six of 17 affected troopers resigned their posts as chaplains only (they remain troopers with no change to their trooper status, as their religious work was always voluntary). According to Walker's story:

"One of the six chaplains who resigned that post, 13-year trooper Rex Carter, said his faith had compelled him to conduct religion-related duties. 'There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions...about what the Bible says, we couldn't agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,' said Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia."

Listen, I'm a Catholic, born-and-raised; I come complete with 12 years of parochial school, memorization of every prayer and hymn you've ever heard, and all the guilt you can eat, so I get it. I understand what these poor troopers are going through, being denied their chance to...rats! What is that word? It's like they're being told they're not special, that no one is special, that they are what they are. Oh, my awful memory.

I kid, of course, because I love. The word is FLAUNT.

Mr. Noble wants to flaunt his right to carry a firearm in public. He probably even has a bumper sticker with a pro-gun statement on it - something like Body Piercing by Smith & Wesson or If You Can Read This, You Are In Range. He might even attend gun shows or NRA rallies.

The troopers who forfeited their pastor roles want to flaunt their love of Christ. In fact, I bet at least one of them has one of those fish things stuck to his bumper, or one of them might wear a crucifix pendant every day, or one might even promote creationism. And hey, they all get to have mini-conventions every Sunday.

You know, the more I type, the more I realize that the gun people and the God people are really no different than the gay people. Just as gay people want to show their love of each other through public displays or bumper stickers or large gatherings, so too do gun people and God people want to show their love of guns and God the same way.

It begs the question, Why is one person's outward display called "flaunting" while another person's outward display is called "Second Amendment rights," and a third person's outward display is called "Ash Wednesday?"

The answer is hypocrisy. The gun guys and the God guys don't think the same standards apply to them as they apply to the gay guys. Don't believe me?

Imagine the reaction if someone said, "I believe that gun owners have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gun-owning community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gun owners. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

Better yet, read aloud...seriously, if you can, read right out loud...how it would sound if someone said, "I believe that Christians have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the Christian community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were Christian. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

So, if you say such a thing about the gun guys, you make them victims of attempted rights-stripping; and if you say such a thing about the God guys, you make them victims of attempted religion-assaulting; but if you say such a thing about the gay guys - as Norris actually did - you imply that no group should be treated special? You demand parity from a group that whole religions discriminate against?

With the goal of refuting their own intolerance towards their fellow man, people might say, "No one is special," or they might say, "Live and let live," or they might say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." What they are really saying is that despite societal evolution, intolerance hasn't changed...people have just gotten better at masking it.

Of Pregnant Teens and Ivy Leagues

"And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."

The above quote, attributed to working mother Beth Twiddle, was in a Marc Fisher column printed in the September 11, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST. The quote was taken when Ms. Twiddle was in attendance at a Virginia rally for Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, and his running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The context of the quote is that Sarah Palin is very relatable to "regular" people, particularly women; Palin is "real."

What do we make of this? If we assume Ms. Twiddle's assertion about parents to be statistically accurate, does that truly make Sarah Palin, the mother of an unwed pregnant child, more "real" than Harvard grad and Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama? If this is how we rate the realness of our candidates, could we not then counter with the claim that there are more parents with non-pregnant children than with pregnant children, thus giving Obama the edge on the Real-O-Meter? And then would we not shift the edge over to McCain, because he has more children than Obama?

That's silly, of course. Not that I don't like silly; it's just...maybe there is something else at work here.

This is not a question of politics, by the way; it's a question of character assessment and the importance on which we place certain things. When I decided to start banging these keys, one of my goals was, and still is, to be pragmatic above all else. This requires me to be as apolitical as possible, so that I might reach that group who thinks their opinion is right, as well as reach that OTHER group who thinks THEIR opinion is right, as well as reach the 17 folks in the middle. If I say blue, the Reds scream. If I say red, the Blues scream. But, if I say tartan plaid, everybody screams.

With that, I say again, maybe there is something else at work here.

Is any person's assertion of a candidate's "realness" simply a hollow replacement...let's call it a "McFeature"...for something more substantive? Is it easier to point out Palin's family or Obama's ethnicity or McCain's military record or Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Joe Biden's daily Amtrak round-trips - McFeatures all - as reasons for liking them than it is to argue the finer points of their positions on immigration or foreign policy or energy or the economy? Of course it is...just like it's easier to cry "baby killer" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against Roe vs. Wade; just like it's easier to scream "Jesus freak" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; just like it's easier to cruise the drive-thru than it is to actually cook a meal.

McFeatures are quick and McFeatures are easy, and we are a nation addicted to quick and easy. We like bumper stickers, news crawls, sound bites, and text messages. We read that way, we write that way, and we speak that way; why wouldn't we select our candidates that way?

Still...maybe there is something else at work here.

While I'm usually not quick to reference my own stuff, recently I wrote a couple of pieces about how people make themselves feel better about themselves. The first piece dealt with schadenfreude - people gaining pleasure from the misery of others. The second piece addressed people vicariously living through their children's youth athletics, as well as cheating at local sports. As I pondered this current piece, I noticed the trend.

Isn't this issue...this "realness" McFeature issue...yet another indicator that people will find - and use - the shortest path possible to feel some sense of self-worth, regardless of the consequences or collateral damage?

When I read a quote that says, "And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real," I don't ask questions to indict Sarah Palin, or her unwed pregnant teenager, or anyone in her family. I don't ask questions to indict the operatives representing both sides, at all levels, who are guilty of politicizing the matter ("Pregnant Teen?: Where Are Your Morals, You Bible-Thumping Conservatives?" vs. "Pregnant Teen!: She's Keeping the Baby, You Abortion-Loving Liberals!"). I don't ask questions to indict those who once pointed a pious, now hypocritical, finger toward Jamie Lynn Spears, at one time an unwed pregnant teenager herself (and quite the pariah as a result).

I ask questions to indict any person...regardless of social, political, religious, economic, or cultural stripe...guilty of lowering society's bar to such a level that clearing it is not the worry, but tripping over it is.

Is this what we have become? A nation content with the taste of sour grapes? When did we reach the point when we failed to aspire to some predetermined definition of success, so we became malcontented to such a degree that teen pregnancy borne of premarital sex became virtuous, while a better resume became shameful? When did this happen?

There's a scene at the end of the movie Grease (1978), where it's the last day of school and Principal McGee (Eve Arden) tries to make an inspirational announcement to the graduating class:

"Attention seniors. Before the merriment of commencement commences, I hope that your years with us here at Rydell High have prepared you for the challenges you face. Who knows? Among you there may be a future Eleanor Roosevelt or a Rosemary Clooney, and among you young men, there may be a Joe DiMaggio, a President Eisenhower, or even a Vice President Nixon."

Of course, the Nixon reference was played for laughs, as the film is set pre-Watergate. That matters not. It's the message that counts: you are young, the world awaits you, the possibilities are endless, aspire to greatness.

Isn't this what our parents wanted for us? Isn't this what we should want for our own children? Don't we fail our children the minute we make our own inadequacies the basis for critical future considerations? So now, in addition to teaching our children to mock the misfortunate and cheat the fair, must we also teach them that they can achieve anything they want to achieve in life...because the bar goes as low as their depleted self-esteem can take it?

We should be saying, "Look at Barack Obama; he's a Harvard graduate," or, "Look at John McCain; he's a war hero." Why don't we do that? What is our fear? Is it that our children will be more successful than we have been, thus making them less real to us? Do we dare repress our children so as not to feel we have been bested by them?

You know, I considered involving my pre-teen daughter in the upcoming debates. Maybe we should just watch Zoey 101 instead.

Does This Legislation Make Me Look Fat?

In the years since Baby and I migrated from the suburbs to the deep suburbs (read: country), so too has urban sprawl migrated, and when you build a plethora of McMansions and fill them with McFamilies, you need McStores to support the McGrowth...and by "need" I mean "want," and by "support the McGrowth" I mean "cash-in on the McBoom." Struggling now are the mom-and-pops that were the backbone of our once-small town, as they are slowly being strangled by hands with fingers that look eerily like strip malls. But no growth industry has grown around here quite like the food service industry.

In 1999, we had three diners, a couple of pizza/sandwich shops, a Mexican place, a Chinese place, a Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, and a Burger King. There was something for everyone.

In 2008, we now have two diners, a few pizza/sandwich shops, two Mexican places, an Italian place, two Chinese places......an Applebee's, a Friendly's, a Hardee's, a KFC, a Taco Bell, an Arby's, a Dairy Queen, a Rita's, a Ruby Tuesday's, a Bruster's, a Starbucks, three Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, a Burger King, a couple of BBQ joints, some bagel hut, and a pretzel place (?!). Now, there is everything for everyone.

I wish I were making that up. As I cruise around town most days, I see a lot of people at these eateries, and these people I see at these eateries have a lot of people to them. What I'm trying to say is that this ever-growing town has ever-growing townsfolk.

It is no great secret that obesity is on the rise in this country. Simply watch your late local news every night for a week, and surely on one of those nights, a Health Watch or a Medical Alert or a First-Aid Warning will highlight something about obesity - something the network down the street probably reported the previous week, and something the network up the street will probably report the following week. The net result of most of these reports is usually nothing new: junk food is bad, fruits and veggies are good, and now here's Suzie with the five-day forecast. But sometimes they let us know how other parts of the country are handling obesity.

New York City has mandated that calorie-counts be included on many restaurant menus, so that patrons are better informed; but just because you give someone knowledge doesn't mean they know what to do with it. Think about it. Do we send our kids to schools or to libraries? Both are full of educational material, but one teaches while the other merely informs. So, when New York tells New Yorkers that Muffin X is 800 calories and Muffin Y is 400 calories, but they cost the same, will New Yorkers go for the 400-calorie muffin because fewer calories are healthier, or go for the 800-calorie muffin because if there is anything to be learned from the Wal-Mart model, it's that more of something for the same price is always better?

Los Angeles passed a temporary moratorium on the construction of new fast food restaurants in South L.A., where obesity is a greater issue than elsewhere in the city. How pointless. If overweight South Angelinos have access to X fast food restaurants today, and tomorrow they have access to the same X restaurants, do the city's decision makers expect their constituents to suddenly forget where all the fried greasy goodness came from yesterday and simply wile away their hours today standing on empty parcels of land, waiting for new fast food joints to fall from the sky? This isn't even school vs. library. This is telling the kid who never returns library books that he's not allowed to borrow any new books, but if he still has the old ones, eh, what's the harm.

And in Alabama, the State Employees' Insurance Board has indicated that it will begin charging obese state employees a $25-per-month fee to offset the increased health costs associated with obesity. This fee will also be charged to people with blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol issues. If an employee's health improves (through various measures), the fee will no longer be assessed.

This one troubles me.

The thinking behind it is that these health problems are lifestyle-based, and if you change your lifestyle, you will improve your health, which will save your employer a few bucks, which will save you a few bucks. On the surface, it kind of makes sense: if you require more of something, then you ought to pay more for it, right?

Not so fast.

How will the boss know what to charge you for benefits? A visual assessment might work for obesity, but what about the other health issues? Do you remember that commercial with the studly older guy being eyed-up by some ladies at the pool, and instead of nailing the expected perfect-ten dive, he belly flops into the water? That was a pharmaceutical commercial, and the point of it was to illustrate that you could look great and still be plagued with health problems.
That means the boss has to make sure everyone is tested. Everyone. Are you up for that? Are you up for middle-management knowing the details of your health? They can't even change the toner in the printer; you want them to be privy to your bodily secrets?

Maybe you're ready for that, but what about the assumption that if you suffer from one of these ailments, it must be based on lifestyle, yet each of the ailments could be due to some other factor. Again with the stud at the pool in the commercial, the message is clear: you might exercise regularly and have a low Bady Mass Index or a muscular build, yet you might still be plagued with health problems.

That means someone, or a group of someones, gets to pass judgment on your health. Are you up for that? Are you up for some unknown committee or triumvirate...or worse, Human Resources...looking at your charts and hanging a price tag on you? I mean really...HR?! What if your vitals accidentally wind up in a PowerPoint presentation at the next quarterly?

So maybe you're ready for that, too. Maybe you just don't care. Maybe you believe that if someone requires more of something, then they ought to pay more for it. Faster cars, more money. Bigger houses, more money. Bigger health risks, more money, right?

Um, not so fast again.

Since when did you become a by-volume person? You are a person, period. When you go to the movies, you aren't charged by your weight or your size or your height, you are charged by your being. That's why the ticket stub says "Admit One," not "Admit (See Chart on Back)." In elections, you only get one vote. In Pollyanna, you only get one present. Why shouldn't healthcare be the same and treat you as one?

Even if Alabama has the perfect plan to avoid charging those with true genetic ailments (versus lifestyle-induced ailments), charging extra to those whose lifestyles create the potential for increased healthcare costs is a perilous path to follow, because its definition is so broad. Someday, someone in some office will be tasked with mitigating healthcare costs. The idea will hit him that the phrase LIFESTYLE can be applied to more than just diet. So, in addition to, "What's your BMI and LDL count?" you might be asked, "Do you rock climb?" "Do you ride a motorcycle?" "Do you frequently ice skate?" "Are you promiscuous?"

Feel invaded yet? Each example is a lifestyle (of sorts) and carries with it higher risks for health problems. Now, I want you to take those questions I just asked...and ask them of your spouse and of your children, because if $25 a month is helping subsidize healthcare costs, somebody in some cubicle is going to do the math as he imagines what $50, $100, or more could do.

I respect what the government is trying to accomplish, and I'm sure they are using the finest of intentions to pave that road to perdition, but Uncle Sam needs to keep his thumb out of the pudding. I mean, who knows where that thumb has been?

You Might Help Make It, So Try Not To Miss It

It doesn't matter what side you are on. Your party's convention is over. Now that the house lights are up...

...the thousands of delegates who trekked across the country have returned home to do whatever it is they do when not dolled-up in sequined shirts, giant hats, novelty glasses, buttons for days, and other egregious fashion crimes that would result in societal banishment during any of the other 207 weeks of the quadrennial cycle.

...the millions of viewers who tuned-in to watch the endless coverage and analysis can finally restore order to their lives by getting more sleep, acknowledging their loved ones, and setting their DVRs to record important things, like sports, reality TV, and the season premier of HEROES.

...the countless who worked so tirelessly to construct and deconstruct the stages can, if they wouldn't mind, lend me the giant Democratic pillars to use as a backdrop for my annual State of the Household address, and lend me the massive Republican TV screen to use for what surely would be the coolest round of golf...at Pebble Beach...on the Wii...ever.

...the balloons have been deflated, as have the expectations of some. The confetti has been swept away, as have the dreams of others. But while you might lie there, still a little dazed and trying to remember how on earth you wound up in bed with THIS candidate, there will be no sleeping-off the hangover. It's time for a little hair of the dog...or the donkey or the elephant.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. Your candidate's campaign has begun. With less than 60 days to go...

...there are Sunday talk shows to appear on, scheduled when supporters should be at church. Poor God. First football, now this.

...there are commercials to produce, aimed at that 20% of the voting public who have not yet made up their minds. After something like 700 days of fast-forwarding through these things, NOW the undecided want to pay attention? We return you to democracy, already in progress.

...there are phone calls to place. Check that. There are computers to program to place phone calls, offering "go vote" reminders to the forgetful, making donation pleas to the generous, talking smack about opponents to the base, and causing unwanted cooling effects on meatloaf everywhere.

...hands will be shaken, Purell will be abused, speeches will be made, bumpers will be stickered, blogs will be written, blog spelling will be critiqued, debates will be held, debates will be overanalyzed, Fox will be accused of pandering, MSNBC will be accused of pandering, mud will be slung, and foul will be cried!

Then the day will arrive.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

Election Day.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. You will bear witness to History. This might sound like a no-brainer, but...

...as passionate and engaged people, some of things we write, particularly in the political arena, can be pretty intense. We love our guy and we hate their guy, and in our zeal to make our case, we write anything we can to advance our cause or attrite theirs. It's a way of operating that can become so focused, it isn't a case of forest for trees, but rather trees for leaves. As discourse becomes discord, and as the time to debate becomes the time to demean, we tend to lose sight of what is about to happen. Yes, yes. History. So the professional blatherers say; so long as my guy is on the winning end, the History will be glorious, we tell ourselves. But the glory of what will happen in November isn't just the History itself, it's the inevitability of it.

...this History is different than what usually awaits us at the start of each day. History never stops; it occurs and is recorded - on film, in print, in our minds - every minute that ticks past, but it does so with the specter of COULD looming overhead. You COULD get that big promotion, but you might lose out to a coworker; you COULD get up the nerve to ask that person from accounting out to lunch, but you might get cold feet; you COULD win the lottery, but you might wind up with a worthless stub and a perennial dream of retiring to the coast of Maine. Because of all of this uncertainty, because anything is possible, because so much is probable, because very little is definite, we stop paying attention to things, and in the process, we miss History as it happens, and only know it as a reference point in the past.

...this time is special. The specter of COULD doesn't know this time. We WILL have our first African American president this time, or we WILL have our first female vice president this time. Love him and hate her, or love her and hate him, History doesn't really care. History only knows that one of these two people, already History-makers in their own right, will make History one more time. One of these two people will not only stand on the shoulders of those who have come before them - one of these two people will stand with shoulders upon which future generations will stand. History will make it so, and we know precisely when.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. This is too special to be missed. So I ask you...

...between now and November 3, do what you will for your candidate - volunteer, donate, stump, pray.

...between now and November 3, focus on those leaves, rally your allies, attack your foes.

...between now and November 3, plead your case and defend your case with the passion of a thousand white-hot suns.

...on November 4, watch History unfold, and consider yourself lucky for having seen it coming.

When Finishing First Is Different Than Winning

Parents are awful people.

Okay. Maybe not all of them. Certainly not Baby and me. But many, many are.

Now I suppose you want me to actually substantiate my claim.

This week, from AP reporter John Christoffersen, comes a story out of New Haven, CT, about Jericho Scott. Jericho Scott pitches for a baseball team. That is, he used to pitch for a baseball team. You see, Jericho Scott was banned from pitching, by his own league, because his pitches are too fast for the opposing hitters.

Did I mention that Jericho Scott is a nine-year-old little leaguer?

According to Peter Noble, attorney for the Youth Baseball League of New Haven, Jericho Scott pitches too fast (around 40 mph) for the level at which the rest of the league hits. From Christoffersen:

Noble acknowledged that Jericho had not beaned any batters in the co-ed league of 8- to 10-year-olds, but say parents expressed safety concerns.

League officials say they first told [Jericho's coach Wilfred] Vidro that the boy could not pitch after a game on Aug. 13. Jericho played second base the next game on Aug. 16. But when he took the mound Wednesday, the other team walked off and a forfeit was called.

Congratulations, parents of New Haven! You have plumbed a new and woeful depth. You have managed to ban one specific child from playing because he is superior to your entire lot of children, and you have done so by using your own children's safety as a shield for your inability to cope with the fact that someone else's kid is better than yours. Nice job by you. If the pitching ban on Jericho Scott stands, and if his team (with its 8-0 record) is disbanded and the other players are distributed to the remaining teams (which will happen, per league officials, as reported by Christoffersen), then know this:

Your children might end the season finishing first, but they will not be winners.

Parental claim substantiated? Excellent! Let's move on.

When I first heard this story on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption, I really wasn't surprised. In this bizarre era of youth athletics, where parents dictate that all games end in ties, and where parents insist that all players get trophies, and where parents physically attack referees (or opposing teams' players!), and where parents file lawsuits if their kids don't make the squad, why wouldn't parents do something like this, too?

I have been a personal witness to some of this embarrassing parental behavior, both as spectator and as coach. I used to think that the root of the problem was glory-by-proxy. With a child on the field, these parents, in their own minds, no longer needed to wallow in the history (revisionist or otherwise) of their own school-age athletic conquests. Instead, through use of procreation, coupled with negotiation, legislation, intimidation, litigation, or some combination (thereof), they could live a happy and vicarious existence and say, "Winning the big game is behind me now, but when my child achieves athletic greatness, so shall I achieve athletic greatness."

I have a news flash for you people. What you call negotiation, legislation, intimidation, or litigation, we call buffoonery. At those end-of-season gatherings - you know, the cookouts and pool parties and such, where we all share one last team hurrah before the calendar separates us for another year - we're not laughing with you; we're laughing at you. And when we see your child, we don't think, "Oh, there's Johnny with the great arm! Lucky kid!" We think, "Oy, there's Johnny with the crazy dad. Poor kid."

I thought I'd clue you in, because it's never too late for you to change.

Or perhaps it is too late. I read something else recently that leads me to believe that the "by-proxy" portion of "glory-by-proxy" is no longer necessary. (Sorry, child athletes. Your latest moment in the sun, no matter how dysfunctional it was, might have been your last.)

In a disturbing article in the Health section of The Washington Post (8/5/2008), writer Laura S. Jones tells a well-documented tale about the increased use in performance-enhancing drugs and other substances in amateur athletes. And by "amateur," I don't mean athletes in the amateur ranks on the path to, or even on the verge of, turning pro. I mean everyday neighborhood jocks: your friends, your neighbors, your relatives, even Larry from Accounting. One excerpt from Jones:

...experts say a growing number [of amateur athletes] are using painkillers, caffeine (in pill and standard liquid form), decongestants and asthma drugs to get an edge by increasing their energy and the flow of oxygen-carrying blood.

Those asthma drugs include inhalers, because really, injection and ingestion might not be fast enough; sometimes sucking it is the only way to go. But if these choices don't get the job done, here's another excerpt, quoting an athlete posting suggestions online:

"Just tell a doc you tried Tramadol [a prescription opiate] for back pain and it worked great. Then take it with caffeine 30 minutes before a race for a big boost."

Is this what people have become? Rather than accept the fact that they cannot compete at the desired level in Sport A, and either adjust their expectations or move on to Sport B, they instead pump their bodies with Sudafed, Red Bull, and a toot? For what? To finish 23rd instead of 35th? To finish 4th instead of 6th? To have bragging rights and maybe a trophy? How keen.

Once people decide to negotiate, legislate, intimidate, or litigate their own conscience, once they decide that it's okay to abuse substances for the purpose of enhancing their own performance, once they are willing to trample sportsmanship in the name of glory, they might as well save the money, spare the health risk, and simply ban anyone better than they are from competing against them.

The best they can do is finish first. They certainly can't be winners.

About That R-Word...

Last weekend saw the opening of the action comedy movie Tropic Thunder, starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., and Jack Black. I'm not much of a Ben Stiller guy; some of his stuff is okay, some not so much. Ultimately, I think his parents are funnier than he could ever hope to be. The premise of the film (which Stiller directed and co-wrote): a bunch of movie stars making a jungle combat picture suddenly find themselves part of real jungle combat. Hilarity ensues. The film was only on my radar because of the 3.2 million commercials I'd seen for it. Other than that, I hadn't paid much attention.

Once the protests began, I started paying attention.

In a story dated August 14, 2008, found on DelawareOnline.com, Ryan Cormier of the (Wilmington, DE) News Journal reported that about 70 people protested Tropic Thunder at a local movie theater, and that similar protests were planned (or taking place) around the country.
(NOTE: I have not seen Tropic Thunder. The protesters in Cormier's piece hadn't either, so that makes us even.)

At issue is a portion of the film where Stiller's character laments his lost Oscar opportunity when he played Simple Jack, a man with an intellectual disability. The Simple Jack character, as shown using the movie-within-the-movie device, has the appearance and mannerisms, to a stereotypical degree, of someone with an intellectual disability. Also, the word "retard" is used liberally, including in a line uttered by Downey, who tells Stiller, whom he believes overacted his way out of the Oscar win, "Never go full retard."

Cue outrage throughout the land, as evidenced in news reports, online petitions, pieces written in print and online, and an initiative spearheaded by the Special Olympics that includes, according to their website, banning the "r-word."

For the most part, there are two camps here: the protestors and the dissenters, the latter of which disagrees with the former. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm not your typical camper. The problem with many dissenters is that they haven't been very articulate in their dissention, nor have they been very thorough in their thinking. Posts that I have read have included those chastising protestors for attacking only this film and not others that take similar liberties; suggesting offended people simply "lighten up"; trying to teach protestors a lesson in satire; screaming over potential freedom of speech violations; and offering the classic non-apology apology. (You know the one: "If you were offended, I'm sorry." What people never say after that is, "If you weren't offended, I'm not sorry." Why doesn't the spoken word have an asterisk?)

To the dissenters, two quick lessons: 1) As soon as someone tells you they are offended, try to give them the benefit of the doubt and stop talking or typing while you consider their position. Don't simply discount their hurt feelings as a byproduct of their own oversensitivity. They might not be oversensitive at all. 2) Learn to spell. I mean really. Some of the things I've read...oy.

To the protestors...you are not off the hook. In fact, you have a bigger issue...two, really (plus an eerily similar spelling problem). Before I address your issues, though, let me first make it clear that I do not have a child with an intellectual disability. As such, I will not be so pretentious as to think I can possibly imagine what it is like to live your life, nor will I be dismissive of you if you have lived, or currently live, that life.

First, you should stop with the indictment of the entertainment industry for yet another social ill. Whether it's because of the Communists in Hollywood, or the lust in Elvis' hips, or the satanic messages in heavy metal records (when played backwards, of course), or the misogyny in rap videos, or the violence in video games, or the pornography on the internet, people have always pointed a finger at Hollywood and said, "It's their fault. Make them stop it." Now, it's the portrayal of the intellectually disabled and the use of the word "retard," when played for laughs, as perpetuating hateful stereotypes. "It's their fault. Make them stop it." No and no.

This line of thinking is indicative of a general line of thinking that most people follow from time to time. We don't like something in the world, and if there is an ill, then there must be a cause of that ill. But to blame humanity or society or the system is to be too broad in assigning blame. We can't point our finger everywhere at once; we need a target. (I'm sure doctors have a name for this, but my medical training ended when George Clooney left ER.)

The ill here is the wrongdoing of people, and if people do wrong, we think they must have been influenced by some specific outside force; but that outside force must be singular and easily identified. It's too difficult to look at a group of people laughing at a kid with Down Syndrome and say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because they weren't raised properly. It will take time and effort to educate them and correct their thinking." It's much easier to say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because that movie laughs at the disabled! If we stop the studios from making these movies, we'll stop the jerks from thinking/acting/behaving poorly!" That would be nice, but so would a pill that melts away the pounds without any exercise. You want change? You have to work at it.

As for my other point, you can't ban the word "retard" because it would set a dangerous precedent and, in the long run, it would do no good.

The dangerous precedent should be obvious. If you ban one word, why not ban another? Then ban a third, a fourth, and so on. And when do you finally stop? How far do you go before all of the "bad" words are erased from the dictionary, never to be spoken or written again? And please, don't get me started on who gets to say what words are banned and who gets to interpret their context.

Besides, would any of it do any good anyway?

Consider this: We teach our children that they should not use foul language of the traditional, four-letter variety. Then a mother and daughter each stubs her toe. The daughter screams, "Fudge!" while the mother screams...well, not "Fudge!" Each uses a different word, but isn't the sentiment, the visceral reaction, just the same?

If today we remove the word "retard" from the lexicon, the sentiment, sadly, will be the same, and tomorrow will bring another word; maybe doofus...maybe dork...maybe flapjack. Who knows? The point is that removing a word is nothing more than treating a symptom of a greater disease...intolerance.

If you focus your energy towards stopping the disease, as opposed to merely treating the symptom, then the symptoms will take care of themselves.

NO PAIN (for them), NO GAIN (for us)

I used to think that self-esteem issues were found only within specific groups. For example:

- Overweight Women, who are made to feel inadequate because Hollywood, Madison Avenue, MTV, and myriad others declare that one's beauty is best defined by how well you can see that person actually digest a breath mint

- Nerdy Guys, who are made to feel inadequate because they live in their parents' basements and can translate the Magna Carta from English to Vulcan without using an English-to-Vulcan dictionary

- Old Men, who are bombarded with advertising that tells them their women (should they have actual women in the first place) won't be happy until the little blue pill inspires the little purple man to create little white swimmers

But as I have given this more thought, I have concluded that our society, as a whole, has a serious self-esteem problem.

My detractors might disagree. They would do this, of course, because they have a serious self-esteem problem.

The Germans have a word. The Germans have many words, actually, but I'm thinking of one in particular: SCHADENFREUDE. According to dictionary.com, "schadenfreude" is a noun meaning "[p]leasure derived from the misfortunes of others." Simply put, we feel better when others feel worse. Sure, it sounds like Corporate America or a Yankees game, and it is...but it's also much more. It's a self-esteem problem.

I suppose you could trace the roots of schadenfreude all the way back to the Christians and the lions, but really, the Christians weren't so much the victims of misfortune as they were the Washington Generals of their time.

For something a little more modern and relatable, head to the 1950s and Candid Camera, a well-produced television show where unsuspecting rubes were lampooned after falling for contrived scenarios in front of hidden cameras, all for the amusement of viewers. Is it schadenfreude? It's not misfortune, we rationalize, if the mark laughs along at the end, right?

Fast forward 40 years to the gritty realism of COPS. How sublime! Throw a cameraman in a cop car, roll film, and take your pick of shirtless criminals, incoherent criminals, or shirtless incoherent criminals, one of whom might remind us of someone we went to high school with. Is it schadenfreude? Hey, misfortune means "bad luck," and a life of crime - or at least a life of really stupid decisions - isn't bad luck, we rationalize, it's poor choices, right?

The following year brings us directly into our families', friends', and neighbors' lives with America's Funniest Home Videos. The premise is simple: spend one hour per week watching home movies of viewers' embarrassing moments. Grandma loses her dentures doing the Macarena at a wedding? What a hoot! Fido snatches Uncle Dave's toupee off his head at the family reunion? Priceless! Junior's line-drive teaches Dad a sudden lesson in blunt force crotch trauma? Always hysterical! Is it schadenfreude? How much misfortune can there be, we rationalize, when the mark hopes to win a cash prize at the end of the night, right?

But some things in life that start harmlessly enough become habits that need to be fed. A smoke becomes a pack. A glass becomes a bottle. A Cheez Doodle becomes...well, a bag of Cheez Doodles. Our gladness that it was some other schlub who played patsy on Candid Camera becomes our joy that our life-choices haven't landed us on COPS, which becomes our glee that we didn't pirouette into our wedding cake and still lose the money on AFV. But now we're so accustomed to feeling better when others feel bad, not even affable AFV host Tom Bergeron can offer enough groin shots to keep our good feeling rolling.

So, what do we do? We take schadenfreude on a road trip!

We prevent a car from merging in front of us, so instead it must merge behind us. We gain 15 feet. At a conservative average of 60 MPH, that will get us to our destination 0.1706484 seconds sooner than the guy we just boxed-out. We are better because he is worse.

We volunteer to coach youth athletics not as a way of interacting with our own kids, but instead to win at all costs. During a 3-on-3 U12 girls recreational soccer tournament, we harass an official into red-carding a girl on the other team due to play that we think is too physical! The girl isn't red-carded, but we get into her head, and her team loses the tournament. We are better because she is worse.

We are jealous of the guy's sports car we park next to in the mall parking lot because we want one but cannot afford it (and thus, do not get the hot girl that is attracted to it). We key the car. We are better because he is worse.

And so on.

What seems like nothing more than a few innocent television shows actually represents a behavioral pattern that has grown into confidence-by-attrition, and has moved the spectacle of others' woe out of the little magic box in the living room and into our everyday lives.

It's almost as if, in our collective psyche, we think there is a person in this country who is ranked #1, and another person in this country who is ranked #300,000,000. We then rank ourselves somewhere in between, and we spend our lives jockeying for position to get closer to the top. But "closer to the top" is about as relative a term as you can get. If we are ranked #173,241,003 and we block out a fellow driver, which puts us at a whopping #173,241,002. Is it worth it?

The answers rest with you. I'm going to take some time to seriously ponder my answer to that same question...just as soon as I finish surfing TMZ.com for the latest in mug shot chic. I'm feeling a little down today.

Conservatives Go Pro-Choice

Imagine it's Friday. You have just finished a grueling week of shuffling papers from the IN basket to the OUT basket. You and your Sweetie rendezvous at your favorite haunt for dinner. The martinis are great, but when the main course arrives, something is not right. Oh sure, Sweetie is eager to dive into that delicious lobster tail on the plate, but your filet mignon is nowhere to be found. When you ask the waitress about the status of your entree, she replies, "I find it morally reprehensible to eat meat on Fridays. As such, not only will I not eat meat on Fridays, I will not be a party to anyone else eating meat on Fridays."

Now, imagine the filet mignon is healthcare. Maybe you should have done brunch instead.

In the July 31, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST, a Page One (above the fold) story, as reported by Rob Stein, is best summarized in its opening two sentences:

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting healthcare workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Simply put, Uncle Sam wants to close his wallet to any federally subsidized healthcare provider that does not let employees choose to abstain from job responsibilities with which he/she morally disagrees. Both sides, for the most part, see this as an abortion issue of the science-versus-ideology variety. There is no meal-based metaphor for that one.

The rest of Stein's piece presents arguments for and against the proposal. The Conservative side champions, among other things, the protection of workers who "...are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant." The Liberal side wants to safeguard against, among other things, "...[defining] abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg...."

I have issues with this proposal. Surprise.

First, the whole setup smacks of a Constitutional end-around. Conservatives cannot legally deny a woman her right to choose, so instead they try to make the fulfillment of that choice as difficult as possible by cutting healthcare funding. Hmm. This sounds familiar. In broader terms, one political party disagrees with a core ruling that it cannot change, so it attempts to cripple that ruling indirectly by striking at the periphery. Double hmm. It sounds doubly familiar. In more focused (albeit focused elsewhere) terms, Liberals cannot legally deny a person the right to own a gun, so instead they try to make owning that gun as useless as possible by banning bullets. I knew I heard it somewhere before. Attempting to ban bullets has never worked because...it's a Constitutional end-around. Why should this proposal be different?

Second, there's a phrase for how the administration wants to categorize the healthcare workers who do not wish to participate in performing abortions, etc. According to the Selective Service's website (SSS.gov), the phrase represents "...one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." Yes, the description is militarily based, but you can use the phrase to fit non-military situations such as this one. That phrase is "Conscientious Objector." Just as Selective Service allows someone to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in combat, the new proposal allows someone who opposes abortion to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in the performance of the medical procedure. This begs only one question: If military Conscientious Objectors are called "Draft Dodgers," what do you call medical Conscientious Objectors? "Health Haters?"

Look, even if the proposal is altruistic, even if the administration has no agenda other than the best interest of employees in the workforce, even if the only partisanship is that being generated by the media and their audience, then there is only one issue to be had with the proposal: Why should we let employees off the hook for responsibilities they knew they would have?

Job duties cannot be selected a la carte. As employees of any business, people are - and should be - expected to perform ALL of the duties of the jobs they are paid for, the jobs they were hired for, the jobs they applied for. I begrudge no one his or her beliefs. If a person is opposed to something, I support their right to that opposition; what I don't support is the abandonment of common sense in the guise of moral self-righteousness.

If you oppose meat on Fridays, and restaurants serve meat on Fridays, why choose to work in a restaurant?

If you oppose war, and the Armed Services conduct wars, why choose to enlist in the Armed Services?

If you oppose birth control, and pharmacies dispense birth control pills, why choose to work in a pharmacy?

If you answered "the money" or "the schedule" or "the opportunity" or "the education" or "the benefits" or "the experience" or "the travel" or any other reason to take any of those jobs, or any other jobs that might pose moral dilemmas, then you made your choice. Live with it. You chose something superficial over your beliefs, which speaks volumes about how important those beliefs must be to you in the first place. Don't ask Mommy, Daddy, or dear old Uncle Sam to bail you out of this one.

What's the Toll-Free Number for THAT?

I cut my corporate teeth in customer service - an inbound call center. I estimate that during that seven-year span, I took over 125,000 calls. I know that was quite a while ago, but I do not recall ever...EVER...confusing unhappy customers with homophobes.

Or vice versa.

In his weekly column in the July 17, 2008 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News, Michael Smerconish recounts a tale about a recent event in Fort Smith, Arkansas. In brief: Sacha Baron Cohen, he of Borat fame, staged an elaborate, Borat-like hoax for an upcoming Borat-esque film. The Borat-ly ruse involved enticing people to attend a cage-fighting event at the Fort Smith Convention Center. The advertising promised: HOT CHICKS, COLD BEER, HARDCORE FIGHTS. I've been to weddings that fit that bill.

About 1,600 people showed, paid a buck-a-beer, got free t-shirts and were treated to a couple of warm-up fights. That's about when the mood changed. While cameras (under the premise of shooting a documentary) rolled, a disguised Cohen and another actor began a cage match that morphed into something homoerotic, with the men undressing each other down to their underwear and kissing each other's chests. The crowd turned, a riot ensued, beer and chairs were hurled at the cage, security struggled to keep patrons out of the ring, Cohen and Company escaped...and it's all coming soon to a theater near you!

I may never say the word "Fandango" with the same innocence again.

The key question Smerconish raises in his piece is about the reaction of the crowd. Should they be considered homophobic for turning so violently against what they witnessed, or is there something else? It amazes me that the question is even asked.

Truthfully, I like Smerconish; he also hosts a morning radio talk show on conservative 1210-AM (WPHT) in Philadelphia. I don't always agree with him, and there are times I think he drones on for no other reason than he loves the sound of his own voice broadcasting out to the seventh largest market in the country. (Eat it, Seattle-Tacoma! Nobody cares who comes in fourteenth!) However, Smerconish is honest and fair, and while he might subscribe to the conservative talking-points newsletter, he is openly disdainful of those points he doesn't care for, like chickpeas on the salad bar of politics.

But this time Smerconish went all hummus on me. He believes that the crowd's violent reaction was not borne of homophobia, but rather of the simple dissatisfaction any customer feels when he has not received something as advertised. Seriously.

Remind me to find cover the next time Smerconish falls prey to a barcode snafu and is not given the two-for-one deal on hot dogs at the local Acme.

He writes, "...Americans, no matter what part of the country they're from, want the show they paid to see." He later continues, "The producers didn't deliver on a heavily advertised promise of bikinis and brawls, and Fort Smith raised hell. It had nothing to do with homophobia."

Smerconish has taken the issue of mob violence against gays and turned it into an unhappy customer situation. Nice. I don't dispute that all Americans expect to get what they paid for, and they should. But if riots broke out every time they didn't, fast food drive-thru workers would need to wear a cheap headset, bad polyester, and full riot gear. The magnitude of this crowd's reaction says there is more at work here than "not what we paid for."

Sure, Cohen's actions seem carefully calculated and they probably garnered the expected response. But I can't imagine that Cohen said, "Let's do this thing, and when people go crazy because they didn't get what they paid for, it will have the appearance that they went crazy because they are homophobic! It's the old 'perception is greater than reality' gag!"

Smerconish's biggest mistake is giving people too much credit. What he fails to see are what some are capable of when it comes to their hatred of homosexuality.

There are those out there who will cherry-pick verses from Scripture in an effort to use the Word of God to further their discriminatory agenda. Their entire system of faith seems to hinge on one 12-word line from Leviticus, and completely disregard the other 780,000 (or so) words of The Bible. Maybe these folks are just dissatisfied Borders customers.

A few lone kooks not enough for you? How about a well-organized bunch of kooks...and powerful ones at that? Many politicians, those men and women whom we all put into office (and really, what were we thinking), support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Can you imagine the notion of using this country's most important document as a discriminatory weapon? Maybe the elected elite are just dissatisfied customers of the National Constitution Center's gift shop.

And if that isn't enough to convince you, how about this for a number: 14,631,024. That's the number of people in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and yes, Arkansas, who, in the 2004 election, voted on ballot measures banning same-sex marriage from their respective states. (Source: CNN.com)

None of those 14,631,024 votes are visually sensational enough to make the new Cohen picture, and while the 2004 election lacked beer-tossing and chair-hurling, a homophobia-fueled riot by any other name is still organized hatred.

What were all of those customers dissatisfied with, I wonder?

The Speech Isn't Free, But the Ham Is

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

The line is a classic one, uttered by the late (not tardy, but dead) John Belushi, in his role as Bluto in the 1978 film Animal House.

Of course, everyone knows it was the Ukrainians who bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776, that "date which will live in infamy," called such by then-president Gerald Ford.

What? Did you say that my statements are not factually accurate? Facts-schmacts! I'm exercising my right to free speech!

In a story picked up by various news outlets, including a piece on thebulletin.us by Katrina Trinko of The (Philadelphia) Bulletin, three Philadelphia tour guides, with help from the libertarian law firm Institute for Justice (think ACLU without the sexy brand name), have filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia. Before I continue, a brief aside:

I'm no lawyer. Everything I know about the law (as well as medicine, home repair, most religions, processed cheese, and the Canadian government) I learned from Hollywood. Since I might have missed an episode or two of the complete Law and Order canon, I will caveat this entire piece by saying that nothing in it should be construed as legal advice.

The issue is a law the city passed in April 2008, effective October 2008, that will require tour guides to pass a test to become licensed to offer tours for compensation. For most readers, that last part is crucial. The law only applies to those who charge others for tours. If you live in Philadelphia and you are responsible for entertaining out-of-town family members, you do not need a license to be their tour guide. And this is not limited to tours involving quill and parchment, either; I think it applies to tours involving pole and dollar bill, as well.

The Institute for Justice (which calls itself "IJ" - see what I mean about no sexy brand?) believes the law to be a violation of free speech, which we all know to be protected by the First Amendment. (If you didn't know that, and you are older than, like, twelve, consider evening classes in something, please.) According to a release on their website (IJ.org), IJ's suit seeks to "...overturn a law enacted in April that will make it illegal for anyone like [the tour guides] to give a tour of much of the city’s downtown area without first passing a test and obtaining a government license—without, in essence, getting the government’s permission to speak."

I know. It reads like an episode of Law and Order: Test Pattern. Hang in there.

IJ's site goes on to say: "The government cannot be in the business of deciding who may speak and who may not...." It adds, "The Constitution protects your right to communicate for a living, whether you are a journalist, a musician or a tour guide."

It comes as no surprise that the suit - with its Constitutional subtext and its Cradle of Liberty locale - was filed days before July 4th, the anniversary of our nation's independence. Is the timing hammy? Of course it is. Is it as hammy as, say, Apollo Creed dressing as George Washington and throwing money at people before the fight? Oh, IJ can only dream.

But would IJ care if, instead of historic tours in Philadelphia, the complaint was about Tennessee tour guides being required to pass a test about the Backwoods Barbie Tour coming soon to Dollywood? I cannot say, but a Dollywood issue would lack the quality ham the Philly issue brings.

To me, this is not a free speech issue. The government already can, and does, restrict speech in at least one workplace: public schools. The state tells teachers what they can and cannot teach, at least to some degree. Should we change that? Should we simply hire the cheapest labor and let teachers say what they want? Consider the potential consequences: One day, your child comes home and asks you to help her study history. She pulls out her study guide and reads aloud, "The Ukrainians bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776." When this happens, will you call for heads to roll, or will you shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well! Free speech!"

(Okay. I can't take it anymore. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Yes, it was called the "date which will live in infamy," but not by President Ford; it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.)

In the real world, we require testing of plumbers and stockbrokers and doctors and teachers. Why not of tour guides? Why not of those who have chosen as a vocation the art of passing along the oral history of this great nation? Why not of those who have before them a classroom of new students every day; students who have traveled great distances; students who are not there because they have to be, but because they want to be; students who yearn to be there because they are eager to learn about this country's infancy? Is it so bad to want to ensure that the knowledge imparted upon these students is accurate?

Tour guides, you should not only welcome this law, you should embrace it! Tour guides, when you are at a party and you are asked what you do for a living, you should hold your head high with arrogance and say, "I'm a tour guide, and I'm SO good at what I do, I'm licensed by the government to do it!" Tour guides, you should dress as George Washington and throw money at people!

Oops. I got a little hungry for some ham there. Sorry.

A Mickey Mouse Education

In the Style section of the Saturday, June 21, 2008 edition of The Washington Post, the lead story, written by Laura Yao, is a fluff piece on 15-year-old Demi Lovato, star of Disney's latest made-for-kiddivision pabulum, Camp Rock. For those of you clueless as to what Camp Rock is, it's the place where you spend your summers during High School Musical, unless you need to go to Crooner Summer School, or your Dad makes you work all summer at his Hip Hop Hardware Store.

Lovato is another in a long line of Village of the Damned-like child stars churned out by the Disney Pop-Grinder, and when features like Yao's mention previous Disney successes such as Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, et al., they always neglect to mention those near-misses who weren't so lucky (or determined) to make it, and whose forfeited souls now heat the outdoor pool at the Grand Floridian.

The article itself is forgettable, but I'll let Yao slide because the assignment seems to have played like one of those painted carnival cut-outs, where the bodies of cartoon mermaids or monkeys in suits on roller skates are missing their heads, and people stick their faces in the holes where the heads should be; only here, the body is that of a generic pop tart, and the interchangeable head is Lovato's. Take a picture, kid. It'll last longer.

While Camp Rock is nothing more than cheese puffs for children's minds, aspiring hope-to-be's might glean a few things from the Post piece; an education on how they should NOT behave if they find themselves on the brink of stardom (and if not stardom, at least on the brink of being voted Most Popular). There are some hidden lessons there, too. From the the article:

Lovato's apparent maturity is born of experience in learning how to deal, as the kids say. In middle school, Lovato says, "I went through a really hard time at school with girls bullying me. I blamed it on myself at the time, but looking back I guess it was out of jealousy." One day, upset and frustrated, she called her mother and said, "I want home school." The next week, they were out buying home-schooling materials.

WRONG LESSON 1 - HOW TO DEAL (as the kids say): At the first sign of trouble, immediately phone the one-woman SEAL team known only by a palindromic codename - MOM - to extract your blossoming diva butt from the harrowing crisis of being assaulted by Middle Eastern ter...I mean, middle school bullies. THE HIDDEN LESSON: Withdrawing from middle school before completing the education can be seen as defeatist, and might embolden the bullies.

WRONG LESSON 2 - HOW TO HANDLE YOUR PEOPLE: First, ignore all manners. Manners don't put faces on lunch boxes. Second, ignore the fact that the person you are bossing around is the person who made you...not your career, but your actual physical self. Third, keep it simple. All you need is a noun, a verb, and a subject (namely, something you covet). "I want home school." "I want car." "I want boy." "I want girl." "I want boob job." THE HIDDEN LESSON: Just because you suspect that when mom looks at your baby pictures she only sees a little naked dollar sign on a bearskin rug, doesn't mean she actually sees that, thus giving you the right to treat her like some lowly groupie...although she probably does see the dollar sign.

Again from the article, which quotes Lovato on the subject of being a role model to girls (barely) younger than she is:

"The way I want to be a role model is not by not making mistakes."

That is not a typo. The irony here, of course, is that she makes an egregious grammatical mistake in stating that she doesn't not want to not be the one not being a role model by not not making mistakes...or not.

WRONG LESSON 3 - CONSIDER WHAT YOU SAY: It's no secret that you have the shelf life of a loaf of bread, and every career move you make is in the interest of grabbing as quick a buck as possible, before the next 15-year-old soon-to-fade kicks you to the curb and you find yourself taking Vicodin with shots of tequila...and you're 19. What you don't want is to be perceived as having the intelligence of a loaf of bread. THE HIDDEN LESSON: Your lips are like your legs: consider the consequences of opening either too recklessly.

Of course, I wish nothing but the best for...what was that girl's name again?