Protecting the Sanctity of Sesame Street?

So the bloggers of the Internet can sometimes be very quick to judge and in my opinion, very hypocritical. What do I mean? Well you have probably heard by now that 25-year-old singer Katy Perry was set to appear on an upcoming episode of the children's education program "Sesame Street". If you heard that you probably also heard that she wouldn't be making that appearance due to the number of complaints that the show received about early footage of Perry singing her popular song "Hot 'n Cold" alongside perennial "Sesame Street" star Elmo. In the piece, Perry prances and dances alongside the Muppet while seemingly doing nothing more than simply running around cartoon backgrounds. I say 'seemingly' because apparently I'm too stupid to understand the 'offensive' part of her performance.

Look up any article on the situation and you'll undoubtedly find a lot of the popular opinion on the matter being bandied about in the comments section. Now if there's one thing I dislike about the comments section on many internet pages it's that there's seldom any accountability. I could go onto a website and spout rhetoric about why "Star Wars" is and always will be superior to "Star Trek" and I could sign my name William Shatner and no one would know the difference. Of course I'm not William Shatner but such a posting would undoubtedly bring Trekkers out of the internet woodwork to defend their beloved show. So why am I bringing this up? Because apparently the popular opinion against the Katy Perry segment on "Sesame Street" gained a lot of traction when it was first posted on YouTube.

If you read a lot of what people are saying out there I would say that it's quite hypocritical. I say this because we as a society often seem to apply morals to situation that don't even require us to do such a thing. While I would contend that Katy Perry probably isn't the most wholesome or pure person to have ever appeared on television let alone on "Sesame Street" I think her appearance had more to do with the fact that she liked the show as a kid and wanted to make an appearance on it now that she had finally become a star. I don't find anything offensive in her dance with Elmo and I have faith in the powers that be in charge of "Sesame Street" that they'd have enough judgment to know what was acceptable on the show and what wouldn't be.

If we don't believe them to have that much common sense then what else are they 'allowing' our children to see? If everything else the producers and creators of the show is passed through without anyone else in the general public (and internet public) making a comment on it then why is this one particular piece getting so much bad press? Is it because we think Katy Perry isn't a good person or because we like to believe that we are so much more conservative? I call this type of attitude hypocritical because it has often been the more conservative sections of our society who have stepped out to call something offensive and when you dig a little deeper you find that they themselves are guilty of similar actions. So what does that mean? While they find Katy Perry's dance sequence "offensive" I'm sure they have done something similar (if not worse) in their own lives but I guess pointing it out in regards to someone else gives them a feeling of superiority. I find it to be a shame that a show that was a large part of my youth is treated so shoddily these days by conservative members of the public. Kids are innocent in their outlook. They would see the dance for what it is which is a dance; don't try to look beyond that simple fact to find offense.

The Muppets Deal with War

I learned a lot from "Sesame Street". I learned my alphabet and numbers by watching and was already a step ahead of a lot of other kids by the time I was in pre-school. I guess the fact that they combined music and silliness to help convey their lessons made it easier to retain what they were trying to teach us. To this day I can still remember some of the sketches that the Muppets and their human co-stars put together. But now, they are stepping up and helping kids learn about more than just the things they need to do well in school. They are helping kids deal with loss.

Given that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been raging for nearly a decade now, it's not necessary to say that some kids have unfortunately been left without a parent due to death in wartime. As such, the Pentagon, in cooperation with "Sesame Street" has worked to produce a special which will air on PBS stations nationwide tonight. Entitled "When Families Grieve" it's meant to help kids understand how to deal with the loss of a parent and to understand what it means to them and their families. Though I haven't seen any clips from the show as yet, I can imagine that it will teach the lesson in the way that only the Muppets and "Sesame Street" can.

It's sad to think that such lessons need to be taught to kids. Some might argue that it's necessary given that the war continues and more time will be needed before all our troops come home. Yet I think it's a good thing that such efforts are being made for kids to help them deal with these trials and tribulations. No matter how hard I try, I can't imagine the difficulty that some kids must be dealing with and how much hardship their surviving families must have to deal with after the loss of a loved one. To some it may seem a bit childish to have Muppets talking about such serious things but I've seen that for kids, sometimes that's the best way to get the message across. Not through an authority figure like a parent, but from someone childlike, like them.

Hopefully there will soon come a time when parents won't have to turn to the Muppets to discuss such topics because all our troops will be home to be with their families. One can only hope. In the meantime, I applaud the Muppets and the leaders at the Pentagon who agreed to this move in wanting to help take a serious message to kids and to help them realize that things will get better with time and love.

On the Job Training

I think it's fantastic when parents want to take their kids to work to teach them about what they do all day. It probably serves better than any other method of getting kids to understand what it means to have a good and interesting career doing something that we like. We already have 'take your daughter to work' day which is meant to inspire young girls to aspire to something more than traditional roles for women but rather to seek fulfillment in the workplace. Similarly, boys have been encouraged to also go visit the workplace of their parents so that they too will get an appreciation for what work actually entails. Of course there are always some parents who don't know where exactly to draw then line and it can have 'interesting' results.

Take for example the recent case of a child who was taken to the control tower at JFK International Airport in New York. The child was not only taken into the control tower but was actually allowed to communicate with several flights. Although an investigation is still underway, what authorities will confirm is that a controller in the tower brought his child to work and then allowed the child to speak to several departing flights, giving them instructions on what to do after take off. If you read the transcripts or hear the transmissions online you probably won't think much of them, but still, I guess it would be a different matter if you were someone actually sitting on those flights. However, once word of this leaked, the FAA immediately stepped in and suspended both the controller and the controller's supervisor for obvious reasons.

Now again, if you listen to those transmission, a naive person would tell you that its no big deal and that the child was being supervised by their parent and was in a room full of other controllers so if something had gone wrong then there would have been plenty of people who would be able to step in and remedy the situation. That's all well and good but doesn't it stand to reason that some would perceive this to be a very dangerous thing to do regardless of how innocent the actual orders seem? I know some parents are of the belief that unless a child actually experiences things for themselves, the concept remains intangible. They fell that unless a child is encouraged and given the opportunity to do something that they have dreamed about and wouldn't normally be able to do then they won't be as inspired. I think that's completely bogus.

But think of it another way; would you let a child drive your car down the highway regardless of whether they can reach the peddles or see over the steering wheel? When put in that context then some people beging to have second thoughts. I'm sure now there will be plenty of reactionary measures taken to ensure that a child can never do this type of activity again regardless of whether a parent authorizes it or not. Don't get me wrong; I think we certainly need to encourage kids but not at the expense and safety of other complete strangers.

How Soon the Worm Turns

I was walking by one of the televisions in the office yesterday afternoon which is always tuned to a news network when I saw what looked like a UFO streaking across the skies. The sound was turned down but I could read the captions on the bottom and realized that this wasn't a UFO but a balloon that was on the loose. I couldn't figure out why that was being covered by CNN until the caption came up explaining that there was a 6-year-old child trapped in the balloon. As we stood watching it, I voiced the suspicion that perhaps the child was at home since no one had really seen 6-year-old Falcon Henne climb into the balloon and then whoosh off into the sky. What people saw was the balloon flying away and his understandably worried parents praying for his safe return to the ground.

The media was riveted to what was going on and then given the chance to cover something other than how Obama-care was going to kill all Americans or how the Dow topping 10,000 was a sign of the Apocalypse, all the networks had what they considered to be a 'heart-warming' story of peril and adventure to cover. The balloon floated across the skies for two hours and no network dared cut away for a commercial break. Why? Because if something happened during the time they were on break then most viewers would have changed the channel and that would mean lost viewership. So no network changed from their coverage of what everyone was watching. Sure it may be cruel but I know that what the media (and the public at large) was hoping to see was something dramatic. I mean why else do most people watch NASCAR for? It isn't just the racing but the spectacular crashes.

I couldn't believe how excited some reporters began to sound when they heard reports from a sherrif stating that it was a distinct possibility that the boy may have even fallen out of the balloon on the ascent to nearly 7,000 feet. So when the balloon finally came down in the middle of nowhere nearly two hours later, the media was all over the ground waiting for the passenger compartment of the balloon to be opened and the boy to be lifted out into the waiting arms of a friendly fireman or policeman. So how surprising was it when it took them nearly five minutes to hack their way into the passenger compartment and then realize that it was empty? The search then began along the path of the balloon to see if the boy had truly fallen out but I remained skeptical. If the boy had fallen out wouldn't there have been an easier time to get into the passenger compartment since he had to have fallen out of somewhere?

So I wasn't too surprised when hours later the report came out that Falcon had been found at home hiding in the attic inside of a box. According to statements given, he had released the balloon and realized that he had made a boo-boo so he went and hid because daddy would be upset. Still, the public (me included) breathed a sigh of relief once the news broke that Falcon was safe. Suddenly there was a desire to speak with the adventurous little boy even though his adventure consisted of him not wanting to get a scolding by hiding in a box. When he appeared on Wolf Blitzer's show later that evening and he was asked why he didn't come out immediately when people were looking for him, Falcon responded that he "did it for the show".

Suddenly a media storm was unleashed once again as the media realized that the family had appeared on the show "Wife Swap" two times already. Now perhaps Falcon merely meant that he saw the cameras and thought they were filming yet another episode of "Wife Swap" but now everyone is treating this 6-year-old's comments like he's part of a conspiracy by his parents to launch a media circus. Out of the woodwork come 'family friends' who have long since suspected that the Henne family did everything only for the media attention. Now everyone has gone from praying for the child and his family to cursing them for 'wasting time' and 'fooling everyone'. Why the sudden change of heart? Is it because people are upset for being fooled or because it isn't as dramatic a story as seeing a child in potential life-threatening danger? You decide.

Television CAN Save Your Life

Well kids, the next time your parents or someone close to you tells you that television rots your brains, you might want to point to the case of 9-year-old Grayson Wynne of Utah whose TV watching skills ensured that he survived a night in the woods all by his lonesome. Grayson was out on a hiking trip with his family in a Utah forest when he got separated from them. However, rather than panicking, he began to recall the survival techniques he saw on his favorite Discovery Channel show, "Man vs. Wild" (hosted by Bear Grylls). It was because of this show that Grayson ended up being reunited with his family on Father's Day (much to their relief).

Grayson apparently got separated from his family when they paused their group of 15 people to tighten the saddle on a horse they took along with them. Grayson, not realizing the group had stopped, continued on and took a fork down a smaller trail that ended up taking him farther from his family. Once he realized he was no longer with his family, he began to recall techniques shown on "Man vs. Wild". He began by ripping pieces of his yellow rain coat and tying pieces to nearby trees not only to make a trail for himself but in case anyone was following him to try and find him. He kept close watch on the amount of food he was carrying and rationed it so that he could keep energized in case rescue took longer than expected. Finally searchers found him the next morning by a pair on horseback.

Now while many will want to point to this incident as being chalked up partially to luck on the part of young Grayson, I would like to point out that the television show was part of the reason he survived overnight. Rather than freaking out like many of us would do, he build a small shelter for the night and decided to hold tight until the next morning. He remembered from the show to follow streams as they most often lead to civilization. In his case, Grayson hoped that the stream would eventually lead him to the nearby lake at the park where someone possibly camping out there would be able to help him. Now perhaps some 9-year-olds would have been able to figure that out but most of the ones I've ever met would probably have started to whine about not having their Playstation with them.

I think this is a case that proves that perhaps not all television these days is so bad. I mean if an interesting (though sometimes disturbing show) like "Man vs. Wild" can save a child from dying of exposure in the woods think of all the other good things that could happen if only parents encouraged their kids to watch 'good' television versus 'bad' television. Of course the dividing line between that standard is always up for debate. I mean some people may find "Jon and Kate Plus 8" to be educational while I myself find it to be yet another piece of reality crap. I think something like "Man vs. Wild" proves that education (albeit extreme) can be interesting and informative.

Rolling To and Fro

I was walking from the parking lot to enter my office this morning when I could hear a light rumbling sound behind me. There was nary a cloud in the sky so it couldn't have been thunder and it certainly wasn't a car rolling up on me (there wasn't enough base in the sound) and it was again too light a rumble to be an airplane so when I turned I realized that it was a fellow co-worker dragging a rolling office bag behind them. I don't know what it is about rolling bags that have always struck me as a bit odd. I mean I think they're one of the best inventions around when you're rushing through a crowded airport. I mean gone are the days where you would pull a large suitcase with that dinky pull strap along with two wheels which were several sizes too small to easily carry a suitcase as overloaded as most of us made them.

But these days it seems like everyone has a rolling bag. I look around the office and as I was making my way to my desk I noticed at least four of the maybe dozen people I passed in the hallway had a rolling bag being dragged behind them. Maybe I happened to see an abnormal number on the way but seriously, look around and you'll see how prevalent it's becoming. I even see kids going to and from school these days with rolling school bags that have pictures of their favorite cartoon or movie characters. Back in my day (boy do I sound old) if I wanted to carry something like that I'd schlep it on my back and carry it. That's not to say it's probably a smarter thing that kids are dragging their bags behind them these days. Have you felt how heavy kids' school books are becoming these days? I guess with the need to cover any and all topics and be politically correct in descriptions it is necessary to use more words hence bigger books.

But what about us office denizens? I can understand the need if you are a business traveller. Laptops are getting lighter but the ones we are usually issued at the office are meant to be robust and multi-functional so rare is the time that we'll find a lighter-than-air laptop being issued to us at the office. But seriously, do we need to have a rolling bag to carry it all around? I regularly carry stuff to and from the office but I don't have so much that I'm ruining my back. Maybe that's a sign I'm not working hard enough or maybe it's because I'm not important enough to warrant having to carry work to and from the office but still, are we carrying around so much crap that we need to drag it behind us on wheels?

I'm honestly surprised at this point that women haven't started dragging their purses around in a similar fashion. After all, the current trend in purses I've seen lately is that purses are getting bigger and bigger. Have you seen the size of the purses these days? I mean my gym bag pales in size comparison. Is it any wonder then that so many women have trouble finding stuff in their bags. It's slowly becoming the size of a small carry-on suitcase. I suppose that if a designer like Prada or Gucci designs a rolling purse then perhaps they will suddenly become in vogue and sell like hotcakes but I'm not holding my breath. Yet all it will take is a designer name and perhaps a few choice celebrities dragging on around Rodeo Drive and you'll see how quickly the trend picks up.

I honestly think I'm onto a gold mine here. A rolling purse that could then also double as a shopping carrier. I mean if nothing else, women need something to carry all the shopping bags that they carry around with them when they are at the mall. A multifunctional device like a rolling purse is the key. Now if you suddenly find a company like Prada or Gucci or any of the other top designers out there touting this concept then please bring it to my attention. So far as I know I'm the only one who has suggested this trend so I'd like at least some credit. Perhaps I'm old fashioned or perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll continue to carry my bags on my shoulders (be they my office bag or my travel carry on's) but I'd rather carry than drag any day.

Darwinism in Action

I know there are many people out there who refuse to believe in the theory of evolution that Charles Darwin put out there. They believe in a higher power or something else that led to the fulfillment of the adage 'survival of the fittest'. But after reading the latest headline in the paper this morning I am inclined to point to this as evidence that perhaps Darwin was far more correct in his theory than people give him credit for. What do I mean? Well in the wake of all this swine flu (or H1N1 virus) discussion, there are many parents and friends who are throwing what are referred to as 'pox parties'.

I hadn't heard the term before as it's been nearly 20-some years since I came down with chicken pox but from what I read (in the article and elsewhere online), pox parties are where parents and friends gather together to expose healthy children to a disease so that they can build up immunity. The idea being that once a child is exposed and builds up some level of antibodies then there will be greater chance of fighting off the disease if it comes back in a far stronger and more virulent form later on. Evidence of this? Well during the flu epidemic of 1918 it turns out that people who caught the flu earlier in the year fared better than those who didn't when the flu came back in deadlier form during the fall and winter of that same year.

Research at the time has shown that it's possible that due to early exposure, people who were exposed to the flu early on were less likely to fall deathly ill from the deadlier strand. Now with the current outbreak of swine flu all over the place, people are considering that perhaps this is one possible way to counter the virus before it becomes even deadlier later on in the year. Perhaps it won't be as bad as people and some doctors believe though I'm not one to tempt fate. I do however think that the idea of these Pox Parties is probably one of the most inane and ridiculous that I have ever heard of. From what I've read about this strain of flu, the symptoms usually don't start showing up until about four or five days after infection at which time treatment can be sought. What could conceivably happen now is that carriers could be infected and wouldn't know about it until much later thus spreading the disease far wider and greater than would have happened in normal circumstances.

I mean think about it. If your kid is at school with someone who has been to one of these Pox Parties, isn't he or she going to end up sharing their 'goody bag' of illness with the rest of the school? Won't it spread the disease and end up infecting some people who may not be healthy enough to fight off the disease? Then why expose them in the first place? Why put them at risk like that? I mean if you're that keen on backyard medical advice then I recommend leeches as an addendum or dessert at Pox Parties so that they can suck the infected blood out of your system after exposure. That would make the most sense wouldn't it? Get the antibodies and save yourself the illness. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) my medical knowledge is limited to reading the labels on bottles of aspirin but I fear that there are many out there who are ready to listen to such foolish medical advice which even doctors are against simply because 'it makes sense'. I'm sure these same folks would make Charles Darwin very proud.

When Do You Draw the Line?

Readers may recall a few weeks ago I had written about a family in New Jersey that ran into a flap at their local supermarket when the supermarket's cake department refused to personalize the birthday cake for their child. The reason that was given was that the cake in question was for their child named Adolf Hitler. Now at the time, the issue I had was that I felt that the parents of this child were going to unnecessarily subject their child to problems if not now but in the future. I still stand by that belief. I feel that if the kid keeps the name, who's to say that ten years from now if he's looking to get a job, don't you think any HR manager would think twice before making a decision on whether or not to hire someone named after the actual Hitler?

In my previous post and in a post I had written a long while ago (I think it was my second or third blog posting ever!) I had written about how sometimes parents don't seem to consider what the child would go through given what they are named. I remember when Gwyneth Paltrow's baby was born and she decided to name her Apple. I think it's fine and it's unusual but don't you think that later on kids being the unintentionally-insensitive way they are, would have a field day with such a name? So I can only imagine what kids would do to poor little Adolf. But now the state has stepped in and decided to take action. Whether it was due to public outcry or some other motivation, the state decided to take the kid and his siblings, one-year-old Joyce Lynn Aryan Nation Campbell and 8-month-old Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell into protective custody citing an unsafe environment for the kids to grow up in.

Now the Campbells believe that there's nothing wrong with the names they have given their children and while they profess to being all inclusive and not in the least racist, there is still some lingering doubt. But is it enough to warrant taking a family's children away in order to protect them? By all rights I believe the general law in the United States is that you can name a child anything you want as long as it is not a curseword. There again I doubt that any parent would want to name a child after a curse word but still. There are some unusual names out there among children but is it right to crack down on a family because the parents think there's nothing wrong in naming a child after the infamous German leader?

For obvious reasons the name is completely forbidden for even consideration in Germany along with Osama Bin Laden but freedom of expression is one thing that is highly valued in this country and some people take it to the extreme. Perhaps Campbell is looking to prove a point or make a martyr of himself by showing that the government truly is playing the part of big-brother in this case. Is it right for the state to deem a child to be in danger due to the fact that his or her name is highly controversial. It's very subjective but not an issue which doesn't have a profound impact on the way people approach a dilemma. Do you recall the flap over the fact that President-elect Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein? Had his family known then what it knows now it's quite likely that they could have named him Barack Morris Obama but that is neither here nor there.

The real question is whether or not the state has the right to take a child away from a family because of a name? According to all reports other than the name, there were no outward signs that the children were in danger. Sure they had strange names but then again they were too young to really understand the consequences of being named what they are. You can make the arguments both ways and say that the state was right and wrong in taking the children away. I don't think it was up to the state to judge on the basis of just the name to decide that the environment is unsafe. If it is then what about the numerous cases of kids living in families with known skinheads or members of the Ku Klux Klan? Aren't they in just as much if not more danger? It's a question of setting a standard that could eventually open up a messy can of worms and I don't think it's something the state of New Jersey's Child Protective Services has fully thought through.

What's In a Name?

Take a look at that picture there and tell me what kind of a cruel person would refuse to print the child's name on a cake. How can anyone even think that this child is evil enough or unworthy enough to have his fondest desire... to have his name on a birthday cake for his 3rd birthday... denied on the grounds that the grocery store where the request was made deems the name 'inappropriate'? What could have led to such an obviously wrong decision on the part of a ShopRite grocery store in New Jersey? Perhaps because the child in questions full name is Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Now there are lots of parents out there who have very unusual choices of names for their kids and I grant you that most parents want their kids to have a unique enough name that they 'stand out'. Why name your child George or John when there are tons of those running around? Why not something unusual that will ensure everlasting noteriety as they grow up? Case in point, a friend of mine ran for student government president in college. He had a great platform and could have made a real difference. The problem was he was running against James Bond. When it came time to give his speech my friend gave a wonderful one that lasted several minutes. When his opponent came up to the mic he started off by saying, "My name is Bond. James Bond." The crowd went nuts and from then on it didn't matter what he said or promised, he won the election by a landslide.

In a case like that the parents of the child obviously had some sense of humor and figured a name like that probably wasn't a bad thing. Naming your child Homer Simpson isn't going to help him much as most people would assume (rightly or wrongly) that the kid is about as intelligent as the cartoon dad. But whatever someone decides to name their child, they need to realize that within your family anything goes but once you go into public, you will be under scrutiny as people use the name. Now in the case of Adolf Hitler Campbell, his parents (Heath and Deborah Campbell) stated that they wanted their children to have unusual names and that the public should learn 'to look to the future rather than the past'.

According to Heath Campbell, now that there is a new President and that we are on the verge of a new era for our country, it's time for people to be more open to alternate ideas. Unfortunately for their little son Adolf, he's going to be the one suffering the consequences of his parents radical ideas for bringing about change within our country. And it's not just their 3-year-old with an unusual and controversial name; they have a daughter named JoyceLynn Arayan Nation and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie. Now in case you're wondering, Campbell states that neither he nor his wife are racist and have thrown birthday parties for their kids for where kids of mixed races are invited. That's all fine and dandy but the names of his kids and the fact that he enjoys wearing combat boots from German World War II soldiers is a bit... odd isn't it?

I mean wanting to name your kid Luke Skywalker will have lots of people screaming nerd at the parents as well as the kid but having a kid named after a known monster who openly practiced genocide is something else completely. Sure there shouldn't be guilt by association in naming your child after someone famous but had they named their kid Adolf instead of Adolf Hitler then perhaps they wouldn't have had as much trouble getting a birthday cake. And while they profess to not being racist or supporting the ideals of Nazism, why is it then that they once tried to get swastikas (the bad kind... not the good kind) placed on their kid's birthday cake? Maybe to teach their kids about the significance of their name? Well that's a fine a lofty goal but its a bit twisted for me.

It's quite possible that the kid won't grow up to become as despicable a person as his namesake but one thing can be said for certain; he's not going to have a very easy time and unless the Campbells move to someplace that fully embraces the idea of having a child named after a monster in our fairly recent history then I pity the harassment this child is going to undergo as he gets older. If you want to make a statement or teach a point to society as a whole, then by all means use yourself as the point of contention. Don't use your kids as the experiment and expect that the world will see a cute face and think that everything's all fine and dandy.

Time to Educate Parents

When gift-giving season arrives many parents are in a quandry as to what to get their kids. They often will spout off a list of games and such that they want and their parents will be left scratching their heads wondering how and where to get these games. These days there are plenty of places to get them whether it's in a traditional cash-and-carry type of store or online; in most cases you can't help but find the game unless it's very very very popular. But some parents aren't sure whether the games their kids want are appropriate for their children and it's up to certain Watchdog groups and others to make the decision for them. Unfortunately even with all the efforts being undertaken to 'protect' children from violence there is still disappointment on the parts of many parents that they aren't fully aware of what they gaming industry has been developing and that they are to blame for rising levels of violence.

Now having played through one of this year's most notorious games, Grand Theft Auto IV (GTAIV) I know that it is definitely not something I would want a young kid to play. Sure the graphics are great and it's got a great storyline but it's definitely something that will appeal to someone older and that's the game's target audience. I mean think about it; if you look at a lot of the movies that come out these days they are targeted at very specific audiences. Now a film like "Bolt" will definitely not be on the top ten list of most men's magazines because that's not the target audience. Maybe People magazine will have it listed but that's because it's the type of movie that is aimed at kids and younger people. How do you know? Well the ratings are a very big clue and though games are also rated in similar manners, many parents are still quick to blame the gaming industry.

I think most parents are aware of the ratings of movies and there are plenty of safeguards in place to ensure that only kids of the appropriate age get to see certain movies. Games have had ratings on them for a long time as well but that hasn't been enough. Then stores implemented policies in order to keep kids from purchasing age-inappropriate games without their consent and still there was outcry that this was not enough. Kids were still managing to play these games. Now I have been one who has always felt that parents are ultimately the ones who should have control over what their kids do and don't play or see. If they feel that strongly that their kids shouldn't be exposed to such levels of violence then it's their responsibility to take action to ensure that they aren't. Most of the ones making the complaints against the industry are those who usually didn't do enough and are making up for it after the fact.

They think it's the games and movies that are turning their kids violent but I'll tell you, the environment in which a kid is raised is also very much a reason behind how a kid behaves as well. If you live in a house where you're taught respect or the difference between doing something good or bad then chances are most kids will realize that games that portray violence are bad and though they will still want to play these games they won't wish to emulate the things they see in the games. If however they live in an environment where excess drinking or violence is a natural occurence, what difference does it ultimately make if they play a violent video game or not. They are probably already pre-disposed to being that way due to their life experiences. So if you're stuck in a store looking at games and trying to figure out what best to get your kids, do yourself a favor and relax, look at the ratings but look at your kids as well. You'll know whether they are ready for the game they want or not.

Mum's the Word

Parents usually hope that their kids can go to school and come home better educated about the world around them. Generally that belief holds true and it is of particular importance when we are undergoing historic changes in our country. I can recall being in college when the first O.J. Simpson trial concluded and a 'not guilty' verdict was returned. I don't think I had seen the nation quite as polarized along racial lines as I did at that time. The whole arguement (whether you believed him to be guilty or not) was over whether or not a black man could receive bias-free judgement in a court of law in this country and the answer came back with a resounding yes.

I remember being on campus a short while after the verdict was read and the topic was on everyone's minds. You couldn't help but go somewhere and hear about it. I'm sure that even in schools (like high schools and such) were probably discussing it as well. It was hard not to; it was garnering such media coverage that you couldn't help but not avoid it. And I think the main benefit of that was that it provided many educators with the opportunity to examine the laws with students to understand why the verdict may have come out the way it did or to discuss the points of the law that were brought into focus at the time. And this is of major importance to young people today isn't it? I mean we all need to understand how the laws of our land govern our lives if we are to live here don't we?

Well the election last week was yet another example of how educators can use the election to discuss their topics in schools. That is of course if school officials don't forbid the subject of the election from being brought up at all. It seems that students at Puckett Attendance Center (a school in Puckett, Mississippi) have been told that they cannot discuss President-elect Barack Obama in the halls or in class unless they are in history class. No specific reasons have been cited but this all seems a bit... strange. Now while it's true that John McCain won the state with approximately 56% of the vote (to Obama's 43%) but is that reason enough to forbid students from talking about the results?

I am hesitant to lay the blame for this... action... as I don't live in the area and I haven't ever been to that part of Mississippi but I can't help but wonder what must have motivated the decision on the part of school officials there to stifle the talk of students. In a way this reminds me of the case against Harry Potter. Now I'm not saying American politics is like a wizarding academy in England (but it can be) but I'm saying in regards to how many parents and teachers tried to get the Harry Potter books banned from schools. The simple reason being that they considered them sacreligious which was bad. But I think they were missing the point. I think they were missing the fact that finally, after a very long time, many students were interested in reading again. Isn't that a good thing when you have such low literacy rates?

Now that you have an event inspiring talk among students about world leaders rather than what Lindsey Lohan did or who Brittney Spears is dating, don't you think educators in schools should encourage the talk instead of shutting it down? Maybe they aren't happy with the election results or maybe the talk of the students was distracting to the point that they couldn't teach them anything else but whatever the reason, the sudden silence by the school district and the teachers is a bit mysterious to be sure. I certainly hope that they have some decent reason for it rather than what I fear the truth may be. If racial prejudice ends up being the reason then I can't help but feel sad that for every step our nation takes forward, we're still taking steps in the opposite direction too.

Cutting the Cord

The phrase 'cutting the cord' was once a euphemistic way of implying that a parent should stop treating a child as if they were still being carried in the womb and let them begin the development into an independent human being. However, the 'cord' I'm talking about in this case is the cord that powers the portable DVD players that seem to be all over the place these days. I read about a blogger who was strolling through the park over the weekend and looked over to see a couple pushing a stroller along. The child in the stroller was not enjoying th scenery however since he was otherwise occupied watching a movie on his portable DVD player replete with noise-cancelling headphones.

Now as a child I will admit that I watched a lot of television and movies and even today you could probably argue that I take in more than my fair share of the entertainment medium as well. Now granted back when I was a kid, the concept of a portable entertainment device was still something of a foreign concept. Although Walkmen were coming into being, it wasn't a common enough device that everyone had one. I didn't start using one for my walk home from high school until nearly my senior year in high school and even then it wasn't everyday. So when growing up, it wasn't as if we were constantly being entertained on road trips with our own private television programs running in the back. These days it seems that more and more parents are turning to television to be the resident babysitter.

Need to feed your kid? Distract them with the television. Need them to stay quiet in the restaurant? Distract them with the portable DVD player. Need to sleep for a little while? Distract them with television. You see what I'm getting at here? The veritable explosion of the car based or portable DVD market has meant that more kids are leaving the television in the house for the television in the car. Is it any wonder then that so many kids are looking to television for their entertainment and distraction? How can we expect them to focus on anything when the average program only runs 30 minutes and even then it's often punctuated by commercials which only serve to further break up the time needed to concentrate.

I'm not saying that we should all turn kids Amish and have them shun television or videos but shouldn't there be a limit? When my parents took my brother and I to the park, we didn't go with the intention of sitting on a park bench while they walked around so that we could distract ourselves with some movie or something; we went with the intention of running around and having fun. But some parents freak out at even the thought of such activity thinking that their little snowflakes might get hurt and that would be terrible. I don't think it makes sense to shelter your kids quite so much. Why focus their attention on a small television screen while you're out for a drive when you can look at the sprawling world.

Maybe that's why there has been a dearth of original thinking in Hollywood these days. No one seems to have any imagination or originality anymore. There will be the occasional new program or movie or story idea but then that will be it for a very long stretch. Why? Is it because our attention spans have shrunk to the point that we have short term memory problems and cannot create any memories about having seen some of these same stories in the past. Maybe. We shouldn't keep kids from discovering the world or rely on television to show it to them; we can show them just as well if not more. If you show a kid that you're interested in something, I think they'll just as enthusiastically embrace that concept too. You just need to set a good example.

Protecting Our Children from "The Dark Knight"

I will be the first to agree that parents these days probably have a tougher job in raising kids than our parents did. That's not to say that raising kids is ever an easy responsibility but these days there are so many more sources of potential 'threat' to children that we adults (and I am tempted to use the term loosely) are sometimes in a dilemma as to how best to accomplish that goal. For example, take the case of Premier Morris Iemma from South Wales, Australia, who is attempting to bar Hungry Jacks restaurants from cross-promoting "The Dark Knight" movie with their childrens meals.

Children's meals, or Happy Meals as I've always known them, have long tied into movies as a means of raising revenue. I think George Lucas can be called the progenitor and king of this money-making operation when he began marketing and more or less franchising out his copyrighted material for reproduction in the form of toys and McDonald's meals. These days you can expect most major movies to be tied into some form of restaurant tie-in advertising. I remember back in 1999 when "Episode I" of "Star Wars" was released. Movie fans who had grown up with the films were bombarded at seemingly every corner by some form of promotion or the other and for those who were looking for escape, it was very hard to come by. But the thing with the newer "Star Wars" movies was, like it or not, they were tailored more with kids in mind than anything else. Had this been several decades ago during the pessimistic period which spawned directors like George Lucas and his co-horts, it would have been a much darker movie and perhaps, though the main storyline would have stuck, it wouldn't have necessarily been as 'kid-friendly'.

Now parents are faced with the dilemma which Mr. Iemma is attempting to stave off and that's getting kids Happy Meals while explaining to them why the can't see a particular movie. Though the general perception is that Batman is simply a comic book character, he is most decidedly darker than someone like Superman. Indeed the two characters have always been at odds with one another about their various techniques in crime-fighting. Where Superman would work within the relative confines of the law, Batman would regularly bend or occasionally break them to yield the results he wanted. Most parents don't realize that and in wanting to make their kids happy they will take their kids to see the movie despite the ratings being the way they are for obvious reasons. "The Dark Knight" is decidedly not a childrens movie. Though the Joker is often portrayed as a laughing madman, in this case he is shown to be truly homicidal and that isn't the best thing for kids to see.

This movie is a polar opposite departure from the "Batman" films of the Joel Schumacher era where Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy would trade quips while Batman pulls out a credit card with his name on it. These new films crafted by director Christopher Nolan are much much darker and are probably more closely related to the original premise of the character than the campy 1960's show would have you believe. While that's a good thing for getting us adults to enjoy the movie as being something more than just a simple comic book movie, it's a pain for parents who have to explain to their kids that they aren't old enough to see the movie. To the kids, it's just another form of their favorite cartoon and comic book characters on the big screen. Unfortunately for them, kids are very impressionable and this can lead to some decidedly negative influences.

I think Mr. Iemma is definitely doing what he can to stave off problems that I'm sure he's faced given the fact that he's the father of four children though I'm sure he'll also come under fire from people who view him as being an alarmist. I would hesitate in calling him an alarmist because if kids even attempt to emulate even a bit of what they see in the Joker, we're in for a lot of trouble. Kids see things with different eyes; we should know, most of us were that age at one time or another though some of us tend to behave as if we were born adults. Knowing how impressionable kids can be, it's up to us to ensure that they are not exposed to negative things that can influence them wrongly. Whether it is video games or movies, it's up to the parents to be the ultimate gatekeepers on these items. Politicians can help, but the final word should be from the parents. Don't let someone else fight your battles.

High Fuel Prices Low Cruising

The summer after I graduated high school (and before I started college) my parents bought me my first car. It was a fairly decent 1991 Ford Escort that had four doors, a sun roof, a moon roof and for me, my brother and my friends, it was our ticket to a summer of fun. I think every teen considers it a right of passage and a sign of freedom that comes with getting older. A few weeks ago I was flipping channels and I happened across one of my favorite movies, "American Graffiti" and even though I didn't live during the time period depicted in the film, I could relate to the cruise culture of the car drivers in the film. I related it to the time after I had my license and my car and how my friends and I would go anywhere we chose.

That time fuel prices were just reaching a dollar per gallon for regular unleaded and when it hit a $1.09 per gallon I remember thinking that I would be spending lots more money to enjoy the freedom I had just acquired. I had a summer job with very decent pay for a high school grad and so I was never short of money to take care of it, yet fuel was never something I thought of. Flash forward about fifteen years and now I feel the pinch every time I fill up and I can only imagine what some of the younger kids out there must be feeling. There was an article in the Washington Post this morning about how rising fuel costs have a lot of kids reconsidering their cruising lifestyle. Perhaps stauch environmentalists will applaud the downturn in teen driving which means less pollution in the environment but I think it's a loss of a valuable part of growing up.

Sure there are lots of reasons to be against teen driving given the number of accidents and incidents new drivers seem to get into but is it enough to applaud the hard realities that they face now? When fuel was cheap and I could fill up my tank on ten dollars, that meant one less CD (or audio cassette....which were still around at the time) that I could purchase. Now when I look at how much I'm filling up I realize that it's about the equivalent of several CDs, a few books and some groceries; all things vital to my survival. When I was younger with not much financial burden on my hands, it was good to go out and cruise around just for fun. We would often go to the mall, the movies, or anywhere else we felt like going and we didn't have to worry about anything other than getting caught for speeding.

Now with limited income or less fuel efficient first cars, many teens are curbing back on those tendancies and are sitting at home rather than partaking in this rite of passage into adulthood. I think it's sad in a way given that many of us growing up learned how to budget given that we were shelling out for fuel now in addition to getting our own things. Sure, some of us may have had parents who paid for a lot of our expenses but still, saving for fueling up every week or every other week was a way to start figuring out how much to save and how much to spend. Now lots of kids are only learning how to save simply because it costs an arm and a leg to even drive to the mall and back more than once a week. Perhaps a decrease in the reliance on oil will lead to more fuel efficient cars but until that time, I think we're going to see a change in the way many teens look at driving for a while.

Fairy Tales with a Twist

Sometimes I think we take things a bit too far. I mean there are memories from my childhood which I treasure such as story time or things like that but it seems that these days, there is more concern for protecting children from the 'evil messages' that these stories could convey rather than in the moral of said story. It seems that the Education Department and some parents groups are pushing for teachers and librarians and anyone who reads to children for that matter, to begin caveating their stories with valuable lessons meant to teach kids what was wrong in the story and how they should learn from it. What do I mean? Read on.

Take for example the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. A classic tale about porridge and finding a comfortable bed (I guess at the time they didn't have the concept of NASA foam beds or sleepnumber beds). I don't have to go through the whole tale since most people know it but at the end of the tale, now the readers would have to tell the kids the valuable lessons they need to take away from this story which are: (1) don't mess with bears in the woods, (2) don't steal from anyone as it is a felony and punishable with significant jail time for multiple offenses, (3) don't eat strange food as it could be poisoned or full of salmonella (I guess that's a lesson for all of us) and finally (4) don't go wandering in the woods on your own and expect to find shelter with plenty of food and beds (albeit at various temparatures and sizes).

What about Hansel and Gretel? Well if your parents leave you in the woods to be taken in by an evil witch, you should probably contact child services and tell them that you've got some hair-brained parents trying to dispose of you illegally. Don't use breadcrumbs as a trail as it may not be eco-friendly and the chemicals in some breads could be hazardous to some animal life. Don't be tempted by strangers with candy or gingerbread houses as they may be well beyond their expiration date and the ingredients may have gone bad. Don't accept offers by witches to take a 'bubble bath' as they are probably intending to cook you. And if a witch does attempt to cook you, don't take justice into your own hands and burn her up in a stove but rather call the police and report her for attempted homicide and attempted canibalism. Let justice be done, not vigilantism.

As you can see, there is still a lot of use to be made of the old fairy tales we grew up with. And the lessons that we take away from these are as valuable today as they were at the time they were written. I guess it just means that kids have to be told what they should and shouldn't do as many may end up thinking that self defense is okay in all cases since that's what the characters in the fairy tales did. I just find it ridiculous that we have to resort to such methods to 'protect' the children and ensure that they don't get hurt in some way, shape or form. I don't think these stories 'hurt' kids in any way or teach them the wrong lessons. In fact I think these stories are meant to be just that, stories.

For generations kids have heard these tales and I don't think any of them have turned out kids who are that dumb that they wouldn't take away from a parent the simple lesson of don't talk to strangers. If a fairy tale tells of the negative results of following a stranger, why do we need to spell it out for them. Why do we need to treat kids like kids but to the extreme? Sometimes I think if you talk to a kid like an adult (not by cursing or ranting at them) but logically, and respectfully, they will probably take the lesson away much easier than if you talk down to them and get them to understand what all is going on. We are becoming to paranoid a society and feel that every little bump is going to adversely affect kids to the degree that they can't function rationally in society. I personally think some of the people who come up with these solutions need to have a relaxed discussion sometime and think these things through logically. Maybe they need to be talked to like kids and not the reverse.

Rooting Out Problems

Ask any humanist or person who believes that human beings are the most superior form of intelligence on the planet and they'll tell you that they key that separates us from common animals is our understanding of higher learning such as math and science. But every once in a while there are news reports and 'official' press releases in the news about the 'latest scientific discovery' that makes me wonder if any of this is actual proof of our superiority or just something to justify getting paid. Take for example the report that came out of England by the National Children's Bureau earlier this week.

Apparently after exhaustive study, the Bureau determined that toddlers can already show racist tendencies and so they should be studied analyzed to ensure that they grow up to be racially tolerant and nothing less. On the surface it sounds like an intelligent and worthwhile determination but how is this great 'discovery' to be made? Simple, by gauging the reaction of children based on how they respond when new or foreign foods are placed in front of them. Example, the Bureau found that if a child responded with 'Yuck' when having a plate of foreign food placed in front of them (and by foreign I mean exotic foods that they normally wouldn't eat) then they were more likely to grow up to be racially prejudiced. Now I don't know about you but this just seems highly illogical to me and I'll tell you why.

Any kid I have encountered (save for a few true foodies or gluttons) have always reacted to any new food with a bit of hesitation. And I feel that the conclusion that this Bureau has come up with is just ridiculous. Here's why. I'm of Indian origin but I live in the United States. I grew up here so naturally like many first generation kids, I grew up eating the food from here. When I first had tastes of Indian foods I wasn't as excited and perhaps I had a 'yuck' reaction myself (now I know better) but by the criteria of the Bureau, doesn't this make me an anti-Indian? Now I'm sure there's more to this analysis than meets the eye (at least I hope so) but I understand how difficult it is to determine the causes for things like racism but isn't this a bit much?

I guess some organizations feel that some seemingly logical explanations are better than no logical explanations at all though I find that very hard to believe. I'm sure racist tendencies form at a very early age and though there may be some merit to what this study has found, I feel the environment is a very prevalant factor in helping determine the root cause as well. I mean if you have parents or family or friends that behave very racistly then you are likely to have kids who have the same tendencies. If the environment that a kid is raised in is full of people grimacing at anything outside their normal environment, aren't they going to assume that's the way things are and that's the way it should be? Passing the blame onto food doesn't seem to be the solution. Though the study is quick to caveat their findings and say that this reaction may be a normal kid-like reaction, they do wish to show that it is a good indicator. I think it just stinks.

Pushing Cookies on the Streets

They can be considered highly addictive, even more than some narcotics. They can be the root cause of lots of health problems including obesity and dental decay. They can also be the perfect reward after a long day. I'm not talking about drugs but rather the other most common legal form of habit forming diversion; Girl Scout Cookies. I was reading this morning about a 15-year-old girl in Michigan who sold approximately 17,328 boxes of cookies this past year. The feat, accomplished by Jennifer Sharpe, shattered the previous record and has probably set a new standard for all the nation. Now I'm not one to poo-poo the idea of selling Girl Scout Cookies but I think the method needs to be refined a bit.

As anyone who has co-workers with daughters no doubtedly knows, when it's cookie season, parents are out in force helping their kids peddle their wares. Now I think it's a fabulous way to raise revenue in order to continue operations for the Girl Scouts as well as teaching them at least the rudimentary basics of business. Still, sometimes I think the girls get so focused on the end goal that they don't see the sacrifice that should be associated with such an endeavour. What do I mean? Well I already gave the example of parents asking their co-workers if they would like to buy some Girl Scout cookies. There's always that point in the day where it's too long after lunch and you're craving some instant gratification and too far from that point in the day when you know you'll be going home. So what happens? You succumb and end up ordering two cases of Thin Mints. Okay, so that's fine, using your parents as assistants is okay for occasional trips but sometimes it's a bit much.

I remember one winter when I went to the grocery store on a particularly frigid morning. It was below freezing or close to it and there standing in the brutal wind and light snow fall just outside the store were three mothers. They could only be mothers because they were too tall and too old to be actual Girl Scouts. With heads buried under hats and scarves and hands dug deep into their coat pockets they danced the pee-pee dance in order to try and stay warm. I looked around thinking that their Girl Scout daughters may have been buried under the snow or were huddling together behind the table but when I asked where they were, one mother pointed at the store and there were the Girl Scouts standing warm and cozy in the store sitting on the lawn chair display. Out of sympathy for the mothers I bought a couple of boxes though I already had some sitting at home. Just then one of the girls came running out and checked the box which contained the boxes I had just bought and happily announced that that was yet another case 'they' had sold. She then ran back inside complaining that it was too cold.

So I ask then who is making the sacrifice? I don't doubt that young Ms. Sharpe sold every box on her own and even if she had help that's okay because the bulk of the work was undoubtedly done by her when she set up her stand on a street corner in a highly conspicous area. As the saying in real estate goes, it's all about 'location location location'. When you have someone like Ms. Sharpe you hope that others are inspired to follow her lead and take the initiative to do things to earn their rewards. I can't claim to be innocent in such matters because when I was a kid, my parents also helped me sell items for the school fundraisers and I was always appreciative though I don't think I took into account that they were doing the work and I was reaping the reward of their peddling blocks of cheese or winter holiday baskets.

I think that Girl Scout cookies are one constant that will always be there. I don't ever recall the Boy Scouts having anything similar and if it did, it was never as successful. The great things about Girl Scout cookies is that there's instant gratification. They don't come around and do much in the way of pre-sales but most of the sales come from having the product on hand and being able to give it to customers immediately (or very nearly so). In a way it truly is like a drug dealers. They give you a taste and then leave you wanting instant gratification and immediate sales. My mouth does tend to salivate at the thought of chewy Somoas or minty Thin Mints but I am trying to the best of my ability to fight off my addiction. I am weaning myself off of the cookies but it's a hard road.

Ruining Childhood

These days there are times when I think back on my childhood and wonder if I wasn't set off on a course for doom and gloom from the beginning. Not that I didn't have a happy childhood; on the contrary, I think I had a very happy childhood and the memories I have growing up are just wonderful. But now whenever I see the news or read about it in the paper, I feel that with each passing generation, the concepts of childhood are changing so rapidly that soon kids will just become miniturized adults who are so sheltered from the realities of this world that they are going to be in bigger trouble than many of us realize.

Recently in a school in McLean, Virginia a school principal decided (as was the case in several other schools around the country) that the game of tag was to be forbidden due to the fact that it promoted violence and could lead to undue aggression in kids. Now I don't know about the rest of you but tag was an essential part of my childhood. I don't say this because I was the best tag player around or because I dominated every person I ever played with but it was just a simple, fun and mindless game that you could practically play anywhere. Don't have an xBox 360 or in the case back then, don't have a Nintendo or Atari? Doesn't matter, the only thing you need for tag is you! It doesn't cost very much either. But nowadays it seems the focus has shifted and there is constant worry that kids are going to turn into violent, aggressive psychopaths so we need to shelter them.

I don't think kids are going to turn out that way unless the environment around them is conducive to that type of attitude. If all kids do is grow up in an environment of violence, and I mean real violence or aggression, not just stuff on TV but in the home as well, then isn't it likely that they will know what violence is? Playing tag isn't going to make them violent, it'll more likely make them competitive but then again that's bad too right? In every competition there is a winner and a loser (or losers in the case of tag) but that's thought to be a negative connotation because kids shouldn't be made to think they are losers right? They shouldn't be exposed to not winning. They need to know that they need to win all the time. Is this the message that games are sending our kids? All they are are games!

But we're tending to read too much into things these days. Episodes of "Sesame Street" that I watched as a kid are now rated for adults because of some 'questionable' scenes in the show. Are they scenes of violence? Does Big Bird suddenly take inspiration from Alfred Hitchcock and go around killing people? No. But because he hugs a kid, there is fear that this could inspire kids to sexually harass one another. What about the fairy tales we heard growing up? I'm sure it won't be too long before even those are censored or cut from childhood because they spread negative imagery and ideas to kids who are impressionable.

Take for example Jack and the Beanstalk (one of my favorite stories). In a lot of versions (I've heard variations) Jack's father is missing and he lives with his single mother. Though this is reality for many kids these days, it wouldn't do to sensationalize it now would it? Jack then sells off his family cow for the beanstalk beans. That teaches kids to give in to their selfish desires. That's another negative image that they should be sheltered from. Ultimately he goes up the beanstalk and steals from the Giant at the top. Stealing! How utterly wrong! And then the ultimate... he kills the Giant by chopping the beanstalk down as the Giant is chasing Jack. Murder! How insane! I guess that by today's thinking then I should be a selfish thief who will murder those who get in my way!

Take a look at practically any fairy tale and you'll see this same trend. Goldilocks enters the house of the three bears (breaking and entering) and eats their food and sleeps in their beds. Stalkers of Hollywood stars probably grew up reading these stories over and over again. Hansel and Gretel? They get left in the woods by their parents and so when the evil witch tries to cook them, they kill her by shoving her into the oven. I don't even want to get started on that one. The Three Little Pigs? That might be thought to be an insult if perhaps there is a Muslim student sitting in the pre-school classroom.

Is this the type of environment we want our kids to grow up in? Sheltered and protected from anything and everything? I've seen more violence and negative storylines presented on "safe" channels like Disney and Cartoon Network than I ever did when I was a kid. That doesn't mean that I would take a kid in to see violent or scary movie just because they wanted to, but I wouldn't shelter them so much that they aren't allowed to play a simple game of tag. We need to know what we are sheltering them from and to what purpose. Sheltering them for the sake of sheltering them is wrong and I don't think it serves any purpose. It just serves to ruin what childhood they could have.

Playing with Reality

I remember as a kid playing games with toys that at least had some semblence of reality. I think this can be true of most kids out there. As kids we generally based our imaginary games in the reality that we had come to know or that we learned by watching TV and movies. I grew up on a steady diet of action adventure shows and movies and as such that's what a lot of my games revolved around. It helped to have imaginary outlets like Lego blocks that allowed me to 'build' what my imagination wanted to see. Sometimes I'd get specialized sets to live out those fantasy games in my head. These days there are more and more sets out there that don't require as much imagination to build since they are all ready for you. But what worries me is that perhaps we're getting a bit too caught up in reality.

I was browsing Amazon the other day and I happened across a new Playmobil play set that has been released and was surprised to discover what it was. It was a specialized playset for an airport security checkpoint with metal detector, x-ray belt, and officer with metal-detecting wand. Now while I applaud the Playmobil company for reaching for the heights of reality by coming up with a playset that brings this level of reality to a child's world but is it really necessary? I only ask because while growing up, I can never recall my games basing themselves in this level of realism. I mean in any of my games with army men, I didn't have the political fallout or discussions going on in the background while my toy soldiers fought for their cause. They simply fought for right and wrong (or control of the sofa) because it was the right thing to do. If they had to 'fly' their imaginary helicopters from point A to point B they didn't have to worry about the rising prices of oil and fuel or that Congress was thinking of cutting funding for certain programs.

I never thought that such levels of realism were needed or even necessary. I guess subconsciously I knew that reality would soon rear its ugly head and that once I reached that point in life I would have enough of it to make up for lost time. Though I wasn't intelligent enough to know it at the time, more likely it was just a case of childhood bliss leading to ignorance of what reality had in store. I guess kids nowadays will have more insight into it since they'll be able to imagine for themselves the day-to-day drama of life replete with airport security checkpoints. But if we're going to make playsets on this then why not the other aspects of life? We're getting close to tax time, why not include something on tax accounting offices. You know, have a little desk with a chair. The accountant can have a computer and filing cabinets along with a 'customer' who will come with a file of tax forms and receipts. And don't forget the little toy W-2 forms.

What about having playsets on other bureaucratic nonsense that kids should know about from childhood? I mean if they are interested enough to play travel games with security checkpoints then certainly they'll be more interested in other parts of life that are just as important. How about the office for IT professionals. They can get a little cubicle and have a computer terminal with little or no light. The game will be completely devoid of anything else other than the cubicle and the computer. I'm sure kids will love to imagine what life in an office will be like for eight hours a day (at least). Perhaps a concession or accessory to the set would be the inclusion of the ubiquitous office coffee pot (empty of course... or with less than a cup remaining). There's a real dose of reality. Perhaps by showing kids these things they will do what I have realized and that is not be in such a hurry to grow up.

Paying Students

Though the title could lead one to believe I am talking about how much students (and parents) pay for an education, I'm actually talking about a new trend that is popping up that educators hope will help boost the overall education level of students and that's by paying them for jobs well done. There are very few kids out there who can honestly say that they enjoy taking tests. Sure there are those with a competitive edge in them about everything who would say that they welcome the opportunity to excel against their peers. Thankfully I was never one of them. But what some schools across the nation are starting to do is to compensate students for doing well on the exam. Though the payout may not seem like much to the average working person (in some cases they pay about $50) but for a student who only gets an allowance it could mean a fortune.

Now I see nothing wrong with incentivizing the education system. It would have certainly encouraged me to always do my best in terms of test taking. I'm also sure that the schools that earn the best scores overall would probably get some monetary compensation as well from the school boards for being the best among the best and therein lies the problem as I see it. I attended a decent high school which was down the road from the county's science and tech high school and though the general student population of both high schools was comparable in terms of overall capabilities and test scores, the science and tech school was the one that always got the glory and the funding. Now while I like to tell myself that the county treated us equally in terms of funding and priority, I don't really believe that to be the case. Our school was the test bed for a new aerospace program that was being proposed for the nation and though students from our high school were among the first students to establish the program, it wasn't until the science and tech high school down the road also established the program that it got the recognition it deserved.

It wasn't until a science project our school developed to be launched on the space shuttle (it went up with John Glenn's shuttle flight) that our school was finally recognized. It was well after I graduated from the high school but it was gratifying to see that our school was finally gaining some noteriety for work they were doing. How does this relate to paying students? Easy, our school didn't gain anything from being the test pilot for new programs until it was spread to the hallmark school for the county. Once it was there then funding flowed; to the other school and not ours. The same way this 'paying students to learn' program will likely work too. As it stands now, in Maryland this program is being attempted in schools in poorer parts of the state where education incentives would undoubtedly help raise scores and though the success rate will likely pale in comparison to some of the better endowed schools in the area, some success will not yield it the additional funding required to help make all schools as successful.

It stands to reason doesn't it? What is better for the county and state overall? One school with great scores or an entire county? Though county leaders will argue that all schools are being treated equally, I beg to differ and retort with the claim that 'all schools may be equal but some are more equal than others'. It may or may not be the complete truth but I feel that there is enough evidence behind this trend to say that schools where funding is often slow to arrive will continue to experience slow growth. Money will continue to go to those schools where the county will see the greatest press coverage and where they can point to better statistics while the mediocre schools will continue to struggle and we'll end up with what I call the treadmill syndrome where we seem to be running fast but not really going anywhere. Instead of just shelling out money to students to incentivize them... try sending some of it to schools that really need it so that they can improve overall, so that they can retain good teachers (we need a lot of them), and so that they truly become equal all around.