Do you get your news from your neighbors, your husband or the mailman? Is your newspaper an expensive page-a-day calendar? Do you wonder what's going on beyond the playground or soccer practice?

Here on MommaHeard, I'll keep you up with what's news out there. I've included pop-up response boxes after each entry, so you can chime in, too. I'll post your comments as I get them. Meanwhile, here's the news:

MommaHeard's June/July 2008 News

MommaHeard's May 2008 News

MommaHeard's April 2008 News

17 girls at one high school made a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. I hope they get a nice baby shower like Jamie Lynn Spears did.

Says AP: "The story exploded after Joseph Sullivan, the principal of Gloucester High School, was quoted by Time magazine this week as saying the girls confessed to making such a pact." But none of the girls or their parents have confirmed the event.

Time Magazine, which first broke the story, said there were "more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year." If they did make a pact, why?

The Gloucester, Massachusetts high school principal said that the girls "reacted to the news that they were expecting with high fives and plans for baby showers." One 18-year-old at the school who had a baby this year explained: "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally. I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m." Christen Callahan, the teen mother of a three-year-old, told The Today Show that when you have a baby so young, "You lose everything."

And then the show broke the news that Jamie Lynn Spears, 17, had her baby. It was reported that friends and family believe that Britney's little sister will make a good mom.

Says Time: "All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together." One of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless man, the principal told Time.

Geez, when I was 16, I just wanted to play soccer and get my driver's permit. Unconditional love? Get a cat. Wait'll these girls find out how hard it is to care for a baby, especially when you have a geometry test coming up.
Posted by Jen Singer, June 22, 2008 at 7:14 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

JUNE 13, 2008
Why your attempts to discipline your kids are futile.
Are your Time-Outs useless? Never fear! Science is here! Nancy Shute wrote in U.S. News and World Report that science may have found a reason why your efforts to displine your kids might be falling flat. Says Shute: "Researchers have spent decades studying what motivates children to behave and can now say exactly what discipline methods work and what don't."

That's like finding the Crystal Skull, Indy! Do tell!

Here's some of what researchers found, according to Shute:

• "Yelling and reasoning are equally ineffective; kids tune out both.
  
  
• "Praise doesn't spoil a child; it's one of the most powerful tools that parents can use to influence a child's actions. But most parents squander praise by using it generically—'you're so smart' or 'good job!'—or skimping.
  
  
• "Spanking and other harsh punishments ('You're grounded for a month!') do stop bad behavior but only temporarily. Punishment works only if it's mild, and it is far outweighed by positive reinforcement of good behavior."

So, don't yell, spank or reason and praise more? Where's the discipline? Oh, but wait, here are some of the other ways parents stink at discipline:

• Parents don't set limits well. (Sure, you can have 300 Wii games! I love you!)
  
  
• Parents coddle their kids. (Ever swoop in to break up an argument among kids?)
  
  
• They nag and then yell.
  
  
• They praise all wrong. ("You're the smartest kid on the block!")
  
  
• They punish too hard.

Fix these and a few other parenting boo-boos, and you'll get this disciplining thing right. The article has more detail, but consider these tidbits:

1. Don't ruin timeouts by lecturing or hugging your kids.
2. Let kids endure the consequences of bad behavior.
3. Quit your whining.

Maybe it's time to give your Time-Outs a Time-Out?
Posted by Jen Singer, June 13, 2008 at 7:14 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

JUNE 7, 2008
Risky behavior down, stupid behavior up, among teens.
Newsday reported that risky behavior including smoking pot and not wearing seat belts has hit a historic low, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of course, the CDC only started recorded such behaviors in 1991. So really, today's teens are cleaner than the 90's teens. USA today reported "fewer adolescents drinking, smoking or having sex in 2007 than their peers did in 1991." But Hispanics lagged behind blacks and whites. Says USA today, "Hispanic teenagers take more risks, such as using drugs, drinking alcohol on school grounds or attempting suicide, at higher rates than other groups."

The report found that "the percentage of black students who engaged in sexual intercourse dropped from 82 percent in 1991 to 66 percent in 2007. And black students who'd had sex with four or more partners also declined, from 43 percent in 1991 to 28 percent in 2007," says U.S. News & World Report

Maybe they're too busy e-mailing nude photos of themselves to each other. The Associated Press reported: "Nowadays, teenagers are snapping naked pictures of themselves on their cell phones and sending them to their boyfriends and girlfriends." One 15-year-old high school students was not surprised by the news. She told AP, "If you look at people's MySpace, all the pictures are slutty."

But it isn't just shocking and stupid, it's a felony. Says AP: "A 17-year-old boy recently was charged with child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child and defamation for allegedly posting nude photos of his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend on his MySpace page."

So among the things we now need to teach our kids: Don't drink, don't do drugs, don't have sex and now, don't send nude photos of yourself across the Internet.

Momma never said there'd be days like this
Posted by Jen Singer, June 7, 2008 at 7:14 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

JUNE 2, 2008
Babies at Work: When every day is Take Your Child to Work Day.
The Boston Globe reported yesterday that the latest trend in coporate daycare is for parents to take their babies to work -- and care for them while they're there. It's...hold on a second...crying baby...there, there...shhh, Baby...

Uh, what was I saying?

Oh, yeah. The Globe says that at least 100 companies, mostly small business, offer the opportunity to bring your baby to work. "Proponents hail the idea as a workplace morale-booster, along with a needed benefit in a country lacking in affordable child care." But...wait a sec...poopy diaper...anybody got wipes? I'm out. Okay, now as I was saying...

The newspapers says, "But naysayers call parenting and working a poor mix, and say infants are an unwanted distraction for employees," Aw, c'mon now, give them a ch...is that your baby or mine? Mine. Again? I just changed your diaper, Baby!

Anyhow, says the Globe: Employers offering this option typically allow babies to stay with parents until age six months or at most one year - or until they begin to crawl. As parents know, toddlers sleep less, talk more, and don't take no for an answer." Ah, but they would make good salespeople.

I'm trying to picture my two colicky babies in an office. One of them cried 5 to 10 a.m. and 5 to 10 p.m. just about daily for three-and-a-half months. That's longer than a full work day. Hmmm. I wonder if my cubicle mates would have minded if I hid in the copy room during the witching hours.

While it sounds like a great idea, it's only great if you have one of those quietly sits still kind of babies. For the rest of us, I imagine it would be exhausting. Also, smelly. How many diaper pails are we talking here? Phew.

Oops...the baby pulled my computer cord out of the wall, but I'm back now.
Posted by Jen Singer, June 2, 2008 at 1:11 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

CK says:
"This actually worked for me with my 2 youngest children (who are now 11 & 14). I traded shorter maternity leave for bringing the baby to work with me - but only for about 2 - 3 months, not 6."

---

MAY 30, 2008
Is Grandma drugged up? The real problem of overmedicating seniors.
CNN.com reported this week that Grandma might not have Alzheimers; she just might be overmedicated.

Says CNN's Elizabeth Cohen: "Every year, 38 million older Americans suffer drug complications, 180,000 of which are life-threatening, according to research by Dr. Jerry Gurwitz, chief of geriatric medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School." In fact, Medco told CNN: "The risk for drug errors is seven times greater in seniors than in people under age 65."

There's a long list of drugs with potential side effects for seniors. Some of the most common problems include: "anti-anxiety medications and sleeping pills can cause dizziness and falls, blood thinner and aspirin can make the blood too thin, and beta agonists for lung issues and beta blockers for cardiovascular issues can cancel each other out."

What can you do? Says CNN: "Get a 'brown bag review' from your doctor." In other words, bring your senior's medications from all of his or her doctors for a review from one doctor. Can't get your doctor to spend that kind of time? Ask your pharmacist, says CNN.

Finally, ask if your senior really needs each medication. One doctor told CNN: "Once you're taking more than two or three drugs, you have to realize that every time you add a new drug, the risk of something going wrong goes up exponentially, not linearly."

Here's advice from this cancer survivor: Don't let the docs blow you off. If you're talking about the difference between a nursing home and fewer meds, it's worth looking into.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 30, 2008 at 10:18 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

MAY 28, 2008
Mom creates placebo pill for hypochondriac kids. Now I've got a headache.
The New York Times reported yesterday that a mom in Maryland had created a new placebo pill designed for kids who insist they won't feel better until they take something for whatever they say ails them. And it comes in cherry flavors, too! Mmmmmm.

Jennifer Buettner, a mom of twin toddlers and a baby, came up with the idea when her hypochonriac of a niece insisted on some medicine to make her feel better. When Buettner's mother-in-law, a nurse, suggested a Motrin tablet as the most benign of meds to give the kid, Buettner thought better.

Instead, she created Efficacy Brands in chewable, cherry-flavored dextrose tablets called "Obecalp, for placebo spelled backward," and "goes on sale on June 1 at the Efficacy Brands Web site. Bottles of 50 tablets will sell for $5.95," reports the Times.

The pills contain no drug, so the FDA won't oversee them. Instead, they'll be sold as dietary supplements.

So, is this like putting a Band-Aid on a barely there boo-boo? One NPR reporter says no. Family physician Douglas Kamerow says, "If placebos are to work, the patients need to believe in them."

No. The kids have to believe in them long enough to forget they didn't feel well in the first place -- which for most kids under 8, isn't very long.

As for the Band-Aid argument, he says, "Sure, there are kids who end up wanting a Band-Aid for every possible problem, but I have never seen an adult Band-Aid addict. I have seen lots of adults who want a pill for every ill."

Now he's making sense. As one doctor told the Times, "They will not learn that a minor complaint like a scraped knee or a cold can improve on its own."

In other words, the kids have to suck it up, and frankly, so do the parents. Besides, everyone knows that Mommy has magical kisses that make boo-boo's go away. Someone should bottle those

Posted by Jen Singer, May 28, 2008 at 9:10 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

mom2p_a says:
"Oh my goodness!! Let's turn our kids into pill poppers because parents can't say NO to their children."

---

MAY 24, 2008
Pass the Tums. Schools mandate lunchtime for overachieving high school students.
The New York Times reports today that administrators at several high achieving high schools have mandated lunch periods to force students to take a break from their hectic school schedules.

Next, they'll have to set a bedtime so these kids don't pull too many all-nighters, studying for their five AP finals.

To accomodate the extra 20-minute lunch period, school administrators will extend the school day and cut the number of minutes that classes meet over the school year.

At Horace Mann, students will get a 30-minute lunch period, so, says its superintendant, “students will have more time to eat in a less stressful way.”

But the Future Ulcer Patients of America aren't happy about the whole thing.

One high school junior at a school that recently mandated lunchtime told the Times“I would never put lunch before work." Wait until she finds out lunch is mandated at the psychiatric facility where they'll treat her nervous breakdown in a few years.

Says the Times, students at these schools take numerous Advanced Placement courses, repeatedly compare grade point averages beyond the decimal point and inhale food during classes -- if they eat lunch at all.

One counselor of Long Island schools says, "that many guidance departments are now advising students to strike a balance between a rigorous course load and a healthy lifestyle."

Slacker.

The Times reported, "While many parents support the enforced lunch policy, students complained that it could result in confusing schedules, longer lines in the cafeteria, less time for after-school clubs, and more homework because classes will meet fewer times."

You know, like high school used to be before the mad race for spots in the top colleges killed lunch.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 24, 2008 at 10:33 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

MAY 20, 2008
Sound the alarms! Will your cell phone use make your baby behave badly?
Here's another one to keep you up at night, rubbing your pregnant belly and worrying that you're ruining your baby...or not. ABC News reported that the media may have overreacted to a report of a possible connection between cell phone use by pregnant women and subsequent behavioral problems in their children. Let's hope all the moms-to-be watch ABC News.

Reports ABC: "Medical experts say media reports of a study that suggests a pregnant woman's cell phone use could cause later behavioral problems in her baby raise unnecessary alarm."

Oh, no problem. Just add it to the long list of unnecessary alarm for moms. We eat unnecessary alarm for breakfast.

ABC reports that scientists in Denmark surveyed some 13,000 mothers about their cell phone use during and after pregnancy and their children's behavior. Says ABC: "The researchers found that the mothers who said they used cell phones during their pregnancy also reported a higher level of behavioral problems in their children."

Ah, but all kids act up when Mommy is on the phone. You don't need a survey to figure that out.

The media apparently reported the results of this survey with great alarm, as you can see from these 50+ articles about the study. Fox News reported that "mothers who used their mobile phone while pregnant were 54 percent more likely to report issues such as hyperactivity and emotional problems in their children." And Consumer Affairs.com said, "Children of mothers who used cell phones while pregnant, even infrequently, ran a higher risk of developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotional control, and relationships by the time they started school."

But ABC said hold on a minute: "epidemiological experts -- including one of the paper's authors -- said it would be a mistake to assume that the findings were conclusive."

ABC reported that a professor and chair of epidemiology at UCLA and a co-author of the study said that "media coverage of the research thus far has been off target."

"Off target" must be a euphemism for "scare the bejezus out of mothers, once again."

Epidemiologists told ABC that the report showed no definite biological link between cell phone use among mothers and children's behavior. In other words, it isn't necessarily true that radio waves will make your baby behave badly. Rather, it's what I already said: "Mothers who were constantly on their cell phones may have paid less attention to their children, who subsequently acted out."

And yet moms in Britain probably were greatly alarmed when they sat down to eat breakfast and read this headline: "Warning: Using a Mobile Phone While Pregnant Can Seriously Damage Your Baby."

Like I said, we moms eat unnecessary alarm for breakfast.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 20, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

Momof3 says:
"I have to agree with the basic premise of this piece. I have seen too many parents that don't seem to know the basic stuff that my parents and grandparents seemed to know instinctively. I see too many brats, with parents that seem totally clueless that their child is misbehaving, or not having the slightest idea of what to do. I don't recall my parents ever being at a loss for what to do- they handled what needed to be handled, and stayed out of the rest."

---

MAY 18, 2008
Are we losing our natural parenting instincts? One author says yes.
Now that it's not uncommon for parents to hire help with various parenting issues, from teaching babies to sleep through the night to discipline, one author wonders if we're losing our instincts for parenting.

In her new book, "'Parenting Inc'," excerpted in Telegraph Magazine, Pamela Paul wonders if we're all becoming less capable of parenting after years of turning to experts for help.

"With each new round of outside help, we risk creating a cycle of helplessness that not only continues through our children's lives, but deepens with each successive generation." In other words, the potty training advice, sleep coaches and disipline experts are making us parents wimps. True or false?

She tells the story of a mom who hired a sleep expert to get her seven-month-old baby to sleep through the night. Four hundred dollars later, the baby slept. Heck, anybody who has endured months and months of sleep deprivation might think that's a bargain. I'd have paid twice that when my babies didn't sleep. Sleep deprivation is a form of torture.

But is it right to turn to outside help? Aren't we supposed to know what to do instinctively? Researchers in the U.S. told Paul that the "'myth of instinctive parenting' has been dismantled by a multitude of experts in science, psychology and education." You mean, we're not supposed to know what to do when, say, your six-year-old suddenly stops listening to you and starts talking back?

One expert warns, "If we constantly overtly turn to outsiders for help, our children may sense our lack of confidence."

Personally, I see nothing wrong with getting advice from the outside. How is that any different from asking people the best car to buy or an opinion on whether to switch jobs? It's when the outsiders step in and do it all for you that is troublesome for us and for our kdis. As Paul says, "Children who are perpetually given a leg-up, with tutors, coaches and consultants, are taught to distrust their innate abilities - rather than to thrive on their own merits."

In other words, trust your gut. But if your gut fails, ask for help -- and not to be rescued.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 18, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

MAY 13, 2008
Wanna get married? You have to take a parenting class first, suggests lawmaker.
WCBS-TV in New York City reported yesterday that a Rockland County lawmaker wants to make couples take parenting classes before getting married.

Oh, where to start on this one... How about, no?

Certainly, there are many couples who could use parenting classes beyond the breastfeeding instruction at the hospital. I took a few myself when my son was four and melted into the ground like the Wicked Witch of the West whenever I told him to do something he didn't want to do.

But mandating classes is a bit much. First of all, not every married couple will have kids. Second, not every parent gets married. Says WCBS: "[The lawmaker's] idea is radical, but some couples find it downright old fashioned, because nowadays families are being started even before a couple walks down the aisle."

Maybe she should force parents to take marriage classes instead. Or not.

She has a point though, as a recent study showed that one-third of parents are clueless about infant care.

But before you think you're exempt because you have kids already, think again. Says WCBS: "Under Michel's proposal, even people who are already parents would be required to take a parenting class before obtaining a marriage license."

If I can minor in how to get my son to remember to bring home his math homework, I'll enroll today.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 13, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

Momof3 says:
"I don't know that this is such a bad idea. I don't think that married people should be forced to take said classes, but I do think they should be offered to pregnant women, and a requirement for government aide to any mother that uses it. I have seen too many poor parenting skills- parents that don't know thing one about child development nor do they know how to handle the most simple of childhood problems."

---

MAY 9, 2008
Outdoor playtime is an endangered species. Just ask the daycare workers who don't feel like going outside.
The New York Times reported today about new findings that kids in daycare sometimes don't get outdoor playtime because, among other things, the teachers don't feel like going outside, or some parents prefer work-time to play.

So my kid doesn't go outside because somebody else's mother wants their kid drilled on the A, B, C's?

Apparently, yes.

Says the Times, "Although children learn important gross motor and social skills on the playground by learning to kick a ball or negotiate with another child for a turn on the swing, teachers said they felt pressure from some parents who were more concerned with children spending time on academic skills like reading and writing."

Those silly three-year-olds, wasting time on playing when they could be studying for their SAT's.

Other reasons kids don't get out to play include:

• "Some workers said outdoor play is too much trouble because it requires time to bundle up kids during cold weather."
• "Sometimes, the entire class is kept indoors if one child doesn't have appropriate clothes for outdoor play."
• "One problem is that parents who don't want their child going outside on a given day will intentionally keep the child's coat so he or she will be kept indoors."
• "Day care workers keep children inside if they show up in flip-flops rather than sneakers."
• "Staff members complained that kids eat the mulch or use it as weapons, or it gets caught in their shoes, making outdoor play troublesome for teachers."
• "Other staff members just said they didn't like going outside."

On the one hand, I imagine that by the time you get 23 two-year-olds into their snowsuits, it'll be spring. On the other hand, mulch has and always will be used as weapons by children under six. Think of it as good practice for kiddie soccer -- offense and defense.

Please parents, don't send your kids to daycare or school in flip-flops or outdoor playtime will be a flop. We can all do our part to keep outdoor play from going extinct.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 9, 2008 at 10:38 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

MAY 7, 2008
Dina Lohan gets top mom award. Now there's a clever publicity stunt.
The New York Post is among several media outlets to report that celebrity mom Dina Lohan was named a "top mom" last night on Long Island by mommy group Mingling Moms.

Mingling Moms president Erica Logiudice told the Post that the mother of hard-partying rehab graduate Lindsay Lohan is "such a dedicated mom . . . Through all the ups and downs of Lindsay, she has been by her side." She told Newsday that, when it comes to the movie star's antics, "It's not the mom's fault. She should be given a break," she said.

They celebrated with a dinner at the Carlyle on the Green in Bethpage to benefit breast cancer research.

Good cause. Good publicity. After all, it's news when Dina Lohan gets a parenting award. Plus, her reality show about parenting Lindsay's little sister Ali is slated to air this summer. E! Entertainment TV has given the green light to "Living Lohan."

I wonder if it includes trips to jail to bail out Lindsay. Or if we'll find out Dina really does deserve this award after all.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 7, 2008 at 3:19 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

MAY 6, 2008
One third of parents clueless about young kids' development.
US News & World Report this weekend reported that "one-third of parents of babies have a surprisingly low knowledge of child development."

You mean my nine-month-old isn't supposed to be able to ride a bike yet? C'mon. With the mountain of parenting information on the Net and in bookstores, can this be true?

Researchers examined the results of a survey of parents -- the vast majority, mothers -- of more than 10,000 nine-month-old babies. Says the magazine: "One-third of those surveyed incorrectly answered four or more of the questions. Even when the researchers adjusted the statistics to account for such factors as education levels and income, those parents were still less likely to enjoy 'healthy interactions' with their children."

Says WebMD: "Some parents may interpret behaviors incorrectly and respond in the wrong way. For example, some moms and dads might think their baby should be doing more at an earlier age, while others underestimate their child's abilities, preventing them from learning on their own."

Says WebMD: "Knowledge appeared to be tied to a parent's education and income level. Lower levels of knowledge were associated with lower levels of education and income."

I know what happens next. I've seen it before with the Zero to Three Initiative, designed to help parents like these parent better. Agencies try to help this group of parents, but the Mommies get a hold of it, and before you know it, the two-thirds of parents who understand infant development just fine use this information to push the bar for mothering even higher. Then the Mommies poo-poo us if we're not making teachable moments out of a trip to the supermarket or handing out worksheets to the kids on the sidelines at youth baseball games. The Mommies think it means we have to build Super Kids, when really, it's not about them or their kids.

The researchers who reviewed the survey's results say the onus is on pediatricians to make sure the one-third of parents who don't understand parenting infants learn the right way. No word on whether they'll stage a Mommie Intervention, too.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 6, 2008 at 11:51 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

MAY 2, 2008
What is my alma mater known for? Oh, er, uh...a porn magazine.
I'm trying really hard to remember what it was like to be 20 and in college so I can figure out the thought process behind this one, but I really can't picture my twenty-something self warming up to this idea. My alma mater has a porn magazine, and many kids on campus seems to think this is just wonderful.

A student from Boston University has launched a porn magazine called Boink, which, says the school's newspaper, The Daily Free Press, is "a student-run sex magazine at BU that has gained renown across the globe."

Great. BU used to be known for graduates like Martin Luther King and professors like Elie Wiesel, plus the renowned College of Communications program, from which I graduated. Now we're famous for putting out a magazine about, well, putting out.

Says the New York Times Magazine: "These days, when anyone can run a virtual media empire out of a dorm room, student-generated sex magazines, some with the imprimatur of university financing and faculty advisers, are becoming a fact of campus life.

Since when is porn a fact of life? Well, since Harvard launched its own porn magazine, which, says the Freep: "While Boink is shunned by BU, Harvard administration approves of H Bomb and allowed the student government to give magazine managers a $2,000 grant. The magazine is also allowed it to be distributed freely to Harvard students."

So, did the grown-ups rush in and shut it down? Nope. Warner offered Boink founders "Anderson and Oleyourryk a six-figure advance to compile 'Boink: The Book,' a collection of erotic writings and photographs from college students around the country." Considering the magazine is already for sale at Amazon, let's hope that when your kids type in "The Ha Ha Bonk" book, they don't misspell.
Posted by Jen Singer, May 2, 2008 at 1:29 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

ironysuppmom says:
"I've followed this trend and it's very, very sad. The book "Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student" (by Miriam Grossman, MD) shows the high price so many college students pay (especially the women) for casual sex and the hook-up culture. What is almost never discussed by women's magazines and regular newspapers is the link between higher rates of depression among today's college kids and this culture that divorces sexual intimacy from emotional intimacy. Not only that, but the STDs that also result are beginning to show long-term effects, such as infertility problems in women in their 20s. They are unlikely to hear about these potential risks of this behavior from the campus health care staff, who think everything is just a-okay. It's not."

---

APRIL 29, 2008
Et tu, Hannah Montana? What's behind parents' collective groan over "artistic" Vanity Fair photos.
The Internet, traditional media and the nation's tweens (and their parents) are all abuzz over pop star Miley Cyrus' Lolita-style photos in Vanity Fair. People are claiming photographer Annie Liebovitz and Vanity Fair stole our Hannah Montana's innocence. Others say the shot of the 15-year-old holding a sheet to her chest is hardly pornographic. Meanwhile, parents of tweens and teens are just plain grumbling.

Here's why Miley Cyrus' under-the-sheets photo turns my stomach: It's so obviously a publicity ploy to tweak the Disney star's squeaky clean image so she can earn out her memoir's outrageous advance while simultaneously giving her something to use to fill its pages. (How can you write a memoir when you're fifteen? I have bras older than that.)

It's also a sign that, in a few short years, we'll be watching our beloved Hannah Montana on Access Hollywood as the paparazzi snap photos of her out on the town with the next generation of Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohans.

The San Jose Mercury News got it right with this comment about the shot of the billionaire high schooler between the sheets: "Her fan base is getting older, and she wants to bring them with her as she enters Lolitahood. It's impossible to imagine, given Leibovitz's history of provocative photos - nude, pregnant Demi Moore? - that the Cyruses went into the session naive and starry-eyed."

The bottom line, says the newspaper, "Leibovitz is back in the limelight; Vanity Fair sells a boatload of mags; and Miley Cyrus begins the fiscally oriented transition from Disney ingenue to pop tart."

It's a win-win-win situation. Except for our tweens, teens and their parents. Et tu, Hannah Montana?

Unfortunately, yes.
Posted by Jen Singer, April 29, 2008 at 1:06 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

APRIL 25, 2008
:-( Children are ruining the English language.
The Associated Press reported today that a recent survey shows that two-thirds of teens admit that emoticons and other informal styles have shown up in their formal school work. LOL! u r 2 funny!

Says AP: "The Pew Internet and American Life Project, in a study released Thursday, also found that teens who keep blogs or use social-networking sites like Facebook or News Corp.'s MySpace have a greater tendency to slip nonstandard elements into assignments."

I can just picture the corporate annual reports of the future: FWIW earnings are FUBAR

AP reports: "Teens who consider electronic communications with friends as "writing" are more likely to carry the informal elements into school assignments than those who distinguish the two."

soon we wont need punctuation at all just a smiley face or 2 ;-)

The Chairman of the SAT board agrees. Richard Sterling says the rules of English could change completely within a generation or two. The first go to? Sentences would no longer need capitalization, "the way the use of commas has decreased over the past few decades." Says Sterling, "Language changes."

IMHO, it started with drawings on cave walls and heiroglyphics, and it's heading back there again. :'[

Naturally, says AP, "Parents are more likely than teens to believe that Internet-based writing such as e-mail and instant messaging affects writing overall." That's because we can't read their text messages. We need a Teen to English dictionary.

OMG!!! thats a great idea
Posted by Jen Singer, April 25, 2008 at 9:39 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

APRIL 23, 2008
Want a boy? Go coo-coo for Coco Puffs, perhaps.
Think you can't influence the gender of your baby? Think again. The New York Times reported today about a new study that found how much a mother eats at the time of conception may influence whether she gives birth to a boy or a girl. It appears that "studies show that high levels of glucose encourage the growth of male embryos while inhibiting female embryos."

Want a boy? Pass the Captain Crunch.

Says the Times: "The consistency of the trend offers an explanation for the small but consistent decline in the proportion of boys born in industrialized countries over the last 40 years, where even though women in general appear to be consuming more, eating habits have changed."

So then, poor eaters are to blame for the fall of boyhood? We've got nothing but boys around here. We must all like our breakfast cereals.

Says the Associated Press: "Having a hearty appetite, eating potassium-rich foods including bananas, and not skipping breakfast all seemed to raise the odds of having a boy."

And: "Women who ate at least one bowl of breakfast cereal daily were 87 percent more likely to have boys than those who ate no more than one bowlful per week."

But what if you want a girl? "Still, no one's recommending pigging out if you really want a boy or starving yourself if you'd prefer a girl."

Yes, but you know they'll try.
Posted by Jen Singer, April 23, 2008 at 2:08 p.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

APRIL 21, 2008
Will your teen be out of work this summer?
The Chicago Tribune reported today that your teen just might have a tough time finding a summer job as the economy heads down the toilet. But persistence pays. Your teen's, that is, not necessarily yours.

Teens may find themselves competing with adults for jobs this summer says the Associated Press as reported in the Tribune. Teens will find "summer jobs scarcer this year as the U.S. economy slows amid rising oil prices, the housing crunch and tight credit market conditions." And you'll find more teens on your couch all summer. What can you do?

Experts say it will take persistence to find a summer job this year. They should look for jobs that are typically earmarked for teens, especially in those industries that "draw teen patrons, such as summer recreation programs, youth services, fast-food restaurants and kid-friendly fashion stores."

Think teens are too lazy to work? Not so, says a market research group whose latest survey found that 46% of teens have jobs. Many work more than 14 hours a week and take home an average of $474 a month.

One expert told the Associated Press that teens can get jobs if they work hard at the search. "Go out and get a real, grown-up set of shoes. Get rid of the rings-nose rings and other stuff. March up and down the mall with a really good resume. Walk into every story-every store-and say, 'I'm looking for summer work.' And you'll get a job."

Other tips include beefing up your teen's resume, removing typos and making them look professional. (Tip: Emoticons are for IMing, not for employers.)

Finally, invest some of that time spent on the Net into getting a job out in the real world, where you can't be represented by an avatar or screen name.

But first, they have to get off the couch. ;-)
Posted by Jen Singer, April 21, 2008 at 10:35 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

APRIL 18, 2008
This is your brain on Botox. Any questions?
Newsweek reported this week that new research shows that Botox treatments might actually wind up in the brain. Hmmmm. Smooth skin or smarts? Pick one.

Says Newsweek: "One of the deadliest poisons in nature and a possible bioterrorism agent, this neurotoxin reached the market, in very dilute doses, starting in 1989 as Botox."

Deadly poison? I know! Let's inject it! Who came up with this idea?

The reason Botox was approved for use as a wrinkle reducer, says Newsweek, "was that preclinical testing showed that after being injected, they did not travel along the body's highways-nerve cells-to the brain and spinal cord." Newsweek added, "Yes, there was some evidence the toxin slipped into the bloodstream or the lymph system, but Botox in the bloodstream cannot enter the brain, says its manufacturer."

Well, if it's just in your lymphatic system, no big deal, right? That's safe, of course... Says Lymphomation.org, the lymphatic system "distributes immune cells and other factors throughout the body. It also interacts with the blood circulatory system to drain fluid from cells and tissues. The lymphatic system contains immune cells called lymphocytes, which protect the body against antigens (viruses, bacteria, etc.) that invade the body."

As a lymphoma survivor, I can tell you that the lymphatic system is kind of important, yes. But back to your brain on Botox.

Newsweek reports: "In a reversal of the usual sequence in science, researchers have discovered, after millions of people have received the drug, something fundamental about how Botox can act. Contrary to what turned up in preclinical testing, botulinum toxin can travel along neurons from the injection site into the brain, at least in lab animals."

Whoopsies.

In a study with rats, researchers discovered that Botox travels to the brain. Newsweek reports, "Within three days, the toxin had migrated from the whisker muscles to the brainstem, where it disrupted neuronal activity."

Oh, but how smooth their skin was.

What does the FDA say? People who use Botox for cosmetic reasons should "make their own personal best judgment about this," reports Newsweek, and "be aware that there's the potential for" it to spreak -- perhaps to your brain.

Makes a person want to frown, doesn't it?
Posted by Jen Singer, April 18, 2008 at 10:32 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

APRIL 14, 2008
Is Google filming your house? Couple sues over online video of their home.
CNN.com and C/Net News reported that Pittsburgh couple has sued Google claiming that the Street View on Google Maps is a reckless invasion of their privacy. Is someone looking in your windows?

Says C/Net News: "Aaron and Christine Boring say they bought their home in late 2006 partly because of its secluded location on a street that is 'clearly marked with a 'Private Road' sign'." Only, as you can see from the CNN video, the Google folks drove up the driveway and filmed their garage, windows and basketball net.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to watch a boring video of someone's driveway, but the Borings -- yes, that's their name -- want it taken off the Internet. They also want $25,000 for the mental suffering, though the suit doesn't include CNN, who showed the video on TV and online while covering the story, which presumably drew way more eyeballs than Google Maps Street View.

Legal experts say it's perfectly legal to film on a public street, but not on private property, though I don't know why anybody would want a picture of the mud pit that is my front lawn. (My street isn't on Street View...yet.) Google has removed images of license plates and recognizable faces to quell criticism.

All I know is that, thanks to the Internet, it's getting harder and harder to hide. I wonder if the Unabomber's shack is on Street View?
Posted by Jen Singer, April 14, 2008 at 9:55 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

mom2p_a says:
"When I found that Google had filmed down my street, and of course you can see my house, at first I thought "Oh how cool". But as I thought about it more, I started to get angry that some car came down our street filming. What if my children were out playing? I can clearly see my neighbor out mowing his grass and their children's toys clearly displayed in their front yard. Nothing like giving pedophiles easy access to knowing where children live."

---

APRIL 7, 2008
New study says men create 7 hours of extra housework for wives.
The University of Michigan released the results of a new study that confirms that feeling you've had in the pit of your stomach ever since you got married: Having a husband creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women, Put down that mop and read this...

Says one researcher, "It's a well-known pattern. There's still a significant reallocation of labor that occurs at marriage-men tend to work more outside the home, while women take on more of the household labor."

Oh, then, women must cause more work for their husbands, too, right? Uh, nope. Says the study: "For men, the picture is very different: A wife saves men from about an hour of housework a week."

Makes me want to mow the lawn.

After children, the study says, things get even worse for women. "Married women with more than three kids did an average of about 28 hours of housework a week. Married men with more than three kids, by comparison, logged only about 10 hours of housework a week."

Kids can Swiffer, right?

Still, we do less housework than our mothers did. And your husband does more than his father did. Says the study's director: "Overall, the amount of housework done by U.S. women has dropped considerably since 1976, while the amount of housework done by men has increased."

Who's doing what?

In 1976, women did an average of 26 hours of housework a week, compared with about 17 hours in 2005.
Men did about six hours of housework a week in 1976, compared with about 13 hours in 2005.

"Marriage is no longer a man's path to less housework," says the director of the study.

For the women? Stay single if you don't want more laundry to do.
Posted by Jen Singer, April 7, 2008 at 11:04 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---

APRIL 4, 2008
Tweens hit the salon for highlights. Moms find wallets much lighter.
The first time I had my hair highlighted, my mother said, "Don't worry. It'll grow out." I was 24. By today's standards, I was a late bloomer. The New York Times reported yesterday that salon trips for highlights, chemical treatments and more are increasingly popular among tween girls. Don't worry. It'll grow out.

Says the Times, girls like 11-year-old Lexi James of North Carolina, can "receive six caramel streaks of permanent color along her part, for a look she described as "a little punky," followed by a blow dry and flat ironing." The price tag? Forty-five bucks.

While grown-ups like natural looking highlights, tweens like chunky bands of color, reports the Times. Girls as young as six have received the treatments at one salon, but 9 or 10 is "the norm," even though, frankly, there's nothing normal about shelling out that kind of cash for a kid's hair. And then there's the idea of putting chemicals on your kid's head, but I'll leave that one alone.

A spokesman for the National Cosmetology Association told the Times, "It's a lucrative niche market for the industry that is beginning to be addressed at trade shows and other association events." Your kids can be a niche market! Just bring 'em on down to the salon. In Manhattan, says the Times, "parents are willing to spend $200 to $400" on their tweens' hair. Paging John Edwards.

I saw a girl with bold red highlights just yesterday at the supermarket. Silly me. I thought it was that temporary spray-in color. Hmmm. Are the tattoos I see real, too? God, I hope not. One salon owner said, "Five years ago, the rule of thumb was 15- to 16-year-olds would come in for their first color. Now, that girl is 10."

As I've said before, 10 is the new 15, even though they haven't even been through puberty yet. Says the Times: "Today's girls often want to their locks professionally handled."

Well, we shouldn't deny them their professional handling. Get them out of the sand box. We're heading to the salon.

Posted by Jen Singer, April 4, 2008 at 11:43 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

ezgmom says:
"My 11 year old doesn't know anyone her age that has had her hair colored, but she's been asking (begging) for several weeks to get hers done. I told her I didn't get my hair colored until it started turning gray (after children) and I think that was a good time to get it done. Her response? 'I have to be really old to get it colored? Is that a law?'"

Mom of 3 says:
"Great! Now we are teaching out girls to worry about their looks at an even younger age. Heck, why not start streaking hair and applying make up at birth? Start 'em early, seeems to be the mantra of today's mothers."

LilHuskiesFootBallMom says
"I don't think I have ever been so happy to have boys! Give them a buzz cut for the summer and for football season and they're happy (they're 10 and 7 1/2 years old)"

---

APRIL 2, 2008
Tweens plot to harm teacher foiled. What the heck is going on?
Good Morning America reported that a group of third graders plotted to attack their teacher in retaliation for disciplining one of the girls in the class. Says the Associated Press, the nine kids, ages 8 and 9, brough a broken steak knife, handcuffs, duct tape and other items to school, "assigning children tasks including covering the windows and cleaning up afterward, police said Tuesday." The New York Post showed these photos of the kids' weapon cache, which, frankly, could have done some harm.

Yes, I said they were third graders.

I had a bunch of kids around that age in my car the other day, and they were looking at a history book on weapons. One kid said he "liked to look at dead people," and then they all went on to make jokes about death until I stopped all the nonsense and got them talking baseball. They never went looking for a steak knife or handcuffs. (Where do eight year-olds get handcuffs?)

Kids talk big, but plotting to kill a teacher? I just can't see it.

Says the Associated Press: "Nine children have been given discipline up to and including long-term suspension." Another student reported the plot before it got completely out of hand.

Homeschoolers, breathe easy. For the rest of us, well. Watch your cutlery.
Posted by Jen Singer, April 2, 2008 at 10:40 a.m.

---

Got something to say? Click here to tell us and we'll post what you have to say.

---