Yesterday, Senator Hillary Clinton visited San Francisco to headline a Democratic fund-raiser. During her remarks, she made an interesting comment. Consider:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Ignoring the obvious point that she is not a mother hen who can "take things away", I'm going to move on to the productive aspect of my concern. Senator Clinton, please explain "the common good". If you mean that we're going to work to be fiscally responsible by reducing spending, ending the deficit, and repaying the national debt, I accept that definition. If you mean increasing revenue, ending the deficit, and examine the national debt, then I do not accept your notion of the common good.

I hate taxes, but no one will say they love taxes. I love fiscal responsibility, but no one will say they hate fiscal responsibility. We agree on basic ideas. However, the federal government is not entitled to any specific amount of revenue monetary inflow. The federal government's role is to do things for the citizenry that it can't or shouldn't do for itself: national defense, public education, infrastructure, etc. But now, thanks to spending increases and tax cuts, we see an additional, expanding item added to the federal government's responsibilities that shouldn't exist: servicing the national debt.

We do nothing to reduce this balance. Indeed, in the last few years, we've increased it. We don't stop spending, though. It's irrelevant that the interest payments will continue to grow. We don't care that this will become an economic tumor, consuming more of our nation's wealth the longer it is left unchecked. This must stop.

During my undergraduate years, I created a debt mountain for myself through irresponsible use of credit cards. This cycle continued throughout my 20's as I made payments that covered interest without touching principal, while continuing to spend on credit for necessities. I struggled like this for years until I began to earn a higher income. Once my income increased, I stopped struggling, but I continued to pay the consequences of my previous decisions. As I contributed more to principal, I watched my debt decrease. That lasted for several years. One day, after much discipline, I paid my last credit card debt in full.

The part of that story that is ignored is the true impact. As my income rose, I didn't increase my spending. I didn't get to enjoy the new cars, clothes, and computers. While many of my friends were able to acquire these items, my spending remained at my poorest levels. When my friends bought houses, I did not. I'd earned as much as them, but I wasn't able to save for a house. I still rent the house I live in.

I don't regret my mistakes because they've given me the life I have now. But I do not perpetuate them. As a nation, we're perpetuating our mistakes. We believe that we're invincible and no harm can occur from our debt. The dollar is the most respected currency in the world, but that doesn't guarantee its future. We have to begin treating our economic future with respect and understand that our debt cannot continue to grow. America has acted like a trust fund baby for too long. Changing one side of the tax inflow/outflow equation is insufficient.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Is talking on a cell phone in a public bathroom a habit exclusive to men? Answering a ringing cell phone?

I'm serious. I don't have any clue if women do this or not. I assume not, but I'd like to know. Men do this all the time, despite it being a vile habit that must cease.

To the men who do this (yes, I'm talking to you, That Guy™): you don't mind transmitting the sound of me urinating, so perhaps I will come to your house and transmit the image of you sprawled on your couch with your hand stuffed in your underwear.

No? Fine, but stop being an asshole.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (6)

I'm not a big fan of America Online, but I use it for dial-up while I'm at work. It offers the easiest connection and a few *extras* (of which I never partake...), so I chose it to "be my company's internet provider". Translated, that means tax deduction.

Recently, I read an article in which the author mentioned that he uses AOL for the same thing. In parentheses, he mentioned that he used the UK version of AOL. I didn't know this existed, but I had to have it. So I downloaded it.

This version is infinitely better than the American version. The voices are cooler, the software is easier, and the gossip is smarter. Point one was my pre-download reason for this software. Reason three is my post-download reason for keeping it. Instead of "my house done blowed up from ther tornada", I get "more violence likely on Big Brother". Somehow, that seems to be more intelligent. The writer is winking with me, knowing that this isn't news and it's ok to laugh at the ridiculousness of the story. The American version just wants me to feel superior, which is useless since I already feel that way. I don't need reinforcement.

Now that I'm using the UK version, I'd like to add reason four to the mix. How else would I know that someone offered one million quid for Bros to reunite? (I voted "yes".)

Sadly, it seems as though it will not happen for more than a little bit of touring, according to Matt Goss.

"I know for a fact we'll never reform, that will never happen, never in a million years. I know that I'm not for that, Luke's not up for it and I know Craig isn't."

"But one thing I would be up for is doing a one-off summer gig and having a good old sing song."

Please, please, please let that happen. That would rule! "I Owe You Nothing", "When Will I Be Famous", "Life's A Heartbeat", and "Chocolate Box" are etched in my brain forever. At a reunion tour, I'll be the little 12-year-old girl in the front row, singing along ever so sweetly with every word. I might even get braces again just to complete the look. I have enough British Airways Executive Club miles for a free flight, so I can pretend I'm using my allowance money for the trip. Seriously, say the word.

Thank you, AOL UK.

P.S. Did I mention that I'm going to see Hanson in two weeks?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is showing himself to be an astute politician. Consider one of his many solutions for solving the state deficit:

On fiscal matters, Mr. Schwarzenegger considers himself an old-school Republican determined to ferret out waste. No item is too minor to escape his attention.

For instance, since Mr. Schwarzenegger took office on Nov. 17, the toilet paper in the Capitol has been switched from two-ply to one-ply, a saving of thousands of dollars over the years. "It's not anymore the two-ply," he said. "Because you know what? We're trimming. We're living within our means."

How about coin-op? Wouldn't that be even better?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

Since I still have Yahoo e-mail (while waiting to migrate to Gmail), I browsed the wonderful Yahoo site to get to my inbox. As I'm sure everyone knows, they put ads throughout their site for your surfing amusement. Or, it's because they're unscrupulous fucks who would swipe your credit card to steal $10 because they know you won't go through the effort to sue them. Either explanation is possible but the root cause is the same. They believe their consumers are stupid.

Consider this wonderful ad found on Yahoo:

how do am "rhetorical" meen, yAhoo? I's whented too Colledge but i did'nt never lurn know werd like "r-h-e-t-o-r-i-c-a-l". pleeze egsplane you meenin! butt i likes payeing mor, expeshully if it foor dial-up wit dat moedum thingy in mie conpootur. Hellp.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Anyone wondering what perchlorate is? I didn't, until today. So I looked it up. Perchlorate is an interesting little chemical:

Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and manmade chemical.

Hmmm. That doesn't answer the question. I guess I should read a little further. Read along with me.

Naturally occurring perchlorate, for example, is found in nitrate fertilizer deposits from Chile.

That still doesn't explain it. Why can't the FDA get to the point. Continuing:

Most of the perchlorate manufactured in the United States is used as the primary ingredient of solid rocket propellant.

I still don't know what it is, but I now know enough to understand that I don't want to ingest it. But what are the other uses, since only "most" of the manufactured perchlorate is used in solid rocket propellant? Oh, there are good uses. Dare I even say it? There are great uses.

Perchlorate is also used in a wide variety of industrial processes, including, but not limited to, tanning and leather finishing, rubber manufacture, paint and enamel production and additives in lubricating oils. Perchlorate is also used in pyrotechnics, such as fireworks, gun powder, explosives, and highway flares.

As if perchlorate wasn't cool enough, it's even found it's way into California cows. That's right, folks. It's floating around in the milk produced by California cows.

While California health officials propose a maximum level of 6 parts per billion in drinking water, the EPA proposes a standard of 1 part per billion.

The [Environmental Working Group] tests, conducted by researchers at Texas Tech University, found the chemical in 31 of 32 samples from milk purchased at grocery stores in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The average level of the chemical was 1.3 parts per billion.

The EWG said the Food and Agriculture Department tests found an average level of 5.8 parts per billion of perchlorate in 34 samples it tested from milk silos in Alameda, Sacramento and San Joaquin counties.

Are you concerned? The government isn't.

Department officials confirmed those results, but spokesman Steve Lyle said the findings didn't show any need for consumers to drink less milk.

"At this point, there is not enough information to suggest that eating foods with low levels of perchlorate poses a significant health concern," Lyle said.

Just because perchlorate causes thyroid malfunction, which can lead to "lowered IQ, mental retardation, loss of hearing and speech, and motor skill deficits," why should we worry? A few chemicals can only work to strengthen our immune systems. Consider:

California's dairy industry will work with state and federal officials to find out how perchlorate is getting into milk and how to remove the chemical, said Michael Marsh, CEO of the Western United Dairymen, which represents the state's $4.5 billion dairy industry. But Marsh said there is a "paucity of science" showing perchlorate's harmful effects on human health.

I do not need overwhelming proof from the scientific community to realize that drinking rocket fuel isn't smart. It's good that I'm a vegan.

Now, I must announce a nifty little secret. California cows are getting their perchlorate from the multiple-state water supply.

After beginning my entry, I finished reading the article. The study wasn't slanted, but the articles about the study bury the full details in the bottom of the story. I slanted my story to prove something I take pride in: I won't slant facts to prove a point I wish to make. But I slanted my entry against milk to show how easy it is to spin a story. The lesson from the EWG study is deeper than the danger of drinking milk, but the headline will be used to prove the advantages of veganism. (Cow milk isn't meant for human consumption. Don't hurt the cows.) Or to prove that President Bush is decimating the environment by allowing perchlorate. (Perchlorate is used in missiles. Bush likes missiles. etc., etc. etc.) Or whatever other pet issue someone needs to push.

Spin occurs on every point of the American political/ideological spectrum. For some reason, we don't understand the concept of debate and the logic that fuels it. I won't go as far as to say that we've forgotten how to do this, that the "good ol' days" were more civil. One only needs to look at the muckraking of Yellow Journalism and the coerced paranoia of McCarthyism to understand that this is the basic mode of thought for most humans. We have the ability to rise above it but rarely choose to do so. I'm being sincere when I ask this next question. Why?

I don't claim to be superior to anyone in this regard, but I do value intellectual debate and reason in promoting beliefs. "Because" has never been acceptable to me. I don't accept it when it's offered, so I won't offer it back. Please know that when I write about something that interests me, I'm going to do my best let the facts lead the discussion. I'm going to push my beliefs, but I will not bend the facts to support them.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (5)

Today is Father's Day, but for me it's just another day. Not because I want it to be, but because it has to be. When everyone else makes the obligatory call to dad, I do nothing. I have nowhere to call.

My father died in March 1977. I'm now more than four years older than he was the day he was shot while sitting in the passenger's seat of his friend's pickup. A mindless game of quick draw with their handguns and an accidental pull of the trigger and my brother and I were sentenced to a lifetime of wondering how our father's presence would've impacted our lives.

I don't have children yet, but my brother has a 3-year-old son, the same age we were when our dad died. Knowing what we missed and not wanting The Boy™ to miss any of it, my brother dotes on my nephew with all the attention and love every child should be so lucky to receive. He doesn't spoil The Boy™, but he embraces every moment he shares with The Boy™ as his best moment ever.

The Boy™ has what we lost. He has a father to share every joy and every pain, no matter how big or small, monumental or inconsequential. If I ever have children, I hope I can do the same. I want to pass on to my children what my brother has taught The Boy™: although he'll never meet his grandfather, he got the best possible father because of it.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

After two crazy weekends and a mid-week bout of flu, I just want to let all two of you know that I haven't abandoned the blog. Be back "full-time" soon.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

From this article in today's USA Today:

Why are we obsessed with all things J. Lo?

We're not.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Walking around downtown DC today, I noticed something interesting while looking at the front of newspapers. Obviously, all the major papers are covering the state funeral for President Reagan, but I'm amused by how each newspaper offered a peek at its editorial marketing with its front page. In newspapers, it's important to put your "money shot" above the fold. Consider:

The "liberal bias" of The Washington Post focuses on the pageantry and order of a state funeral rather than President Reagan himself.

The "conservative slant" of The Washington Times emphasizes the personality of a Republican icon.

The "McPaper" aspect of USA Today highlights the human loss felt by the nation through the emotion of Nancy Reagan.

You're amazed at my intellect, aren't you?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Reading the news reports of President Reagan's funeral, I read something interesting in this article about the whole process. It seems to be a somber affair, as one would expect of a funeral. However, some are treating it "more like a parade" than a funeral. I don't have a problem with this, for the most part. While standing on chairs to take pictures may be a little tacky, a state funeral is as much a celebration of America as it is the mourning of a president. I don't think it's a significant disrespect, so I don't really care.

But then there is this:

After the building was opened to the public, some people left crying, but others got on their cell phones to ask if they had been seen on television.

I'm sure those people were respectful in the Rotunda, but why bother if you're just an ass who wants to be on the TV. You're delaying the people who want to express a genuine emotion. If getting on the TV is your only goal, Jerry Springer is looking for you. Save us the burden of being distracted by you, because you're no different than the morons who sit behind home plate at every baseball game, talking on your cell phone, waving at the TV. Nobody likes you.

Instead, show some class. In case you need a lesson in how, here's your example.

I can't make it any clearer.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

Taking a walk through memory lane, allow me to highlight that, on December 5th, I wrote about Republican efforts to replace Franklin Roosevelt with Ronald Reagan on the dime. Although my psychic vision was blurry, I was prophetic in my ranting.

Ronald Reagan is not a saint. He was president during a very prosperous time in United States history. Bill Clinton was president during a very prosperous time in United States history. Ronald Reagan had a scandal while in office. Bill Clinton had a scandal while in office. Where's the push to idolize Clinton?

It's time to start a petition to have Clinton's face put on the $10 bill. Sure, Alexander Hamilton was instrumental in solidifying the financial foundation of the U.S., but that was during the age of agriculture. Clinton was president during the prosperous Dot-com 90's. We missed our chance to change the money during the industrial age. Let's not miss it for the information age!

Obviously, no one is pushing to idolize President Clinton on the $10 bill, but there is now an effort underway in Congress to replace Alexander Hamilton with Ronald Reagan. Consider:

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who as majority whip is the No. 2-ranking Republican in the Senate, says he'll sponsor the proposal when the time is right. Robert Stevenson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., says "there could be a head of steam" behind the idea, especially right after Reagan's death.

The key to this is the timing. A few opportunists are trying to capitalize on President Reagan's death to ram legislation through Congress. They're playing on sentimentality and the realization that peer pressure will prevent a public stance against this, at least initially. I suspect "unpatriotic" will even be thrown at anyone who dares to disagree.

I don't disagree with the idea of honoring Ronald Reagan. He was president, so he deserves the memorials and remembrances. Every president deserves that respect, regardless of politics, but beyond what we've already done, we're in danger of mythologizing him in a manner unbecoming of America's abhorrence of "royalty".

Yet, politicizing the U.S. currency is a bad idea. Our paper currency is symbolic, bigger than the legacy of Ronald Reagan. In its current form, U.S. paper currency reflects the history of our nation and the men who either created our nation or saved it from self-destruction: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Benjamin Franklin. Our currency is stoic and regal. We expect that stiff upper-lip response from other countries before we expect it of ourselves, but we've installed it into our currency. We don't change our currency on a whim and that has made it the international standard of stability.

Other countries don't use paper currency to the extent of the United States. While the rest of the world has progressed to coins, achieving reduced costs and increased longevity, we cling to paper and shun efforts to switch. We put a psychic value on our currency that shouldn't be violated to impose a political agenda aiming for something just shy of presidential sainthood.

For an appropriate response to this idea, consider this statement by Ron Chernow, author Alexander Hamilton:

"I hope the country finds a suitable way to commemorate Ronald Reagan, but I don't think it would be appropriate to do it by downgrading Alexander Hamilton, who has suffered from too much historical neglect, and who is finally and belatedly starting to be appreciated by posterity," Chernow says. Even Reagan might have objected, he suggests: "Hamilton was the prophet of the capitalist system that Ronald Reagan so admired."

But here I am, standing nearly alone in thinking that currency is a symbol of the economy. Consider this statement:

"Hamilton was a nice guy and everything, but he wasn't president," says Grover Norquist, who heads the legacy project as well as an influential conservative group called Americans for Tax Reform. "As a board member of the (National Rifle Association), I can also tell you that he was a bad shot."

I know he's trying to be funny, but he's also trying to trivialize the importance of Alexander Hamilton. Even though Hamilton was never president, how else should we honor his foundation of free-market capitalism than to display his image on our currency? Without Hamilton's ideals, we'd have an economy constrained by ancient thinking and artificial control. Perhaps we'd have something akin to the Soviet economy that President Reagan so honorably opposed and defeated.

We have enough trouble preventing an ignorance of history; we mustn't politic it into obscurity.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

I received a response from an e-mail I sent to the company that owns my preferred domain name for my company. Consider:

Hello Tony,

Thank you for your inquiry.

[Domain Squatting company] is a new concept in premium domain names. We have over ten thousand premium .COM domains, all available for lease or purchase. These are some of the best domains available on the web, and many are worth thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

Our goal is to make these premium domains available to everyone. Because we make the actual investment in the domain, we have the flexibility to offer a pricing plan with the most efficient price points, and the most flexibility.

Each of our domains is available to be leased or purchased with the following options:

For Domain Names consisting of 8 or more characters (not counting the .COM):
1. Monthly Lease for $9.95 per month
2. Annual Lease for $99 per year
3. Purchase for $495.00

For Domain Names consisting of 7 or less characters (not counting the .COM):
1. Monthly Lease for $19.95 per month
2. Annual Lease for $195 per year
3. Purchase for $995.00

If you are interested in leasing or purchasing one or more of our premium domains, please send us an email and let us know which ones. We will then email you a link that will take you to a customized checkout page.

Best Regards,
[Domain Squatter]
[Domain Squatting company]

Domain squatting is not a new concept; it's been happening since the Web became The Next Big Thing. And yet, it hasn't gotten any less despicable.

There is no "actual investment" involved with this company. I'm guessing they pay some college kid $8 an hour to search for available domain names that contain "key" words. That college kid gives the company a list and [Domain Squatting company] registers the list in bulk, probably paying a few bucks for each name. Assuming $4, with more than ten thousand domain names, that's a $40,000 "investment" for this new concept. I will concede that to be a large sum for an initial start-up cost, but if they sold them all, their revenue would be between $5 and $10 million, a tidy profit.

They won't sell them all (I've seen the list and most of the names are not "premium"), so I'll be conservative in the rest of my estimate. To make an easy number, I'll put $10,000 in overhead for the year, giving a nice round $50k for costs. To break even, assuming a nearly even-split between the categories, [Domain Squatting company] will need to sell 67 premium domain names.

There might be 67 names on that list worth using, names that might generate revenue to justify an expense beyond the normal cost of domain registration. [Domain Squatting company]'s business model is good because it has a low sales threshold to achieve success, assuming their prospective consumers are willing. But a "new concept"? No, a new concept would've been a methodology to determine which 67 will sell and then only buying those.

They'll have to find 67 other suckers.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

What the hell is wrong with America? Most days, checking the news on the internet is my first productive task. Usually it's just a scan of headlines to make sure the world still exists. If there's nothing major, I'll come back to the news later to get more details. Yesterday, there the news that President Reagan had died.

I'm not going to pretend that I idolized President Reagan since anyone who has read my writing can infer that. But he was a United States President and deserves the respect that we attach to the highest office in the America. Even though he hadn't been in good health for a decade, this is a Big Story™.

He presided over an extremely prosperous time. While I suspect that the prosperity was more from his optimism than his economics, it happened on his watch. (For what it's worth, I believe the same "optimism trumps economics" applies to President Clinton.) President Reagan spent Soviet Communism into the history books. Blah, blah, blah.

This story, as well as the 60th anniversary of D-Day, deserves the primary attention for the day. Yet, what do I see when I click on the President Reagan story?

Click for a sign of the apocalypse.

I understand that it's Entertainment Tonight, but using the word "entertainment" doesn't offer a free pass. If the story is worth covering, the legitimate "weight" of the story should matter. The death of President Reagan has heft. The marriage of Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony is a useless trifle. At least President Reagan was more important than Mini-Me's annulment.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I was late for work today. I wish I could say it was because I had a doctor's appointment, or even bad traffic. The honest answer is that I was sucked into watching Jerry Springer.

I know I should be embarrassed, but I couldn't help myself. Like wrestling, it's staged entertainment, so I don't get morally indignant about the downfall of America. However, I enjoy it a little too much when I realize that, although it's clearly staged, the participants are a little too stupid to be justifiably allowed to breed. Yet, I continued watching.

Why, you may ask? Dwayne needed to confront his wife. At 21-years-old, he's "in the prime of his life" and needs to enjoy himself. His wife, Amber, is 7-months pregnant with their third child, but sits around the house all day because she "chose to be a housewife for her occupation". Dwayne needed to tell her to buck up and lose 20 pounds. Normally, that wouldn't be enough to interest me but as I slipped my socks on, Dwayne uttered the hook that reeled me in.

"About a year ago, I seen her cousin Sunshine at Wal-Mart."

You know that won't end well.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

After my recent troubles with Verizon, I'm inclined to believe that phones companies are run by incompetent management. Of course, I know that it's not something wrong with just phone companies, but an inherent risk generally realized in large companies. They're big, inflexible, and stupid. They march forward, trampling over everything in their way, which usually includes customers, when they're nice enough to believe that people are customers instead of imbeciles to be separated from their cash. Those companies are dinosaurs, waiting to be made extinct.

In New Zealand, one such company is Telecom Corp.. It recently eliminated its plan that gave customers unlimited text messaging for $6.29 per month. It now offers "only" 1,000 messages per month before extra charges kick in. That's a good move, since text messaging is a dying phenomenon.

Before I went through my cell phone switch nightmare, I never used text messaging. When I returned to Sprint, I got the cool phone that makes web surfing and text messaging workable. So I started messaging. Certain people have been known to receive a dozen or more messages per day now that I'm used to messaging. It's cool and stuff. But 1,000? Danielle has only 500 per month with her Verizon plan, but I'll be amazed if she uses them all. So 1,000 seems to be plenty.

But still. Progress works like this: every year, a company changes its services to offer a lower price or more of the product. It happens with cars. It happens with computers. It happens with video games.

The common theme in my examples is technology. Anything that can technologically improve gets better or cheaper. It's so unavoidable that it might as well be the 11th Commandment. But Telecom Corp. missed the memo.

Fraser Ray didn't like that, so he protested by sending 80,012 text messages during May, the last month of the old plan. He makes me look like an amateur since I only sent Verizon twenty-six checks to pay my $56.09 bill. I have a new hero. But Mr. Ray was not alone because New Zealanders are awesome.

Telecom spokeswoman Helen Isbister said a handful of people had sent more than 100,000 text messages in May.

With an obvious protest, how does Telecom Corp. interpret this?

"I suppose it's an indication of the kind of thing we wanted to discourage by putting a cap," she said.

Phone companies are stupid.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

The most logical domain name choice for for my new company was registered by someone else, two days after I incorporated. It would be acceptable if someone with an interesting idea purchased it. You know, like a woman who will be famous and I can ride on her coattails like a monkey strapped to a rocket. But no, my preferred domain name was purchased by a company looking to extort money by holding it for ransom. Scumbags.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Ella Gunderson has become the unofficial spokesgirl for a new trend in adolescent fashion: modesty. Consider her letter to Nordstrom regarding the "shocking" state of current fashion for young girls:

"Dear Nordstrom," wrote Gunderson, of Redmond, Wash. "I am an eleven-year-old girl who has tried shopping at your store for clothes (in particular jeans), but all of them ride way under my hips, and the next size up is too big and falls down."

"I see all of these girls who walk around with pants that show their belly button and underwear," she continued. "Your clearks sugjest that there is only one look. If that is true, then girls are suppost to walk around half naked. I think that you should change that." (sic)

Good for her. She noticed an issue at the store where she likes to shop and did something about it. All children should learn to take action instead of whining. This story is one proof that not all kids buy into the pop culture fashion requirement.

The full blame can't be placed on Nordstrom because they don't dictate trends. They predict by ordering ahead of season, but will not continue with a trend if the clothes don't sell. One walk around the mall proves that these clothes are selling.

While I do believe that current fashion trends are ridiculous, parents have to take responsibility. Kids need to be taught to rely on their inner guidance. Trends and fashion are ok, but when it goes too far (which is subjective, even in this case), they need to be taught to appreciate their own views.

What I don't like is that this will become an example that teenagers are turning away from Satan and towards Christ. Using this trend shift to brainwash children that their bodies are "dirty" will be a missed opportunity to teach them to think for themselves. At some point, as a society, we must embrace the belief that teaching kids to think independently does not automatically mean they will turn away from the beliefs of their parents. They should not be given trite or ridiculous slogans, such as the one used by ModestByDesign.com: "Clothing your father would be proud of". Good plan... teach young girls that they should focus on clothes approved by their fathers... because they can't want them for any other reason than to please an older man. I'm over-simplifying, but not by much.

This is the same culture that prefers McPapers for the morning commute. In Washington, DC, there are two commuter rags that people read every day: The Washington Post Express and The Journal. Both papers are attempting to capitalize on a national trend among newspapers to offer commuter versions. A reasonable idea, but it's been taken to the extreme. These papers offer trimmed down versions of their regular stories, offering the basic point of the story. Unfortunately, they pander to a presumed short attention span and reduced intellect.

As an aside, this is not surprising when journalists can't be bothered to do real research. I've seen this in other news stories, but I'll point it out here because it's relevant. From the Catholic.net article, consider this insightful proof that Ms. Gunderson is a role model:

A Google search of “Ella Gunderson” drew over 70 links to stories from all over the world. Eleven-year-old Ella Gunderson is proof that everyone can make a difference.

I've read The Washington Post Express in the past. This morning, I read The Journal for the first time. The paper is awful, but I searched for an article about Ms. Gunderson because of the report in The Journal. The article, in its entirety, read like this:

Teen proposes decent clothes

During a recent shopping trip to Nordstrom, 11-year-old Ella Gunderson became frustrated with all the low-cut hip-huggers and skintight tops. So she wrote to the Seattle-based chain's executives to complain. The industry has been getting the message: A more modest look is in, fashion experts say.

That's it. How can we teach our kids to think when we so rarely participate in the activity ourselves? I'm scared when I realize that many of the people around me on the Metro, who consider this an acceptable form of news, are going to important government jobs that could help decide the future of our nation and the world.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)