January 2007 Archives

So you've probably seen this story all over the news by now, but according to this article, “The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming. Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or similar terms from communications about their work."

Scary, right?

A little while ago, we asked iVillagers whether or not you were worried about global warming. Over 1,000 people weighed in, and the results were split exactly 70/30 – 70% were worried, and 30% weren’t.

Some of the responses: “Yes, the weather around here has been weird! We usually have more snow than none around this time. But I'm not really worried about global warming.”

“Living in the north, I see the effects of Global Warming on a daily basis. Usually, I'd be shivering through a blistering -30 below but that is not the case in these past few years. It is the middle of December and we are having -0 Weather, which I can say is nice but extremely alarming in the long run.”

“I am so angry that at this point 29% people that have taken this poll aren't thinking of the ill effects of global warming! THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US. Rich, poor, blue, red, or green party. Please everyone take the time to understand that this won’t ever go away, EVER. We have one world, please help to make it a healthy place to live. An Inconvenient Truth is one of the most honest movies about global warming. Rent it PLEASE.”

“I understand that people don't want to believe- it's a scary thought. But the hurricanes, floods, tsunamis and higher temps we've had have HUGE effects and bad ones at that! I can't imagine how much worse it will get.”

I think this issue is dangerously easy to ignore. On days when it’s been unseasonably warm here in NYC, it seems like everyone you encounter makes some joke about global warming… but then we hit a cold snap, and it’s not a topic of conversation as much anymore. Maybe the whole issue just feels too big and out of our control. What do you think?

I’m also curious to know if there are any measures you personally take to minimize your environmental “footprint,” whether you drive a hybrid car or try to conserve resources like electricity or water in your everyday life.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in my bathtub, soaking in a lot of nice, hot water, while eating some baby-caribou jerky. (Oh, I’m kidding.)

We’ve been awfully serious lately here on the Beehive, haven’t we? Well, I thought I’d share this fun post with you all on this chilly (here in New York, anyway!) Tuesday afternoon: “If time and money were no object, and you had your passport in hand and someone to travel with you, what are the top 5 or 10 places in the world you would travel to and why?”

Mmm! Let’s daydream.

One response: “I did a report on Australia when I was in 5th grade and ever since then I have wanted to tour the entire country. This would probably take a few months to see everything I want to see.”

Um, this lady’s also dreaming about Ireland, an Alaskan cruise, Mayan, Aztec and Inca Ruins, and a beach vacation in Fiji! Yep, she’s going to be busy.

Another poster: “Venice, Italy-- I want to ride on a gondola with my sweetie.”

And: “I hope to some day travel to Seoul South Korea because I have been watching their TV shows for years and years now, actually know how to speak some of the language from watching so much, and have grown to love their customs.”

And: “ALASKA! I think Denali National Park would be a good place to start. And then I want to go salmon fishing with the bears. And then take a cruise in the Price William Sound.” Seems like a good plan to me.

That’s right, we’re headed all around the world. Me, I’ve got Japan on the brain. Yum.

How about you? Where would you go?

Is Hillary playing the "Mom Card"? And if so…so what?

This past weekend Hillary Clinton really began her “ground war” as a candidate with a weekend in the ever-important caucus state of Iowa. (Go Hawkeyes!) And, as many news sources are noting, “Senator Clinton has begun repeatedly referring to herself as a mother, with the particular experience that entails, since declaring herself ‘in’ for the presidential race last weekend. She has described her daughter and husband as her closest advisers…It was a point she drove home yesterday [in Iowa]."

Some suggest Senator Clinton is using her daughter to soften her image, that the 59-year-old Clinton has a reputation as being cold and calculating, and that her family is crucial to her strategy to cultivate a more compassionate image. She's been invoking Chelsea, and her own experience as a mother, more and more often. Hey, we’re used to this kind of thing by now, right? Politicians use whatever angle they think they can, whether they’re totally “keeping it real,” down-home George Bush style, or playing the “I’m so not a politician” card, a la Schwarzenegger. But is it exploitative of Clinton to invoke her experience as a mother… or is it a valid thing to bring up? Could being a mother make someone a better leader? It does seem to me like parenthood often imbues people with a certain sensitivity and compassion – but that doesn’t mean that non-parents are incapable of these traits, to be sure.

Many people think Clinton’s family will be a liability in her run for president. In fact, many of you have commented on the boards and blogs here on the site that you wouldn’t be able to get over Bill enough to vote for Hill.

Over on the Women of the World board, posters are debating Hillary’s chances. (They are referring here to an article that projected a race between Clinton and John McCain, fyi.) Here’s an interesting back-and-forth about politicians’ personalities, and how they affect your opinions:

“I really have to say that I can't believe that the Dems would be behind her. There are too many people out there that just don't like her. Do you think they are banking on the disenchantment of the people over our current president? And I don't see how McCain would be any better. I thought for sure Giuliani would be the favorite. “

“This country was in the best shape it's been in for years when Bill was in office, which surprised me because I didn't vote at all in that election, I found him repulsive…Bill Clinton taught me a valuable lesson. You don't have to like someone to vote for them, or for them to do a good job.”

And on the February Leap Year Luv Bugs board, one poster writes: “On Hillary: While it's highly unlikely I'd vote for her, I think it is great that she is running. I think she's qualified/capable & am always happy to see politics widen to include more types of people. Politics is tough in general but I think it's even tougher for women. I'd love to see a Hillary vs. Condi race.”

Anyway. So, is the face of politics changing? Will having more women (and mothers) (and grandmothers) in the political field (Hello, Nancy Pelosi) change anything? Let us know what you think.

Girls can be so mean, can’t they? Especially in high school. And girls (especially in high school) can be so frustrated and angsty and angry with the world that they need some sort of (usually inappropriate) outlet.

So what are we to make of this story that’s all over right now, about six teenaged girls who made a list of 300 people they wanted dead? Now, I’m not saying these girls did a smart thing – I mean, they posted the list on freaking MySpace, for one thing, which is as public forum as any. And in this post-Columbine world, kids have to know that any threat of violence is not going to be dealt with lightly.

But a charge of homicide conspiracy? Even the principal of their school admitted that he didn’t think he’d “thwarted a shooting incident or an act of violence.” And the list included classmates and faculty, but also Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey and the Energizer bunny. Were these girls really serious?

There is some great advice on dealing with arguments between teenaged girls which, as we all well know, can get pretty nasty, here on the Parents of Teens board.

“I know how hard it is ... my own dear daughter (now 15yo sophomore) went through her own fair share of mean girls stuff in 8th grade, with girls she had been friends with since 3-4th grade. I wanted to strangle a few scrawny 13yo necks, that's for sure.”

“Who knows why girls are so passive-aggressive, it may have something to do with the fact that girls usually do not "slug it out" the way boys do, and then move on. Girls can be vicious, in my humble opinion, much worse than boys.” This poster also recommends, as a way of gaining more insights into teen girls’ mean behaviors, reading Queen Bees and Wannabes, an excerpt of which can be found here.

But back to these six girls in Tennessee – did they deserve to charged with homicide conspiracy? Or has political correctness gone too far, making us all overly skittish about the threat of school violence?

Breastfeeding seems to be one of those topics that all mothers have really strong opinions on. Now there’s a new twist to the old debate: Would you nurse your friend’s baby?

Here’s a snippet from an essay on the topic over on Babble:

“ ‘I want us to nurse each other’s babies,’ Anastasia said.

‘Okay,’ I said, immediately.

‘They’ll be milk-siblings,’ she said excitedly.

‘Yeah,’ I said. ‘Wow.’

What I didn’t do was yell, ‘OMIGOD! THAT IS SO BIZARRE THAT YOU WANT TO DO THAT!’ That was my first internal reaction.”

Well, yes. There is something about the whole thing that sounds a little squicky. Breastfeeding seems like such an intimate act between mother and child that you can’t really blame the author of the essay when she admits to worrying that if their friends find out they “cross-nurse,” they’ll be considered “the parenting equivalent of wife-swappers.”

Over on the Breast vs. Bottle board, there’s a similar debate going on.

cmsusantt posts, “In a recent discussion with some of my female friends, the topic of breastfeeding moms nursing anothers' kids came up. If you were unable to continue breastfeeding (due to illness or other reasons) interrupting the baby's early nursing, would you have another mom breastfeed your child?”

Here are a few of the responses so far:

“After I got over the idea of my baby sucking on someone else's breast, if I could speak my fears about bonding with someone else etc., I might...”

“I probably would be okay with certain people nursing but my issue would be more one of jealousy that with the milk.”

“I think it would be very hard and painful to see my baby and someone else bond in that way that I don't think I could do it.”

Would you ever cross-nurse? Whether it was due to an inability to nurse, or out of a desire to share this intimate experience with a close friend?

Or is this whole debate the result of overly sleep-deprived mothers of infants?

Our pals at the Today Show had a segment today on the top 5 cities to have a baby, and the May 2007 Expecting Club, not surprisingly, is talking about it. (Think they'll make any last-minute moves?!)

cl-charrah breaks it down: “They rank it based on affordability, breast feeding success rate, fertility clinics and whether they are covered by insurance, safety, birthing options, and several others… Mine of course does not rank at all! No surprise since West Virginia sucks – LOL.” She goes on to ask: “So how does your city rank, or does it? What did they get the worst ‘grade’ in?”

Other women weigh in:
“#3 - Minneapolis! Ok, so I don't live in the city proper, but one of its suburbs, but my fertility doc is in Mpls, and he's fabulous!”

“#14 - Charlotte, NC. I've been fairly happy with access to things in Charlotte.”

“Pittsburgh didn't even rank! LOL! I am not sure why! Oh well we don't have any plans to move so I guess we are just stuck where we are.”

There’s a lot of skepticism about the ratings, too.

“I can't believe that Boston tops the list! What a joke!...Childcare is really expensive - nearly $300 week at the cheaper places. The cost of housing is very expensive. And employers (at least in my field) are NOT very family friendly…The weather SUCKS 6-7 months out of the year… And yes, Children’s Hospital in Boston is great, but your baby would have to have a serious problem to go there. I don't know how other states are, but the cesarean section rate is very high, 25-40% at most hospitals. The hospital I plan to deliver at has a 40% cesarean rate!! I wouldn't trust those reports at all...”

“Evidently I live in one of the worst cities!!!! That really surprises me since I have had good luck w/ OB, fertility clinic, breast feeding consultants, etc.”

I think it’s funny that where I live, New York City, was commended for “moving up in the ratings,” though it still rates pretty low, at 26. My neighborhood is positively bursting with babies to the point that it’s kind of becoming a joke. But, I get the ratings (D+ for affordability – no kidding!).

What do you think? Is there anything to these ratings? Where does your city rank?

In his second-to-last State of the Union address last night, President Bush called for legislation addressing energy consumption, immigration, health care, education and other needs; reiterated his new strategy, including increased troop deployments, for Iraq; and, interestingly, called for reduced gas consumption. (And you wanted to watch American Idol instead? Ha!) So, what did you think of his speech?

Before President Bush’s State of the Union address, “nearly two-thirds of Americans appear to have given up on success in Iraq and also on his presidency,” according to this article by NBC news. And when we asked you all about Bush's plan for increased deployments in Iraq a few weeks ago, you responded in droves, leaving comments ranging the spectrum from “The president doesn't know what he is doing" to "Our president has a tough job... He is doing the best that he can."

Did the president's speech last night make you feel differently about the course in Iraq, the economy, healthcare, or the state of the union in general?

My esteemed colleague Josey and I attended a fascinating forum last night called Between Two Worlds, organized by Sanctuary for Families, a New York organization that provides support for victims of domestic violence. Yes yes, hobnobbing with Dan Rather, Richard Holbrooke and Karenna Gore Schiff (erm, if by hobnobbing with, you mean "watching from afar") -- all part of a day's work around here.

Anyway, the panelists discussed the unique challenges faced by immigrant victims of domestic abuse. Think about it: these women find themselves plunged into a new world, often unable to speak the language, severed from their support systems and extended families. Many have been through unspeakable traumas. Many lack proper documentation. Many simply don't have any idea of what resources exist to help them, and, as one of the panelists pointed out, if they live in areas without public transportation, it's possible that they can't even access what resources there are. All this, and their abusers are oftentimes the one and only person they know in this whole country. Talk about having the deck stacked against you.

A recurring theme of the evening was that while as much as the details of specific women's stories may vary, depending on their countries of origin and particular situations, there are even more ways in which their stories are shared. One panelist, the charismatic Beth Silverman-Yam of Sanctuary for Families, spoke of the aspects of the experience of domestic abuse that all survivors share -- the deep pain, the fear, the feeling of isolation. Part of being traumatized, as she said, is that you often lose the ability to trust yourself, to believe in yourself, to tell your own story. It's important to be able to shape your story into a narrative.

All of which, naturally, made me think of our own community, and the survivors of domestic abuse who have found a support network within iVillage. All the panelists spoke about the importance of helping women who have been abused to find a support system, whether it's legal council they need, or simply a community of friends.

So how does all of this relate to us?

I love what Josey posted on the Domestic Violence boards here. She points out that even simple things like t-shirts for young women with messages like, "Who needs a brain when you have these?" can be agents of negativity. "What is pop culture in this part of the world teaching our young boys about the way they should treat women as adults? What should we be doing differently as a society?"

What do you think? Is there a connection between the messages our society and pop culture telegraph to women and the continued growth of domestic violence?

There are so many good posts on the boards that sometimes (okay, a lot of times) (okay, always) it's hard to keep up. So, what else was buzzing on the, er, boardosphere this week?

Read, post, repeat.

See you next week!

Is there more school violence than there used to be, or do we just hear more about it now? The stories are always so gut-wrenching. And here’s the latest: According to the New York Times, this morning at around 8:00 am, “A 16-year-old student was charged with murder Friday in the fatal stabbing of a classmate … The victim was described as a 15-year-old freshman at the suburban school, about 17 miles west of Boston… a fight broke out early Friday between two male students in a school bathroom and spilled out into the hallway, where the stabbing took place.”

So, how do you keep your kids safe? How do you talk to them about violence, and about these scary news stories? We have some great videos that speak directly to this issue: Don’t miss this compelling look at resilience in kids– and this shocking look at youth violence.

Last October, when there were those horrific school shootings in Pennsylvania, iVillagers posted to the boards in droves: “Its soo hard when the kids get scared by real events like that…We also reassured our son that it was a very rare occurance and that most people are good. We just tend to hear more about the bad guys on the news. It took a long time and a lot of repetition but he eventually got over the paranoia...”

On the Hot Topic: School Shootings board, there is an ongoing discussion about what we can to do keep our kids safer: “I wrestle with these thoughts everyday when sending my kids off to school! Are they safe enough? Can I do more to keep them safer? What can the schools do to ensure they are safe?”

Ugh, ugh, ugh. It's just so sad! 15 years old.

What's your take on it? Weigh in here.

So, several days after the return of two kidnapped Missouri boys, Ben Ownby and Shawn Hornbeck, new details about their kidnapper are emerging, and today’s Oprah’s talking with Shawn Hornbeck and his family on her show. There is something about this story that seems to be sticking with people – so many strange details. Like with the Elizabeth Smart case, it seems like the boys had chances to escape and didn’t. And then there is the eerie connection – if Ben Ownby hadn’t been kidnapped, the police may have never found Shawn Hornbeck. And just what happened to Shawn during those four years he lived with his kidnapper?

One mom posts: “It is consuming my thoughts, these boys were found about 10-15 miles from my house. I can't wrap my mind around it…Can you even imagine how it would feel to get a call on your drive home from work that your son who has been missing for over 4 years was found and he is alive?! Can you imagine finding out that your son has only been 60 miles away from home and living with this sick man for so long... This just hits so close to home for me. It makes me want to hold Jackson close and never let go…”

What a world we live in, eh? This poster highlights an excellent, if spooky, point – how haunting it must be for the parents of this kid to learn that he was so close at hand that whole time – and not to know, as it seems they don’t yet, exactly what happened to Shawn over the past four years.

On the Parenting Issues debate board, mdamom2001 posted just after the kidnapped boys were found: “What a wonderful ending to a horrific story! I'm just lapping it up from the media…My question is: Should we use this as a discussion start up for our kids? This could be a good ‘stranger danger’ conversation starter. Also teaches the kids to keep eyes and ears open at all times. Never be lax when a stranger approaches.”

Are you using this news story as a conversation-starter with your kids? Or would you rather protect your little ones from such scary news?

BTW, there are some good tips on talking to your kids about stranger danger here and here.

As a Washington Post article from early this morning states: “Democrats moved a step closer yesterday to what shapes up as one of the most historic and compelling contests ever for their party's presidential nomination... At center stage stand Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who set up his presidential exploratory committee yesterday, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is set to make clear her intentions soon. Never has a party begun a nomination contest with its two most celebrated candidates a woman and an African American.”

Does anyone remember a few years ago, when both parties were struggling to get voters galvanized enough to even head out to the polls? Now this race seems to be shaping up to be one of the most exciting in recent history -- and this is just for the nomination, folks. (John Kerry who?) Obama is casting himself as the future -- he’s energetic and young and charismatic. But is it all flash? Clinton casts herself as more experienced, and she certainly has more organization and money behind her. But will her long history of public life be a liability? As usual, iVillagers are talking.

On the Politics Today board, one poster asks, “As for the presidential vote, I wanted to know if any of you think [Obama] wouldn't win because of his name. Very seriously, it is a name that brings up bad images of some horrible times in our country. Not only with the war we are in, but with some perceptions of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq and that goes to 9/11. I understand that Senator Obama is not Muslim, but do you think people will wonder, with regard to his name? What about his admitted use of cocaine? Should that be held against him in your opinion? From what I've read, it happened in high school."

Some of the responses: “Name doesn't bother me a bit nor does his history of making some poor choices as a teen. There are too many other things I am looking for in a president besides those things. Leadership. Honesty. Intelligence. Thoughtfulness. Character.”

“I wonder if he's not too young for mainstream, conservative, Christian America who carries a large percentage of the vote."

“The reaction to him seems to be unlike any I've seen in my lifetime, excepting Bobby and John. Whilst we have to be careful and quite pragmatic in our choice in who leads, I do think there is a string of desire for someone to feel good about again, and right now... his comments are touching that nerve.”

“I suspect Sen. Clinton is going to have a bit of a problem with her name, as well.”

Yeah, what about Senator Clinton? I think no matter what you think of her politics, we can all agree that her run for president would inspire lots of women and girls who perhaps haven’t been as involved in politics to get a little more interested. Or, we can hope so anyway. In a recent poll, thousands of iVillagers weighed in on whether or not they would vote for Hillary if she ran for president, and the results were split exactly down the middle. 50/50. Interesting, right? Is this country ready for a female president? If so, is Hillary Clinton the one?

On the Waiting to Try board, there’s a lively discussion on this very topic. “Just wondering where other women stand on having a women as president? Do you think the world is ready yet? Will Hillary Clinton run in 2008?”

“I, personally, am all for a woman president. Will Hillary run? Probably. Will she win? Who knows, but I'm with the ‘no’ party. I personally couldn't vote for her because of her husband's actions. “

“I'd vote for her! I think she has what it takes to be president. My only question is, when a man is president, his wife is the "first lady" so when a woman is president, what is her husband?”

Maybe that’s the real question. Is this country ready for a first, uh, fellow?

What do you think?

We’re a little obsessed with the upcoming movie Because I Said So – and not just because Diane Keaton seems like she’d make the coolest mom. Well, okay, maybe that’s part of it. But what with the recent trend of mom-assisted dating services, it seems like more and more moms are involved in their grown children’s dating lives – just like in the movie. What do you think? Would you ever take dating advice from your mom? iVillagers are posting the best and worst advice their moms have ever given them about dating here. It’s all very interesting…

Here’s a smattering of the worst advice...

“I was raised by someone who (in my opinion)was scared to death of sex or something....because the advice I was given was the following: Never let a man touch you until you are married, and only have sex when you absolutely have to, women were never intended to enjoy it, and never EVER speak of such matters, only ‘trash’ does that....Now, it was taught under the guise of Christian morals, but what it caused was a lady so guilt ridden by her God-given desires, that it wrecked 2 marriages because of the intense shame felt after sex.”

“My mom told me that I should never date a guy who was eight years older than me (especially one who had a roommate: ‘31 is too old for a roommate’). I am so glad I didn't take her advice -- after all, how can you judge someone you've never met?”

...and the best advice!...

“The best advice I ever got was that your brain isn't really done cooking until you are at least 25 and to not even think about marrying or having kids until then. I kept that advice as law and I think it really helped me.”

“Don't marry someone you can live with... marry someone you can't live without. That bit of advice saved me a lot of grief by not marrying the wrong guy, and am not happy to say that I've been married to the love of my life for over 6 years.”

“Never tell me you're fighting. You'll forgive him when he makes you angry, but I won't! She taught me always to keep our issues between the two of us, rather than involving the whole family… and it's really been very helpful the past 19 years!”

“Whenever I start to overanalyze the situation my mom tells me, ‘If it's meant to be, it will be.’”

“When I was going through a rough breakup, my mom was there to remind me (in her own mixed-metaphor kind of way): ‘Men are like cabs; if one won't go all the way to Brooklyn, look around you... there are plenty that are willing to go the extra yard.’”

I find it somewhat encouraging that there is much more good advice on this board than bad. Moms can be smart sometimes, can’t they?

What’s the best and worst dating advice you’ve ever gotten from your mom or another family member? Do you give dating advice to your friends or family, or – gulp – your own children?

Do tell.

Or I’m going to tell my mom on you.

As the debate over President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq heats up, our boards are buzzing about what the increased deployments will mean at home.

One military wife writes: “So, he is supposed to leave in June, but I have a feeling he may have to leave sooner because the president is sending in more troops. It’s his first deployment and I’m freaking out.”

Another posts: “My husband of 6 months is deploying soon. They told him at the end of this month. Now they are saying ‘be prepared as if we were leaving a week early.’ I absolutely hate this. I cry every time I think about it. I don't know what to expect because we don't know what we are preparing for.”

“I know exactly what you mean. My DH [dear husband] and I were married for barely a month before he deployed. It definitely puts a different spin on the first year of marriage.”

The military wives on this thread have been posting to each other since during President Bush’s speech:

“I hope this doesn't mean my DH has to deploy any sooner than October!!!”

“Nate said that he doesn’t know how 17k are gonna fit IN Baghdad, he's thinking that they'll be sleeping in tents--just when stuff was getting better living wise over there..”

“This is us. DH will be leaving early & will be gone for 15 months. It's his 3rd tour in Iraq & 4th in the region in 5 yrs…We've already bumped DD's [dear daughter] birthday party up a month as he'll miss it again (was in Ramadi for her 1st b-day).”

“Is anyone else as exasperated as I am with the troop levels rising despite the fact that Bush basically said it's time to tie up loose ends and get out? Geez. I am so sorry for you!! Remember there is a whole cadre of us right there with you, girl; hang in there. One of the hardest jobs in the military is being a wife.”

The war becomes a whole different thing when it’s not just some abstract story in the news, but your husband (or wife, or child, or parent) shipping off, doesn’t it?

Just yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer reportedly accused Condaleeza Rice of not being able to comprehend the "price" of the war, because she doesn't have children. (Um, ouch!) Sure, you can still “feel” the price of a war if you or someone you love isn’t directly involved, but the very personal pain and anxiety of these military wives is very palpable in these posts.

Will you or someone you know be personally affected by the increased deployments? Share your thoughts here!

Seriously, how weird is whole Donald/O’Donnell feud? How weird are celebrity feuds in general? Like, why do I know all the little details of the ways in which these people have annoyed each other?

Yesterday we asked this question on the iVillage homepage: Whose side are you on in the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud? Almost 3,000 people responded. 32% said Rosie, 26% said Donald, and 42% said neither. Hmm! But it should be noted that just because 42% of people said they weren’t on either side doesn’t meant that people aren’t interested in the spat – lots of people posted what they think of the whole affair.

Here’s a smattering of the responses:

“Who cares! They are two adults who disagree and now are nit picking at each other. Throwing around influence and insults. I think they both need to grow up and get over it! Just my opinion.”

“No offense or anything… but there are way more important things going on that everybody needs to worry about! That is how I feel anyway. I think it is just a publicity stunt.”

“We are experiencing what happens when two bullies have a confrontation… I hope that they both get beyond middle school behavior.”

“I find myself siding with Donald, but I feel that they both need to grow up! Neither resembles being sane adultsThis whole conflict is childish and ridiculous!”

And then there was this poster, who wrote: “She is one of the most intolerant people on TV… I would rather watch Hannity, O'Reilly, or Michele Maukin. At least they have informed, intelligent viewpoints.” Right. For unskewed, tolerant, informed, objective reporting…let’s head over to Fox news. Ahem.

More conversation is bubbling over on the Soapy Soup board, where jenmom0204 posts, “Wow. Can I just tell you how childish this has gotten? I've always had respect for Barbara Walters, not so much Donald Trump. I like Rosie even though she does say dumb things now and then (Clay Aiken). The Donald is just starting to really look like a real jerk.”

Anyway, obviously O’Donnell and the Donald are acting childish and silly. But let’s all admit that we agree that people like “Donald and Rosie just make life more interesting.” I mean, like with any bad behavior, if we ignored the whole thing, it would probably go away. But it’s kind of a fun break from Britney’s lady bits, isn’t it?

Can you learn to be happy?

This article in the New York Times magazine this past weekend focused on the growing number of college courses designed to, well, teach people to be happy. In one such course, “The Scientific Pursuit of Happiness,” the professor “took the students… through the various building blocks of positive psychology: optimism, gratitude, mindfulness, hope, spirituality.”

It's a growing trend, this practice of studying happiness, examining what happiness is and how people can capture it. cl-2nd_life posts on the Toxic Relationships board about yet another article about how to be happier. This article claims: “For decades, a widely accepted view has been that people are stuck with a basic setting on their happiness thermostat. It says the effects of good or bad life events like marriage, a raise, a divorce, or a disability will simply fade with time. We adapt to them just like we stop noticing a bad odor from behind the living room couch after a while, this theory says. So this adaptation would seem to doom any deliberate attempt to raise a person’s basic happiness setting. But recent long-term studies have revealed that the happiness thermostat is more malleable than the popular theory maintained, at least in extreme form.”

The article also includes some practical ways in which people can try to boost their happiness. One woman took time every night to think “of three good things that happened that day and analyze why they occurred.” Some other techniques involve regularly practicing “random acts of kindness, things like holding a door open for a stranger or doing a roommate’s dishes, for 10 weeks. The idea was to improve a person’s self-image and promote good interactions with other people.” Another one is “thinking about the happiest day of your life over and over again, without analyzing it, and writing about how you’ll be 10 years from now, assuming everything goes just right.”

Could it work? Could you make yourself be happier, just by working on it?

yoga-chick responds: “I also think there is something to be said for just letting things go. If you can learn to truly not care about annoyances rather than getting upset and dwelling on them it can go a long way in stress reduction… I am a much happier person when I choose to focus on the pleasant stuff in life.”

More responses: “The article really hits home for me. I so rarely enjoy the simple pleasures in life, but I do love a really long hot shower or a warm bath.”

“It's easy to let time go by while you do ‘other things,’ ‘too busy’ to do what you ought to be doing. It's good to keep sight of what you really want so you don't let the daily life things take you right by it.”

I was thinking this was really cheesy until I remembered my subway ride home last night. I was tired and cranky and the train was packed, but at least, I thought, I managed to wedge myself into a seat. All right! At the next stop, a frail-looking old woman got on the train. And in a weird way, when I gave her my seat and she smiled, it cheered me up much more than sitting the whole ride would have. So simple... and yet it worked! It's a funny thing, isn't it?

How would you like it if your pants talked to you?

According to this article, “Naveed Sattar, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, said that oversized clothing should have obesity help line numbers sewn on them to try to reduce Britain's obesity crisis.”

On the April 2006 Ducklings board, lil1016 asks: “What do you guys think of this? I think that if someone is buying plus sized clothing they already know they’re fat. What’s the point of putting warning labels or providing a hotline? To make people feel bad. These scientists need something better to do with their time. “

Some responses: “Oooh, that makes my blood boil. I'm a size 18 b/c of my bust size so that comment about everything over size 16 REALLY made my blood boil.”

“Like I'm not already embarrassed to buy clothing, I need to have a warning label shoved in my face telling me that I'm fat yet again.”

“I think if they're going to put these labels on plus sizes, they should put the same warning labels on extremely small sizes. I'm talking the zero and ‘sub zero’ sizes. Being that size as an adult can't possibly be any better than being a size 16 or larger. Just a thought...”

“The label doesn't belong on the plus size clothing, in belongs on the Hostess cupcakes the person ingested to get that size. Yes, I am stereotyping, but I am plus size and my clothes didn't make me that way, my food did.”

I have to say, that last poster has a point. Putting a label on the clothes seems like adding insult to injury, doesn’t it? If they put warning labels on liquor bottles and packages of cigarettes, doesn’t it follow that if you must put an “obesity warning” label on something, it would be the food? Of course, that quickly starts to seem really ridiculous – why not put labels on knives!? They are really sharp and you can cut yourself! Or pencils?! You could put your eye out on one of those things!

The obesity epidemic must be dealt with some way, but somehow I don’t think this is it. You know?

Here’s one of those news stories that sounds so shocking you can’t even really believe it: a couple had their disabled daughter’s growth surgically stunted. But once you read the article and learn a little more about the story, you may start to feel, as I did, that there was actually nothing so terrible about what the parents did. Is it me, or is this a case of some not-so-objective journalism here? The article reads: “In a case fraught with ethical questions, the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little "pillow angel" a manageable and more portable size.” Okay, I know that the parents use the term “pillow angel” themselves, but to me the phrase “their little ‘pillow angel’” sounds a bit mocking and judgmental. Whatever, that’s not the point here. The point is the story!

According to CNN, “The uterus and breast tissue of the bedridden 9-year-old girl were removed at a Seattle hospital, and she received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6. The case has captured attention nationwide and abroad via the Internet, with some decrying the parents' actions as perverse and akin to eugenics. Some ethicists question the parents' claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.”

On our In the News board, cl-libraone posts: “It would be extremely difficult to care for a fully grown adult in the same manner as a helpless baby. Bathing, diaper changes, lifting, carrying. This must have been a difficult decision but a practical solution in caring of their daughter.”

karieme2006 responds: “I understand why the parents would do this to their child, but I'm still shocked. I can't believe medicine and altering has come so far.”

kathleen__mary : “For many years a friend did those for her son who had a neurological disease…It was a tremendously hard situation with very little help, and became even more so when he grew to be much taller than she.”

papparic writes: “I am outraged by the parent's decision and I reject all their reasoning and excuses. Was there and is there a better way to deal with this child's handicap? Yes!” (He goes on to explain how he cared for severely disabled person for fifteen years.)

snafu2006: “This is a tough call. I can understand the need to keep her petite, but why take away her womanhood?”

I gotta say, the more I read the parents’ blog, the more their drastic surgical steps seem reasonable. As they write on their blog, they believe that if their daughter stays a smaller size they will be able to keep caring for her at home. She is severely disabled, in basically an infant state. Who among us can imagine caring for a 6-foot tall infant, you know? (Her parents are both very tall) And it’s pretty amazing, when you think about it, that her parents want to continue their round-the-clock care of her, rather than sending her to an institution – shouldn’t they be able to make that possible?

But I do think someone should advise them to stop using the term “pillow angel.” It’s totally creepy.

There was an interesting article in the New York Times magazine recently about the growing “princess” phenomenon in young girls. According to the article: “Diana may be dead and Masako disgraced, but here in America, we are in the midst of a royal moment…Sales at Disney Consumer Products, which started the craze six years ago by packaging nine of its female characters under one royal rubric, have shot up to $3 billion, globally, this year, from $300 million in 2001. There are now more than 25,000 Disney Princess items. ‘Princess,’ as some Disney execs call it, is not only the fastest-growing brand the company has ever created; they say it is on its way to becoming the largest girls’ franchise on the planet.”

cl-libraone comments, “I watched a short segment from the Disney parade yesterday morning. Dozens of little girls & Disney employees were dressed up as princesses. The employees had dreamy smiles painted on their faces & the little girls looked wide eyed & happy enough. I found it surreal so when I came across this article it clicked with me.”

sweetpea1946 agrees. “Will our ‘little princesses’ be too girly and submissive?”

snafu2006: “The article hit the nail on the head, because society seems to have romanticized the '50's. Men want women just be happy with a paycheck again and offer nothing else…I see women becoming complacent again if the ‘princess’ mentally sets into their heads. Fairy tales, romance novels, movies all depict women helpless until the prince arrives. So true! Princes don't exist. And life is not ‘happily ever after.’ It is a lot of work.”

Well, sounds like somebody needs a nap on her pink princess bed! Wait. I mean. There does seem something slightly retrograde about encouraging girls to be mostly concerned with hair, sparkly dresses and boys, doesn’t there?

Then again, as cmcorrine points out, “Many of the princesses, and many of the newer princess stories, show much stronger and more proactive princesses than I grew up with. Many times, the princess is the one taking a stand for what's right, doing what she desires rather than fulfilling the wishes of a parent or society.

Interesting point… and, as cmcorrine also points out – even the most insipidly pastel Disney princess is probably a better influence than those scantily clad Bratz dolls.

This might be one of my favorite things about the internet right now: the ongoing Team Pam vs Team Karen debate.

So, whose side are you on, Office fans? Do you favor the repressed, moony, forbidden-love-style gazes of Jim and Pam? Or are you a “let’s get this party started” kind of office-romance-gal, Karen-style?

Over on the Understanding the Opposite Sex board, greta2863 is still trying to sort out this whole office romance thing.

“There is this guy at work that is really confusing me. He has been here