HTT - Waxing Edition

I read this article last week.

I then threw up in my mouth.

If you are too lazy to read it, and 9 out of 10 people are, then I'll sum it up: Moms are taking their young (i.e. 10 and under) kids to be waxed - eyebrows, legs, back, bikini line - all in the name of beauty. Because, you know, young kids with hair (gasp!) are so disgusting.

I'm disturbed by this, just like I am by all beauty trends that that dictate maintenance standards until we are waxed, plucked and primped into copies of each other. And I'm even more disturbed that mothers are behind this latest craze.

Let me make this clear - your child is beautiful just as he/she is. Right now. With a unibrow. With an unnatural amount of back hair. With average peach fuzz on her legs.

Now, I should clarify that there are two types of moms they discussed in the articles - those who bring their children in to avoid/curb teasing and those who do it to improve their child's appearance. I can sympathize with the former, but the latter may be the scum of the earth. (Oops! Just checked and that title still belongs to people who take advantage of the mentally disabled ... but it's a close second.)

In my house, we didn't get to shave until 12. I cheated at 10, but I fell into that early puberty category that necessitated it. But I was probably the only girl in fifth grade with smooth skin. We all wore our unruly hair in ponytails and loose T-shirts and distinct child body odor scent with pride. Whereas today's fifth graders are sporting highlights, fitted designer gear and hairless gams. It's sad.

Kids deserve to be kids, and teenagers deserve to be young, as well. The pressure to be perfectly primped is too much to ask emotionally, physically and financially of people who can't even drive themselves to an appointment.

But what do you think?

Is this just a harmless trend?

Or is it hurting our kids?

Discuss.

HTT - Olympics Edition

So, did you hear? NBC used computer-generated graphics to look like a live fireworks display during the opening ceremony of the Olympics. Apparently, Beijing is so smoggy that there's no way the fireworks could have been captured by aerial cameras. But, oh yeah, they didn't tell us it was fake. (Or to avoid Beijing if you have asthma.)

And while this trickery is pure Milli Vanilli to me, I think NBC thinks it's totally OK. After all, the opening ceremony cost $300 million dollars. (That's 2,061,119,985.5700 yuan for you finance geeks out there. Hi Dad.) So they had to show an aerial view, even if it was from a computer in New Jersey.

That's OK, because it just represents what I hate about the Olympics - that it's an inaccurate gauge of athleticism, because it's ultimately about ratings and not raw talent. (Though I do love the water sports. I was once a synchronized swimming coach. Seriously.)

I mean, Beijing is a smoggy city. And some of the athletes are doping and/or 10 years old. And some of the judges are not being fair. Also, sometimes you feel embarrassed by some of the outfits, but you pretend like it's normal for men to wear short-shorts because you're at a friend's house, and she makes a mean chili-cheese dip.

But instead of exposes on Olympic failings, you get some 30-minute, overly dramatized bit about how the athlete overcame an ingrown toenail to participate. And while some of the athletes have great stories, it's overkill to me. Let's face it, while they have faced some human adversities, the only thing that makes them remarkable is that they have no life besides their sport.

I feel bad for some of the athletes. While winning gold medals is infinitely cooler than what I plan to do today - park? pool? - it's an overwhelming obsession for them that keeps them from accomplishing some of life's less notable, but more fulfilling goals. And what about the guy who places seventh? He's still seventh in the world, yet he goes home feeling like a loser.

But I'm still rooting for Michael Phelps, even though I generally hate dominant athletes. It's, like, give another dude a chance!

Anyway ... are you watching the Olympics?

What do you like/dislike?

Have you considered a career in table tennis?

Go.

HTT - News Edition

I'm riding on the coattails of last week's Hot Topic, when you all went criz-azy on the media, claiming it to be biased/slanted/(insert derogatory comment here). And while I'm fully aware that there are bad journalists and publications out there, I hate to see you all so jaded about newspeeps as a whole.

Mind you, I used to be a reporter, and I'm still a freelance journalist, so I suppose that makes me biased - hate that word; after all, some bias is inevitable by virtue of being human and having different life experiences.

Here's the deal: The coverage of any news organization is slanted towards the audience it is trying to attract. For example, if they know their biggest viewer demographic is women, ages 60-93, they are going to cover more stories on health care and retirement than the station whose viewers are typically 20-year-old males, and thus need constant coverage of exploding cars, hot girls with cool diseases and cheesesteak sandwich store openings. Or, likewise, if their audience is more conservative, the stories will be more conservative and vice versa. (Or vice-a-versa, which I've also heard.) It's a matter of ratings, profit and survival.

Also, a story is inevitably going to be slanted if your source pool comes from one side of the story. For example, if Brangelina's publicist won't talk to me about rumors that they used in vitro to conceive their holy twinnies, but their "friend" who saw the vitro go in will talk - my story is going to sound a bit slanted. I'll do my darnedest to clarify that it's all hearsay, but without an actual quote, it won't mean much. Don't blame me, blame the Jolie-Pitts. (And those crazy lips. They will eat you!)

However, beyond those reasons, content is going to be unbiased. Any legitimate news organization (New York Post and Star magazine and anything featuring Bat Boy not included) prides itself on ethics and objectivity. They will do their best to write the story from middle ground, although that's hard to pin down sometimes. What you may consider to be neutral territory could be far different than the general public's viewpoint - but you use your best judgment.

What I've found is that people take fault when a news story doesn't exactly agree with their opinion, which they pride themselves on being factually true. For example, if you think ice cream has healing properties, but read an article that is critical of fatty frozen desserts, you might think it's biased or slanted. You might be mad that a differing viewpoint is even mentioned, even though it's essential to present both sides of the story. You might get fixated on what you don't agree with, rather than recognizing a balanced representation of the issue.

Also, people expect journalists to be experts on any given topic. And while it is their job to quickly indoctrinate themselves, in an age of immediate news coverage, they aren't going to learn it all in a few hours. They are human, and yet journalists are expected to be perfect.

I'd also like to say that if you see a grammatical error, it's probably the copy editor's fault. So, no, do not send emails with links to grammar lessons and/or question my university degree. I will respond, and I will misuse "affect" intentionally.

Anyway, my whole point is that there is not a media conspiracy out there. When it comes to editorial coverage, there are obviously liberal and conservative news organizations out there, but when it comes to general news content, 99 percent of the time no one is lying or intentionally skewing something on purpose. (And they're not being told to do it, either.) If anything, I think journalists can be some of the most open-minded people out there because they have been exposed to a wide spectrum of people and ideas.

But what do you think?

Is the media biased?

Is it intentional?

If so, how do you know?

Write.


* Thanks flickr for that rad piece of radness seen above.

HTT - Talk Radio Edition

A few years back while working as a reporter in Utah, I developed a "friendship" with Sean Hannity. Like, we chatted on the phone and exchanged emails for several weeks before meeting - for professional reasons, of course. He was a nice guy. He was reasonable. He was even moderate in his views and ideas. On the radio, however, he's a different story.

Talk radio. I love to hate it. And thankfully there are idiots out there like Michael Savage who say inane comments about autism just to get a rise out the public. (See above, and then take a bath to wash his filth off you.)

To me, there is no difference between Marilyn Manson and talk radio hosts. They all know it's an act but are happy to play up their extremism to attract an audience. They enjoy the attention, and they enjoy a following. They're exaggerating their viewpoints, yet people believe it's who they really are - and they become faithful followers.

Even worse than listening to a talk radio host is to listen to a caller. "Oh, Dr. Laura, I've been listening to you for years, and I have modge-podged your face on all my Precious Moments figurines." The effusive gushing and blind agreement drives me mad! I understand sharing political or moral viewpoints with a particular host, but to agree with everything they say because you "know" them is crazy, in my opinion. And to make them your authority figure is just foolish.

At least Jon Stewart is funny, but even he has gotten too critical for my tastes. Because I want my entertainment to be enjoyable, and my political information to be polite - and preferably in print.

Yet, lots of people I know and love are huge talk radio fans. (Sports talk radio is not included in this attack, I should note, before my dad pens a diatribe.) But when I listen, I just find myself filled with rage at the blatant ignorance, bigotry and general hate that is spewed by most hosts. They aren't looking to make the world a better place; they are looking for ratings.

Of course, I still listen, even if it's just to make my drive go faster as my temper rises.

Do you listen to talk radio?

If so, who do you like?

And do you think talk radio is a good thing or just bad news?

HTT - HTT Edition

A lot of you have told me you love Hot Topic Tuesday. My stat-meter indicates that more people check out M&M on Tuesdays than any other day of the week combined, so it must be readable. Good thing because it gives me an ulcer. It's not that I don't enjoy discussing controversial issues; they are things I'm already discussing with friends and family, so I'm happy to get them out of my mind to analyze what I believe. Sometimes I'm adamant and hope to persuade you. Other times, I'm looking for more insight. But every single time, I feel like I have to write and rewrite and soften everything one more time so I don't offend someone - even though it's my blog.

Why, you ask? First, I don't like to offend people, even though I wish they wouldn't take it personally. Second, because when someone goes off on me in the comments or criticizes my parenting, it affects me. I'm open to dispute, just not disparagement. And it's even worse when readers attack each other. Sometimes my whole Tuesday goes from great to gloomy just because no one is playing nice and usually they are named Anonymous. (Who knew it was such a popular name?)

Which brings me - yes, three paragraphs later - to today's Hot Topic: blogger etiquette. On one hand, I'm a huge blogging fan. I feel like I know more about my friends and family now than I used to. It goes beyond chit-chat - I get to see pictures and hear details about day-to-day activities, which is a better glimpse into their lives than a short phone call.

On the other hand, blogging brings out the worst in some people. It makes them mini-experts on every topic, and gives them permission to pass judgment on people they don't even know - who are not public figures. I feel like some people are just waiting to jump all over someone if they make the slightest mistake, as if bloggers should be held to journalistic standards.

Even our so-called friends are abusing the blog medium. I've had friends receive rude and critical remarks from friends, both openly and anonymously. I've also heard of people posting anonymously to others' blogs, or their own (I plead the Fifth!) to say something in their defense.

So where should the line be drawn?

Is it OK to treat someone differently online than you would face-to-face?

What are your rights as a blogger and as a commenter?

And has HTT ever gotten too heated for you?



p.s. Wish I'd had this article when we talked about guns.

HTT - BC Edition

By now, you've all heard about the pregnancy pact. And whether or not you believe it actually existed, the point is: some young girls are getting pregnant intentionally ... and even more are getting pregnant accidentally.

In my opinion, the real controversy to this story is not the fact that these girls want to be young mothers. I think maternal instincts kick in at puberty. I myself often fantasized as a teen about finding an infant on my doorstep and raising her while I went to school. Thankfully, my parents discouraged premarital friskiness and explained the challenges of being a young, unwed mother so I never got past the daydream phase.

What's the real Hot Topic for me is that some schools are giving out birth control or contraceptives without parental consent. And what really intrigues me (WARNING! WARNING! Plot twist ahead!) is that some people are against it. I mean, perhaps the school shouldn't personally distribute birth control and should refer students to a third party resource instead, but I just don't understand why people are so upset - to the point that the school nurse had to resign.

Personally, I don't believe that birth control and condoms make teenagers have sex. Sex is an act of passion for most; it's an act of rebellion for others - and sometimes it's just sheer stupidity. But whether or not the sex is going to be safe is usually not the deciding factor, I think. Not having safe sex, however, is the cause of many hard consequences, including disease and unplanned pregnancy.

I do believe in abstinence and practiced it myself. I do plan to teach my children moral, spiritual and practical reasons why it's the best choice before you're married - but I do not want them to have unsafe sex if they decide to do it anyway. (And I doubt they would bring me a permission slip if one was required, knowing how disappointed I would be.)

Sex education doesn't just happen at school; it also happens in the home. We've already discussed this, but I really believe that you have to do your best and trust your children to make good choices on their own. When they don't, you pray they won't face tragic consequences. And if someone besides myself helps them avoid those, I'm grateful.

Granted, it would be nice if someone would tell me if my child is having sex. The issue isn't just religious - I would want to address the emotional and physical consequences of such behavior and help them understand their decision from all sides. But I don't think most sexually active teens are telling their parents - and those who are probably can acquire birth control with their parents' help.

Please understand, I think schools should teach their students about the negative consequences of sex more than they advertise contraceptives. And I think the context of distribution should be appropriate - having a counselor meet with a student privately versus throwing them out at a prep rally or having a box of them at prom.

But I bet that most of you (and a large part of the country, obviously) disagree. Please, help me understand why.

Do you think that distributing birth control encourages sexual behavior?

Or is this just an issue of parental rights?

Share.

HTT - Modesty Edition

Miss Dub and I recently went swimsuit shopping since at 19 months she is already growing out of her 2T suit. (Is this normal?)

I told her she could pick one out, and pick she did - a nice tropical-patterned one with a plunging neckline and deep backside. Whaaaat?

I had to give her a quick lecture on modesty, which I really hadn't been planning to deliver for a few more years. As a result, it was a little haphazard and may have included the word "skeezy."

I'm all for kids clothes that mimic certain adult fashions. I adore a toddler in capris or a cropped sweater; I love tiny Converse or Pumas - but I do not want my daughter dressing like a grown vixen.

I think some people take this concept too far - it troubles me when I see a 3-year-old in a one-piece outfit with snaps, and I'm not into baby clothes adorned with Winnie the Pooh*. Also, I'm totally cool with my daughter wearing sleeveless tops or dresses, as long as they don't have spaghetti straps or the aforementioned Pooh graphics.

But small girls in plunging halters and skimpy bikinis trouble me. Not only because they are a pedophile's dream, but because such fashions send a message that more skin is better. (And that how you look is more important than who you are.)

I mean, they sell thong underwear in some children shops. Seriously? Because I don't think VPL should be a concern for someone who still wets the bed.

But obviously someone is buying it because it's available at most stores, and I see it on little girls in my area, although winter makes modesty more common.

What do you think?

Are we dressing our kids older than we should?

What are the fashion rules at your house?

And who is buying all the Pooh Bear clothes at Target?* (If you are, I never wrote that.)



*If you haven't caught on yet, I'm concerned about Pooh Bear's intentions. No offense to the rest of the Hundred-Acre Woods posse.

HTT - Beauty Edition

I was going to post a certain Hot Topic this fine Tuesday, but Mr. Dub persuaded me not to for a variety of reasons, including his personal embarrassment level. (Hint: a country in South America + what candles are made from.) My sense of propriety is seriously lacking, as you can tell.

So I'll go with a related issue - Beauty. These days there are so many beauty regimens one could prescribe to. Mani/pedis, waxing of all varieties, hair cut and color ... the list goes on and on, and then threading your eyebrows becomes trendy and your list needs a second page.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good pampering. I get my hair highlighted frequently, though less than my stylist recommends and more than Mr. Dub economically encourages. And I do enjoy a good pedicure. (Though I must give a shout-out to the Ped Egg, recommended by my mums.)

Still, I feel like beauty care is a slippery slope that leads to things like excessive plastic surgery - and vanity. Plus, it's such an unfair expectation for young people. I express thanks frequently that I went to high school and college at a time when it was still acceptable to be somewhat natural and individual. Today's teens, however, are expected to be as highlighted and teeth-whitened as possible in order to be date-worthy.

I also feel pressure to fix my various flaws. I won't name them all, but, yes, that is included. But I remind myself that I don't want to be a robot. I don't want to be perfect. And I don't want to spend all my time and money on fixing my outside, when I've got a whole lot of nurturing to do on my inside.

But what do you think?

What is your level of beauty maintenance? (I consider myself "middle" most days and "low" 1-2 times a week.)

Is it wrong to primp and pluck to your heart's content, or that just what girls do best?



** In an unrelated but equally enjoyable topic, click here for a review and GIVEAWAY of a tasty (and very personal) treat!

HTT - Gun Edition

I couldn't even bring myself to post a picture of a real gun - that's how much they scare me.

I'm going to steal some heat from last week's hunting Hot Topic and discuss a cousin controversy: guns.

Remember how I told you I'm pretty passionate in my disdain for hunting? Well, my feelings on guns are even stronger and even more opposed. I don't like guns. Period.

(This is the point where those of you who might take offense if I share a differing viewpoint should click here. I enjoy a healthy debate, but I know some of you don't like it when I get on my soapbox. Remember, it's cheaper than therapy for me, and no one will make you read it if you don't want to. Besides, disagreeing doesn't mean we can't be friends. We all agree that the Simpson sisters are overexposed, right?)

I recognize that many people have different reasons - some frightening - for wanting to own a gun. I'm sure most of them are valid, but for me the pros can't outweigh the cons, which is why there will NEVER be a gun in my house.

Guns kill people. I know, I know, "people kill people," but guns sure help them accomplish that goal. And while gun owners may argue that firearms also protect you, I believe the chance they'll get to do that is small in comparison to the possibility of harming someone you love.

I know that most gun owners are very responsible, which I applaud and encourage, but most parents who have lost children to suicides by gun or accidental shootings thought they were being responsible, too. They kept their guns unloaded, their gun safes locked and their ammunition across the house. They taught their children how to use guns responsibly and warned them to stay away. But accidents happen - and when they happen with guns, they can be fatal.

Kids are smarter than you think. They can access guns no matter how careful you are, even at a very young age. My biggest concern is suicide because it's a rising epidemic among our youth and when guns are involved there are rarely second chances, unlike other methods. My next concern is curiosity - a child showing off guns to siblings or friends, resulting in accidental firings, which could result in criminal charges. My final concern is someone using a gun for violence, whether petty crime or mass shooting.

I'm not really worried about criminals and guns. Most of them acquire their guns illegally, which is obviously hard to control. And if they turn one on an innocent citizen, it's often for intimidation and not with the intent to kill.

I worked as a reporter covering crime - and have been a news junkie most of my life - and in my experience it is rare for someone to save their life or others' by using a gun. When someone has, the shooter was usually someone in law enforcement or another occupation where advanced gun training and experience is required. Other times, innocent people were hurt or an angered assailant fired back with better precision.

The world is scary place. I worry about bad things that could happen to my family like the rest of you, but I think guns can be a placebo effect. I think they make you feel safe, but it is a false sense of security. The odds of your gun being used on someone you know are much higher than using it to protect yourself.

But I know some of you - maybe all of you - disagree.

Help me understand why or why not you would own a gun, and how you can be sure they won't be used inappropriately.

Your comments really softened my views on hunting, so maybe this will do the same.

Then again, it might take a miracle.

But I'm listening.

HTT - Hunting Edition

There are a few topics that Mr. Dub knows not to discuss with me, mostly because I get so passionate about them that I cannot be swayed. What can I say? I'm human. That's why my weekly Hot Topic posts are usually ignorant, biased and often tongue-in-cheek. They're just my humble opinion, which is apropos since it's my blog. But I am open to reading your comments and sometimes even changing my mind, which is progress.

So I'm wondering if you can help me with this topic: hunting. Like, I'm totally against it unless you live in a cave and depend on buffalo for sustenance. I won't go into religious details here, but I've read many quotes from LDS leaders suggesting to me that hunting for sport is not acceptable.

Personally, I find hunting wrong because I just don't like the idea of someone who enjoys stalking and killing animals. Yes, it is somewhat hypocritical since I buy meat on a regular basis, but I figure the cattle rancher who brought me my hamburger is doing it for a living, not for fun. He's not going out with a couple buddies to relieve stress; he's doing it to provide for his family.

I just don't understand the thrill of pulling a trigger. To me, it reflects an inner hostility that makes me uncomfortable. I wonder if it could become a slippery slope where hurting others is a possible reaction. And no matter what, it's delighting in the bloodshed of another living thing - at least from my perspective.

Plus, in a world where all types and cuts of meat are readily available, can anyone really claim to be hunting solely to provide food? (I mean that seriously - I'd love to know what really motivates someone to hunt.)

I personally know many great men who are hunters, which makes it even more confusing. And really, there isn't much difference between hunting and fishing, yet I think of fishermen as mellow guys. But I just can't shake that feeling that hunting is bad.

Of course, it's just my opinion, and I'm dying to hear yours. I want to know if this is an ethical issue for others or just something you've always done.

Do you think hunting is OK?

Why or why not?

Shoot.

HTT - Pets Edition

Once upon a time there was a girl who hated pets, who belonged to a family that liked them. Despite the fact that their beloved but mostly ignored dog had died several years earlier, her family went out and bought a new one. Though he appeared sweet, he had some issues with motherly figures and began to attack the girl's mother without warning, so they had to get rid of him shortly thereafter. The end.

I won't name names, but that girl is me. And that dog was psycho.

So you can't totally blame me for disliking pets. And I really do. I took Miss Dub to peruse a pet store the other day since she's a fan of puppies and other small animals. While she squealed and gawked, I just felt creeped out. I don't like the smell or sight of anything animal-related. I don't like the idea of animal breath, hair, spit or urine anywhere near me, my furniture or my children.

I respect that other people, including members of my family, love them. And some pets are definitely better than others. I, myself, even had an amazing turtle named 23 de Junio when I was on my mission, but he performed tricks and was potty-trained so I think he was a special exception.

Mr. Dub and I are in agreement on the pet issue; he may be even more vehement than I. After all, one day one of children is bound to beg for an animal of some variety for a birthday/Christmas/Arbor Day. And will I have the strength to turn down whimpering eyes?

Um, now that I think about it, yes. Conveniently, I am allergic to pet dander so that will eliminate a good half of the possibilities, but even fish seem like more work than they are worth. I mean, just have another kid. At least he or she will take care of you when you get old. Can you really say the same of your parakeet?

But what about you? Do have pets? Do you like them?

Dish.

HTT - Crush Edition

Let's not mess around and get to the hottest topic of all this fine Tuesday:

Who is your celebrity crush?

I've had quite a few over the years - John Cusack, David Duchovny, Alistair from You Can't Do That on Television - but right now the apple of stalking eye is:

JASON BATEMAN

I mean, he was great in The Hogan Family, but ever since Arrest Development (RIP), I am smitten. Everything he does these days is brilliant. Even Dodgeball.


... and yours?

HTT - MMR Edition

Yesterday, Miss Dub had two immunizations to mark her 18-month-old-ness. Yes, we do that in our house. I'm aware that some people believe immunizations can cause autism. And while my heart goes out to families with autistic children, I just don't think there's a link.

I've read the research - and nearly all of it shows that immunizations have no bearing on a child developing autism. Most of it suggests that autism is a genetic disorder. So the only correlation between shots and autism appears to be that children receive them at the same age autism is typically diagnosed ... no matter what Jenny McCarthy says.

My first pediatrician, who prescribed to an organic lifestyle, told me she refused to treat children whose parents refused vaccinations for them. Most times, she told me, they would present her with faulty Internet research or personal testimonials. "Do you mean to tell me your hour-long Internet search is more accurate than my 10 years of rigorous schooling and 10 years of medical practice?" she would ask them. Sadly, most of them said yes.

And a good friend, who is studying to be a neuropsychologist, recently shared with me research revealing children who supposedly "changed over night" after immunizations were actually displaying autism spectrum behaviors since birth; their parents just ignored them or didn't recognize the signs.

I do think today's children are often over-diagnosed and over-medicated, but I also think there's a reason our child mortality rate is lower since vaccinations were implemented. So even though it can cause Miss Dub to wail something awful, I'm happy to spare her mumps, measles and rubella, whatever the heck that even is.

But what about you?

Do you get your children immunized?

And if not, why?

Shoot.

HTT - Adjustment Edition

Many of you will be shocked to find out that my Target obsession continues even though I was seriously injured at a Target store four years ago. While examining some folding chairs with Mrs. R, a loose rack filled with chairs broke off and came down on top of me. I actually wasn't going to say anything, but a Targeteer came by and made me fill out a claim. Good thing because when I awoke the next day my back was in serious pain.

Mr. Dub's family frequents chiropractors so he recommended I go and see their ... doctor, practor, dude? Anyway, I needed some quick relief so I made an appointment to get an adjustment. First mistake - I told them I'd never seen a chiropractor. Second mistake - going there. Because rather than give me a quick adjustment like everyone else appeared to receive, they took me back in a room and asked me to put on a black leotard. Yes, a black leotard. They had a whole closet of leotards in varying sizes. Reluctantly, I put on one to accommodate my adequate shapeliness.

Then, they placed little orange stickers all over my body and took pictures, I kid you not. This is the point where you think I was a victim of some doctor/practor/dude with a freaky leotard fetish. It's still a possibility, but since there were several female assistants in the room with him, I'm not sure. Turns out, he had some sort of computer program that would draw lines from my different body parts to see if anything was out of alignment ... or so he said.

He then went on to assure me that all my health problems - thyroid issues, endometriosis, bad hair - could be cured by chiropractics/wizardry. (I add the latter because this guy actually rubs a rock to locate people's pain. Also, there were anatomical pictures all around the room, but with words like "life force" where it should say spine. And I'm pretty sure life force isn't a scientific term.)

Anyway, after two hours and no adjustment, I fled his office, never to return. I ended up using another chiropractor, who fixed my problem in a few weeks by hooking my back muscles up to an electronic massager ... and Target paid for the whole thing.

But even though I had some success with the second chiropractor, I'm not totally convinced. I think they do help in some cases because they combine physical therapy and massage to decent results, but I don't believe they can usurp modern medicine. And I do not believe in a life force.

In fact, I think a lot of it is a placebo effect - or just that people like massages.

But what do you think?

Are chiropractors fo' real or super freaky?

Discuss.

HTT - Emily Edition

When my SIL, Emily, offered to take over Hot Topic Tuesday for me, I couldn't refuse. First, we're not sleeping much at our house these days because apparently you can get roseola twice. Second, Emily is selling her house and whether or not you live in Rhode Island, you MUST BUY IT! Third, she is the witty author of Acte Gratuit, which is a French phrase that no one can pronounce. No one. So without further ado, let's turn up the heat:

Mrs. Dub was generous enough to let me borrow her blog today so I could do a little venting and maybe get some helpful advice. Two weeks ago, her hot topic dealt with “Mom mistakes” and it got me thinking about the problem in a different way. What if you are a witness of “Bad Mom behavior” or just any bad behavior in general. When do you intervene?

There are times when I see a mom yelling at her kid in the grocery store that I want to walk up, make a citizens arrest and take immediate custody of her child. (If you ever see me at the store and I’m the mom yelling, please take custody of my children! I could use the break!)

But for the most part I walk the other way and do nothing.

So I’m going to share three stories with you and then I want you to tell me what you would have done. Here goes:

#1 A mom is sitting in her car, in a parking lot, waiting for her baby to wake up so they can join the rest of the family at the beach. She has her windows down and watches and listens as a man and little girl start loading up in a nearby car. The little girl is probably 5 and has done something to seriously upset the man. He is yelling at her, berating her, threatening her, telling her that her mom isn’t worth “this aggravation” and he’s ready to “get the ____ out”. His verbal abuse is so bad, it leaves the eavesdropping mom to suspect much more serious abuse at home. The little girl's Mom makes it back to the car, listens to the mans vitriol, and sheepishly gets in the car with out a word in her daughter's or her own defense.

#2 Three days a week, a woman drives up to the local preschool to drop-off and pick-up her three-year-old. She leaves her other two children, a sleeping baby and a six-year-old, in the running car. The walk up to the school is a little long, and she cannot see the car once she’s inside the preschool.

#3 A neighbor notices something amiss with one of the families in the neighborhood. The four kids never seem to be in school and are always running around with bare feet. Not only that, the mom is pregnant again with number five!!!

Here’s what happened next:

#1. I was the mom in the car. I sat there listening to this big jerk feeling totally helpless. I wanted to get out and yell at him, but since I’m a total weakling, I had to consider my safety and the safety of my baby. I thought about calling the cops, but figured they wouldn’t be able to do anything. “Officer, that man was YELLING! Take him away!!!” I even thought about writing down his license plate so I could track him down and figure out a way to report him to CPS. But ultimately I did nothing and still feel horrible that I didn’t find a way to help that innocent little girl.

#2. Once again, I’m the mom in the car. Or at least, the mom that left her kids in the car. Here was my thinking: “Six is pretty old! Surely Max can keep an eye on Gabe who is safely buckled into his car seat and isn’t going anywhere. I’ll leave the car on so they don’t get too hot (or cold). There are so many moms around, nothing is going to happen to them! My mom used to leave me in the car to run into the store all the time. Max is old enough that if someone tried to get in, he could lay on the horn.”

Yes, that was almost a whole paragraph of self-justification and yes, when I type it out, it does sound lame even to me. Which is why I totally deserved what happened next.

A few weeks into the school year, I got an e-mail from a good friend who took her daughter to the same school. She said she’d been really upset by seeing me leave the kids in the car, that it was dangerous and illegal in some states. She gave me some examples of the horrible things that could happen, offered to sit with my kids if I really couldn’t manage by myself and begged me to forgive her for saying all this in e-mail form. Basically, she told me I was an idiot and needed to get a clue, just in much nicer terms. I immediately wrote her back thanking her for her concern and promised not to do it again. For all I know, she saved me from a very unfortunate encounter with the cops, or worse, a situation that would have put my boys in serious danger.

#3 The family with the 4 (now 5) kids are friends of mine. A neighbor reported them to Child Protective Services, who opened a file on them and came by for a surprise visit. When CPS showed up, they talked to my friend who home-schools her (very bright) children and thinks (like me) that it’s okay for little kids to run around barefoot. She mentioned that her husband is a Neuro-Psychologist who works for Harvard and that her kids are well-taken care of and well-loved. The case was closed.

So, now that you know the kind of hypocritical pansy I am, I want to know what you would have done.

What do you do when you see something happening to a child that worries you?

Do you jump right in and try to help, or hang back and mind your own business? (Or are you the snarky neighbor type who likes to stay anonymous?)

I’d love to hear what you all think! Just don’t tell me I’m an idiot, because I already know that!

Thanks for the soap-box Mrs. Dub!

HTT - Shower Edition

I'm throwing a baby shower for my German friend on Saturday. We won't go into my proclivity to throw parties for other people, or the fact that no one is adhering to my "red, white and blue" food request, but we will discuss baby showers for today's Hot Topic.

When I asked my friend if I could throw her a baby shower, she fretted that it might not be appropriate since she's have her third child (her third girl). I said, "P'shaw!" both because I want to bring back that word and also because it's her first baby shower as such events are very American. Moreover, I firmly believe that you can have one baby shower in each area you live. If you choose to stay in one place, that's the price you pay. If you have to pack up and go with frequency, I say you deserve a little incentive. And if you have a whole load of friends, you're totally entitled to multiple parties, as long as you don't invite someone twice.

So now I'm busy coming up with red, white and blue foods - which isn't that hard; just think of the world of possibilities using blue corn tortilla chips! - and planning the entertainment. Oh yeah, here's the entertainment: there is none because I loathe a shower game more than I loathe my callused heels, and we're not even speaking these days. (Although I recently won a sweet prize at a bridal shower in Arizona after I correctly identified 48 out of 50 celebrity photos. I'm not sure whether I should be proud or embarrassed.)

Like my friend, I also don't like passing around gifts unless there is some intricate needlework that must be examined with a magnifying glass. Otherwise, let me eat my croissant in peace.

I mean, isn't that the real purpose of a shower: gabbing with friends while you hook a sister up with some needed gifts?

But what do you think?

Is it ever OK to have more than one baby or bridal shower?

As for me, I had a huge baby shower at Glamma's house in Arizona, and a smaller gig in Illinois. The latter I missed, however, as I was giving birth. I blame Miss Dub.

HTT - Mom Edition

Have you read this article, "Confessions of a Modern Mom"? If you haven't, and for those who refuse to link - and may the jaws of the inferno swallow you whole for your laziness, or whatever - then let me sum it up for you: Moms are human. We all do things for our own darn convenience that the "perfect mom" would never do.

I, for one, am guilty as charged. As we speak, the TV is babysitting Miss Dub so I can write this post. To be honest, it would be on even if I wasn't using the computer. It's just an easy way to start our day.

I've also forgotten to brush her teeth on occasion. I feed her processed foods. I've even locked her in the car for a split second so I could drop off my rent check without unbuckling her.

Does that make me a bad mom? Well, maybe. But for every bad thing I do, I do something unnecessary, like worrying the whole time she's with a babysitter. Like letting her nap time rule my life. Like watching her around any vaguely elevated surface in case she takes a stumble. (And really, isn't the occasional stumble good?)

Here are some recent "bad moms" who made the news. You tell me if they deserve the criticism they're getting:

A. An Illinois mom who was arrested after leaving her napping toddler in a parked car (in eye sight) while donating change to the Salvation Army out front.

B. A New York mom who let her 9-year-old ride the subway home by himself - with specific directions, instructions and change for a phone call.

C. A Massachusetts couple who left their sleeping kids in a car strategically parked in front of a restaurant window so that they could grab some dinner and keep an eye on their children.

The first one just infuriates me - I mean, really? Thankfully, those charges have been dropped. I don't judge the mom in the second, I just doubt I'd have the guts to let my 9-year-old do that since I'm a bit paranoid. But seriously, why not? I remember being 9, and while there is always a risk in life, that risk is probably no less at 12, when most of us would consider it OK. And the last one - I have to admit I found it clever ... but I probably wouldn't do it. (And if I did, I wouldn't tell you!)

But the overriding thing for me is that we're too quick to judge ourselves and others. Short of abuse, we need to give each other a break. It's hard to be a parent. And if TV makes it a little easier sometimes, so be it!

But what do you think?

What makes you a modern mom?


* To see what my negligent mothering has done to Miss Dub, go here.

HTT - Party Edition

I'm off to Arizona for a fortnight so I don't have much time to stir up controversy. But I will toss out this question for you - Which political party makes you par-tay?

Since I asked, it's only fair that I tell you I'm a ...

Um, a ...

Well ... it's a complicated situation. I've been registered as pretty much everything. I started out as an Independent because that was my uninformed way of saying, "Who freaking cares about political parties? We should be voting for candidates!" I then registered as a Republican because I had an adolescent obsession with Richard Nixon. I saw his humanity in spite of his foibles and thought I could atone for his grievances by being a Republican.

But when the time came to register in Illinois, I had to face the cold, hard facts: I almost always vote for Democrats and my political beliefs are largely reflected in D candidates, although Republicans by and large have better hair and do represent my moral stance on a few key issues. But, again, who says I can't vote against my party on occasion?

So ... I'm a card-carrying Democrat who will totally vote for a Republican if I want to. (Except probably not in this election. My friend and I agree that McCain seems to have latent rage issues.)

Also, do you like to host a party or do you prefer to attend one?

As for myself, I always think I like to host, but then the pre-party stress reminds me that I make a better guest.

HTT - Eatin' Edition

Attention people who are trying to get grants for research: I'm not paying you to find out what is everyone's favorite cuisine. I will, however, hustle up some funds for you to study the correlation between monkey spit and fashion sense, and/or any similarly strange topic that would make for an entertaining dissertation.

But I'm not going to pay you to poll people on their favorite type of food because it would get redundant:

"Mexican!"

"Uh ... Mexican."

"Ameri -- No, Mexican!"

"Eurasian."

What the --- ?

Because I think there is a general consensus (at least in my social circles) that Mexican food is www.thebomb.com. And while there is certainly a plethora of bad Mexican food to be had, you generally can't go wrong with beans, cheese and some bad ol' hot sauce. I once found a cockroach in my quesadilla at a dive in San Diego, and I probably wouldn't have noticed if they had served a decent taco sauce - because I say sauce over salsa any day, but that's a personal issue.

But the same can not be said of other cuisines. Chinese food, for example, must be immaculately prepared or it's only good as a glue substitute. Same goes for a hot dog. Granted, I don't believe the hot dog has yet to qualify as its own genre of food - it currently resides in the Ballpark Eatin's category - but a good dog is heaven with a helping of mustard, while a nasty dog is just that.

So to save you greedy granters some time and lots of donation request letters, I am going to rank my favorite food cuisines in order:

1. Mexican - Stuff a pepper with cardboard, and I'll eat it.
2. Thai - Curry, curry and, um, curry.
3. Japanese - It's like the rice is made of crack. Rice crack.
4. Indian - I really like the one that looks like spinach diarrhea.
5. Italian - One word: gnocchi.

After that, it starts to get blurry with random Vietnamese and Guatemalan dishes duking it out with other cuisines for a higher ranking. But I honestly like most cuisines and have sampled lots of them, although I've yet to try Ethiopian. (I blame Mr. Dub and his higher-ranked Italian hankerings. Also, his aversion to injera and communal hand washing.)

So, my dearest bloggity friends, what are your FIVE favorite cuisines? Rank 'em and weep.

And then let's all go out to lunch. I'm craving Mexican. What about you?

HTT - Ticket Edition

Not my car. Not Chicago.

I got a ticket yesterday, and I'm not happy about it.

Mind you, it was only my second ticket and my first since I was 16. Which means I've had 12 years to convince myself that I'm invincible. In fact, every time I do something vaguely illegal (usually every 2.5 seconds), I come up with an elaborate explanation I will give a cop, should one dare to question my driving decisions. They are pretty impressive, from, "But I'm actually helping the flow of traffic, Officer," to, "But don't you think a traffic light should act as a 4-way stop before 7 a.m.?"

So imagine my surprise when I got pulled over yesterday and said nothing. Nothing. Even though I had just told Mr. Dub my great explanation for why I illegally turn left into the Target parking lot several times a week: "Officer, I feel this is a safer entry into this lot. And shouldn't my family's safety be my top priority?"

Part of it was my state of mind: I'd suddenly encountered a blizzard as I attempted to visit my SIL, who is in town, and decided to seek refuge. As a result, I didn't have my cop radar on. I was also talking on a cell phone to me mum. (Yes, I was being that driver.)

To my credit, the officer acted like he was going to let me off, so I didn't think I needed an explanation, and lying is never an option for me. But then he asked for my license - which I lost while traveling over the holidays - and then he asked why I have Arizona plates - because I just got the title from my parents and haven't yet registered my car in Illinois - and his sympathy went down a notch.

Anyway, he claimed to be letting me off, but I still have a $75 fee to pay and the sad reality that I will now have to sit through two additional lights rather than turn left into my local Target lot. But mostly I have to suffer from lowered driving self-esteem because I'm wondering if I really have the ability to allude law enforcement.

What do you think?

How many ticket notches do you have on your dashboard?

And have you ever talked your way out of one?

(If so, details, please!)