Chelsea Kaplan’s Musings About Life... After Birth

I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican - if you’re a parent and are anything but disgusted by President Bush and the Republicans, you’re not paying attention. Here’s the deal:

In today’s Washington Post, there’s an article about how yesterday, Congressional negotiators agreed to a ban on a family of toxins found in children’s products. This ban will include three types of phthalates, which are found in plastics (they make plastic softer and more durable) commonly used in children’s toys, and to outlaw three other phthalates pending a study of their health effects in children and pregnant women. Why? Well, phthalates act as hormones and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys. Federally funded research found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited low sperm count, undescended testicles and other reproductive problems. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer. For purposes of global comparison, the European Union banned the six phthalates in question from children’s products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same.

In a mind-blowing response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes this ban. I’m going to repeat this and make it bold, because I want to make sure everyone gets this: President Bush opposes banning plastics that are harmful to children and pregnant women.

This makes me so angry that I am shaking. Shaking. Do I even need to explain why?

Joining President Bush on the deplorably disgusting list: (no shocker here) Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers the phthalate most frequently found in children’s toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent this ban and try to get people to believe that banning phthalates may inadvertently expose children to greater risks, because manufacturers will be forced to use substitute chemicals that may be even more hazardous. Let me get this straight, Exxon Mobil: the U.S. should so allow toxic chemicals to be placed in kids’ toys because there’s a chance that whatever we decide to replace them with might end up being toxic too? Um, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and recommend we just go right on ahead and get rid of the stuff we know is highly toxic, mmmkay? I have faith that on he next go-’round we’ll make sure that sperm and kidney-destroying chemicals aren’t allowed into rubber duckies. Seriously, how do these people sleep at night?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the ban, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market. Now seriously, doesn’t that make sense? Perhaps some prelim research prior to a chemical additive’s approval (as opposed to waiting until children suffer health consequences and THEN taking action) is a wise plan, no? Sadly, only the Democrats agree with her. Senate and House Republicans all voted against the ban, and you know why. Of course, the jerks at Exxon Mobil, etc. poured all kinds of obscene money into the Republicans’ re-election campaigns (check their campaign finance records - it’s publicly available info) in exchange for promises that they’d vote to oppose this ban. Really, how can we not be disgusted by the fact that our governmental representatives can and are willing to be bought at the expense of our safety - ESPECIALLY that of our kids?

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that do not hide the fact that I am a liberal. To me, however, this shouldn’t a partisan issue; liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, parent or not, you should support a ban on using toxic ingredients when making kids’ toys. The record is clear, though: the lawmakers against this ban are Republicans, and the ones supporting the ban are Democrats.

We must keep this in mind when we vote this November.

Yesterday’s L.A. Times featured an article about American interrogators and their “torture playlists”, essentially, the songs they’ve been playing over and over again in an attempt to torture prisoners and detainees.

As I read the article, I was reminded of when I was in college and my then-boyfriend, making me take a vow of secrecy that I am clearly breaking here, reported that during his fraternity’s Hell Week, he and his pledge brothers got locked in a room where cold water was dripped on them and “Here Comes the Hotstepper” (specifically, the “chi chi chang chang” part) was put on the stereo system’s repeat. He said it was sheer torture, and apparently, the U.S. military agrees, as they use the same tactics on suspected terrorists at Abu Ghraib. The only difference between the two scenarios is that my ex-boyfriend and his pledge bros voluntarily signed up for and endured that crap, and then the following year made the dudes dumb enough to do anything to be allowed into their social circle suffer through the same thing. Woo hoo, brotherly love!

“Here Comes the Hotstepper” was not mentioned in the Times article, but one of the songs supposedly used to break the will of terrorist suspects and cause them to confess to crimes against humanity was one I know well: the “I Love You” song from the “Barney” TV series. It’s actually the song I sing to Big Bro every night before I put him to bed, with the words slightly changed to include the names of everyone in our family. Interestingly enough, I didn’t pick the song to be our featured bedtime lullaby because of its association with Barney, but because it is sung to the tune of “This Old Man”, which is one of Big Bro’s all time faves. I actually loathe Barney with a hatred I only reserve for Karl Rove and nude pantyhose. Ugh, he’s so horrifically grating. And lame. If a children’s character could ever be designated a douchebag, Barney would win such honors. I’m sorry, but you know it’s true.

The author of the article, Bob Singleton, who was music director for the TV show “Barney and Friends”, wrote: “When I heard that “I Love You” had been used at Abu Ghraib to break the will of terror suspects, I just laughed. It’s absolutely ludicrous. A song that was designed to make little children feel safe and loved was somehow going to threaten the mental state of adults and drive them to the emotional breaking point?”

Uh, Bob, have you actually heard your song? It does precisely that, brother. The U.S. Military is using your song against the enemy for the same reason it employs assault rifles and smart bombs: they work.

Is it me, or is Bob the only dude on the planet baffled by this news?

On July 4, the New York Times ran an editorial imploring the FDA to update its safety data on sunscreen. In a nutshell, here’s why: Despite the fact that the F.D.A. proposed creating new safety standards and a new ratings system for sunscreens last August, they’ve done nothing in terms of actually creating them. In the meantime, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington research organization, looked into the safety and effectiveness of the sunscreens currently available to consumers (nearly 1,000 products). After collecting all their data and testing the sunscreens, the group found that it could recommend only 15 percent of those on the market with S.P.F. ratings of 15 or higher. The ones they could not recommend - 85 percent of what’s out there - either did not protect skin enough from some radiation that can cause skin cancer or included ingredients linked to possible health hazards.

Yikes, right?

Here are the top 10 products, in terms of effectiveness, as determined by the research conducted by the Environmental Working Group:

1. Keys Soap Solar Rx Therapeutic Sunblock, SPF 30
2. Trukid Sunny Days Facestick Mineral Sunscreen UVA/UVB Broad Spectrum, SPF 30+
3. California Baby Sunblock Stick No Fragrance, SPF 30+
4. Badger Sunscreen, SPF 30
5. Marie Veronique Skin Therapy Sun Serum
6. Lavera Sunscreen Neutral, SPF 40
7. Vanicream Sunscreen, SPF 35
8. UV Natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+
9. Sun Science Sport Formula, SPF 30
10.  Soleo Organics Sunscreen all natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+

Basically, it seems the products that received the lowest marks all had a few things in common: non-lotion formulas (sprays, even a few powders), the ingredient oxybenzone, fragrance and a low SPF number. I was shocked to see that among the lowest-rated sunscreens were products from some of the most distributed brands: Neutrogena, Hawaiian Tropic, Banana Boat and Coppertone. And I’m not even referencing SPF 2 oil - it’s products like Hawaiian Tropic Ozone Sunblock, SPF 70, Neutrogena UVA/UVB Sunblock Lotion, SPF 45 and Banana Boat Ultra Defense Broad Spectrum Sunblock, SPF 80. The bottom line: Just because a product has a high SPF and comes from a recognized brand doesn’t mean that it’s one you should slather on yourself or your kids. To search their findings by brand, product or formula, click here.

To help you make there best choices, here are the common brands the Environmental Working Group most recommends, based on the products’ effectiveness:

1. Blue Lizard (anything without oxybenzone)
2. California Baby (anything with SPF 30+)
3. CVS (with zinc oxide)
4. Jason Natural Cosmetics Sunbrellas Mineral Based Sunblock
5. Kiss My Face ("Paraben Free” series)
6. Neutrogena (Sensitive Skin Sunblock)
7. Olay Defense (Daily UV Moisturizer with zinc)
8. SkinCeuticals (Physical UV Defense)
9. Solar Sense (Clear Zinc for Face)
10. Walgreens (Zinc Oxide for Face, Nose, & Ears)

More than a million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. every year, yet it seems no one at the F.D.A. feels it necessary to set the sunscreen safety standards the agency 30 years ago that it would. Meanwhile, companies are free to claim but not provide broad spectrum protection. Until FDA requires that all sunscreens be safe and effective, I advise using the Environmental Working Group’s comprehensive sunscreen guide—including a list of 143 products that offer very good sun protection—to fill in the gaps. If you’re fed up with the F.D.A.’s negligence, click here to sign a petition being sent to Dr. Jeff Shuren, who heads up the F.D.A.’s sunscreen standard process, telling him you want safe sunscreen--and you don’t want to wait another 30 years.

Momtourage member Amy recently sent me this article from the New York Times, which once again makes me thank God that I have two boys. Here’s the deal:

Jamie Lynn Spears, the TV actress and sister of the singer Britney Spears, sent the celebrity gossip machinery into a lather last December when, at the age of 16, she confirmed to the world that “I’m pregnant.” Today, she’s rocketing to the top of Google’s search charts with the arrival, reported initially by People magazine, of Maddie Briann, weighing in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces. (The child presumably has a surname, but it isn’t mentioned in the report.)

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies — more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. […] All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. “We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” the principal says, shaking his head.

Once again, the news has touched off a round of soul-searching and finger-pointing. According to the Time article, adults in Gloucester variously blame a depressed local economy, broken families, adrift children, difficult access to birth control and hit movies like “Juno” and “Knocked Up” that they say glamorize pregnancy to young audiences. Bad examples set by celebrities off-screen did not come up, though, and no one Time talked to in Gloucester seems to have mentioned the most famous teen mother of the moment.

Oh. My. God. Kinda makes me yearn for the days that the most idiotic thing American teens were doing was getting Botox and facelifts. 

There are far too many examples I’ve been receiving lately that make me seriously question the mental fitness of my countrypeople. I wanna feel proud of this beautiful land, but damn, when I read things like the fact that 13% of registered voters believe Barack Obama is Muslim (even in the wake of this Reverend Wright silliness? Who are these people?) or witness talentless, perpetually stoned warbler Jason Castro propel to the #3 spot on “American Idol”, I get very sad. And angry.

Nothing, however, perplexes me quite like the emails I receive when I have an article up on MSN.com. As most of you who read this blog know, I am a freelance writer, and often, I pen dating and relationships-oriented articles for MSN.com’s “dating and personals” section. Most of these articles focus on a particular dating topic like “dating after divorce” or “how to get over your fear of first dates”, and are written in a question and answer style, with my interviewing an author or professional who lends his or her thoughts/professional advice on the topic.

It is ABUNDANTLY clear - if you actually read the articles, that is - that the opinions expressed in said articles are those of the experts, and that I’m merely the interviewer/transcriber. However, there are lots of folks out there who don’t quite comprehend that, and this baffles me, much in the way Paris Hilton’s celebrity or the popularity of the WWF does.

Each time one of my articles goes up, I get countless emails from nutjobs across the country who have found fault with what “I” have to say on each subject. I won’t even get into how frightening I find people who actually take the dating and relationships pieces I write MSN.com seriously enough to track down my email address, much less write me with their thoughts, but what really strikes me is how it seems most people don’t understand how a question and answer exchange works, and the difference between one who “questions” and one who “answers”. I mean, am I the idiot here, or is this a concept one learns in elementary school?

For the past couple of days, I have had a piece up on the site called “How to win over a bad boy”. For this piece, I interviewed and quoted Lauren Frances, celebrity love coach and author of Dating, Mating and Manhandling: The Ornithological Guide to Men. While your average 4th grader could figure out after reading the article’s intro that the opinions listed next to each “A:” section are her answers, all sorts of wackos don’t, and email me their irate comments.

Here’s a sampling of some I have received today (some of which were actually posted to the blog, as it’s listed in my byline):

“Just read the stupid Bad Boy article on MSN. God you’re an idiot. Why the f**k are you wasting space like you are? I hope you’re kids are smarter than you - we don’t need any more dips**ts sucking down what clean air is left.”

I love how that person called me an idiot, yet is unaware of how to correctly use “your” and “you’re”.  And such rage over a dating article on MSN.com. And I’m the dips**t sucking down what clean air is left? Discuss.

“I have been a frequent reader of your articles that appear on the front page of msn.com. I hope you are able to handle constructive criticism because I have plenty of it for you. Just when I think you were incapable of writing something more moranic than the day before, you do. You suprise me once again with your article about winning over a bad boy. What do you hope to accomplish by these articles? If you are trying to come across as a secularist, libretarian, atheist, pagan, individualistist, hedonist pig, then you more than surpass that title. You seem to be encouraging women and men to have fun at all cost. Do you believe that hopping from bed to bed will somehow make things better for people and not worse? In any relationship emotions are invloved. No matter how hard you try to keep things “fun”, you are really leading people down a road of misery and heartache with your senseless babbling articles which will have an adverse effect on many of your readers. Your endless attempts at comedic humor are an insult to people with a brain. As a Catholic, I am offended by your writing and I insist you stop encouraging sexual promiscuity in your articles. The lives you damage by your articles will be on your conscience and you will be called to account for it. Perhaps if you yourself were on the recieving end of one of these “relationships” that ended with heatache and pain, you would learn sooner or later that its not all about “fun.” Perhaps you should investigate the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality and the sacredness of the human body. Specifically the Theology of the Body written by Pope John Paul II. Here you will find the true value of the human person instead of making people sexual toys. In closing, I believe your writing needs to change. You need to find ways of focusing on helping people instead of focusing on perverted desires.”

I’m not even sure where to begin with that one, but that spelling-challenged gentleman writes me all the time, calling me a pervert, moron and, my personal favorite, “hedonist pig”. How very “Catholic” of him! Uh, dude...the last time I checked, Jesus wasn’t so into name-calling...

“Chelsea-

You know really nothing of bad boys...

I’m a bad boy and you have us figured out only just a little bit, But nice try kid!!

If I caught you, I bet I could make you love me & do everything I want,even something you said you never would do. But I’ve got what I want, cause that what every smart bad boy is doing , working on finding what he really wants and then when he get that he makes the right moves to get & keep it...So anyway...keep taken those lessons wherever you are getting them, but get some more tutoring from a bad bay, before you talk about them. Cause there are women out there who are gonna take your advice and end up getting hurt emotionally. cause a bad boy is still a bad boy for life.He just always play it smarter than the average male,cause to him it’s strategy,from beginning to end,for life.”

“I normally don’t comment on anything that I read, but I felt compelled to do so from this article that was written from extreme arrogance and ignorance, obviously from a woman who is bitter and inexperienced...I have slept with many (beautiful) women who were absolutely drop dead gorgeous and never 1 time even complimented them on their looks and treated them like dirt. In fact, I found out later that the reason I ended up with them was because I never did compliment them or treat them well at all and they wanted to ‘conquer’ me to change that. It never worked and I saw them again...until I became bored and broke it off.”

I love how this gentleman boasts of his “many (beautiful)” conquests and demeaning treatment of them, yet bashes “my” take on bad boys. He also goes on to list his MySpace page - seriously, who has a MySpace page anymore ? It’s hilarious - check out his identifying photo. Classy.

I’m all for spirited discourse and even criticism of my work, but seriously, people, if you’re gonna write to me about my articles, try reading them first, ok?

Labels: in the news, interesting articles, rants

One more reason to love the city of Philadelphia:

As reported in today’s New York times, for the past three years, the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America has resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people.  The city threatened that if the Philly Scouts Council did not change their policies, the city would evict the group from a municipal (read: taxpayer dollar-funded) building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928.

Philly officials said they have a duty to defend civil rights and an obligation to abide by a local law that bars taxpayer support for any group that discriminates. The Boy Scouts argued with this, saying they had a right to preserve their culture and deserved the protection of the right of private organizations to remain exclusive and have traditions like requiring members to swear an oath of duty to God and prohibiting membership by anyone who is openly homosexual.

This week, the Philly city council made the decision to boot the Scouts out.

Here’s why I think Philadelphia rules: Under federal law, various forms of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nation origin and sex are illegal.  Sadly, however, according to federal law, sexual orientation is not a basis of discrimination that is illegal. In the city ordinances of Philadelphia, however, it is. Just like it should be nationwide.

Because the Boy Scouts are a private institution, they absolutely have every right in the world to have the policies they do - like ‘em or not. I’ll go ahead and register my opinion on said policies, however: Their (essentially Christian) religious leanings don’t bother me - if you are cool with pledging and oath to God, by all means, join. If you’re an atheist, don’t. I think their policies regarding homosexuality, however, are nauseating. Whether you believe homosexuality is fine or reprehensible, discrimination is discrimination, and in my opinion, discrimination is flat-out wrong (and, if I remember correctly, the last time I read passages from the New Testament, Jesus preached love and acceptance of all people).

The policies of the Boy Scouts bother me so much that unless they change them, I refuse to let my son ever be a Boy Scout. It’s sad, actually, because I’m sure the Boy Scouts stand for and teach all sorts of cool values and skills - ones I am sure my son would benefit from learning.  I feel the organization’s ridiculously small-minded beliefs trump all its good ones, however, and I don’t want my son or family to be affiliated with such an unapologetically prejudiced institution. How is banning membership to all openly gay people different than banning membership to all openly Jewish people, or people of any faith? In my opinion, sending my son to join the Boy Scouts is not too different than sending him to join the KKK or some Neo-Nazi group. When you boil it down, they all preach a form of hate. Though some clearly do it more overtly than others, preaching hate is preaching hate.

Boo Boy Scouts and bravo, Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love, indeed.

Mothers of boys (or mothers in general): In light of these policies, would you let you son join the Boy Scouts? Why or why not?

Check out this article in today’s New York Times.

Guess I’m not the only one who’s anti-chicken fingers.

This article in the New York Times about the impossibility that is getting into exclusive colleges lists my alma mater, Lehigh University, as a “second-tier college” (you know, not Yale or Harvard, but a step right below). According to the article, Lehigh has become a “New Ivy”, as getting an acceptance letter from an actual Ivy these days is apparently as difficult as getting a clear answer as to why the hell Britney Spears refuses to hire a stylist despite allegedly wanting to make a comeback. Therefore, and luckily for Lehigh, tons of talented kids who unfortunately are not the Pope or have discovered the cure for cancer are lowering their standards for schools like Lehigh and its inferior Patriot League companions Bucknell and Colgate. I guess it’s good that Lehigh is seeing more skilled applicants and will be accepting all sorts of talented Penn and Cornell rejects, which is totally unlike how it was when I was there. Not.

The article notes that Lehigh’s (an other second-tier colleges’) admissions numbers have skyrocketed recently, which I find somewhat baffling, not because there are so many people who want to attend school in Bethlehem, PA, which is quite possibly the WORST college town on Earth, but because a 4-year education there costs upwards of $200,000. Who the heck can afford this exorbitant tuition rate? I shudder to think of what it will cost when my son wants to go to college....