For many years now, it’s been trendy to blame television for all our woes. It makes our kids stupid. It makes our kids unimaginative. It makes our kids violent. It makes our kids materialistic. It makes our kids fat. I’ve read some interesting articles on the subject, mostly written by people who do not allow their children to watch television. Some of them don’t even have a television in their home. That’s their prerogative. But I’m done feeling like a bad mom because I do let my kids watch TV. I’m done being consumed by guilt every minute that my children spend in front of the small screen. I’m going to make an argument for reasonable TV watching. It may not be a trendy argument, but I think it’s a good one.

First, I disagree with people who argue that TV makes kids stupid. I was just brushing my teeth in the bathroom, and I heard my 2 ½-year-old in the other room speaking Spanish as she was watching Dora the Explorer. I was impressed. My toddler knows several words in a language I don’t know. Chances are, if she had not gotten to watch television, she would not have learned any Spanish until high school when our school district starts foreign language classes.

I’ve noticed that both my children have developed vocabulary they may not have been exposed to without television. My six-year-old son uses words like “rendez-vous,” “pedagogue” and “earnest.” Ask him where he heard them, and he’ll tell you it was from watching Disney movies on TV. Although my husband and I might have occasionally used these words, we don’t have the need to very often. Television exposes children to unusual situations, out-of-the-ordinary events that call for vocabulary we just don’t use in everyday speech.

Television gives children the opportunity to exercise math skills as well as reading. Most evenings, we’re too busy to have the TV on; however, if it’s on, we’re usually watching sports. My son’s practiced his math on baseball and football scores. He’s read the stats of Derek Jeter and Peyton Manning. He’s learned logic and strategy that he’ll be able to use to problem-solve.

Does television make children unimaginative? If it does, then maybe I should make my son watch more. Every year at parent conferences, his teachers’ only concern is that he tends to live in his own little imaginary world, peopled by Star Wars and Harry Potter characters, pirates and monsters that he gleans from movies, television and books. I hear anti-TV folks say that letting kids watch TV stifles their imaginations by stuffing their heads full of other peoples’ ideas. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t we beware of books too? I’m reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to my son, and he’s running around the house battling giant squid and sharks, much the same way he battles Transformers and Spiderman villains. The difference between TV and books may be more clearly delineated for adults than for kids – children seem to absorb the creativity in the same way, no matter what the medium.

As for violence, sure, if you let your kids watch violent shows, I’m sure they would be affected. I would no sooner let my children watch The Sopranos than I would read The Godfather to them as a bedtime story. Television is no more violent than literature. And some literature is far worse than ANYTHING you’ll see on TV.

As for television turning kids into materialistic brats, I think we need to keep it in perspective. As an anti-materialist myself, all those commercials for toys and fast food and candy do worry me, but my children’s materialism has been shaped far more by their grandparents’ indulgence than by advertisements. I find it’s pretty easy to counteract the influences of TV commercials anyway; my kids are more interested in what I have to say than what the boob tube says. On those rare occasions that my children talk about something they saw on TV, I simply say, “Yes, dear, that’s nice” and keep on moving. Now that my son’s older, I’ve actually talked to him directly about the dangers of advertisements. “Don’t believe everything salespeople say,” I tell him. “Sometimes they don’t tell the whole truth.” He’s only six, but he’s got the concept already. The other day, we were at the store and he saw a toy that had been advertised on TV. He looked at it carefully, then turned to me and said, “That doesn’t look as cool in person.” Kids aren’t as gullible as we (and Madison Avenue) like to think they are.

Then there’s the new thing – television must be to blame for our kids being fat. The anti-TV folks are winning this battle. But here’s the thing – kids cannot be running around every minute of the day. They have to have downtime. And whether they’re reading a book or watching a TV show, they’re not burning 100 calories a minute. Sure, if you let your kid watch four hours of television a day, he’s probably going to be fatter than a kid who watches one hour or no TV at all. But the biggest kid in my school was also the biggest nerd. He was home-schooled to 7^th grade, read voraciously, and he was ranked second in our class because he couldn’t pass Gym. He told me once he wasn’t allowed to watch TV at home. Hmm…

As far as I’m concerned, television gives my kids some opportunities they can’t always get from books. My little girl can’t read yet, so Dora the Explorer and Blue’s Clues are wonderful tools for developing her vocabulary. Watching sports on television shows my son athletes in action in a way he could not get from reading about them or listening to a radio broadcast. Now when he plays baseball, he tries to imitate Derek Jeter’s movements. TV is just like anything else in a child’s life – parents have to exercise control and caution. You don’t want to let your kids eat 20 Twinkies a day or let them read the Marquis de Sade at age 10, but you have to feed them and you want them to read. You can let them watch TV in good conscience, as long as you’re monitoring what they watch and how much. Television can be, in the words of Dora, muy bueno!

It’s been a tough summer for dogs. In Indianapolis, we’ve experienced a rash of dog attacks on children. Then, of course, we’ve had the Michael Vick dogfighting case, Ving Rhames’ caretaker mauled by dogs, and DMX’s maltreated dogs removed from his home. So I’ve been thinking a lot about dogs lately.

First, let me be honest. I like animals, but I’m NOT a dog person. I’m not necessarily a cat person either, but I have a cat I like very much. Generally, I’m picky about my pets, and no dog will ever make the cut. That’s not to say that I don’t like dogs. I liked my grandmother’s German shepherd mix, my aunt’s standard poodle, the service dog at the Writing Center, my friend’s Corgi and a few others. I just would never want to own one.

Dogs are just too high-maintenance for me. They have to be walked or let out all the time. They need attention. They whine; they howl; they bark; they bite; they lick; they jump on you. I like my pets quiet and fairly self-sufficient: cats, fish, the occasional hamster or parakeet.

The dogs, however, are not nearly annoying as some dog owners. You see a wide range of “dog people.” From the folks who dress their dogs, throw them birthday parties and buy them Christmas gifts to these girls who use them as fashion accessories to the people who have several dogs and pay little or no attention to them, just leave them outside to bark all day. It’s not the dogs’ fault, of course. The fault lies with the breeders who engineered certain breeds to be yippy and annoying dogs and with the dogs’ owners who let their dogs bark and whine at 7am on a Saturday.

I think what really drives me nuts, though, are the people who constantly talk about their dogs as if they were children and use their pet as an excuse. I hate it when I’m talking about my child, and someone has to interject with some story about Fido as if that’s an appropriate comparison. Even before I had kids, I would never inject my cat into a conversation in which people were talking about their children. And I think it’s pretty rude when people cut out of a get-together early to go let the dog out. When people say, “I have to go. Poor Fluffy needs to be let out,” I hear, “I’d rather be at home with my dog than here with you.” I have lots of friends with dogs who have never cut out early to tend to their pets, so I know it’s not necessarily true. Not all dog owners are like that, of course. I have some friends who are loving, responsible dog owners without ever letting the dog become an excuse or a creepy substitute for kids.

So I don’t care for dogs much, but I still cannot fathom what Michael Vick and his friends did. Animal cruelty is wrong whether the animal in question is a cute little bunny or a vicious cobra. If cruel and unusual punishment were not illegal, I’d say we should string Vick and company up in a puddle of water and give them a few shocks like Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. As for DMX, Ving Rhames and the owners of the dogs who mauled the kids in Indianapolis, they need to be  tossed into a ring with some vicious pit bulls and see how they fare.

What’s a non-dog person to do? Well, I would support legislation to stop the breeding of aggressive dogs - pit bulls, Rottweilers, mastiffs - or of “purebred” dogs in general. One of my friends used to be a veterinary technician, and she told me all sorts of horror stories about pedigreed species who have been so inbred they are genetic nightmares even without being aggressive.

I would also encourage people to really think about why they want a dog before they go get one. Security is a lame reason because security systems are cheaper, safer, cleaner, and more reliable than a dog. Companionship is fine, I guess, but cats are easier.

And if your dog is the one that wakes me up on a Sunday morning, rest assured I’ll be on your doorstep. It won’t be pretty. Not only am I not a dog person, I’m not a morning person either!

What a mess.

Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie: Put them together and what have you got? Multiple arrests, stints in jail, a messy divorce, several lawsuits, aborted rehab stays, public nudity, downright trashiness and little, if any, talent.

I haven’t really figured out why any of these girls are famous, especially Hilton and Richie, who cannot even claim to be actresses or singers. (Hilton’s embarrassing appearance in “House of Wax” does NOT count.) Spears had a couple catchy songs about a decade ago; Lohan was once a decent enough actress to land roles in films starring much better actors. Now they seem to be famous for their all-too-exposed anatomies. Hilton and Richie seem to be celebrities simply because they were born rich. No wonder these girls are so screwy.

I saw this morning that Richie was sentenced to four days in jail. I don’t know what for. I can’t keep track. Lohan’s in rehab again, I think. Hilton’s out of jail at the moment. Does anyone know where Britney is? Bet you $50 she’s not with her children.
A few years ago, I could feel a bit sorry for most of these girls, but they’re getting too old for this nonsense now. Plus, they’re becoming mothers! Once you have a baby, you are no longer the center of your universe. All your issues should take a backseat to the needs of your child. But I just don’t see that happening with these horribly self-absorbed girls. Nicole Richie is pregnant now. God help her child. I heard Britney’s ex-husband is suing for full custody of their kids. How terrible a mother do you have to be to make Kevin Federline look like a good parent?!

My main concern, though, is not for these trashy girls or even for their unfortunate children. I’m worried about what they’re doing to America’s young women. All their ridiculous behavior is teaching our girls that you can act like a stupid, drugged-out, skanky criminal and be rich and famous for it. That’s disgusting. How am I supposed to teach my daughter to be a strong, educated, whole person when she has all these idiots staring at her from every magazine, website and television?

The kindest thing we can do for Spears and her ilk and the smartest thing we can do for our daughters is to ignore these young Hollywood fools. Don’t buy a magazine that sports them on the cover, don’t go to websites that spin their stories, and turn the channel when they pop up on the TV. Maybe they’ll eventually learn that there are bad consequences for bad behavior and clean up their acts. In the meantime, I’ll just try to keep my daughter out of rehab, out of jail and out of court. If only these girls’ parents could do the same.

As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t go to a lot of movies. They’re too expensive. People are too annoying. It’s too hard to get a babysitter.

Still, some films are compelling enough to make me shell out a bunch of money, get a sitter and brave the jerk next to me talking throughout the movie. So far this summer, I’ve gone to three films, which is a lot for me. Here are my reviews if you’re interested.

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End - As a former Disney cast member and devout Johnny Depp fan, it hurts me to say this film disappointed me. Great special effects and wonderful music, but the plot is downright silly. The first third of the film is fun, the second third is confusing, and the final third is a real downer. Whereas the previous two films were energizing, I walked out of this one almost depressed. My sister leaned over to me at one point and whispered, “Is it possible for a movie to ‘jump the shark?’” If it is possible, then this one did. Maybe my expectations were too high; I saw the midnight showing with my sister on opening week in May, and I’d planned to take my husband and son that weekend. They still haven’t seen it, and it’s July.

2. Ratatouille - My two-year-old daughter drove us nuts for a month, making us play the trailers over and over on the Internet. I thought this movie would be cute. It was much better than that. The animation is beautiful! I’ve been to Paris several times, and I would never have dreamed that animation could do it justice. Pixar’s rendering of the city was spot-on. Admittedly, I’m a Disney freak, a Francophile, and a gourmet, so the film probably had an unfair advantage with me. But it was engaging and lovely and kept my toddler and six-year-old son still for an hour and a half. Any movie that can do that has to be doing something right!

3. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - I’ve read all 6 books multiple times, so unless this movie sucked, I was going to like it. It did not suck, so I loved it. The special effects are fabulous. The film moves very quickly, and you get to see some parts of Hogwarts and some areas of Harry’s life that have heretofore been neglected. The sets are magnificent, especially the Ministry of Magic. The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix is just what I expected, although I was disappointed that Sirius’s mother was left out. I will definitely see the film again. All that being said, though, I have to admit, of the 5 Harry Potter films, this is the only one where you could get lost if you haven’t read the book. If you’ve seen the other films, you’ll probably be alright, but you may want to consult your friends who’ve read the book just to clarify some things. It doesn’t stand on its own feet as steadily as the previous four. Still, it is exciting and gorgeous, and watching these characters grow up before our eyes is a treat. They are amazing kids, and they’re becoming great actors too. I’m taking my husband and son this weekend.

I’m not planning to see any other movies this summer unless my husband, a longtime Simpsons fan, really wants to see that one in the theater. The trailer for Disney’s “Enchanted” is hilarious, though. It comes out at Thanksgiving. November looks promising!

What do conservatives have against gays and lesbians? Really? What has a gay man or homosexual woman ever done to them to deserve the uproar that surrounds them? I know a lot of gay men and a few lesbians, and I have to tell you, they really are not scary. Most of my friends and family are, however, hetero and conservative. This is what they tell me:

1. Homosexuals choose to be homosexual.
2. Homosexuals are dangerous freaks who will turn decent heterosexuals to the dark side if we allow them to get close to us.
3. Homosexuals are perverts and deviants out to molest and/or rape our children.
4. Homosexuals, unlike heterosexuals, parade their sexuality and try to get special rights because of it.
5. Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.
6. Homosexuals should just be celibate rather than commit sin by sleeping with same-sex partners.

So let me look at these one by one.

The first two points really fascinate me. The idea that you can choose your sexuality is bizarre. I can no more choose to be a lesbian than I can choose to sprout horns out my head. I like men. It’s not a choice I made; I’ve just never been attracted to women in a sexual way, and I cannot imagine suddenly choosing to, even if a gorgeous lesbian came up to me and begged me to be her girlfriend. I have several gay and lesbian friends. Their homosexuality has not rubbed off on me. The notion that accepting them into my society will somehow endanger my heterosexuality is ludicrous. To anyone that spouts such silliness, I must ask, “Is your heterosexuality so tenuous that you cannot resist the lure of a gay person in your near vicinity?”

Point number three begs the question, “Are heterosexuals exempt from perversion and sexual deviance?” On the contrary, most of the truly horrific sexual criminals - Marquis de Sade, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy - were quite straight. Two of my gay male friends were molested as children by married men who were supposedly heterosexual. I don’t have any statistics on it, but I’d be willing to bet that heterosexuals are just as likely, if not more so, to be criminally deviant as homosexuals.

I hear number four quite a bit from my conservative friends: “They chose to be gay, and now they want special rights? I don’t go around asking for special privileges because I’m straight!” Nope, because you don’t have to. Heterosexuals don’t have to beg for equality or decent treatment. We get it automatically. We can marry whom we want in a church with all our friends and even get tax breaks and benefits. We can wear our wedding rings proudly and not worry about getting beaten up for being married to someone we love. As far as homosexuals parading their sexuality, heterosexuals do it all the time. Turn on the TV. Go to a popular movie. Look at a billboard or a mainstream magazine. You’ll see scantily clad women and men kissing, groping and writhing all over one another. Heaven forbid we should see a gay couple now and then.

Point five is an intriguing one. People often point to verses in Leviticus or in the writings of Paul as condemning homosexuality. I’m not a biblical scholar, so I can’t dispute the point definitively. I am a language expert, though, and I know that translating the Bible is like playing the child’s game of telephone. What starts out as God’s word, goes through the initial writer, then a translator, then another translator, then another and another. As it is converted from language to language, modified from man to man, and evolved from age to age, the meaning is inevitably altered. No one can say for certain what the terms occasionally translated as “homosexual” actually meant in the original language. Plus, a Christian knows that the Old Testament was revised by Jesus. He overturned many of the old laws. Since he never mentions homosexuality, can we not assume he was disregarding the old Jewish traditions against it?

There really is no hierarchy of sin. According to Jesus, all sins are equal. If homosexuality is a sin, it is no worse than lying, stealing or cheating. Those sins are redeemed by Christ. Homosexuality would be too. Of course, some people argue that if you must be gay, you should just be celibate as Paul suggested. If celibacy is the proper way to avoid the sin of homosexual sex, than it must also be the proper way to avoid the sin of sex with someone other than your first partner. After all, Jesus specifically told us to avoid divorce because remarriage is actually adultery; therefore, all divorcees should just be celibate too. Hmm…

The point is that gay people deserve respect and consideration like anyone else. No one has the right to discriminate against them or be unkind to them just because they are gay. If homosexuality is a sin, it’s not up to us to punish those who practice it. As Jesus said, “Let those among you without sin cast the first stone.” Let’s just let God handle it, shall we?