Notes on Politics: Are You a Knowledgeable Citizen?

As we have watched horrific and violent news play out across the globe – armed conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya where U.S. soldiers are risking their lives – as well as observe the multi-pronged disaster unfolding in Japan (earthquake, tsunami, potential meltdown of damaged nuclear plants), government officials have been called upon to make a number of important decisions. Here in the United States, our officials must decide whether we should continue to put our troops in harm’s way to hold Gadhafi’s army at bay (or send a barrage of missiles in his general direction). They need to determine when to completely remove our troops from Iraq – meaning everyone outta there – and what to do in Afghanistan, where soldiers have been engaged for going on a decade. Never mind the whole national debt issue . . .

And we, the citizens, are the ones who put those officials there. We do so by listing to presidential, congressional and senate candidates’ promises, examine their backgrounds, policy stands and decide whose judgment we’d prefer to rely upon in moments of crisis like we're facing now.

But what if the people who are doing the voting have no idea what the heck is going on in the world? Only 61.6 percent of eligible voters voted in the 2008 presidential election, but are they among the people who know at least a little something about current events? Newsweek/The Daily Beast has come out with some statistics that really make me shudder and wonder about our citizens' grasp of American history and the workings of our government.

Newsweek got 1,000 U.S. citizens to take the U.S. citizenship test. The results sure are dispiriting:

“[Twenty-nine] percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.”



Among the citizenship test’s other questions: What was the Constitutional Convention? Who was the president during World War I? With which countries did we fight during World War II? How many House seats are in Congress? What did Susan B. Anthony do?

Good grief. I’d be willing to wager that the 29 percent of the people who didn’t know that Joe Biden is our vice president are more likely to know who Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber are, and probably spend oodles of time on Facebook.

Wait. It gets worse.

“In March 2009, the European Journal of Communication asked citizens of Britain, Denmark, Finland, and the U.S. to answer questions on international affairs,” Newsweek reported. “The Europeans clobbered us. Sixty-eight percent of Danes, 75 percent of Brits, and 76 percent of Finns could, for example, identify the Taliban, but only 58 percent of Americans managed to do the same—even though we’ve led the charge in Afghanistan. It was only the latest in a series of polls that have shown us lagging behind our First World peers.”



What’s the answer? Mandatory civics classes in schools? Maybe trying to persuade people to turn off mindless reality show programming and save some brain cells for the news rather than The Situation and Snookie? If we started expecting, as a rite of passage, that entering adulthood means that people are expected to be engaged citizens, not people who exist only in their own bubble, disconnected and uninformed about the activities of their local, state and federal government officials at all levels, would that make any difference? Perhaps we should make Schoolhouse Rock videos regular viewing for our school children, and gently suggest that their parents watch along them too? Or does Charlie Sheen have to run for vice president for folks to start paying attention?

If you took the test, how do you think you’d do?

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: WH Spokesman Tells Reporters What Biden 'Meant to Say' on Swine Flu

Who didn't see this coming? The White House's awkward backing off from what Vice President Joe Biden said on the Today Show this morning, that he wouldn't go in any confined area like an airplane or a subway while the swine flu is spreading.

You had to feel badly for WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, having to stand there at the podium, on national TV and, with a straight face, BS his way through this quagmire, where the president tells everyone to remain calm, wash their hands and stay home if sick, while the vice president says he for one isn't gonna get trapped in some subway car potentially loaded with people carrying the swine flu.

ABC's Jake Tapper asked Gibbs about Biden's statements and Gibbs talked in nonsensical circles saying that what Biden was really saying was that if you feel sick you should take precautions. To which Tapper replied, "With all due respect . . . that's not even remotely close to what he said."

"I'm telling you what he meant to say," Gibbs said as the reporters guffawed. (Link to the question and answer here.)



Meanwhile, in another development on the swine flu front, the Associated Press reported that a White House aide and his family are being tested for the flu. "A member of the U.S. delegation that helped prepare Energy Secretary Steven Chu's trip to Mexico City has demonstrated flu-like symptoms and his family members have tested probable for swine flu."

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Covering the Obamas

There's nothing wrong with noticing that the Obama children are exceptionally cute. It's also reasonable to suggest that the prospect of seeing the girls playing on the White House lawn with their new puppy Bo or swinging on their new swingset outside Dad's office would be a welcome respite from the dour economic news to which we've been treated for the past several months. More than once I've heard and read political pundits likening the White House photos of 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha to photos from the Camelot days a generation ago of Caroline and John Kennedy.

As long as media coverage is respectfully restrained and the Obama girls aren't hounded and don't have everything that's on or near their bodies catalogued (like tracking down the makers of their clothing, backpacks, toys, etc.). There was a degree of media restraint afforded Chelsea Clinton when the 12-year-old accompanied her parents to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 1993, but that was still in the pre-blog days, so I remain skeptical that the media can or will exercise such decorum when it comes to the First Kids.

But what has already exceeded decorum and has veered into the arena of tiresome is the coverage given to Michelle Obama, an Ivy League educated lawyer and former hospital executive, a woman with something substantive to say on many subjects. Last month I examined the type of media coverage Michelle Obama was receiving -- including the odd, fetish-like obsession with her bare arms -- in a column which noted that during the span of two weeks, the First Lady was on the cover of four national magazines.

And that was before the G-20 summit in London and the Obamas' trip abroad. Before phrases such as "fashion faceoff" were uttered and the media pit Michelle Obama with the spouse of the French president, as if the women's clothing was competing against one another. Before so-called news media outlets started running slideshows on their web sites of Michelle Obama's outfits and discussing wearing stilettos versus flat shoes on national NEWS programs.

After a week's worth of fluffy, insipid news coverage, I was steamed. My irritation yielded this week's Pop Culture and Politics column over on Mommy Track'd in which I satirically imagine what it would be like if the male leaders' attire was subjected to the type of media scrutiny that their spouses' duds, where the media pay lavish attention to pumps, not the policies and causes the women try to spotlight. How I wish the media would treat these women as women of substance, not as walking mannequins that they want to dress up in designer duds.

Image credit: Huffington Post.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: AIG Bonuses: 'How Do They Justify This Outrage?'

On the subject of the obscenity that is the $165 million in bonuses AIG handed out to executives this weekend -- particularly given that U.S. taxpayers own 80 percent of the company after shoveling $170 billion into it to keep it afloat -- President Barack Obama is finally singing the same tune the rest of us were singing when we learned about the bonuses to which the company said it was contractually obligated to pay.

The president, who seems to be have taken on an overly ambitious agenda, said in a statement today that this an "outrage:"

"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed. Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?

. . . This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values. All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules. That is an ethic we must demand."

The president said he's ordered the Treasury secretary to do everything he could to "block these bonuses." Administration officials also made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit and espoused the same line that this is an outrage. White House economic advisor Larry Summers echoed the president, using the same word "outrageous" to describe the bonuses while on ABC this weekend, but then made excuses by saying that a contractual obligation is a contractual obligation.

If this is indeed such an outrage, shouldn't those AIG folks who accepted billions in public dollars be morally obliged to the taxpayers first, instead of engaging in excuse-making, saying that their contracts, signed under vastly different conditions, should be honored? (The contracts wouldn't even be able to be honored but for the taxpayer money.)

Meanwhile, all across the country, groups of employees are taking voluntary furloughs (sometimes involuntary) in order to avoid layoffs. So why shouldn't those AIG employees who received the bonuses be shamed into NOT accepting that money? Or forced to give it back? What am I not getting here?

Study: Romantic Movies Harm Your Love Life

All of those who think that your love life will and should play out like a 1990s Meg Ryan flick raise your hands. If you've got a hand aloft, I've got a really great investment for you, a simply fabbbbulous opportunity where you just hand over your extra cash to a nice man named Bernie Madoff . . .

But seriously folks . . . there's a new study from an Edinburgh university -- Heriot Watt University -- which asserts that romantic comedies offer unrealistic portrayals of intimate relationships and that fans of the genre misapply those views to their own relationships, according to the BBC.

One of the authors of the study told the BBC:

"Marriage counselors often see couples who believe that sex should always be perfect, and if someone is meant to be with you then they will know what you want without you needing to communicate it . . . We now have some emerging evidence that suggests popular media play a role in perpetuating these ideas in people's minds . . . The problem is that while most of us know that the idea of a perfect relationship is unrealistic, some of us are still more influenced by media portrayals than we realize."

The movies reviewed for the study -- for the full list, click here -- included: You've Got Mail, My Best Friend's Wedding, America's Sweethearts, While You Were Sleeping, How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days and Two Weeks Notice.

So, as a public service to my readers, I'll take it upon myself to hereby declare that your romantic life will not be perpetually filled with happy endings (take that in whatever way you wish), romantic gestures, destiny-filled moments and kooky side-kick gal pals who are at your beck and call to over-analyze everything your loved one said and did. You are NOT Meg Ryan or Julia Roberts (circa the 1990s, that's important to note), nor are you Sandra Bullock, Kate Hudson or Hugh Grant, titans of romantic comedies over the past decade.

When I told The Spouse about the study, he likened it to the fanciful delusions men might develop after visiting strip clubs or leafing through a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (where the women are airbrushed within an inch of their lives). The women at whom the men are leering, he suggested, provide men with irrational expectations as to what a woman should look like and, by the argument advanced in the study, could damage the men's love life. Touche Spouse!

Image credit: DVD town.

News Stories at Odds: Happiness is Contagious While Thousands are Out of Work

Odd juxtaposition of news stories today.

On the one hand there's a bleak story saying that 533,000 jobs were lost in November, the most in 34 years.

Then there's another story about a new study which found that happiness is contagious. ("Knowing someone who is happy makes you 15.3% more likely to be happy yourself, the study found," the Los Angeles Times reported. "A happy friend of a friend increases your odds of happiness by 9.8%, and even your neighbor's sister's friend can give you a 5.6% boost.")

So where does that leave us?

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: No Bailout Deal, Post-Debate Analysis, SNL Skits

No Bailout Deal

I, along with the rest of the world, thought for sure that there'd be a bailout deal approved by the House of Representatives today. Certainly John McCain and Barack Obama thought there'd be one. McCain -- who "suspended" (only not so much suspended) his presidential campaign and said he wouldn't attend last Friday's presidential debate until there was a deal in place to avert an economic catastrophe -- must be in need of a cloth to wipe that egg off his face right now in the face of the House shooting down a bailout package today in dramatic fashion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi certainly didn't help advance the delicate negotiations by wielding a stick in the form of some highly partisan remarks on the House floor for what was supposed to be a bipartisan, castor oil-like proposal. (See an NBC video about the House talks, including an excerpt of Pelosi's actual speech -- versus the text of her remarks -- here.)

An NBC analyst said that those who voted against the measure -- which they said their constituents opposed -- are in tough re-election fights. If there's anyway to come up with a temporary stop-gap measure until after the election (if that's even possible), that might be the only way something's going to get the green light in the face of such fierce public backlash.

So the Dow plunged and Capitol Hill is in an uproar. What will this mean politics-wise? A big, fat mess, although the folks in the cable news business will likely score better ratings. Well, one thing's for sure . . . Hank Paulson is rapidly becoming a household name.

Post-Debate Analysis

I think McCain and Obama fared about even on Friday night. There were no knock-out blows. No memorable lines. No awful gaffes. But I must say, I'm already sick of hearing the words "naive" and "he doesn't understand" being worked into numerous McCain responses to questions. I kept waiting for both candidates to get all fired up or do something we'd all remember, like sigh, glance at a wristwatch, walk menacingly toward one other, or quip, "There you go again." Alas, I was disappointed, though, substantively, I felt I gained insight into the specific foreign policy positions of both candidates.

As the pundits tended to agree that the candidates fared equally well, a USA Today/Gallup poll found that 46 percent of debate-watchers thought Obama emerged the winner, while 34 percent thought McCain got the better of his Democratic counterpart. A CNN poll had similar results, with 51 percent saying Obama was the winner, 38 percent saying McCain was the winner.

SNL Skits

No ill-advised, offensive incest jokes were featured during this past weekend's Saturday Night Live, but there were several political skits that accurately hit their targets, including Tina Fey reprising her role as Sarah Palin. The News Update nailed Bill Clinton's ambivalence toward Obama's campaign, as Fey captured the wretched awkwardness of the real Palin-Katie Couric interview from last week that was, I'm sorry to say, painful to watch. Fey's finger-in-the-air bit: Priceless. (Watch the three political SNL skits here.)

Question: Do you think SNL has gone too far in parodying Palin? Think such satire will create backlash and sympathy for Palin?

Palin 'Mommy Wars' Rage On

After venting my head off on my other blog, the Picket Fence Post, about the double-standard in the way in which the GOP VP nominee's parenthood is handled as compared to her male counterparts, I was contacted by a reporter from a California newspaper, the Contra Costa Times, to muse about the controversy about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the working mom.

I found some of the comments by others in the Times article regarding the criticism of Palin running for national office while a mother of five -- including a 5-month-old with Down Syndrome and a pregnant 17-year-old -- intriguing, including a quote from a UC Berkeley professor and author of a book on mothers who work:

"Palin is 'an easy target.' The latte crowd at Starbucks can sit around and shred her up. But some of the things that have been said, if it was a man would never happen. You'd think some of the hard-core feminists would come out and say, 'Give me a break.'"

One would think that, wouldn't she?

Image credit: Contra Costa Times.

Bountiful Choices: A Beautiful Speech, Two Historic Possibilities

No matter your political affiliation, there's no way, if you have a pulse and a heart, that seeing the Illinois senator officially accept his party's presidential nomination last night in Denver seemed anything other than historic as Barack Obama invoked soaring rhetoric, talked tough and was relentlessly moderate as he reached for the post-partisan political middle.



And, as everyone was basking in the glow of Obama's speech on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luthur King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, GOP presidential nominee Senator John McCain made a first of his own by selecting Sarah Palin, the first-term governor of Alaska a MOTHER of five -- who just gave birth in APRIL to a baby with Down Syndrome -- as his vice presidential nominee.

Either way you slice it, if you pull a Democratic or Republican lever in November, you'll be making history.

What a country.

Wanna Be a Bridesmaid? Get Ready for Botox, Enhancements and Teeth Whitening

So much for the old fashioned notion that when you invite someone to be a bridesmaid in your wedding, the humiliation to which you subject her ends when you tell her what dress she should wear and how her hair should be done. Those were the good old days. Katherine Heigl in 27 Dresses had it easy by comparison.

Nowadays, according to the New York Times, brides are not only saddling wedding attendants with costly attire, but they're now asking them to Botox those wrinkles right outta their faces, surgically increase their busts, chemically whiten those choppers, oh, and insist that the bridesmaids' skins all be the same shade by visiting the same spray-tan facility.

Even though the news story says many of the brides are actually paying for the improvements to make their attendants look like wax statutes standing next to them when they utter their wedding vows (which now include, "in sickness and in health . . . as long as you keep yourself up and get Botox shots when your skin starts to age and go under the knife for cosmetic improvements when necessary") the insult factor imbued in these requests is staggering.

Lest you think I exaggerate: The Times quoted a 39-year-old photographer who took a pass on the breast enhancement surgery (surgery!) requested by the bride saying, "We're all Asian and didn't have a whole lot of cleavage, and she found a doctor in L.A. who was willing to do four for the price of two." She reportedly wore a push-up bra instead to provide the bride with her desired bridesmaid cleavage, because, as we all know, what's a wedding and lifetime commitment of fidelity without bridesmaid cleavage?

Then there was a woman who'd been friends with a bride-to-be for 20 years only to have the friendship fall apart when she said she didn't want to get "professionally spray-tanned for a Hawaiian-theme reception." When the bridesmaid suggested she use a tanning cream -- because she would get claustrophobic in the "tanning capsule," the paper said "the bride refused; she wanted everyone to be the same shade."

Not even the mothers of the bride and groom are immune from these Bridezillas. A 29-year-old bride said she suggested to her mother and mother-in-law to be that they "freshen up" for the wedding with a little Botox. Wonder if she then approached any grandmothers, elderly aunts and then, of course, all the male members of the family over the age of 30, lest anyone with wrinkles dare to ruin the perfection that would be her wedding.

Who are these people? Since when did weddings morph into an L.A. nightmare of plastic people with fake tans, paralyzed faces, unnaturally whitened teeth and breasts that defy gravity? Maybe it's just me, but I thought weddings were supposed to be about surrounding yourself with people who will support and celebrate your marriage through the ups and downs of life, not about whether everyone's skin tones coordinate.

Image credit: New York Times/Nathan Millis.

'Army Wives:' A Story That Needs to be Told

I'd never watched Lifetime TV's sophomore drama Army Wives until I decided to write a column about it for Mommy Track'd.

But while I, as a pop culture critic, didn't think it was the best, most well written TV show on the air today (can be a bit stilted at times), I think the show covers important territory, a subject we oftentimes ignore in our daily lives.

After watching season one on DVD and several of the new episodes currently airing on Lifetime, I found myself feeling extremely sympathetic toward the portrayal of the lives of the families of soldiers (both male and female) left behind as our country fights a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wondered why I hadn't paid more attention to these folks -- the families of soldiers, the spouses raising children and working -- while their loved ones are risking their lives abroad.

I think we largely ignore stories about these families because not everyone shares the same burden, because service in the armed forces is now voluntary. (If there was a draft, I'd venture to guess, we'd hear a heck of a lot more about military families.) Beyond the military folks and their families, who else is actually sacrificing anything while we're at war? How often do we even think about the fact that there are wars going on, beyond major holidays and the occasional news story? I've been busy planning my kids' birthday parties, getting ready to go on vacation, worrying about the fate of the Boston Red Sox and the rising price of food. I haven't really given much thought to military families since Memorial Day.

In the meantime, as the two wars are being used as political footballs in the presidential race, at least there's the non-partisan Army Wives telling a story that we all need to hear and that we should not forget.

Image credit: Lifetime.

Goodbye to the 'Huck Finn Summer:' Three Examples of How We're Losing Our Collective Minds

Kids, teens and even adults. Playing Wiffle ball games. Riding bikes. Playing outside. Swimming in a clean pond. What could more all-American than those things? Unfortunately, the new definition of all-American consists of threatened legal action, fines, asserting claims of potential property devaluation, "safety" issues and creating an "imbalance" in the ecosystem because human beings actually want to be out of doors and do stuff.

It was with great disgust that I read about a series of three articles in which kids being kids and people enjoying nature are in the process of being thwarted by folks who are likely the same ones griping about the epidemic of childhood obesity and lack of community spirit these days.

First there was a story in last week's New York Times about some teenagers in Greenwich, Connecticut who created a Wiffle ball field where dozens of teens were regularly gathering to play Wiffle ball. However nearby residents didn't like it. Didn't like all the kids. The town said they hadn't secured proper permission and permits for what they did. The adults want the makeshift field dismantled. The Times described the situation this way, "It turns out that one kid's field of dreams is an adult's dangerous nuisance, liability nightmare, inappropriate usurpation of green space, unpermitted special use or drag on property values, and their Wiffle-ball Fenway has become the talk of Greenwich and a suburban Rorschach test about youthful summers past and present."

Second, there was a Boston Globe story about a proposed bike trail along no longer used train tracks that is opposed by some residents because they don't want people outside in between properties, riding their bikes and disturbing the environment and, likely, talking. ("Instead of solitude, you'd be having people," one abutter said.)

Third, there was another Boston Globe story about Boston residents who want a city pond re-opened for swimming, as it had been decades ago. However other residents and city officials said they'll fight any change in the status quo because swimming there isn't safe (even though people are already doing it in violation of city statutes), because abutting residents could be subjected to "the deafening din of children from every corner of the city descending on the pond" and -- the clincher for folks who want to pull out a trump card -- because allowing swimming would disrupt the pond's ecosystem.

Yes, by all means, let's tell people that we hate impromptu, unsanctioned playing of Wiffle ball or dips in a city pond. Let's tell them that they can only ride their bikes alongside clogged busy streets or really narrow rural streets winding through New England or shell out money and secure the proper permission to utilize existing municipal ballfields, the only place where games should be played. Let's tell everybody that if they dare to step outside of their homes and try to do anything outside, they need explicit authorization from local officials and residents. Oh, and let's ask the squirrels and the ducks if they mind if we humans frolic.

As Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson wrote: "So much for the romantic vision of families bicycling together, with little Johnny and Jamila wobbling on training wheels. So much for teens who actually disconnect from Facebook for facetime, community cleanup, and -- good heavens -- exercise. No, no, no. Some people are so divorced from society that they see this as almost evil."

The Times' Peter Applebome put it even better: "All kids deserve a Huck Finn summer. We perhaps have lost our collective minds about our overscheduled, overstressed young. But in the end, maybe there was a reason that Kevin Costner built that Field of Dreams in Iowa and not in Greenwich."

Image credit: The New York Times/Rob Bennett.

Cleveland Area Midget Football: Girls Need Not Apply

So let me get this straight:

A woman can run for U.S. president and nearly capture her party's nomination.

A woman can become a four-star general.

A woman can sit on the Supreme Court.

A woman can beat the men in autoracing.

But a 10-year-old girl can't even be given the opportunity to try out for the midget football league with her male peers because of her gender?

According to news reports, a Cleveland area midget football league told a girl that she cannot try out for football and suggested that she should become a cheerleader.

Football League President Thom Duffy told The Star Beacon: "If I want to go down to the Y and join the girl’s swim team, what will they say? That’s what annoys me . . . There are other sports, like softball, that are for girls. You always get someone — I’ve seen plenty of rabble-rousers . . . Don’t try to come in and disrupt an organization because of what it’s doing.”

Yeah, those girls demanding to get an equal opportunity. They're such pains, huh?

Image credit: MyFox Cleveland.

News . . . Through Kids' Eyes

As the national newscasts -- and nearly every news radio station to which I've tuned in in recent days -- have been full of stories about Rev. Jesse Jackson's "threat" to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's nether regions, my kids couldn't help but overhear snippets (no pun intended) of conversations about it. So it was of little surprise to me, when my 6-year-old son asked me in the middle of lunch this week, "What happens when somebody threatens to hurt the privates of the president?"

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"Don't they go to jail?"

"Well, uh . . ." I stumbled, trying to think of a clear way to explain real threats versus figures of speech.

"Don't we have free speech? You said we have free speech," chimed in my 9-year-old boy.

"Well, it depends. Not always."

"So you CAN say you're going to hurt a president's privates?" the 6-year-old asked.

"Well, Barack Obama isn't the president. He wants to be the president. (*giant pause*) . . . The people protecting him have to decide if someone is really threatening him and whether they think the person would actually do something to hurt him. THEN you could get arrested, if the security people really think you're a danger."

"So there ISN'T free speech?" the black-and-white thinking 9-year-old son asked.

"There is, but you just can't threaten like you mean it."

Okay, I'll admit, at that point, I was struggling with explaining that Jesse Jackson really didn't mean that he wanted to literally castrate Obama, and that if he really was serious about it, he'd be arrested. Bet my mother didn't have to have discussions like this with me 30+ years ago . . . at least politicians knew not to say idiotic things while wearing microphones in a television studio.

Obama Kids: Dad Doesn't Like Sweets

The Obama children, along with their parents Michelle and Barack, gave an interview to, of all places, Access Hollywood. (You can see one part of the four-part interview here.)



During the July 4 interview, which also coincided with Malia's 10th birthday, the whole family sat down to discuss how the girls keep their dad down-to-earth and somewhat "cool," as "cool" as any parent can realistically be.



For example, Malia said she's had to tell her dad not to shake hands with her friends because, well, shaking hands with kids just isn't done.

Seven-year-old Sasha -- who at one point held up both her hands next to her face, opening and shutting them to mimic what she thinks when Dad talks -- asked her mom in the middle of the interview whether and when they'd be able to have ice cream. (Reminded me a bit of Rudy Giuliani's kid during his first mayoral inaugural.) Pointing at her father, Sasha announced that her dad doesn't like sweets and isn't a big fan of ice cream.



In this video excerpt, Malia said she was surprised to find her mother's fashion sense discussed in the pages of People Magazine because she joked that People is the place where you can read about "really important people" like Angelina Jolie.



As far as big reveals go, the Obamas are lucky. I shudder to think what my kids would reveal about me if they were put in front of a national TV audience and knew that I couldn't really shut them up without looking like a control freak.

Image credit: Access Hollywood via the Drudge Report.

New York Magazine's 'Summer Issue'

This New York Magazine cover just cracked me up.

It perfectly captures the mood of now: Observing the presidential race unfold in the sweltering heat and humidity of summer . . . with tongue firmly in cheek.

Happy July 4th!

What Do You Get for a 232-Year Anniversary?

I know that the first anniversary is paper. The 25th anniversary is silver. The 50th gold. But what about the 232nd? Friday will mark the 232nd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence . . . provided I did my grade school math correctly. Given the recent attention paid to the critically acclaimed HBO miniseries John Adams (great series, though not for young kids, pretty brutal tar and feathering scene, among others) people's interest in all things Revolutionary have been rekindled. (Programming note: HBO is running a marathon of the Adams series all day on July 4.)

I live in Massachusetts, therefore my view of the Revolutionary War may be skewed because, as one might expect, the Colonial era gets lots of play here. We have, count 'em, not one, but two tricornered hats in our house, including one that my husband bought our boys when they got up in the wee hours of the morning this spring to go to Lexington to see the reenactment of the battle on the Lexington green, preceded by Paul Revere's famous ride, on Patriots Day, a day off for public employees in Massachusetts. (My daughter and I slept late and watched the early Boston Red Sox game on TV.)

But what gets lost during the modern American celebration of July 4 -- particularly this year because it falls on a Friday, which means it'll be a three-day weekend filled with barbecue bonanzas across the fruited plain -- is the actual document whose approval we're commemorating. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm a tad bit of a history/politics geek who really admires documents like the Declaration of Independence and am fond of reading it aloud to my three kids when it's published in the Boston Globe each year . . . even if the kids do lose interest by the second paragraph.

However this year is an election year, some consider it an historic election year. We have the summer Olympics coming up soon. And, lest we forget, we have active duty troops fighting and dying on behalf of our nation in multiple fronts overseas. So why not -- just for a moment before your barbecue, ballgame, fireworks or celebratory beverage(s) of your choice -- recall the reason for the day:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

There endeth the history lesson. Go forth (no pun intended) and glory in your American freedoms and be thankful we don't live in a country where armed militias come to your house and force you at gunpoint to go and vote for someone who you do not support under penalty of injury or death, as happened in another corner of the globe just a few days ago. Voting in America, circa 2008, is a walk in the park by comparison.

Image credit: History Channel.

Obama to Dads: Man-Up to Your Responsibilities

During a Father's Day speech in Chicago, Barack Obama -- whose own dad left his family when he was 2 years old -- admonished fathers to be there for their own children and to actively raise them.

Boiling the speech down to its very essence: Dads matter.

An excerpt:

"We need families to raise our children. We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception. That doesn't make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child, that makes you a father."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

If It's Sunday . . . I'll Be In Mourning

Being the children of a political and news junkie, my kids have been raised knowing the rest of the phrase, "If it's Sunday . . ."

I'd wait, expectantly for them to add, as they always would, ". . . it's Meet the Press with Tim Russert."

Tim Russert and his fantastic Sunday program have been a staple in our household. When we'd miss the live airing of his gold standard political talk show, we'd listen to the radio broadcast of it on a local radio station on our way home from church, me shushing the kids because I wanted to hear Russert's smart, well researched inquiries.

During times when political news was hot, it became sport for the kids and I to gauge how tired Russert was (his eyebrows would arch more than normal if he was fatigued) because, workhorse that he was, he'd typically be up late into the night parsing politics and would be back on the air the next morning with fresh observations.

My kids knew him the way they know members of the Boston Red Sox.

And now he's gone, suddenly and unexpectedly. I'm heartbroken.

When my kids comb through their memories of the 2008 presidential election, I hope they'll remember Tim Russert, the guy who was clever, incisive and had the demeanor of a regular guy amidst all the cynical blowhards in Washington, D.C. He was a genuine, American treasure.

UPDATE: I expounded upon what we've lost with the passing of Tim Russert in this column.

Image credit: NBC/Getty Images.

Big Papi Patriotic About Whole Nation, Not Just the Sox Part

Big Papi, one of my favorite Boston Red Sox players, has officially become a citizen of the American nation, not just of Red Sox Nation, according to media reports.

The Sox designated splendid splinter -- currently nursing an injury -- attended a luncheon at the Kennedy Library in Boston before taking the oath of citizenship accompanied by his wife, two of his children (ages 7 and 3), his father, and the president of the Boston Red Sox organization, the Boston Globe said.

The Associated Press quoted Ortiz as saying: "My whole family, kids, and everyone have been born here. It's a great country, proud to be here, now proud to be a part of it."

"He is the personification of what a great citizen should be," Red Sox president Larry Lucchino told the Boston Herald. "He’s the heart and soul of Red Sox Nation."

Amen.

Image credit: Jezebel.com.