Kudos to Slashfood for presenting a problem, then presenting the solution.

Problem: kids watch too much advertising on television targeting them for stuff that's bad for them.

Solution: let them watch less television.

I know that sounds blindingly obvious, but it escapes many. Limiting the amount of television a kid can watch involves parenting, and that actually takes effort. So.

Oh, and here's what I love about the article they link to:

Advocates said the study adds to mounting evidence that food marketers are trying to hook the youngest children as lifelong customers.

Okay, hold up there, Sherlock. Let me keep anybody from straining themselves. Food marketers–whose job it is to market–trying to hook young children as lifelong customers? Um, fuck yes they're trying to do this. With every fiber of their being, you dumbshits. I'll take whatever leftover funding you had for your ridiculous study now. You're welcome.

Previous studies have found that kids as young as 3 who see TV ads are more likely to request and eat advertised foods high in fat, sodium and sugar.

Request? Yes, I can see that. So wait…they requested it from whom? God? The Maker machine in their kitchen? The dog? No, last time I checked, three-year-olds can't drive out to the store and pick up a pack of Twinkies or whatever stuff kids are eating these days. They have to have adults to do that for them. Usually adults that spend the majority of time with kids that age are parents, but if they're just giving kids whatever they want, with no regard for nutrition or anything else, then they're not really parenting, are they?

Diane Levin, of Wheelock College who is also a co-founder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, criticized Disney and PBS for breaching viewers' trust.

You know, there's a really simple way to have a Commercial-Free Childhood, Diane. It's called Turn the Fucking Television Off. Last I checked, there weren't any advertisements in the best children's books. Nor do I remember in my childhood there being a bunch of billboards that followed me around while I was running about the neighborhood. Whose responsibility is it to protect kids from things? Right. That pesky P-word again. And what is "viewers' trust"? Who the hell trusts a channel on television, anyway? What exactly are you trusting them to do?

Now, it's not clear in here that anybody's looking to restrict ads through legislation–they don't mention the G word explicitly–but when we've got studies that are still searching for evidence that kids are being marketed to (which, in my mind, is like 60 Minutes doing investigative reporting about that fishy heliocentric theory) and this entire conversation happening without parents being mentioned (except here and on Slashfood–another blog), then I get worried. It's much easier to abdicate responsibility to Nanny Government than to actually tell your kid, no, you can't have a cupcake.

As the movie of the most overhyped book of our time approaches–a movie in which the trailer gives away at least one very important plot point, if not two–a new website, DaVinci Outreach, has launched, promoting "an easily accessible, question-and-answer book that thoroughly refutes the blasephmous [sic] claims that are harming the faith of millions in The Da Vinci Code."

Okay, I've got to say something about this.

First of all, when you're trying to counter something, at least be able to spell it, fellas. It's "blasphemous"…um, well, for Christ's sake. I mean, when I'm dashing out a website I make spelling mistakes too, but when it's a core idea of your website, run a spellcheck. You don't see me writing "fcition" or "fntasy" or some crap like that. If you do, feel free to smack me in a comment.

Second, on the surface, this just looks like a key problem with most religions: when you start to believe one book of fiction is true, then all other books of fiction can be true as well. These people actually think DaVinci Code is real. And granted, Dan Brown has, as I understand it, been stating that his book is based on a lot of facts. However, that is because Brown may be a hack, but he is also a marketing genius. Either that, or he's got people on staff that are marketing geniuses. Nothing sells like controversy, and so he's taking a book that is obviously fictional and painting it with a non-fiction brush in order to get people to buy it.

Which means that either the Catholic Church is in on the scam or they're just ridiculously dense. Again, it's a toss up, isn't it? Because hmm, let's see, the Catholic Church and conspiracy just go like hand and glove, don't they? And what do they get out of it? A crisis of faith where they can get on the news, easy sermon ideas, and folks like the people behind this website can sell some books.

Sidebar: what is this crisis of faith nonsense, anyway? Have you ever met somebody whose faith was shaken by a book of fiction? I mean, I've met plenty of folks who when doing research using non-fictional sources, they've come out of it with a new view on life, but fiction? Again, I wonder sometimes if these people can tell the difference.

Back to the dense part: they would have to be remarkably obtuse to keep making statements about this book three years after its release. That's right, according to Amazon, the hardcover hit in March of 2003. I know it's hard to imagine a time when this book was invading our lives. Has this thing been out of the news for a month at a time? No? Why is that? Because every time you turn around there's somebody from the Catholic Church denouncing the thing, when everyone in the world has moved onto other books. It's like they want to make sure every Catholic has bought their very own copy–or, since these people are notorious for protesting things they haven't actually read or seen–at least have it in their minds. Do these people not understand they are a marking dream come true? This is why I think: man, must be they're in league with Brown. Otherwise, why would you keep bringing it up long enough for the movie hype to take over where they book hype faded?

Okay, one last thought and this ramble will go away. I know you know people who have said that the book was the best thing they read all year. Here's a quiz: ask them just how many books they read that year. Because, let's face it: if you only read whatever Oprah says to read or "the next book everybody's reading," then yeah, Brown can be an okay page-turner–simply because you don't know any better.

What is the lesson? Take a page from Brown and Gibson: create something controversial, and fan the flames, while watching your book sales soar.

Will I learn from it? Sadly, probably not.

…after reading about the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood over at Reason and their plans to sue people for making their kids fat, I decided to visit their website.

You know, it's funny, but in their Take Action section I don't see anything as profound as "Turn off your goddamn television and make your kids read a book." So that would lead me to believe these whackjobs think they should be able to plonk their kids down in front of the boob tube and have the whole thing be commercial-free lest it warp their kids fragile widdle minds. Which means, from what I can tell,that we have yet another group of people having no clue that running a network costs money. And that money comes from advertising.

I'm sorry, but if you don't have enough control over your children that you can counter commercials for sugary breakfast cereal, then you really, honestly, should go get neutered and/or spayed. Because the idea that we should make the whole world safe for children who don't have parents that can actually parent is ludicrous to the extreme. I grew up and had all manner of commercials aimed at my head for the whole time I was a kid, and yet somehow I'm still alive and moderately well-adjusted. Your inability to do your jobs as parents is not my problem, nor is it the problem of corporations. I can only pray that our judicial system laughs your ineffectual asses out of court. Once that happens, I suggest you find a solution here.

You're welcome.