After-school entertainment

By Ellen Ratner
As anyone who reads this column knows, I'm not exactly a card-carrying member of the Moral Majority. In fact, to read my hate mail, one might think I'm some menopausal version of the Anti-Christ. But putting stereotypes aside, I would like to sound an alarm around the country. Get those chastity belts out Dorothy – we're not in Kansas anymore.



I was an adolescent in the '60s and '70s, so I didn't exactly fall off the turnip truck yesterday. My formative years were laced with numerous opportunities for sex and drugs, but neither was "on demand," nor pumped into my living room or on my desktop after school. The other day I was at the gym at 4:30 p.m. mindlessly ticking off those calories one by painful one when I read the VH1 trailer, "Coming up next: Celebrity Sex." The program proceeded to show various ill-gotten photos and videos of celebrities gearing up for, having or having just engaged in sexual activity. VH1 then showed the audience of little monsters how to search for and click onto these videos and photos from their own computers.

VH1 is not exactly a porn channel, but they must understand that pornography is big business. There are more porn Web pages than there are Americans in this country. Yet we have hardly heard a peep out of the usual self-anointed suspects. Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, James Dobson – to name a few – are so focused on making a mountain out of a molehill with regard to gay Americans that they are getting crushed by an avalanche of what my mother used to call, "debauchery."

This Sunday's edition of my home-town newspaper, the Plain Dealer, had an article titled, "Are kids addicted to Web porn? Easily accessed sex sites prompt troubling trend, experts say." The article makes a clear case that yes, "Teenage boys are particularly susceptible to porn's pull." The article stated there is not yet conclusive evidence to suggest that pornography is linked to sexual misconduct, but the statistics do show an increase in sexual behavior in the schools, an increase in teen pregnancy and an increase in sexual child abuse. Georgette Constantinou, a pediatric psychologist at Akron Children's Hospital, was quoted in the article and said viewing pornography at that age "puts boys into a constant hyper-sexualized state." "Do you want someone who is like that baby-sitting your children or sitting next to your daughter in school?" she asked.

The article reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend who lectures at New York University on the social impact of technology in our society. She said the students – particularly the girls – said that Internet pornography had changed everything for them with regard to their relationships with males. They said that they "couldn't measure up." Pornography has raised the bar too high in terms of looks, compliance and performance. Obviously, this statement was coming from a co-ed classroom of legal-aged adults, and while it is a sad commentary on relationships in America, it is not something that would send a father to retrieve his shotgun.

The potential need for the shotgun comes earlier in the development of the child. I was talking with a man the other day who said he was moving his family out to the country and away from a large southern metropolitan city. I asked him why. He said the decision was partly due to economic reasons, but most of it had to do with his daughter. He said that an 11-year-old boy had propositioned his 8-year-old to daughter to have oral sex during recess. I spoke with some teachers who said that there is an "oral sex epidemic in the middle schools these days."

What about Internet filters? Most kids I have interviewed say the only thing those filters do is keep their parents from looking at porn. I do, however, know of one innovative company that has successfully put the parent back in the loop. CornerPost Software has a product called Chaperon that puts the powerful "fear of being caught" back into the deterrent equation.

Chaperon blocks most inappropriate categories as selected by the parent – which may include chat, gambling, and pornography – but the key feature is an instant e-mail notification to the parent if the child attempts to search for websites in a prohibited category ... or if the child beats the filter.

So you might be thinking that CornerPost Software is rolling in dough? No. Actually, they just launched a home application they are trying to sell through school fund-raising programs. The kids hid the fliers and the parents who did get to see the Chaperon offer said, "My Johnny is a good boy." Denial is not just a river in Egypt. It exists in the homes of many parents.

We would do well to remember that even good boys are boys. Name an adolescent who did not look at a Playboy at least once while growing up in the last 40 years. Now imagine what that same child has access to now on demand with streaming video? It's time parents got back in the loop. VH1 may not be the best baby-sitter in the neighborhood.

Menopausal dream

By Ellen Ratner
I watched every minute of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. I loved it. Why? Because it is the story of my generation, the early "Baby Boomers."

We grew up in a post-World War II era of expectations and of watching "sitcoms" about an ideal world. I used to love "Father Knows Best" and "Ozzie and Harriet." I did not know at the time that 20 to 25 percent of our nation's children experienced physical and sexual abuse at the hands of family members. As far as I knew, all fathers knew and did their best for their families.



Prince Charles is product of that era as well. Although there is no known physical abuse of Charles, there certainly was a very cold royal atmosphere. I recall the famous photo of 4-year-old Prince Charles shaking hands with his mother Queen Elizabeth. I suppose that display of "affection" could be dubbed "the Royal Hug." The Royal Hug was followed by the "Royal Shove." Prince Philip sent his son off to a very harsh and cold boarding school when he was just a young boy. Not exactly a way to welcome the future king into a world of love.

The notion of mandatory royal behavior was not confined to the young prince. The queen interfered with the emotional life of her sister Princess Margaret as well. Princess Margaret wanted to marry Group Capt. Peter Townsend . Totally disapproving, the queen had the officer "re-assigned" to Belgium in 1959, and shortly thereafter Princess Margaret announced her engagement to Anthony Armstrong Jones. Her life was ruined and she was never happy.

Prince Charles clearly was in love with Camilla well before Diana was even introduced to the prince, but Camilla did not meet the queen's fancy. It was the prince's "duty" to marry a virgin capable of producing the proper royal line. Love was a luxury for commoners. Poor Diana even had to endure a "virginity" examination before her fairytale wedding to the prince.

So with no support and comfort from his parents, and married to a beautiful but equally unhappy wife, Prince Charles sought comfort from the only woman he ever loved. How many people of the early boomer generation married the people of their own religion, race or ethnic background to please their family and wound up miserable? How many of these unhappy souls visited sites such as www.classmates.com and finally reconnected with their soul mates later in life?

We grew up in a world that clung to a notion of "how the world should operate." We are driven by appearances. We grew up with a televised world of clear morals. Yet a whole a lot of shady business was happening outside the little black box. Charles and Camilla's dilemma has poked through the Hollywood sets and Patty Duke perfection that we came to know and strived to emulate. We are older now, and much wiser.

And so we toast the celebration of a true love legitimized for its authenticity and intrinsic value over appearance and pomp. The marriage of the prince and royal highness screams the real values that we should want our children to emulate – unconditional love for our children and our spouses – living and growing up in a family that really cares about its children, a family where the parents really love each other and, unlike the queen and Prince Philip, share a bed and bedroom.

The president's vision for democracy

By Ellen Ratner
It must be a sign of the "last days" that I agree on something substantial with the conservative talk-show host and former presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan. In a weekend op-ed piece titled, "A Republic Not a Democracy," Mr. Buchanan trained the spotlight on the fallacy with our president's new answer to every crisis, democracy.



Whether it's the continued violence in Iraq, or the potential threat of nuclear weapons in Iran, the president believes democracy will cure all. "We believe ... that the voice of the people ought to be determining policy," said Bush, "because we believe in democracy." These were the remarks the president was so eager to make that he interrupted his "Old Europe" colleague German head of state Schroeder in a press conference on Iran last week.

Mr. Buchanan does a great job of illuminating the disconnect in the president's thinking. But what I find even more troubling than poor reasoning, is the shroud of hypocrisy that cloaks virtually every Bush policy. The president made this statement the same week that the Pentagon released the nation's "National Defense Strategy of the United States of America."

And while Mr. Bush is pitching "one man, one vote" to a bunch of people who believe the United States is the "Great Satan," the Pentagon is reiterating the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike, only putting the doctrine on steroids. The new umph is added to the doctrine by stating that this time the United States can whack a country for not acting responsibly. As Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the CIA's intelligence analysis directorate, said, the document asserts a U.S. right to go after regimes that do not "exercise their sovereignty responsibly."

It is unclear how the administration plans to define "responsibly." I would assume that is for Papa G.W. Bush to decide, not the people of the United States, and certainly not the people of any nation that may be coloring outside of the lines.

It's no wonder our nation's list of friends is dwindling. Can you imagine how your child would fare in the playground if he or she announced to the group, "OK, we are going to play the game that you vote for us to play. Unless you vote for a game other than baseball and then I'm going to beat you with my bat until you agree to play baseball." That would be considered acting "responsibly" in the Bush administration.

The final irony in the president's policy of a "democracy aspirin" for every world headache, followed by the Pentagon's lethal injection for non-compliers, is that both presidential medicines demand a proper diagnosis. And as the commission that studied the failures of the intelligence community prior to the war in Iraq said in the report they released last week, the nation's spy agencies were "dead wrong" about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

The commission's report went on to say that things haven't changed much. The agencies, "know disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors." Despite constant navel gazing, spotlights and microscopes, little has changed in spy-land in the wake of 9-11 and a war without just cause.

In the end, the president's democracy vision is like a lot of what we have experienced with this president – a highly scripted, focus-grouped, feel-good message with little-to-no forethought. The flip-side of the rhetoric is an appetite for war.

My only hope is that Congress will begin again to act as a check and balance to the president's power – vs. a fearful rubber stamp – lest we find ourselves sending our finest to Iran to once again rid evildoers of their weapons of mass destruction.

Tom DeLay: Fox watching the henhouse

By Ellen Ratner
The former pest exterminator, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, is going to have to be as tough as a Mississippi cockroach if he's going to survive as the Republican's top legislative dawg and general go-to guy for the party's cashola and arm twisting. Soon, Tom DeLay and Trent Lott may have more in common than hairdos that can withstand a tactical nuclear weapon. They may both be able to consider themselves former party leadership. I'm not breaking out the champagne just yet, as Mr. DeLay is a formidable politician. I picked up the front page of the paper on Sunday morning to see that the majority leader has a new passion, feeding tubes.



Mr. DeLay has placed himself squarely in the middle of the Terri Schiavo feeding case in Florida. He's in the good company of the President's brother Jeb and a host of right-wing leaders and supporters who are fighting to keep Terri on a feeding tube for the rest of her life.

"The fight is not over," were DeLay's words after the time set for the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube had passed. I think DeLay's newfound passion for Terri could be the basis for a new movie entitled, "Wag the Dog II."

Even the Republican membership who have been the beneficiaries of DeLay's impressive fund-raising efforts ($4.2 million for Republican candidates since 1994) are starting to grow tired of the scandal. We know from the Sen. Lott controversy that the president doesn't like distractions unless they involve mountain biking or cutting brush in Crawford.

DeLay's behavior would have been considered borderline criminal had it occurred outside his congressional "safe house." DeLay did what he does second best (first is raising truckloads of money) – he pushed through legislation through the "fraidie cat" Republican House that changed the rules of the Ethics Committee so he couldn't be investigated, and then he gutted the leadership of the Ethics Committee, who happened to be one of the finest people (and a Republican to boot) I know, Rep. Joel Hefley from Colorado. Oh, and DeLay axed the staffer who was responsible for investigating him. This would be as though Bernie Ebbers, the former WorldCom CEO, who was convicted on nine counts of fraud on Tuesday, including securities fraud, filing false reports and conspiracy, decided to change the laws governing corporate America and then fired the judge, jury and anyone from the SEC who investigated him.

Surprise surprise, the Majority Leader is now willing to cooperate with the Ethics Committee. What Ethics Committee? It's like offering to mow your neighbor's lawn after you dropped a JDAM on his house.

Ever hear the phrase "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Tom Delay's every hair is in perfect place. He's raised tens of millions of dollars for Republican candidates all over the country. His Herculean efforts to guarantee a Republican majority have been nothing short of magical, including a redistricting coup that has shaped Texas politics for the remainder of my lifetime. But remember, Bernie Ebbers also used to be the toast of the town. Unfortunately, underneath all that charisma was a crook. Tom DeLay is a crook. He may not be Bernie's cellmate, but as a minimum, the president should send DeLay to the back of the room with Sen. Lott.

Spin sister goes global

By Ellen Ratner
President Bush appointed another one of his favorite women to the State Department. Karen Hughes has been winning hearts and minds over for George W. Bush since he was the governor of Texas, and now she's taking her show on the road, across oceans, not just across Texas or America.



This appointment to undersecretary for public diplomacy says a lot about President Bush's leadership style: It's all hat and no cowboy. Karen Hughes is a master of spinning the positives and suppressing the negatives. Remember the phrase, "compassionate conservative"? That was Karen's idea. Does "Security Mom" ring a bell? Karen Hughes.

Karen Hughes is a local TV reporter turned spinmeister. The problem is that the United States has a serious problem with our image abroad. Karen Hughes is a domestic political hack. It's unlikely she will be able to turn the tide of terrorism with some catchy phrases and creative videos.

I admit that I sometime marvel at quality spin. Karen Hughes is pretty good at spinning her own tales of heroism as well. The cover of her book titled, "Ten Minutes to Normal" reads: "The woman who left the White House to put family first and moved back home to Texas," In reality, she has "telecommuted" to Washington since she "left" in 2002, commuted back every few weeks, traveled with the president during Campaign 2004 and has never left the cyber-side of her hero, President George W. Bush. I suppose when it comes to spin, what's good for the commander in chief is good for the troops as well.

The office of public diplomacy exists to improve the image of the United States abroad. As the Washington Post reported on March 12, "Through programs, foreign language media and other initiatives, the public diplomacy campaign aims to promote American values of democracy, tolerance and pluralism abroad while combating negative images propagated in many parts of the world."

I wonder if President Bush remembers John Kerry's quotation from the president's favorite book, "Faith without works is dead." Spin without action may work for a bunch of Bush-devoted Americans, but it won't sell too well on the Arab street where radical Islam seems to be spreading faster than the Holy Spirit in a Texas tent-revival meeting.

My cynical side tells me that President Bush could give a buffalo chip whether the world likes us or not. Opinion abroad doesn't translate to votes here at home. See Presidential Campaign 2004 for examples. This appointment may be more about convincing the American people that we are doing all we can to spread democracy and American values. Ah yes, I knew the "V" word would emerge again. President Bush is nothing if he is not "on message." That message is "values, freedom, ownership." Karen Hughes is a proven message crafter and the message enforcer.

Of course, there's the added benefit of dispatching Karen, the message messiah, to watch over the president's favorite Cabinet member, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Secretary Rice hardly needs any help staying "on message," but she could certainly use a little more "down home" spin, especially if she may one day want to become Gov., Sen., or Vice President Rice.

Karen Hughes and "Condi" are already fine friends. As Hanna Rosin reported in the Washington Post on April 10, 2004, while Karen was on her book signing tour at the "elite" St Regis Hotel, "Here comes Condoleezza Rice, heading into what must be the most stressful week of her life, looking somewhat tense amid this gaily chattering crowd. So Hughes comes to the rescue – "Condi, you must be exhausted," and offers to take her to dinner later so they can go over her testimony for the 9-11 commission."

In the end, it is likely that opinion of the United States abroad, and particularly in the Middle East, will continue to plummet. As I have learned while talking to the people on the Arab streets of Ramallah, Iraq, Damascus and Jordan, "actions speak louder than words." They fear that our interest in democracy in the Middle East only extends to oil-rich nations that do not reside in the pocket of the United States. The Bush administration has "politics" down cold – I had hoped they would start working on governing. I guess I will have to leave that hope for '08.