When Good Shows Get Canceled

I learned a couple weeks ago that “Pushing Daisies,” one of the best shows on television, is canceled. I’m really tired of great shows getting the ax while some of the worst TV shows in history return season after season. I know it’s not solely the networks’ fault; it’s American TV viewers’ awful taste in entertainment that kills shows like “Pushing Daisies” and “Firefly” and keeps shows that make me gag, like “The Bachelor” and “Big Brother,” on the air.

“Pushing Daisies” (ABC) is an inventive, novel, highly entertaining effort. The premise is that Ned the Pie Maker can bring the dead back to life simply by touching them. However, as Ned learned the hard way when he was a child, if he touches the revived person or animal again, then they are dead for good. Oh, and there’s a caveat: if Ned allows the revived person or animal to live longer than 60 seconds, then someone else dies in order to keep the balance.

For this reason, the sweet Pie Maker was afraid of his “gift” for many years. Then, he had the ingenious idea to use it to make money: he figured that if he could sneak into the morgue, he could bring crime victims back to life for one minute and find out who murdered them. Then he tips off police and wins the reward money for helping solve the crimes.

Things became complex, however, when one of the crime victims was the Pie Maker’s long-lost sweetheart, Charlotte, whom he calls Chuck. After reviving Chuck, the Pie Maker didn’t have the heart to touch her a second time, so the funeral director died (thereby keeping the balance), and Chuck and the Pie Maker have a wonderful romance — except that he can’t touch her or she’ll go back to being dead.

There are so many wonderful characters on “Pushing Daisies,” and the sets are vibrantly colored and fun. The plotlines are comical and fresh, and bringing back the dead people makes for some very funny scenes.

And this show has been cancelled, but “The Bachelor” and “Survivor” are still on the air.

We’ve lost so many great shows after only one or two seasons, yet reality TV perseveres. “Firefly” was a sci-fi western adventure by “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” creator Joss Whedon. Whedon is a genius at bringing to life wonderful characters whom viewers adore, and “Firefly” was no different. This show lasted only one season on FOX, but it has become a cult classic among sci-fi and Whedon fans.

“Dead Like Me” lasted two seasons on Showtime. This dark comedy followed a team of grim reapers, a group of unlikely characters who didn’t quite learn all they were supposed to in life, so now they are learning it in death. In traditional reaper-style, they are also tasked with taking the lives of those whose time has come. The show’s characters are wily and likable, and the premise is dark yet hilarious.

HBO’s “Carnivale” survived almost two seasons. It was a classic tale of the battle between good and evil set in the 1930s dust bowl, and it was mainly set among a traveling carnival with freaks galore. The show has heavy religious and mystical overtones, and two of the key characters are symbolic of the messiah and the antichrist. HBO gave “Carnivale” a quick, half-assed conclusion that left me with questions and thirsty for more episodes.

“Stephen King’s Kingdom Hospital” was another fantastically creative show, and its downfall may have been the network. It aired for one season on ABC, and the network may have just been too mainstream for the quirky show. It might have fared better on FOX or a cable network. I became interested in “Kingdom Hospital” because I’m a fan of both Stephen King and Richard Dooling, an Omaha author who collaborated with King on the project as a writer and producer. The show was shadowy and mysterious, with a unique brand of dark humor. (One of my favorite scenes was when a headless guy was looking for his head as the Basement Jaxx song “Where’s Your Head At” played.) It was this humor that made “Kingdom Hospital” so novel. Yes, the show was peculiar, but if you rode with it, it had so much to offer.

Reality TV has ruined everything. Viewers are content to watch whatever crap a network airs as long it’s a reality show. They have become so addicted to finding out who gets evicted from the Big Brother House or who gets booted from the island or who the bachelor/bachelorette is making out with that they evidently fail to realize the stupidity of what they are watching.

Reality TV is nothing but voyeuristic banality. It’s not creative, it’s not inventive, it doesn’t have a plot except that someone will win some money. And everyone on reality TV is an idiot who can’t get along with anyone else. I don’t call that entertaining; I call it irritating.

And “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” — do the contestants or viewers honestly think that lasting love is to be found with mindless morons on television? Lust, maybe, but certainly not love. I don’t see why anyone would find these shows interesting to begin with, and I can't understand the point of continuing to watch them season after season.

What I find disheartening is that these shows remain on the air because millions of people are watching them every week. In the meantime, truly creative, entertaining shows are canceled to make more room for shows like “The Biggest Loser” and “COPS.” Apparently the American public is that stupid. How many fat people do you want to watch sweat uncontrollably then cry because they’re still fat and really want a Twinkie? How many drunk people can you stand to watch see arrested on “COPS”? These shows don’t have anything fresh or innovative about them. It’s the same crap over and over every season.

Is it watching the common man and woman on TV? Is that what attracts viewers to reality TV? Because frankly, these shows serve only to display how ridiculous and unintelligent the common man and woman are. I don’t find that entertaining; I find it sad and annoying — although admittedly I have a very low tolerance for stupid people.

“Pushing Daisies” is canceled in its second season, but “Deal or No Deal” is gathering ratings by the masses. Reality TV has spawned the second dawning of game-show TV. Game shows are OK — if they require skill or intelligence. But “Deal or No Deal” requires no skill, no intelligence. Contestants only have to call off numbers and hope that case is the one they want. When the banker calls, the greedy ones shout, “no deal!” while the needy ones proclaim, “deal.” That sure takes talent. If you must know the outcome, just watch the last five minutes of the show and save yourself the pain of watching the rest of it.

I’m disappointed in the American TV-viewing public. I’m frustrated that people are content entertain themselves with the least stimulating shows on television. I’m irked that great shows are canceled to make room for banal TV. Americans should have higher standards for television. We should be smarter than “Wife Swap” and “The Real World.”

Are Single-Sex Schools the Answer to America’s Educational Crisis?

I had a drink last night with a friend who is getting married in May. At 30, she’s been eager to have a baby for at least a year, and she wants to get on with the baby-making right after her wedding. Our conversation soon turned to how her kids will attend private school, something she has always said.

I assumed she wanted this because she thinks private schools offer a better education. However, I was surprised when she said that her children would specifically attend single-sex schools.

“Why single-sex schools?” I asked.

“Because I have the confidence I have today because I went to a single-sex school,” she said.

Most single-sex schools are private schools, and most people I know who attended private schools went for their entire school or high-school careers. My friend, however, went to both public and private high schools, and this gave her the opportunity to see differences beyond education.

She does believe that private schools offer better education and better prepare students for college. However, the social differences between her public co-ed school and her single-sex private school are a main motivation for seeking this education for her children.

She said that when she went to public school, boys were a huge distraction to all the girls, including her. She spent nearly two hours every morning getting ready for school, and she, like most high school girls, had to look perfect every day. For the boys, of course. In public school, she also did things to attract boys or to fall in with a certain boy’s crowd, including skipping class, drinking and smoking pot.

When she transferred to a single-sex private school, she rolled out of bed, threw on her uniform, ran a brush through her hair and went to school. There were no boys to look perfect or stylish for. Rather than focusing on how she looked, she focused on her classes. Rather than competing with her classmates for the attention of boys, she competed with them for grades. Rather than flirting with the hot guy in English class, she paid attention to what the teacher said. And rather than obsessing with her friends whether the boy she liked liked her back, she obsessed about the 10-page paper that was due.

Moreover, she didn’t skip class, drink or smoke pot to make the cool boys like her. There were no boys to impress. (This is not to say that students of single-sex schools don’t do those things, they just do them less because they aren’t trying to impress the opposite sex.)

My friend also said that her private school helped her relate to boys without feeling so much pressure to have sex with them. She and her classmates looked forward to the nights when the private boys’ school had football games and the schools would come together in the bleachers. Because they didn’t see the boys every day, they were more likely to talk to them at these events rather than stay insulated in all-girl groups. They were more likely to build friendships with a wide variety of boys rather than seeking the attention of just the “popular” boys.

I thought about these things as she was talking and again later. I thought of all the social pressures that would have been alleviated in high school if I’d gone to a single-sex high school. I thought about how many years it’s taken me to become comfortable enough in my own skin to go to the grocery store with my hair pulled up and no makeup on my face. In my 20s, I would have fixed my hair and put on makeup just to go pick up a gallon of milk. My friend is five years younger than me, and in the seven years I’ve known her, she has never been afraid to go out to lunch or to the store — or even to work — with her hair pulled up and no makeup on her face.

I look at my sister, who’s the same age as my friend, and I can’t remember the last time I saw her without makeup. Maybe two or three times in the last 15 years. Even when her job requires her to go to work at 3:30 a.m., she puts on makeup.

How I envy those private schoolgirls who never felt the pressure to make themselves up to go to school — and in turn saved hours in the morning. As adults, they go from the gym to lunch without feeling like they have to get all made up in between.

I also think about how much more focused I could have been in school had there not been the distraction of boys in every class. I wouldn’t have felt so afraid to speak up and show my intelligence (because boys don’t like smart girls). I wouldn’t have been so sensitive about my weight or how I looked. Maybe I never would have become anorexic or bulimic. Take the opposite sex out of the equation, and you are unafraid to be yourself.

A keen sense of self and the resulting confidence may be one of the greatest benefits of attending a single-sex school. Sure, private schools generally have tougher curricula than public schools and better prepare students for college, but perhaps one reason students at single-sex private schools outperform students at public schools is that they are not distracted by the opposite sex and the desire to attract them on a daily basis. In fact, after researching the subject, I’m not so sure it’s that some private schools have curricula that much better than public schools; I’m wondering if single-sex classrooms are the key to better education and higher test scores.

The National Association for Single Sex Public Education, believes there is educational and social value in single-sex education and promotes single-sex public schools. In fact, single-sex public schools exist in Deland, Fla., Foley, Ala., Springfield, Ill., and Waterloo, Iowa.

In June 2005, Cambridge University released the results of a four-year, 50-school study in gender differences in education. The results of the study showed that single-sex classrooms significantly increased both boys’ and girls’ performance. Moreover, boys’ performance in English, drama and foreign language was greatly boosted, and girls’ performance in math and science was greatly improved.

NASSPE research also shows that boys in single-sex schools are more than twice as likely to study “softer” subjects like foreign language, art, music and drama, and girls in single-sex schools are more likely to study “masculine” subjects like math, computer sciences and physics. Single-sex schools enable students to transcend gender bias and explore subjects that genuinely interest them, producing more well-rounded students.

Moreover, Stetson University in Florida recently performed a three-year pilot project that compared single-sex and co-ed public school classrooms teaching the same curriculum. Students in single-sex classrooms scored significantly higher on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test than students in co-ed classrooms: 37 percent of boys and 59 percent of girls in co-ed classes scored proficient; whereas 86 percent of boys and 75 percent of girls in single-sex classes scored proficient.

Studies on single-sex schools have been conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Jaimaica, Iceland and Kenya — all with similar results: single-sex schools improve grades and test scores and encourage students to challenge themselves by taking classes they wouldn’t choose in co-ed schools.

NASSPE also states that teen pregnancy is significantly lower among students who attend single-sex schools than those who attend co-ed schools: “At a single-sex school, even if you do have a boyfriend, your social network at school is likely to be separate from your boyfriend’s group of friends. So, it’s easier to say no. You have more autonomy over your sexual decision-making. It’s easier to contemplate life without the boyfriend.”

The bottom line, the NASSPE says, is that even though single-sex schoolgirls have as many relationships as co-ed schoolgirls, “single-sex school[girls] are more in control, have more autonomy in those relationships, and — as one result — are much less likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy.”

According to Dr. Leonard Sax, 48, a family physician turned founder and executive director of the NASSPE, single-sex classrooms are also beneficial because boys and girls learn differently. Sax goes so far as to suggest that boys and girls should have different lighting and temperatures in their classrooms (cooler for boys and warmer for girls on both counts). In a March 2008 article in the New York Times, Sax said that “boys don’t hear as well as girls, which means that an instructor needs to speak louder in order for the boys in the room to hear her; and that boys’ visual systems are better at seeing action, while girls are better at seeing the nuance of color and texture.”

Opponents of single-sex schools, including the ACLU, contend that single-sex schools violate Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendment, which bans sex discrimination in public education. These opponents claim that single-sex schools are sexist, violate civil rights, reinforce gender stereotypes, and offer unequal programs for boys and girls.

Because co-ed schools don’t have any of those problems.

Maybe single-sex education isn’t a magical solution for improving our country’s schools. Nevertheless, our educational system is in crisis, falling embarrassingly below the education systems in other countries. If single-sex public schools can improve our country’s education, then they are certainly worth exploring.

I Don’t Need Fake Friends

This week, Slate.com posted a piece about the virtues of social networking sites (“You Have No Friends” by Farhad Manjoo). The article sings the praises of sites like Facebook and MySpace and essentially calls the rest of us losers for refusing to succumb to the social network site rage.

I’ve been thinking about social networking sites lately because I am finding that employers now encourage participation in these sites of so little value. I have been on an interview or two with companies looking for candidates experienced with these sites. Furthermore, my fellow laid-off co-workers are also discovering that employers want employees who are well-versed in social networking sites.

In fact, I’m pretty sure that I was rejected for a job because I unknowingly offended the business owner during the interview. He asked why I didn’t participate on social networking sites, and I said, “Because they’re cheesy and fake. They’re just not me.” After the interview, I googled the guy’s name and found him on MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and some lesser-known networking sites. Whoops.

I’m familiar with social networking sites because I have several friends who are active on them, and because I occasionally like to lurk on the sites. I’ve even signed up with bogus names just so I can lurk for an hour or so. I also understand why someone in my field (writing and marketing) should be familiar with social networking sites: like it or not, the masses are joining them, and these sites have become a way to connect with customers.

I, however, find social networking sites creepy, ridiculous and a waste of time. If I want to communicate with friends, I’ll call them, meet them for lunch, drop them an e-mail, maybe even text them once in a while. I don’t want them bugging me with Twitter messages.

You Can Be a Writer, Too
Blogs, another type of social networking, have become the place for people with nothing of value to say to post whiny drivel and call themselves writers. The majority of these people have no business calling themselves writers. Generally, the only person who cares about the personal stuff you post on your blog is you because it’s your life. Sure, I see value in using an invitation-only blog to maintain a connection with close friends and family members who are dispersed among states or continents. I’ve also found some great columnist-style bloggers. Unfortunately, most blogs are just online diaries. And diaries should be kept under lock and key.

The problem with social networking sites and blogs is that anyone can have one. No one monitors whether your content is worth reading. No one edits your words so you don’t sound like an idiot. No one checks your facts to see whether you got the story right. And don’t even get me started on the damage these sites have done to proper grammar in today’s society.

Down With MySpace
No one has ever been able to explain to me the value of having MySpace friends whom you will never meet. Those aren’t friends. They might be fans if you have a band or if you’re a celebrity (a real celebrity, not just a celebrity in your own mind because you have 8,000 MySpace friends).

Consider this: If you met someone named Jack at a party tonight, would you talk about him tomorrow using the words, “My friend Jack …”? Not likely, unless you really are that desperate for friends. You probably wouldn’t call Jack your friend until you hung out with him a few times and got to know him better. So why are people so eager to call people they find on MySpace “friends”?

When I lurk on MySpace, I am amazed at how much information is openly available about people (the creepy factor). Maybe I’m especially introverted or private, but I don’t want to advertise my life on the Internet. It eliminates all sense of mystery about a person. Unless that person is totally lying about him/herself, and then that’s more mystery than feels safe.

My early forays into social networking sites occurred when I looked up an ex-boyfriend on MySpace several years ago. From his MySpace page, I learned he was still dating the chick he got together with after we broke up, and from her MySpace page I learned all about the crumbling of their relationship. After their breakup, I could identify every chick my ex was sleeping with based on their posts to his MySpace page. To me, that is all information way too private to be posted on the Internet (although it was indeed entertaining for me).

Admittedly, I recently opened a MySpace account to promote “Living in a Sordid World.” You won’t find personal information about me there, though. Oh, sure, music I like or books I enjoy — but I don’t care who knows those things. I started “Living in a Sordid World” because I am a writer, and someday I would like it to become a syndicated column — and that requires people to read it. I also have standards: I write about timely topics that make people think, examine their lives and society, and maybe take action. I never sit down and burp up a column without researching the topic. As a former journalist, I conduct research for these blog postings to ensure that I provide readers with accurate information.

How many bloggers do you know who do that?

Facebook: The Eighth Largest Country in the World
In his article on Slate.com, Manjoo says that Facebook has just added its 150-millionth member, and he quotes Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook: “If Facebook were a country, it would be the eighth most populated in the world, just ahead of Japan, Russia and Nigeria.”

After I got tired of one friend sending me Facebook invitations, I signed up. What a nuisance that was. I really don’t want my friends bugging me with e-mails asking me to take the movie quiz on Facebook so we can see how much alike we are. I also don’t need virtual hugs, kisses or other nonsense that Facebook offers. That’s dumb. Those are things that are fun when you’re 15, if you were lame when you were 15. I closed that account and never looked back.

Manjoo also discusses how Facebook is a great way to reconnect with school friends and old flames. Maybe some people feel the need for this, but I certainly don’t. I went to three high schools in three different states, and I have never felt the desire to reconnect with old friends. Likewise, ex-lovers are ex for a reason. And although I definitely experience Schadenfreude when it comes to most of my exes, I like that to be a one-way street: I don’t want them reading and enjoying my misfortunes.

If you’re a radio talk show host, your fans probably want to connect with you on a social networking site. They want to know that you’re hip. However, if you’re my financial advisor, I don’t want to find your cutesy MySpace page. I don’t want you to be hip; I want you to be serious about my money and investments. If you’re my lawyer, I don’t want to see all your family and friends posting goofy shit on your Facebook page; I want you to be serious about my legal needs.

Link With Other Professionals
Financial advisors and lawyers needn’t feel left out, though; LinkedIn provides a networking site for business professionals. Now, LinkedIn is a site in which I can actually find value. It is designed for professional networking, so you can interact with peers in your industry who can offer valuable career and industry advice.

I received an invitation to join LinkedIn about four years ago. I joined, but I wasn’t active with it, other than to accept connection invitations, until I was laid off in September. If you’re looking for a job, then LinkedIn connections are a good place to start. Moreover, several articles have been published touting how recruiters rely on LinkedIn to find candidates for jobs.

On LinkedIn, you can post your résumé, you can keep in touch with current and former co-workers, and you can ask your connections to write recommendations for you. Again, valuable to recruiters when they want an overall view of a potential employee. In fact, knowing that recruiters are using LinkedIn, I’ve included my LinkedIn link on my resume. They can look up my recommendations and get a good idea of the kind of employee I am before they meet me, which may make me stand out from other candidates.

With today’s tough job market, a resource like LinkedIn can determine whether you are called for an interview. LinkedIn doesn’t provide a place to post personal information or photos of you and your kids or cat, and people can’t post open comments on your LinkedIn page. If someone wants to contact you through LinkedIn, s/he can do so through e-mail, and then only after you have accepted the person as a connection. LinkedIn also offers targeted special interest and professional groups, for example a SIG for marketers or one for editors. These can also be beneficial in one’s job and job search.

I also like LinkedIn because communications come through my e-mail, so I don’t have to check the site 10 times a day to see if someone is trying to contact me. I find Twitter, Facebook and MySpace to be epic time wasters, which is why I’m surprised so many businesses encourage employee activity on such sites.

Mindless Waste of Time
I have one friend whose former employer blocked MySpace from her PC because he thought she was spending too much time on it. And she probably was; any time I talked to her while she was at work she said she was on MySpace.

I have other friends who waste hours of their workdays on Facebook and MySpace (evidently these sites are like tattoos; one leads to two leads to three …). For years another friend has been anti-social-networking sites; then with shame in his voice and his eyes cast down, he admitted that he joined one last week. His wife got him into it.

“But it’s such a time waster!” I said of Facebook.

“I know,” he said shaking his head. “It’s really bad how much time I spend on it when I should be working.”

Frankly, I can find ways to waste time that actually stimulate my mind. Read, watch a movie, play a video game — pretty much anything is more stimulating and beneficial than staring at your Facebook page waiting for your buds to log on and post a comment.

I See London, I See France ...

I don’t want to see your underpants.

In the 1980s and ’90s, Madonna made underwear outerwear. Corsets, bustiers, even those bullet-cup bras. And that was a trendy look. In the ’90s. At a nightclub. I’m not saying it was a smart trend; however, it did inspire lace-trimmed camisoles and other items that look girly and nice when layered beneath other clothing. The “trend” I have never understood is that of flashing your underpants for everyone to see.

Recently, I was at the Sprint store when I saw a bizarre display of underpants; then I saw it again last Friday at the DMV. I understand that the hip-hop/rap culture has inspired millions of fashion-challenged men and boys to wear their jeans unnaturally low with their boxer shorts hanging out. It’s a tacky trend, and one that I thought had passed (although evidently still thriving in Omaha). But the two guys I recently saw made me want to go up to them and ask them what statement they were trying to make.

They wore their jeans with the waist around their thighs, under their bums. The waists of the pants were belted around their thighs. This left their asses covered only by their boxer shorts. Is this a new trend I missed, or is this an old trend I’m just noticing? Regardless, I could have done without being exposed to that in public, thank you very much.

The guy I saw in the Sprint store sporting this look was short to begin with, and wearing his pants around his thighs made him look like he had Oompa-Loompa legs. I actually started to giggle. As he sat on the stool at the customer service counter, I thought, “Eeew. He’s sitting on that stool in his underwear. Gross.” The only thing separating that stool from his skid marks was that super-thin layer of fabric. Ugh. That should be against health department regulations.

In fact, it’s against the law in several U.S. cities, including Shreveport, La., Flint, Mich., and Hawkinsville, Ga. These cities can fine people up to $500 for wearing pants that droop too low. I don’t agree with creating a law against wearing droopy pants; our lawmakers should be focusing on far more important issues, and droopy-pants ordinances are just ridiculous. Moreover, there shouldn’t have to be a law. You should have enough sense to not expose your ass in public.

The guy at the DMV was a teenager with his mother. I know I cast a critical look toward her — why would she allow her kid to go in public with his pants belted around his thighs and his whole underwear-covered ass exposed? What was wrong with her?

Maybe this is a hip hop/rap trend, which explains why I wouldn’t know whether it’s an “in” thing. But the magazines I look at don’t have men exhibiting this style (thank god). To me, it’s tasteless and uncouth, and I can’t imagine any woman finding it attractive.

Again, I was inspired to approach the guy and ask him what statement he was trying to make by wearing his pants belted around his thighs. I also wondered how these guys keep their pants from shimmying down their legs when they walk, although maybe this is why they walk like they have corncobs up their asses.

Ladies, before you start nodding in agreement and clapping gleefully for this trend to end, you’re guilty of some panty faux pas, too. If I have to see one more chick’s thong hanging out of her pants, I might yank the top of it and give her the wedgie of her life. You wear thong underwear — yay for you. I don’t need to know that, nor do I want to. Men may find this look “sexy,” but frankly, it’s trampy and exhibits no scintilla of modesty. The worst is when the chick not only has her thong hanging out, but it’s also topped by a tramp stamp tattoo. Can you say “trailer park”?

Particularly offensive to the eyes is when an overweight chick tries this “trend.” When I can see your fat bulging around the strings of your thong, I blush in embarrassment for you. I want to approach you and say, “Excuse me, but your underwear is showing,” but I’m pretty sure you intended your underwear to show.

The “peeping thong” is easily remedied: buy underwear that rests a few inches below the waist of your pants, or buy shirts and sweaters that fall below the waist of your pants when you sit. Or go commando. Also, the fact that you can’t wear ultra-low-rise pants without baring your ass crack or undies for everyone to see is a sure sign that maybe you should reconsider wearing those pants.

If you insist on wearing shirts that don’t cover your peeping thong or wearing ultra-low rise pants, another option is backless underwear. Yep, to my surprise, you can find these pretty easily on the Internet, and they are touted as more comfortable than thong undies because you don’t have a strap of fabric up your ass.

Another thing, ladies, I’ve noticed that ultra-mini skirts are a trendy item of apparel. I don’t have anything against these skirts. They’re cute, and they really lengthen the legs and show off a great pair of shoes. However, I believe these skirts should be worn only by A) girls under 23 years old and B) girls who plan to stand all night. If you even slightly bend over in one of these super-short skirts, your ass is exposed for the world to see. And if you sit down in one of these skirts, your ass is going to be touching the seat, and that’s gross (see above). I don’t want to worry about your bare, thong-exposed cheeks touching the seat and only a thin layer between your koo-koo and the seat on which I may later be sitting. It just seems so unsanitary.

Another so-called trend I’ve seen women display is wearing backless or low-back apparel with a bra. I saw this last summer when a woman wore a low-back dress with her bright pink bra showing. Didn’t your mothers teach you to wear pasties, a backless bra or adhesive bra cups under this type of dress? And if you’re a big-busted woman who needs more support than these solutions provide, then I think a different dress is a better option than having the back of your bra showing — even if you’ve selected a colored or patterned bra especially for this purpose. Or perhaps you should spend a little extra money on a dress with a built-in bra.

I discovered the source of this “trend” when I watched Sex and the City: The Movie. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) sported this bra-revealing look. But ladies, consider this: how many of Carrie’s outfits would you actually ever be caught dead in, let alone wear? How many of them have made you say, “What the fuck is she wearing?” (Think about that bird in her hair for her wedding hairdo. My sis and I kept asking “What the fuck is that?”) Now, do you really think that you should be following any of that woman’s fashion “sense”?

I’m no prude; I just think that underwear should be covered by other clothing. Pull up your pants, pull down your shirt and get some class. And always remember, just because you can doesn’t mean you should; just because you can mimic a particular trend doesn’t mean you should. And just because it’s a trend doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Superstar Gifts of 2008

I know. It’s the New Year. 2009 is upon us, and this promises to be a particularly exciting year with the long-awaited (at least for me) eviction of George W. Bush from the White House and the inauguration of a historic president, Barack Obama.

Nevertheless, I’m still stuck in Christmas mode. This may be because instead of going back to work at the holidays — a signal that the holidays are truly over — I remain unemployed at home. So I am still excited about my Christmas gifts.

Although I would describe every gift I received this year as “awesome," I am particularly fond of two: my iPod Touch and my stun gun.

My iPod Touch came with a memorable story. A couple weeks before Christmas, my family was going to dinner to celebrate my sister’s birthday. My mom called me that afternoon and said she needed me to go to the Apple Store with her. I said OK and didn’t really think twice about it. She and I are both Apple afficionados, and I just figured she needed something for her laptop.

As we were walking into the store that evening, I asked her what she needed there. “I’m buying myself an iPod Touch,” she said. I responded with enthusiasm. It was something she’d expressed interest in a few times when the commercial came on TV while we were talking on the phone.

“I’m going to have to think about getting a bigger iPod sometime,” I said. “My Nano is almost full.”

When we entered the store, an Apple associate greeted us and showed us to the iPod Touch. (If you want to feel spoiled by awesome customer service, go to an Apple Store.) My mother began asking the salesman bizarre questions, like if she could use the iPod if she didn’t have a computer.

“How about if I don’t have Internet?” she asked. When the salesman said that she could use it anywhere there was wi-fi, she asked, “So if I don’t have a computer and Internet at home, I can go use it at Burger King?”

I was along as the technical translator, to translate Mom’s questions for the salesman and his answers for Mom. I did this, but finally I looked at her and asked, “Why are you asking all these silly questions?” Then I looked at the salesman and said, “She has a computer. An iBook, in fact. And she has Internet at home.”

“I’m asking him these questions,” she said smiling, “because I am buying one of these for each of you kids.” Steering her eyes toward the salesman, she said, “I’ll need three of these.” In the meantime, I was in a state of mild shock. Not much makes me speechless, but my mother did that night.

As I was processing this information, I realized that she was asking the bizarre questions because my brother, a true technophobe, doesn’t have a computer or Internet. In fact, he gets pissed off every time he has to use a computer at work, which, as a mechanic, isn’t that often. When he got a mobile phone a few years ago, my jaw dropped. A mobile phone was very technologically advanced for him.

Mom looked back at me and said, “I’m bringing party favors to your sister’s birthday dinner. They’re part of your Christmas presents.”

I was still in shock. I believe I even said, “Mom, that’s way too much. Are you sure you really want to do this?”

My mother was entertained the entire time. She was thoroughly enjoying my shock. And after the shock wore off, my giddy excitement.

At dinner, each of us opened our Apple Store bag. I, knowing what they held, was childishly enthusiastic. My sister was shocked. My brother turned the box over in his hand and dully said, “What is it?”

Now that he knows the power of that little iPod Touch, he is never without it. After I ripped two bags of his CDs to iTunes the following day, he looked from the bags to the iPod with a stunned look on his face that said, “All those CD’s are in that little thing. Hmph."

"I’ll never buy another CD,” he said with amazement. I knew he was hooked.

On Christmas Day, he brought more CDs to rip. I got him started, then set him free on my iMac after assuring him he could not break it or mess up anything. Throughout the day, he ran downstairs to change the CDs, comfortably using the computer on his own. (I predict he will buy himself an iMac no later than 2010.)

The reason my brother won’t be without his iPod Touch is because it’s a dazzling gadget. I love my iPod Nano, but the iPod Touch kicks the Nano’s ass. The touch screen is amazing. The games you can load on it are addictive. And it has twice the storage space of my Nano, so I have all my music on it and space to put it all on there again. It plays movies. It stores your photos. If you turn the iPod 90 degrees, the screen turns, too, so you can use it vertically or horizontally. It’s essentially an iPhone without the phone (so you don’t need AT&T’s crappy mobile service). And it has wi-fi. Whenever you go somewhere that has wi-fi, or if you have wi-fi at home, you can surf the Internet with your iPod and download music directly to it.

Such technology could only come from Apple. (Yep, I’m brainwashed.) I truly love this divine little gadget. If you want to give someone a gift they will treasure, then get them an iPod Touch.

In November I wrote about the rash of purse snatchings in Omaha and how I’d asked my sister for a stun gun for Christmas. Well, Sis came through, and my mother and I each received a stun gun. I also adore this little gadget.

You can purchase stun guns at some sporting goods stores, but your best bet is to shop for them online. You can buy a powerful stun gun for $30 to $50 online. You can get stun guns that look like mobile phones, lipstick tubes, tampons, cigarette packs, toys, flashlights or pens. Many, like mine, also have a powerful LED flashlight.

The size of a small mobile phone, my stun gun will shoot 1 million volts of stun into anyone who tries to snatch my purse. It makes a delightfully fearsome noise when you test fire it. In fact, the carton says that most attackers will flee just upon hearing the stun gun test fired. Test firing my stun gun makes me laugh with wicked glee. It sounds exactly like what an attacker deserves.

My stun gun is an innocent pink color, which makes me smile. It looks so sweet, yet it can bring an assailant to his knees or knock him unconscious and make him shit his pants. Literally. I’m dying to try it on someone. One of my cats was lying on the chair, and the thought crossed my mind for a nanosecond, but I could never actually use it on my sweet kitty. No, I really want to try it on a person.

My mother has tried to convince her boyfriend to let her test her stun gun on him, but for once he isn’t up for trying something stupid. There’s a first time for everything, I guess.

Living on the edge of the ghetto, my little pink stun gun also brings me a feeling of security. If someone breaks into my house, he’s going to get stunned, then beaten with my Louisville Slugger. It’s what I call the SG&BB alarm system: Stun Gun & Baseball Bat.

In today’s society, any woman who travels alone or lives in a city should seriously consider owning a stun gun. My sister — who started this stun gun craze in my family — has carried one for several years, since she had a job that required her to travel extensively. She discovered that her stun gun, which looks like a flashlight, was remarkably easy to bring onto an airplane. I can’t help but wonder if 9/11 could have been stopped if some passengers, flight attendants or pilots had stun guns on them.

For that matter, consider school shootings. Although there is valid argument for permitting teachers to bring licensed guns into schools so they can defend themselves and their classes in gunman situations, stun guns are safer and could also effectively stop a gunman.

I found my stun gun a handy protector last night when I went to a friend’s house for a New Year’s Eve party. As I walked a block to my car at 12:45 a.m., I had my stun gun turned on and ready in my hand. Even as I walked to my house from my car, I kept it on and in my hand.

Women don’t have the upper body strength that men do, and a stun gun allows them to reclaim the night, to walk without fear. I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone should go roaming around north Omaha (the actual ghetto) at 3 a.m., ever, or that anyone should take unnecessary risks. However, in today’s society, there are clearly times when women need to protect themselves. And I have my little pink stun gun for those times.