About a month ago my husband was playing around with one of our son's toys and realized it was censored. The toy in question is a Leap Frog brand caterpillar called an Alphabet Pal with letters on each of its twenty-six legs. Among the things you can do with the caterpillar are set it to play different kinds of music (each leg plays a different song) and say the letters on the legs. You can also set it to pronounce the sound the letter makes when it is spoken. So, if you hit the leg with the letter "B" on it, you hear "Buh." As a joke my husband tried to sound out a dirty word. The caterpillar denied him! Instead, if you, say, try to sound out "fff" then "ugh" you get a "heh heh, that tickles!" before the caterpillar will pronounce the "kuh."

Now, I can assume my kiddo isn't going to be using this caterpillar to sound out dirty words. Most children who are the age the caterpillar is designed for--between one and two years of age--don't even know what those are. But it still brings up an interesting point: Isn't that censorship? I mean, whoever designed this toy, which is a lot of fun and a great educational tool (it also says the colors of each letter on each leg in another setting), had to think that someone like my husband would try some funny business and came up with a plan to avoid the caterpillar saying bad things.

I'm starting to wonder if this was a one-time thing or if all toys of this nature are set to ensure they don't spell or say dirty words. Also, who decides such things? And does that person get to decide what constitutes a dirty word and what doesn't? At home with television and the Internet, for example, parents can set their own standards for what their children are allowed to watch and read or look at. The maker of this toy did that for us. Thoughts??? Should companies be censoring toys for us or are they doing the job of the parents?

Pic of caterpillar by j / f / photo.

I've never been much of a fan of reality TV. Putting ordinary people (who are always prettier or meaner or whinier than anyone person I've ever met) in weird circumstances to show what happens just isn't entertaining to me. I've got kids, I deal with weird circumstances ALL DAY LONG!

Apparently, I'm not the only one who isn't crazy about at least one reality TV show. The Washington D.C. based nonprofit group Zero to Three is upset with the new NBC television series "Baby Borrowers". The group's spokesperson told Page Six, "We're concerned about the fact that these babies are being separated from their parents and placed with strangers. On the first episode, the babies were separated for about 12 hours and were clearly in distress. Typically they will cry and cling and search for their parents, which they were doing. They should be with someone they've had the opportunity to get to know."

I'm all for educating teens on child care getting rid of the notion that parenting is one big ball of baby powdery fun, but there ARE better ways than dumping a baby off with complete strangers for a television show. Working at a childcare center, volunteering at a church nursery or preschool, or even babysitting are all good ways to get a small idea of what life as a parent is like.

There is no way I'd ever, ever, ever have agreed to let my babies be on a television show like this, even with a nanny stationed nearby in case she's needed. What exactly is going on with our society that makes babies fair game for a reality series, anyway?

If you've ever seen television or been the recipient of junk mail, you are probably familiar with the lingerie chain Victoria's Secret. In addition to selling teddies and thongs, they sell apparel aimed at the college set. Their brand, Pink, has licenses with many colleges to sell hoodies, t-shirts, tote bags and that sort of thing.

Now, one college campus seeks to remove such gear. University of Minnesota has decided to remove themselves from the 33 other colleges who sell gear through the Pink Collegiate line. At this time, Victoria's Secret is still offering the merchandise. Instead of dealing with the colleges directly, VS made a deal with the Collegiate Licensing Bureau.

Although the site I sourced has an opinion on this, University of Minnesota hasn't explicitly said it feels the ads are too racy. The school was concerned about their reputation however. A representative quoted stated the school did not feel it was in their best interests to have Gopher gear sold through the apparel giant.

Pic by Sweet~Vanilla.

Actress and Blue Lagoon star Brooke Shields knows a thing or two about the paparazzi. Having been a child star and a young person in the constant eye of the media storm , Brooke has taken it upon herself to teach her children how to handle the media.

Brooke's daughter, Rowan, who is five, knows what to do when the paparazzi strikes. Says Rowan, when asked by her mom what to do when the media strikes, "Well, I look straight ahead and I don't look them in the eye." Shields is sorry her daughter even knows what the word 'paparazzi' means.

Shields says that teaching her children to ignore the press is a healthier way of handling them. The actress knows the paparazzi will be there no matter what she does, so better to ignore them than give them what they want, I guess. Shields is also mom to daughter Grier Hammond, two.

As a person, you know that some people never learn. You see and hear this fact every day. As a parent, you will, at some point, no doubt be forced to share this delightful bit of information with your children, even as you try to teach them to be people who do learn from their mistakes and shortcomings. Sometimes it's tough to do when those people who never learn continue to be on the receiving end of everything but karma.

As we all know by now, Don Imus, the controversial radio disc jockey, is in the news again for making what are being construed as racist remarks. Recently Imus commented on the numerous (six!) arrests of football star Andrew Jones, who is African American. During the broadcast Imus asked what color Jones was. When he received the response, he stated, "Well, that explains it. Now we know."

Imus has since come forward claiming his comments were meant to be sarcastic. The people aren't buying it though, and neither is Andrew Jones, who said he has problems with African Americans and that he will be praying for Imus. I don't necessarily think Imus has a problem with a certain set of people (maybe he does, maybe he doesn't), but I do think he doesn't know when to let well enough alone. He doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. Imus, however, doesn't get paid to do that. He gets paid to bring attention to his program, any way he knows how. And making controversial remarks is his trademark.

The name "Chanel" is synonymous with elegance, simplicity, and wealth. After all, it was Coco Chanel who introduced the world to the little black dress, a wardrobe staple no woman's closet should be without. And her Chanel No. 5 has stood the test of time (aided no doubt by Marilyn Monroe's statement that it was the only thing she wore to bed) remains one of best known perfumes in the world even today, eighty-seven years after its creation.

And because anything adorned with those intertwined C's can take many years to afford (as even on Ebay, Chanel suits are out of the price range of most people) Chanel shoppers tend to be women, not teenage girls.

However, that didn't stop Chanel from choosing 18-year-old Emma Watson, the actress who plays Hermione in the Harry Potter series, to be the next face of Chanel. The dewy-faced teenager has signed a two year contract with the fashion house said to be worth $6 million, which is almost criminal considering she'll also be given Chanel clothing to wear at functions.

I'm still several decades away from being able to afford Chanel and while I understand they may be trying to appeal to a younger generation, it seems strange to have someone not even old enough to vote or drink represent the brand.

View Poll

The applause over the first black presidential candidate in the history of the United States had barely died down when FOX News made the bizarre decision to use the subtitle "Obama's baby mama" as the subtitle to footage of the candidate's wife aired during a segment discussing conservative attacks on Michelle Obama.

While it's true that Michelle Obama is the mama to Barack's babies, "baby mama" is a Jamaican Creole slang term for a woman who is not married to her child's father. The term has been used frequently in hip hop songs and the vernacular of people trying to be hip.

The main problem with the term in this setting is that Michelle and Barack are married. As are Bill and Hillary, George and Laura, and John and Cindy McCain, yet never once have the white political mothers been referred to as baby mamas.

Getting these racial biases out in the open might be what it takes to finally be rid of them and Obama himself made it clear this past weekend that he's willing to do that, even speaking bluntly if need be, for the betterment of the country.

Speaking in front of a congregation of African-American church-goers on Father's Day, Obama called out bad dads saying, "Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it." Obama noted that more than half of all black children now live in single parent households and that number has doubled since the time he was a child. But rather than just reciting statistics, Obama understands and can put a face on the numbers, he was only two years old when his own father abandoned their family.

He also told the congregation to stop over celebrating insignificant things and focus on the bigger picture and the future. "Don't get carried away with that eighth-grade graduation," he said, bringing many members of the congregation to their feet, applauding. "You're supposed to graduate from eighth grade."

No matter who wins in November, American society will owe a huge debt to Michelle and Barack Obama for serving as the lighting rods for starting these dialogs between citizens of all colors, and that's something their children can be very proud of.

Strange question to ask, but the answer might surprise you even more--a lot. Other than the fact that both are viewed by female audiences, have television programming with big turnout and are being released from silver screen to the big screen, both brands are proving that women of all ages are taking back the cineplex.

In a recent New York Times article, the relationship between the two is explored, along with thoughts about the upcoming release of the American Girl movie, titled "Kit Kittredge: An American Girl" after one of the American Girl characters who tries to make it as a young reporter during the Great Depression. Abigail Breslin, who was recently nominated for her work in Little Miss Sunshine, stars. Among the movie's producers is Julia Roberts. By all accounts, along with the fan base created by the television programming and the characters (they're never referred to as dolls), the movie should be a rolling success.

The American Girl movie, along with Sex in the City, should also provide direct competition to summer blockbusters and action films which are traditionally seen as male-oriented. The products (the, uhm, dolls) are marketed to and beloved by girls between the ages of 7-12. If the movie can win them over, then there's sure to be a sequel, even a trilogy. More than that, the girls who love American Girl characters can be consumers of the brand for life. They can grow up to be the same women who flocked to the Sex and the City movie in droves! Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there are no Sex and the City dolls on the market, but goodness knows they'd sell like hotcakes!

Are you planning on seeing Kit? Are you taking your daughter(s)?

Like everything else nostalgia-minded these days, yet another childhood favorite cartoon is making its way to the big screen. Whether the cartoon in question heading to tinsel town is a good thing or not depends on your opinion of smurfology, I guess.

The Smurfs was a popular cartoon that ran in the 80's from 1981 to 1990 (if you can believe it, I'm sure a lot of that was syndication) and centered around a population of blue creatures who were three apples high and who lived in mushrooms. Their nemesis was an evil magician named Gargamel and his rotten cat Azreal. Sound odd? Well, it was, even to me, and I was a kid.

Now two of the masterminds behind the first two Shrek movies are plugging away at a script for the Columbia Pictures live action/animation creation. No word yet on the storyline. I'm also not sure in a world where anything not in HD or attached to a video game is passe if the Smurfs will mean anything to the youth as compared with their parents. I watched the Smurfs, but I don't know if I would shell out $10 to go see the movie, let alone drag my kid, who, by the end of the whole thing, would walk away from the experience with little more than an appreciation for the phrase "Smurf you!"