The Modern Family Teen Sex Controversy

Family teen sex? That title will get me some hits from Google.

Huffington Post writer Ann Brenoff is mad at the Writer's Guild of America, ABC, and presumably the majority of teenagers in this country because last week's episode of "Modern Family" mentioned that a 17-year-old high school senior was sexually active-- AND THEY DIDN'T USE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TURN IT INTO A TV-MOVIE-OF-THE-WEEK TEACHING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF TEEN SEX!

The gist of it is, she wants "Modern Family," about life in the year 2012, to depict life in the 1950s.

By not making the loss of the teen girl's virginity (never depicted on screen, only alluded to) into THE BIGGEST DEAL IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, Ann says the writers are sending the message that "everybody is doing it." Because everybody is not, she says. She cites this data:

"30 percent -- of both male and female teens -- still haven't had intercourse by the time they turn 19."

Um. So, Ann, you're saying that 70 percent of teenagers have had sex by age 19??? ANN, WHY ARE YOU SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT EVERYBODY IS DOING IT!!!???

Somehow, in Ann's warped mind, the fact that, yeah, almost everybody is doing it, supports her argument. HOW DARE THE SHOW MENTION TEEN SEX WITHOUT GOING COMPLETELY CRAZY ABOUT IT!!!!

Perhaps Ann believes every TV show mentioning the fact that teens have sex should just copy the plot of "For Keeps?"

Great movie, by the way.

Ann actually cherry picks the 70% fact from a report that also mentions:

"On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17."

You mean... gasp... like the character on the show!?!?!

It goes on to say...

"The majority of sexually experienced teens (78% of females and 85% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex."

And...

"In 2006–2010, some 86% of female teens and 93% of male teens reported using contraceptives at last sex. These proportions represent a marked improvement since 1995."

And yet...

"Some 90% of publicly funded family planning clinics counseled clients younger than 18 about abstinence."

and oh...

"Only 5% of American high schools made condoms available to students."

Let's put it all together now, people:

Most American teens are having sex at age 17. Most are using condoms and birth control. The vast majority do not get pregnant and do not get STDs. The ones that do probably do because our society discourages the use of contraceptives.

Imagine if our country had a traffic safety committee getting mad about all the car crashes while at the same time yelling that there's no need to provide busy intersections with traffic light. ITS BEST TO JUST AVOID THAT INTERSECTION, KIDS!!! UNTIL YOU'RE OLDER!

Now, this "very special episode" of Modern Family doesn't mention whether the 17 year old is practicing safe sex. But the big moment in the episode is when the dad says to his daughter that he trusts her to make the right decisions. This approach-- creating a safe, non-judgmental relationship with one's teenager-- is a far better tactic than the reprimand-and-push-them-further-and-further-away-causing-them-to-star-in-the-next-season-of-Teen-Mom approach.

Perhaps if people like Ann didn't treat teen sex like an automatic disaster and blight on society, more parents would feel comfortable talking to their kids about safe sex. Maybe people would stop ignoring the power of hormones and start giving teens the tools they need to avoid tragic outcomes.

And maybe we should stop flipping out every time a TV show shows us something real, rather than insisting every plot be a morality play.

NYMag's Vulture blog might have the best take on this:

Phil is ready to have a “cool dad” moment with Haley — he looks at the camera and says everything he wants to say to us, the audience: that he realizes that sex is a natural part of life, and that he hopes that she’s being safe and that she feels free to talk to him about it. He manages to say none of this to Haley, and yet it’s enough, when she asks him whether he’d prefer a counter or a booth at the mall food court, he says, “Whatever seems right to you, I trust you.” Hug. No need for a heavy-duty Danny Tanner–style speech here, or a PSA. He’s said everything we wanted to hear to us, and he doesn’t need to say it again to Haley because she already knows. Haley, back on the couch at home, looks at the camera with a tear-stained face — not even a hint of sarcasm — and says, “I have a cool dad.” Such restraint, even more so than a grand emotional outpouring, is what makes this episode special.

Hmm. Maybe it is a "Very special episode" after all.

Google Glasses, and Is Apple On The Wrong Side Of Innovation?

The New York Times Bits Blog has a piece yesterday about Google's new technology venture: Google Glasses. According to the blog's sources, the glasses will resemble a bulky pair of late-90s Oakleys, cost $250-$600 dollars, and feature augmented reality--data showing up before your eyes when you look at something, like a star review when you look at a restaurant you're passing by.

The concept isn't new, but it is a prominent vision of where we're headed in mobile computing. Today's smartphones require us to look down to access information-- there's a clear advantage in a smart device that allows us to look up.

However, it doesn't seem like Google Glasses are ready for prime time, and it doesn't look to me like they will be. There are a couple problems I see:

1. It's a pair of bulky, late 90s Oakleys.

Many people say that the iPhone is a fashion statement. Which refers to its smart, sleek design and ubiquitous popularity. But it's also something that you keep in your pocket. Glasses are, quite literally, "in your face." Sunglasses are a deeply personal object, unique to one's style. And there's a reason why Oakleys' heyday was over a decade ago.

2. They're glasses.

People who don't need glasses don't wear them, unless they're sunglasses. People who do need glasses have eyeglasses that won't fit under a pair of Oakleys. The 3D trend is stuck on this same obstacle-- people feel uncomfortable with glasses (or extra glasses) on their face.

3. The money quote from the NY Times article: "The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click. We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”

Oh boy. Engineers are in love with finding new ways to navigate the devices they put in front of us. First, they came up with punch cards. Then scroll wheels. Then the mouse. The joystick. Finally-- the touchscreen. Apple's navigation system worked because it was so intuitive: when we pick up something to take a closer look, we "pinch," when we drop something, we spread our fingers. This is the way we've always navigated with real objects-- Apple translated it to the smartphone.

This head tilt thing? "Quick to learn," and "second nature" and "almost indistinguishable" to people looking at us? Read between the lines and the picture you get is a twitchy man bobbing his head about while onlookers wonder if they're witnessing epilepsy or a the beginnings of a stroke.

And our heads move a lot. Can the device tell our intentions with such precision? If I turn my head to look at a hot chick or move quickly to dodge falling bird doo, will I accidentally email my mom or dial a number in Taipei?

Why not create a navigation system based on iris movement and the simple "double blink?" Looking around would move the cursor or scroll, and a double blink (which people would normally not do) would make a selection. That's far more intuitive than nodding and bobbing.

4. The biggest hurdle is response speed. The reason augmented reality apps are nothing more than a novelty right now is that they don't work fast enough. By the time something loads, your gaze has shifted. If you have to stare at something for a long time in order for Google Glasses to show you the relevant data, then why not just pick up a smart phone instead? No one likes to uncomfortably stare at something for more than a second or two. Is 4G fast enough to deliver the data? Are the GPS, the cameras and the chipset all integrated to generate results fast-- as fast as the blink of an eye?

With all this said, Google is at least on the right track. Some type of heads-up display is the future, I'm convinced. Which is why a line near the bottom of the blog post gives me concerns about Google's competitor, Apple:

"Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist."

Yikes. So Google cops Oakleys, while Apple goes after the Casio Calculator Watch?

There's a reason the watch market collapsed following the explosion of cell phones. Watches are no longer a utility. They've become merely a fashion item. Like glasses, people buy they to match their personal style. Expecting to mass market one style of watch the same way Apple sells one style of cell phone is a boneheaded expectation.

The wristwatch concept doesn't solve any problem... indeed, it creates new ones. Yes, your hands are free, but in order to navigate, you're forced to keep one arm immobile while the other one touches. You're looking down, not up. You require a separate device to hear (glasses, at least, are close enough to the ear to incorporate a built-in headphone. I mean... wristwatch? Really?

This revelation comes on the heels of new photos that show the new iPad 3 will be THICKER than the iPad 2. While it seems the difference is no more than 1.5 millimeters, and improvements to the display and camera account for the extra space, its hard to believe Apple couldn't shave down the extra millimeter to avoid the perception of going backwards. If faster, smaller, lighter are the watchwords for future tech, Apple's fatter iPad sequel has been set up for obsolescence.

For Apple to continue its lead in the mobile computing field, they need to show they're thinking forward. Google's Glasses concept at least shows an eye looking ahead. Apple's wrist watch and belly-busting iPad 3 seem to indicate they may be staring at their feet.

So What Year Is It Again?

Obama is expected to announce today an amendment to a rule requiring employers to provide health coverage that includes birth control-- something 99% of women in this country use, something that's been on the books since the year 2000, and something that hasn't been remotely controversial for more than two decades.

Meanwhile, NBC, the NFL and FCC are going crazy about a lewd, disgusting act at the Super Bowl that has threatened to destroy the fabric of American life and corrupt the youth of the nation forever...

M.I.A.'s split-second middle finger flash during the halftime show (something NO ONE at my Super Bowl party noticed on a 47 inch HDTV screen.):



Next up, Facebook to be charged with witchcraft because it allows members to "steal people's souls" by posting "photography."

As top YouTube commenter Syrennia Lestrange puts it:

Oh yeah, we should really care about a word people say and a gesture people make on a daily basis when poverty is running rampant and the country is in a recession.

Amen to that.

Chicago Nixes Design Over Gang-like Symbols, Chooses Ambiguously Gay Duo Fondling Penis Instead

The city of Chicago held a contest for area youth to draw the new sticker to be displayed on Police, Fire and Paramedic vehicles. 15-year-old Herbert Pulgar's design won:



Beautiful, right? Unity, togetherness, heroes.

Then a blogger named Detective Shaved Longcock (yes, that's right) suggested the design echoed the signs of notorious street gang the Maniac Latin Disciples.

On its own, the sticker design doesn't really reveal much. The heart is a symbol of the gang... but its also a heart. The hands reaching up are twisted into a shape that could, if viewed the right way, resemble the pitchfork sign used by the gang.

But most damning is the background information Detective Longcock (yes, again) uncovered. Digging into the Facebook pages of Herbert and his family, he unearthed photos of blunt-smoking, bandana-wearing, gun-toting and well, gang-sign-flashing.

Now the city is switching designs to avoid any resemblance to things related to gang activity:

Uh... wait a minute...

Those guys on the right look familiar...

Um... yeah.

What was third place? The Chicago police, fire and paramedics depicted as the three little pigs?

This is why you don't have kids draw things.

Advice For The Giants Ticker Tape Parade

I unfortunately missed the deadline today to apply for City Hall seats to the Giants Super Bowl Champions Parade. That means, if I want to go, I'll have to vie with the masses for a glimpse of the glorious G-men somewhere along the parade route.

Here's a compendium of resources I put together in the past for the Yankees Ticker Tape Parade. The same rules still apply:

Let The Ticker Tape Parade Commence!

Then again, your experience will never be better than this: The Guy Who Became A Giant For A Day

In Memoriam: SOPA and PIPA

SOPA and PIPA--two bills that Hollywood said would save their industry, and that the Internet community argued would destroy theirs--are dead. SOPA and PIPA supporter Gavin Polone, a producer of Zombieland and Curb Your Enthusiasm, among others, writes an angry eulogy of sorts over at the New York Magazine website:

Mark Zuckerberg, Craig Newmark, the Google guys, and all of the other tech superstars slammed it to those traditional media companies promoting the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) last week, managing to stop the bills. They are so fucking smart and cool. They are also so fucking wrong.

Hey, Gavin, watch the language! This is a family-friendly blog!

According to them, these laws will result in censorship, undo economic hardship for their companies, and a breakdown of Internet security. If you believe them, you haven’t read the law and are ignoring common sense.

I did read the laws. You can too, here: SOPA, PIPA.

Luckily, you don't need to go too far in before you start finding problems. Like the definitions page:

(5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term `domestic Internet site' means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.

(6) FOREIGN DOMAIN NAME- The term `foreign domain name' means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.

(7) FOREIGN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `foreign Internet Protocol address' means an Internet Protocol address that is not a domestic Internet protocol address.

(8) FOREIGN INTERNET SITE- The term `foreign Internet site' means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.

These definitions only seem sufficient if you have no idea how the web works. Take Bit.ly for example, a popular website used for shortening domain names for sites like Twitter. Technically, the .ly part means this website is controlled by the country Libya. But the site is actually based in the Meatpacking District of New York City, and has nothing to do with Libya (the .ly site now redirects to bitly.com). This is only one example-- many sites, including Google, Facebook and others, have domain names registered to other countries. Are these "foreign sites?" If you're a lawyer, you could argue that they are, based on the definitions laid out in SOPA and PIPA. And SOPA and PIPA don't treat "foreign" sites that nicely.

This is just one example of the sloppiness of these bills.

Most people can agree that movies and music shouldn't be illegally downloaded for free. They understand that enormous sums of money and lots of hard work are used to produce this material, and downloading it from a file-sharing site is stealing.

But SOPA and PIPA were badly written laws. "Common sense" tells us that these bills should target the sites that host these copyrighted files and allow them to be downloaded. This is not what SOPA and PIPA do. Instead, they're written so broadly (with terribly vague terminology and a lack of understanding of technical terms) that they can be used to shut down legitimate sites like Reddit, Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube that host user submitted content that occasionally includes some copyrighted material.

It's the equivalent of shutting down all of Times Square because some people on the corner are selling pirated DVDs. Why not arrest the guys selling the DVDs instead of closing the whole area?

Hollywood was attempting to go nuclear with SOPA and PIPA, when they really should have gone for a targeted approach. They set themselves back by overreaching, and the internet masses made them pay for it.

Hollywood should work together with the major internet players and experts on information technology to draft legislation that would specifically target the bad guys, without holding website owners responsible for the rogue actions of a few lawbreakers that use their site.

They can also change their antiquated business model, by providing what the people want-- a cheap and quick way to download movies and music for home use, and a way to share that with a circle of close friends.

Law can be a blunt instrument, if written by people who lack the understanding of the industry they're trying to regulate. With SOPA and PIPA, Hollywood was going for something far too splashy, far too big.

Hopefully Hollywood's next attempt will be less "summer blockbuster" and more "art house indie film."

Broken Gronk? Don't Believe It, Giants

Gronkowski wearing boot on lower left leg

Jan 23, 6:29 pm EST

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP)—New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski is wearing a removable boot on his lower left leg after being injured in the AFC championship game.

Gronkowski wore the boot as he walked through the locker room and into the trainer’s area on Monday. He did not speak with reporters.

The second-year star, who set an NFL record for a tight end with 17 touchdown catches, was hurt in the final minute of the third quarter of Sunday’s 23-20 win when he was tackled after a 23-yard reception. He limped off the field but seemed to be walking better as he went to the locker room. Less than five minutes later, Gronkowski was back in the game.

He finished with five catches for 87 yards.

Hmm... the key to the Patriots offense in a walking boot prior to the Superbowl against the Giants. Where have I heard this before??

Oh yeah: Broken Brady? Don't Believe It, Giants.

Last time these two teams met in the Superbowl, it ended with my friends and I parading through the Manhattan streets, shouting "18-1" into well-known Boston fan bars.

I'm hoping for a repeat.