To Lure Young Readers, Nonfiction Writers Sanitize and Simplify: [New York Times]
"Inspired by the booming market for young adult novels, a growing number of biographers and historians are retrofitting their works to make them palatable for younger readers."
Bearing Arms: [New York Times] Articles in this series examine the gun industry’s influence and the wide availability of firearms in America. [more inside]
An experiment done in the 1990s exposed children to various levels of lead. The lawsuit filed in 2001 by the parents of over 100 participants accuses the Kennedy Krieger Institute that the scientists knowingly used the kids as test subjects in toxic dust control study. [more inside]
(pdf) Chris Gottlieb writes in the "Baltimore Law Review" about judging parents. The article discusses instances of racism and classicism in the family court systems. An adaptation of the "Baltimore Review" article appears in the New York Times. [more inside]
An Iwo Jima Relic Binds Generations. (SLNYTTJ - single-link new york times tear-jerker.)
"Yes, I have four children. Four children with whom I spend a good part of every day: bathing them, combing their hair, sitting with them while they do their homework, holding them while they weep their tragic tears. But I'm not in love with any of them. I am in love with my husband."
A child's brain is like a sponge. (NYT reg) Thank God Focus on the Family is here to save us from gay sponge brainwashing and the left's obvious agenda to get us all to Think Pink.
The Talk of the Book World Still Can't Sell (NY Times link) About two months ago, a new book about women putting careers before babies, and risking going childless, got a lot of publicity and was expected to be a huge seller. Wrong. Did it scare women? Did it sadden women? Was the coverage unfair (most of it highlighted the 'infertility after late 30's' angle, instead of balancing/choosing between career and family)? Or, did the massive publicity subvert sales by summing up the story and findings?
Studies Show That Children Are Solicited Online (from the NY Times, free registration required) -- "One in five children who regularly go online is approached by strangers for sex, according to a new study."
Coca-Cola stays ahead of the curve. [NY Times, requires free subscription.] Facing increased criticism over commercialism in public schools, Coke vows to change its policies away from blatant advertising and strictly offering sugar-sweetened drinks. Most notable is a potential end to the "Cola Wars" of exclusive contracts with school districts. But with Pepsi following close behind [see end of Post article], is this really a landmark moment, or an attempt to stave off criticism while still branding the available target audience of teenagers?