Interesting interview she must've given on Oprah. The last thing I watched was about Polygamy online last week. I don't have anything particular against Oprah (though I seldom watch her), but she seems too open to everything.

The book The Secret Life of Bees is very much about racial standing in 1964. I read the book and recently used it in a project for one of my classes. I liked the book; I'll see if I like the movie. It's supposed to be similar. I did NOT know Alicia Keys believed all that, nor did I know she wore that necklace (or what it stood for, for that matter!).

Ugh, there's too much to comment to right now. I've heard many views and opinions on why Black people drop out of school more, etc. I've also heard those who think the schools should be run to cater to the black students. Also, in some schools the black males, particularly, seem to want to be into music, sports, or a drug dealer. Because that's what they see role models doing. It's all very interesting to me.

btw, did you hear of the Miley Cyrus for Vanity Fair? She apparently has nothing but a blanket covering her, which is quite different than anyone's used to seeing her (most of her other pictures can be refuted - the one where she was "in her underwear" is really just a bathing suit bottom with a shirt on over the top part). ALthough there's some where her belly is bare and she's laying on a        boy(friend?). As for Vanity Fair, I'm not surprised at the magazine - they're known for taking photos such as that. I personally think they did more to her than Dakota a couple years ago because 1) she's older and 2) she has a cleaner image at this point (though it's quickly fading). I want to know where her parents were, and why they even agreed to have her do it (other than the publicity & money, both of which aren't always good). Did you hear of it, and what do you think?

Dear Amber: 

This Miley Cyrus story is still developing... and growing!  I'm planning a column on the subject, but I want to wait a little until the hype dies down and some more relevant facts emerge.  One thing seems evident:  You have a case here where a child's career has become extremely lucrative and is facing the inevitable question of whether it can remain so into adulthood.  This is where agents and parents are tasked with the choices between the actress as a future, well-raised adult and the pressures of "going dirty" as a career move. 

What made Dakota's story so pathetic is that she was led down the "latter" path not only to a far greater extent, but while in actual pre-teen childhood.  Remember:  The sorrowful Annie Leibovitz photos of Dakota in the, frankly, semi-pornographic March 2006 issue of Vanity Fair was the precursor to "Hounddog".  VF is THE Hollywood magazine.  Let's just hope this isn't going to be a case of history repeating itself where Miley Cyrus is concerned.  Kids need good examples from amongst their own ranks.  They've seen too many of their peer-aged idols corrupted and sexualized already.

BTW:  World News Daily, one of the largest online news websites and the largest Christian one, broke the news about the "Hounddog" release today.  Whether my message to them yesterday prompted it, I can't say.  However, they did quote me again!  Hopefully, my messaging to assorted columnists, commentators and child advocacy groups is finally starting to pay off. 

One last:  Paul Petersen raised questions a while back about the intensive levels of Miley Cyrus' career activities and how, historically, such things can lead to increasing exploitation.  It's beginning to look like he was right.     

What I don't understand is why Annie L. likes the pale look. It's beyond natural paleness. I still think Miley's "blanket" pictures surpasses all of Dakota's. She just looked pathetic in at least that one picture.

Oops, I didn't mean to submit it!

lol about you being quoted! I haven't read that source though, and haven't even really heard of it except when you've mentioned it! I hope Miley pulls her act together and realizes her mistakes... but to be honest, the media trashes her too. There was talk about Miley in her underwear (which was really just the bottom half of a two-piece bathing suit!) and more. Most of her photos can be explained, though I don't think they should've been on there because it's more reason for people to hate her and compare her to Britney Spears (who last I heard got back custody of her kids? That's what one source says, though I just briefly looked).

Dear Amber: 

That "dark look" in such photographs is what some call the "artsy effect".  It's meant to enhance the overall sexual aspect of the model... along with the expression on the model's face and her "body language".  In Miley's case, it also adultized her and enhanced her sexuality.  People experienced in the culture's ways see that and understand the concepts that drive it.  That's why there's been such an outcry from culture watchers.

In Dakota's case, the darkening effect was not as evident.  (She may still have been only eleven when she made the layout and, as is still evident, she's hardly an "early bloomer"!)  But the adultizing effect was there in her arrogant expression, posturing and adult-style clothing... all of which was intended to convey the image of a pint-sized, but supernaturally mature supermodel.  BTW:  That same old "mature before her time" adage was dutifully recited by both Oprah Winfrey and Tom Cruise on yesterday's Oprah Show, after they watched a video taped segment from Dakota in tribute to her former co-star.  Does anyone realize that Dakota hasn't been in an A-list role since "War of the Worlds"?

And that Britney Spears story is disturbing.  I don't blame anyone for not wanting to place those two children in the custody of a lowlife like K-Fed.  But to put them back with Britney is insane!  If a young woman can demonstrate such utter recklessness, moral turpitude and mental instability (twice hauled off to a mental hospital strapped to a gurney!) and still be given custody over children, what does that say for California's child protective services?  (See my previous column, "The Children's Judge".)  There must be someone in the extended Spears family who's mentally and morally straight enough to provide a good home for those kids... unless insanity runs rampant on both sides!  In that case, I'd suggest a place like Boy's Home or the Arrow Foundation (here in Houston) as the best and most caring refuges for them.

BTW:  The Arrow Foundation is a noted privately-run and faith-based home for neglected children which is located in The Woodlands, an outlying suburb of Houston.  Among it's active sponsors is Michael Reagan, son of the late President, a noted radio and TV commentator and a social activist.

Steve,

I've never heard of the Arrow Foundation before, is it only in Texas? Or does it have places in other states? I have no faith in California's laws anymore. They are either uninforced or corrupt. The homeschooling ruling just reinforced it again. I desperately hope they allow it once again - with state accountability (such as those students passing state tests) of course.

I saw that part of the Oprah show. I was curious so I turned it on. I hardly ever watch Oprah! lol I don't think Oprah or Tom realize she's not where she used to be... but here's a picture I came across Tom Cruise holding Will Smiths' daughter! : http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2007/12/12/legendx.jpg  - what's his thing with holding little girls?!? The guy I know who does things like that creeps me out... he comes across a pedaphile! I don't know Tom Cruise well enough (lol I don't know him personally at all!), but guys who constantly need to touch girls are just too creepy. Healthy affection is one thing, but you have to be careful, especially when it's not your child!!

I don't get the "artsy affect", but I am not really into that kind of "art". It seems to me that it's just another excuse to protray a teen girl inappropriately. If an adult wants to do it, fine. I mean, to me it's gross to show a pregnant Britney Spears on a cover, but she's of age to decide. And isn't it CA law again that put Britney's kids back into her hands? Those two poor boys are going to be so messed up if something doesn't happen. I've read that she's bipolar, and especially if that's the case, I don't know why she got them back. I know of two girls whose mother is bipolar and they can only stay with her as long as her parents are there to be the actual "guardians".

Dear Amber:

I only recently heard of the Arrow Foundation myself... even though they're only thirty miles away from me!  I'm going to visit their website when I can find the time.  However, I understand that a number of such places have sprung up, largely due to the relative ineffectiveness of the state CPSs around the country.  The laws are still so chaotic and ill-enforced in regard to child protection, it's a wonder that anything is done at all.  And with all the scandals that have occured in state foster homes (Texas included) I'd think twice about putting an abused child in one if I could help it.  Even the Texas CPS seems to agree!

As for that picture... well, at least Smith was there with him!  Cruise DOES seem to have a penchant for carrying little girls around, doesn't he?  However, creepy as he sometimes is (and ill-famed as his personal life has been) I would hesitate, on that basis, to accuse him of innate pedophilia.  With Dakota, it was a movie role and the Smith photo was for publicity.  If he starts doing it to anonymous kids in a playground... THEN worry!

The "artsy effect" was pioneered in such mainstream films as "Valley of the Dolls" (early in the Valenti Era of the mid-sixties).  When the scene gets really down and dirty, you darken it and, sometimes, deliberately film it slightly out of focus.  This actually serves to enhance the sexuality... and to forstall critics!  Note:  This technique was applied to Dakota's "molestation scene" (and others) in "Hounddog's" original version.  That's a point I've somehow neglected to make before now!  That an amateur pornmaker like Deborah Kampmeier would use it on kids shouldn't surprise anyone.

I believe that Britney Spears won enhanced visitation rights, but not actual custody.  Still, it's all pretty sad.  Again:  Aren't there any relatives in Louisiana who are normal and would be willing to take in those two boys?  In fact, should ANY actors be allowed to raise kids in the first place??