I’ve seen this article going around about “Your kids should not be the most important in the family” by John Rosemond. It’s meant to be a pithy rejoinder of modern parenthood about how wrong modern parents are these days because we think our kids are the most important people in our families. Why, don’t you know the most important people in your family should be you? The parent! You’re the most important! Don’t you know that? Otherwise you breed entitlement! (Yeah, let that sink in.)

It’s built entirely on the wrong premise, which I’ll explain, but not entirely devoid of value–too often, we, as parents, *do* neglect critical aspects of our own lives in order to care for our children–and that can be problematic. But Mr. Rosemond’s approach is one of complete entitlement in it’s own right, and misses entirely the aspect of responsibility that we have, as parents, to care for and raise our children. Never mind that, in reality, no one should be “more important” than another in a family and that perhaps, families shouldn’t be built on some “hierarchy of importance”.

Rosemond’s assertion that “when we were kids it was clear to us our parents were the most important people in our families” is a crock. I think Mr. Rosemond’s trying to say that, because today’s parents don’t realize they are the most important–and that kids don’t either–that is the root of behavioral issues, entitlement, and lack of respect. That without parents, kids wouldn’t be living “lives that are relatively carefree…” and instead would be “…living lives full of worry and want.”

Let’s set aside the distinctly middle class attitude that completely ignores how many children in the world and even in our own country *do* live lives full of worry and want… lives of destitution. And of hunger. Rosemond is clearly more focused on the ungrateful and entitled. The kids of “our brave new millennium”. Clearly the problem is parents these days! (Throw up arms emphatically here.) He starts with the notion that “kids exist because of [their parents]” which is strictly speaking, true, but, when you make the decision to have kids you make the decision to be in charge of another human life. And that means *gasp* sometimes putting the needs of the life in your hands above your own.

Parents absolutely do need to take care of themselves, both physically and mentally, because you can’t be there for your most important job if you are sick or having a nervous breakdown. We should take care of our marriages as well, that’s part of our mental well-being. But the notion that treating children as the most important members of the family are at the root of modern family problems is bunk.

Mr. Rosemond wants us to remember that “Yes, Virginia, once upon a time in the United States, children were second class citizens, to their advantage.”

Rosemond tries to analogize the role of parent as leader of a family to other types of leadership positions. He talks about CEOs, and generals, even teachers, but he doesn’t seem to understand their real roles or, more importantly, responsibilities. The most important person in the army is not the general: the general can’t fight wars without the soldiers. The general is *responsible* for his soldiers. The most important person in a corporation is not the CEO: the CEO wouldn’t have a business to lead without the workers producing their products or services. The CEO is *responsible* for his workers as much as his customers. The most important person in a classroom is not the teacher: the teacher is the steward of the young minds in their charge. They are *responsible* for educating our children. And the same is true for parents: we are *responsible* for the *life* of another human being.

And that is the “reasonable thing” that gives our children the status of “most important”. Which is not an “appeal to emotion”: it is a fact. As a parent, you are responsible for the life of another human being in your care. If children were born perfectly capable of providing their own shelter, gathering their own food and clothes, of providing for their general welfare, then sure, maybe they would not be the “most important” people in the family. But they are not capable. Which is why, perhaps, parents shouldn’t focus on who is “more important” but should instead take care of themselves so that they can focus on the *most important responsibility* they have: care of their children.

What Rosemond apparently fails to understand, with his focus on hierarchy, is that “most important” doesn’t have to mean kids should call the shots. (And I think many parents, fail to understand this sometimes, too, although this is hardly limited to “modern” parents. Who exactly, does Rosemond think the “moms and dads of this brave new millennium” learned their parenting skills from, anyway???) Your children being the most important member of the family doesn’t mean you have to substitute their judgment for yours.

Focusing on your responsibility as a parent does not mean you have to let your kids be disrespectful, disobedient, rude, or entitled. You can, in fact, understand that your children are the most important member of the family because without you they’d likely starve and die, while still teaching them the skills they will need to be upstanding, respectable, productive, happy and well-adjusted members of society. It’s not easy. It’s really hard. The hardest thing you’ll ever do, I suspect. I screw it up daily. But I get up, start over and try to do better every day. But I don’t do it with the notion that my kids are, in any way, second class citizens or that I am “more important” than them.

I don’t think that my loved ones–from my wife to my kids and beyond–need to be sorted into some hierarchy of importance in order to achieve the goals of good parenthood. Why are my kids the most important members of my family? Because my wife and I made a conscious decision to bring them into this world, and without us, they probably wouldn’t survive. That role does not make my wife and I more, or less, important than them, it makes us more responsible.

This “version” of Blawg Review is actually located at Facebook. However, I’ve duplicated it here because reading chronologically using “Timeline” can be really, really annoying. So for those who would rather not submit to the Faceborg, here you go…

This week’s Blawg Review is presented in honor of the 28th Birthday of Mark Zuckerberg and the impending Facebook IPO, destined to make Zuckerberg enough money to buy a solar system. It is also presented with deepest and most sincere apologies to George Orwell.

It was a bright cold day in May, and the clocks were striking thirteen. On the telescreen in front of me, status updates were still babbling away about shopping trips, restaurants, or children. I sat back. A sense of complete helplessness descended upon me, and I sat gazing stupidly at the screen.

Suddenly, I began to write in sheer panic, I shared a link that “Lincoln Invented Facebook”. It was malreported, and Chris Taylor at Mashable (mashable.com) wrote about How the ‘Lincoln Invented Facebook’ Hoax Foold Some of the People .

I don’t know what made me pour out this stream of rubbish. But it was time for the Two Minutes Like.The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Like is not that you are obliged to act, but on the contrary, it’s impossible to avoid joining in. You scroll through your newsfeed, as status updates flash by, and within thirty seconds, any pretence is unnecessary. One moment you are “Liking” the status update of person you knew in elementary school and the next your great Aunt. It is possible, at moments, to switch your “Liking” this way or that by a voluntary act. But doing so may not be protected speech, as Brock Vergakis points out in his Law Technology News  post Clicking Facebook ‘Like’ Button Ruled Not Constitutionally Protected Speech.

I had been reading Mashable about the Facebook IPO Pitch: Can It Win Big Investors and The Huffington Post  about how “Eduardo Saverin, Facebook Co-Founder, Drops U.S. Citizenship, May Sidestep Taxes on IPO Profits when, my fingers slid voluptuously over the keyboard, updating my status in ALL CAPS:

DOWN WITH FACEBOOK
DOWN WITH FACEBOOK
DOWN WITH FACEBOOK
DOWN WITH FACEBOOK
DOWN WITH FACEBOOK

I sat back in my chair, slightly ashamed of myself. Maybe I was just caught up reading Rob Horning of The New Inquiry  on Facebooking in the Age of Facebook. Or Will Wilkinson’s response at Big Think on Facebook and False Consciousness . I quickly edited my update to repost the Facebook slogans:

PUBLIC IS PRIVATE
FRIEND EVERYONE
THIS APP WILL RECEIVE ALL YOUR PROFILE INFORMATION AND TRACK YOUR POSTING HABITS

At that moment, the telescreen let out a piercing whistle. New Notifications. Four friends has also commented on my status update. My simple reposting of the Facebook slogans had received 25 “Likes”.

If there is hope, I thought, it lies in the proles. Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.

Maybe they are becoming conscious. The ACLU has a post about a company fighting the good fight, ACLU: Twitter Stands Up For One Of Its Users

But Facebook is not interested in the overt act: the like is all they care about. They do not merely track their enemies, they change them. That’s why Kashmir Hill, over at Forbes writes about the trend of employers seeking applicant’s social media data, in Why We Need a ‘Password Protection Act’ Against Employers.

A number of states have, or are looking to, expand privacy protections to social media and to keep prying employers out of our status updates: Friend Request Rejected: Maryland Bans Employers from Asking Employees for their Social Media Passwords, Delaware Proposes Facebook-Privacy Law , California is One Step Closer to Banning Employer Requests for Social Media Passwords.

Bradley Shear  also has some insightful posts about how Colleges & Schools That Force Their Students to Facebook Friend Them May Be Violating the Stored Communications Act and how SNOPA (HR 5050) May Protect Insurance Companies From Schools and Businesses That Demand Access to Personal Password Protected Social Media Accounts.

And a Woman launches legal action to identify Facebook trolls.

But then I remember: who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. The proletarians will never revolt, not in a thousand years or a million. They cannot. I do not have to tell you the reason: you know it already. If you have ever cherished any dreams of violent insurrection, you must abandon them. There is no way in which Facebook can be overthrown. The rule of the Facebook is for ever.

In the UK, Aneela Akbar at Lawdit points to a case where Facebook leaves employee jobless.

And the Canadian Privacy Law Blog points out that, the FBI Seeking Wiretap-ready Internet, Like Canada” and offers another post about Cloud Computer and the Patriot Act: A Red Herring?

Timothy Flynn, The Law Blogger posts about the dangers of social media like Facebook and Twitter in jury trials, in Social Media Not Mixing with Jury Trials.

And James Goslee reminds us all at Lawyerist.com that Private Facebook Pages May Be Discoverable.

Facebook isn’t interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in advertising. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only advertising, pure advertising. Power through advertising. Facebook is setting up the way to sell ads off the site, as Kashmir Hill notes in Facebook Privacy Policy Change Paves Way For Off-Facebook Advertising they’ve updated their “Data Use Policy” to put the policy pieces in place.

And how responsible should lawyers be with social media anyway? Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice  has a pretty good idea, and doesn’t disappoint with, And Now, For a Commercial Break.

Weeks or months must have passed. It would have been possible to keep track of the passage of time, had I been paying more attention to my Timeline.

Suddenly, a shrill trumpet-call pierced the air. It was a Notification! Someone had Shared my status update! The telescreen was pouring forth Shares and Likes. I poured myself a glass of Victory Gin and stared at the screen. My soul white as snow, I was updating my status with everything, sharing with everybody. I was posting photos and videos. Allowing myself to be tagged. The long hoped-for bullet was entering my brain.

I gazed up at that youthful face. Eight years it had taken me to learn what kind of smile was hidden behind that t-shirt and hoodie. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-sented tears trickled down the side of my nose. But it is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I’ve won the victory over myself. I love Facebook.

Next week’s Blawg Review comes from the esteemed Kevin Thompson of cyberlawcentral.com. Along with the works of George Orwell (particularly Politics and the English Language) I highly recommend you check it out. And don’t forget, Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.

Okay, we have a “Lite-Brite” and a Fisher-Price “Made by Me! Spin ’n Spiral Doodler” and they came with templates for paper/patterns. I always lose those things, so I scanned them and here are the PDFs:

Lite-Brite Template

Made by Me! Spin ’n Spiral Doodler Template

These are mostly for my use, but other parents can download them, too.

I never thought I’d say this about the closing of a big box retailer, but I’m sad about the Borders closing.

I grew up within bike distance of a public library: the Wells Library, in my home town of Lafayette. The library was a frequent destination for me on summer days. I would ride my bike there and hang out in the stacks all the time. I still love library stacks. I love the smell of the aging books. I love discovering hidden gems on the shelves. I love the sounds of the library. The hushed voices. The hum of the air conditioning and the click of shoes on terrazzo floors. It’s more than merely the love of reading, it’s a love of the experience. The thrill of the hunt, with the reward of a great book. Which is why I also love bookstores.

There aren’t many things I like about my hometown. But one of them is a bookstore: Von’s Books. Von’s books was much like a library to me. It was a little further out of reach, so I had to be taken there as a kid–and fortunately my mother is a reader, too. Von’s is the kind of overstocked independent bookseller you might see in a charming romantic comedy. It’s homey. It’s dusty. The shelfs are bursting with books and it seems there are stacks of to-be-shelved inventory all over the place. I loved that I could get lost in the shelves there just like the stacks at the library. I also loved that every time I needed help finding something, I had to go to the counter at the front of the store where the clerk could almost always be found with their nose in a book.

That was never my experience with the big box booksellers, like Borders or Barnes & Noble. Sure, they had row after row of books. Sometimes their stores seemed bigger to me than the library I remember from my childhood. They had friendly clerks, roaming the stores and keeping the shelves tidy. The difference was that when I wanted to ask about a book or an author or ask for a recommendation, it was a crapshoot. Some clerks were readers. Bookstores attract people who want an employee discount, I’m sure. But more often than not, the clerk would need to run off to a computer terminal to answer my questions. It was often clear to me that this was a job to them. Just a job. I want my bookstore to be staffed by people who read voraciously and who love books, not just people who need a job.

I hated Borders for other reasons, too. In college, I was in Bloomington, Indiana, which had an indie bookstore by the name of Morgensterns. I loved Morgenstern’s. My friend and I would go there to hang out. It wasn’t as musty and dusty as Von’s, but they had a good selection and a staff that seemed to know and love books. Then Borders opened. It was offensive to me. It wasn’t just that Borders was a “big box” chain store. It was that they chose for their location a space in the very same shopping center, just a few doors down from Morgensterns. There was no doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that Borders wanted to put Morgensterns out of business, pure and simple. And they did. I don’t think it was even a year before Morgensterns closed their doors.

So I can’t say I wasn’t the tiniest bit happy when I first started hearing about Borders problems. Karma, man, it’s a bitch. But I guess I thought that like many corporations facing grim realities in a digital age they’d find a way to get by. Downsize, maybe, but come out still chugging along. I had hope when it looked like Books-A-Million might come in and scoop up their remaining stores. The notion that their stores are worth more liquidated rather than open, selling books to the public, really makes my heart ache. No bookseller is worth more closed. None.

In my current hometown, Oak Park, Borders occupies a prominent anchor store position near a busy intersection downtown. We aren’t without other fantastic bookstore options in Oak Park. Down the street from Borders is The Book Table, where the people staffing the store read books and where a book lover always feels welcome. We also have The Magic Tree–which is a favorite of my daughter. I pay more for books at both of those stores than I would on Amazon because I know I’m paying for more than just a book. I’m paying to have them stay in the community, to keep my town the kind of town I want to live in and the kind of town I want my daughter to grow up in. I’m happy to do so and I’m happy to support these local businesses.

Because of that and my feelings about Borders, you might think I’d be happy about their closing. But I’m not. I’m sad. Really sad. I’m sad because of the people Borders closing will put out of work. I’m sad because of empty storefront that will occupy that busy corner in my town. I’m sad because there’s one less outlet for publishers to promote authors to the masses. But most of all, I’m sad because there’s one less bookstore to haunt in my hometown.

About a month ago, I sold my original iPad. I knew I’d want an iPad2, since a forward facing camera was the one feature I *really* wanted on the old iPad. I’ve actually been going through iPad withdrawal since I sold it–I wasn’t able to pick up an iPad on launch day, and my order through the Apple on-line store wasn’t supposed to ship until the end of April.

But I’d read that Apple stores got shipments in daily (although it’s a crapshoot on the models they get) so I decided to give it a shot. I got in line at the Schaumburg store just before 9:00AM, and by 9:30ish I was walking out with my new iPad2! Awesome luck! (Your mileage may vary!)

So yesterday I had a chance to play with it, so here’s my take:

Size
It is, without a doubt, lighter and thinner. It’s more comfortable to hold up for reading and laying with on the couch or in bed. It’s not like the old iPad was a brick, but the new svelte body style is a nice touch.

Speed
It’s faster. No question. The interface actually feels about the same–maybe a little snappier–but apps load much faster. So no complaints. Network performance is fine, seems about the same to me. I have a wi-fi only version so I can’t speak to 3G performance. (I’m not giving telcos any more of my damn money for craptastic service when free wi-fi is never more than spitting distance away in a major city like Chicago. So F* You, AT&T)

Screen
Meet the new screen; Same as the old screen. I *really* wish they’d up the resolution with a retina display, but c’est la vie.

Cameras
Oh yeah, baby. The cameras are pretty nice. Are they going to replace my DSLR? Uh, no. But it’s really nice to have the ability to take snapshots and record video with it. And I loves the facetime. And Skype. I do think Skype needs to bring out an “HD (read: iPad optimized) App” before it will be really cool, but damn, being able to video conference from the couch is exactly what I was looking for. Couldn’t be happier with that.

Smart Cover
Meh. Yeah, the magnet alignment and clip on thing is cool… but I wanted black, and didn’t really want leather. So that kind of sucked. I also hate that the cover offers no protection for the back of the iPad. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. Oooh… it rolls up so you can prop it up! So f’ing what? You know how often I roll it up to prop the iPad up on a table? Yeah, never. I’m always holding it. Yes, it’s cool that it senses when you close the cover (F’ing magents! How do they work?) and puts the iPad to sleep, but overall, this falls solidly into lame territory for me. I’m going to skin the thing anyway for body protection from scratches, etc. And hopefully the 3rd Party cases will have more to offer soon, but I’d say skip the “Smart Cover” unless you really want a fairly expensive screen cover that has some cool magnets.

And there you have it. The iPad2: Slightly Thinner. Slightly Lighter. Slightly Faster. Finally, cameras! And a “meh” cover.

Update: Now that I’ve been using it more, I have to say I actually hate the “Smart Cover”. It’s anything but smart. Yes, it fits the front of the iPad very nicely. And at first glance, it’s cool the way it rolls up. But there are some serious flaws.

First, you know how it lines up perfectly over the screen? Well, with the iPad’s tapered body, that means it does not line up perfectly when you fold it over the back (i.e. when you’re using the iPad). It hangs over just enough to be incredibly annoying.

Second, the magnets on the front and sides line it up great. Too bad there is no magnet on the back, which means when you fold it over, again, to use the iPad, the “smart” cover kind of flops off, constantly getting in the way if you switch hands to hold it.

The “Smart Cover” is a perfect example of style over function. The concept is “wow” and at first look, you think, “gee that is nifty.” Then you start using it and you wonder if the people who designed it ever actually used it themselves, in real world situations, or if they just sat around stroking each other over how cool it looks.

Yeah, it looks cool. But it doesn’t protect a full 50% of the iPad, and it’s annoying as hell in practical, everyday use. Don’t give Apple a dime for the “Smart Cover” and go with a third-party option instead. Trust me.

Last week, I wrote up my experiences on the Boxee Box vs. Roku and I mentioned that one of the frustrating limitations of the Roku was the inability to view local media stored on my NAS (Network Area Storage) box. I also mentioned that it was primarily the lack of live sports events (being married to a Buckeye) that keeps me from giving up Satellite.

Well, a friend suggested that I give PlayOn (www.playon.tv) a try. So I did. The conclusion? PlayOn is not ready for prime time, but there is potential there.

To give you some background, I have a pretty robust network environment at home. My wireless devices are all 802.11N with good performance, and the NAS sits on a 1GB switch. Netflix and Hulu both stream like champs to my Roku.

PlayOn requires a “server” that runs on a PC on your network. Once that is installed, you can connect to it with other devices (iPhone/iPad, Roku, XBox, etc.) and stream a number of different channels. The idea was pretty appealing, because you can stream content from ESPN, ESPNIII, PBS Kids, etc. It’s an interesting selection–and channels that we watch a lot in our house (PBS Kids, especially). There is also a feature that lets you stream your local media files (well, almost).

Installing the PlayOn server on the PC was easy. It was also very easy to get the channel installed on the Roku. Sadly, though, that’s where PlayOn stopped performing.

First up, we tried to watch Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood, on the PBS Kid’s channel. It took forever to start the stream, and then, before the video started, an error popped up that the media file was “unavailable or an unsupported format”. What? An unsupported format? It’s their system. Okay, so we tried another episode. Same thing. Frustrating.

We decided to move on and try another channel. We tried Cartoon Network, and I just tried a cartoon at random. Another annoyance: it started playing an ad, but the buffer ran out before the ad was finished. So, it replayed the ad from the beginning. Three times. This was to be a constant problem. Finally, the program started and it played OK.

The final network TV test was Comedy Central. I queued up an episode of the Colbert Report. After watching the same ad three times in a row, the video started to play. Then, about 1.5 seconds later, the audio started to play. It remained out of sync for several minutes when I just got so annoyed I gave up.

I would be more forgiving of these issues if I thought it were a problem with my setup, but since I regularly use Netflix streaming and Hulu Plus–both of which are awesome, I’m pretty sure all of the issues with streaming were problems with PlayOn. And considering most of the potential users of PlayOn are probably also users of either Netflix or Hulu, I would say PlayOn has a way to go in improving their software if they want people to pay for their service.

Overall, the network programming was a big fail. So I decided to try the local media option. In fairness, PlayOn makes it very clear this feature is in Beta. So I really can’t fault PlayOn that it did not work for me at all. I do have an atypical setup, too, in that I have a NAS box where I store my media, so I’ll cut PlayOn some slack.

In the end, I’m still stoked about the potential for a product like PlayOn, which would let me stream individual network television. We watch very little broadcast television in our house, limited to about five channels with any regularity. If we could subscribe to a service that allowed us access to that content, and found a way around the live sporting events, we’d drop satellite/cable in a heartbeat. So listen up PlayOn: the market is there! PlayOn isn’t priced bad at all: $3.50 per month. If it worked, I’d gladly pay that. However, based on my experience with PlayOn so far, it’s not work any money at all. Yet. If they fix their software issues, or a competitor comes along with software that works well, that could easily change.