Attention, Some Of You Walmart Shoppers

Unclench your underwear, America. The case of the weird, racial, overhead announcement at the Walmart in New Jersey has been solved. Now, in case you didn't follow the story last week, here's the scoop:

A bunch of people were shopping at a Walmart in New Jersey. (Yes, pretty much a dream come true, hanging out at the New Jersey Walmart. May I continue?) At some point, someone gets on the intercom and says, "Attention, Walmart customers. All black people, leave the store now." Ooh. Awkward.

As you can imagine, the silence in the store likely made it the most quiet that the store had ever been. As you can also imagine, black patrons shopping at the store were far from amused. Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty sure that the white folks weren't all that amused either. But the black folks were justifiably a little irritated by the whole thing. Really? Irritated. In what way?

According to an article over at Yahoo! Finance (why it's in the Finance section is a little unclear to me, but the article seems accurate, so I'm going with it), immediately after this odd announcement was made "...a manager quickly got on the public-address system and apologized for the remark." None the less, a rather angry mob (sans pitchforks and torches, as they were all being used for health care protests) gathered and was essentially saying things to the effect of "We need to know if this is the sort of thing that Walmart tolerates." Now, even though I know how this story ends, even if I didn't know, I'd go on ahead and guess that it is not the sort of thing that's tolerated. Call it a hunch. Call it my ability to put my finger right on the pulse of corporate America. Call it what you will. But I'd go ahead and guess that it's not OK with them.

And it wasn't. See, at this particular Walmart, all of the intercom commands were on a list right there next to the intercom. And apparently, the intercom was in an area where it is able to be accessed by not only employees, but rogue patrons with odd senses of humor as well. All someone would have to do would be to walk up to it, punch in the appropriate keys (say star-one-star) and then announce to the entire store "Attention, Walmart shoppers. Human kidneys are now on sale for half off in Sporting Goods." Never mind why a kidney is considered a sporting good in this scenario. The point is that it could happen just like that. And that is pretty much where my sympathy or whatever it is for this story ends because after this point, things just get a little too histrionic for me.

See, a 16-year old (who is pretty clearly an a-hole) was later arrested for doing this. He was charged with was charged with harassment and bias intimidation. The New York Daily News reported that "Authorities said it was unclear if the announcement was ad-libbed or premeditated and said they were investigating a second youth who accompanied the arrested teen to the store." Wait. What now?

They're unclear as to whether he thought of it right then or if he had planned this out? Is this a death penalty case? Why in the world would that make a difference? ("So...did you plan ahead of time to be this much of a jackass, or did it just hid you all of a sudden as you were looking at that Ninetendo Wii?") And what are they going to investigate the second youth for? He didn't do anything (from what I can tell). Can they charge him with "Being in the company of an a-hole"? "Accompanying an a-hole to a retail establishment?" I don't think that they can. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't. Investigate away. Let me know how that turns out. Or don't.

Then I read that Yahoo! News reported that "Officials say several people have come forward and expressed interest in getting counseling." Translation: Several people are thinking about suing because they want the money, not because they needed counseling over a rogue statement made over a Walmart PA system by an errant 16-year old. Who are you people that you would need counseling after hearing that? If you need actual counseling by an actual counselor, I'm going to suggest that the next time you're in Walmart (if you can get over your obvious PTSD) that you buy yourself some sort of a helmet or headgear to protect that soft, soft dome of yours. Good Lord....

Seriously, some of you folks need to get over yourselves. Folks, for example, like a one Sheila Ellington, a storegoer at the time of the incident. She said, "I want to know why such statements are being made, because it flies in the face of what we teach our children about tolerance for all...If this was meant to be a prank, there's only one person laughing, and it's not either one of us." I don't know what she means by she wants to know why those statements are being made. It's as if she thinks that they were sanctioned by Walmart. And again, I'm going to have to say that I'm pretty sure that they weren't. Pretty sure. (What size is her head?)

Really, I understand why this sort of a thing would be upsetting to black folks who were shopping at the time. It's upsetting to white folks who were shopping at the time. It's upsetting to black and white folks who were not shopping at the time. But to be saying that you need counseling is ridiculous and to be asking questions like, "We need to know if this is the sort of thing that Walmart tolerates" is about one of the most ridiculous questions that you could possibly ask in this sort of situation. First of all, what do you think they're going to say? "Oh, sure. We tolerate this. No problem. Stop by next week on Nazi Tuesday for the full extent of what we'll tolerate." I don't think that's going to happen.

Seriously. According to the article, "Officials for Wal-Mart Stores Inc said the announcement was 'unacceptable'." Really? Oh! So, it's NOT acceptable to get on a PA system and tell all black people to leave the store? Look, if you're the sort of person who needs Walmart to SAY that it's unacceptable, now you know! They've said it's unacceptable. Are you happy now? Again, what else would they say?

My point here is that some things that happen are just that. They're things that happen. They don't have to have a deeper meaning other than someone is an a-hole. Actually, a lot of the time, that's the most obvious meaning of a lot of things. But you know what it was about this whole incident that I think surprised me the most? Have you ever been in a Walmart or any large store when there's an announcement made over the PA system? You can't understand a word that they're saying most of the time! It sounds like someone with marbles in their mouth is gasping for air. That anyone could understand the little jerk at all might really be the story here.

Sphere: Related Content

Miracles Without Helmets

I'm feeling somewhat vindicated. Granted, it's at the extreme misfortune of others, but the misfortunes could have been worse, so technically it's not that bad. And since it sort of aids in my self perceived vindication, there's definitely some good that has come out of all of it. What am I rambling about? My dislike of the helmeted child.

Look, I'm all for preventing head injuries. That's a good thing. You need a fully working melon in order to make things a little bit easier. But somewhere along the line, it was decided that children riding bikes (or doing any physical activity, really) needed helmets. I, on the other hand, thought the people that wanted a world in which all children were helmeted were the ones who needed the helmets. If for no other reason than to just let others know what a softhead they were.

Children will fall off their bikes. They will fall when rollerblading. They will fall when skateboarding. They will fall when going down the stairs. They will fall after being pushed down the stairs. That's because they're kids. Kids fall. So do adults, but not as much as kids (so I've heard). And kids have been falling for many, many years and civilization still manages to move forward. I didn't wear a helmet when I rode my bike when I was a kid and I turned out all right. Not great, but I'm functional!

See, it starts with the helmet. Then it progresses to the helmet and the knee pads. After that, you have to wait for the kid to put on the helmet, the knee pads, the shin guards, the elbow pads, the wrist pads, the wrist guards. When the kid is around 5 or 6, with all of that protective gear on, they look somewhat like a mutant ninja turtle. On a bike. And now I have anecdotal evidence to back up my cynical theory that the helmet is unnecessary and needs to go the way of the...um....the...other protective gear that was overprotective. Yeah, that's it!

For instance, let's take a one Barry Hart of Te Horo (that's on the Kapiti Coast of New Zealand's North Island). According to the NZ Herald, Barry was using an angle grinder when a slight mishap occurred. Said mishap resulted in the 22cm blade wedging itself in his forehead after it "cut his face from above his top lip and slashed through his nose and an eye." Sweet mother of God.

If you're not familiar with an angle grinder, it's like a small, handheld power saw. It usually has a steel blade with some sort of diamond powder encrusted on the blades so that it can cut things like tile and stone. Angle grinders can go through stone like butt-ah. Thus, imagine what it's going to do to your head....especially if you weren't wearing the all mighty helmet!

Think again! According to the rescue helicopter pilot, a one Waine Dick , Barry "was in extreme pain and a lot of shock, but was more concerned about his wife Gyllian." Um, what? What was that? "He was coherent and able to make sure his wife was all right, which was very touching. He was in an extremely bad way but asked her not to look." Yeah, you wouldn't have had to "ask" me not to look. Believe me, I would not be looking at my husband with an angle grinder blade lodged in his head. No, I would absolutely NOT be looking at him and instead would be concentrating on how to contain any and all bodily functions that would be wanting to fail me at just such a moment.

They fly him to the hospital with the blade still in his head! They did a little surgery at the hospital and he's in "serious, but stable condition." (Oh, you think?!?) He is expected to recover. Holy crap, how is that possible without a helmet?!

Meanwhile, over in Mississippi in dem dar United States, a one 47-year old Tammy Sexton was shot in the head by her husband. According to The Telegraph, the "bullet from a .38-calibre handgun struck her squarely in the forehead, passed through her skull and exited through the back of her head. " She is expected to make a full recovery. Wait! WHAT?!

Full recovery? People don't make "full recoveries" from being shot in the dome. No, people die from being shot in the dome. Dying is quite the opposite of full recovery. Dying is also quite the opposite of offering to make some tea for the police officers who responded to the shooting. Making tea? She's been shot in the head and she's making tea?!

Yep. Making tea. Tea is very popular in the south. They love it. They drink it all the time. With meals. At sporting events. And even after getting shot in the head, southerners will reach for a glass of tea. (Lipton or Nestea really need to hurry up and jump on this one. It's an advertising gold mine! "After being shot in the head, I like to reach for a glass of my favorite tea!") According to one Sheriff Mike Byrd: "When the officer got there, she was holding a rag on her head and talking. She asked the officer what was going on. She was conscious, but she was confused about what had happened." Yeah, I'd be a little confused as well. In fact, I am confused and I wasn't the one being shot in the head. How does that work?

Well, according to a one Dr Patrick Pritchard, "There is a space in the brain where a missile could pass without doing any major damage." Huh. Good to know. You know what else is good to know? That you don't always need a helmet!

See? Two extreme cases of helmetless-ness and those folks are just fine. Both very polite, both concerned about others in the midst of their injury, both expected to make a full recovery and all of that without a helmet. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be careful and take appropriate precautions with things, I'm just saying that the human body is pretty amazing and can take care of itself a lot better than people give it credit for. And it's not that children shouldn't be wearing protective headgear if they're engaged in an activity that has a high probability of cracking open their noggin. Just spare the non-helmeted child and their parents from the ostracizing looks and comments is all I'm saying. And that sentiment I say to all of the softheads out there as well. Take off your helmet and live a little. You'd be amazed at how much quicker you react when you have to protect yourself from whatever comes your way instead of relying on the over-rated helmet.

Sphere: Related Content

Food or Plastic? Hard to Tell.

Congratulations, Europe! You're still leading the world (surprisingly enough) in the overprotective actions that only encourage coddling children so that they will inevitably grow up to be "adults" who cannot make a decision on their own and have no idea what mistakes or pain involve. Please form a single file line to receive a helmet to put over your buttery soft cranium for your own protection.

What the hell, people? Over yonder in Germany, the lawmakers there are considering a ban on something called a Kinder surprise egg. First of all, I'm not overly thrilled about any food that has the word "surprise" in it. I prefer my food to be surprise-free. It works out better that way for me. A surprise egg, from what I can tell, is a chocolate egg that is hollow and has a little plastic toy in the middle. You eat the chocolate, you play with the toy, what's not to love? Well, according to a parliamentary health commission, plenty. They say that "it is dangerous to combine food and toys in one product." And I think it's dangerous to combine idiots with legislative matters, but I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I just don't see how it's "dangerous". After all, Cracker Jack has been going with the food-toy combo strategy for at least one hundred years and it seems to be working out pretty well for them. Then I read why the softheaded commission thinks that these tasty treats are "dangerous". And that's when I twisted off. According to commission member Miriam Grub, "Children cannot tell the difference between a toy and food." Um, wait. What?

Correct. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, "children cannot tell the difference between a toy and food." Well, she is on a commission (which usually means a person is more stupid than an average idiot), so perhaps we should take a good look at her concern. Let's do that! Seriously, folks, let's examine this woman's concern before permanently affixing a helmet to her overly ripe melon in order to protect her from herself. Here is a Kinder Surprise Egg before it is unwrapped by a stupid, stupid child who does not know the difference between a toy and food.

Looks tasty and fun, doesn't it? Now, who knows if the little imbecile is going to be able to figure out NOT to eat the foil! (You know, I had a dog that ate a whole basket of those little foil wrapped eggs at Easter time once. But the key to that story is that she was a DOG! She was also crapping little multi-colored tin things for weeks.) They probably shouldn't come wrapped in anything AT ALL! You know, "just in case". But I digress. So, that's the Kinder Surprise Egg before it's unwrapped. Now, here is the Kinder Surprise Egg, unwrapped and cut in half with the toy inside. I'm going to make the picture really big so you can try to tell the difference between the "toy" and the "food". It's very subtle and you, like the idiot children running amok around Germany, might not be able to differentiate between the two and just gulp the whole damn thing down at one time because you just couldn't figure it out. I'm just trying to give you a head start here. Ready? Behold!

So you can see why she's concerned, right? NO!! Of course not! Are you freaking kidding me?!?!

This woman is worried that children can't tell the difference IN THAT PICTURE between which is the TOY and which is the FOOD?? Since WHEN?! Oh, wait. That's right. Since NEVER! And this woman knows that, as she followed up that moronic statement with, "We just want to prevent a worst-case scenario wherein a child could choke on a toy out of a combination product like this one." I see. So because something MIGHT happen, let's just make sure that it never does and BAN whatever it is that has a scintilla of potential to be dangerous? That seems rather extreme. How about this instead? How about you just teach your child the difference between food and toys and call it a day? OR better yet, assume that if your child does bite down on the hard, yellow, encapsulated toy, that he or she will think, "Why, hey....this doesn't taste like chocolate. I think it might not be food after all! I do not think I will continue trying to eat this. Oooh! But it does appear to open up into a little toy that looks like loads of fun! I shall play with it instead and eat the yummy chocolate shell that it came in."

I'd assume that the commission might think about that novel idea (you know, the one about actually teaching your child something or allowing some Darwinian principles to do their thing, instead of just removing the scenario in which danger may rear it's ugly head) but they're pretty busy these days. See, they're also looking into at mandating that children wear bicycle helmets (ironic, considering the commission members themselves are the ones that need helmets.) and, brace yourself, making schoolbooks lighter so children don't injure themselves or tire themselves out carrying them around all day. Oh. My. God.

The helmet thing? Look, I've almost given up on that one. I think it's ridiculous and overprotective. If you want to wear a helmet, fine. But don't treat those who don't like they're spawns of Satan who have taken up Nazism. (Or at least stop treating me like that. Did you wear a bike helmet around the neighborhood when you rode your bike as a kid? Of course you didn't. And you turned out OK. Not great, but OK.)But the book thing? Are you freaking kidding me? First of all, how many books are these German kids carrying around all the live long day? I mean, I know it's Germany and all, but I'm kind of under the impression that the "bad Germany" days are far behind them. Injure themselves? Are these kids so stupid that they don't know how to carry a book? How do you injure yourself carrying a book? And where exactly are they going all day long that they're carrying these books around to? And if your kids are tiring themselves out by carrying their freaking school books, your precious little snowflake needs a little bit more exercise. Or, at the very least, another introduction into the real world. What are they thinking?

You can't stop fate, people! Accidents will happen! I don't care how hard you try, you cannot and you will not EVER be able to prevent EVERY single accident that COULD happen from happening; nor should you! That's why they're called "accidents" because they're not intentional! It's right there in the name: accidents!

Listen, you know how many times your kid is going to try to eat the toy inside of the chocolate egg? (OK, if you guessed 'zero' because your child isn't a freaking moron, that counts as being correct.) At the most? ONCE. Then it's over and they move on. They will stop trying to eat the little plastic toys once they realize that they're more fun to play with and that the chocolate tastes better. And do you also know how many times your child is going to injure himself with a schoolbook? (If you guessed 'zero' because your child is the same child who didn't eat the plastic toy, that again will be counted as correct.) At the most? ONCE. Pain is a VERY good teacher. Very effective. Deterrents? Nearly as good as rewards. Sometimes better. I swear.

Knock it off, Germany. Stop sending the message to children that they're too stupid to know the difference between delicious chocolate and plastic toys. More importantly, stop sending the message to parents/adults that they should try to foresee everything that could potentially go wrong with every situation and then alter or remove that situation so the potential to have any discomfort or inconvenience inflicted upon your child is gone. Because if you don't, you're going to end up with a whole bunch of kids who grow up to be a bunch of adults who think that they are too stupid to know the difference between delicious chocolate and plastic toys. And if they think they're too stupid to know that, do you think that there's anything out there that they're NOT going to feel too stupid to deal with? Probably not. And you're also going to end up with a bunch of parents/adults who spend all of their time running around and sterilizing the world we live in until they feel as if they have sufficiently controlled the universe so that there is nothing left to think about because they've gotten rid of it all. So just knock it off.

Again, single file for the helmets. Wear it all the time, especially if you're on a German commission. Even when you sleep. It's for your own protection because you clearly don't know the difference between "caution" and "coddling."

Sphere: Related Content

Once Upon A Warning Label

I suppose I can cross Australia off my list of places I can seek refuge if the situation in the US gets any nuttier. Yeah, I won't be heading there anytime soon. I thought that there were too many people in this country who needed to be wearing a helmet at all times (even when they sleep. Yes, that is correct.), but Australia seems to be indicating that they are in dire need of a helmet shipment. That's because teachers in Australia are (and I'll quote from the fine folks down under at news.com.au) " being urged to give children safety messages after reading them fairy tales warning not to copy characters such as Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks and Hansel and Gretel."

Oh, f-ing hell. WHAT?

Apparently, this is part of a "new child protection curriculum" (also known, by me, as "Foolproof Ways To Make Children Neurotic") which the Education Department is implementing in the schools and which has been backed by "child development experts". These "experts" also seem to think that the "curriculum" should require the teachers "to refer to children's "sexual parts" and use their correct anatomical names with children as young as three." Um, I'm sorry, I must have missed the part about WHY on earth a teacher would need to be speaking to a child AT ALL, really, about their "sexual parts"? (And just for those that are at or above the mature age of three. Anything younger than three and it's still "Mister Willy".)

The goal of this asinine implementation is to "teach the children early warning signs of being unsafe and recognizing abuse." And while that may seem like a fine idea and a noble gesture (even though it doesn't and it isn't), I have an easier way to accomplish that. It's called "Being A Kid". When you climb on top of the house and look over the edge as you contemplate how you want to jump off the roof and onto the trampoline two stories below, that is when you will learn about "being unsafe". When the other kids beat you up for being such a wuss, that's when you will "recognize abuse". Happens every day, everywhere. Guaranteed. No program necessary. Unless you're in freaking Australia, for cryin' out loud!

The teachers have been trained to beware of stories and books where there are children putting themselves in dangerous situations. Like that clueless Little Red Riding Hood chick who was just traipsing about the forest and talking to the Big Bad Wolf (whom she did not know, thus making him "a stranger"). Or those little troublemakers Hansel and Gretel. The nerve of them, walking into houses when they don't know who lives there and haven't been invited in. Tragedy in the making. Read that to a group of kids and you'll find your town swamped with home invasions as soon as school lets out for the day, right? (Um, no.)

The Education Department consulted with the Emeritus Professor of Child Development at UniSA, Professor Freda Briggs, and she supported the measures, and called for them to be implemented nationwide! How exciting! According to the Professor (who I'm going to call Fred, mainly because if she were ever to read something where she was referred to as "Fred", I think it would highly irritate her), "This is about appropriately empowering the child." Well, it's clearly not, but if it were, I'd say you were doing it wrong. (By the way, that's her over there on the right. About what you expected, isn't she?)

As far as using the correct anatomical names with three year olds, Fred says, "Kids are talking about sex at age five now. It's so in-your-face, I'm afraid that innocence is gone. They are sexualised younger and younger." (Of course, my solution to that is "make them stop". Who are the adults here? No, seriously. I'm getting confused.) Fred continues along those same lines with, "We need to use correct body terms because by giving children silly names or names that only the family understands, you're telling your child that you can't cope with talking about it. How does a child get help if nobody understands?" Come on! Is that really a problem? There have got to be at least a couple of hundred different terms for "penis". At least. And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that most of us have heard most of them and the ones that we haven't heard of, I'll bet we could figure it out pretty quickly. And even if we couldn't, there's always the universal language of pointing. Rarely does it ever fail, especially when referring to one's own penis.

This is asinine. These are little kids. Can't they just hear a story for fun just because it's a story? Me, personally, I'd rather hear a story than, say, the news. Hands down, I'll take the story every time. And that's because stories are fun. And little kids really like things that are fun. (And fun things, when you're three, do not involve the word "penis", nor the actual item, "the penis".) But now the Aussies are in for Mother Goose with warning labels and Aesop with a penis. Grand.

From coast to coast in Australia, children as young as three will be able to hear the words "penis" AND "vagina" while they're in school learning that if you're walking along through the forest, even if you see a cottage with three steaming bowls of porridge inside, don't go inside! Oh, I'm sure the Australians feel safer already!

Sphere: Related Content

The Globalization of the Overprotective and Soft Headed

Time to ready a big shipment of helmets to send over to all of the soft headed Brits across the pond. Unfortunately, most of the people who need them would mistakenly assume that the helmet is for their precious little dandelion child to protect them from experiencing any sort of discomfort or distress what so ever. Of course that wouldn't actually happen, as there is no way that the helmet would fit over all of the swaddling clothes that they have enveloped their children in.

According to a poll done by Cycling England, 1,079 parents were surveyed about cycling. Of those surveyed, an astonishing 81% (yes, EIGHTY ONE) of parents BAN their children from biking independently because of their concerns about their child's safety. WTF? Now, I could see where ONE or TWO people might have reservations about letting their child engage in an activity where the parent had experienced some sort of trauma or knew someone who had been involved in a less than pleasant incident involving such an activity. I mean, if you're skydiving and your chute doesn't open and you miraculously survive for the sake of this argument that I'm writing at the moment, you're going to be a bit leery about your child skydiving. But of those 81% fearing for their precious little snowflakes safety, only THREE percent of them had actually known someone who had been in an accident involving a bicycle.

Then it has to be something else, right? Maybe they had HEARD about a rash of bike fatalities somewhere else? Maybe there was a bike recall? No? Nothing like that? It wouldn't appear so, as in 2006 there were ten times more accidents involving cars than there were accidents involving bicycles. (But I'll bet that those 81% strap their children into their cars as if they were a Top Gun pilot readying for flight in his F-14.

Philip Darnton of Cycling England says that this kind of behavior is creating what he calls "cul-de-sac kids", kids that are not allowed to ride their bikes outside of their own road/neighborhood and without adult supervision. I guess that "cul-de-sac kids" sounds a lot better than "offspring of nutjobs", but it's definitely a depressing moniker if there ever was one.

Most of the parents surveyed said "cycle training" would help reassure them in regard to their child riding a bike without adult supervision. (What in the hell good is adult supervision going to do when you are riding your bike? If you are going to fall or crash, there isn't a whole hell of a lot anyone can do about it. If there was, it would be the person on the bike avoiding the "tragedy", don't you think?) About two thirds of those in the survey with melted ice-cream soft craniums felt that their child did not have the confidence and skills to ride on the road. Well how in the hell COULD they have confidence when you're so afraid they're going to end up in a body bag that you don't even let them ride their bike when you're not around? I'd be a little lacking in the confidence department also!

The survey also showed that only one in five of these deprived children are allowed to use their bicycle as a way of getting from one place to another. That is unbelievable to me. My parents had ZERO desire to shuttle me around ANYWHERE. That's why they always made sure that my brother and I always had a bike. ALWAYS. But although these parents who were surveyd don't let their kids be kids, more than half said the same thing I just did, that when they were a kid their way of getting around was on their bike. So they must just assume that it is nothing short of a miracle that they were able to survive such danger and they must ensure that they do not expose their little rays of sunshine to the same sort of peril that they experienced.

The reason this frightens me is I have to wonder about the scope of which this kind of thinking and behavior extends and expands. If the parents are not letting their kids ride their bikes past the end of the driveway and even then, only with adult supervision, how restricted are the rest of their lives? No playing ball? No running? No swimming? No walking over to a friend's house by yourself? No kite flying? (Hey, string can choke! It's the hidden hazard of kiting!) How are these kids going to have ANY confidence that they can do ANYTHING at all? How are these kids going to be able to try anything new without worrying that it might "be dangerous". Hell, at least half of the things that you do as a kid are dangerous! That's why you do them! And they're the best! Think about your best memories as a kid. I can guarantee you the majority of them had some element of danger involved. Mine did. (And it's really a wonder I'm here typing this, actually, given some of the stunts I pulled).

See the picture above with the guy helping a child ride a bike with the assistance of what appears to be a giant salad fork? On the website where they are actually hawking that product, they had some guidelines for helping your child to ride a bike. Yes, guidelines. Many, many overprotective guidelines. Here's what they suggest:

• When first starting, a helmet, knee and elbow pads, as well as gloves are a good idea. (Gloves?! GLOVES are a good idea?! No they're not! They don't need gloves! How is this kid even going to be able to pedal the bike with all of that stuff on?!)
  
  
• Be sure they wear clothing that is protective and not so loose that it will get caught up in the bike. (Protective clothing? Not loose? OK, so now you've got your kid in his suit of armor, what's next?)
  
  
• Blue jeans and sweatshirt are recommended. (Don't believe that. Go with the suit of armor.)
  
  
• Find a safe place to start the instruction. A hard packed grass field is ideal, but asphalt tennis or basketball courts will work as well. Cul-de-sac streets can be an answer also, you are looking for no traffic areas. (Yes, you are not looking to teach your child to ride his or her bike on the Interstate. And I'm sure that whoever owns the "hard packed grass field" will have no problems at all with your teaching "Bike Riding That You Will Never Do Alone 101" on their field. Yeah, that should work.)
  
  See this? A nice day. A pink bike. No helmet. No one hovering over the child. And an enormous grin. That is a happy child. And that is NORMAL. Does the child look like she's been traumatized in some fashion from having this experience? Hardly. She should turn out just fine. But those who aren't allowed this normal rite of childhood could easily end up like Dahmer.

Sphere: Related Content