All in the Family was quite unique in depicting a real working class home (indeed, unless I'm mistaken the show was criticized by people in Queens for depicting a house that was frupier and more threadbare than the ones in which people were actually living). The Brady Bunch, The Donna Donna Reed Show, Father Knows Best, and Leave It to Beaver—note three decades of sitcoms in that list—and on and on routinely depicted people living affluent, upper middle class lives. That was nice living and not attainable for everyone Remember that Donna Stone's husband was a doctor?

Yes, the 70's gave us a couple of shows like Laverne and Shirley. But then, they were conveniently set in the fab 50's, where everything was wonderful no matter where you were, and a hardware store owner could have a very nice two story house and put kids through college almost effortlessly. Of course, sitcoms with black people where set in the ghetto, for, like, relevance or something. I think the real issue is that you grew up, as I did, in the 70's when a number of big hits took place in atypically realistic settings.

And the criticism of thirtysomething wasn't grounded in their economics. The question wasn't "How can these people with money whine so much?" It was, "How can these adults be so selfish and childish and demanding?" They acted like teens and they were parents. They weren't in any better economic condition than the familes headed by Robert Young or Dick Van Patten.

Maybe the reason people watch the rich incessantly is because they assume they ain't never gonna get it, and taking a peak at things is what they have to live on. Just like people in the Depression couldn't get enough of runaway heiresses and silly rich folks in the screwball comedies of the time.

Does this cause people to groan and desire and toss their meager salaries away to keep up with the imaginary Joneses? Maybe you're going through that. I don't own a flat screen t.v. Truth be told, I don't own a television. I don't own an iPod, and I haven't traded in my CD Walkman for even an MP3 player. It's just cheaper to use what I have. Wouldn't mind having pots of cash, but until I do, I certainly won't spend money that doesn't exist.

What's got you down? Salon force you to take a salary cut or something?

His ability to contribute so hugely to any politician he choose guarantees that. He may not have much sway with the average voter, but who he backs probably has a tremendous influecne on American politics.

And though Oprah doesn't come from privelage and is hardly a member of uppercrust society, she has an enormous influence on both our (don't laugh to hard) culture and probably our politics. My guess is her big-time support for Obama will help him tremendously, not only in terms of her financial contribution, but the contributions her fans will make, and the votes they cast.

I think the old-time categories likely work very well. And anyone who reads Edith Wharton knows there was always a distiction between New Rich and Old Money, cash in the bank and societal standing. That's a pretty old chestnut, really. I suspect she'd take one glance at our world and say "Nothing's changed. The skirts are shorter."

Spears tries to re-make her career, but only by wearing skimpy outfits and flashing people offstage, subjecting herself to the cruelest responses. Baring herself in public, for whatever attention she can get.

Traister watches Spears, reacts just as insensitively and jeeringly as the audience but acknowledges what she does and turns in an article for Salon. Like a criminal who admits to criminal actions without showing any inclination to reform, Traister's "confession," her "candor" is just a con, a dodge. And, like Spears, she's throwing out half-concieved performances for a profit. Baring herself in print.

Both seem covered in armor at the moment they are presumably exposing themselves, so you know they aren't really selling themselves no matter how low they sink.

Spears in performance, Traister in print. Show me the difference.

Hey girls! You can be the woman who strips for profit, or the woman who denounces her for profit. Those seem to be your options. And that's the real tragedy facing young girls today. Which do you want to peddle for a profit, miss?

Of course Disney doesn't care. Did it care with Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears? This isn't Walt's company. You can be sure he wouldn't stand for it.

We're not more mature, we're more debased. I don't have any problem with "adult" behavior. I defended bathroom sex in the letters columns related to Larry Craig. But Disney is supposed to be a family company, and most of its product is geared towards kids. These recurring situations with the child performers it promotes indicate 1) the company treats the kids it employs about as well as the producers did on Diff'rent Strokes, and 2) the company has no concern over who makes a good role model for the kids in the audience.

Oddly, the company is extremely strict about its employees (always called "performers") in its stores and theme parks. There are very strict guidelines about dos and don'ts. You are "onstage" and you must make a specific impression. But apparantly, all that goes out the window once you get famous. Fame rejects the shame. Nice.

And please don't use the lame "if you want role models, why are you looking at celebrities" response. Makes sense for teens and adults. For kids, everyone they encounter is a potential role model.

Disney seems to have decided that since the celebrity kids have become savvy Lolitas, they ought to be up front about it, so the kids in the audience can learn to follow suit.