It's standard operating procedure for American teachers to

shame and psychologically damage their charges. Not only do they humiliate kids in the classroom, not only do some of them sexually and physically humiliate students with tacit administration approval (come to Florida if you disbelieve me) but they allow other students to blithely beat the powerless and weak into bloody piles and call it "youthful enthusiasm."

Well, the prosecutors enjoy doing the same thing, and enjoy much greater power and even less supervision than teachers receive. Why do you think so many people are subjected to long prison terms for smoking a joint? The prosecutors get to be bullies, and they license their undereducated, Neanderthal prison guards to bully the pathetic little toker. (Not to mention causing trouble for the family of the toker as well, often making kids orphans, and making huge profits for the increasingly privatized prison program.)

So why shouldn't prosecutors be allowed to distort and wreck the lives of children, the same way teachers do? And they can do so much more damage. The members of the American Federation of Teachers must be drooling in envy.

"It's a cookbook!" was the punch line to that episode.

Serling always was a guy with a moral. Even if his morals were sometimes very Old Testament (an unforgiving, cruel God who tortured and destroyed people, even when they wanted to make amends or didn't seem all that evil).

Even before he died, he saw his formula being misused. The people who produce many shows that claim to be descendants of the original Zone only produce exercises in sadism. Torture people to death or worse, leave a hopeless conclusion; the only lessons these shows teach is not to trust anyone, to see the entire world as your enemy.

Well, that helped build an audience psychologically ready to torture enemy combatants and let people drown in New Orleans. The power-mongering minds behind The New Twilight Zone and The New Outer Limits aren't that different from Dick Cheney and the great minds of AIG.

For all the adoration someone like Britney Spears may have accumulated (I think it's mostly tabloids and crap shows like The Insider who love her) there are lots who hate her. Norman Osborne could tell her, as he told Spider-Man, "...the one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying. In spite of everything you've done for them, eventually they will hate you."

I have only seen Spears twice. Once, when she was rehearsing a show at Nickelodeon Studios (for their kid award show!) where her newly siliconed breasts were moving about half a second after the rest of her body. Apparently she was there to teach anatomical differences between the sexes. And on Good Morning America, where she was trying to publicize her new album with a tarted-up "circus" performance. In neither case did she look or behave rational or human.

Imagine you're an acting coach, and you had the job of getting her ready to read some funny lines on a sitcom like According to Jim. Would you have the patience to dig some humanity out of all those layers of silicone and pretension? Would she even do a guest role on a sitcom unless everyone involved bent over to kiss her stilettos?

Some kid stars don't deserve to grow up and have post-youth careers. Cruel but true.

I grew up in the 60's, and it was a joy seeing the squeaky-clean and plastic teen idols of my generation crashing and burning. I remember when Bobby Goldsboro went from huge-selling albums to cheap plastic records given away free inside boxes of Post cereals. I saw Frankie Avalon in his struggle to become a movie star, trying to graduate from Beach Party into adult stardom in Fireball 500 and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. And later, David Cassidy's launch and crash-landing in The Partrige Family.

The question is not whether or not these people have talent, but whether their talent is anything beyond the surface. Some of the people mentioned in this article aren't yet secure. Miley Cyrus, the only money-maker for Disney in this depression, hasn't made it into maturity by seminude photos or by singing outside her Hannah Montana persona. She'll have to risk herself in an ensemble sitcom where she isn't a protected, hothouse-type star. And Zac Efron made it on natural gifts, not on anything he deliberately learned. He will have to learn fast, and there aren't a lot of mentors or gurus in Hollywood.

In generations past, there was an institution where young stars could experience other varieties of performing and learn from older stars without too much trouble. It was the radio or television variety show. Recently I saw the Smothers Brothers in an old Jack Benny sitcom episode, and I have no doubt they learned a lot about comedic acting from the experience. A plain crooner like Steve Lawrence learned how to play a supporting role in sketches on Steve Allen's shows. But now, a young star seeking to broaden her horizons must do catch-as-catch-can performances, wherever she can convince someone to cast her, and without support of more mature performers. It's a far colder, more perilous world in show business in this new century.