“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

- George Orwell

Driving home this evening I tuned in to Dan Barreiro's show on KFAN. The FAN is a sports station, but Barreiro's show is more general interest with a regular dose of politics. The political discussions usually aren't the tedious regurgitations of talking points because Dan, while reflexively liberal, also has a fine sense for where some of those sacred cows get turned into hamburger in the real world. The fact that he regularly gets blasted by liberal and conservative e-mailers for being too much of the other suggests a certain tolerable and precarious balance (though I usually tune to another station whenever Pat Kessler joins the show).

I don't know what they were talking about exactly before I got in the car tonight, but it had something to do with the media. Jim Walsh, an editor and Dan's former colleague at the Strib called in to bemoan how everybody today just likes to get their news from people who think the same as they do and no one appreciates truly unbiased reporting such as the Strib provides. (See - the Barriero show can be funny, too!). Actually, I think Walsh makes the mistake of believing most people really think like he thinks — an assumption fostered by the fact that for a number of years people didn't have any choice. Maybe "most", as in a majority, do think like he does, but there are plenty who don't and they have many viable alternatives. This goes a long way in explaining the decline in circulation and credibility of many mainstream newspapers.

I grant that most news reporters don't consciously set out to write a news story in a particular way (and many stories can and should be reported without a slant), but he also needs to acknowledge that an institutional bias creeps in in terms of what stories get reported and where they are displayed. To read the editorial pages (where opinion is the point) of the Strib over the years is to know exactly where the editorial board falls on the political spectrum; it is disingenuous on his part to think that those attitudes won't seep in to some extent on how the news is presented and the headlines presented.

I find it ironic that the mainstream media that once pandered to (if it wasn't outright leading) the "question authority-don't trust anyone over 30, especially the government" zeitgeist one generation ago now finds it's own credibility being questioned. I will agree with Walsh, however, that the discourse has become harsher now that there are opposing viewpoints. That's not necessarily a bad thing, even if it does become wearisome at times. The reaction, however, is at least as ill-considered as some of the rants from either side: political correctness and the concept that certain constituencies must not be offended has created "no-go" zones not unlike those in Britain where non-Muslims dare not venture. There are some discussions or issues that just can't be talked about safely, usually dealing with race or religion (or both).

The boundaries here are "defended" by the mutually assured destruction mentality of a previous Cold War where the ranks of the professionally offended stand ready to rain down fire at the lightest touch on the tripwire.

For example, another topic on the Barriero show this evening was the foofaraw (I prefer this to the over-used kerfuffle) over Kelly Tilghman's "lynching" remark about Tiger Woods. The latest twist on the story (aside from Tilghman's twisting in the wind) is Jim Brown being angry that Tiger Woods isn't angry. It's almost as if anything less than loosing Die Walküre at the slightest mis-step will somehow signal a weakening of our country's resolve to confront the injustices of racism.

To my thinking, Woods' response does just the opposite — it suggests that maybe our society has matured to the point that it can tell what a real offense is and can deal with inadvertent or ill-advised slips with calm and toleration. To me (admittedly unburdened by generations of persecution), Tilghman's comments to the effect that the only chance the younger players on the PGA Tour had to deal with Tiger's dominance was to "lynch him in a back alley," were a crude (in more ways than one) attempt at humor but without a racist intent. It was along the lines of her saying, perhaps, that they break his kneecaps, or perhaps have him fitted for concrete golf shoes. Perhaps knee-cappers and gangsters would have been offended by the reference but it wouldn't have resulted in Tilghman being suspended. I think Woods' mellow forgiveness of the clumsy remark shows not a lack of identification with the awful history endured by blacks but a self-possession and awareness that says, "I know what racism looks like, and believe me, that isn't it."

Should anyone ever (and most inadvisedly) express a hateful and ignorant attitude toward Woods' race or family I have no doubt that his response would be direct and withering — with no consideration of (and even less affect) on his shoe sales. Perceived slights are like Gatorade to him (just ask Rory Sabbatini or Stephen Ames); Lord knows what Tiger would do if someone really made him angry.

There's a tremendous, insightful and thought-provoking post over at Breath of the Beast. No excerpt here can quite do it justice, but I encourage you to take the time to walk along with the author as he tries to understand the cultural death-wish of moral relativism and the motivations of those who would defend or make excuses for a regime that would tear them to shreds if they were ever to personally fall into its clutches. It's not a rant but a thoughtful examination of how intelligent minds can become so deceived.

It's a profound essay, and I get a strong sense that it isn't the only one of its kind to be found on Breath of the Beast.

HT: Techno-Chitlins

Via Kathy and Mitch and a couple of other places, here's the "Privilege Meme" that's going around, I suppose to help one comprehend how privileged you are. The idea is to bold face the statements below that apply to you. I'll do that, then I have some thoughts on the nature and definition of privilege at the end.

First of all, however, the original source of this meme is an exercise developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University. The developers ask that if you participate in this blog game, you acknowledge their copyright. So acknowledged.

Father went to college

Father finished college

Mother went to college

Mother finished college
Not only that, but she eventually went on to get a Ph.D in Elementary Education and Administration.

Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
Ummm, no, but my little sister is a veterinarian, the second Dr. in the family.

Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers

Had more than 50 books in your childhood home
Do comic books count?

Had more than 500 books in your childhood home

Were read children's books by a parent
Loved that Dr. Seuss Sleep Book.

Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
You mean, other than "if you don't stop making that face it will freeze like that"?

Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18

The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
Hmmm. Is Ned Flanders a positive portrayal?

(Click here to continue reading the meme.)

Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18

Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs
I had some student loans, but there are a lot more costs to college than tuition.

Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs

Went to a private high school

Went to summer camp

Had a private tutor before you turned 18
Only to get through eighth grade algebra, though.

Family vacations involved staying at hotels
If we didn't have any cousins nearby.

Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18

Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
Well, I worked for my dad for $1 (later $1.25) an hour from the time I was 12 until I was 16 (actually beyond) with the understanding that he would buy me a car when I was 16. Somehow or another I was under the impression that meant new car. Should have read the fine print.

There was original art in your house when you were a child
If you count the stuff we put on the refrigerator, that is.

Had a phone in your room before you turned 18

You and your family lived in a single family house

Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home

You had your own room as a child
From the time I was 12, though it looked like maybe three people shared it.

Participated in an SAT/ACT prep course
Nope, but took them anyway and must have done alright. I also took the CLEP tests before my freshman year — and tested out of 30 hours of credits, essentially entering college as a sophomore.

Had your own TV in your room in High School

Owned a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College

Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16

Went on a cruise with your family

Went on more than one cruise with your family

Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
I can't remember any. There were school field trips, though.

You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
Well, I didn't know the exact dollar amount, but I know my dad kept asking me if I thought he was supposed to heat the whole county.

(hide)

In the words of Napoleon Dynamite, "Lucky!"

In this day and age when I see the word "privilege" associated with something like this it is usually attached to a phrase such as "White Privilege" and an exercise aimed at myself or others accidentally born Caucasian. That seems to be the intent behind the original work that later became this meme, and the theme of certain writings you'll find on the Illinois State University website.

The point is to make us feel guilty about being born with certain advantages. To which my response would be, "What is your point?" I hope this wasn't the result of hundreds of thousands of dollars sunk into a research study of the obvious. I mean, couldn't that money have been better spent on something like finding out why monkeys scream during sex? Perhaps a better response from me, though, would be "So what?" — as in "So what do you want me to do about it?"

Am I supposed to go around feeling meek and guilty for an accident of birth over which I had no control over? I mean, that was a decision made way above my pay-grade. Similarly, should I be upset over the injustice that Michael Jordan gets the privilege of being 6' 9" with mad skills, or that Sean Connery gets that voice? Or should I go to Japan and have people treat me differently, in overt or subtle ways, because I'm different? They probably would, and I'd probably be upset about it, but the only thing in my power to change about the situation is my attitude.

In the Fundamentals in Film class I do with the young men we have watched a number of movies that deal with racism, prejudice, injustice. Though they are ostensibly "privileged" young white men (actually, they're not all white), I tell them repeatedly that no matter who they are or where they are, there are always going to be people who will discriminate against them because of their age, the way they talk or think, what they believe, the way they look; there's usually going to be someone with some power and authority in their lives whose prejudices will impact them in some way. They can't help but be affected by it, but it's up to them just how much difference they're going to allow it to make in their lives.

Looking back through the statements in the meme above it occurs to me that this particular statements have more to do with class than race. That is, the statements seem to assume (the HR folks at my politically correct company refer to assumptions as "blind spots", btw) that "class" is determined by birth and environment. Those are undeniably large, but not determining, factors. Class in this country is one of the most fluid of the ways we classify ourselves or are classified by others. Decision-making and behavior can change this quite a bit.

Almost all of the circumstances above are the result of a decision made by a grandparent, parent or myself. Neither my father or anyone in his family went to college; my mother's father got himself through college through hard work, ingenuity, a love of learning and a desire to better himself. (It seems unpopular or unjust these days to want to better yourself. Instead, judging by the way people vote, it's far better to expect others to lower themselves to your standard.) The vision and aspiration was passed on, and my parents made college a priority for their children, at great cost and apparent sacrifice, though it hardly seemed like a sacrifice to them.

The "privilege" bequeathed to me and that helped me to succeed was not an accident or random fortune. It was bought and paid for in the way each generation was raised. It is the same "privilege" I'll fight for in order to pass on to my children. I was lucky to the extent that I was born into a family where someone had already started the tradition. Other people will get the honor and privilege of being the one to start the tradition themselves.

1. Don't tug on Superman's cape.

2. Don't spit into the wind.

3. Don't post pictures of yourself participating in illegal activities on Facebook.

The children are upset because Eden Prairie High School is disciplining them for breaking school rules about drinking by suspending several students from athletic teams or extra-curricular activities (presumably not drinking related). "Unfair!" they say as they stalk to their corners (or stage a walk-out).

For educational purposes, let's examine this logic. The students and their parents sign agreements not to drink alcohol while participating in school events (or presumably while eligible to participate), such as sports. The student breaks that pledge and the school finds out through photographic evidence. What part of basic cause and effect did you not learn in class? The school is enforcing its rules, and you should hope that the State of Minnesota doesn't try to enforce it's rules (called "laws", btw) as well since underage drinking is, like, you know, illegal.

And no, my darlings, this isn't a violation of privacy or free speech. First, if you put something in a public place or space, it's not private. Second, while your posting of it is speech, the punishment isn't because you posted, per se, but because the pictures were of you doing something that broke your word, the rules and the law.

This lesson is over. Now, get back to class because I don't think you can afford to miss many more.

Interesting article in the Strib yesterday about a U of M study that found that adolescent girls who eat more meals with their family are less likely to develop bad eating habits:

The survey of 2,000 Minnesota adolescents found that girls who have five or more meals a week with their families are one-third less likely to develop unhealthy eating habits. That could be anything from skipping meals to abusing diet pills to anorexia.

For reasons experts say are hard to explain, the same is not true of boys. The study by University of Minnesota researchers was published Monday in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

It is the latest in a growing body of evidence showing regular family meals seem to help adolescents avoid a wide variety of health risks, including obesity, drug use, smoking and suicidal thinking. Earlier U of M research has shown that's also true for adolescents who say they don't have the best relationships with their families, but who still eat with them regularly.

Our family eats supper together at least five or six times a week. I'm also the proud father of two slender daughters. Of course, they'll tell you the reason they are slender is because I keep eating their tater tots. Oh well, they'll thank me for it some day.

Having dinner together just seems normal to us. We've never had to make a point of doing it, it's just something we've always done. Maybe we've been lucky in that, while our lives are pretty busy, our activities don't tend to violate the dinner hour — or maybe we've just chosen not to take up activities that take us away from the dinner table. My girls haven't had the number of athletic pursuits that I had when I was living with my parents, which helps, but on the evenings when Tiger Lilly has Tae Kwan Do lessons we eat a little later, and on nights when the Mall Diva has band practice or some rehearsal we eat a little earlier.

A lot of the credit goes to my wife, who is super-organized and a good cook who likes a lot of variety and using fresh ingredients instead of processed foods. She typically goes through her recipes and selects meals for a week in advance and constructs her grocery shopping list accordingly. Her job allows her to get home around 4 p.m. and she's very efficient in putting the evening's pre-planned fare together. She's someone who prides herself on being able to eat just about anything (except beef stroganoff), but the rest of us all have certain lines we won't cross, which is a cross my wife must bear. We greatly appreciate her diligence, skill and creativity, however, and we've learned that if any of us does have a complaint we try to keep it small.

Once, for example, in the infamous "Not Quite Tuna Tapenade" incident, my wife tried out a new recipe — the afore-mentioned tuna dish. We said grace and then the girls and I all took our first bite while my wife busied herself with her napkin or some such. It was...different. The three of us kind of rolled the food around our mouths meditatively as my wife lifted her fork. She chewed. She blanched. "This is horrible!" she said. "Who wants to order pizza?" And there was much rejoicing.

Besides the good food, it's just plain fun to be together. My wife and I never were much for baby-talk with our kids so conversation has always been pretty natural and free-flowing, which may have contributed to the composure the girls have had, even from a young age, when talking to adults. Sometimes we have deep conversations, but most of the time it can get rather silly, especially since both girls have a knack for picking up whole blocks of dialog from movies or TV shows with one hearing, and a love for dropping these references or snippets into the conversation. For example:

I'll say, "Pass the meatballs."

Immediately the Mall Diva and Tiger Lilly will, in unison, burst out with "Meatball, meatball, spaghetti underneath! Ravioli, ravioli, Great Barrier Reef!" from some SpongeBob episode. Technically there's also no singing at the table but getting through a meal with out an inspired chorus or two from them is kind of like dinner without dessert.

While the whole experience is rather routine to us we know, from the sometimes amazed reactions and comments we get from guests, that we have an unusual and blessed lifestyle. So many families are caught in the whirl of so many activities and so little time, and of lonely, fast-food dinners. As the study in the article suggests, though, frequent and regular meals together as a family has a measurable and beneficial effect. Some of the guests I mentioned earlier in this paragraph stayed with us because they were experiencing some crisis in their lives or in their families and our communal, convivial approach was startlingly foreign to them. Even more people have commented about a sense of peace they feel when they visit. I wonder if it's just coincidence?

Update:

Here's another study with similar findings: Family Dinner and Adolescent Overweight, from the North American Association for the Study of Obesity.

There have been some questions, since Ben and Faith (the Mall Diva) announced their courtship last week, as to what courtship is, and — if they've agreed to be married — how come they don't just say they are engaged? Actually, what they've agreed to is to look at the possibility of being married. Over the course of their courtship they should both come to know whether the possibility can be a reality. I want and expect both of them to post more about courtship and their experiences going forward, and I won't dig into what can be a complex topic here and now. I think this will be a more useful discussion if it comes from their perspective.

What I would like to do, however, is describe the process of friendship, wherein they both came to the place where courtship became a possibility.

As described last week, it was a little over a year ago when Ben expressed his hope and intention to one day be in a position to marry my daughter. At that time they had already known each other socially for about a year. They were not, however, at a level where a courtship could begin, which essentially was what Ben was asking for permission to do. Given the difference in their ages and circumstances, Faith's mother and I thought it best that they learn to be friends first - — to find out if they could realistically and truthfully put the other person's best interests ahead of their own. This model of friendship is found in the Bible, and was the basis of a post I first offered here back in 2005 (when maybe 20 people a day were stopping by). I'll repeat it below, with minor editing (many of the links originally included have since fallen away). At the time, though we had witnessed it in other people's lives, it was still mostly theory for us. We have now seen it take hold in "real life", to the point where we could see the evidence in their lives and give our blessing for the courtship stage to begin.

On being a friend

...This got me to thinking, however, about the far less titillating but every bit as devastating romantic tragedies that happen all around us. Even, dare I say, in our own lives. My wife and I have been very blessed and happy in our 17-year marriage, but we both experienced emotion-searing, even mind-altering damage in our single days (stories for another day, but don't count on it).

As we look to what may be ahead for our daughters, we've come to realize that the dating culture of serial monogamy and mini-divorces is not a good way to find a mate for life. And that's based on our experiences from 20 and 30 years ago in the more idealistic days of the sexual revolution. With our oldest being of "dating" age, my wife and I naturally want better for our daughters than what we subjected ourselves to when we were their age.

Back then, at least, the culture expected couples to adopt the appearance of having a relationship. Now even the minimal commitment to someone else needed to simply make a date is optional in today's hook-up culture among teens and older singles. Somewhere along the line "Wham, bam, thank you, ma'am" went from being the height of selfishness to the point where merely throwing in the "thank you" passes for gentlemanliness. The glorification of sensation has ironically desensitized a significant part of a generation, and I can't even picture how much "enlightenment" is required to make this look like a good thing.

Even in evangelical circles the challenges are severe for parents with an eye to preparing their youth for healthy, happy marriages. The book "Best Friends for Life" by Michael and Judy Phillips includes several case studies of kids who grew up in "churched" families and dated other "churched" youth and eventually married - and then crashed and burned. Though each example had different characteristics, the common thing I saw in each was the parents really had no vision of what they wanted for their kids or what was acceptable - or if they did, they didn't communicate it. In many cases they gave in to the predominant dating model and were simply glad that their son or daughter was dating another Christian. As a result, the youngsters also fell into self-centered relationships in which they may have been physical, but they were far from intimate.

Is there another option? Well, I admit that the locking them in a tower until they're 30 plan has its strong points, but that doesn't do anything to prepare them for a strong marriage either. Our plan is the opposite of isolation, both the isolation of the tower where they are separated from others and the passion-induced isolation of being a couple where they separate themselves from others. We've encouraged our daughters to have a group of friends they can count on and do things with as a group. Boys can be a part of this group, and are even encouraged, but no pairing up. The idea is to determine who can be trusted to be a friend - and not who just wants to get friendly.

What are the standards for friendship? The Bible lists some good ones (New Living Translation):

• Friends are few (Prov. 18:24) - "There are 'friends' who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother." We know the traditional concept of what a brother is, but think about what a brother is to a woman. A brother is someone who will stand by you and stand up for you because he wants the best for you, not because of what you can do for him.



• A friend lays down his life (John 15:13)"And here is how to measure it--the greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends." A friend puts your needs and well-being above his own.



• A friend loves unconditionally (Prov. 17:17) "A friend is always loyal, and a brother is born to help in time of need."



• A friend speaks the truth in love (Prov. 27:6)
  "Wounds from a friend are better than many kisses from an enemy." A friend will tell you what you need to hear, again because he wants what is best for you. Someone caught up in infatuation or what he thinks is love will keep quiet so as not to jeopardize the physical aspects of the relationship.



• A friend encourages you and is sensitive to your needs (Prov. 26:18, 19) "Just as damaging as a mad man shooting a lethal weapon is someone who lies to a friend and then says, 'I was only joking.'"
  

If true friendships can be established in a safe environment where the emotional stakes are not as high, then the ground is prepared for a possible courtship with an eye toward marriage. In a true courtship, both partners learn to trust the other with more and more of their innermost thoughts, wishes and emotions. This relationship is the key to a successful marriage. Most modern marriages fall short of genuine intimacy due to a distorted cultural image of romanticism that expects immediate intimacy. Too many want to jump right to the courtship stage simply because the other person is cute or a "hottie." This might make for lovely wedding photos (or great tabloid covers) but is not much of a foundation for a lovely marriage.

I may appear pretty smug and overconfident seeing as how our oldest is just entering this dynamic time, but the rules and expectations have been set down and discussed for several years prior to this, and we do have wonderful examples in the lives of other parents and young marrieds we know who have crossed these waters ahead of us.

Truthfully, I don't expect it to be easy, but right now the relationship my wife and I have with our children is still the most important in their lives aside from the relationship they are developing with God. And part of our responsibility in this relationship is to prepare them for a relationship with God and for a loving and godly relationship with their spouse - and ultimately their own children who they, in turn, must train. It won't be the easiest course, but given what else is out there, I know it is the safest.

There's no questioning the depth of feeling between Faith and Ben and the sincerity of their intentions. They will, however, face significant issues in the time that is before them. Difficult, even painful, decisions, must be made. Because of the foundation that has already been created, however, they are better prepared to shine.

I'm kind of in a rambling mood tonight, thinking random thoughts. Such as...

I handed a friend of mine a bottle of water the other day. "Ah, bottled water," he said with a smile. "The biggest scam next to carbon credits!"

"That's got to be a pretty big scam, then," I said, "compared to carbon credits."

"Yeah," he said, "we should go into business selling 'food credits' using the same principle. We'd make a killing."

"Sure," I replied, "especially at this time of the year with the holidays coming on. Here's how we'd pitch it: 'Feeling bad because you know you're going to overeat this Christmas? No problem! We've got thousands of people lined up in the third world who have agreed to fast while you pig out! Buy your food credits now in plenty of time for the holidays! They also make great stocking stuffers!'

"In fact," I said, "we could call the holiday version of food credits 'Stocking Stuffers' and package them in a festive box. Then we could get some guy who has a 2500 square foot walk-in freezer to be our spokesperson. We'd make a fortune and have a shot and picking up a prestigious award!"

We went on to talk about other things, but my thoughts later returned to bottled water, a product I use on nearly a daily basis. Most days I bring a bottle from home to drink with my lunch, mainly because the bottles of pop I used to drink have started to be too sweet-tasting to me. I got in the habit of buying a bottle of Aquafina from the company cafeteria instead of Coke or Pepsi, picking up a packet of lemon juice from the condiment stand on the way out, and mixing that into the bottle. Then one day — file this under Things That Make You Go "Hmmmm" — I noticed that a 20-ounce bottle of Aquafina retails for $1.35 in our cafeteria. While it's cool and clear, there's not a lot of value added there to the basic ingredients. Meanwhile, the bottle of pop right next to it featuring water, syrup, sugar, that satisfying fizz and millions of dollars worth of brand-building advertising, goes for just $1.25.

Since then we've bought more generic waters from Cub or Sam's Club in bulk (about .40/bottle) and I pack one of those (and still snatch the pack of lemon juice).

I know, America is supposed to have the safest drinking water in the world, and buying bottled water is supposed to be bad for the environment, but I'm hooked. For one thing, the water from the taps or drinking fountain where I work has a hideous, metallic taste to it. Secondly, it's so darn convenient. It's easy to pack a bottle or three along on car trips or to outdoor activities. Besides, you never know when drought is going to break out.

I'm not snobbish about it. For example, I never cared for Perrier, and the carbonated or "sparkling" waters don't quench my thirst as well. Funky store brand water is generally fine, though I appreciate the consistent quality of Aquafina and I like to mix things up with an Aquafina Flavorsplash from time to time (grape - yum!) One brand I cannot abide, however, is Dasani, which tastes as if it was harvested from a puddle on an asphalt driveway after an August storm. I don't know what you can do to mess up the taste of water, but Dasani did it. I mean, it's probably not as bad as the water my wife drank while on our honeymoon in Puerto Vallarta, but it tastes like it could be (and I saw what happened to her).

Overall, staying hydrated is a good thing. I remember football practices when I was a kid where the coaches wouldn't let us drink because we had to "toughen up". Things have changed a lot. I also used to be a cola-fiend, probably as a result of my deprived childhood. There were three of us kids, and soda pop was an uncommon treat (even though my Dad's business had vending machines and he could get the pop wholesale). My parents used to make the three of us share a 12 oz. can. I felt so grown-up when I started working and could drop my quarter in the machine and get a whole, blessed can all to myself! Later, the cans changed to 16 oz, and then 20 oz. bottles — bring it on! And then —Sweet Juices on the Half-Shell — 2-liter bottles! Oh, my, those single days when I could keep a 2-liter bottle in the refrigerator, reach in, twist the cap off and drink right out of the bottle before putting it back! Hah!

Sometimes, even now, when we have a 2-liter bottle in the fridge, I reach in, pull it out, twist annnnd ... look wistfully at the bottle before reaching for a glass (that sound you might have just heard was Tiger Lilly throwing up a little in her mouth at the picture that came into her head). For some reason, the Mall Diva never cared for pop, even though she's part of a generation that practically grew up with a Nuk stretched over a bottle of Mountain Dew. Myself, I used to get some real cola-cravings, but even those have diminished as the taste generally seems too hard and bubbly to me now.

Oh well, I've rambled enough, but I think it's only fitting to cement the ear-worm into your head that's probably been running through the back of your mind since you read the headline.