Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Janice Shaw Crouse :: Townhall.com Columnist
Those Bawdy Bratz Babes
by Janice Shaw Crouse
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I recently bought a doll for my 6-year-old granddaughter. It was a really beautiful, expensive baby doll. She looked at the doll; then laid it aside. To her mother’s dismay, she displayed socially-incorrect behavior by firmly announcing, “I’m sorry, but I’m way too old to play with that kind of doll.”

Little girls don’t get to “mother” their pretend babies any more; instead, they act out today’s young adult values with the more popular “fashion dolls.” Bratz dolls, those ghetto cool, sexualized dolls with skimpy miniskirts, high-heel boots, pouty lips and ‘bad’ attitude, are now the #1 doll in America, having pulled ahead of Barbie as the most popular fashion-doll in the United States. One writer explained that the dolls made little girls “sluts-in-training,” another said they promoted “hooker chic” and another claimed that they promoted “precocious sexuality.”

MGA Entertainment, which manufactures the dolls, spent $15 billion last year marketing to children in the 70 countries where the doll is available. In spite of the huge price tag for marketing to children, MGA Entertainment reveals that their market research indicates that mothers of pre-teens are the ones who are buying the Bratz dolls for their little angels.

With their glazed expressions, plumped lips and trampy clothes, these dolls are light years away from the American Girl dolls that too many little girls now consider "babyish." In these days of anorexia anxiety, some are celebrating the dolls' "more realistic" body proportions. And true enough, these dolls don't seem to have Barbie's surgically enhanced chest. But is it any better to replace one advertisement for cosmetic surgery with another one? These Bratz dolls all obviously make regular trips to the plastic surgeon for collagen lip injections. And their makeup, on dolls targeted at 8 to 12-year-olds, would make a Broadway performer playing to the back of the hall feel underdone.

Like the Barbie dolls, the Bratz industry has diversified: there are DVDs, video games, a movie, matching outfits for the doll owners, additional outfits and accessories for the dolls and a full line of play sets that reflect the diva lifestyle –– discos, nail and hair salons, spas, limousines, cafes and shopping malls. The dolls have been an industry sensation –– winning Character Brand License of the Year, Toy of the Year and other awards. Sadly, Scholastic, Inc., the nation’s largest bookseller for books at school-based book clubs and fairs, offers a line of Bratz books. Scholastic claims that the books feature “strong, capable girl characters” and that they speak to young girls “in a voice that reflects their real world.”

Scholastic defended its inclusion of the Bratz books because, they said, they want to get kids to read. Kyle Good, Vice President for Corporate Communication, said, “We offer materials that appeal to children where they are, not where we would like them to be. This is particularly true for reluctant readers.” Whatever happened to the principle of teaching children to better themselves and holding out ideals for them to emulate?

The Bratz babes were singled out by the recent report from the American Psychological Association as one of the worst offenders in sexualizing girls.

The objectified sexuality presented by these dolls, as opposed to the healthy sexuality that develops as a normal part of adolescence, is limiting for adolescent girls, and even more so for the very young girls who represent the market for these dolls.

Bratz has opened a new line called “Baby Bratz.” These dolls are even more controversial than the teen version. Appallingly, the baby version wears a thong instead of a diaper. MGA Entertainment apologized for the “mistake” claiming that there should have been a Pampers on the baby instead. Right! The baby bottle filled with a soft drink, accompanied by a life-sized burp, not-so-subtly pushes sugar-laden soft drinks for infants when childhood obesity is a national epidemic.

These Bratz babes are changing the face of childhood. MGA personnel are blasé about their product. “Those who take offense,” they predictably say, “have dirty minds.” The rest of us who have common sense and recognize the dangers of sexualizing our children know better. MGA is pushing a bawdy adult sexuality off on children; parents are reporting that some pre-teens will wear only lingerie from Victoria’s Secret. What about the thong on the baby doll? MGA’s Web site claims that the Baby Bratz, “know how to flaunt it, and they’re keepin’ it real in the crib!”

Obviously, parents were not listening when Whoopi Goldberg warned, "White parents have no clue that their kids are being indoctrinated into ghetto values and culture."

You can bet, though, that people who are living the ghetto life for real recognize what MGA is doing. The Urban Dictionary, a Web site that allows readers to provide their definitions for urban slang, has eight readers’ definitions for Bratz –– all of them recognize that the dolls are “helping to make our children sexually promiscuous.” One definition explained, “We are living in a society which is determined to take innocence away from youngsters.” Others were rude: “Toys like this create a new generation of sluts, skanks, and whores!” “They dress like a slut and bring a bad message to little girls who play with them.”

That’s the truth –– out of the mouths of those who know.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Janice Shaw Crouse is a former speechwriter for George H. W. Bush and now political commentator for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Janice Shaw Crouse's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Not a new trend
About 5 years ago we were in Montreal for conference. I seemed that the people there were actually proud of sexualizing their young children, especially the girls. For example, as we were leaving a restaurant a family of four was coming in. The daughter who appeared to be about 11, was wearing "hooker" quantity of make-up and a tank top with glitter lettering that read, "Porn Queen." The son appeared to be about 12 or 13 was wearing a T-shirt which simply read, "I love Porn."

I'm at a loss where to even begin commenting on the parents that permit this.

Well, OK
Bummer.

The beautiful thing is, when a girl is 6, 8, or 12, Mom and Dad control what dolls infest her world. My bigger concern about Crouse's granddaughter is that she complained about a gift she was given -- to the giver.

It's all in the home environment. As a kid, I was given Barbie dolls every year by aunts and uncles. Barbie never went to the prom from my bedroom though. She and her compadres joined my brothers' action figures in constructing flying warships from dump trucks and blocks, and winging their way around the globe fighting sinister international crime, a la Mission Impossible, and obliterating the Viet Cong.

Those bendable, posable legs really came in handy for ju-jitsu.

Not what Crouse had in mind? Probably not. But I have a niece who would, if confronted with a Bratz doll, put a wizard's cape on it and immerse it in a Harry Potter-type adventure. Another who would merely enjoy putting pink spangly things on it. And the other would throw it over the stair railing repeatedly to see what happened.

But their parents wouldn't buy them Bratz dolls to begin with, nor would anyone else who buys gifts for them.

No Bratz!!
In our family, we have had a No Bratz!! policy ever since my kids were old enough to point and say "I want that!" We don't even go down the store aisle that has Bratz on it.

Thank goodness for Groovy Girls!!

"Keepin' it real??"
First, dyerje -- are you me? Or rather (correct, but nobody says it this way) are you I? I swear, I used to play with my Barbie dolls in much the same way that you described. In retrospect I refer to them as my "Barbie action figures." So good to know I'm not the only one.

Now, to the matter at hand:
All this emphasis on "realism" and "keeping it real" that the Bratz corporation is giving out suggests that, despite their partnership with Scholastic, they are actively engaged in killing off the precious resource that makes reading worthwhile: IMAGINATION, which Einstein once declared was more important than knowledge.

Imagination lies at the root of curiosity, the faculty which leads to the acquirement and the retention of knowledge. Knowledge means next to nothing without the power to imagine, the power of the mind to create. Yet our popular culture is training a whole generation of girls to think of this power as "lame." The likes of Bratz and Paris Hilton are their weapons.

Because she is often called "the mother of feminism," Mary Wollstonecraft is often excoriated by people who have never actually read her work, but I suspect even the most vehement anti-feminist would agree with Wollstonecraft's basic premise behind "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman." Admittedly I have not read it in a long time, but I remember it being something like this: women are being educated to be glamorous, gorgeous idiots. All their training is geared toward developing the charms and ornamental graces they need to CATCH a man, but they are learning nothing about how to be true companions and helpmeets to their husbands and sensible, wise guides to their children. Only as thinking, reasoning beings could they perform ANY function well, domestic or otherwise. (Wollstonecraft herself did not encourage women to storm the workplace.) Jane Austen later echoed this sentiment through the character of Mr. Knightley: "Men with sense do not want silly wives."

Is it just me, or are we heading backwards at breakneck speed to the pre-Wollstonecraft era when it comes to what we're teaching our girls? They may be learning facts in school, but our popular culture is telling them: Be cute, be flirty, be available. Show lots of skin, wear thick layers of make-up, and boys will like you and think you're "cool." You don't have to worry about all that "inside" stuff, like developing your minds and exercising your imaginations and learning how to treat other people. Just look good. Just glitter and giggle. This is, after all, what you're for. You're a girl.

We're selling our girls the notion that they must appear, not really exist. Rather than convincing them to value themselves as God's unique creations with minds and souls of their own, they're taught to view themselves as hot, available bodies. And many contemporary feminists, ostensibly the "daughters" of Wollstonecraft, are helping this right along by depicting promiscuity as "empowering" and embracing hooker chic.

Maybe we need a new Wollstonecraft, to start a NEW movement that will lead girls and women in more sensible directions -- one that will help them to see that whatever choices a woman may make, be they traditional or less so, she must first and foremost develop into a thinking, reasoning being. Then, whether she's a stay-at-home mom or a stockbroker, she will be a woman of honor and integrity, the woman of Proverbs 31.

THIS, ladies and gentlemen, would truly be "keeping it real."

Pamela
Having read some of your posts elsewhere, I do think we are doppelgangers in some respects. :-) I appreciate and approve your frequent point that people are all individuals, and lumping all women together, especially to make negative points about them, is as invalid as doing that to men.

Interesting that you also know who Wollstonecraft was, and what she actually wrote. It was so far from no-standards, deconstructionist, sexual-revolution feminism, you couldn't even see one from the other. Mary Wollstonecraft's premise was that women were well capable of developing strength and good character -- in the traditional sense of cultivating traits like truthfulness, self-discipline, moral courage, humility, wisdom, and trustworthiness -- and that society's health depended on girls being trained into womanhood on that basis; not as mere decorative articles, as far outside of humanity's moral equation as cats and parakeets.

Neither women nor men can have it both ways. Bratz DON'T rule, they get dragged around by their emotional hair. Women don't really want to be Bratz -- and men always, always find out that Bratz aren't what they really want. I'm with tcd: No Bratz!!

Dyerje & Pamela
Me too!!! My Barbies were tossed around with GI Joe, all of them squeezed into the gigantic Barbie camper, and smashed against the wall with me riding on top of it.

If I had a Brat back then, although I know my parents would not allow me to have one, the Brat doll would've had an exclusive make over by me: Their hair would be cut in such a wonderful way as to display a bald spot in the center of their head. Then I would've replaced Ken's head onto the Brat's body and Brat's onto Ken's.

My grandmother gave to me when I was 8, an original Barbie. Barbie was made of hard pladtic, almost wood, no bending limbs, she had black cotton spun hair in an up-do. My grandmother unveiled her and said to me, "Be safe with this, don't play with this, it will be worth something one day...."

And guess what? Yep, Barbie went to the barber and decided to swim in a pond after....Sigh.

IMHO, as far as Brats go, they are a phase, just like Cabbage Patch kids were, Tickle Me Elmo, and on and on. These dolls eventually will be considered "uncool" somehow...but what will take their place, I'm afraid to know.

Baby Dolls are the Best
I love dolls and played with them until I was probably 13. I still have my American Girl displayed in my old room at home.

I have babysat a little girl, and I mean little (3 years old) who owned an ample supply of Bratz dolls, and I hated them. A three year old is not encouraged to be nurturing, sweet, and creative with a doll that looks like a prostitute. I brought some of my old dolls to her - the kinds with full dresses and fancy hats - and she loved it. She spoke in the sweetest little voice and came up with very creative things for them to do. It was so much better to see!

Give Girls Slutt Dolls
Maybe when they grow out of the doll stage they'll think being a slutt is corny and immature.

Oh, and TH moderators:
Please don't delete my comment merely because I used the pseudo-word "slutt", since apparently P.h.D. columnists can use the term on TH.

rowena

A couple years ago in Kmart, I confronted a woman whose obviously less than 12 year old daughter was wearing a porn star tank top.

I asked her if I could be in a movie with her daughter, because I thought she was cute.

At first she smiled and looked as if to consider it, then her eyes got big and she got a look of horror on her face. Funniest facial transformation ever ! She called me a pervert and rapidly hustled her daughter away.

I do not know, because I left the store quickly in case she decide to turn the tables on me, but I believe her daughter will NEVER wear a shirt like that again.

jerubaal

More likely they will continue to be slutts until they acquire an STD, or an husband.

popular culture
When I was a child in the seventies I remember hearing that it was wrong for men to objectify women. Strange that twenty years later it is mothers who are teaching their daughters to objectify their own selves. Perhaps even worse, young men are being told by the media that this type of self degradation should be expected from young women.


I have four children, two teenage boys and two younger daughters. I want to bring my children up to be honorable people with respect for themselves and others. But I often feel like I am fighting against popular culture. Not only do I have to be vigilant with what they watch on tv and hear on the radio but I have to worry about the influence of skantily dressed dolls!


PappyMichael
Over 50% of them have an STD by college these days anyway. I've read something like 44% have HPV. And that's just one STD.

Bratz & Barbie
I couldn't agree more but it's not just Bratz and it's not just recent. How long as Barbie been around? Something like forty or fifty years. And her values seem pretty shallow.


Bratz and the "womens lib"
I am an Liberal and I hate Bratz.

My 3 year old was given a Bratz doll as a gift once. She looked at it and said to my wife, "mommy this ugly, not for kids".

It's all about the values you teach your kids. I don't like Barbie either, but Bratz just take it to a lower level. I for one will teach my children that being a "strong women" is not dressing slutty and being objectified by men or women. this notion is just plain stupid and those who express belief that somehow Bratz is a reflection of Women Power are just plain wrong.

Baby Dolls
My 11y.o. daughter and all her friends still play with baby dolls, and also American Girl dolls. Should I be worried that they are delayed in their development or abnormal? Where have I gone wrong?
Maybe I should find her a shrink...

"Imus"
.

Much ado about nothing
Chill out already. Bratz Dolls are only toys, not daddy's little sluts. Remember kids have very short attention spans and they all want the latest gimme/getme/buyme gimmick. Belive me they'll get bored and go on to something else soon enough.

Scary
I'm 27 and it utterly appalls me how parents are not parenting their children at all anymore. They don't pay any attention to them, don't discipline then, and just let their children sink into our detestable culture.

I've lost count how many times I've seen a 8- or 9-year-old girl dressed in low cut tops, wearing make-up--basically dressing like Britney Spears. It's bad enough when teenagers and young adults dress that way. But why the heck would you let your child dress like that?!?

We plan on starting a family in the next year or so. And it scares me (both as a mom and a Christian) the things I'm going to have to 'compete' with. There is going to be a lot of saying 'no.' Because I plan on actually parenting my kids!

Re: no bs artist
Children (especially young children) are very easy to influence. Whatever they pick up as a child can (and often will) stay with them as they develop into adults. (No matter how long they are interested in it.) They don't have the adult understanding and view to be like, "Oh, this doll is dressed as a woman with no morals, self-esteem, or decorum and I don't want to be like her." That's why there's this wildly fanatical idea called PARENTING.

In addition, feeding the "new fad every ten minutes" just because that's what society teaches your child isn't acceptable either. (Then they just grow up spending, hoarding, thinking stuff makes you happy.) If society taught your child to jump off a bridge, would you be all supportive? Would you actually take control of your child's views, or would you be a good liberal and advocate reform? Because, after all, it's not like you made your child. Not like you should actually take some responsibility in your child's life. That means you would have to accept that wild, crazy idea of PARENTING.

If you can't understand that children are easily influenced by everything and anything, and need to be PARENTED BY YOU, then your kids are not likely to grow up into healthy adults. Period.

Re: Jenners
I don't have kids, and I don't know your daughter, but I would think there are worse things she could be playing with--even at this age. In an era where pre-teen girls are dressing and flaunting themselves like Britney Spears, where they want cell-phones, and to party like Paris Hilton, etc. I'd say having your daughter stick to harmless dolls is a blessing.

Besides, if you're raising her well, to be a the kind of woman that our society doesn't honor, then what kind of toy choice does she have? Almost everything out there promotes stuff we wouldn't want our children to focus on.

If you're still worried, I'd hold off on the shrink. Maybe she's shy, or there's a simply underlying cause. You can try and get her involved in activities with other kids, etc. We adults tend to worry too much or think it's some complicated issue when with a kid it can be something really simple (well, to us).

Imagination
My sister bought her daughter a nice set of Polly Pockets dolls and their little pocket sized environments, something Mom would have loved to own. (This is the same sister whose 3 year old daughter announced in FAO Schwarz, "There's Barbie. She's a drain on society.")

Mom went past daughter's bedroom to hear daughter reciting in a sepulchural voice, "Come baaaaaack! Come baaaaack! To Mordor we will take you!" She looked in to see the cousins and their micro-machine tanks, Ninja Turtles and Power Ranger action figures, and assorted micro race cars, besieging Polly Pocket Land which had become a scene from Lord of the Rings. And Polly and her friends were frequent stars in that famous David Letterman show: "Will it Float?" Our kids had imaginations because their parents had imaginations. We always despised toys that could be played with only one way; those toys don't need kids. And there's no reason why Ninja Turtles and race cars can't besiege Rivendell. Not everything they did was in the books.

As for "their preteens will wear nothing but Victoria's Secret Underwear" -- where are they getting the money for this and the ride to the Mall to buy it?

What ever happened to You're Not Going Out Of Here Dressed Like That?

Oh, really?
"These Bratz babes are changing the face of childhood. MGA personnel are blasé about their product. “Those who take offense,” they predictably say, “have dirty minds.” "

So tell us then, what kind of mind did it take to come up with the Bratz concept?

Sexualizing little girls
Does anyone remember poor little JonBenet Ramsey? Now there was an example of what we have been talking about: sexualizing little girls. For the delectation of male perverts? I always did wonder about her murderer.

Recently I saw the much-heralded "Little Miss Sunshine," and instead of the clean-cut family entertainment I had been led to expect, I saw a beauty contest for tiny tots, who suggestively wriggled their immature bodies across the stage in what can only be described as attempts to seduce. Most shocking of all, to me, was the "dance" routine performed by the lead character--which turned out to be a striptease designed by her filthy-mouthed grandfather.

It's everywhere, folks.....and parents have much to answer for. Someone once put it much more strongly than I could: "Better that a millstone were hung about their necks, and they were thrown into the sea, than that they should scandalize My little ones."

Empress 519 needs to chill
I don't think parents are thinking too much of morals when they buy the current gimmicky toy or doll just to keep the little rugrats happy. And this isn't limited to some doll--what about violent video games with graphic adult content? You sound so uptight (haven't heard that phrase in a while) And what about Barbie's morals? All she represents is how to be a brain dead clothes horse. She's been around oh about 50 years or so.

Children are not Adults
Gee, that should be a statement of the obvious, shouldn't it?

But the unspoken idea behind the "laissez-faire" parenting style is that children are as capable as any adult of making sound judgments. Laizzes-faire parents let their children have anything they want; when it comes to the television, they expect the government to police it for them because they aren't willing to police it themselves. So your little girl wants a shirt with a big across-the-breast blazon reading "Future Trophy Wife" and a pair of tight pants with "Princess" printed across the buttocks? Fine; let her have it. It isn't hurting anyone. She'll develop the right morals and the right attitude about herself all on her own; if we try to guide her, we're only imposing our Tyrannical Will on her, and we shouldn't do that.

Sensible parents will recognize this attitude for what it is: a bunch of bullhockey.

I don't know if there are any "Andy Griffith Show" fans on here, but I recall an episode in which Opie started to hero-worship a hobo, played by Buddy Ebsen; the hobo sold Opie on the idea that the Irresponsible Life is full of glamor. When Andy called him on it, the hobo argued that Opie should decide for himself whether his lifestyle should be emulated. Then Andy, with typical common sense, stated what parents ought to know instinctively:

"You can't let a young'un decide for himself. He'll grab at the first fancy thing with shiny ribbons on it... You're leaving behind a lot of untangling."

Our hypersexualized popular culture "leaves behind a lot of untangling" on a daily basis, and it is PARENTS' responsibility to do that untangling, to make moral judgments about what's appropriate for a child to do, to watch, and to own as a toy. We can't leave it up to the kids. They'll go with what's trendy and fancy, however rotten it may be at its core.

Parents need to start acting like parents, and that means saying "No," some things are not acceptable. It means (thanks, AudiR10) "You're not going out of here dressed like that."

Bratz Babys
How sad that little girls are wanting a doll like this. I have no grandchildren yet but I will never buy one of these dolls for my grandchildren. I believe playing with baby dolls is why I wanted to have childred. You have to wonder what kind of mothers these children will be if that's the kind of doll they have.
Mary L. Swann

Free market
Since conservatives totally believe in the power of the free market, why not let good old fashioned Adam Smith style capitalism decide if these dolls stay on the store shelves or not. That's the way it ought to be. How PC can you get.

No Bratz in our house...
My 5-year-old daughter knows that Bratz are not allowed.

We call them "Ghetto Girls" in our house.

My little girl plays with her Beanie Babies, Kelly dolls, and her "babies". She also likes her play food and dishes.

Most of all, she loves to draw and color. And cut out paper hearts.

I work in the ghetto and I can see where the lifestyles of many have gotten them. Jail, AIDS, STDs, public assistance, lying, cheating, stealing, ad nauseam.

What is so cool about dressing like a ghetto tramp?

No Bratz here,
either. Our daughter loves animals, has a zooful of colorful stuffed critters and hasn't owned a Barbie since she was three. She's never been one, really, to be interested in dolls, though she did have a few of the Polly Pocket dolls for awhile.


PAMELA!! Yes, we now have the AGS DVDs. When it was on VHS we had a few, and Andy and the gang was the first comedy we introduced our kids to. It's funny, clean, and teaches good things. They still enjoy it. We know just the episode you're referring to, Tuscarora!!

But, they get their procrastinating from their mother...;)

reply to no bs artist
Just to add more to your point: the people who created, marketed, and sell Bratz are not liberal pinko GLBT communists who worship Satan. They are corporate types, working for publicly traded companies, whose profitability is the major concern of their shareholders. In short, this whole thing is an example of the workings of the free market economy you right wingers love so much. I

f these products didn't sell, they wouldn't exist. If you believe in the tenets of free market economics, you know that this is true. No one is coerced into buying Bratz; consumers are exercising what economists call consumer sovereignty when they buy them.

So if you guys don't like the image these dolls convey, if you don't like the sexualizing of young children, don't complain about liberals. It was the left, after all, that first started talking about the sexualization of young girls and first drew attention to the many ways in which our economy contributes to this. Leftists and liberals are not the ones who are interested in promoting these images of and for little girls; instead, it is profit-driven, rational business types, who are responsible to shareholders. If you've got a gripe, take it up with them. But if you do that, you might have to start to think outside of the conservative box, and you wouldn't want to do that now, would you? Who knows? You might even become....gasp...a liberal!

Mis-named
My neice brought a bunch of these to our house when visiting recently. I think I may have offended her father, when I told her in straight English that the dolls were obviously not Bratz, but Slutz! This kid, by the way, would have to lose 50 lbs. before ever trying to mimick the look. Never thought I'd be thankful for childhood obesity. Go figure!

Re: Pamela
Rock. On. Sister. Rock on!

Re: no bs artist
"I don't think parents are thinking too much of morals when they buy the current gimmicky toy or doll just to keep the little rugrats happy."

--Exactly.

"You sound so uptight (haven't heard that phrase in a while)."

--Why, thank you! Because when someone who buys into our messed up society says I'm uptight, then I know I'm exactly as I need to be!

reply to merry_go_boy
First of all, I'll comment once more on your silly practice of USING ALL CAPS instead of trying to produce rational responses. I guess the intent is to give the impression that you're SHOUTING. OK, I've got it; you're a right-wing guy who likes to yell. Good for you.

Now, I said nothing about Mexicans or Canadians at all, so I don't know what you think you're talking about.

Finally, if you had any economic literacy at all, you'd know that the phrase "consumer sovereignty" can be found in just about any textbook of free market economic theory ever written, but then you wouldn't know that, would you?

The phrase, in case you'd like an education upgrade, means that in a free market what consumers want, they get, therefore they have "sovereignty." It has nothing to do with globalization, nor did my post.

So, as I see it, you've struck out as a fierce conservative debater. Ranting while trying to hang onto your can of Coors is more your speed.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.