Yes, TeenyManolo is rapidly becoming the Internet’s #1 go-to site for the very latest in Baby Hater news. In this case, we bring you news of a couple of not-so-much-Baby-Haters as Kids-of-All-Ages-Haters, dream couple Kip and Dana Smith.

Not tasers, nor automatic weapons; in this case, they are alleged to have used the rather hillbillyesque electric cattle prod.

I’m sure you’re well aware of the “it’s a Freudian response to my upbringing” excuse, and surely these two must have some backstory; why, their parents couldn’t even be bothered to pay enough attention to give them gender-specific names. Maybe they’re brother and sister? It’s no wonder they’re messed up, poor things!

Funny, he doesn’t look Preppy.

Let’s go to the transcript:

Officers say the incidents happened in June and July. They say the couple repeatedly used an electric hand-held cattle prod on the boys, who are ages 12 and 14.

Officers also say Kip Smith struck the victims with a cane across the buttocks and legs back in March.

If you happen to be near 398 New Bridge Road, Aiken, South Carolina any time soon, do drop in and say hello to this fun couple and let them know they made the blog!

Since they’re out on bail, I’m sure they can’t be too hard to find, nudge, nudge.

All right, even though Joan is going to hate me for doing this, I have to talk about Halloween costumes.

Why, you may ask?

Because if my grocery store is already setting up their Halloween candy display, that means I am now allowed to broach the subject. And all you moms know that the longer you hold off buying your child’s costume, the more likely it is you will wind up with something that was popular three years ago in a size too small. I speak the truth. It’s ugly and I know you don’t want to hear it, but deep down you know I’m right.

As I was trolling around the vast internets, I saw some truly frightening costumes out there, especially for infants. Like this:

Now, there are almost too many things going on here. I suppose I could do a “Child of the Corn” joke, but I’m sure you saw that coming from a mile away. Actually, I’m kinda speechless. That the model is in fact a doll is totally creeping me out. But in all seriousness, this is not a quality costume, it looks like it was thrown together as a middle school Home Ec project. Scratch that, I am insulting all Home Ec-enrolled middle schoolers. You just don’t want to be forced into buying this because there’s nothing left, do you?

And please, for the love of all that is holy, do not do this to your sweet, precious infant:

Yes, yes, the image is rather grainy, but do you really expect quality photography from a company that suggests you dress your child as a whoopee cushion?

Now, I think I need to do some sort of deep breathing excercises to get the image of that doll out of my brain.

Tasering the Teenies, Part Two. Click for Part One. And here I thought it was all a joke.

Nope; silly me! According to the Daily Mail the UK is all over this stuff!

Police have been given the go-ahead to use Taser stun guns against children.

The relaxing of restrictions on the use of the weapons comes despite warnings that they could trigger a heart attack in youngsters.

Until now, Tasers – which emit a 50,000-volt electric shock – have been used only by specialist officers as a “non lethal” alternative to firearms…

Amnesty International claims Tasers have been responsible for 220 deaths in America since 2001. Many cities and police forces there have banned their use against minors.

Two years ago in Chicago a 14-year-old boy went into cardiac arrest after being shot with one. Medics had to use a defibrillator four times to resuscitate him.

Taser International, the American firm that makes the device, said tests on pigs suggested the weapons were safe.

I will forgo the obvious pun.

Now, I know I’m a little out of touch. It’s been some time since the ol’ raincoaster here was in charge of any wee kidlets; why, ever since they shoved me in the oven and got rescued by that nasty woodsman. But still, thinking back to those sepia-toned days of The Electric Company, dancing babies and teeny, wholesome Olsen Twins, she does not recall anything like the bizarre, jokey hostility displayed by New Line Cinema in the marketing for their rather self-explanatory new movie, Shoot ‘Em Up.

That’s New Line Cinema,
116 North Robertson Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA  90048
United States
t (310) 854-5811
f (310) 854-1824

Let’s see, what have we got here:

Cast your gaze upon the delightful shopping site Bulletproof Baby, your go-to internet destination in case you need to equip the love child of Dr Evil and The White Witch. The t-shirt with the bullet-riddled baby bloodstains on it is particularly charmant. Offerings include:

bullet proof baby insurance
covers: stabbings, shootings, incineration, car accidents, drive-bys, kidnappings, snipers, etc

My first riot helmet
riot helmet provides outstanding protection and superior comfort for your baby.

Truly a site for the times, eh? This puts the viral back in marketing: ebola.

But wait, there’s more!

According to Hollywood gossip site Defamer, the movie’s star Clive Owen is unabashedly pro-baby danger:

“[T]he babies were great. I wish we could have put the babies in even more dangerous situations because they centered the action sequences.”

Ladies and gentlemen, that’s a true showbiz pro.  But we’ve saved the best for last…FeltUpbyJen reports that New Line Cinema is also sponsoring “live” celebrations (of a sort), so if you live in the vicinity of the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin, Texas, do send us a debriefing of their August 30th event (now sadly passed, but surely the management would love to hear your thoughts).

Featuring a spirited game of “Shoot the baby.”

Join us after the screening for the “live human target” afterparty. Successfully shoot the live human target (with paintball rounds) and win fabulous prizes. Everyone at the screening will have a chance to shoot at three live human targets who will be heckling your abilities while trying to avoid your fire. The human targets will also be tossing around a baby. Shoot the baby for a chance at the grand prize! (Note, targets will be live humans, but in the interest of safety, the baby will not be alive).

Details are scarce at press time, but there is as yet no word on whether the baby was domestic or imported, free range or battery, fresh or frozen, and what role, if any, the not-live baby played in the bbq afterparty.

I have always wondered why clothing manufacturers insist on putting huge, sometimes multiple tags on children’s clothes.

They drive my son nuts.  He was known as a toddler to frantically clutch the back of his neck and simultaneously howl his disapproval of the tags.   Like the princess of the fairy tale, he was so sensitive to any sort of uncomfortable fabric that he refused to even lie down until it was gone.  I know, I know, I won the lottery with this one, didn’t I?  I would have to remove the offending garment from his delicate personage, get some scissors, and cut off the tag right then and there.  At first I tried to plead with him to just go to bed and deal, since the primary offenders seem to be pajama manufacturers, but it was futile. By now, it is routine for me to inspect all of his clothes pre-donning and wield the scissors when necessary.

And I think that somewhere out there are people who take great delight in trying to find the scratchiest material known to man, just so they can attach it to the back of pajamas for a three month old.   They must be in cahoots with the scissor industry or something.

I was delighted when I learned that some companies were beginning to ban the tags and instead print the information on the article of clothing itself.  I actually try to look for clothing with the printing, because it just saves me time and I’m lazy like that.                                                              

However, not enough of them are doing it because I still need to regularly hack off those tags.

Well, she doesn’t want it for herself; she simply wants to take it away from your child.

As she explains in her article in yesterday’s Guardian (titled Cuddly toys are ugly monstrosities – and it’s time we stopped our kids from fetishising them, I kid you not) she grew up without teddies, and just look how she turned out! Why, her interpersonal socialization skills are legendary.

Children haven’t always screamed themselves into conniptions if Teddy or Bunny or Cuddles got left behind. Nowadays, cutesy effigies of animals are apt to turn up almost anywhere; they gaze soulfully from car dashboards, loll in heaps on undergraduate beds, peep out of rucksacks and grace restaurant tables. Teddies and bunnies are taken into exams and sat on the desks, as if to be without them for three hours would induce hysteria and fainting spells. Soft toys are left along with the flowers at the scenes of fatalities. Wherever they are, they are truly hideous, beyond kitsch. By making our children fall in love with such ugliness, we are preparing them for a life without taste…

How to respond…and yes, she’s obviously hoping for a response; for someone so famously elitist, she is startlingly dependent on the masses, otherwise she’d have published that screed at Blogspot, not in the Guardian, or just done what most other people of such inclinations do: xerox a hundred copies at the drop-in centre and hand them out at intersections.

Well, I have puzzled and puzzed till my puzzler was sore, and I think I have come up with the proper response. My first, contrarian impulse was to suggest we pummel the bitter old weasel with an avalanche of sock monkeys and teddys whenever she appears in public.

My second, better suggestion is this: that, to save future generations from turning out the way Germaine Greer has, that we toddle ourselves off to the local toystore (or craft store, if you’re crafty) and purchase/make a stuffed toy, which we donate to a local children’s charity.

eg:

Any Children’s Hospital

Project NightNight

Artists Helping Children

Additional suggestions in the comments, plzthxkbai.