First there was the silly article complaining about a PETA billboard [“Edgy Mama: Feeding Kids Meat Doesn't Equal Child Abuse,”May 25 Xpress]. Subsequently, Stewart David gently corrected her uneducated views on meat, protein and health. I'd like to add that Anne Fitten Glenn intentionally took the alleged billboard's message "feeding kids meat is child abuse," totally out of context. Of course, a little meat now and then won't hurt a child; neither will an occasional cigarette, cup of coffee or glass of beer. Clearly, PETA's point is that feeding children meat on a daily basis is a form of abuse, for reasons touched upon by Mr. David and far too numerous to delve into here. PETA appeals to the compassionate and ethical parts of us, asking us to stop eating animal products in order to spare animals the horrific suffering they endure in confined feedlot operations. However, when shown that a certain segment of the population just doesn't care, PETA has brought to light the disastrous human-health effects of large doses of animal consumption. ...
Second, the “Dye for the Hair Down There” article in the July 6 Xpress. WTF? This puerile article belongs in a Cosmopolitan or Seventeen. I'm willing to bet that none of your readers has any desire or need to know what Glenn does with her pubic hairs. The article gave way too much information, was not remotely clever or funny, had no relevance to parenting and was totally juvenile and inappropriate.
At least Arnold Crapacan, from the Asheville Disclaimer’s satirical “Kid Care with Arnold,” is thought provoking and humorous. Glenn is neither — it’s time to ditch this column.
— Robbie Coleman