Brian Rogers Rogers Rabbits www.sunlive.co.nz

We've warned you before about dodgy characters. First it was Donald Duck, who upset the PC brigade because he apparently runs around without pants.

Predictably, some academics try to make a career of researching it. Nudity in children's literature has been the topic of some university studies. Like the world needs more studies of comic characters with their gear off? How often do we gnash our teeth in frustration, hoping that someone would solve the conflicts in the Middle East, patch the hole in the ozone layer, find a cure for haemorrhoids, find a cure for Peter Dunne's hair and… explain why cartoon animals keep dropping their daks?

Now a bunch of parents are taking another swipe at Disney, not because of the rude duck and his perverted performances, but because they believe some products may be harmful to their children's health.

Sixty thousand have signed a petition protesting in New York, claiming Disney sells toxic lunch boxes. And that some back-to-school supplies contain vinyl with dangerous levels of toxic plastics. Donald seems to have ducked this one, Princess and Spiderman are in the firing line.

Lunchbox danger lurks

Their issue is with vinyl plastic and chemicals known as phthalates, which have reportedly been linked to serious health problems including asthma, ADHD and diabetes.

They say Phthalates are hazardous at low levels of exposure, disrupt hormones in our bodies, and have been linked to birth defects, infertility, early puberty, asthma, ADHD, obesity, diabetes and cancer.

I'm not surprised they are upset. The early Egyptians didn't get along with Phthalates, either.

More questions

The RR inbox gets a lot of mail these days from informed and discerning readers, with many pertinent comments to make on the current political climate, the state of the economy and other well-thought-out observations.

Such as: 'Dear Mr Rabbits, what is the fastest vegetable in the garden? Answer: the E-type carrot.”

And: 'Roger, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.”

Others are a bit more simplistic. And many, we can't print here.

Lately, there have been those urging this columnist to run for council. I have a standard response: 'I'd rather run for the hills.”

For starters, who in their right mind would stand for council? You only have to look at the ones who made it, to understand this.

They give many hours to sitting in boring council rooms, listening to boring councillors; reading endless boring reports and pretending to understand them, and then pretending to make a smart decision. (The smart ones learn to either fall asleep, or pretend to be asleep.)

They then have to withstand a relentless barrage of criticism from a whole bunch of picky ratepayers, who all think they could do better, and will never be happy with any decision anyway.

Completely nuts

Over many years of covering councils for a variety of publications and news organisations, I've probably attended more council meetings than all of the current councillors put together. This vast local government experience makes some people think, that combined with my understanding of the mood of the community, that I would make a good councillor. Granted, that after decades in the media, and 12 years of running the Sun, we do have a pretty clear picture of the wants and needs of this community.

That's all fine and dandy, but you forget, I'm actually still running for the hills, remember?

Because you'd have to be completely NUTS to run for council. And here, maybe, is the only reason that perhaps, I could weaken around nomination time, and in a moment of insanity, agree to stand.

The Elderly

You know who you are.

We received an interesting comment this week from a keen reader, taking issue with a recent story in the Sun, in which we labeled a woman 'elderly.” (at least we didn't call her an Old Duck).

Our reader took exception to the term, elderly.
Which got us wondering, at which point does one officially become elderly? To a young journalist, anyone of pension age is probably viewed as elderly. But the closer I get to pension age, the qualifying point doesn't seem so clear cut anymore. The term really doesn't accurately describe an age group; more a description of state of mind and body.

Sliding scale

These days however we are told people are living healthier and longer, so the old measures are a sliding scale.

When I was 10 I used to think anyone over 30 was elderly; anyone over 50 was positively jurassic. I hardly knew anyone over 80 and would probably have labeled them fossilised.

We're reviewing our use of such terms, as they probably don't contribute much to the story! Our apologies to anyone out there who we may have prematurely labelled ‘elderly'. A couple of weeks ago, we had a complaint from a boy racer who objected to being called that. His preferred title: Car enthusiast. Whatever, it is often other people's perceptions we have to live with.

We're sorry if, over the years, we have wrongfully pigeon-holed you.

As compensation to those of advanced years, we have provided free here a list of descriptions for you to re-categorise yourself. Simply circle your new desired classification, and it's official;

Middle Aged. Mature. Young at Heart. Aging gracefully. Twilight Years. Grumpy Old Fart. Dangerous Old Fart. Old Boy Racer. Decrepit. Too Old to Read this. Insert your title here:


……………………………..

Righto. That's all for this week. Time to sign off, before we get a complaint from Scrooge McDuck because we inferred he was elderly AND naked.