I really wanted to like Jennifer Tang's op-ed about the evolution of Barbie's birthplace. The idea was witty, and cheap plastic junk like Barbie (and all the other stuff Mattell has been forced to recall lately) is an impressive barometer of America's dependence on low wages overseas to prop up our endlessly consuming lifestyle.

But Tang's piece just got lame. She writes:

...I believe Barbie is a useful tool to teach kids about how the global economy penetrates into every aspect of our everyday lives. Want to talk about how dependent we are on the labor of foreign hands? Just pick up a Barbie. Want to know where Mommy's and/or Daddy's job disappeared to? Chances are it migrated to the same country welcoming a new Barbie factory.

Please. Can we stop talking about the magic migration of jobs yet? Tang herself notes that since its inception, Barbie was manufactured in Asia (first Japan, then Hong Kong, then Philippines, then Indonesia, then China) so her pert figure took the jobs of no American mommies or daddies with her on her peregrination.

There are interesting ways to discuss globalization bound up in our current Chinese manufacturing problems. I was hoping Tang would go after them. What is America's answer to a domestic population addicted to cheap manufactured goods (of the kind we haven't made here in decades)? What do we do about all the cargo containers returning to Asia empty because our exports -- American cars, price-propped agricultural products, drugs, and clothing -- don't sell like X-Boxes, flat-panel televisions, toys, organic food and everything else we get from China?

These and other important questions about globalization remain unanswered.