I always thought I was pretty open minded about things, and I still think I am, but seeing Tom Barlow's recent post on WalletPop about Miley Cyrus' much ballyhooed photos in the latest issue of Vanity Fair made me think, "Huh?"

I like Tom too much to be angry at him for calling the photos "art," but "art" was the last word I thought of when I saw the picture on various newscasts.

I should ask him if he's a parent, particularly if he's the father of a daughter. (I have his email. I could have asked or written him my opinion directly or simply put my thoughts down in the comments section. But it's much more fun to rake him over the coals over WalletPop.) As the father of two young daughters, who are four and six, I can completely understand what all the fuss has been over the photos.

The Miley Cyrus photos are not art. Actually, forget that point. Maybe they are art, and maybe they aren't. Art is in the eye of the beholder, really, and I don't really want to try to win that argument. But the photos are also commerce and being used to sell magazines. (I'm sure I'm helping to sell some issues right now.) And I'm tempted to even go all 1950s on everyone and call the picture of Ms. Cyrus giving that come hither look, in the buff under a blanket, smut.

I'm not one to follow the travails of America's debutantes and their persecution by paparazzi. However, I have been puzzled by the brouhaha this week that has broken out over Hannah Montana's photos in Vanity Fair. The pics show Mily Cyrus, the actress/singer who portrays the television character, wrapped in a sheet, revealing considerably less skin than would be on display in a bikini.

What no-one seems to be discussing is that the photos were taken by photographer Anne Liebowitz, certainly the most renown and one of the most artistic of current-day photographers. She's not a sleaze-monger, and her photos of celebrities, many gracing the cover of Rolling Stone, are among the most praised of this art form.

I'm guessing this is another instance of the morality police, who wouldn't know art if you wrapped it around a brick and hit them between the eyes with it, dragging Joe Average into their sex-obsessed version of reality. The same people fantasize about taking a hammer to the package of Michelangelo's David.

The Olsen Twins were once the world's nations wealthiest kids but it seems that title has been handed over to none other than Miley Cyrus. PEOPLE magazine has reported that Disney's singing and acting sensation and her Hannah Montana brand are slated to bring in $1 billion by the end of the year. (Not bad for 15-years-old) And, while not a billion, other child stars, like the Jonas Brothers, Dakota Fanning, and Abigail Breslin are bringing in multi-millions each year.

This made me wonder what average kids are doing with their money and how much they get in the first place. I headed out on the streets of New York City to find out and it seems that New York's youth are spending the majority of money they receive on their sweet tooth cravings. Many said that they spend their allowances on candy, and sometimes toys and clothes.

These kids, who generally earn their dough by doing chores around the house, bring in a range of dollar amounts: anywhere between $7 and $40 a week. While Miley Cyrus says that she would like to purchase a vintage Corvette with all her cash and the Jonas brothers bought new computers with theirs, the kids on the street said that if they had that kind of money they would consider doing something else with it.