November 07, 2005
Making Children Political Tools
This topic has been on my mind for several months now. Seeing children at various anti-war protests, children used to promote a white nationalist theme, children used to protest in New York, the withdrawl of settlements in Israel among other events that made me stop and pause. Last night however I saw what to me was my “straw breaking the camel’s back moment.” A book written for children ages 4-8 called “Liberals are hiding under my bed”.
Is this how low this endless battle between Conservatives and Liberals has gone? It's not enough that we as adults so many times treat each other with such lack of respect but we have to take this down to our four year olds? I wondered, what kind of a parent would actually buy this book for their child? I then discovered Rush Limbaugh has "recommended it". Obviously he is not a parent. According to the author, this is in answer to books like "The Rainbow Fish" (The theme of which is looking for inner beauty), "King and King" (a same sex fairy tale), and "No George, No" (the Truth Fairy?).
So to be fair I will address what is a comparison. "The Rainbow Fish" I don't understand why would be at issue, it's no different than the various message type fairy tales, and the "King and King" type books are written basically not so much to promote a different lifestyle. Let's be honest here, they were written to try to market parents who have an alternative lifestyle. The same as "Liberals are hiding under my bed", it was written to attract conservative parents. The same as with "No George, No" was written to try to attract liberal parents. There is a slight difference though, books like "King and King" while badly written, are trying to promote an image of acceptance while books like "Liberals are hiding under my bed" is trying to promote a message of hatred. "No George, No", is not much better than "Liberals are hiding under my bed", while most young children would not make the connection to our current president, despite the illustrations. It also has not sold well though Amazon in what I find a true moment of irony is trying to package both books together. It's like HEY PEOPLE! If you are going to be inappropriate parents? Go for it!
I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, however I find using her as both an image and as "Congresswoman Clunkton" an attempt to sell more books to adults, especially Hillary hating adults. Ted Kennedy, another guy some love to hate is obvious in character as well. Aside from the clever marketing creation of this book which is of course part of our Free Market there are some serious issues. I am not stating this book should not be written, I am questioning though the deeper issue of our responsibilities as parents.
On my own blog I was involved with the Prussian Blue story, I even participated on a BBC radio program about this band and tried to focus on the parental aspect. For those not aware of who Prussian Blue is, they are a musical group, twin sisters who sing to promote a White Nationalist message. Their mother is involved in a White Nationalist group and they have been raised to believe among many theories that Hitler was a wonderful man who should be admired. There was so much of a public outcry in the media and on the blogosphere about these children being used for such a message. Some went as far as to state they felt the girls should be taken away from their mother. Yet, here we have a similar message of hate. Hate against blacks? Bad...Hate against Liberals? Good. Hate against Conservatives? Good.
People that made comments about how Prussian Blue was not a good message to promote were supported, applauded. People that don't support "Liberals are hiding under my bed"? Obviously must be Liberals....
I don't buy the message that since the liberals did it first that makes this book acceptable. That to me borders on the theory of "If everyone jumped off a bridge would you join them?". If it is wrong for them than it is wrong. This whole double standard of "it's different when we do it" is part of the reason why our country is so messed up. You don't teach children personal responsibility by encouraging that. You don't use children as part of your giant "tit for tat" game that so many on the right and the left engage in.
Most disturbing to me in all of this, is the inability of these parents to let their children be children. There is so much of a rush to make them grow up before they should have to. Childhood is an important stage. So many already rush to have them dress like the next MTV star in elementary school, so few get to experience even close to the childhoods we had. Things as simple as the family dinner have disappeared for most to the point eating with your children is being promoted. Common sense should tell you that eating dinner as a family has important benefits but no, we need studies to tell us that and a promotional campaign. We as parents cannot protect them from everything bad however we don't have to drag them into the pettiness of this "liberals versus conservatives" battle. What's next? Cartoon shows?
So, as you look at children and wonder as some of them grow up how they end up with no respect for the political process, no respect for the judicial process, no respect for the office of the president and no respect for us as adults? Some parents need only look in the mirror to see why that happened. You can attempt to blame the education system, the media, etc. However at the end of the day? Parents have the largest impact on their children.
Posted by Lisa Renee Ward at November 7, 2005 09:40 AMLisa,
I am saddened but not surprised by the publication of such books. Politics in this country has now become the most destructive influence on our society, second to none. There is more harm in that type of trash than any terrorist can accomplish and people on both aisles need to be ashamed of themselves and “do something about it.” Otherwise it will be too late and the next civil war will be uglier than the first by magnitudes.
Posted by: Dave at November 7, 2005 11:46 AMThese types of publications will be handled by the market. They will find few buyers and be in the remainder stack within 6 months. I don’t have a lot of concern about this except to say that I think anyone who uses this nonsense to shape the views of their kids (by nonsense, I mean on both sides of the political spectrum. My gosh, does anyone expect kids under the age of 10 to have any substantial understanding of politics?) is simply transfering bias.
Great post Lisa.
Posted by: Dennis at November 7, 2005 12:14 PMDennis,
People used to say that about Coulter and her trash. Unfortunately, the market panders. In this case it panders to hate, and hate sells.
Posted by: Dave at November 7, 2005 12:26 PMI agree in reality this book as well as the others will drop and be bargain bin books eventually. The deeper issues though will remain which is how I got started on my “parental rant”.
I have five children, three are now legally adults, one is 16 and one is 11. The other day my 11 year old wanted to go over to play at a girl’s house in our neighborhood. I’d never met the parents, so I walked Aubrey over there and when her friend came out to play asked to meet her mother. Both the girl and her mother acted as if I was asking something strange. I’ve done this with all of mine to me you don’t let your child play at someone’s house without having at least met the parents.
Then the deeper issues of parents who involve their children in their political causes. I did my share of protesting back in my younger days, so I understand the desire to make a difference. That doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to involve or use children. I’ve seen small children carrying signs that say “Bush is a Wanker”, as another example.
To me, parenting is one of the most important jobs we will ever do. None of us is perfect, Lord knows I made mistakes as a parent. Yet we can do something about this. It’s not that hard to treat others with respect even if you disagree with them.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 7, 2005 12:31 PMExcellent post, Lisa. And more than a little sickening. I’m sure that Rush and Anne Coulter will give this little hate-filled volume out to all of their nieces, nephews, and friends with children. But for the rest of us parents who believe that hatred, exclusion and intolerance are not family values, I am thoroughly disgusted. My children are given books that teach moral lessons, not political ideology. Let kids be kids, for God’s sake. Don’t poison them with politics. They’ll have their entire adult lives to experience that.
Speaking of which, why is it always someone from the far right — someone who is supposed to be “conservative” — who comes out to prove himself/herself more dangerous than any liberal I’ve ever known? After all, there is nothing conservative about brainwashing children, whether said brainwashing happens in a book or on a CD filled with white supremacist music sung by two 13-year old conservatively-raised sisters:
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1
Here’s a question…is it worse to have an overbearing parent or an absentee parent?
I wouldn’t shun this book - possibly until I read it. It would take a mature child, but it could be a perfect first exposure to critical thinking when it comes to political media, an sometimes overwhelming, but important skill.
It makes sense that children are used so much in social issues because everyone knows they are the future leaders. A professional athlete, musician, and scientist all often start training their minds and bodies at a young age under the watchful eye of a parent. Sometimes it is the parent living their life through the child, others it is the legitamate interst of the child. Who can judge?
A while back I was dropping my daughter off at day care, and one boy was chanting “Denny radio, 1370 WSPD”. Talk about a young exposure to politics…I never let my kids listen to AM talk unless its a gardening show on the weekend. They aren’t ready for it, but they will be someday. Give your children the ability to listen and accept, or listen and reject. But base it on their rediness. Don’t damn the author, accept it, and learn from it.
Posted by: aaron at November 7, 2005 01:15 PMFirst off, let me just say that I agree with you Lisa, children shouldn’t be introduced to politics until they truly understand something about their world and the country they live in — probably around nine or ten years of age.
However, I decided to go take a look at two of the books you were referring to in your article, and I see there is one really major difference between these two, even though both are obviously inappropriate, and undoubtly intended as political indoctrination for very young kids.
Here are the book descriptions from their respective Amazon.com pages:
“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!”
Book Description
This full-color illustrated book is a fun way for parents to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.
“NO, George, NO! The Re-parenting of George W. Bush”
Book Description
This is a book about a President named George who has a dream. In this dream, George becomes a little boy, and he meets a Truth Fairy who is trying to teach him lessons about How to not manipulate the Media, How to treat Veterans, How to be honest, How to be respectful with families who have lost soldiers in war, How to go to War only when necessary, How not to label people as Boogeymen, How not to invade countries, How to control greed, How to hold fair elections, and How to behave as a leader. Though there are political lessons and footnotes for people to learn more, the ultimate lesson in the 32 paged hard cover children’s style 81/2” x 11” book is that we are all connected; we are all one. On his journey while playing the game of “Let’s Imagine” with the Truth Fairy, the young boy George learns many other lessons, including the fact that it is up to each of us to create the person we are becoming.
Sounds as though in the first book, it’s all about teaching kids that Liberals are the Boogeyman.
While in the second, the idea is to not label people that way, because we are all connected.
Pretty huge difference, don’t you think?
This topic is joining two subjects which really don’t belong together—namely, the use of children as “political tools” or props, and the political indoctrinization of children at a young age.
The use of children as props in a rally or protest is totally wrong since children are in no position to fully understand the issues, much less make the independent choice to be used in that manner.
I have no problem with parents taking their children to protests—that’s a parenting issue, and at some age the kids are going to start thinking themselves anyway.
Indoctrinating children is a trickier subject—every parent, left or right, does this to some extent. I’ve seen many young kids in New York, often with their parents, and all of them wearing very harshly worded anti-Bush t-shirts.
You want to tell me that 8 and 9 year old kids pick out “Bush, the Real Terrorist” and “Bush Lied” t-shirts all by themselves?
However, parents have a right to bring up their children however they see fit, and that includes buying them books which advance a certain political view. It’s really not a big deal, considering the constant diet of left-wing material fed to them at school and on tv, if they also own a humorous cartoon book which pokes fun at the left.
A far more serious problem lies with these organizations which tell children to skip school and protest, as happened earlier this month when thousands of kids across the country were told (often by their teachers) to go out and protest the Iraq war.
Posted by: sanger at November 7, 2005 01:17 PMsanger…”It’s really not a big deal, considering the constant diet of left-wing material fed to them at school and on tv.”
I see. I didn’t realize that 2nd grade and Barney were left wing. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at November 7, 2005 01:46 PMI think it’s fair Adrienne to acknowledge “No George, No”, is just as inappropriate given the bias as “Liberals are under my bed”. I’m not going to attempt to say one is better than the other since to my way of thinking neither is appropriate for the selected age group.
Aaron, if the book was targeted to an older audience that would be one thing, however the target age group is 4 to 8 years old.
Sanger, I see a connection to both using children as a political tool and the marketing of this indoctrination. If parents were not so interested in attempting to involve children in the political process authors would not be trying to market them. Nor would those like Rush Limbaugh be out there recommending them. Nor would parents think it was appropriate to not only march their young child (and by young I mean under 6) in an anti-war protest carrying signs containing words most of us as parents would not want our child to speak. To me the bottom line which connects is responsibility of the parent and the loss of years of childhood.
Sanger,
It’s one thing to read about political dissent in school books; it’s another to experience it first hand. For better or worse, protesting is a fine educational experience for young people. Much like how you and I went with our parents when they voted every 2 or 4 years.
Posted by: Joseph at November 7, 2005 01:54 PMChildren under 6? The 6 year olds I know would find all the shouting and energy scary. I was thinking about 12 or older.
Lisa,
A very good piece. I’m not a parent, but I do see where you’re coming from.
Posted by: Joseph at November 7, 2005 01:59 PMJoseph, I agree older children are a different issue when it comes to protesting. On several different protest sites out there as well as in the media young children are being included as a part of these protests. Not just at Crawford (on both sides) but as a part of the regular Saturday protests out infront of the Whitehouse. Since I did mention the “wanker” episode, and I realize some of you don’t believe something unless you can see it. I doubt anyone would disagree with me as to the young age of this child who’s parents must not have an issue with him being photographed since it is on one of the more popular anti-bush sites.
I have saved it to my own domain rather than to bring that site into this discussion.
http://www.psyche777.net/images/childprotestor.jpg
If it were just this one child? It would be one thing, but it’s not just him.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 7, 2005 02:09 PMJoseph, as I said, I see no problem with children accompanying their parents to a nonviolent protest so long as they’re not being used as props. It doesn’t matter if I agree with the issue or not—I believe in the right of parents to raise their own children (which isn’t to say that many parents don’t do a bad job).
Depending on what else is going on in the protest (i.e. drugs), I may question their parenting, but again—that’s their own business as long as the kids aren’t in any immediate danger of harm.
The same thing goes for books. As long as it’s not porn or overly violent, I think kids should be exposed to all kinds of reading material and hopefully, over time, get different sides of the same issues. I find it amusing that liberals here get angry over the very existence of a single children’s book (not being used in schools or even issued by a major press) that pokes humorous fun a them.
I don’t buy into the idea that kids have to be protected from anything political or partisan—why should they be? It’s hardly the destruction of innocence that Lisa is worried about. Why should children be kept from knowing that they live in a world where people seriously disagree? This is a matter, I think, of people taking politics WAY too seriously.
What crosses the line, however, is people other than parents trying to ram political agendas down children’s throats. Even in the left-wing community I live in, many people had a problem with the local social studies teacher showing Farenheit 9-11 to his classes on the day before last year’s election.
Posted by: sanger at November 7, 2005 02:16 PMLisa, I see that you’re serious about this but I have to laugh at some of the conclusions here.
You’ve got Dave here saying that this book teaches hate? Hatemongers? Sure, Dave will say that a conservative opening the front door in the morning proves they are hateful.
And Adrienne saying that the liberal version is actually teaching people not to label? As if teaching kids to not be like those bad conservatives isn’t labeling? I’m not sure you’re seeing both side Adrienne.
Now I’ve never bought my daughters any book this political. But I will tell you that some of the everyday children’s books themselves are not without some hint of political agenda.
But my thought or question is, are you just upset that liberals are portrayed as bad, or are you upset that parents have the freedom to read this to their kids? Perhaps in a liberal America they wouldn’t be allowed to indoctrinate their kids outside of the progressive party line?
Posted by: esimonson at November 7, 2005 02:29 PM|||Sounds as though in the first book, it’s all about teaching kids that Liberals are the Boogeyman.
While in the second, the idea is to not label people that way, because we are all connected.
Pretty huge difference, don’t you think?|||
Actually it sounds like the first book is presented more like a fable whereas the second sounds like someone disguising their vendetta as a book with substance; but that may just be the way the synopsis is written. Of course I’m sure they’re both equally lame.
Great post btw - looks like just another area for parents to take responsibility with - I don’t have kids but if I did, I wouldn’t really see this as so serious a threat to their “political wellbeing” as watching tv is.
Posted by: brando at November 7, 2005 02:35 PMEric:
“But my thought or question is, are you just upset that liberals are portrayed as bad,”
Yes. Whereas the liberal storybook wasn’t about “conservatives” in general, it was about one very dishonest president.
“or are you upset that parents have the freedom to read this to their kids?”
Of course it upsets me to think that parents would want to indoctrinate their children to fear or hate other people before their little minds can even begin to understand their world or their country, yes. I would feel the same way if either of these books were about religion, color, race or class differences among people, rather than political affiliation.
Do they have the freedom to do so anyway? Yes, they do.
“Perhaps in a liberal America they wouldn’t be allowed to indoctrinate their kids outside of the progressive party line?”
Maybe you should think about writing a similar storybook for your children Eric, since your posts always seem to seeth hatred and contain divisive phrases like “liberal America”.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2005 02:52 PM|||Hate against blacks? Bad…Hate against Liberals? Good. Hate against Conservatives? Good.|||
It’s political bigotry - seems to be an acceptable form of intolerance and prejudice, especially on forums like these where the term “stupid” is thrown at people with diverging opinions.
Posted by: brando at November 7, 2005 03:14 PMWhy is “No George No” innapropriate?
Reading it to my children I would focus on how important honesty, transparency, and accountability is important for gov’t as well an individuals ability to maintain their honor and integrity. The end lesson being that what one person does effects others.
Admittedly, “There are liberals under My bed” teaches, perversly some of the same thing, i.e. gov’t interference impacts individuals lives.
So, where’s the difference?
I’d like esimpnson to answer this simple question: Does the “liberal under the bed” book model the appropriate behavior of “do onto others” or does it teach children to hate liberals by associating the term “liberal” with “monsters”? Or is hating liberals one of your commandments on par with “good things to know and do”?
Posted by: Dave at November 7, 2005 03:27 PMEric, I question what type of parents we have today, that is what disturbs me. You may not see the innocence lost issue as I do, I’m not sure if you have children and if you do how old they are. I’ve seen it first hand and continue to. It disturbs me on many levels. The book is just one small part of what I see is a larger issue. Our children are having sex earlier, using drugs ealier and becoming violent earlier. Not to long ago Toledo experienced a riot, one of the primary reasons the White Nationalist group even selected Toledo was a supposed “gang problem” in that neighborhood. This gang? Elementary and Junior High kids.
So I have been asking myself “Where are the parents?” more and more as of late. In Paris, teenagers are rioting well over a week now. Where are the parents? So this for me was a culmination of at least attempting to discuss something that we can do something about. Trying to acknowledge that if we continue to disrespect each other our children are going to follow our lead. Along with firmly believing young children should not be used as part of the political game process. Can I stop them? Nope, but I can write about it.
Too complicated of an issue for one post? Probably. But that’s where I am coming from. No one is accepting the primary responsibility for why alot of what we see today happens. We blame it on poverty, schools, media, etc, yet the cold hard reality is? Where are the parents?
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 7, 2005 03:33 PMDave, “No, George No” is just as inappropriate because it is using the President of the United States and his political position in a fabrication of a children’s book the same as “Liberals are under my bed”. I’d suggest anyone who doubts this visit the website for “No George No” as well and see that the subtitle of the book is “The Re-parenting of George W. Bush”, it’s not quite the way it appears from the cute little synopsis.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 7, 2005 03:39 PMLisa,
I’m still agreeing with you that both books seem completely inappropriate for small children.
The only distinction I was making was that the writer of “No George No!” (I have not read the whole book, so I’m speculating here) seems to have chosen to talk about one person with the desire to abuse his power, rather than a whole group of people bearing the conservative label. While the other book is totally blatant in trying to instill the idea that all liberals are bad, scary people that should be hated and shunned. The title alone tells us we needn’t speculate — the obvious fact is, it’s nothing but pure, unadulterated rightwing bigotry.
Adrienne:
Both books are sad little things that need not have been written. Its embarrassing to watch you try to shuck and jive to show that one is better than the other. It really is. Were the ” No George No” book written as “No Bill No”, you just know you’d have been all over it. And if you don’t have the capacity to know that, well, all it takes for the rest of us to know it is to review your posts over the past couple of years.
Look, both books are horrible examples of what our society provides. I suppose if they are intended as satires, I can live with them. Even still, there would be those parents out there who would treat them as reality as opposed to satire.
Posted by: jeobagodonuts at November 7, 2005 04:51 PM“Liberals are hiding under my bed”. “The Rainbow Fish” (The theme of which is looking for inner beauty), “King and King” (a same sex fairy tale), and “No George, No” (the Truth Fairy?).
Whatever happened to “Mother Goose” and “Grimms Fairy Tales”? This kind of BS is forcing our kids to grow up TOO FAST. They grow up fast enough without pushing it.
Most disturbing to me in all of this, is the inability of these parents to let their children be children.There is so much of a rush to make them grow up before they should have to.Childhood is an important stage. So many already rush to have them dress like the next MTV star in elementary school, so few get to experience even close to the childhoods we had.And I beleive that this hurts the kids as they don’t get to really experince childhood.
Things as simple as the family dinner have disappeared for most to the point eating with your children is being promoted. Common sense should tell you that eating dinner as a family has important benefits but no, we need studies to tell us that and a promotional campaign.And eating in front of the idiot box with the kids is not a subsitute for sitting at the table with them with the one eyed monster TURNED OFF. Sitting at the table with them without the interuption of TV is the best time to teach your children the values that you feel are important to them.
We as parents cannot protect them from everything bad however we don’t have to drag them into the pettiness of this “liberals versus conservatives” battle.But we sure would like to protect them from all the bad things. But then I wonder if that would really be good for them. And pushing them into this us v them crap sure doesn’t help things.
What’s next? Cartoon shows?
SSSSSHHH! You’ll give them ideas.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 7, 2005 05:50 PMMister Magoo
Checked out your link and the only good thing I can say is they’re a couple of cute kids.
It’s sickening to think that kids that young (they were 9 when they started) are rewarded for singing about hate. It’s bad enough when adults are rewarded for it.
Adrienne:
Yes. Whereas the liberal storybook wasn’t about “conservatives” in general, it was about one very dishonest president.
And guess who yaall think is a dishonest President?
Your making it Conservitives are idiots while Liberials are the only good people around. and this is exactlly what this book is doing too.
“Liberials Are Hiding Under MY Bed” is doing the same thing in reverse.
Ron:
“Your making it Conservitives are idiots while Liberials are the only good people around.”
Frankly that’s crap, Ron. I don’t judge all conservatives to be idiots or consider them to anything like George W. Bush. In fact, I don’t consider him conservative, at all, though I wonder why so many of you guys do.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2005 06:26 PMGeorge W. Bush. In fact, I don’t consider him conservative, at all, though I wonder why so many of you guys do.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2005 06:26 PM
Hey, we do agree on something.
This article definetly raises a good point, you cant mess and mold with a childs mind, you need to teach them the importance of both sides and help them to learn and think for themselves…..it’s not a surprise to me that things like this are happening, theyve been happening for a while i’ve just never heard of adults brainwashing children thru childrens books
Posted by: alex at November 7, 2005 08:03 PMTell them stories about good people making difficult choices. Tell them stories about courage and love and honesty and wisdom and learning. Don’t try to raise them to be listless conformists or apologists for your beliefs. Raise them to be good and brave and truthful.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2005 08:10 PMStephen:
Precisely. Precisely!!
And that there are courageous and loving and honest and wise people on all sides of the political spectrum. And the opposite too.
Raise them to know your point of view, understand your point of view and recognize your point of view. And teach them your rationale and give them the brainpower, courage and wisdom to determine for themselves whether your point of view makes sense to them.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 7, 2005 08:56 PMThis is too funny.
Protecting children from humorous cartoon books with a political angle for fear that they’ll grow up too fast? What are people afraid of here? That kids might start reading William F. Buckley and Eric Alterman instead of playing Grand Theft Auto and listening to Brittney?
Or what should they be reading? Brothers Grimm, which is filled with stories about kidnapping and murdering children?
This is the heighth of PC silliness—no different from some on the right who complain about Barney and Teletubbies or those on the left who think that Mark Twain should be banned and that kids should be punished for playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians.
People left, right and center, need to relax and stop seeing the whole world in terms of their own political biases.
Try giving “Liberals are Hiding under My Bed” or “No, George, No” to a real live kid instead of an adult posting on a poltical website and the books will be quickly tossed aside in favor of something the kid acutally wants to read or play with.
Which goes to prove my theory that in many ways kids are often more sensible than adults.
Posted by: sanger at November 7, 2005 09:00 PMLisa,
I wouldn’t use the book to teach my children. It is a bit too complex for their age. In fact, I don’t believe it is oriented towards children. But, someone could verify from the author if they so chose.
jbod: “Were the ” No George No” book written as “No Bill No”, you just know you’d have been all over it.”
You’re right. I would be all over someone trying to tell my kids about oral sex, cigars, and $50+million spent on a witch hunt.
Sanger, I never had a problem with the teletubbies though I thought the one carrying the purse was a bit strange.
I’ve also stated that this was a bit more than just related to the book though I’m glad you were entertained. :-)
Dave, the 4 to 8 year old range is what the author stated and is what is listed on amazon as well as other sites as the suggested age.
I realize I jumped up on the soap box on this one, and I also realize this is a much deeper issue. Some of it we touched on here, and that to me is a positive result.
i have a problem w/ teletubbies, and also all other pointless t.v. shows that parents turn on in order to occupy there kids while they do something else
Posted by: alex at November 8, 2005 12:04 AMLisa Renee,
Great post! I love it when you bring up the parenting angle, because you handle it so well. It’s amazing to me that a publisher would even risk it’s reputation on this kind of nonsense, but then again… they do it all the time with adult books because they sell, so why not? Yuck!
And I agree, the irony of selling the books together… I mean, what kind of audience is Amazon trying to reach there? The confused?
As for myself, I have kids in the targetted age-range and the most controversial books I’ve bought for them is a Halloween bonus pack from Scholastic. And in the defense of my kids’ good taste, the book in that set that they like most is Dem Bones by Bob Barner which, despite the semi-controversial nature of Halloween skeletons, teaches about bones and their uses and location, as well as the song “thigh bone connected to da hip bone.” It was absolutely cool to have my six-year come up to me and ask, “Mommy, do you have phalanges?”
There are far too many quality, non-controversial books out there that actually teach kids things they need to know (like how to share and their ABC’s) to waste money on the kind of trash you cited above.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 8, 2005 12:30 AMRon Brown,
“SSSSSHHH! You’ll give them ideas.”
Hate to tell you this, but it’s been done. Completely ignoring the MTV cartoons that aren’t intended (I hope!) for children… Have you checked out “Sesame Street” lately, it’s gotten a LOT more liberal since I was a kid (and I’m only 26). Most of it is still good things for kids to learn, but they regularly push it way too far to be considered non-controversial. “Arthur” is another popular one that’s like that. On the other side, I’m sure “Li’l Bill” would be considered too conservative for some parents, based mostly on the fact that my husband really enjoys watching it with our boys.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 8, 2005 12:36 AMalex,
“i have a problem w/ teletubbies, and also all other pointless t.v. shows that parents turn on in order to occupy there kids while they do something else”
There’s that aspect in general. Teletubbies specifically bothers me, because it demonstrates bad oral motor skills. As a mother of children with speech delays, I find a show that teaches kids ineffective communication a really bad idea, especially since kids who watch excessive amounts of t.v. or videos tend to lack opportunities to actually communicate with other people as it is.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 8, 2005 12:58 AMAdrienne,
Of course it upsets me to think that parents would want to indoctrinate their children to fear or hate other people before their little minds can even begin to understand their world or their country, yes.
I’m not sure why you’re seeing hate where there is none. I see very little difference between the two books myself from reading what’s evident on their websites. Both portray the other side as doing something wrong. What does Liberals Under my Bed teach that is hateful?
Maybe you should think about writing a similar storybook for your children Eric, since your posts always seem to seeth hatred and contain divisive phrases like “liberal America”.
Again, where’s the hatred?
I have to laugh at your response about this. Does disagreement and disapproval always equal hatred in your mind? What is it about what you believe that precludes anyone disagreeing with you?
I know, I know… I’m just a hatemonger—throw in racist while you’re at it.
Actually Adrienne, I do value your responses to my posts because you usually have something of substance to say and make an argument.
Posted by: esimonson at November 8, 2005 03:40 AMDave,
I’d like esimpnson to answer this simple question: Does the “liberal under the bed” book model the appropriate behavior of “do onto others” or does it teach children to hate liberals by associating the term “liberal” with “monsters”? Or is hating liberals one of your commandments on par with “good things to know and do”?
You haven’t established this premise at all yet. The question is on you: Does it teach children to hate liberals?
It isn’t at all obvious to me that it does.
If it does, why wouldn’t ‘No George No’ also be teaching hatred?
My opinion of both books is ambivalent. I don’t think I would spend any money on either.
I do think that kids need better books on how capitalism works, however.
Posted by: esimonson at November 8, 2005 03:51 AMLisa,
Eric, I question what type of parents we have today, that is what disturbs me. You may not see the innocence lost issue as I do, I’m not sure if you have children and if you do how old they are.
I’d say TV is more a culprit in that than any fringe book ever published.
I have three beautiful girls, 3, 4, and 7. I don’t indoctrinate them. But I do answer questions, and they ask so many!
A fair question might be how much of this kind of indoctrination they should be receiving in school. This last presidential election they ‘voted’ in my oldest daughters class. Bush and Kerry were on the ticket! That prompted her to ask me questions about who the President was, who the candidates were, etc. How much do you think they should be teaching about politics in Second grade?
Posted by: esimonson at November 8, 2005 04:04 AMDave:
jbod: “Were the ” No George No” book written as “No Bill No”, you just know you’d have been all over it.” You’re right. I would be all over someone trying to tell my kids about oral sex, cigars, and $50+million spent on a witch hunt.
But would you mind telling your kids about how easy it is to mishandle power and authority, how lying is always wrong whether its about sex, money or stealing a cookie from your sister, how honesty with your family is essential, how treating family members with proper respect is important, how sometimes saying “NO” to a wrong action is the right action to take….
I noticed that you didn’t bring up any of those issues, which are really the values issues that are important, arent they.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 8, 2005 08:24 AMEric, the questions never stop - lol.
I have a bit of a different view of this since my youngest is in her last year of elementary school. The peer aspect of pairing off and actually “dating” is happening in the 5th grade. Not with my child as I personally believe 11 year olds have no business dating. We have a small group of parents that seem to think this is “cute” and another group that doesn’t seem to pay attention to anything their children are doing. Then, some diehards like me who feel 7th and 8th grade is appropriate for group dates/dances. Too many of these girls are losing their virginity while still in middle school. This is due to lack of parental involvement and communication.
TV is a large issue, I always monitored mine and until very recently did not even have satellite tv. Now that we do? I’m still careful with my 11 year old.
I think personally in the second grade they should be aware of how the voting process works but I really don’t believe at that age level they are capable of making an informed decision on all of the issues. In seeing similar “votes” here? Most of the kids end up voting as their parents would. Only positive? My bunch is typically the only one who knows anything about alternate candidates.
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 8, 2005 08:49 AMEric:
“What does Liberals Under my Bed teach that is hateful?”
Well, small children are usually afraid of what’s under their beds — therefore, the title alone is saying that liberals are someone they should fear, and as we all know (or should), fear very often breeds hatred.
Maybe you should think about writing a similar storybook for your children Eric, since your posts always seem to seeth hatred and contain divisive phrases like �liberal America�.
“Again, where’s the hatred?”
Perhaps you’re not even aware of it, but your articles often villanize people who stand on the left. Judging by many of your articles and posts, it’s as though you think we are lesser citizens than your supporters who stand on the right. Using phrases like “liberal America” implies that we are no longer one country made up of many different people with many and various opinions, but rather a country engaged in an ideological war of just two opposing sides that want to kill each other. I don’t think that does us much good (and I for one have no desire to see conservative thought disappear entirely in America). We should be able to respect each others opinions without tearing the country completely in half, don’t you think?
“I have to laugh at your response about this. Does disagreement and disapproval always equal hatred in your mind?”
For me it depends entirely upon the manner of disagreement and the level of disapproval. The manner of your disagreement often seems to end up with many of us on the left being labeled Communists that really hate America, while your level of disagreement seems pretty high and not always friendly.
“I know, I know… I’m just a hatemonger—throw in racist while you’re at it.”
Nah, I don’t go around pasting labels on people unless and until they seem deserved.
“Actually Adrienne, I do value your responses to my posts because you usually have something of substance to say and make an argument.”
That’s the first friendly thing you’ve ever said to me personally. Thank you very much, Eric. I would like to think we will one day have a real in depth debate over something important, that won’t end up with both of us doing our best to insult each other! :^)
Posted by: Adrienne at November 8, 2005 12:36 PMjbod: “I noticed that you didn’t bring up any of those issues, which are really the values issues that are important, arent they.”
You are correct. If my children were old enoguh to understand about sex then it would be an appropriate topic. You are gravely mistaken if you think I haven’t taught my kids about honesty, integrity, and responsibility. But, you seem to think the entire Clinton presidency is defined by a blue dress. It was and is Hillary’s problem and should never have been a public matter. He lied about it, yes. If you remember, every other claim made against Clinton was not even remotely verified. I don’t mean unproved, I mead evaporated. As in, was a load of crap.
Now let’s talk about the Georgie book…
How to not manipulate the Media,
How to treat Veterans,
How to be honest,
How to be respectful with families who have lost soldiers in war,
How to go to War only when necessary,
How not to label people as Boogeymen,
How not to invade countries,
How to control greed,
How to hold fair elections, and
How to behave as a leader. …
the ultimate lesson … is that we are all connected; we are all one… that it is up to each of us to create the person we are becoming.
And the Monster under the bed book:
teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. …
liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes,
take down their picture of Jesus, and
serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade,
the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.
Great conservative priorities you have there. The first talks about wrong things done by an “imaginary” evil man. The second demonizes a a group. The first says “these are bad behaviors” the second says “these are bad people.”
So, to esimonson; Yes, the book teaches to hate liberals.
Lisa;
I went to the George book’s web page and did not see a recommended age listed. I went to the Under the Bed’s page and found it was aimed towards children. Any info from Amazon is oriented towards selling and does not mean it’s part of either authors intentions.
Seems to me one books goal is to demonize those who don’t agree with it while the other’s is to teach children right from wrong. Hmmmm, which book would you read to your kids?
Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2005 12:46 PMDave:
You’ve attributed some might big conclusions to me, without me having said anything to lead you to them. Perhaps you are looking at me as a composite of a bunch of people, but you certainly don’t seem to be looking at the real me, as based on your comments.
But, you seem to think the entire Clinton presidency is defined by a blue dress. It was and is Hillary’s problem and should never have been a public matter.
I’ve said loud and often that Clinton was an okay president—not great, not bad, but okay—and that the Lewinsky affair was NOT a private matter. My rationale: He had Lewinsky in his office giving him a BJ while he was discussing the Balkan issue with US Rep. Sonny Callahan. Since that qualifies as him doing his job, the affair at least partially was in the public realm. This by the way is a proven fact which in no way has evaporated. It may have been ignored, or deemed not worthy of a guilty verdict, but it sure as hell happened that way.
I’ve not questioned what you teach your kids. My comment was simply that you focused on what I consider the unimportant aspects and didn’t mention the important ones. By the way, I wouldn’t read EITHER book to my kids. I prefer to teach them in more constructive manners than by resorting to someone’s idea of a teaching instrument. I bet you would do the same.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 8, 2005 01:52 PMjbod,
Perhaps I over reacted. Although you’re right I wouldn’t read either book my children, I might read with them No George No after he’s out of office. There are great lessons from this administration, especially in the ‘not what to’ category.
One question; When did you learn about the Balkan exposure?
As for the other issues that ‘evaporated’, examples I’m refering to could be Travelgate (vs. the contemporary Plamegate :-) and the killing of a cabinet member (vs. a few pesky Iraqi’s, perhaps).
Lisa Renee:
Terrific post.
You are upset because 4 and 5 year olds are subjected to hate-filled books. It’s not a question of politics but of the dissemination of hatred. To kids no less.
This is happening because adults are filled with hatred. Conservatives attack liberals as atheists and traitors. Liberals attack conservatives as macho and holy.
The only way to change things in this country is to remove competition from the pedestal we keep it on. Each of us is busy trying to let everyone else know how much smarter, better, richer, more succesful we are than others. We adopt a competitive attitude in everything, not just in politics.
Let’s adopt a more cooperative attitude. Let’s start by adopting the motto of Watchblog: Critique the message, not the messenger.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 8, 2005 03:00 PMDave:
I learned about Sonny Callahan discussing the financing of troops in the Balkans while Lewinsky was in Clinton’s office from reading the independent prosecutor’s report. I also read articles at the time during which Callahan corroborrated his side of the conversation, meaning that he knew nothing about Lewinsky being present in the Oval Office at the time. White House records showed Lewinsky being admitted a few minutes before the phone call, which was documented in the White House phone logs.
Clinton was accused of a good many things which were not proven. This doesn’t prove they did NOT happen, but there certainly also isnt proof that they did. Same has happened with Bush.
I belief proof is required before condemning someone. That is why I focused my comment on Clinton so specifically. I feel his affair was public, based on my above rationale. Havent yet heard anyone provide proof otherwise. Usually, they go back to the whole “it was just sex” argument, which lets me know my comment still stands.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 8, 2005 03:17 PMStephine
I would REFUSE to let MYV even be on TV in my home if I got it. But as I don’t have cable or satallite I don’t get it.
The only time Sesame Street is on my tv anymore is if some of the younger grandkids are over during the week. And this isn’t very often.
So I’ll take your word on it as you have kids at home.
Is the purpose of advocacy, in this case books and singers, to get peer support for your cause.
Who is going to follow the 6 year old British kid holding the “Bush is a Bloody Wanker” sign.
Other than a few groupies who like the looks of the 13 year old girls who are making a fortune singing and performing provocatively, is anyone really understanding, less responding to their message?
The story of the girls is obviously in their dad’s belt buckle, tattoos and pick up truck.
I suggest don’t buy the books or the DVD’s and start using the off button on your radio and TV.
Posted by: steve smith at November 8, 2005 04:37 PMjbod,
I never said “It was just sex.” Having said that, the whole Clinton impeachment exercize was a stupid waste of the country’s time, energy, and money. Monica had an “A” badge and the President decided her presence did not compromise National Security. This was not a “high crime” by any stretch of the imagination.
As for the “not proven” parts. Do you actually believe Clinton killed Ron Brown and he just wasn’t caught? But, if you don’t feel that way, have I just missed your call for resurrection of an independent prosecutor and the possible impeachment hearings to follow? I would certainly include Gannon-gate in the pile of wonderings myself! I am far more suspicious of a gay republican porn star pretending to be a reporter than a horny intern with a thing for cigars. Just as an example.
Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2005 04:45 PMDave:
I didn’t intend for it to sound as if you were saying “its only sex”. I meant that no one has yet intelligently and factually refuted my statement that the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was in the public domain. You did not do so—instead, you reverted to a different argument claiming that it wasn’t that big of a deal. Sounds like a capitulation to my point, if I may say so.
Answer this: If a university president had sex with a 22 year old student intern while on the phone with one of his professors, would you consider that acceptable behavior? Would you consider it the university president’s province to make a judgement on the acceptability of those actions? And would you consider it to be part of his private life, or would it merge with his official capacity?
I’m not opposed to independent prosecutors investigating public officials. I’ve not had a problem at all with Patrick Fitzgerald, and I had no problem with Ken Starr. Both men came to the position with strong backgrounds, and to date, both indicted for issues that were not central to their task. I don’t particularly like fishing expeditions without merit, but its part and parcel of the independent prosecutor manner.
As far as Ron Brown, I havent ever seen any credible information to link Clinton to his death. I’ve heard theories, but nothing substantial. There’s more credence to the idea that Clinton had something to do with Vince Foster than with Brown. Incidentally, I don’t think Clinton had much to do with either of them, though I think Foster certainly had information in his files that Hillary seemed interested in at an odd time.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 8, 2005 05:09 PMAdrienne,
Well, small children are usually afraid of what’s under their beds — therefore, the title alone is saying that liberals are someone they should fear, and as we all know (or should), fear very often breeds hatred.
I’d say you are judging this book by it’s cover then. Because in reading what it does reveal (on it’s website) I didn’t read anything about teaching kids to hate anyone.
Perhaps you’re not even aware of it, but your articles often villanize people who stand on the left. Judging by many of your articles and posts, it’s as though you think we are lesser citizens than your supporters who stand on the right. Using phrases like “liberal America” implies that we are no longer one country made up of many different people with many and various opinions, but rather a country engaged in an ideological war of just two opposing sides that want to kill each other.
Key point: ideological war. We are in fact engaged in an ideological war. I happen to believe that liberal solutions to problems not only result in less personal freedom but also label my solutions as hateful, spiteful, mean, divisive, heartless… and etc. How many times have I been called a racist and a hatemonger for merely disagreeing with welfare for example.
Is there any reason to believe that just because I oppose welfare programs that I want people to starve? Or that my goal is to keep people homeless? Not unless your definition of charity only includes government action.
I try not to villainize people, but ideas, except when those people come to personify those ideas publically and/or are hypocritical, and I do try to accurately represent what it is about those ideas that I disagree with—(sometimes vehemently). And yes there is partisanship there as well.
But hatred? Not unless the entire blue column is also full of hatred as well.
Posted by: esimonson at November 8, 2005 06:37 PMAs far as Ron Brown, I havent ever seen any credible information to link Clinton to his death.
HEY! You know something I don’t? The last time I looked in the mirror I was alive, ungly, but alive. Much to some peoples dismay.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 8, 2005 07:39 PMThere’s that aspect in general. Teletubbies specifically bothers me, because it demonstrates bad oral motor skills. As a mother of children with speech delays, I find a show that teaches kids ineffective communication a really bad idea, especially since kids who watch excessive amounts of t.v. or videos tend to lack opportunities to actually communicate with other people as it is. —-stephanie
i agree with you on that subject both of my brothers whatched that show when they were young and they both have speech impediments, i’m not saying that they were the cause but it definetly did not help
jbod,
I never said Clinton lying about his affair was trival. What I said was the affair was never a matter of national interest and never impeachible.
Well, we’ve beat that horse to death.
Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2005 09:45 PMRon Brown,
“I would REFUSE to let MYV even be on TV in my home if I got it.”
I don’t have it, either. We only have public access and the only time we actually watch shows is political debates, election count downs and a weekly “treat” of Saturday morning cartoons that my husband watches with the boys (I get to sleep :-) ).
The only reason I know I disapprove of most regular cable kids’ t.v. shows is because of 1) the way my step-son behaves after he watches them at his mom’s house and what he describes their content to be and 2) from seeing them on the t.v. in hotel rooms and we rarely travel; I still remember being sickened, literally, from watching an episode of SpongeBob and it was nearly three years ago.
I personally prefer videos, because then we always know it’s material we’ve already approved of, and because my kids are such visual learners they pick up lessons more easily if they have the animated images to compare it to. That’s how my 6 year old first began to understand phonics, which gave him to foundation to learn what his teacher had been trying to teach him. For whatever reason, seeing the letters dance around the screen making their sounds made everything click for him.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 8, 2005 10:19 PMRon Brown,
“HEY! You know something I don’t? The last time I looked in the mirror I was alive…”
I was wondering about that, too!
Posted by: Stephanie at November 8, 2005 10:25 PMFor those defending “No George, No,”
While I have not read the book and don’t intend to do so, I assure you the material as it is advertised is not a lesson a child that age can “get.” If you want to teach your kids about the consequences of lying, ect, you’re better off sticking with those books that are of a tried and true format.
Specifically, I know a good “Franklin” book (though I don’t know the title) that covers that. And I’m sure most of the serieses do. For slightly older kids, and “mature” younger kids (i.e., those who can sit for a longer story) Berenstein Bears handles such lesson very well.
Most children of the age this book is supposedly targeted to do not understand what “media,” “countries” and “elections” are, let alone understand the complexities of how they can be “manipulated.”
Posted by: Stephanie at November 8, 2005 10:44 PMDave:
Yes, the horse is dead. But I still don’t know whether you agree with my statement that the affair was in the public domain. If so, okay. If not, why not.
I also don’t know if you would hold a private citizen to the same or a higher level of accountability, under the same set of circumstances.
If you prefer to end the conversation without commenting on those two questions that I’ve posed to you, we can do so. Seems to me thats how a lot of these conversations end—with no discernible answer.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 9, 2005 08:13 AMSome might say that what she’s going for is PC silliness. I don’t think so. I think the problem in this country is that we’re raising kids to be antagonists and ideologues, rather than clear-headed thinkers and well-mannered, moral people.
We need to get back to the mythological constants that support all good civilizations. Otherwise we only have decadence and division.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2005 10:22 AMjbod; I will answer your quesitons:
(was) the affair was in the public domain?
Yes. But, there was no need for it to have been made public.
would (you) hold a private citizen to the same or a higher level of accountability, under the same set of circumstances?
Yes and No. I expect truth, transparency, accountablility, and responsibility of the highest degree from public officials (gov’t and industry). Individuals are responsible for their own relationships, although I personaly expect the same high standards from myself, my friends, family, etc…
So, we are talling about the difference between public and private matters. Perjury is public, adultery is a private matter between spouses. Clinton should not have prevaricated, but neither should he have been forced into a public position on the affair.
It was political from the start and entrenched my disdain for the GOP slime machine.
Stephanie,
My 6 and 8 year olds are already reasonably knowledgeable about world afffairs, the 8 year old reads Time for Kids (or whatever the title is) to/with his sister and we read the Globes magazine and comics center on Sundays.
Although my kids simplify in terms of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and ‘help’ or ‘hurt,’ ‘good’ and ‘bad’ they know about manipulation of people (lying to get what you want) and what elections are (picking the government which makes the laws we have to follow) and what countries are (languages and culture) and what the media and TV and newspapers and the internet are (where people tell others about news). They understand about ‘truth’ vs. ‘deceit’ and they know about death (family members) and therefore, how important life is.
So, the books if used as tools by parents will work. Kids are smarter than adults tend to think.
BTW, I like Franklin and the Bears are OK. We prefered, at various times:
Caillou (being good isn’t always easy),
Clifford (being different is always easy), and
SpongeBob (being honest and true to yourself and friends, even if it is very silly).
Now that they’re older they only get the occasional movie, Jimmy Neutron, or Rugrats.
Dave, I wouldn’t buy or even check out at the library either “No George No” or “Liberals Under my Bed”.
http://childrensbooks.about.com/cs/picturebooks/fr/wildthings.htm
This was one of my bunch’s favorites and is the type of book we read when they were younger.
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 9, 2005 02:57 PMRight now at age 11 Aubrey’s favorite books are the Lemony Snickett series and she is also a Harry Potter fan. As far as classics her favorite is the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
She preferred the books over the move “A series of Unfortunate Events”, though she enjoys the Harry Potter movies. Her favorite channel now that we have satellite is foodtv, she wants to be a chef when she grows up (at least at this point).
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 9, 2005 03:03 PMExcellent book (Where the Wild things Are) Lisa!
“Her favorite channel now that we have satellite is foodtv” The Food Channel is my 6yo girl’s favorite, especially Emeril !?!
Very surprising, my 8yo son loves poetry. There’s a whole series with sports and similar themes (can’t remember the author/publisher).
He also likes the adventure classics. He’s reading Moby Dick right now (I think it’s half because many names are near impossible to say so he can make up pronounciations); he originally got hooked on Swiss Family Robinson.
Dave,
“Kids are smarter than adults tend to think.”
I agree. However, understanding these issues take more than just smarts. Complex issues require logic and the understanding of extenuating circumstances. When you simplify things, you lose context.
“Although my kids simplify in terms of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and ‘help’ or ‘hurt,’ ‘good’ and ‘bad’…”
To put this matter into a solid context, I’ll use Danfur. Genocide is wrong. Genocide hurts people. Genocide is bad. Diplomacy is getting us nowhere. People are still being killed. Their livlihoods are being destroyed. They’re being driven from their homes. All this is bad. And yet… If diplomacy gets us nowhere, we are left with few choices; we can continue to “ignore” it and try talking the Janjaweed down or the UN can go in and force the Janjaweed to stop, which would mean war. War kills people, it destroys their livlihoods and drives them from their home. From the perspective of the children of the Janjaweed, this would be bad, it would hurt, it would be wrong.
When talking about the complexities of human nature, sometimes there are no good, helpful, right answers. Sometimes we have to do the best we can. Sometimes that’s all we can do.
Another example, concerning my nine-year old step-son. He didn’t have to understand the politics of the on-going Katrina tragedy to want to help. He didn’t have to understand that our government failed it’s own people. He didn’t have to understand what a levvy was. He didn’t even have to understand what a hurricane or flooding really meant on this kind of scale. All he needed to know was that there were little kids who had nowhere to sleep, nothing to wear, and no toys or books to play with, and knowing that he helped out by donating some of his own items, and picking them out because “this is really cool, they’ll like it a lot!”
I agree that kids should be aware of the world around them and the tragedies other people, especially other children, face. They should learn to be grateful for what they have, generous to others, and willing to sympathize with strangers. And lesson likes these can and should be taught using news from the world theater.
But some things, like determining which person to elect as President of our nation isn’t something they’re going to be able to do themselves at such a young age. The results of such conversations are wholly reliant on the information you feed them. My step-son experienced that after a visit with his mom’s friend. He came over telling me what a great President Kerry was (versus would be). Disturbed that someone who isn’t responsible for raising him had such a discussion with him at all, I sat down with him and told him (in simplified terms) everything I knew about both Kerry and Bush. His conclusion, once he knew good and bad things about both, was that he was going to vote for someone like George Washington, because at least Washington was a “good guy.”
“So, the books if used as tools by parents will work.”
Yeah, I can see that. If that’s all you had access to, you could use it to teach your children. You could use just about anything that way, as long as it isn’t innately harmful (I wouldn’t suggest using GrandTheft Auto to teach kids obeying the law is important, for example.). But why go out of your way to obtain material to teach your children, when you’re going to have to manipulate the material and explain it extensively for it to be usuable?
“Caillou (being good isn’t always easy)”
I’m not very familiar with Caillou, but I’ll check it out next time we go to the library.
“Clifford (being different is always easy),”
My boys love Clifford, especially the ones where he’s a puppy.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 9, 2005 10:07 PMStephanie,
You’re right, why “go out of your way to obtain material to teach your children, when you’re going to have to manipulate the material and explain it extensively for it to be usuable” I’ve never seriously proposed using either of the discussed books. It’s hard enough to describe the world without resoting to such negative and narrow trash. But, when I teach to them, I get them to the point where they understand to their current level, and then go one step further. I find that they usualy come back in a day or two with some amazing questions that starts a whole new level.
correction “Clifford (being different isn’t always easy),”
Posted by: Dave at November 9, 2005 10:25 PMDave, Aubrey likes Emeril but her favorite is Alton Brown and of course the whole Iron Chef series which I have to admit I rather enjoy, followed by Rachel Ray, her 30 minute meals show.
Where the Wild things are is still one from time to time we read, it was a favorite of all five, that and Goodnight Moon. When my son was that age there was a series called “Choose your own adventure” where you could change the ending and different experiences in the book. Not sure if it is still out there but he loved it.
I agree as to teaching them values such as giving back to the community. We make it a point as a family to serve meals to the homeless a few times a year as well as other ways even a family like us with limited funds can make a difference.
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 9, 2005 11:01 PMDave,
“But, when I teach to them, I get them to the point where they understand to their current level, and then go one step further.”
That’s a very sound approach, but one I personally struggle with. As my birth children are developmentally delayed, we’re often playing “catch up,” which is technically taking them “one step further,” but doesn’t end up with the same kind of results as you’re describing. Of my three, my oldest is the only one who really talks. Intellectually he’s on par with his peers, with some skills scoring beyond his grade level, but his behaviorial development holds him back. He simply can’t concentrate long enough to perform at the level his intellect is at, which is frustrating for everyone.
My step-son is a different matter. Developmentally, he’s on track. He’s really bright, but his home atmosphere is a problem. He lives with his mother the majority of the time, and his mother is the kind of person who’d rather turn on the t.v. than actually interact with him. He can, when pushed, read at a fifth-grade level, when he’s only in third-grade, but my husband and I are the only ones who push him. His mother has gone so far as to pack up books we’ve sent over for him, because they were “in the way.” Unfortunately, as per Wisconsin law, this is not enough to gain custody or placement.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 10, 2005 02:25 AMStephanie,
Well, I am sure yuo will find the solution that is right for you. Best of luck.
I’m curious, though, do you think it would be appropriate for the state to legislate change of parental control for the level of issues you described for your step son? Obviously custody is far more complicated than that. Just curious.
Posted by: Dave at November 10, 2005 08:34 AMDave,
If that we’re the only issue, I wouldn’t think it appropriate, no. But, our situation is very complex. In the real world, some things can be wrong without being illegal; kind of like Libby being charged the way he was, instead of with “outing” an undercover agent.
My husband has absolutely no legal rights regarding his son whatsoever, though he is obligated to pay child support. We only see him on his mother’s good graces, which means sometimes we don’t get to see him at all. This is simply because they were never married, and it’s just the way the law worked at the time. Some aspects of the legalities of that have changed since their case went before a judge, but for some reason we can not get our situation changed without suing my step-son’s mother. In order to win that suit, we have to be able to prove that there are instances of neglect and/or abuse. However, what she does to him doesn’t legally qualify. Telling him he’s stupid, leaving him in her mother’s care, and having the nickname “sh**head” for him doesn’t qualify as either neglect or abuse, though it pisses us off and wreaks havoc on my step-son’s emotional well-being. I consider that kind of behavior from a mother wrong, whether it is illegal or not.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 10, 2005 10:13 PM
First off, this article should NOT be in the moderate column. Its typical that a liberal so badly wants to believe that they are moderate.
What book a person reads to there children is not your concern.
Your typical liberal mind is automatically judging others as if you contain some superior stance on life.
Nice try lib, move to the column please..lol
Posted by: MacIrish at November 16, 2005 09:48 AM
