Kids TV

2009.08.23

I know a few parents who are strict with their children’s TV viewing habits, even a few who’ve blocked it out all together. It’s a big concern for new parents – at what point is my kid watching too much TV? Is it gonna make them a couch potato, slow their mental development, make them want to go to Disney World, etc.?

Of course, I write this as my own 1 year old is planted in front of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. That’s the immediate benefit for parents – it’s a distractor. They want to watch, you want to fix coffee and breakfast. Win win, right?

Deal is, there’s a ton of programming out there, from the moment they’re out of the womb all the way up through their segway to college. Specifically children’s programming has exploded over the last several years. It used to be a handful of public television shows that we relied on – Sesame Street probably the king of them all. Every kid growing up in the last 20 years should know Sesame Street well, and with good reason. It was creative, and it worked.

That’s the surprising part – it was fiercely researched and scientifically engineered to have to biggest impact on the youth audience. Reading Malcom Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point, he explains the painstaking research that went into making the show what it was. Sesame Street is probably the most researched show of all time, because it broke all conventional wisdom about kids and tv. It proved children can learn from a television show, and that everything about a show’s effectiveness centered on how much a child could grasp. That’s where the puppets came in. They made adult concepts relatable to young children.

These days, the new cadre of shows has come in such large numbers that one can only imagine how few get the Sesame Street detailed approach. A great example of that in my mind is the Baby Einsteins series. It was targeted at new moms who thought it’d give their babies a leg up on vocabulary, early concepts and new languages. If you never saw a Baby Einsteins video, it’s pretty much a montage of 30 second clips that show various colorful demonstrations with narrations in different languages doing a voice over for each. After about 15 minutes, it cuts to about 25 more minutes of advertising for the rest of the Baby Einsteins series.

I’m not going to say it’s total garbage, but there’s no proof it adds anything to early child development (article). You can tell by the way they’re marketed, and the premise they’re built on: any arrangement of distracting pictures set to Beethoven will make your kid smart.

Clearly, there’s no substitute for one-on-one interaction with a child, but at the same time, not all TV shows are a complete hindrance to a child’s development. Of course there’s also the factor of parental tolerance: I will not sit through Dora the Explorer. It could teach kids Calculus, I’m avoiding that show like the plague. Her insipid voice just grates my nerves.

There’s a ton of children’s TV shows out there. I’d say there’s nothing wrong with a little TV, as long as it’s in moderation and you’re selective about the materials.

Tiger Woods of Compassion

2009.08.22

I was just watching Real Time with Bill Maher where he was interviewing an author of books that examine how religious doctrine invades pragmatic, logical reason in very important levels of society. Bill himself did a movie recently called “Religulous”, a documentary that takes a look at the three Abrahamic religions and plays Devil’s advocate (no pun intended, honest) to a line up of their representatives. To put them into a socially recognizable bucket, they’re both Atheists – people that do not recognize God, and perhaps even refute His existence.

During the brief exchange, in reference to Jesus the author used the phrase “the Tiger Woods of compassion.” I liked that term a lot.

I’m originally Catholic, now just simply a practicing Catholic when the occasion arises and undecided the rest of the time. Growing up in Catholic school, I held the concept of Jesus – the story of his life – in very high regard. I just knew that to be a good person, I had to model  myself after his wisdom. The peculiar thing was, after 5 years of Catholic school, I hadn’t realized that I was being taught that Jesus wasn’t only Godly, he was God. I couldn’t catch on to this huge leap – the proverbial “leap of faith”, and I’ve been examining the whole idea ever since.

To don a socially recgonized term, you could call me an “agnostic.” I don’t refute or claim anything. Just a bystander, I suppose.

In a way, I’ve read into Jesus’s story from both perspectives: inside and outside Christianity. And although I’ve spent most of my time examining him from outside of a religious context, I find there’s just as much value in looking at his life and actions as they were in the real world as I would seeing him as the Son of God.

Obviously, others could disagree with this, but I’m referring to this focus: Jesus’s life as a model for human, ethical behavior. He was the Tiger Woods of compassion. He actively sought out the most downtrodden of the poor and sinful, he walked with beggars, he offered himself to everyone he could. You don’t need a religious doctrine to recognize ideal human behavior or to sense what is good and kind. I think anyone can appreciate Jesus’s emphatic teachings on loving they neighbor and caring for your fellow woman and man.

When I see this extolled in religious worship, it encourages me. It feels at times that people of faith get distracted from the conduct and morality that Jesus prescribed to us. I would hope the compassion he taught and demonstrated in life is the pivotal core and result of a person’s journey through Christianity, and it reassures me when I see it in others. Bottom line, I’d imagine you’re missing the most important part of Christianity if you don’t accept his humility and goodwill to all.

There’s a lot of role models in this world, and you don’t have to be a beleiver in order to recognize a good example when you see one. Whether you’re convinced Jesus’s story is an exact chronicle of his life or that it belongs in the fiction section of the library, it’s no less a good lesson on acting like a good human being, which is something we should all strive to be.

I like Barack.

2009.08.04

Because, to start, 43 white men in a row is a bit much.  Seriously – change it up a little.

A lot can be said left and right about the man, but I think the things that remain in my mind are this: he’s a black man, born to a Kenyan father, exposed to Islam internationally, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Seriously. Could you craft a more unlikely candidate? Like he was hand picked to finger every ugly prejudicial nerve this country has. What a hilarious followup to W.  Kudos, sir.

True story – sometime last year, software developers for spelling correction software had to add his name to the dictionary because it kept getting corrected as Osama.

I say all this…

…because it makes me giddy thinking about the amount of stress Republicans and Fox News had trying to form attacks against him that didn’t come off racist or abjectly juvenille – and therefore totally undermining their cause. Because Lord knows nothing ends a public rally like the “N” word. Beautifully powerful. Once a terrible slur of hatred, now a wonderful landmine placed for folks in the spotlight.

(8 months ago in a Fox News program meeting)

“What’s going on people?! How the hell is Obama in the lead?! I mean for Chrissakes people, the guy is…”

(looks to the one black producer in the room)

“…um, Socialist. Clearly he’s Socialist.”

Everyday I watched the news waiting for Rush or one of those other crazy radio performers to slip the “N” word. You could see the beads of sweat on their heads as they mounted attacks. Come on O’Reily… you’re almost there…

About his critics

Enh, jury’s still out. Don’t know how we were still singing “Stand by your man” into Bush’s 5th year, but somehow folks were ready to analyze Obama’s Presidency after 90 days. We’ll talk when Obama doubles the National Debt. Sure, it took the last President 8 years, and sure, at this rate it could be Thursday for Obama, but let’s hold the verdict until then. K?

What gun issue?

2009.08.01

As many Americans, I’m rather intelligent and vaguely informed, though find it near impossible to follow current legislation. I just know what affects me. You know, because it’s affecting me.

So, when I’m driving and I see the altar to causes that are people’s automobile bumpers and the many stickers of propaganda posted on each, I get curious (as is their intention – mission accomplished Peace Frogs). In particular, the guns related ones. The “Guns are as American as Freedom” and other half-baked similar sentiments. The “I’ll shoot any Liberal who tries to take my guns” stickers. The “Charlton Heston is my President… still” stickers. These have me baffled.

I’ll start by saying, I have no strong feelings on guns. Guns exist, and people have them. Laws won’t change this. I like shooting them when I can, but only into paper targets and endangered wildlife. Whether or not my city of residence allows me to pack heat in Church or at Applebees is totally out of my concern, as is whether or not the half-drunk idiot next is holstering a .38.  I don’t need a Glock to feel safe eating hot wings. Some people do, and I honor that, though feel perhaps medication is more appropriate.

But this notion that somehow firearms are under a prolific attack by the government seems on all accounts to be abject non-sense.

Let’s run down the list of what the government controls, and where it stands:

Handguns

Handguns seem to be the freshest debate around, but it seems to be at the local level. Good. Leave it there. You don’t like the views of your hometown on carry regulations on public golf courses? MOVE!!

From everything I’ve read, a law abiding, adult citizen can own a handgun in every state. Apparently, it’s everything else the NRA quibbles over. Well, what good is a handgun if you can’t show it off a little? Maybe do some cowboy tricks with it? What if you’re ordering a salad at Wendy’s and Osama Bin Laden tries to rob the joint? You can’t spray mustard packets into his face and expect the same results as a handgun, do you?

To that, I say Osama would focus on higher transaction institutions, and that your local police department 9 times out of 9 has better training, personnel and facilities than you do to deal with the situation. But again, should you feel the need to go Charles Bronson, there’s a good list of cities that afford you that chance.

Rifles

I would hope no one thinks folks are after rifles. Similarly, to the left I say, I would hope no one is truly concerned about rifles. I can somewhat understand concern about small, concealable handguns in metropolitan areas, but rifles are about as much utility as is a shovel or bottle of Jack Daniels. Mix all three, and your evening is probably heading somewhere great, or somewhere terrible.

Rifles, like shotguns, are hunting tools. Sure, Lee Harvey Oswald took the idea too far, as did a handful of other deranged men in American history, but at the very least they never got their hands on the next item.

Assault Weapons

There’s is no good G-D reason any citizen should own an AK-47 or AR-15. Unless that reason is to get liquored up and shoot up some barrels or an abandoned car. Other than that, and although seemingly facetious, that is the only use any Assault Weapon has for the average American citizen. Frankly, as cool as it is to light up an old Ford Fiesta with a bunch of drunk buddies, I say confiscate the guns, givem’ a gift card to Cabela’s and sit them in front of an XBox 360. For Chrissakes, that’s why EA spent so much time souping up them graphics engines – cant you appreciate a digital explosion renderd on a 42″ LCD HDTV?

NRA bobbleheads quote the archaic Second Amendment notion that our forefathers meant us to have everything our military has in order to thwart tyranny. To that I say, “In God We Trust“. We have a selective memory when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and Freedom of Religion means America shouldn’t be one nation “under God” – but your folks lobbied to get that phrase in during the 1950′s.  Congrats, you made Jefferson turn in his grave. Now you want to act like purists on the Amendment right after the one you trample on? Nuh unh.

Assault weapons in the home are like pipe bombs in the home – you don’t see either at Wal-Mart for a reason. They’re used to kill many many people at once. And unless you fear Red Dawn is a prophetic film or think a zombie apocalypse is eminent, you have no reason to own what we issue to soldiers and Marines.

In short, if you don’t like legislation around purchasing a weapon that can kill a crowd of people under 1 minute, shut up and take your pills. You are the fringe. And don’t let Dr.Lazslo know that the ghost of General Patton is communicating with you through your dog again.

In short,…

What gun issue do we have? You like guns? Buy them. Use them recklessly, you go to jail… or the morgue. You don’t like guns? Don’t buy them. Afraid of guns? Stay the hell away from them. Still afraid of guns? Freeze yourself cryogenically until we fix humanity’s hostility issues. It’s on Obama’s agenda in 2011.

Yeah, it’s people who kill other people instead of the guns, but guns do make it a whole lot easier. Of course, so do 3 ton SUVs and several glasses of Merlot. Life’s full of risks. We can rule out the needless ones, but ultimately it’s a balance of the reasonable against the unreasonable. I don’t mind if any idiot with a credit score above 500 can get a Ford Explorer, but it’d worry me if those same idiots could drive a 16 wheel tractor trailer.