[OT] And you thought Ted Kennedy's Children's book was bad.

[Wayfarer]

oh, nevermind
btw,
has anyone heard of 'The Giver?' Some radio broadcast menioned I think it was this title as a children's book promoting euthnasia..it was around the time 'Millioin Dollar Baby' came out...so will there be a childrens book to anticipate after the releasing of 'brokeback mountain' now?

It's a pretty old book, I remember reading it in middle school. Basically, the way society works in this book is that at high school, people are set into different professions (pilot, birth mother, teacher, doctor etc), children aren't raised with their biological parents, etc.
In the society, people are euthanized for the following things (if I recall correctly):
1) if you're fired from your job (i.e., removed from your place in society)
2) if someone is too old (about 75)
3) terminally ill
4) if twins are born, the smaller of the two will be euthanized.

Just to clarify, The Giver, at least as I understood it, definitely didn't support euthnasia. The society functioned pretty much as IronFox described it, but the book was very satirical of that society. And in fact, in the end, the boy who's the hero of the story runs away with a baby that was supposed to be killed and ends up finding a home much closer to what we would recognize as traditional.

[T.s.a.o]

definitaely japanese, or germain.

[TheBladeRoden2]

Maybe I'm poor at grammar but it sounds like Mommy goes to school and she shares her toys.

[T.s.a.o]

so I'm guessing that it's about a democrat mom? that sounds like a paradox or something, I though a mom for a democrat was a whole organization or something outside of the parent's control...if they even have parents and wern't from a factory...

[IronFox]

Just to clarify, The Giver, at least as I understood it, definitely didn't support euthnasia. The society functioned pretty much as IronFox described it, but the book was very satirical of that society. And in fact, in the end, the boy who's the hero of the story runs away with a baby that was supposed to be killed and ends up finding a home much closer to what we would recognize as traditional.

oh yeah, that's right. like I said, it's been a long time.

[Rangers]

Nazi anti-semitic children's propaganda. Very blatant and repeatative.

Basically, what Michael Moore did for the documentary, Julius Streicher did for the children's book.

[Maxgoof]

"Democrats tell stories that aren't true but make you feel nice before bedtime, just like Mommy does."

"Democrats give me money for doing nothing at all, just like Mommy does."

"Democrats blame the school when I misbehave, just like Mommy does."

This is fun!

[Rangers]

"Democrats take money from men who want to cuddle me the wrong way, just like Mommy does."

Ooo - I'd better stop this. Way too much potential here.

[Calbeck]

The most ironic thing about all of this?

Democrats HATE when you accuse them of wanting to install a "mommy state". -

[Rangers]

Dude. Just because they blame their mommies for screwing them up when they were kids doesn't mean they can't use them for propaganda when they feel like it.

Kinda like Jesus.

[Sun tzu]

oh, nevermind
btw,
has anyone heard of 'The Giver?' Some radio broadcast menioned I think it was this title as a children's book promoting euthnasia..it was around the time 'Millioin Dollar Baby' came out...so will there be a childrens book to anticipate after the releasing of 'brokeback mountain' now?

It's a pretty old book, I remember reading it in middle school. Basically, the way society works in this book is that at high school, people are set into different professions (pilot, birth mother, teacher, doctor etc), children aren't raised with their biological parents, etc.
In the society, people are euthanized for the following things (if I recall correctly):
1) if you're fired from your job (i.e., removed from your place in society)
2) if someone is too old (about 75)
3) terminally ill
4) if twins are born, the smaller of the two will be euthanized.

I read that book years ago. It didn't strike me as either pro- or anti-euthanasia...Just anti-totalitarianism.

I was at the California Republican Convention this last weekend, and I ran across this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0976726 ... eader-page

I found it highly amusing, but the reasons I didn't buy it were
a) I don't have children
b) I'd already spent most of my money on amusing bumper stickers and a no trespassing sign.

Oh yeah, real nice. It's horrid brainwashing if the left does it, but if it's right-wing, it's all right.

[Squeaky Bunny]

Nope. Never has been, never will be.

[IronFox]

Nope. Never has been, never will be.

I concur.

[RHJunior]

I would dissent, here.

It is a parent's job, as well as their right, to raise their child in their own morals and values. Teaching a child right from wrong, preparing them to be an adult, is the DEFINITION of parenting. Children's stories have been used to that end in every aspect of child rearing. (Quick reference search for y'all: Dr. Seuss' "Butter Battle Book" and "The Lorax.") It is not "brainwashing." It is called educating. IN that much, I have no objection whatsoever to a Democrat parent who wishes to raise his or her children by Democrat values, or who uses children's books to do that.... just as a conservative parent would try to teach his or her children conservative values.

What I have a problem with is that the book in question is presenting a rather less-than-subtle DISTORTION OF THE FACTS. It is presenting good values--- giving your kids and education, protecting them from danger--- but falsely attributing them to the Democrat party.... blatantly trying to get children to transfer their affection for "Mommy" to the DNC. (Don't they do that in Communist countries?)

And, more notably, never ever showing any proof that the Democrats are "just like mommy." Just saying it over and over again. If Democrats "keep us safe just like Mommy does," you sure the hell coulda fooled me, just going by their track records on national defense and the right to bear arms.

The other book ("Help, there are liberals under my bed!") is a lot more on track, frankly. It doesn't just paint vague pictures of scary elephants and selfish rich people and then say "mommy Donkey will keep you safe".... it shows liberals doing liberal things, and then takes time to show WHY what they're doing is wrong.

I'm afraid though that the book isn't written very well. The writing is going to go over the heads of most children, and the caricatures of specific liberal figureheads is--- well, less humorous than annoying. Too much use of vague references that are going to do nothing for the kid and are going to seem seriously dated after a few years to the adults. (This ain't no "Goodnight Moon.") Plus, it tries to hit too many different liberal shibboleths in one go. It would have worked better if they'd written several books--- one on taxes, one on free speech and press, one on gun control, etc.... going over each one carefully and on a level that a child could understand.
The first writer achieves this goal-- he focuses on one thing ("Mommy Government will take care of you") and keeps it on a level kids will understand. The writer of "Liberals under my bed" doesn't achieve that.

But if his goal is to merely tweak liberal noses, the book accomplishes its goal QUITE well.


Explaining politics and political freedoms to a child is a slow and dicey process. You're dealing here with an audience that, by necessity, doesn't HAVE most of those inalienable rights yet--- by necessity. A little child is going to have trouble understanding free speech when he's still at the age where he's getting his mouth washed out with soap or constantly getting shushed when "big people" are talking. The right to bear arms is going to be a puzzlement when they've got grownups snatching sharp objects out of their hands constantly. Constitutional democracy--- isn't going to mean a thing to someone whose only law is "Because I'M the MOM, that's why." And how do you explain the morals of welfare and taxation to someone who still has to beg for his allowance?

Conservatives have done a poor job of explaining these things to the young.... worse, we have left it to a liberal educational and media system to do the work for us.

We have to do a better job than this.

[Squeaky Bunny]

I would dissent, here.

It is a parent's job, as well as their right, to raise their child in their own morals and values. Teaching a child right from wrong, preparing them to be an adult, is the DEFINITION of parenting. Children's stories have been used to that end in every aspect of child rearing. (Quick reference search for y'all: Dr. Seuss' "Butter Battle Book" and "The Lorax.") It is not "brainwashing." It is called educating. IN that much, I have no objection whatsoever to a Democrat parent who wishes to raise his or her children by Democrat values, or who uses children's books to do that.... just as a conservative parent would try to teach his or her children conservative values.

What I have a problem with is that the book in question is presenting a rather less-than-subtle DISTORTION OF THE FACTS. It is presenting good values--- giving your kids and education, protecting them from danger--- but falsely attributing them to the Democrat party.... blatantly trying to get children to transfer their affection for "Mommy" to the DNC. (Don't they do that in Communist countries?)

And, more notably, never ever showing any proof that the Democrats are "just like mommy." Just saying it over and over again. If Democrats "keep us safe just like Mommy does," you sure the hell coulda fooled me, just going by their track records on national defense and the right to bear arms.

The other book ("Help, there are liberals under my bed!") is a lot more on track, frankly. It doesn't just paint vague pictures of scary elephants and selfish rich people and then say "mommy Donkey will keep you safe".... it shows liberals doing liberal things, and then takes time to show WHY what they're doing is wrong.

I'm afraid though that the book isn't written very well. The writing is going to go over the heads of most children, and the caricatures of specific liberal figureheads is--- well, less humorous than annoying. Too much use of vague references that are going to do nothing for the kid and are going to seem seriously dated after a few years to the adults. (This ain't no "Goodnight Moon.") Plus, it tries to hit too many different liberal shibboleths in one go. It would have worked better if they'd written several books--- one on taxes, one on free speech and press, one on gun control, etc.... going over each one carefully and on a level that a child could understand.
The first writer achieves this goal-- he focuses on one thing ("Mommy Government will take care of you") and keeps it on a level kids will understand. The writer of "Liberals under my bed" doesn't achieve that.

But if his goal is to merely tweak liberal noses, the book accomplishes its goal QUITE well.


Explaining politics and political freedoms to a child is a slow and dicey process. You're dealing here with an audience that, by necessity, doesn't HAVE most of those inalienable rights yet--- by necessity. A little child is going to have trouble understanding free speech when he's still at the age where he's getting his mouth washed out with soap or constantly getting shushed when "big people" are talking. The right to bear arms is going to be a puzzlement when they've got grownups snatching sharp objects out of their hands constantly. Constitutional democracy--- isn't going to mean a thing to someone whose only law is "Because I'M the MOM, that's why." And how do you explain the morals of welfare and taxation to someone who still has to beg for his allowance?

Conservatives have done a poor job of explaining these things to the young.... worse, we have left it to a liberal educational and media system to do the work for us.

We have to do a better job than this.

Actually there is no disagreement. I simply said that it is wrong to distort things regardless of political viewpoint.

I see "Liberals under my bed" as a satire disguised as a children's book for many of the reasons you state. The concepts of rights and responsibilities are alien to someone who literally has to be protected from themselves until they learn cause, effect, and consequences.

It's a big difference between indoctrination and education.

[Maxgoof]

I see "Liberals under my bed" as a satire disguised as a children's book for many of the reasons you state. The concepts of rights and responsibilities are alien to someone who literally has to be protected from themselves until they learn cause, effect, and consequences.

Too many adults never seem to have learned it, as well.

We have people that think raising taxes does not affect economic growth.

We have people who don't seem to understand that abstinence works every time it is tried.

We have people who think that appeasing an enemy will make them go away.

We have people who think that changing the definition of marriage will not affect how children view it.

We have people who think they are losing because they haven't gotten their message out, so they say their message louder, which makes them lose again, and they *still* think they haven't gotten their message out.

[Scathach]

---We have people who don't seem to understand that abstinence works every time it is tried. ---

Abstinence only education does not work.

Even more amusing, it leads to girls who will do oral and anal and claim they are 'still virgins'.

[Squeaky Bunny]

I see "Liberals under my bed" as a satire disguised as a children's book for many of the reasons you state. The concepts of rights and responsibilities are alien to someone who literally has to be protected from themselves until they learn cause, effect, and consequences.

Too many adults never seem to have learned it, as well.

We have people that think raising taxes does not affect economic growth.

We have people who don't seem to understand that abstinence works every time it is tried.

We have people who think that appeasing an enemy will make them go away.

We have people who think that changing the definition of marriage will not affect how children view it.

We have people who think they are losing because they haven't gotten their message out, so they say their message louder, which makes them lose again, and they *still* think they haven't gotten their message out.

You did note that I didn't say until they are adults. What comes to mind was a press conference of some kind where a person stood up and said to the president that it was his (government's) job to take care of him like a good parent. (paraphrased I know)

[EdBecerra]

---We have people who don't seem to understand that abstinence works every time it is tried. ---

Abstinence only education does not work.

Even more amusing, it leads to girls who will do oral and anal and claim they are 'still virgins'.

*shrugs*

Greek girls came up with that line thousands of years ago. "As long as the hymen's intact, I'm a virgin."

And if you're only concerned with parentage and inheritance, then it IS true enough.

You should pardon the obvious (and lewd) pun, but it's a case of "..different strokes for different folks."

*ahem*

[Maxgoof]

You did note that I didn't say until they are adults. What comes to mind was a press conference of some kind where a person stood up and said to the president that it was his (government's) job to take care of him like a good parent. (paraphrased I know)

Oh, I remember that.

I wish I could have been there and said, "Government is not your mommy and daddy. Next question."