Conservative Children’s Books: Keeping Young Minds Open to New Ideas
Now, I’m not suggesting indoctrination, as perpetrated by the radical left; nor do I appreciate propaganda from any part of the political spectrum. We need to focus on patriotism, not politics.
After searching for some time for conservative children’s books that would speak to the heart of my four-year-old daughter, I began writing a series of books myself. The first in the series is Melontown Gets a New Mayor, a story of liberty, self-empowerment, and the problems created when we let the government get too big.
My intended goal in publishing the book is for it to act as a counterbalance to the public education propaganda. There is a growing need for more tools that parents can use at home to teach their young children traditional American values of small government and self-reliance — values that are ignored in the schools. Even the youngest readers are capable of learning about the ideas of free markets, American exceptionalism, and the power of hard work. But it is up to us to create the tools of teaching.
There is a lot of focus right now on restoring our country to the vision of our Founding Fathers. But taking back our country means more than taking back Congress and the presidency — it means taking back our children. It means a complete restructuring of the liberal foundation on which our educational system has been built and supporting those working for education reform. If we do not take back our children we will only be fighting this fight again and again.
The need for conservative children’s literature could not be timelier. As John Adams said, “It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them a habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.”
“Children are the future” and “education is the answer” are not just catchphrases. We need to embrace them with the same vigor with which we oppose issues like government-run health care and increasing federal deficits. If we are successful in our opposition, it is through our children that we guarantee the changes we make today will matter tomorrow.
Go get ‘em. Children need to be taught that our American heritage is something to be proud of, not apologize for. Look forward to reading the book to my daughter.
Plato paraphrased: it’s the teachers and what the teachers teach.
Always has been, always will be. It’s all been their fault since 1960.
Very well, although liberty and self-empowerment are abundantly fun and plentiful in Dr. Seuss’s Yertle the Turtle. See The Sneetches for the folly of racial prejudice. Then there’s The Little Engine That Could, Aesop’s Fables — I could go on, but you get the idea. There are plenty of children’s classics that do the job.
About four or five years ago, I started to feel pretty much the same thing – that we had to know our own history, and that we had to know where we came from, who our ancestors really were, and how unique the American experiment really was. I began writing historical fiction, about the American frontier to begin explaining some of that, in a painless and easily-accessible way. My first novel, “To Truckee’s Trail” was about the first wagon-train party to make it over the Sierra Nevada, deep in the snow, and experiencing considerable hardships. I wrote it as an examination of decent people, pulling together in spite of their differences. It’s been read as a YA novel, as one of the characters is a teenager (another is a small boy!) – it’s very suitable for that, since there is no sex and never anything more than a vague threat of violence.
There are good conservative books for children and young adults out there – both the old stalwarts like The Little House books, and then new old-fashioned ones like mine.
There really needs to be a major conservative publishing house for fiction as well as non-fiction. There has been improvements, but conservatives lose too much power by either depending on the mostly liberal distribution centers or don’t have any of their own. Get with the program and treat the world as the internet by becoming more independent and self-made.
INDOCTRINATION! Poisoning the minds of our youth! MMMM . . . MMMM . . . MMMM. . . we pray to thee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg
Hail Rush. Go Sarah
Already gotten with the program, Jettboy – my books are on Amazon, of course – and I’m published by a tiny boutique press and distributed through a subsidy publisher. I do my own marketing, and promotion.
I’m not sure that a major publishing house for fiction would serve me … after all, I’d like to be read by everyone, regardless of political affiliation. I’d prefer people to read my books for a cracking good traditional story about the wild 19th century frontier, and maybe note my subtle points about the workings of our republic, than say “Ewwww – conservative cooties!” never pick it up at all.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
I might be misunderstanding something here, but wouldn’t books published by a “major conservative publishing house” be vulnerable to lefty types telling the mainstream “hey, don’t buy books published by X, because all their books are drivel produced by radical Christianists who want to push their fascist agenda on the unsuspecting public”? It would be like the Fox News of books. You can’t talk about what you saw on a Fox show in a conversation with most people and be taken seriously (one often hears the name “Rupert Murdoch” used dismissively). The same would be true of recommending books for your friends’ kids – they’d hear that XYZ was a “homophobic” book or something from their liberal friends or parenting magazines, and such books wouldn’t stand a chance except among kids whose parents would already be exposing them to such things anyway. Wouldn’t it be better to kind of stealth them into mainstream publishing – “here’s a book about cute woodland creatures learning about friendship” or whatever…but it promotes values that actually make sense!
Or maybe it would work if it didn’t brand itself as explicitly conservative, for the same reasons…but it seems to me that other things that wouldn’t necessarily have to be conservative from their name and what they do have lost credibility because they’re conservative anyway. Like a group called the “National Association of Scholars” – hey, cool, scholars. Oh, wait, no, they’re radical right-wing scholars! (Or so people say.)
(Oops – simul-post with Sgt. Mom. I agree with #7!)
Yes, we must teach the children that lesbians and gays are unnatural and must be shunned. It’s the conservative way.
“Heather has two mommies and they will be put to death for their sins” is so much better than to teach tolerance and respect for those who are not exactly like you.
I have been in and around the education system of our grade schools for several years and i am amazed at the strangle hold the far left has…even in conservative south where i live!!!!
Parents need to stand up and take back the schools from the far left.
The schools are rife with the what i call the lowest common denominator effect..that is dragging every one down to to lowest social/economical and academic level. Instead of helping the kids help themselves we drag all the others down and call it “fair”. Similar to what is going on with the health care system/bill.
We are doomed if we continue to let the far left control the education system, the elites telling our children what is best. If conservatives and the right want to really stop where this country is headed we NEED and MUST take back the schools. Until we do, the ranks of those who think the gov should do everything for them will grow.
What is needed is not so much a conservative publishing house for children’s books, but instead an ethics of literature. Such an ethics could be practiced by both teachers and parents when they evaluate a children’s book.
Before his death a few years ago, Professor Wayne Booth of the University of Chicago proposed such an ethics in “The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction,” U of California Press, 1988.
Booth suggested that books be judged the way we judge a friend. For example, if we meet someone who bifurcates the world into “us” and “them,” stereotyping people of some other ethnic or religious group, we would judge the person to be a bigot and avoid becoming friends with him or her. We would have no qualms defending our action because we would simply say, “I avoid him because of his beliefs.” And when we listed his beliefs, we would state why we thought them irrational or unfair or contrary to the U.S. Bill of Rights. In this way we can defend our refusing to associate with this person.
Similarly, we can appraise a book and refuse to allow children to interact with it, providing the grounds for our refusal. Such a refusal, supported by statements which articulate reasons and evidence, is an ethical refusal. It is not censorship to refuse to allow children to interact with a book that promotes unethical or immoral thinking or behavior.
Just think about what happens when you or a child read a book. Do you see the words on the printed page as you read? No. What happens is that you see scenes, you hear the voices of the characters in the story. Basically, the story enters your mind. It moves about in your mind. Another mind, that of the author, has invaded your mind. A child’s mind should be invaded only by a friend.
Nice straw-person you got there, Des. Get out among real conservatives much?
Oops, I forgot – don’t lets feed the troll.
BTW…i believe the issue of our schools should be a HIGH priority for the GOP/Libertarians and conservatives. Or as someone else noted we will continue to have this same fight over and over. eventually losing all together because the left keeps producing more and more socialists through our schools.
Parents i have noticed, do not understand how much far left ideology is being taught in grade schools. For those who think they are safe because they come from a conservative area…think again. I live in a RED state and very red area…yet the schools are controlled not by those people who lean right but by the few far left people in the area.
This are my first 2 posts here, even though i have been coming to this site for a long time. This issue i so grave and important that i felt the need to post not just once but twice on it, so thank you to those who read them and you8r patience.
Take, for instance, The Story of Stuff, an anti-capitalism video shown in schools around the country. This video teaches students that it is the government’s job to take care of you and that the United States is essentially the Big Bad Wolf of the world.
Your children are better off they less they learn from you, if that’s the only message that you could take from the story of stuff. Its ludicrously hilarious that someone who can’t understand the message of an animated video made for young people, thinks she should be taken seriously about anything, much less the education of children. LOL. Still laughing about this.
Not surprisingly, the Obama adorers are already out there too. The chains have at least two “Obama” books, large, full-colored. on the rack in the childrens’ section. . One of them has a spread of Obama, bowing his head in front of a a stained-glass window. The copy says that one Sunday, as he sat praying n church, God spoke to him saying, in effect, “Stay the course. You’re on the right track.”, and the tears streamed down his cheeks.
Do you think a conservative childrens’ author might do as much for Palin?
Better yet, let’s just ban people from communion who have anything to do with moral views not held by the right wing extremists.
“The Roman Catholic bishop of Rhode Island said Sunday that he asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy in a 2007 letter to stop receiving Communion, the central sacrament of the church, because of the congressman’s public stance on moral issues.” (AP)
God loves the Constitution . . . the Cathlolics, he’s not so crazy about.
The point is one doesn’t have to look far to see the power special interest groups have over our youth, and it is apparent that conservatives are losing the battle for our children…story of liberty, self-empowerment, and the problems created when we let the government get too big.
This article is a product of lazy thinking. First, the existence of alternative children’s books represent diversity of ideas in the first place. You’ve made no connection between the existence of so-called “liberal” children’s books and the decline of “conservative” books. Since it is a parent’s choice to give their children books, they will ultimately decide for themselves which reflect their own values. Children do not seek out children’s books in an open market. Second, “story of liberty, self-empowerment, etcetera….this is hilarious. Don’t you realize that all of these liberal children’s books have the same message? Or do you think that marijuana legislation is a product of small government? Silly stuff from a person seemingly unqualified to write books of any kind.
Anonymous:
nice personal attack “Silly stuff from a person seemingly unqualified to write books of any kind”
Debate what is said i understand by why a personal attack??
And if “This article is a product of lazy thinking” then what kind of lazy is a personal attack?
Steve
Debate what is said i understand by why a personal attack??
Huh?
Anywho. I find this attitude prevalent at PJM. I offered an argument based on reason and logic. It was only at the end that I attacked you personally. This is different from ad hominem attack in which the argument itself is based on character deficiencies “i.e” you are retarded and illiterate and THAT’S why I disagree with your point. My construction is the opposite. I lay out the points for my disagreement and then conclude that you are retarded and illiterate based on how asinine your assertion is. It may make you cry to your mommy, but there’s nothing wrong with it in terms of the integrity of my argument.
Yes moho:
This is what he said: “Silly stuff from a person seemingly unqualified to write books of any kind.” this is called a personal attack, the key to it is “a person” and “silly” and “unqualified” all in the same sentence. that makes the statement a personal attack…
the sentence is not debating any issue, its attacking someones integrity….
If I have any gripe about modern children’s books (specifically the ones that the ALA touts or pull in the various awards) it’s that they’re no longer the sort of escapist fare that I grew up with. Rather, they seem like merely forums for the authors to work out their angst or to present “social problem #47″ to mushy young minds. So many books about kids dealings with drugs or divorce or death or abuse or . . . geez, it’s enough to depress even the happiest kids. The thinking goes that children facing these real-life issues will feel some connect to characters in a book also facing these issues. I call BS. What a kid dealing with crappy reality needs is not a book about someone else with a crappy reality. These kids need the escapism that books offer. And yes, escapism is not a bad thing.
Give them Oz or Narnia or Hogwarts or something like that. Don’t just give them another public school with more lousy kids who also have crappy families. What kid wants to read that?
There seemed to be some sea-change in the world of children’s literature over the last 30 years, and escapism was replaced with dour, dull realism. In a way, we have people like J.K. Rowling to thank for reintroducing the pleasures of escapism – and as a result, I’m starting to see a slight improvement, although the books seem mostly dark fantasies. But even Harry Potter has its post-modern touches.
Anyway, there are books with strong conservatives messages out there, but one would probably have to go back to the 60s and earlier to find them. This is not to say that all old books are worthwhile. Some are twaddle. But with a little exploration, you will find books that promote a conservative viewpoint — which is a rather broad thing anyway — typically through commonplace ideals like independent thinking, the entrepreneurial spirit, a “can-do” attitude, . . . and it’s sad to note that many books like this will be set during an earlier time in our country’s history, but you often have to go back that far to find an era where lack of government intrusion allowed the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive.
(A book about kids who started a business in today’s environment would naturally lead to a sequel where they are taken to court by unions for OSHA violations, or because they didn’t have hiring quotas or for failing to adhere to any number of government regulations.)
But never make conservatism the reason for writing. Make writing a good book the reason for writing. There’s far too much crappy literature out there.
again moho…why even attack at all???? your arguments should stand on their own without making the person “cry to your mommy” lol
again why even attack a person over ideas?? It dosnt hurt me but i dont see the need……
Integtrity of argument…i personally would let the argument stand on its own without attacking a person….but oh well….
“It’s Just a Plant,” by the way, is unintentionally hilarious, aside from being rather poorly-illustrated (by the author’s pot-smoking niece, I’ll wager). I’m sending a copy to all my conservative friends, because it should be mocked and held up for ridicule. The years fly by, but hippies will always be with us. Still, they’re a lot less of a threat than the political class.
Hey, how about we first start with a discussion on civility!
@20 moho
If your comments from @15 is supposed to represent an “argument based on reason and logic,” then I’m also for want of seeing it.
They way your “argument” is stated, you are showing that you have predetermined your view of the matter.
If you can’t see the valid concerns the other side has of the issues, then you really aren’t a person open for debate.
You aren’t here for a discussion or debate, you’re here to spread your ‘gospel’ of the way of the world…
your arguments should stand on their own without making the person “cry to your mommy” lol
Again, my arguments do stand on their own, as does the insult. Two separate actions, each enjoyable, but distinct. What happens between you and your mommy is your own business.
I only agree in that each of these books like each of our childrens education is up to us to either use or reject…as parents. The state should be completely removed from what are children are taught unless we choose to participate in the public school system. The entire education system from the county level up needs to be dismantled immediately with the money transferred to health care. We are free to create our own education, at home and away from society and that is our choice to make. And that is the way it should be. There are public schools available to those who choose to utilize them.
It’s not a “children’s” book, per se, but Heinlein’s Starship Troopers is written at a level where a middle-school-aged kid should be able to follow it. There are some good thoughts about civic responsibility in there.
Drew. You may not be aware of this, but the Wizard of Oz may have been written to do double duty as political satire about the populist movement [ex. in the book, Dorothy wears silver shoes, rather than ruby slippers as she skips along the yellow brick road, i'm assuming you know about the silver vs gold issue at the turn of the century]. Anyone harkening to a previous golden era, is usually editing out through ignorance or self-deception the problems those periods had.
Keith Indy:
If your comments from @15 is supposed to represent an “argument based on reason and logic,” then I’m also for want of seeing it.
You’re welcome to prove it. Personally, I doubt you can.
Moho: again… why insult people??
Steve4liberty: You’re still talking to me, and giving me an ever broader slice of this comments section to convey my views, that’s why. This is a concept which has been called the “public screen”. Teabaggers used it recently in their town hall meetings to great effect; in an over-saturated media marketplace, only startling messages can pierce the clutter. Here you are still thinking about what I said, despite the fact that you disagree with it. And here others are, reading about me, who will now search for my previous comment. The reality is that no one uses this tactic more than Republicans. Its a risky tactic, best used incognito. Over use by Republicans, who cannot now disassociate themselves from it, is what has brought down their approval ratings to tweens.
I think a nice idea for book would be for an author to write about two fictional towns. One run by liberal policy and one run by traditional conservative policy. The story would start with both towns at the same policy and each year the progression would be shown. Some good economics professor could show how the choices effect their economy and their growth. A science professor could show how the policies might effect the advancement of technology in each town. A police officer could show how the policies effect morality and criminal activity for each town.
I am not a writer, i cannot even write a sentence with correct spelling, grammar or punctuation.
Gays! Marijuana! Its the devil!
SO-CON FAIL. AGAIN.
A science professor could show how the policies might effect the advancement of technology in each town.
But, in the conservative town, he would then be lynched for advocating his view of evolution and suggesting that human technology has an environmental impact. Also, his view that people should stop stuffing their faces with Big Macs to avoid becoming obese and diabetic would probably not go over so well.
As someone who is both a recent product of public schools and who also briefly worked for them, may I remind the people who say that parents choose the books their children read about this:
Required reading lists. A parent may contest a required reading list (as my mother sometimes did), but the process is drawn out in such a way as to embarrass the family and to make it impossible for the child to finish the assignment by the time it’s due without reading the objectionable book.
I used to have a dream of becoming a school teacher in a public school (where I felt I was needed), but my own education and my experience working for one has left me disgusted. Now I’m a private tutor & graduate student. I’ll either teach at university, a private school, or just home school my own and possibly my neighbors’ children.
My friends and I (science majors all, as well as musicians) have idly talked about setting up our own science- and music-intensive home-schooling network. Perhaps that is not a bad idea.
Required reading lists. A parent may contest a required reading list (as my mother sometimes did), but the process is drawn out in such a way as to embarrass the family
Why would you ever be embarrassed if you were in the right? I doubt that the first black children to enter Little Rock were as embarrassed as they were passionate and defiant. People would respect so-called conservatives if they stopped whining about how oppressed they are and did something positive to bring about the changes they want.
Apologies to the OP…
Moho
“But, in the conservative town, he would then be lynched for advocating his view of evolution and suggesting that human technology has an environmental impact. Also, his view that people should stop stuffing their faces with Big Macs to avoid becoming obese and diabetic would probably not go over so well.”
It may very well go that route, but conservatism is not the same as far right lunatic religious fanatic.
Since we want to talk on extreme versions of liberalism and conservatism: when he talks about the liberal town, maybe he can discuss how, because of no money going toward research and development, there are no new cures for diseases, no new forms of communication, like cell phones and such. Maybe even the fact that after 30 years of liberal rule, there are no people to even work, even if they were willing to work because they were all aborted. Of course, the reason they would not be willing to work is because the liberal stance is that people have a right to food, a right to shelter, a right to clothing, a right to an education, a right to medical care, and a right to an abortion, thus they have no incentive to work because all of their needs have been converted to rights which they are owed and they do not need to work in order to fulfill those needs. Who would want to be the farmer when all of his harvest is confiscated by the government to give to others who have a right to it? Who will be the doctor when it takes so much sacrifice of one’s time to become a doctor but the services of the doctor must be given to those who have a right to his labor? This is what destroyed the soviet union, and the only way they were able to remain solvent as long as they did was because they used force of the state against those who did not work. So, I would guess there would also have to be a gulag in the liberal town along with brownshirts and execution squads.
I am ringing doorbells and registering voters.
Moho might observe that a person planning to maker her living as a university professor, a private-school teacher, a participant in a home-schooling network, or a freelance tutor *is* planning to do something positive to bring about the changes she wants. Now, really!
It is also possible to be passionate and dedicated, yet nonetheless face social embarrassment for doing the right thing. The social nature of human beings means that it is very possible to feel that you are in the right, and yet feel embarrassed at the same time. A person who fails to understand this fails to understand human nature very well.
Though I doubt it’ll impress those inclined to disagree with my sentiments, I’d also like to use myself as a counter-example to the myth that those who are dissatisfied with public schooling are just anti-science or anti-intellectual:
My undergraduate degree is in mathematical physics, and I’ve tutored or taught physics, chemistry, biology, earth-science, and math up to first-year college level. For what it’s worth, I’m an ardent admirer of Darwinian evolution (I also see evolution as no contradiction to Christian faith, but that is a topic for another time).
Add to that a love of Shakespeare, other English language poets (Yeats, for example), proficiency in three foreign languages, and the fact that in my spare time, I draw, paint, practice music, or compose it, and it’s obvious to anyone that I’m an uncultured philistine, a hick totally worthy of contempt from any sophisticated intellectual. Or so the stereotype runs.
Bringing the subject back to books, my experience with PC literature in the public schools is that it’s not even good literature: it’s pabulum that fails to cultivate intellectual curiosity or an aesthetic sense (much less a moral sense). What a crime, when the accumulated culture of the ages is so rich with ideas to stimulate mind and soul alike!
# 19 DES no what it should read is ‘Helen has two MUMMIES what a genetic black hole that is’
Or if you think ‘Black hole’ is a bit to near the point DES then maybe ‘genetic DEAD END; or ‘genetic Cul de sac’ would be more your liking but any way you discuss it two MUMMIES cant make a baby or continue the race.
Oh, Martia I so enjoyed your last post.
I home school and pulled my son out of school for a couple specific reasons.
First of all the education he was getting was wholly inadequate. Secondly I had had enough with political indoctrination. I do not share your enthusiasm for Darwin, but I also have pointed out to my son the similarities of Darwin to Genesis. My issues come from the belief that human kind is simply a happenstance. My other issue is the linkage of Evolution to Eugenics.
If only Moho was as well educated as you.
“43. Pragmatist:
Or if you think ‘Black hole’ is a bit to near the point DES then maybe ‘genetic DEAD END; or ‘genetic Cul de sac’ would be more your liking but any way you discuss it two MUMMIES cant make a baby or continue the race.”
Do you feel the same way about Catholic priests or anyone who’s taken a vow of celibacy?
Thanks, Grace O’Malley(#44)!
I’ve got a deadline to meet, so won’t be posting more comments on this article. Keep up the good work with your son! He’ll thank you in the long run if he isn’t already thanking you now.
Who will be the doctor when it takes so much sacrifice of one’s time to become a doctor but the services of the doctor must be given to those who have a right to his labor?
You haven’t thought this through very well. Who would clean the dead bodies off the street of the people of easily preventable diseases because they couldn’t afford care. Its never been an issue of charity, its always been an issue of public health. It seems rather obvious to anyone who’s ever been in an emergency room; imagine a car accident victim dying slowly in a car on the roadside because they have no insurance.
I began watching “The Story of Stuff”, and couldn’t help but laugh at some of the alleged math being used in Ms Leonard’s opening arguments.
For starters, though my job isn’t in materials economy (I do applied math in another field), I do know something about linear systems, enough to spot the fallacy in the following statment: “The reason it’s a system in crisis is because it’s a linear system, and we live on a finite planet, and you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely… [because of] bumping up against limits.”
In math-speak, she’s making the claim that linear systems cannot be bounded (that is, they cannot naturally contain themselves within boundaries indefinitely). But that is simply false. Many linear systems *are* bounded (that is, they stay within bounds even when run forever). For example, any particular solution to the linear system x’ = -2y, y’ = x/2 is bounded. More generally, most common oscillatory systems are linear and bounded, as is radioactive decay.
In purely mathematical terms, if the materials economy is in crisis, it’s not simply “because it’s a linear system”. The linearity of the system is simply not enough information to show what she claims.
Ms Leonard goes on to say: “It’s the government’s job to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their JOB.”
This would be too, too funny if it weren’t also so sad. Has she learned nothing from history?
She goes on: “Of the 100 largest economies on earth now, 51 are corporations”, and her diagram shows that the other 49 are governments.
She either fails to notice or is deliberately concealing the fact that 51 versus 49 is unlikely to be a statistically-significant difference. Also, she gives no information about relative rank within the top 100. And for all the viewer knows, most of the 49 government economies are in the top 50 of that 100 while most of the corporations are in the bottom 50. If this is true, the total size of government economies could well be larger than the total size of corporations’ economies. She also seems to be supposing that having government economies be larger than corporations’ economies is a good thing, a supposition by no means obvious.
She employs a classic fallacy when she says, “We are running out of resources.” As if what counts as a resource doesn’t depend on human ingenuity! For most of human history, iron ore wasn’t a resource for us, because we didn’t know what to do with it. Same with nuclear energy. Our ability to use “green” resources like solar and wind power has likewise expanded over time. I consider conservation a good thing myself, but I know how little it means to say, “we are running out of resources,” as if that itself were a cogent argument.
I also noticed that she didn’t cite a statistic for US forests as a whole, but rather just for the forests in her area, which could well be unrepresentative. At that point, I just lost interest in her argument. There are a lot of things I personally dislike about an overly consumerist or materialistic mentality, but I also know better than to advocate against materialism by citing bad math and expecting the government to be our savior. Her style of argument muddies clear discourse, is, I fear, inimical to human freedom, and is perhaps even bad for the environment in the long run (statist societies don’t exactly have a good environmental track record).
Ms Leonard might’ve been better off spending some of her 10 years of globe-trotting in learning to do math for herself. Clearly, the poor woman is just quoting math-like statements without real understanding. Now, if you excuse me, I have to get back to my own math (my simulation isn’t going to write itself)!
just teach your kids science and languages, everything else is a distraction.
“Heather has two mommies and they will be put to death for their sins” is so much better than to teach tolerance and respect for those who are not exactly like you.
Poor Des is soooooo confused…
He doesn’t realize that his embrace of multiculturalism will result in exactly that. When the Islamists are running things thanks to his ilk they will kill the homosexuals in accordance with Sharia Law.
I misspoke somewhat at 48. Instead of saying “is bounded” for a linear system, I should’ve said “has any particular solution bounded.” This is really what I meant, and the wording does make a difference. Or I could just define “bounded linear system” to mean “a linear system where any particular solution is bounded”, which is a reasonable-enough definition, though perhaps not good style.
We’ve tolerated multiculturalism to the point it’s killing us.
Just ask the families of the dead at Fort Hood.
If Malik Nadil Hasan had been a Christian communicating the same sort of “kill all non-believers” like he did . . . well, how long do you think it would take to lock him up?
Say he had “SOC” (Soldier of Christ) on his business cards (instead of “SOA” for “Soldier of Allah”.) He would’ve been shown the street in no time.
My, how far we have fallen.
Moho, yes I’m well aware of the satire to be found in The Wizard of Oz. There’s far more than just the silver slippers and the “yellow brick” road (and the wizard of .oz, who turns out to be a fraud.) Not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand, though. If all you took from my post was “old books good,” you missed the point.
The modern stuff — the “social problem of the day” books that are written for kids — they have no lasting value. No one will be reading them in a decade or so because they are too connected to the times in which they were written. But note the sorts of children’s books that have outlasted generations. Why do you suppose kids today still read the Little House books? What is it about them that has such lasting appeal? Why do kids still read Narnia? Why has The Wizard of Oz (moreso the movie than the book) become such an iconic American story? Why does Dorothy want to go back to dreary ol’ Kansas anyway?
How about a book by Glenn Beck about Glenn Beck as a little boy dreaming of becoming a big Glenn Beck who writes a book about a little boy named Glenn Beck . . . now THAT would be a book about Glenn Beck.
Oh, Hosannah . . . salla-ba-doo-lopsi-asha-sha-sha . . . pondo-raysom-a-kaka-doo-tha-la-la . . .
The modern stuff — the “social problem of the day” books that are written for kids — they have no lasting value. No one will be reading them in a decade or so because they are too connected to the times in which they were written.
That seems unfounded. What would you base that on?
But note the sorts of children’s books that have outlasted generations. Why do you suppose kids today still read the Little House books?
um…I’m sorry to break it to you but they don’t today. In my generation, we read those books because our teachers gave them to us to read. So, with almost any genre or type of book. Include them in the curriculum and they will be read by children who like reading. It doesn’t matter if they are about elves and fairies, gay fathers, hemp growing parents, young expansionist commanders or etcetera. Children aren’t that picky, and they certainly aren’t interested in your opinion of what was once socially relevant but today passe. I have a stack of comic books from the fifties and sixties that are almost completely inscrutable to today’s children but have a few young relatives that continue to read them over and over. Indeed, the more confusing the social fabric they encounter in these books, the greater their interest; something like a detective story.
Just ask the families of the dead at Fort Hood.
You mean these families?
The Luby’s massacre was an incident of mass murder that took place on October 16, 1991 in Killeen, Texas, United States when irate misogynist George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck into a Luby’s Cafeteria and shot and killed 23 people, mostly women, wounded another 20 and then committed suicide by shooting himself. It was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history until the Virginia Tech massacre.
Its not generally known but that man was a secret jihadist.
I like the (few!) people who used their comments to suggest that parents get classic, older kids’ books for their children. Not to say that new, well-written children’s books (that aren’t written for diversity and other PC reasons) wouldn’t be welcome–but, of course, designed-to-be-conservative-in-value books are going to seem didactic and heavy-handed, like so many of the kids’ books since the 1960s. I would say, look for books written before the middle of the 20th century; for one thing, they have long narrative sections that don’t zip by with snappy dialogue, and readers do have to learn how to read those. Look for authors like Hilda van Stockum, Elizabeth Enright, Eleanor Estes, Madeleine L’Engle, Astrid Lindgren (does anyone else remember her BIll Bergson books?), Arthur Ransome, Edward Eager, E. Nesbit … I had a very happy childhood!! I also liked the comment that said, “Teach your kids science and languages”–I’m a Latin teacher, for younger kids (ages 9 and up) through high school. Have them learn a dead language like Latin, so they’ll have one subject where they have to focus on reading (not making posters or talking idly about their feelings and stuff).
# 45 DES What an idiotic response no I dont but then Catholic Priests dont want children and dont want to play HAPPY FAMILIES either. You really should get out more.
Hey noticed this post and wanted to recommend a terrific children’s book that is like a miniature Atlas Shrugged for children. It is called ‘The Fisherman’s Catch : A Conservative Bedtime Story’ and can be found at http://www.ConservativeBedtimeStories.com. It is a story really meant to help children, who here much of what goes on between their parents, have a base in the conversation and inoculate them against comments they hear in school.
The main thing it teaches is that Socialism ( handing out fish ) does nothing in the end, you see half way through the story the fisherman figures out a better way to catch fish and the village chief decides it is not fair that the fisherman should have more then others. The village chief thinks he is making everyone more wealthy by taking the fisherman’s fish and giving it to the less fortunate, however in the end no matter how much fish he takes from the fisherman the fisherman can always go and WORK and catch more, those that are just getting the fish for free stop working as they don’t need to exert themselves anymore and remain poor. This shows the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism. In socialism it is someone else’s job to provide for you, in capitalism you may get charity on occasion but in the end you are expected to contribute. Truly a magnificent story and art design, can you believe it was made by a self-published author? The book is absolutely beautiful!!!
Apparently the author has plans to make more books like this but needs as many people as possible to purchase this first book so that he can afford to make more!
I am looking for titles of childrens’ books from the past that espouse conservative views,+/or positive stories about the founding fathers. Have 3 very young grandkids living in an Obama adoring home. Help. Thanks, Judy (The Little Red Hen & The Ant & The Grasshopper are the only ones I can think of)
perhaps you could have your children read 1984. it is a socially important novel that i read at the age of 11. or perhaps they can read the prince by niccilo machiavelli. that book taught me all i need to know about government and it is at a very reasonable cost to. that is of course if you so-called conservative “adults” have heard of these books. at the age of 13 at the moment i try to have an open mind. but listening to people not backing up their arguments just gives me a headache. theres a show called neon genesis evangelion that they could watch. it is about a troubled young boy called shinji ikari who seeks himself through gratification of others. he eventually understands the truth and “kills” god. the symbolism in this is enormous and there is a lot more to the show then i just let on. that is just a teaser. content includes: extreme volence, rape, murder, satanism, masochism, atheist concepts, depression, symbolism, blackmail, demential, pschological trauma and in depth looks at the true nature of humanity and what he really defines himself by. ciao
remember when kids used to read things that actually mattered? when books weren’t a way to press a political or religious pundit upon their feeble young minds? or if they did that they didn’t insult their intelligence and were actually smart enough to hide their message until later years in life? remember books like the wizard of oz and alices’ adventures in wonderland? books that left lasting impressions and are masterpieces of symbolism? yeah, maybe we should allow kids to read these instead of a political pundint force fead them by a parent whom only cares about “what they grow up to be” not who they are. I agree with the above comment, children should watch and know these things at a young age so that they can interpret them at an older age. This can also prove benificial towards their world views, complicating them beyond one viewpoint constantly pressed upon them by their parents without understanding exactly what these concepts mean. articles like this and comments that are generaly positive always anger me. why? because the people writing the comments are all providing just as much brainwashing as the “liberal media” (which doesn’t exist mind you) that they claim to be so dangerous towards childhood health! if parenthood is a teaching and learning experience towards both parties then shouldn’t you speak to kids on an equal level instead of talking down to them, spoon feeding them your ideals, and generaly creating clones of yourselves. let them develop viewpoints, then let yours be known. that’s all i have to say.