February 04, 2006
"We all share our toys"

This doesn't bear directly on the Puget Sound, but it is too hilarious to pass up. A reader alerts us to the book Why Mommy is a Democrat. From the product description:

Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others.
Of course, it's not all warm and non-judgmental, as the book also contains "numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) swipes at the Bush administration and Republican party."

The humor comes in the sample pages. The first one shows two little squirrels sharing their toys while mommy looks on. In the background are two snooty rich people (Republicans, presumably) ignoring the pleas of a homeless man. The caption reads "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." It is such a blatant self parody of nanny-statism, it almost makes me think the book is a satire. But then I read the endorsements from Air America and Daily Show personalities and realize the author is serious!

Posted by Andy MacDonald at February 04, 2006 10:41 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Nonjudgmental language, describing the communist utopia.
Judgmental images in pastels.

Any bet's on how soon it's required reading WA public schools?

Posted by: JCM on February 4, 2006 11:05 AM
2. I predict that within a few days some enterprising Republicans will have a parody book out to counter this ridiculous book.

One can imagine the pages now:

"Mommy takes some food from the neighbor children next door so that she doesn't have to buy food for our family."

"Mommy always tells us it's not nice when other kids beat us up, but she tells us never to defend ourselves because we have to be sensitive of bullys too."

"Mommy reads the New York Times paper because she says that's where the truth is, and she never reads blogs because they are mostly written by bad people who are Republicans."

"Mommy divorced Daddy because he was just an example of paternal oppression. I miss Dadddy, but Mommy says that Uncle Sam is a good substitute for Daddy."

"Mommy wants me to love Black, Yellow, Brown and other colored people, but not white people. All colors area equal to Mommy except white."

"Mommy wants me to be sensitive and tolerant of others, unless they are Republicans.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 4, 2006 11:51 AM
3. Gloria Steinem, Kim Gandy and all of the other dysfunctional leftist women's libbers would be proud. Most everyone else who is emotionally stable is repulsed by parts of it - but this is America and there is the first amendment and the marketplace will determine its degree of success.

Posted by: KS on February 4, 2006 12:15 PM
4. Mommy helps to provide lawyers for terrorists, but wants to have George Bush impeached for going after them.

Mommy wants to give houses to alcoholics, by taking away money from people who work hard.

Mommy is ok not attacking Iran for having nukes, but she is really scared of law abiding citizens for owning guns.

Mommy wants to make sure that she can have a private investment retirement account, but you need to have a government controlled system.

Mommy hates republicans because they have different ideas than she does.

Mommy can't win approval of a bunch of people voting in national elections.

Mommy points out that her enemy's approval ratings are in the mid-40's, but her approval ratings are below the 30's

Posted by: Jason Woodruff on February 4, 2006 12:21 PM
5. The second example's caption: "Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like mommy does". In the background a portion of an elephant goes by as mommy watches it, elephants being a well known predator of baby squirrels. Also in the background, a guy in a trench coat with a baseball cap next to a park bench. I'm sure that's not a comment on the recent 60 sentence for a child rapist in Vermont (that judge was not a Republican).

Any money spent on this book should be considered a campaign contribution. It's use in schools should be considered indoctrination not education.

Posted by: Republican (by default) on February 4, 2006 12:58 PM
6. they need a book to explain why mommy is a democrat?
mommy is a socialist.
mommy can barely read herself.
mommy is an idiot...there i explained it.
and just who is going to read this [ since they want to get rid of any real school testing...wouldn't want to prove that the teachers don't do their jobs.... and keep people as illiterate as possible] other than republicans?
is it a book of satire?

Posted by: christmasghost on February 4, 2006 01:23 PM
7. How did this book get into the Seattle Public Schools curriculum?

Posted by: Richard Pope on February 4, 2006 01:24 PM
8. Richard, as far as I know the book is not used in the Seattle Public Schools (or any other school, for that matter). I just posted it for some Saturday morning levity.

Posted by: Andy MacDonald on February 4, 2006 01:51 PM
9. Aww, a cute widdle feel-good indoctrination tool!
You have to read the sample pages--they remind me of Maoist propaganda comic books.
Long life to the 23rd Women Machinists' Rifle Brigade!
Down with the imperialist Yankee capitalist dogs!

Posted by: Pseduotsuga on February 4, 2006 02:00 PM
10. Is this the kids version of the Carville/Bagala book?

Posted by: Fed Up on February 4, 2006 02:29 PM
11. Good exposure for this propaganda publication. I bet that it will be attempted to be used in public schools in the future - so be wary out there and keep inquiring to see what your children are being taught !

Posted by: KS on February 4, 2006 02:50 PM
12. What gets me upset is that they use squirrels. We all know that squirrels are Republicans and strong supporters of our troops.
As proof...

http://www.sugarbushsquirrel.com/642343.html

http://www.sugarbushsquirrel.com/872610.html

www.sugarbushsquirrel.com

Posted by: Reporterward on February 4, 2006 02:54 PM
13. Reporterward... they use squirrels because they, like liberal men, hide their nuts.

Posted by: Huey on February 4, 2006 03:40 PM
14. Let's take the ideas of "fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others" and see how that applies to a big Dem plank---abortion.

Fairness---not too fair to the child

Tolerance---no tolerance for the child

Peace--Not too peaceful when you're pulverized and sucked into a sink, or forced into breach birth and then stabbed in the head with a pair of scissors

Concern for the well-being of others--Where's the concern for the well-being of the child?

Nope, sorry--test failed. Back to the drawing-board, Democrat party.

Posted by: Misty on February 4, 2006 03:52 PM
15. Well, there is a book called "Mommy, there's a liberal under my bed!" I've never read it though. Bet it's funny.

Posted by: Misty on February 4, 2006 03:54 PM
16. Wow!!!
And I thought Joesoph Goerbels was dead.
The real funny part of this is that anyone needs
a book to explain on "Why Mommy's is a Democrat".

ANS: She failed the WASL, every year she was in school.

Posted by: Mike P on February 4, 2006 06:04 PM
17. What's wrong, Repugnazis? Just can't take the warm, whimsical non-judgementalism of your moral superiors in the Democratic Party?

I guess you'll just have to be sent to the camps until you either learn to be nonjudgemental or die and go to hell.

Posted by: ScottM on February 4, 2006 06:19 PM
18. Um, maybe I'm wrong here, but does the disadvantaged man appear to be African American? Obviously the author of this book realizes that a black man can't achieve anything unless it's done for them by a white liberal.

Posted by: Rob on February 4, 2006 06:36 PM
19. This mommy is a Republican because sappy, sugary drivel like that makes her want to puke.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 4, 2006 07:21 PM
20. Here's the title of a book my daughter had to read way back in kindergarten. It is called Buttermilk/Bear. It teaches tolerance. It is along the same lines as Why Mommy Is A Democrat. I would like to know, is there a Daddy? Did Daddy leave Mommy? I think I know why...

Posted by: Peggy U on February 4, 2006 07:38 PM
21. I love being judgmental about garbage like this crap published. It deserves literary critique. Meanwhile, the Islamofascists believe that this country is weak and decadent when they read this...

Posted by: KS on February 4, 2006 09:08 PM
22. Aside from a complete antipathy to facts and reality, cynical shallow superficiality and phony prejudicial mock anti-bigotry is the hallmark of liberalism.

Thanks Teddy Kennedy, the world wouldn't be the same without you. Neither is Mary Jane Kopechne.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 4, 2006 10:33 PM
23. Where's Daddy?

Posted by: Ingraham on February 4, 2006 11:01 PM
24. ScottM,

The warm, whimsical non-judgementalism of moral superiors in the Democratic Party like . . . . . whom?
Who in the Democrat party is whimsically non-judgemental?

Try to send us somewhere twink. I'm ready along with more people than your pitiful onanistic crew of miscreants can possibly muster,
and so are several hundred thousand active duty armed troops. It won't work out good for you.
See you around . . . on your back staring upward vapidly.
I look forward to it.

Posted by: Amused by arrogant liberals on February 4, 2006 11:10 PM
25. Daddy is missing because 'Heather has two Mommies'!

Posted by: Cheryl on February 4, 2006 11:23 PM
26. Yes, where IS the dad? Dads matter!

Posted by: Misty on February 4, 2006 11:26 PM
27. Yes, I want my Daddy!

Married Mommies are conservative and overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush! If the WSRP would recognize this instead of trying to court the "suburban crescent", we might start winning back the legislature and carry the state for the next Republican presidential nominee-so long as its not a McCain type.

Posted by: Republcan In Exile on February 5, 2006 05:55 AM
28. Hey, folks! The author of this book lives with his partner and her 11-year-old daughter. This fries me! Moral superiority, what? You know what? Our household is frequented by my son's friends - the ones who come from single-parent or shacking-up arrangements. I truly believe it is harmful to kids to do this. Sometimes divorce is necessary , but shacking up never is.

There is an increase in over-nighters (which have at times become all-weekers) when one of these kids' parents moves a new boyfriend or girlfriend in. One boy came to our house with no clothes and spent nearly a week. Fortunately, we have the accomodations.

I wrote to this guy about his living arrangement, because honestly he doesn't get it. He told me that instead of focusing on his personal life, I should address the country's "real" problems, such as poverty. He also told me that "marriage" doesn't equate with "commitment". Tell me, doesn't living a loose lifestyle add to the problem of poverty? I think there is a direct relationship. This kind of self-centered approach to life is what is undermining our families. But, hey, this guy knows all about "family values"....

Posted by: Peggy U on February 5, 2006 11:09 AM
29. Peggy U: Amen, girl! Tell it like it is! Fixing the country's "real" problems starts right AT HOME. Sadly, Mr. Squirrel doesn't get that. Hopefully someday that light will go on for him.

Posted by: Misty on February 5, 2006 02:20 PM
30. Well, Misty, the child is only 6. I got that wrong, and Mr. Squirrel corrected me. If she were 11, he'd be paying hell for his living arrangements - but he'll find that out if he's around that long!

Apparently, the child is from his girlfriend's marriage to an abusive ex husband, and Mr. Squirrel is supporting the girlfriend and her child - the ex reneged on his obligations. Evidently that makes marriage not necessarily good and shacking up a viable alternative - by some sort of twisted logic that escapes me. What it says to me is that they live in a no-fault divorce state - the topic for a whole 'nother rant entirely! At least he is providing financially, which bumps him up a notch in respectability (although he still has his writing working against him! BLAH!).

My own personal belief is that you have no business doing someone unless you intend to make it official. You recognize that the consequences of the behavior can lead to the creation of a life that you would be morally obligated to care for, and you accept that responsibility by making the legal commitment.

When there's kids from a previous relationship involved YOU DON'T SHACK UP! Why is it people don't get this? Why don't they learn from countless other people's mistakes? Maybe, because they are not the ones who pay the price when the relationship goes sour...as it statistically so often does when there are kids from a prior relationship involved. Is it fair to gamble with other people's lives? Tell, me, am I being overly judgmental, or do marriage and shacking up demonstrate equal levels of commitment? Mr. Squirrel's view is that marriage is a superfluous formality, and that it can become a trap for the children of people who are too lazy to dissolve bad unions. Opinions anyone?

Posted by: Peggy U on February 5, 2006 08:41 PM
31. ..I'll give you mine on his opinion that marriage is a trap for the children etc.: BALONEY! Studies don't support that at all! Kids are more abused when mom lives with a 'boyfriend'.
I think he just likes all the free sex.

Posted by: Misty on February 5, 2006 10:08 PM
32. Oh, bad Misty.

You gave away the secret!

Posted by: platypus on February 5, 2006 10:58 PM
33. "Mommy, why does Ellie Elephant's mom say the WASL is useless drivel but you say it is a fair test?"

"Mommy why is Air America the only radio station that tells people about us? KVI and KTTH have a much larger audience."

Mommy, why did Robert Rightwingbird say our public school diploma isn't worth the paper it is printed on?"

"Mommy, why do the Democrats and socialists believe in the same things?"

"Mommy, why is personal responsibility bad?"

"Mommy, why can't we watch Fox News? Everyone else does."

"Mommy, is it true people voted for Hitler because he told them the same things you are telling us?"

"Mommy, why does the 2004 national election map show only the large college towns and welfare cities voting for your candidates?"

For the benefit of Leftwingnut, Gerald, and other clueless liberals, this is satire. The really sad part is that you clowns would probably see nothing wrong with the school systems in this state adding this book to their reading list. There is already too much garbage literature on the "recommended" reading list. And if a parent should point this out, the powers that be are not amused. I know this from personal experience. And the powers that be were even more surprised when I was able to give them a really good verbal listing of literature they could be offering to our kids. But, alas, the schools are more concerned about political correctness rather than quality. I am already setting money aside to make sure my granddaughter doesn't have to put up with socialist propaganda like this book.

Posted by: Burdabee on February 6, 2006 12:30 AM
34. I breathlessly await the sequel, "Why Mommy Killed Your Unborn Baby Brother".

Posted by: Vexorg on February 6, 2006 11:49 AM
35. I have to share this with you, because the author says there is no liberal bias in schools -if anything, there is a strong conservative bias! This person must live in an alternate universe...I'd like to visit it sometime!

Here is the quote:

"As for this liberal bias you claim exists in the school system -- I guess when your standard is "prejudice can be a good thing," then yes, I suppose you'll probably find a "liberal bias" in school books, which do tend to favor tolerance over prejudice. However, as a conservative, you probably never even notice the overwhelming conservative bias that dominates virtually every aspect of public schools. For example, the kids in public schools here in (liberal) Madison are asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day. You know, the one with "god" and "flag" and "liberty" in it? While a lot of liberals are fine with that, it's obviously something that appeals more to conservative parents. Wouldn't that be considered a conservative bias?

And have you ever stopped to think about the many ways that public schools teach the merits of capitalism, individualism, and limited government? (his partner's daughter) is constantly being asked to take part in school-sponsored competitions, and constantly being given rewards for doing her work -- very conservative concepts. Just once I'd like to hear her say "I helped my classmate today because my teacher says we should always look out for people who need our help -- and not because I expected to be given a reward for doing it." But no, it's always "I did my work because my teacher said I could get such-and-such if I finished my work," or "we're having a contest to see who can do such-and-such the best, and the winner gets a prize -- I want to win that prize." Well, Peggy, that's nothing more than conservative free-market dogma. The message being given to every kid in the public schools is "As long as you're happy, then all is right with the world. If anyone else is falling behind or needs some help -- that's their problem, not yours. Being #1 and winning prizes is all that really matters." So, given the overwhelming conservatism in our schools, is it really so upsetting that a few assigned books might promote a little tolerance now and then? Aren't there worse things our kids could be learning?"

Go ahead - ask about prejudice - I have my own take on that and tolerance. I just NEVER found schools to be conservative - not, at least, since I was in elementary school!

Posted by: Peggy U on February 6, 2006 03:24 PM
36. Didnt communism fail?Why are the Democrats still trying to run up the communist flag.

Posted by: DW on February 6, 2006 04:11 PM
37. Do you think we have overpowering, unresolvable differences with the left? I mean, I see this great fundamentalist Muslim threat coming at us, and I'd like to think that even if we have our differences from the Dems, that we would still have enough "unity" as a people to put it on the back burner and face the most pressing problems.

Maybe we are doomed as a nation.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 6, 2006 09:14 PM
38. It really will not matter if it gets into our schools…if it is not on the WASL test no one will teach it.

Besides, by Seattle school standards this is considered postgraduate reading!!!

Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 6, 2006 11:27 PM
39. I've always believed Liberals to be childish, theatrical, and somewhat dimwitted. I can see why this book would appeal to them.

Posted by: Brian on February 7, 2006 03:17 PM
40. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml
(CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that now it turns out the Coast Guard had concerns about the ports deal, a disclosure that is no doubt troubling to a president who assured Americans there was no security risk from the deal.

The troubling results for the Bush administration come amid reminders about the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the president have handled it for six months.

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September’s poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: fyou on February 28, 2006 08:18 AM
41. aukmtn loamxrx

Posted by: Garret on March 2, 2006 11:09 PM
42. aukmtn loamxrx

Posted by: Garret on March 2, 2006 11:10 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?