The Baby Einstein thread is just nuts.

Some of you just have too much time on your hands or something. These are educational videos for one-year old kids for crying out loud.
They are commercial-free, completely apolitical, and teach kids to be curious about the world around them. They are meant to spark imagination in pre-toddlers They are well-received by the psychological community and by parents.

But because * chose to give this lady an attaboy during the SOTU and her hubby gave Bush a contrubution back in 2000, this woman is now a capitalist pig trying to brainwash our children. And those parents who like them are somehow abusing their kids.

Lighten up people. And if you do not have kids or have some first hand knoweldge of the the Baby Einstein series you really have no place to comment.

but then I can't say that I was at all surprised that she was a Bush supporter that IS why she was there-that and the fact that he couldn't find anyone else willing to show up.

there would be people here on DU bitching about it. Anything that Bush touches, to many here, is automatically extreme neocon right-wing.

pacifist, I wonder who gave this woman the right to use his name. As he was the farthest man from a repuke warmonger, I can't help but wonder what he would think of his name attached to this woman's business and politics.

People forget they're talking about a specific thing because the word has become generic.

But I doubt he'd have a problem with the videos. And he did kick-start the atomic bomb, which is strange because pacifists usually don't write to the president about weapons ideas.

People use them generically (do you have a kleenex vs do you have a facial tissue?) but cannot use Kleenex/Xerox in advertising, while Einstein can be used. As far as if he'd have a problem with the videos, who knows.

Just because someone might be a Republican doesn't mean they have sinister motives to brainwash people.

Somehow, Mozart is not age appropriate unless filmed by her. :hi:

have said "No" but the thrill of being that close to His Royal Asshole was too much to pass up.

I feel the same disgust now toward Mutombo. And I have always loved Deke as a player.

Unless there was a donation to the cause, by choosing to be there in that role absolutely does mean acceptance of the crap that comes from associating with the pukes. And it would have to be a large donation for me to sell out like that.

She went to a SOTU. I know she was forced out before it began, but she went.

I don't see a need to paint every person who attended the SOTU with such a broad brush like that.

sitting next to Vehicular Homicide and being "honored" by the killer's spouse.

:eyes:

Problem was not just that babyeinsteinmom was AT the SOTU, but that she was made a PART of the SOTU

I think it's stupid and immature to get ruffles feathered because someone was recognized by the president at the SOTU. It's a tradition that goes way back.

People act like this woman was sacrificing puppies and drinking their blood. That's Dick Cheney's job.

Did it ever occur to you that Mutombo, a new american citizen does not read DU? Perhaps like 90% of the country he walks through life without paying much attention to politics. Then the PRESIDENT invites him to the SOTU... what an honor for him, to have the president of his adopted country acknowledge him.

Should he pay more attention... sure, so should most of the people we all know. But to feel disgust for a man who is trying to do so much good for the people he left behind in Africa and asking nothing in return simply because he is as up to speed as you are is sad indeed.

Some of you really need to cut people a bit of slack.

Do you realize how insane that sounds?

"Unless there was a donation to the cause, by choosing to be there in that role absolutely does mean acceptance of the crap that comes from associating with the pukes"

How about HIGHLIGHTING one's cause on a huge national stage?

Now I think someone said she was a Bush voter but who knows her motivations for going.

"I feel the same disgust now toward Mutombo. And I have always loved Deke as a player."

Then I truly feel sorry for you that its that hard to separate polticis from life.

Do you have nothing but contempt for him?

He thought it was funny that she whored for chimp too.

Maybe people don't like Bushwhores, go figure.

He talked about the man who saved the life of someone in the subway, the man who saved lives in Iraq, the man who built a hospital in the Congo and saved lives...wait for it...here's the punch line...and the woman who made baby videos.

Edited to add: It had nothing to do with the fact that she likes or doesn't like Bush.

and then something to the effect of "Isn't that usually followed by the words,'Arrest her?'" :hi:

:hi:

but since his* failure of a brother is involved with the product, it was nothing but a shameless plug for yet another member of the BFEE.

Isn't it just wonderful the the SOTU speech is now endorcing products?

I can see it now, "this state of the union broadcast is brought to you by the good people at home depot, where the state of your home is our business!!"

One recent study showed that while the video industry for small children has exploded with products like Baby Einstein, Brainy Baby, or Baby Genius, {b]the advertising claims of educational benefits are not backed by research.
In fact, many studies have documented negative affects for children under two who watch screen media, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under two years old NOT watch screen media at all.

snip


... a study published in February in the journal Pediatrics found that the time children spend watching television, with or without their parents, interferes with more developmentally appropriate activities

Last December, the Kaiser Family Foundation, a healthcare policy research institute, released a study conducted by scientists at the Child Health Institute and Department of Pediatrics at the University of Washington. The researchers surveyed the claims made by the best-selling videos targeted toward infants and young toddlers and compared them against available research on the benefits of educational screen media for children under two.

Though three-quarters of the 100 best-selling DVDs for children under two claimed educational value, the authors of the study found "no published studies on any of the products examined for this paper, or on any other commercially available in-home educational media products for children" under two.

snip


"A public health organization should not be in the business of branding babies or helping the media industry insinuate media and marketing in the lives of our youngest, most vulnerable children," she continued.


© 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS reprint policy.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2977

I don't care if it is "commercial-free, completely apolitical, and teach kids to be curious about the world around them", or if they are "meant to spark imagination in pre-toddlers".

Children that young should be getting those things by playing with picture books and being read to by their parents. To spark the imagination of a toddler, how about giving them simple board puzzles, or a colorful book with lots of pictures, or even a empty cardboard box that they can play with.

All these videos do is relieve parents of the "burden" of being parents by providing an electronic babysitter that encourages children to become couch potatoes.

TV does have wonderful uses for children and adults. It can educate and inform, but it must be used as tool to do so rather than a babysitter. I do agree some parents are like that and it's a shame.

Children over the age of say 4, watching Sesame Steet = OK

Toddlers glued to a TV = bad (or lazy) parenting.

just stares at the teletubbies in fascination. He loves them and makes more noise when they are on. We get a kick out of how expressive he is when watching them. There is no way the TV is a babysitter for him. He's shown no interest in anything else. The other grandchildren do watch Dora twice a day. That's all the TV they are allowed. My daughter's choice. She's more rigid on the TV than I am.

Don't tell Falwell on us. :)

OMG she is everywhere. Dora Sippy cups, DVDs, Dolls, Dora cereal. Little girl is makeing a mint and Swiper never gets anything.

Oh maaaaaaaan.

I have read several times that non-interactive activity, no matter what the content, doesn't contribute to development at all, for children under a certain age. Sorry, that includes listening to classical music, too.

These videos might be easier on us adults, both in terms of giving us a free moment, and not driving us as crazy with goofy songs and such, but they don't do anything for the kid.

Mainly these videos make us feel better about dropping the kid in front of the TV. This is the only reason they are successful.

jim

who rescued the individual who fell off the subway.

He was spotlighted as well during the SOTU. I imagine that it's only a matter of time before we see his political contributions posted here and his integrity attacked because Bush gave him a shout-out and recognized his actions.

she was invited cause bush thought she was hot or he watches her videos

Maybe more of a baby-sitting aide. Like a mobile or something.

The notion that it's going to give you a smarter kid is snake oil, IMO.

videos as an effective educational resource for infants.

In other words, sitting your baby in front of a TV is not going to do diddly squat to help your baby learn or be smarter than the baby next door or better off than any other kid in her kindergarten class 5 years from now.

But, there is this woman who has made a mint selling these videos to parents.

I criticize her for being a ripoff artist. The fact that she is a repukelican and bush donor is icing on the cake. But it certainly is not the reason I disapprove of this woman.

too much TV (in spite of the content) before age 2 has a negative impact on attention span.

But watching a 20 minute Baby Einstein video is not "too much" TV. Too much TV is bad. But railing against this particular series, parents who use it, its contents, or the agenda of its creator on that basis is a strawman.

If parents want to waste their money on this product, that is their right.

They are educational in the same sense that a toy that plays music is educational or a wind up mobile over their crib is educational.

It'll never cease to amaze me how closed minded or ignorant some can be and how outraged they'll get about things that don't require or merit outrage.

Methinks some people just need to get a bit of a grip.

Harry potter is of the devil because of X, Y is evil because of Z and will corrupt your children. So on and so forth.

I am guessing if I play the dvd's backwards I will hear a hidden message 'vote for booosh'.

Of course, some may say they are attacking her as well because she is a woman. She made a choice, and now we just gots to show her how bad it was and learn her a good un. I dun reckin she can't think straight and needs some good ole boys to a think fer her.

Overall though, I think some people take politics a little too serious. Seeing the evil one everywhere all the time. We need some good old fashioned hearings to root em out and blacklist em. Where's McCarthy when we need him for our side?

It is sad it even extends to entertainment. Director X likes repugs, well we can't enjoy his art anymore. Everyone has a litmus test. Pro america bumper stickers - bad. Pro Castro good. It just all seems a bit much to me at times....maybe I am just getting old.

She does not watch them any more. But she loved them when whe was much younger...We had her tested twice and not only is she incredibly verbal avd very curiuous she has an IQ of over 135.

She watched two or three Baby Einsteins a day. While I have no direct causation....It certainly did not stifle her development.

nothing, but nothing brings out the hoier than thou side of du like bashing parents.

Sometimes parents need to go to the bathroom, shower or read a newspaper.

in front of sesame street while i prepared dinner. it felt like a wholesome thing to do. at 18 months we opened a book with numbers. he knew all 12. then our book with letters. he knew all 26. i realized with horror that the tv had programed my child. it was spooky to me and so i ran to the forest to escape technology. he wrote his own book at three called "mukanik buk".

he's 31 now and has a sun of his own. all is well.

we can run, but we cannot hide from change. it is what humans do. the parent thing is a twisted journey they've named evolution with no true protocal. when we realize the people we produce are products of their environment provided by us in a profound way we make choices we believe will enhance their development.

we stayed in the forest until he was 5 and started school where he learned to patiently stand in line. what are ya gonna do?

We let you voice yours here.

People are free to comment on anything that they want to however wrong it may be.

For example: I, personally, have no standing to talk about economic reforms in South Africa. I know nothing of South Africa's economy, and my opinions on the subject are worthless. However, I do still retain the right to spout uninformed, baseless opinions.

And I asked why they had the right to decide who gets to say what, not who has a right to say something. It doesn't matter if they have standing or not, why does this random person get to say they can say it or not?

They're very different ideas. You would have no place to say, for example, that Bill O'Reilly may be sexually attracted to sheep. However, you certainly have the right. And the OP gave a very clear delineation of who has place to comment and who doesn't--if you have any experience with the matter at hand. I would think that is a socially acceptable rule of when comment is considered socially appropriate and when a person's well-meaning comment would, through its ignorance, impede the dialogue.

I'm asking why the OP gets to say. Who elected them judge of who qualifies to voice what opinion? Your categorization has nothing to do with it.

I was merely pointing out that those who do not have kids or have never seen the videos really do not have much ability to speak with authority on the issue.

It is both pretentious, obnoxious and a bit imbecilic to blast away at the merits of something one knows nothing about.

The tinfoil flows freely, unfortunately.

would approve of his name on a product that gave money to the fucker of the world, bush?

I guess I could start another one saying that this one has become crazy. ;-)

on the DU flammable topics listing.

:smoke:

I'm still pulling the ash out of my hair from last time. :)

WITH the real world? Television isn't the real world.

Television viewing is a passive endeavor until critical thinking skills are acquired.

Toddlers aren't quite up to that yet.

I keep thinking of just how well-trained FOX viewers are when I see television programs designed for infants and toddlers.