There's a brief, one-page article in the current issue of Newsweek that practically had me groaning like Frankenstien's monster in the grocery store check out line—the really slow line, of course. I rolled my eyes, smacked my forehead, clutched my roiling belly—oh, that's when they told me how much I owed . . . the article got me kinda mad, too.
I mean why are they bending over backwards to say it's okay to subject your rug monkeys to TV? One "expert" says that it's perfectly okay to have your baby watch a Baby Einstein video as long as a dopey parent stands by the TV, points out certain objects on the screen, then calls out the object's name to the burbling baby. Are they freakin' kidding me? Have they ever heard of this thing called a book? I mean, why not just crack open a flippin' book and save some face!
Just tell me why they never study the benefits of a child watching a half hour of TV compared to mom or dad taking little miss sunshine or little mister sunshine over to the library for a half hour to read picture books together. Why don't they study that, huh? Dang it, I'm getting mad again.
Is it me? Maybe I'm just too sensitive. Maybe this is what happens when you escape the TV trap for 12 years.
And I love that stuff about there being no really good shows for elementary age kids, but they do suggest sitting junior down in front of the History Channel for "The Great Naval Battles of the War of 1812." AS IF! One dude even suggests that an hour a day of the boob tube is cool, but be sure to read with them at least 20 minutes a day, too. Just 20? Wouldn't spending just 20 minutes on TV and at least an hour on reading be three times better? Is reading like brushing your teeth now? Like flossing? Implied message: it ain't fun, but you should force yourself to do it every day.
You can read the online version of the Newsweek article for yourself here. Let me know if you think I'm off.