"There is, Baby Bear. There is."/"Hi, Baby Bear. I am Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but you can call me 'Justice."
"Wow! Impwessive!"
ADDED: Let's talk about the particular legal problem the "Sesame Street" folks used to teach kids law. Baby Bear has a complaint against Goldilocks, who entered his house and sat in his chair, breaking it. Justice Sotomayor, after listening to Goldilocks, notes that Goldilocks didn't intentionally break the chair, and the dispute is resolved by having Goldilocks help Baby Bear glue the chair back together. "And the 2 of you can live happily ever after." Baby Bear says "I can live with that," so we could view Sotomayor as proposing a settlement — Baby Bear agrees to it — rather than issuing a legal decision.
Notice the emphasis on conflict resolution and building community. Fine. But I'm not satisfied with the observation that Goldilocks didn't intentionally break the chair. Goldilocks intentionally broke into a private home. Why is there no attention to that? If somebody broke into my house when I was away, I would be outraged, even if nothing were broken. I would also not accept a glued-together chair as an adequate replacement for an unbroken chair.
So "Sesame Street," in classic left-wing fashion, pays no attention to property rights. Also, consider the gender dimension of this problem. If a male had intruded into the home of a female, I don't think "Sesame Street" would focus on how nice it would be if the 2 could now become friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
101 comments:
Sesame Street Mission Statement: Gotta indoctrinate the kiddies while they are young.
I'm so old I remember when Sesame Street was only about teaching the fundamentals.
Que pasa?
Sesame Street also missed on an opportunity to teach the law on castle doctrine.
"A Supreme Court justice is a judge who solves arguments by giving his or her opinion."
Really? I thought it had something to do with the law.
"Goldilocks intentionally broke into a private home. Why is there no attention to that?"
Each according to his needs. Baby Bear has a nice chair, lots of porridge, a comfy bed. Goldi has a right to his stuff.
Los Estados Unidos, he going down!
Baby Bear is the 1%!!!
I'm no law professor, but I'm wondering if the idea of Goldilock's exigent circumstance of being lost in the woods and needing food and shelter would be easy to get across in the Sesame Street venue.
I think the overlook of the breaking and entering is conserving detail. The focus of the story is on the chair. It is clumsy story-telling, but it is for kids.
I mean, why is a -Baby- the one in the case? Where are Papa or Mama Bear?
Legally, Sesame Street is all screwed up.
Goldi has a "richness of experiences" that enable her to "more often than not reach a better conclusion" than a privileged teddy bear "who hasn't lived that life".
I am outraged--OUTRAGED--that Sesame Street isn't teaching 3 and 4 year old children about property rights! What's the point of the show if it isn't going to focus on fundamental legal issues?
Yeah, I'm with Matthew and I ♥ Willard. But I think my carefully tuned humor detection device may be signalling that the Professor would not mind at all that I actually laughed out loud at her commentary.
I eagerly await your analysis of the Three Little Pigs story.
The exigent circumstance of being lost in the woods may help Goldilocks get out of punitive damages, but I don't see how it relieves her of the obligation to make the bears whole. Perhaps Baby Bear should have engaged Sue Me Elmo instead of appearing pro se.
but I'm wondering if the idea of Goldilock's exigent circumstance of being lost in the woods and needing food and shelter
I don't remember that version of the tale. Check out wiki for the history of the story:
"Tatar points out that the tale is typically framed today as a discovery of what is "just right", but for earlier generations, it was a tale about an intruder who could not control herself when encountering the possessions of others.[21]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Three_Bears
I would be interested if you can find a version that says Goldi was "lost" or "starving".
I don't understand why some people are fascinated by government lawyers. Especially bad ones.
Sesame Street focuses on teaching kids how to not be dicks to each other. Many kids have a natural affinity for being dicks to each other and do not need any additional education in this area. Unfortunately, there are those who lack dickish instincts and are not well served from not having a curriculum that focuses solely on getting along together. Why won't Sesame Street give equal time to teaching kids to be dicks?
Get 'em young. You go, wise Latina!
I am outraged--OUTRAGED--that Sesame Street isn't teaching 3 and 4 year old children about property rights!
Calm yourself. The original story taught children about property rights. Why has that been changed?
That's because girls are just all silly and would never break into a home for malicious reasons. Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice...
Children's stuff is all that way and has been for some time.
I think it might be nice, instead of some of the religious children's alternatives (not that there is anything wrong with that except that sometimes they're just as vapid as the new secular children's fare) someone started publishing libertarian children's books. All it would take would be taking traditional fables and stories and returning them to their original (usually) forms.
Three pigs? If you work you'll have nice things and safety and warmth. If you don't work you die.
Henny Penny? You have a right to the fruit of your own labor and no responsibility to feed freeloaders.
Ant and the Grasshopper? Same thing... play when you ought to be working and those who work have no obligation to give you food or shelter.
Good solid lessons.
Original:
"An old woman (who is described at various points in the story as impudent, bad, foul-mouthed, ugly, dirty and a vagrant deserving of a stint in the House of Correction) discovers the bears' dwelling. She looks through a window, peeps through the keyhole, and lifts the latch. Assured that no one is home, she walks in. The old woman eats the Wee Bear's porridge, then settles into his chair and breaks it"
'Hi kiddies, do you know who I am? I am, by my own admission an affermitve action hire not qualified to sit on the bench, but you should admire me. Not because I am a supreme court justice, but because I am a LATINA justice, because that's what's really important, right?'
Next up: Root causes of the Big Bad Wolf and why we should enable him to eat the 3 Selfish Pigs...
"You can call me Justice"
Sounds like someone thinks they're Chuck Norris.
A cartoon with the Supreme Court Justices as super heroes could work. The could have the super power to change words to mean whatever they want and throw books really fast.
Why didn't they have Scalia or Thomas on the show? I think they would have been more interesting.
"Why didn't they have Scalia or Thomas on the show? I think they would have been more interesting."
-- The reason for Thomas is obvious, Sesame Street tries to avoid (as far as I'm aware) controversy (see, Perry, Katie). For Scalia, I dunno. He just might not be as puppet-friendly? I can't see the video, but I always felt like Sotomayor was at least fairly charismatic and came across well (even if I don't agree with her).
What about the resolution when Goldie's dad hunts Baby Bears' parents during open season?
Justice Sotomayor, after listening to Goldilocks, notes that Goldilocks didn't intentionally break the chair
That really is bad law.
If I commit a crime (arson) and someone dies, it doens't matter whether I "intentionally" killed them.
This is a "wise" Latina?
"If I commit a crime (arson) and someone dies, it doens't matter whether I "intentionally" killed them."
There are laws specifically about killing people while committing other felonies/law breaking. Whereas, I think property destruction, can be handled civilly instead of criminally.
Plus. They are puppet people... and bears. Their law is different.
When it comes to the law, there are lots of lessons to be learned. Property rights, for example, and amicable settlement for another. While it's hardly surprising that state run TV chose the latter, I can't really get too upset. I don't really look to Sesame Street to teach my kids about property rights, and I think doing so would be a mistake.
Girl justices are interested in children.
I'd like to see Sotomayor bring the conflict-resolution-and-building-community approach to an obortion case. "Goldilocks, you carry the fetus to term and then put it up for adoption. Then you won't have to take care of it and it can have a life with a nice family that wants it!"
I've never felt that there was much in the way of interesting legal issues in Three Little Pigs v Big Bad Wolf. I'd be more interested in hearing the Althouse take on Coyote v ACME.
I don't really look to Sesame Street to teach my kids about property rights, and I think doing so would be a mistake.
What about fables and fairy tales that teach morals?
Thanks Paul. The Coyote V ACME link is hysterical.
The reason for Thomas is obvious, Sesame Street tries to avoid (as far as I'm aware) controversy
How is Justice Thomas any more controversial than any of the other SCOTUS judges? I really don't think that the kids watching SS will recall the Anita Hill hearings.
I don't think that there's any excuse for allowing the left to set the narrative here that somehow a black conservative justice is inherently and forever "controversial", while a lefty is not.
Personally, I don't think Sotomayor's decision to appear on Sesame Street was particularly wise.
The kids won't remember Hill; the parents will. If I were in charge of getting guests for Sesame Street, I wouldn't pull in Thomas even though I think the Hill hearings were bunk and a waste of time.
Why? Because it is bad business. It has nothing to do with Thomas being black, so much as it does with knowing that it benefits no one to have to explain to kids what all the shouting is about.
If conservatives boycotted and got angry as effectively, we could effectively black list guests from children's shows in the same manner. It is to our credit we don't.
Matthew, it's not a blacklist, but a whitelist. (Ironic terms, those.) Some public figures are universally acceptable, and thus on the whitelist, because nobody would raise a serious objection or boycott. Sotomayor, Bill Clinton, etc. Others, holding similar credentials, are not on the whitelist, because someone might squawk: Clarence Thomas, George W. Bush, etc.
Lyssa has it right: the left writes the list, because they hold out the threat that they'll strike, scream like toddlers, boycott, or do some other such vandalistic act if a public institution goes outside the whitelist. The right doesn't put up a similar threat, except insofar as extreme anti-abortion folks are part of the right...and even then, it's mostly an empty threat.
Give George W. Bush a few years and people will think Haiti Relief and AIDS in Africa Relief more than anything else, if the world is a just world.
Forget it Althouse, it's a wise Latina.
wow...now Sesame Street...enemies everywhere...
Thanks Ann,
Classic law school analysis!
machine: wow...now Sesame Street...enemies everywhere...
Hyperbole much?
If Sesame Street was indoctrinating kids with conservative propaganda, you'd be out in front of their corp offices shitting on police cars.
Looks like the wise Latina was shown up by the wiser Blue Hen.
The New World Order is headed in this more European direction arising out of a Roman Empire heritage.
Even Justice Ginsberg recently advised the Egyptians to avoid imposing a Constitution upon themselves that creates burdensome rights of legal Due Process with juries making decisions.
The preferred UN Governance method will be use of an Arbitrator's function by a TV show like "Judge."
One, or at most a panel of three, Judges appointed (never elected) by the Party or its Supreme Leader will have to be used for greater efficiency governing the provinces of the entire world.
That will easily work as soon as the New World Religion is functioning as a nature worship system.
It will be free from those Zionist influences that destroyed Roman paganism after 340 AD when Pontifex Maximus Constantine was converted by a Jewish sect in Rome called Christians.
Scalis, in a previous ruling, held that bears have no rights which a human being needs must respect.
Fen, how crude you are.
Conflict resolution and building community are such wrong lessons too...
And of course every time Republicans talk about cutting funding for NEA, NEH, PBS, the left wing screams Sesame Street.
But there is no coincidence here.
Query: Assuming that it is OK to criticize Sonia Sotomayor for being an empathetic Justice who erroneously seeks to make legal rulings more merciful for citizens, why do Conservatives need add that the ridicule she is a "Wise Latino" in every comment about her?
It just brags to the the electorate that Conservatives are bitter people that are bigoted against a Princeton educated, natural born American citizen from an Hispanic heritage.
IMO doing that makes Conservatives look very Unwise.
"Query: Assuming that it is OK to criticize Sonia Sotomayor for being an empathetic Justice who erroneously seeks to make legal rulings more merciful for citizens, why do Conservatives need add that the ridicule she is a "Wise Latino" in every comment about her?"
It was the President who cited that as one of her qualifications. It's like when Republicans remind Democrats that the president is a clean, articulate black man. It's not that those adjectives came from Republicans.
Sort of a way of reminding people how racial things are.
"Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice..."
That is correct.
P.S.,
It is wise Latina.
machine said...
Fen, how crude you are.
Conflict resolution and building community are such wrong lessons too...
The law is all about resolving conflict, but through a specific framework intended to treat all fairly (I know Lefties have a real problem with that "equal justice under law" concept).
And I'd disagree with Ann about one thing.
It's not so much about building community as it is organizing it.
what gives you the impression that baby bear is male? also, given that our society does not afford bears property rights, i think the bear got more than it was entitlted too, not less.i love the breasy bilingualism in the piece.
traditionalguy, Sotomayor invited the ridicule of the "wise Latina" concept..
machine: Fen, how crude you are.
Hardly. It accurately describes what you Lefties do at protests, when you're not robbing, raping and murdering each other.
why do Conservatives need add that the ridicule she is a "Wise Latino" in every comment about her?"
A sitting judge claims that Whites reach better conclusions than Blacks. You approve her for SCOTUS?
OK, she said it about herself at a seminar to instill self respect in female latina students.
That seems to be a double violation of Conservative Credo: both promoting females and promoting "another Race."
Well, being a female lawyer/Judge has not been a socially prohibited category since 1960 or so. The Conservatives saying that are 50 years behind the times.
And being Puerto Rican born of Spanish descent does NOT make a spanish speaker into "another race." Spain has always been just as Caucasian/European as England and France ever were. And being a Catholic is not "Another race" either.
But since ridicule is so much fun on the blogs, go ahead and have at her. But you are doing it in front of an audience that votes.
Did anyone ever find a version of the tale where Goldi was "lost" or "starving" ?
OK, she said it about herself at a seminar to instill self respect in female latina students.
Using racism to instill self-respect?
And check Bob's link - she's used the line on multiple occasions, not just one seminar. Racism is her meme.
That seems to be a double violation of Conservative Credo: both promoting females and promoting "another Race."
No, you keep missing the parts where Soto bashes white males.
Conservatives prefer the Marine Corps model where skin color is no more relevant than hair color.
"But since ridicule is so much fun on the blogs, go ahead and have at her. But you are doing it in front of an audience that votes."
It is being ironic; the wise Latina comment is why she is un-parody-able. Sometimes, public figures just serve up a perfect moment like that.
Its also telling that a minority chooses to use race as her qualifier for SCOTUS.
Screams incompetent diversity hire.
"...you are doing it in front of an audience that votes."
Your disadvantage here is that you're responding to commenters that think.
>> but I'm wondering if the idea of Goldilock's exigent circumstance of being lost in the woods and needing food and shelter
> I don't remember that version of the tale.
While I understand discovery allows us all access to the prosecution's version of the story, which it apparently is trying in the media instead of in court, the defense doesn't have to show its cards until we present it to the jury.
Other than the Basques in the mountains between Spain and France, What part of Spain being within a broad European/Caucasian racial group don't you guys understand?
Do you also see the the Quebec Canadians as another Race? My friend, Crack MC would probably hate them as "Wise Ass Franks."
Interestingly, the Muslim Moors from North Africa after being violently expelled from Spain following 700 years of rule there, do to this day despise their European conquerors and call all Europeans "the Franks."
Is it because of their darker hair and more passionate personalities that differ from the Race of red headed/blondes of Norwegian descent?
In the 200 year American Melting Pot, such narrow views will lose winnable elections.
Race no longer means race; it is a sort of ur-tribalism.
Which would go away if it weren't convenient for box-checkers and people who want to be recognized as wise Latinas.
See? It's useful everywhere!
"A cartoon with the Supreme Court Justices as super heroes could work."
Been done. Tom the Dancing Bug (I think) has a super hero Judge Scalia show up on occasion.
It's ok, Justice Sotomayor just invented the "Goldilocks Rule". One free break in if your female and are handy with a glue gun.
Crap.. You are, not your. I know better.
What part of Spain being within a broad European/Caucasian racial group don't you guys understand?
Huh? Sotomayor is the one dividing everyone along racial lines. Ask her.
Fen...I love you, but I beg you consider the possibility that you are wrong.
Perhaps Hispanic is only a Romance language with its culture engendered differences. It is not a Racial category even if there are still some favors given to them since the 1960s by Dems, like the favors given to women, in our politics, both out of a need to identify a class to scapegoat in order to raise emotions of voters during election cycles.
I only suggest that you re-direct your efforts into getting GOP candidates elected even if it includes letting go some stereotypes of Hispanics as dirty Mexican laborers.
Most of the target voters from Cuba and Puerto Rico are of a Spanish heritage from the 1500s. That predates the less educated emigrants of the 1600s -1700s that settled the Thirteen Colonies.
They have every Conservative instinct that you could want, but they will think you are a dunce if you stereotype them for speaking the language of their ancestors in Spain that sent Columbus over here to start the whole thing.
...you can call me Justice, Buford T. Justice.
I'd like to see Justice Scalia in the balcony with Statler and Waldorf.
Inculcation 101. Get them before they ever hit public schools. Leftards do it oh-so-well. They are masters at it.
I do feel so much better that she will be ruling on Obamacare. After all, what does the Constitution or property rights have to do with anything when your intentions are pure?
It is, after all, just her own opinion. And you can call her "Bought and Paid For"
Barack Obama Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm Moron!!
Her cheeks are fake! I don't think ever before, a single justice had fake cheek implants done.
So, I ask you. Did Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor spend taxpayer money for a facial improvement?
Why did she do it? Why does her smile also look like a dentist fixed her teeth?
Tell me of another justice you know ... (and you can add those who definitely wore "rugs" on the tops of their heads ... Think they needed to do this?
STUPIDEST SEGMENT ON A SESAME STREET SHOW THAT I EVER SAW!
And, I've loved Sesame Street, the way I loved Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.
WOW, WHAT A DEGRADATION. Worse than Clint Eastwood's "half time" ad for obama.
Justice Benjamin Cardozo, the first hispanic SCOTUS justice, would roll his eyes at her answer.
"Sesame Street focuses on teaching kids how to not be dicks to each other. Many kids have a natural affinity for being dicks to each other and do not need any additional education in this area"
Half the education in kindergarten is teaching the kids not to be so danged obnoxious when they're kids. (Don't hit; share your toys; do what you're told.) But these are not the same rules that are appropriate for grownups, because grownups should know when hitting is required for survival, when sharing your toys is not nice but stupid, and when doing what you're told is empowering a tyrant.
Sorry, it's only sorta on topic.
Considering that during her confirmation hearing Sotomayor said her 'wise Latina' comments were actually an argument that judges need to put aside their personal experiences while on the bench, how do we know she didn't want to execute Goldilocks?
The original story taught children about property rights. Why has that been changed?
Not so fast. It seems there is no general agreement about this.
For example:
Harvard University professor Maria Tatar in The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales (2002) notes that Southey's tale is sometimes viewed as a cautionary tale that imparts a lesson about the hazards of wandering off and exploring unknown territory. Like "The Tale of the Three Little Pigs", the story uses repetitive formulas to engage the child's attention and to reinforce the point about safety and shelter.
Another example:
In The Uses of Enchantment (1976), child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim describes Goldilocks as "poor, beautiful, and charming", and notes that the story does not describe her positively except for her hair.[22] Bettelheim mainly discussed the tale in terms of Goldilock's struggle to move past Oedipal issues to confront adolescent identity problems.
I'm really puzzled why Sesame Street doesn't make a better effort to teach 3 and 4 year old children about adolescent identity problems and Oedipal issues. Sesame Street needs to get past its obsession with the alphabet and numbers and get America's preschoolers started on important topics like law, psychology and economics.
I am outraged--OUTRAGED--that Sesame Street isn't teaching 3 and 4 year old children about property rights! What's the point of the show if it isn't going to focus on fundamental legal issues?
That's rather begging the question. It would only seem overkill if you consider property rights a mere legal principle rather than a fundamental right. The classic formulation is that human beings have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Conservatives are much more prone to recognize that as a first principle than lefties are.
Triangle: Perhaps Hispanic is only a Romance language with its culture engendered differences. It is not a Racial category even if -
We already know that. Despite it being used as a racial checkbox, Hispanic is not a race. And Soto said Latina, not Hispanic. I said Latina, not Hispanic. Why are you suddenly using the term Hispanic?
I only suggest that you re-direct your efforts into getting GOP candidates elected even if it includes letting go some stereotypes of Hispanics as dirty Mexican laborers.
Huh? None of us have bruoght up stereotypes about Hispanics. So why are you lecturing me about it?
Here's what you are doing: "Hey TriangleMan, you know what the age of consent is, right? You can no longer use ignorance as an excuse. You and yours should stop preying on children."
Really, this racecard tactic is base and beneath you.
but they will think you are a dunce if you stereotype them for speaking the language of their ancestors in Spain that sent Columbus over here to start the whole thing.
Again, no one has said anything about them speaking "the language of their ancestors." No one but you. What are you playing this game?
Sorry, wrong attrib, that was TraditionalGuy not TriangleMan.
...still baffled why you made this about racism directed at hispanics.
Its about a Latina directing her own brand of racism towards whites.
re: children's stories.
To me, the best way to explain or understand the difference between conservatives and liberals is "The Ant and the Grasshopper" vs "Stone Soup".
Stone Soup is an evil, evil story:
1) It assumes that people in a small village are stupid and easily duped...clearly urban-liberal bigotry
2) it also assumes that they are all insular and selfish...anyone who has lived in a small town recognizes this as urban-liberal projection.
3) It establishes that the slick, smooth-talking outsider uses mere words and flim-flammery to get everyone to contribute (socialism/communism)...
4) But the smooth-talking outsider himself contributes nothing, yet still enjoys in the results
This is a typical Liberal Socialist fantasy, one that allows Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Warren Buffet, et al, to lecture the US while exempting themselves from the restrictions they would levy on the common person.
The classic formulation is that human beings have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Conservatives are much more prone to recognize that as a first principle than lefties are.
Absolutely! That's why the Declaration of Independence is so important in mentioning property rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Okay, perhaps the Declaration of Independence doesn't specifically mention property rights, but we conservatives know very well that property rights = Happiness.
"OK, she said it about herself at a seminar to instill self respect in female latina students.
That seems to be a double violation of Conservative Credo: both promoting females and promoting "another Race.""
Wrong conservative credos.
How about the conservative credo of treating people *equally*?
It's not a huge thing, I think, the way she expressed herself, but if someone were to actually be fair about it, it would not be acceptable with any of a number of substitutions.
So some guy is trying to encourage young men who are entering law school less and less these days and says that men make better judgements. Is that okay? It's for a good cause because young men do need encouragement in the face of pretty specific number disparities.
Maybe the guy doing it is a black guy, but he says that men make better decisions because they think differently than women, have different life experiences.
If a conservative credo has been violated, what is the liberal credo side of that equation? That latina women rank higher than black men on the oppression scale and thus are simply better people?
There are one hell of a lot of people who spend massive amounts of time here...that should really considering getting themselves a life.
80 plus comments basically depicting Sesame Street as some kind of far left training ground for childern?
Brought to you by a tenured law professor no less???
"So "Sesame Street," in classic left-wing fashion, pays no attention to property rights. Also, consider the gender dimension of this problem. If a male had intruded into the home of a female, I don't think "Sesame Street" would focus on how nice it would be if the 2 could now become friends."
Are you kidding??
"Conservatives prefer the Marine Corps model where skin color is no more relevant than hair color."
I'm not sure how the Marine Corps words it but at my basic it was "You're not black or white or whatever. You're all green."
I was struck, strongly, by the speech I saw on television given by the top Marine NCO at an event honoring the Navaho code talkers. One civilian after another got up and talked about how it was that these marginalized men stepped forward and volunteered and entered this program and were such heroes. The base assumption was that they were the Other. The top NCO in the Marine Corps got up, a black man, and there was no assumption or implication related to race or ethnicity. No separate category of seperateness. No Other. The men being honored were Marines, first, last and forever. His concern was only the contribution to the history and honor of the Corps. They were heroes and an example for each new Marine to aspire to.
I don't think many people understand that when someone is explicitly put forward as an example to a narrow group, that they have become narrow. They are marginalized by that.
There are one hell of a lot of people who spend massive amounts of time here...that should really considering getting themselves a life.
I considered getting a life but settled instead for this blog.
Thanks for caring!
Fen... I am sorry for not being clearer in my comments. I thought Sonia had a bad reputation here as an affirmative action hire.
In my mind, since there is no Affirmative Action preferences given for being a "Latina" , but they only given for being an Hispanic (usually as evidenced by a Spanish surname) then the term Hispanic was the proper framing of complaint.
I admit that puts words in your mouth.
I am an advocate for cases. And I took on Sonia's case here when she was up for confirmation. And I found myself the 1% against the 99% back then.
You undeservedly got my arguments from a reopened old struggle. Peace.
Hey Trad, no worries. I've been guilty of doing the same thing, so maybe this was just karma coming back at me.
Love: There are one hell of a lot of people who spend massive amounts of time here...that should really considering getting themselves a life.
As I wrote in response to Palladian a few days ago, I've been sick at home all week.
What's your excuse? Because you always seem to drop in to complain that we are talking too much...
Seldom have I ever seen anything more deserving of parody. There are just so many rich ways to go with this.
Damn, I was hoping that Sotomayor would issue a decision on Rumpelstiltskin v. Miller's Daughter.
I mean, the miller's daughter didn't guess his name. She relied on hearsay. And besides, don't wizened imps have a reasonable expectation of privacy when reciting poetry and dancing around a campfire, deep in the woods?
This presents a distorted view of the role of the judiciary, as an agent of compromise and rule of emotion rather than rule of law. Wise woman bullshit nonsense.
The point is that three and four year old kids have a strong interest in their own property rights ("Mine!"), but have to be taught to respect the property rights of others, not to go into other people's areas, and not to break other people's things.
And of course some toddler breakage is accidental, but a lot of it is deliberate, just like a lot of their trespassing is deliberate. Not the same kind of "deliberate" as someone past the age of reason; but you can't wait until the age of reason to teach these important concepts.
If I had been a little kid watching this episode, I don't think I would have seen the judgment as fair. The reparations are good, and so is the reconciliation; but Goldilocks isn't given any punishment at all.
And frankly, when a human girl intruder is given preferential treatment over a much younger bear, you have to wonder about just how racist and sexist, or at least how personally unfair, Justice Sotomayor must be. The children of America probably have strong opinions.
If, of course, the kid viewers even managed to sit through one of those boring guest segments. As a kid, I always wandered away until the action started again, because guests were always boring and talked down to kids.
I love the fake and overly accentuated Spanish accent and pronunciations.
Post a Comment