I'm willing to bet that Wednesday's giant debacle of a debate was perhaps the most kid-culturally relevant Presidential debate in history -- it HAD to be the first time one of the candidates ever brought up Big Bird, at least! The silver lining to that otherwise dubious mention? If nothing else, Sesame Street-gate presented the perfect opportunity to get kids involved, or at least interested, in politics. Like 8-year-old Cecelia Crawford of Alabama, who was so outraged by Mitt Romney's promise to cut funding for PBS that she decided to write Mr. Mitt a letter. And what a letter it was!
Here's what she wrote:
Dear Mr. Romney,
I saw you on the debate last night and you said you would cut off PBS Kids with Sesame Street on it. It is was my faverite show on earth. But now I'm eight years old. When I grow up, I'm going to get married and I want my kids to watch it so do not cut it off. You find something else to cut off! Don't hurt little kids. They need Sesame Street where they can learn from it. Save Big Bird and his friends.
Sincerely,
Cecelia Arlene Crawford
How great is that?! Impassioned, informed, brave -- no doubt because her parents value independent thought and self-expression. Which is both impressive and inspirational to me. I've never tried to shield my kids from the news or dumb current events down. Granted, I might filter some of the more disturbing facts for their sake, but on the whole, it's important to me that they have some working knowledge of the way their world works.
So that they can grow up wanting to change it, of course.
What do you think of Cecelia's letter to Mitt Romney?
Image via Rennett Stowe/Flickr
Ashley Is a Widow Who Stays Strong...
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
Comments 37
I think it's misinformed. He did not say he would "cut off" PBS kids. He said that he would stop governmental funding of PBS. Seriously people. What happens when you have a lot of bills you can't pay and your income decreases? You........cut the extras. It's simple economics.
It just encourages stupidity. He didn't say he was turning off PBS, yet I keep seeing that everywhere. IDIOTS.
Goverment funded TV is a socialist idea
Dear Cecelia:
If you want to watch PBS shows, then your parents can pay for them. When you grow up and have children, you can pay for them as well. That is, if you have any money left after paying down the trillions in debt your President is leaving you with.
To everyone who has the mentality that reducing spending is the most important thing for us to do, it is possible to prevent economic recessions from occurring in the first place (as well as recover from them by investing in creating a better country rather than by cutting back jobs and services [cutting government spending reduces the number of jobs available to many middle-class Americans while often leaving the wealthy alone with their money - how is that supposed to help our economy? Do the wealthy really care about improving our country or do they care more about making as much money as they can while likely or often having little or no concern for the well-being of others?] - the Great Depression is one example) by thinking ahead and planning for the possible future consequences of our actions instead of just being selfish, greedy, and short-sighted (e.g., reducing regulations so that corporations can take advantage of others and the environment, reducing taxes and services, etc.). Why must our children suffer because of our lack of desire and willingness to plan for and take responsibility for the impacts that we have on their future?
I know that it's nice to have taxes reduced and it's tempting to believe that a small government with a free market is the best way for our economy to work but human nature is focused on providing the most for ourselves during the present and immediate future only rather than everyone alive today and everyone alive for as long as our actions will impact them - as such, the most selfish, greedy, irresponsible, and uncompassionate people benefit the most from such an economy while everyone else receives less than they and their work is worth. We can have a government that makes our country the best if we want it to be the best rather than just good enough for most people to get by, but we have to want to be the best for that to occur. China is focused on improving their future by increasing their economy through work and spending, but many people here seem to feel that reducing our economy (by getting rid of many government-funded jobs) is likely to be the best thing for us to do. Why? How far back in time do we want to go?
We live in a 21st century First World country and if we are willing to act like it then the more this country will flourish today and in the future. If we act more like anarchists (self-serving, not responsible for anything or anyone else, etc.) then that is where our country will be headed... I don't know about others here but I certainly want to live in a country where people care about others and not just themselves and the money they have in the bank.