I was just listening to a podcast from the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Powerline's blog
--the guest was Jeremy Zilber, author of a new "children's book," Why Mommy is a Democrat.
Zilber's site describes the book as bringing "to life the core values of the Democratic Party in ways that young children will understand and thoroughly enjoy. 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."
Yes, in this "non-judgmental" book, one illustration shows a rampaging elephant crushing a homeless man's bench which is his only possession. But on the radio show, Zilber insists that the elephant isn't necessarily supposed to be a Republican! (Mr. Zilber commented below that he did not say this--you can read more in the comment section). And Zilber has such ignorance of child development as to state that most young kids would not know that the elephant stands for the Republican party and be able to put two and two together to get the message that Republicans are heartless brutes who trample even over the homeless.
Yes, Mr. Zilber, your non-judgmental messages certainly teach tolerance, peace, and concern. Given how little you obviously know about children, what makes you think you should be giving any advice to children at all? You obviously know very little about how sensitive young kids can be about the nuances of how politics work. I have had a four year old that knew enough about the system to pick up my phone and call 911 to report me for child abuse for asking him to take an IQ test. What makes you think four to seven year old kids don't understand the mesage you are selling. Republicans are thugs who are heartless while Democrats are good people who make no judgements. Well, let's hope the kids are smart enough to see through the irony of your non-judgmental book.
Oh, and by the way, if you are ever wondering about the warmth and kindness your "compassionate" Democratic Party has towards the homeless, why don't you check out the critical responses from homeless advocates in San Francisco when the mayor there actually found a solution called Care not Cash
? The mayor is providing housing and services for the homeless and the better that works, the more upset the adovocates become. Are they so afraid of losing their own platform that they would jeopardize a program that works? Is throwing other people's money at a problem the only solution you can come up with?
Update: Yes, the mayor of San Francisco is a Democrat--but when you are accused of Republican-style attacks
on the city's "most vulnerable" for providing the homeless with shelter and services, you know that you are dealing with housing justice activists so far left that they would rather throw other people's money at a problem than see a real solution put in place. But it's activists like this who set the tone for the Democratic Party. Housing and providing services to people is cruel? Somebody should tell the children.
Update II: Dr. Sanity has a more appropriate title
for Zilber's book.
Update III: Here are more thoughts from Neo-neocon