Dear Overzealous Parents

The picture says it all...

via The NY Daily News:

A Manhattan mom is suing a pricey preschool for dumping her "very smart" 4-year-old with tykes half her age and boring her with lessons about shapes and colors. In court papers, Nicole Imprescia suggests York Avenue Preschool jeopardized little Lucia's chances of getting into an elite private school or, one day, the Ivy League.

She's demanding a refund of the $19,000 tuition and class-action status for other toddlers who weren't properly prepped for the standardized test that can mean the difference between Dalton and - gasp! - public school.

"This is about a theft where a business advertises as one thing and is actually another," said Mathew Paulose, a lawyer for the outraged mom.

"They're nabbing $19,000 and making a run for it."

Impressed by the school's pledge to ready its young students for the ERB - a test used for admission at top private schools - Imprescia enrolled her daughter at York in 2009. A month into this school year, she transferred the child out of the upper East Side center because she was forced to slum with 2-year-olds.

"Indeed, the school proved not to be a school at all, but just one big playroom," the suit says.

The court papers implied the school could have damaged Lucia's chances of getting into a top college, citing an article that identifies preschools as the first step to "the Ivy League."

I've always been happy with my parents... Always. Even when they annoyed me into oblivion, placed ridiculous (at the time; now I know they were for the best) restrictions on me, and found every way to make me miserable, I know it was because they wanted to see me succeed. That's generally what any parent wants. It's what a parent should want. But what happens when a parent takes championing their child and their child's need for success too far? What happens when the most innocent times in a child's life, such as preschool, become sullied with aspirations of post-secondary grandeur and accolades? What happens when something as sacred as playtime isn't treated as such, but as a gateway to Ivy League matriculation? Such is the case today, where Nicole Imprescia of the Upper East Side in NYC (now you know it's getting hoighty-toighty!) has decided to sue the York Avenue Preschool for 'ruining' her child's chances at an Ivy League education.

First of all, since when have sandboxes, Legos, stuffed animals, finger-painting, monkey bars and those cool rainbow parachutes become a barometer for success? While attendance of preschool has been proven to raise a child's chances of success in the long-run, I'm pretty sure that there's not a minimum price that guarantees that a child will somehow become Goddard. As a parent, getting your Neiman Marcus knickers in a bunch to push your kid into the Harvard of preschools is a waste of time. At that point, every child has the same chance of becoming a genius.

Second of all, why is society trying to push kids who just left toddler-dom straight into adulthood? As far as I'm concerned, all a 4 year-old child cares about during that period is what color crayon they want to scribble on the walls and where to wipe their boogers after a good old-fashioned gold-digging session. The last thing on little Timmy's mind during recess is whether he wants to major in English or Biomedical Engineering at Harvard. Show me any 4 year-old child who knows what Harvard is, much less what college is. Instead of worrying about your child's still burgeoning educational development, how about you let your kids go get some friends and develop social skills naturally?

Third of all, what kind of whackjob of a mother sues over something so silly? The only thing being won in this case is a whole boatload of negative press for little Lucia once she does get to college-age. I guarantee that whatever school she does end up applying to is going to go into their archives (because we all know in 14 years, that nothing will be private) and see her mother on the front page of some parenting magazine looking like Tipper Gore at a Odd Future concert: ridiculous. Is that really what a parent would want? What are you going to do when your kid gets into any type of trouble? Are you going to sue your kids' bullies when he scrapes his knee? Are you going to sue the opposing basketball team when your kid suffers a last-second loss? I hope not. Here's my advice, overzealous parents: Let your kids be kids. Let that rugrat go get dirty and enjoy what little innocent time he has before society poisons him with consumerism and he loses his natural wonder and honesty...

Sesame Street x True Blood = True Mud

If you don't watch True Blood, then this clip might make little, if any sense to you. Even so, you can't deny the hilarity and charm that Jim Henson's pet child has when taking on the big people's television shows. In this round of kids' parodies we've got the Sesame Street characters playing out a scene in a fictional bar, where the delicacy isn't blood, but mud. No fangs, grotesque rituals, supernatural entities or political undertones here. It's just pure fun and a nice mudbath for one of the Grouches. I can't say that I wouldn't watch another episode of this or that the fake Sookie isn't spot on with her mannerisms. Whatever the case, check out the Sesame Street spoof....

The Next Basketball Phenom

I thought it would be only right to post this considering we're witnessing the advent of one former phenom into the limelight. Then again, you have to admit that it's a bit sick how society, or sporting society, is weeding out the prodigies at younger and younger ages. Dakota Simms is only 9 years old, yet is being looked at for college basketball already. He's ridiculously talented for his age, but does that mean we should start to sap the fun out of his livelihood and start surrounding him with people who only care about him because of a gift? Dakota looks like he would love nothing more than to shoot around and dribble all day. The business side of sports should have no business in his business at this point. At the same time, it's still exciting to see what the future of the sport of basketball holds. I'm thinking a 7-year $500 million deal in 2025. Something tells me Dakota and the young man below will be seeing a lot of each other down the road. Check out both of the next to be next up in basketball...

Dear Over-parenting Parents & Schools

via The New York Times:

Most children naturally seek close friends. In a survey of nearly 3,000 Americans ages 8 to 24 conducted last year by Harris Interactive, 94 percent said they had at least one close friend. But the classic best-friend bond — the two special pals who share secrets and exploits, who gravitate to each other on the playground and who head out the door together every day after school — signals potential trouble for school officials intent on discouraging anything that hints of exclusivity, in part because of concerns about cliques and bullying.

“I think it is kids’ preference to pair up and have that one best friend. As adults — teachers and counselors — we try to encourage them not to do that,” said Christine Laycob, director of counseling at Mary Institute and St. Louis Country Day School in St. Louis. “We try to talk to kids and work with them to get them to have big groups of friends and not be so possessive about friends.”

“Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend,” she continued. “We say he doesn’t need a best friend.”

That attitude is a blunt manifestation of a mind-set that has led adults to become ever more involved in children’s social lives in recent years. The days when children roamed the neighborhood and played with whomever they wanted to until the streetlights came on disappeared long ago, replaced by the scheduled play date. While in the past a social slight in backyard games rarely came to teachers’ attention the next day, today an upsetting text message from one middle school student to another is often forwarded to school administrators, who frequently feel compelled to intervene in the relationship. (Ms. Laycob was speaking in an interview after spending much of the previous day dealing with a “really awful” text message one girl had sent another.) Indeed, much of the effort to encourage children to be friends with everyone is meant to head off bullying and other extreme consequences of social exclusion.

It's a sad day and age when kids aren't allowed to just be kids. It's even sadder when adults feel the need to intervene out of some self-obligation to protect kids from bullying. I understand that bullying is an issue and that the repercussions for not attending to bullying problems can be fatal (see: Columbine). That said, trying to create an artificial 'group' of friends is downright ridiculous. Parents, while I'm no expert on child development, my childhood years are not that far behind me. I can remember having in my 10 (give or take) years of childhood 3 exclusive best friends. No, it wasn't always pretty when arguments and fights did occur, but you have to learn how to deal with it. Over-parenting parents, by making kids be friends with everyone, you're slowly yet surely weeding out discernment, among other things in a child's life. If a kid has to be friends with everyone, then he's really good friends with no one. The child gets no sense of what he does or doesn't like in a person because he's forced to like everyone. It's almost torturous to think that kids have to be nice to and play with everyone, simply because a school administrator says so. What's worse is the false sense of security that children grow up with because of such sheltering.

When I was a kid, there was freedom: freedom to make friends, freedom to stop being friends, freedom to be hurt by friends and freedom to make up the next day and go on about our days like nothing ever happened. Parents and schools who force kids to be friends with everyone, you're building up artificial security, in that these kids never will experience rejection in its most natural form. By holding the reins on organic relationships, you're allowing kids to grow up thinking everything will simply fall into place because 'that's what the teacher says'. Instead of fostering natural development, you're raising these 'bubble' kids, who have everything in their lives vacuum-packed and hermetically sealed. You don't allow them to experience pain or hurt at a young age, so when they enter the 'real' world (I don't think there will be a 'real' world in 30 years) everything is a shock to them. Kids will grow up, and at the first sign of adversity, they freak out because nothing's ever gone wrong.

That's not to say that we should toss children into the fire and see if they make it out without burns. It means they should be free to run, jump, slide, hang, fall and ride out with whomever they see fit. If the friendship doesn't work, so be it. Kids are born with two things inherently: a clean slate and natural resiliency. Hindering either of those leaves a huge void in their development, both socially and emotionally. Parents, stop trying to raise the perfect generation of kids and allow kids to be kids. We will never live in a Utopia, and sheltering the next generation won't ensure that anymore than brain-washing and full censorship. Word to Dystopian literature...

Dear Arizona (re: 'Anchor Babies')

via CNN:

A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law. John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers. Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said. "While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

I guess if the Deep South was the front line of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, then Arizona is set to become the front line of the illegal immigration debate of the 2010's (how do you say that, by the way? twenty-tens or tens?). You, as a state, never struck me as a bastion of conservative ideals until I figured out that John McCain was from there. Yet, lately, you've been about as far to the right as can be, at least when dealing with immigration. I've got a few bones to pick with you about this whole new issue, though. Here goes:

1) The whole issue of illegal immigration is completely subjective. The people who were essentially illegal immigrants in the 1800's when the state of Arizona (and it's surrounding areas) are now going after the 'illegal immigrants' of today. That doesn't sit well with me, Arizona. Your majority (soon to be minority, thanks to immigration) is like the Monopoly player everyone hates: they change the rules when it suits them to win. Why is it cool for the United States to shanghai another sovereign nation's land almost 200 years ago by just waltzing in, but when people come here looking for a better life, and actually help the economy, it's a problem? As a matter of fact, bump immigration out West. What happened to the first settlers in the US? The Pilgrims didn't have green cards or naturalization forms when they landed on Plymouth Rock and started scalping Injuns. The truth is, America was built upon the idea of expanding and sticking it's nose into locations and regions that it had no business in, all for the sake of a better standard of living. Why are you denying people that, now that America is in a position to provide that standard?

2) Since when does a state's legislation hold stronger than federal legislation that's been the standard since our nation's birth? The Civil War made it so that states ultimately have to kowtow to the federal government in matters of legislation. Why then, Arizona, do you think it's cool to just try and get around that? The Constitution states that anyone born on United States soil is automatically a United States citizen. Point. Blank. Period. And that's regardless of any affiliation that their parents have, or where their parents' legal jurisdiction lies. It's just the law, and there should be no way that you can get around that. Children, regardless of who their parents are shouldn't be turned away. Don't sit there and call them 'anchor children,' as if they crawled out of their mothers' wombs thinking: 'Hell yeah!! Now I can help my illegal immigrant parent stay in America, take up its resources and destroy its infrastructure!!' C'mon son... You're making the most innocent party, the children, into another villain, and it is SICK to say the least...

3) Last month it was a new racial profiling law that allowed police to question, arrest and detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrants (inherently racist). This month it's denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, even if they're born on US soil. Is it just me, or are you just trying to set up a Japanese internment camp-style system in Arizona? Because that's what it seems like. The next thing you know, anyone who looks like and illegal immigrant will have to have a number and a curfew. Before long, they'll be carted off to their own district, somewhere between Hell and a Tea Party Convention, where they'll be under military surveillance. And for what? Walking across an imaginary line protected for no reason. Of all rules to enforce, that seems to be one of the more arbitrary and less well-founded of all...

Look Arizona, I'm not saying illegal immigration is completely right. Sovereign nations have a right to protect their borders and the resources of their nation from being wasted. But when you have as many as 20 million illegal immigrants living in the US, some thriving, and many helping the economy with their labor (minus taxation), there's no reason to fight that. Rather than treat them as subhumans, you should find a way to legally integrate them. I mean, what is so hard about granting amnesty? Or better yet, what's really that special about a Green Card that it's so hard to allow immigrants to have one? My guess is that the 'red-blooded Americans' don't want to see an immigrant get a job over them. Yet, all other things being equal, if the immigrant is better, then that's just tough. Arizona, you need to stop letting your citizens and the state dictate what makes someone legal or not, because for as much trouble as you say illegal immigration is, it helps the nation just as much...

Scarface x 3rd Grade

In the back of your head, you can't help but think there's something seriously wrong with the events transpiring in the above video. Yet at the same time, there's something really, really clever about this 3rd grade production of Scarface. The cocaine is replaced with popcorn, the 'fucks' with 'fudges' and the real guns with NERF guns. I feel like a play of this sort is an interpolation of every Disney movie, Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network show, or cartoon character that had double meaning for the adults watching. Where the jokes would go over the kid's head, the adult would be laughing hysterical at a dirty quip. I suppose if the parents are cool with their kids re-enacting a violent, drugged-out cult classic, then so am I. Not to mention, the acting is pretty good for an elementary school play. The makeup, moustaches and Miami Vice-esque suits seal the deal for this production. Hopefully Shottas or Belly is up next, and I can see my favorite quotables being skewed for virgin ears...

Dear Diddy

Diddy, Diddy, Diddy, you've long been the culprit of my ire because of your ridiculous penchant for being overly flashy, but this takes the cake (birthday puns haha). Honestly, I've never seen such an unneeded showing of wealth as when I turned on the TV and watched you shower your son with gifts for his 16th birthday. Though, I cant't deny that I would give my children at least one birthday blow out each, there is a limit. There are entirely too many things wrong with they way you're doing this whole parenting thing.

First of all, why in God's name would you ever bless a 16-year-old, who hasn't driven a day in his life, a $400,000 Maybach?!?! It's not like he's got pressing business to attend to on his way to high school, using the wireless. It's not as if he has to have a glass of Ace of Spades on his way to soccer practice. Hell, the Maybach came with a driver! What really was the point?!?! Second of all, what is the deal with all of the conspicuous consumption? What kind of parenting manual were you reading, that told you stuffing a stack full of $20 bills into your child's pocket was the way to show your children love? When you do that, you're basically shouting to the kid in Ebonics: MONEY CAN BUY YOU HAPPINESS!. Also, you're ensuring that your son will never want to do a hard day's work in his life. Third of all, why at the end of the party did you decide to donate $10,000 in Justin's name? That's unbelievable! The car you bought that kid could have fed an entire village, so to make up for it, you shaved off 10 stacks. I suppose when you're that rich and arrogant, helping out by signing your name is the least you can do in the face of overspending and inane celebrity appearances. Like I said, celebrating the triumphs and milestones of your children is a must. It's just when that in and of itself turns into *gasp* an MTV reality show...

Dear JD Salinger

It's a rarity that one book can define the mindset of an entire progeny (look it up), and even more rare that the author lives to see the generation touched by his work. Mr. Salinger, 'Catcher in the Rye' is one of my favorite books, not only because of the main character, Holden Caulfied, but because of the vivid explication of the society that he lived in. The vapid, underwhelming world around the high school dropout only served to harden Holden even more. Not to say that I'm the spitting image of Caulfield, but as a person of the same age, I notice the one similarity in our mindsets: cynicism. Mr. Salinger, your book solidified that it is quite okay to be disillusioned with the way everything is going so long as your values and ideologies are kept pure. Also, the work showed how precious youth is, in that innocence lost too quickly is worse than not having innocence in the first place. This is more of my own personal obituary than a letter, JD. And I suppose that because your protagonist was okay with delving into the personal in different forums, such a post is warranted. JD, your memory will not be in vain. There's a whole new generation of Holdens, ready to catch the children in the rye if they venture too near to the cliff. Hopefully you're guarding us as well...

RIP Jerome David Salinger

Dear John Edwards

via MSNBC:

For the first time, John Edwards is publicly admitting that he is indeed the father of a 2-year-old daughter conceived with Rielle Hunter, a campaign videographer with whom he had an affair. In a written statement provided exclusively to NBC News, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate says he’s taking responsibility for the child, Frances Quinn Hunter:

“I am Quinn’s father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves. I have been able to spend time with her during the past year and trust that future efforts to show her the love and affection she deserves can be done privately and in peace.

It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me. I have been providing financial support for Quinn and have reached an agreement with her mother to continue providing support in the future. To all those I have disappointed and hurt these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry.”

John, I am soooooo disappointed in you. Not only did you lose a vicious Presidential race a few years ago, but now you're coming out of the wood work with a love child? To tell you the truth, I was ready to just overlook this entire story and chalk it up to the political bullshit that we see every day. But after seeing your nice little statement sent exclusively to NBC, I couldn't help but make light of your plight.

So John, you more or less disavowed any knowledge or responsibility for your love child a few months back, which is detestable in and of itself. You did a pretty good job of hiding it. The problem is, being a politician (or any public figure), you have a team around you working 24/7 to keep all of your dirty laundry from falling out of the hamper. When you do these people wrong or simply aren't on the same terms as them anymore, they have all the more incentive to break out that pair of drawers that aren't your wife's. That's exactly what happened here, John. The only reason you're coming out with this statement is because your former campaign manager is coming out with a book telling everyone what you just admitted. It's pretty sad actually, that you're coming out more to save your own ass than to stand up for your own seed, whom you vehemently denied up to this point. It's also funny that no one is really talking about your fuck-up. I guess when you're black or poor, it's called being a bad father, but when you're a politician, it's just another day of PR. I hope you've listened to Confessions Part 2 a few times, because you're about to be feeling the same way soon...

The P.S. 22 Chorus

Videos like this make me not as worried and disillusioned for our youth, most notably the New York City public school system. PS 22 (check their blog here) has been cleaning up in NYC, performing for everyone from Mayor Mike Bloomberg, to local radio stations, to being featured in New York Magazine. With voices like this, you have to be hopeful for our youth. Lord knows I didn't get to do this when I was in 3rd grade. Check out some more videos of these kids KILLING your favorite pop songs...