HarperCollins' Message to Kids: History Is Something You Airbrush

Matt Welch | November 17, 2005

Anti-smoking media Stalinism strikes again -- HarperCollins has airbrushed the illustrator-photo on the 60th anniversary edition of the children's classic Goodnight Moon, so that Clement Hurd is no longer seen holding a cigarette. From the New York Times account:

"We had a lot of copies out on a table, and all of a sudden we realized that in the photo on the back of the jacket he was holding a cigarette," [HarperCollins Children's Books Editor in Chief Kate] Jackson said. The company was about to reprint the hardcover and paperback editions, so "as a quick fix, we adjusted the photograph" to eliminate it.

"It is potentially a harmful message to very young kids," Ms. Jackson said, "and it doesn't need to be there." [...]

Thacher Hurd said he had originally balked at the idea. After several discussions, "I reluctantly allowed them to do it," he said.

Protest site here; links via Sploid.

Comments

|11.17.05 @ 1:56PM|#

As much as I dislike WND, they had a similar story a few weeks ago where a university used PhotoShop to edit out a Kalashnikov that Ward Churchill was posing with.

Ironically, they opted for that picture, because the only other one they had was of Ward smokin' a cig.

WND article here.

|11.17.05 @ 1:59PM|#

"Ironically, they opted for that picture, because the only other one they had was of Ward smokin' a cig."

Bwahaha! I'm crying on the inside ...

|11.17.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Jason, it just goes to prove that cigarettes are evil-er than guns, but guns are still so evil that we must replace them with Walki-Talkies, or use the rubber stamp tool to remove them altogether.

|11.17.05 @ 2:08PM|#

This is some very disturbing shit. If you can't show things as they really were, what's the fucking point? Don't want a picture of whomever holding whatever? Have some artist fuck paint him or draw him without it.

I mean, if you're trying to satirise something, that's one thing. Adding something to a pic, for comic effect, let's say, can be fun. But at least let's let everybody know that there's been an alteration.

Wait, I guess I'm part of the reality-based crew. Someone shoot me.

|11.17.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Isn't our own government in the process of airbrushing out evidence that FDR was a smoker? On stamps and memorials and such?

I quit smoking recently, mainly for financial reasons, but if for some reason I ever become famous I will make it a point of honor to be holding a cigarette every time I appear in public. I'm hanging on to my jeweled cigarette holder and cigarette case, in the event I ever need them.

|11.17.05 @ 2:24PM|#

I've actually got a kid who's "Goodnight Moon" age. I'm just fine with her not seeing a picture of someone smoking in her storybooks.

Thanks, HarperCollins!

Freaking out about this being "Stalinistic" is reactive and shallow.

|11.17.05 @ 2:27PM|#

Is hiding bad habits is a good way of keeping them alive? If it's forbidden and secret won't kids want to do it even more?

|11.17.05 @ 2:29PM|#

Joe--But altering a photograph and presenting it as an unaltered one? Do you really like the idea of lying about history, just because it's for a "good cause?"

|11.17.05 @ 2:29PM|#

Ironically, they opted for that picture [with the Kalashnikov], because the only other one they had was of Ward smokin' a cig.

OK, that's funny.

|11.17.05 @ 2:31PM|#

Didn't the prudes in the middle-ages paint over the naughty bits of Mich's frescos? Same thing.

|11.17.05 @ 2:33PM|#

It's one of those rare days when I agree with Joe.

If Harper Collins makes the decision that their target audience will not like a facet of their product, they are entirely justified in modifying the picture with the consent of the rights holder.

While I don't want the state banning smoking, I don't want my son to smoke, and, yes, I know the stupid picture on his Goodnight Moon book isn't going to turn him into a tobacco fiend, but I'd still prefer for it to not be there.

|11.17.05 @ 2:35PM|#

Oh yeah, and Joe is right that calling this Stalinistic is waaaay overboard. Harper Collins isn't erasing other people's pictures, or forcing people to change history.

They just don't want a picture of the author smoking on their children's book. If that's what Stalinistic means these days, I must need some re-education...

|11.17.05 @ 2:36PM|#

If they'd cropped the photo of Hurd, so that it was simply a head shot, that would be one thing. But to alter the photo, still showing a full-bopdy shot only without a cigarette--THAT is where I have a problem. Altering history to "set a good example for the children." Which is more important than an accurate historical record, I presume?

So to those who support this: you are not bothered by the fact that this is the exact same thing Winston Smith's department was in charge of doing in "1984?" It is a strong difference in degree, but no difference in kind.

|11.17.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Jennifer,

It's not history. It's a photograph depicting the author of "Goodnight Moon," in an edition of "Goodnight Moon."

I heard they airbrushed a mole off the ass of the latest Playboy Centerfold. OOooohhhhh! Scaaaaaaarrrryyyyy!

|11.17.05 @ 2:37PM|#

quasibill - ok, the rights holder agreed, fine. But still, just because it's for the children? C'mon. You're at risk of losing your decoder ring. :)

|11.17.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Jennifer,

Making up your mind on this based on the fact that it kinda sorta reminds your of Orwell and the Soviet Union is what I meant by "reactive and shallow."

Hey, that car dealership is flying red banners! You know who else flew red banners? Do you?

|11.17.05 @ 2:41PM|#

All the more reason to doubt damn near everything I see and hear nowdays (well--especially the playmate spreads)

|11.17.05 @ 2:41PM|#

I've actually got a kid who's "Goodnight Moon" age. I'm just fine with her not seeing a picture of someone smoking in her storybooks.

Thanks, HarperCollins!

Freaking out about this being "Stalinistic" is reactive and shallow.

I'm convinced. I'll rush home to my three year old and start teaching her that if there's something in history that makes you uncomfortable-- erase it, or just pretend it didn't exist.

Oh OH Oh! Example... I admire many of the nations founding fathers... many of the founding fathers were slave owners... *POOF* not any more. Phew, now I don't have to explain those uncomfortable facts to my daughter.

Try this out, Joe:

Use the opportunity to teach your child your values about cigarettes-- maybe even give her a little historical perspective such as past smoking rates and life expectancy, instead of letting the state or publishing industry do it for you by simply erasing the evidence...

|11.17.05 @ 2:42PM|#

If Harper Collins makes the decision that their target audience will not like a facet of their product, they are entirely justified in modifying the picture with the consent of the rights holder.

Correct, Quasibill... but we have a right to rake them over the coals for it.

|11.17.05 @ 2:43PM|#

I heard they airbrushed a mole off the ass of the latest Playboy Centerfold. OOooohhhhh! Scaaaaaaarrrryyyyy!

And you know goddamned well the difference between airbrushing to enhance the attractiveness of a mildly pornographic picture on the verge of being sold for some one-handed appreciation, versus airbrushing used to try and erase the public's knowledge of something which was known for decades--that a particular person was not only a smoker, but photographed doing so, in public, for the jacket of a children's book. Yes! And that smoking was even socially acceptable!

And I will repeat: if they'd cropped the cigarette out of the photo I would have no complaint. It's the airbrushing, or Photoshopping or any such alteration, that disturbs me.

|11.17.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Paul,

Get back to me when you have a child to raise. Or, more likely, realize what an idiotic argument you're making, and pretend this never happened.

|11.17.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Get back to me when you have a child to raise.

Yeah, it's a parent thang. Y'all wouldn't understand.

|11.17.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Get back to me when you have a child to raise.

Yeah, it's a parent thang. Y'all wouldn't understand.

|11.17.05 @ 2:48PM|#

...because, Paul, my three year old doesn't know what a cigarette is, so what I really want is something to draw her attention to it, so I can give her a lecture she won't quite understand.

Yup, you know what the hell you're talking about.

Jennifer, I never knew that the author of "Goodnight Moon" smoked. I never thought about it one way or the other. Why are you and Pual so determined that my daughter and I find this out, and have a conversation about it?

|11.17.05 @ 2:49PM|#

Get back to me when you have a child to raise.

Yeah, it's a parent thang (sic). Y'all wouldn't understand.

|11.17.05 @ 2:50PM|#

Welcome to Hyde Park.

Today they would show the wheelchair but not the cigarette. Maybe that ghostly head is from smoking.

|11.17.05 @ 2:50PM|#

Jennifer - even assuming that your analogy to 1984 is remotely appropriate (who's doing the alteration?), I still think you're way overreaching with this "changing history" argument.

Harper Collins is not trying to change history. I don't see anything anywhere where they deny that Hurd smoked. I don't see any attempt to change history. What I see is a company trying not to offend its customers.

Paul - criticize away. If you're in Harper Collins's target market, they might even listen!

|11.17.05 @ 2:50PM|#

Your server is on the fritz again. Let's see how many times this post appears: never, or a thousand times?

|11.17.05 @ 3:01PM|#

Get back to me when you have a child to raise. Or, more likely, realize what an idiotic argument you're making, and pretend this never happened.

Joe, I'm getting back to you, because guess what, I've got a child to raise. And I'm very, very uncomfortable with idiotic ideas such as yours to erase albiet small facts of history to help assuage your discomfort with said facts. The argument you make is idiotic, you're caught in the headlights- and you know it. Simply calling my argument idiotic, without any counter logic- except that facts of history make you uncomfortable (given your posts here, there are many apparently) so 'thanks harper collins, for doing the dirty work for me'.

|11.17.05 @ 3:01PM|#

Joe,

Since I've got kids, I'll "get back to [you]" on Paul's behalf. My three-year old absolutely loves Goodnight Moon (as did his brother before him). I'm a nonsmoker and my wife is a nonsmoker, and, somehow, we have no problem with the little guy seeing pictures of people with cigarettes. He's not interested in author's pictures anyway; he mainly wants to spot the mouse and laugh at the inherent comedy of the word "mush".

But here's the thing: while I agree that HarperCollins has the *right* to alter the picture if they feel they need to, I still think it's stupid (stupidistic?) and insulting to me and my abilities as a parent. I don't want *anyone* airbrushing historical photos to "protect" me or mine from the truth. What sort of timid, fragile children are we trying to create here?

|11.17.05 @ 3:03PM|#

...because, Paul, my three year old doesn't know what a cigarette is, so what I really want is something to draw her attention to it, so I can give her a lecture she won't quite understand.

I want to know what the hell you're so afraid of, joe. Sooner or later she is going to learn that there are these things called cigarettes, which adults smoke and have smoked in the past. All of us learned this, and that's probably about all you have to tell her. I mean, do you think she's going to take up smoking at the age of three because she sees a photo of someone smoking? Do you ever let her out of the house? She might see a real person smoking, after all.

Jennifer, I never knew that the author of "Goodnight Moon" smoked. I never thought about it one way or the other. Why are you and Pual so determined that my daughter and I find this out, and have a conversation about it?

Who's "determined"? You could...not buy the book. Buy an edition without a photo, if there is one. Buy the book and cut out or cover up the photo. The publisher could have left out the photo, or used an artist's rendition, or used a different photo. I don't think anyone gives a crap about whether you discuss smoking with your daughter, joe - we're more disturbed by the fact that HarperCollins sees fit to present falsified versions of history as the real thing. It's in a minor way, true, but the kernel of the thing is there.

|11.17.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Harper Collins is not trying to change history. I don't see anything anywhere where they deny that Hurd smoked. I don't see any attempt to change history. What I see is a company trying not to offend its customers.

Suppose HarperCollins Photoshopped a burka onto the bare head of a female author-photo, before selling a book in a Muslim country. Would you be just as fine with that?

|11.17.05 @ 3:03PM|#

"Yeah, it's a parent thang. Y'all wouldn't understand."

Parents are infallible. They are omniscient and omnipitent. Listen to your parents and anyone else who is a parent. If you're not a parent yourself, regardless of age, you're still a child.

Nap time, children.

|11.17.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Shouldn't we be more concerned that Hurd is playing pocket pool with his left hand.

It's probably just me. I was also troubled by the misogyny of the dance and not at all by viewing Janet Jackson's breast. I guess it's my nature to always miss the point.

|11.17.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Shouldn't we be more concerned that Hurd is playing pocket pool with his left hand.

It's probably just me. I was also troubled by the misogyny of the dance and not at all by viewing Janet Jackson's breast. I guess it's my nature to always miss the point.

|11.17.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Harper Collins is not trying to change history. I don't see anything anywhere where they deny that Hurd smoked. I don't see any attempt to change history. What I see is a company trying not to offend its customers.

Suppose HarperCollins Photoshopped a burka onto the bare head of a female author-photo, before selling a book in a Muslim country. Would you be just as fine with that?

|11.17.05 @ 3:16PM|#

Goddamn it, the Reason server now sucks to the point of qualifying as Great Art, for like all great works of art the suckiness of the server can be interpreted in multiple ways, on multiple levels, and approached from multiple angles, each one distinct and unique from the others.

Goddammit, libertarians are supposed to be the party of filthy-rich people! CAN'T YOU AFFORD A DECENT SERVER?

|11.17.05 @ 3:19PM|#

OK, before reading this post, how many of the Boys Who Cried Wolf here a) knew this photo existed, and b) that it should the author smoking?

(Don't bother: I know the answer already. The answer is "Zero.")

History, schmistory. One assumes the original photo still exists, if nowhere else than on previous editions of the damned book. Is the fact of this man smoking in this photo somehow relevant to what the book is? Is it ever, ever going to come up in any context in which you're reading Goodnight, Moon to your kids? Is some massive historical fraud going to be perpetraded as a result of this?

Criminey.

joe: How do you know how many children Paul has?

|11.17.05 @ 3:22PM|#

Really, this is much ado about nothing. How many years has this picture been on the book? I don't think I've seen any recent studies claiming that Goodnight Moon causes cancer, so HarperCollins can get off their high horse as far as I'm concerned. I dislike their self-righteous conceit.

But to compare this with Stalinism or the active rewriting of history is way overboard. This sort of stuff happens all the time, so this is certainly no harbinger of censortopia. Maybe they were just trying to enhance his attractiveness, after all there's a new study out that says smoking makes you ugly.

|11.17.05 @ 3:22PM|#

But to alter the photo, still showing a full-body shot only without a cigarette--THAT is where I have a problem. Altering history to "set a good example for the children." Which is more important than an accurate historical record, I presume?

I don't see how removing the cigarette is "altering history." Oh, no, future generations will be deprived of knowing that this dude lit a cigarette at that particular moment in time. It's a cigarette, on a children's book,and a fictional one (right?) at that. It seems perfectly reasonable to want to not bring to market a children's product with some dude on it who's smoking. If you have a picture of the author and he is standing in front of, say, a Burger King, wouldn't it be okay to take the BK out of the picture? Would it make sense to argue "they consider avoiding lawsuits more important than the historical record"? And a Burger King is MUCH bigger than a cigarette.

I really don't see the problem here.

|11.17.05 @ 3:23PM|#

First, the hamsters ate my first attempt at a snarky comment, so I'll try again -

I think the hamsters got a little hot and bothered by that southern drawl thing, Jennifer. Now they're smoking some cigarettes and getting ready to take a nap :)

As for the burkas - if the author agreed to having her picture photoshopped, then yes, I'm okay with it. I may not like the fact that some cultures require such activities, but that's their issue to work out. I would never be so paternalistic as to force people who want to wear the burka to take it off "for their own good".

|11.17.05 @ 3:29PM|#

As for the burkas - if the author agreed to having her picture photoshopped, then yes, I'm okay with it

Suppose the author is dead. And either has no descendants, or the descendants oppose it.

|11.17.05 @ 3:30PM|#

I've actually got a kid who's "Goodnight Moon" age. I'm just fine with her not seeing a picture of someone smoking in her storybooks.

...because, Paul, my three year old doesn't know what a cigarette is, so what I really want is something to draw her attention to it, so I can give her a lecture she won't quite understand

Joe, funny thing here... I'm looking at your posts, and you speaketh with forked tongue-- first it's 'Thanks harper collins' because you don't need your daughter seeing someone who smokes-- then suddenly 'my daughter doesn't know what a cigarette is' 'she wouldn't understand the lecture', etc. If your daughter is so obvlivious and unaware of smoking or the concepts around it, then Harper Collins airbrushing the cigarette away is basically without cause or need. Except, as I say, to assuage your discomfort.

|11.17.05 @ 3:31PM|#

Jake Boone has it right...
-----
..."But here's the thing: while I agree that HarperCollins has the *right* to alter the picture if they feel they need to, I still think it's stupid (stupidistic?) and insulting to me and my abilities as a parent."...
-----
And we then all get to make a choice in the marketplace that corresponds to our tolerance of stupidisticism. When the Government starts airbrushing the facts, that's something else.

|11.17.05 @ 3:35PM|#

"Suppose the author is dead. And either has no descendants, or the descendants oppose it."

As I understand it, Clement Hurd is dead (but I could be wrong).

Regardless, whoever holds the rights to the author's image gets to make that call. As it appears happened in this case.

|11.17.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Jennifer...
---
Suppose the author is dead. And either has no descendants, or the descendants oppose it.
---

It's not up to the author...it's up to the person who owns the rights to the photograph...thank goodness for property rights, yes?

|11.17.05 @ 3:38PM|#

Hey, idiot "Patriarch,"

We're actually talking about children here, and the influences their parents expose them to. Did I mention that you're an idiot?

Jake,

Children at that age are amazing absorbers of information. Haven't you noticed how your little one remembers every...single...time you've ever sworn in front of him/her?

JD,

"I want to know what the hell you're so afraid of, joe...I mean, do you think she's going to take up smoking at the age of three because she sees a photo of someone smoking?"

I'm afraid that she's going to be more likely to take up smoking at age 14 or 16 or 22 because she'll be more likely to accept it as a normal thing, as Jennifer is so eager to point out it was at the time the picture was taken.

"Sooner or later she is going to learn that there are these things called cigarettes, which adults smoke and have smoked in the past." Later, thanks. Good job, HarperCollins!

"Do you ever let her out of the house? She might see a real person smoking, after all." Yes, which is quite a different thing than her seeing it in her storybook - the one she likes, and equates with safety, comfort, and enjoyment. Get it? Kids make connections.

"Who's "determined"? You could...not buy the book. Buy an edition without a photo, if there is one. Buy the book and cut out or cover up the photo." And this way, I have one more option - one more you thing it's wrong for me to have, wrong for HaperCollins to provide me with.

And no, the photo of the author on a book is not "history," and airbrushing it - whether to remove acne or a cigarette - is not altering history.

"Suppose HarperCollins Photoshopped a burka onto the bare head of a female author-photo, before selling a book in a Muslim country. Would you be just as fine with that?" I would object to it, because I object to burkhas. Which, Ms.-Bragging-About-Her-Cigarette-Holder, is what this all about for you, isn't it?

|11.17.05 @ 3:38PM|#

Joe,

I just have to know, oh and keep in mind I am not a Republican, but is there anything sterotypically liberal that you disagree with?

It must suck to be so predictable. Sorry to be rude.

|11.17.05 @ 3:41PM|#

I have three kids and I think it's stupid to hide from the truth, especially such a little truth. I'd much rather hide form the historical truths of "separate but equal" and "vietnam".

However, I think seeing their Uncle chain smoke and slowly turn himself into a lump of emphsema will do a lot more to discourage them from smoking than pretending that it never existed. When future generations look at doctored and original versions of photos, aren't they going to wonder why there was a conspiracy to hide these little white smoking tubes?

How soon before school boards in some parts of the country find it OK to airbrush Darwin or Jefferson out of the historical record?

|11.17.05 @ 3:42PM|#

kelvinator,

See my comments on multiple threads about Bush and Rice's public diplomacy regarding democratic change in Ukraine, Lebanon, and now China.

Also, the efficacy of gun control laws.

|11.17.05 @ 3:43PM|#

First we adjust the written word ala Winston Smith; then we adjust the photos; when do we start adjusting people?

Perhaps we need some standard bug to place on a photo to note it has been "adjusted" in a manner that changes a representation.

|11.17.05 @ 3:45PM|#

I'm not debating the property-rights issue here, guys; I'm saying it's sleazy, independent of any legalities.

I would object to it, because I object to burkhas. Which, Ms.-Bragging-About-Her-Cigarette-Holder, is what this all about for you, isn't it?

What IS it all about for me, Joe? You're making all these pseudo-cryptic insight comments of late: Oooh, Jennifer, I've achieved enlightenment why you Think What You Do! Because of X I think I know why you believe M and Q, too! End of subject, no further explanation. So what is it? I try not to navel-gaze much because it's bad for my posture, so I'd likely benefit by your observations. Consider it a mitzvah on your part.

Jeff P.|11.17.05 @ 3:46PM|#

If memory serves, this was done to the Ayn Rand stamp as well. And I know a cigar was photoshopped away from Robert E. Howard on a recent Conan reissue.
Next will be Bowie's Young Americans.
Then comes Casablanca...

|11.17.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Haven't you noticed how your little one remembers every...single...time you've ever sworn in front of him/her?
I'm afraid that she's going to be more likely to take up smoking at age 14 or 16 or 22 because she'll be more likely to accept it as a normal

Well, in the first case children notice (and repeat) cursewords specifically because they can glean that the words are somehow FORBIDDEN. So keeping your child from learning what a cigarette is is going to make her LESS likely to do that forbidden thing?

When did teenagers ever start smoking because it was considered "normal"?

|11.17.05 @ 3:54PM|#

linguist,

"So keeping your child from learning what a cigarette is is going to make her LESS likely to do that forbidden thing?"

Which is why not having to have a "that's a cigarette, and they're bad" lecture prepared when she notices someone smoking on the cover of her night-night book, as several commenters above suggest as the only appropriate alternative, is helpful. Just don't have the subject come up yet.

Call it more evidence of the wisdom of the free market that HarperCollins, who make so much money selling books for children, have such a good understanding of how children's minds work.

|11.17.05 @ 3:55PM|#

Yeah, it's a parent thang. Y'all wouldn't understand.

Jennifer, lol!

joe,

Having conversations that you deem "unnecessary" is part of being a parent. No I'm not a parent. Wait, so I guess I wouldn't understand then. No wait, maybe that's why I don't want kids....

|11.17.05 @ 3:55PM|#

"When did teenagers ever start smoking because it was considered "normal"? "

When it was a normal thing for adults to do. Children and teenagers like to immitate adults to demonstrate their maturity.

|11.17.05 @ 3:57PM|#

Yes, smacky, and I'll be quite happy to have those conversations at a better time.

And yes, those who "don't want kids" usually know very little about them, and about how to raise them. Sort of like those of us who don't want guns.

|11.17.05 @ 4:09PM|#

joe really is the gift that keeps on giving. The guy that sees fit to label parents that would rather live in the suburbs as crypto-racists and points out how counter-productive it is to shelter their little darlings from all the wonders of urban living thinks that the sight of a cigarette on the back of a book in 2005 is the gateway to a two-pack a day habit in 2020 for his precious.

joe, when your kid is 14 or 16, I'd worry a lot more about "smoking as rebellion" than "smoking as the result of imprinting" from Goodnight Moon

|11.17.05 @ 4:10PM|#

joe,

I myself, as a non-parent, would not compare having a child to owning a gun. I think people without children can imagine fairly well what it would be like to raise a child, because, (wonder of wonders!) a child is just a tiny person. Hey! I'm a person! Go figure.

|11.17.05 @ 4:10PM|#

There's a difference between wanting to raise one's kids in a certain way, and wanting to reshape the world to make it easier to raise said kids.

|11.17.05 @ 4:10PM|#

Of course, I wouldn;t say that wanting or having kids means someone qualifies as an expert on raising kids...

Viking Moose the obtuse|11.17.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Joe:
photoshopping the mole off of the centerfold's ass oftentimes involves the removal of the entire ass :)

Goodnight Moon is one of my favorites.


And i'd like to bring up one of joe's comments:

"the wisdom of the free market"

you see, this private company, sans coercion, made this decision to strike part of a picture for a book it published.

if the author doesn't like it, there are other publishing houses.

this is the time when "might makes right" is probably in disagreement with many here - but i don't see many who go off on this in other forums have the caveat, "well, that dickhead employer shouldn't harrass...". i just see attacking unnecessary laws. why not apply the same argument here? nobody is getting coerced. no invididuals are getting dumped on. instead, this is a proxy for another fight. we see this in the GW or the iraq or abortion or whatever.

i see this as a very similar path. it's their company. it's their decision.

it's a company making an uncoerced business decision.

|11.17.05 @ 4:14PM|#

Call it more evidence of the wisdom of the free market that HarperCollins, who make so much money selling books for children, have such a good understanding of how children's minds work.

I think what HarperCollins has a good understanding of is how hysterical a lot of parents are nowadays.

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 4:16PM|#

If you have a kid, joe, it's a safe bet you know how to raise your gun, eh?

I'm going to have to side with Harper Collins, folks - if nothing else, the 'controversy' over this silliness will expose more parents to the fack that they went to an effort to make their book more kid-friendly than it was.

Jennifer - how is cropping a picture to remove an object morally superior to editing the object out? Or: would you object to a picture of a woman being cropped out of existence instead of having a burkha added to it?

What if, in the only picture they had of Hurd, he was holding a syringe instead of a smoke? Is it only unacceptable to remove something because it doesn't bother you that it was there in the first place?

|11.17.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Of course, I wouldn;t say that wanting or having kids means someone qualifies as an expert on raising kids...and help us all when the kids are raised by experts...

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 4:19PM|#

"a child is just a tiny person."

No. Most midgets don't wear diapers, or cry if you take their crayons away. :) Getting the opportunity to watch someone develop into an adult has - for me, at least - been an fascinating and humbling experience.

|11.17.05 @ 4:22PM|#

What if, in the only picture they had of Hurd, he was holding a syringe instead of a smoke? Is it only unacceptable to remove something because it doesn't bother you that it was there in the first place?

This analogy would work if, in Hurd's day, using needle drugs (or diabetics treating themselves in public) was so accepted in society that a photograph of it would appear inside the cover of a kid's book, or in a news photograph of a sitting (ha!) President like FDR. Standards do change, but the fact that standards were different in another era shouldn't be hidden from current or future ones. Not even when it's For The Children.

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 4:23PM|#

"There's a difference between wanting to raise one's kids in a certain way, and wanting to reshape the world to make it easier to raise said kids."

And a point that gets raised here time and time again is that if the market wants it to be easier, they'll do it themselves - as joe and eric the viking moose have both mentioned. Isn't this a great example of the market doing just what it should?

(sorry moose - since you've changed your handle, I can't help but picture you as Tim Robbins all decked out in a helmet and associated trappings. :)

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 4:26PM|#

You skipped my first question, Jennifer. :)

I disagree with you that editing a smoke out of a book aimed at little kids is the first step in making sure our kids never find out that people used to smoke in ballrooms, bars, and brothels.

|11.17.05 @ 4:29PM|#

I've recently read my second Ayn Rand book, and I wish I hadn't, but I'll say this: when her work passes into the public domain and anybody who wants to can print and sell a copy of it, I will (despise how much I hate the book) oppose and criticize anyone who sells a version with all the hooray-for-cigarettes parts taken out. Or the sex scenes which many find objectionable. Trying to alter the historical record, on however small a scale, is inherently dishonest and unethical, though I know full well it is not illegal.

We'll strike out all the cigarette references, like the old Egyptian Pharoahs assuming the throne and immediately ordering their underlings to chisel out references to unliked predecessors. Well within their own property rights to do, but slimy regardless.

|11.17.05 @ 4:31PM|#

No. Most midgets don't wear diapers, or cry if you take their crayons away. :)


Rich Ard,

Point noted. However, all literals aside, I think parental relations between a human child with an adult human, such as myself, cannot be compared to the relation of a mechanical weapon to its owner. Kids are much less predictable than that, and even I know this as a non-parent. All I'm saying is I don't appreciate being talked down to as if I don't know what it would be like to have a child just because I don't have one. I'm sure many childless people, men and women, can imagine what it's like to have a child, whether they want one or not. Any parent will disagree with this, of course, but that's just because I'm not "in da club". Nor do I particularly want to be. But if certain people need yet another reason to think they're "extwa special", then that's fine with me.

VIking "don't call me stupid" |11.17.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Rich:

fair enough. Nuke LaLouche has out smarted me several times.

But i agree: this is a market decision, and the market has spoken.

I just like that joe is on the side of the market here. and using this market argument has been used to "defend" sexual harassment of employees (they can get another job! is their argument), well, the author can get another publisher.

joe has the libertarian conclusion, and people still won't cut him a break. :)

and now a movie interlude
(bow down to the queen of slime. the queen of filth. the queen of puuuuuuuuutresence)
(cue sound of john denver being strangled)

And Rich, the chicago gang can either confirm or deny the description.

how about a taller, a little thicker version of anthony edwards?

cheerio.

|11.17.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Rich Ard-

oops, I did skip the first question.

You have a case where he posed for a full-body photo with a cigarette. By airbrushing out the cig you're giving a false impression of what happened--that he posed for a full-body shot without one. As opposed to merely cropping the photo so that it isn't a full-body shot anymore.

|11.17.05 @ 4:37PM|#

Well within their own property rights to do, but slimy regardless.


I agree with Jennifer. I'm not going to try to stop them, because it's their company, but I still think it's intellectually dishonest.

And if Harper-Collins gains a reputation for pandering to the nanny crowd at the expense of intellectual honesty, hopefully academics, universities, scholars and those types will stop buying from them and buy from intellectually honest publishers instead.

It's the market, yo. :)

Ed|11.17.05 @ 4:38PM|#

I'd be willing to bet Jennifer could kick Joe's ass.

|11.17.05 @ 4:39PM|#

But if certain people need yet another reason to think they're "extwa special", then that's fine with me.

Not only them, their children. 'Cause awl childwen are extwa special. Having said that, I'm going to go retch for a while.

|11.17.05 @ 4:39PM|#

Maybe this is getting too far afield but I was perplexed by quasibill's comment. Regarding Jennifer's question about photoshopping burkas to avoid offending (presumably male) customers in some Muslim country that requires them:

I may not like the fact that some cultures require such activities, but that's their issue to work out.

Was the oppression of apartheid just South Africa's cultural issue to work out?

I would never be so paternalistic as to force people who want to wear the burka to take it off "for their own good".

Huh?? What could that possibly have to do with a country that requires a burka (or a chador) to be worn? Did anyone say they were for forcing people to take off the burka for their own good?

|11.17.05 @ 4:40PM|#

The "you're not a parent, so you don't understand argument" is so idiotic. If true, all people that procreate must be excellent and omniscient parents. For many people, having a child must require a lobotomy; procreating makes them stupid.

Viking Moose the free marketee|11.17.05 @ 4:41PM|#

Hi Smacky et al:

exactly: we can discuss it on those merits. i'd just like some of the might-makes-right types (definitely not you or Jennifer) who throw out the "abusive boss? get another fucking job, you pinko puke" line instead of going off on what a twaddlenock the boss is.

this is one of those cases, just reduced in importance, IMO.

and Goodnight Moon is still one of my favorites. that and "where the wild things are"


(it's been three years since my last visit to your place of employment. Gordon Bell is a great guy!)

onwards!

:)

|11.17.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Bill-There must be some hormone that kicks in post-partum to ensure that the parent has the requisite level of smugness and self-satisfaction.

|11.17.05 @ 4:46PM|#

DD,

I agree, except that evolution must have exempted some parents. Although many seem to fall in the smug and self-satisfied category, I've known many that didn't. In my opinion, those that didn't were better parents.

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 4:48PM|#

"...when her work passes into the public domain and anybody who wants to can print and sell a copy of it, I will (despise how much I hate the book) oppose and criticize anyone who sells a version with all the hooray-for-cigarettes parts taken out."

I think there's an important distinction betwixt altering the text of a book and fiddling with the dust jacket - I have a few copies of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (and, sorry, The Fountainhead with different covers, but the text between editions is (hopefully!) identical. BTW, you're right, my analogy was terrible.

"You have a case where he posed for a full-body photo with a cigarette. By airbrushing out the cig you're giving a false impression of what happened--that he posed for a full-body shot without one."

A fib by way of omission is acceptable, but not one done so as to retain the integrity of the cover's design?

in re: moose" haha!

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Let's all pretend I closed those parentheses, and that the " was a : .

|11.17.05 @ 4:54PM|#

Even though I hate the "it's for the children" folks and I despise revisionism, I can't help but wonder if the late author would have agreed with the decision. Smoking was much more acceptable at the time when the photo was taken. I wouldn't be surprised if the author would agree with the removal of the ciggie. I don't think he'd want to offend his customers ($$$$).

J.D. Tuccille|11.17.05 @ 4:56PM|#

I consider Harper-Collins' action to be more silly than offensive. It's a bit like altering an image of Charles Dickens so that he appears with a modern haircut and in 21st Century clothing just to make him look more current.

For the record, my son frequently sees his father smoking cigars. The first photo of him I sent to family and friends showed him with his "bottle and pacifier" -- that is, propped against a whiskey bottle with a stogie across his lap.

|11.17.05 @ 5:00PM|#

Keep talking like that, JD, and you'll be hauled off to the camps in no time. Remember, the reeducation usually begins with Ayn Rand.

|11.17.05 @ 5:03PM|#

Rich Ard-

By the same token, some photos were taken of me at Thoreau's DC gathering, sitting at a table with persons X, Y and Z.

If I publish the photos later, and they're cropped to show me exclusively, not those in my vicinity, that might be a tad narcissistic, but honest. As opposed to publishing the picture of me and some people at the table, but one of the people is airbrushed out. Legal perhaps, but dishonest and unethical.

|11.17.05 @ 5:03PM|#

As for parenting: I think most of us have something of an understanding of what it's like to raise a kid because *gasp* we all were kids once! Therefore, we have something of an intrinsic idea of how kids work.

As for changing the past: this clearly is. Whether it's really important, in the face of people being able to say what the real past is, is up for debate, but just because the publishers aren't denying that he smoked doesn't change anything.

There's a difference between what adults do and what adults do while being photographed for the back cover of a children's book. The latter is what's being changed here, and it is -- in and of itself -- an insightful piece of history.

|11.17.05 @ 5:06PM|#

"What IS it all about for me, Joe?"

Why, Jennifer, I suspect it's about the mean old Smoking Nazis being mean, and treating your treasured habit as if it were something dirty and unhealthy. Always picking on you!

Or maybe I'm way off base, and the photo-retouching practices of book publishers has always been a subject near and dear to your heart. And that of Reason.

|11.17.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Jennifer,

My old copy of "Goodnight Moon" doesn't have any picture of the author. This is a new addition, to which they are adding an author's picture and other items. They are doing this, now, in today's society. They are not running around in public library's with whiteout.

I would object to editing out the "glories of smoking" passages from "The Fountainhead," too. But 1) an author's photo on the jacket is not part of the literary creation and 2) they aren't changing anything that used to be.

Not that this will matter to you, as this is a proxy fight.

|11.17.05 @ 5:18PM|#

smacky, if you don't wish to be accused of not knowing a great deal about children, you might wan to avoid saying that they're "just smaller people." They are not. They have particular developmental issues, behavioral patterns, and handling instructions, and it was your clear lack of knowledge about these which I was referring to.

Or referring to parents as "the nanny crowd." You're SUPPOSED to act like a nanny towards your three year olds. Do you know WHY you're supposed to act like a nanny to your three year olds? BECAUSE THEY'RE THREE YEARS OLD!

You don't get to disparage people for treating adults like children, and then disparage them for treating children like children.

|11.17.05 @ 5:21PM|#

dagny, if and when you have a child, you will be amazed about all the things you didn't know about children.

|11.17.05 @ 5:25PM|#

You don't get to disparage people for treating adults like children, and then disparage them for treating children like children.

joe,

First of all, I do and say whatever I want. Just wanted to get that out of the way.


smacky, if you don't wish to be accused of not knowing a great deal about children, you might wan to avoid saying that they're "just smaller people." They are not.They have particular developmental issues, behavioral patterns, and handling instructions, and it was your clear lack of knowledge about these which I was referring to.


Oh, really, joe? How exactly did I exhibit my "clear lack of knowledge" about children? Please do tell. Secondly, if you're such an all-star parent, then you must have a degree in child psychology, don't you? Please educate me about the ways of children. Their psychology is so...complex! Yes! And difficult! Difficult -- for a childless person like me.

Oh, hang it all. And all along I thought advanced calculus was difficult. But inter-personal relationships....that's like, rocket science, man. I guess I should've been a communications major. Or a parent. Yes, then I'd be wise and all-knowing, like joe.

|11.17.05 @ 5:27PM|#

As long as all the parties were consenting adults and the government was not involved, I really don't have a problem with it.

|11.17.05 @ 5:30PM|#

smacky,

It may simply be the case that joe was very ignorant of children prior to having his own. Thus, like so many people new to an experience or concept, they have a difficult time understanding that not all people without children were as ignorant as he was.

|11.17.05 @ 5:30PM|#

joe,

For the record, I'm not saying raising kids is easy. I'm sure it's a complete challenge.
Not to corner you, but let me propose a scenario. Say tomorrow I get preggers. Then:

*Poof*

I now have the magical wisdom of a parent. Now is that wisdom bestowed upon me during pregnancy, or after I popped one out?

|11.17.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Wow, joe is being not only smug about the fact that he's a parent, but also the fact that he's not a smoker.

Good for you, joe. You da man!

Look, I don't want to get into all this parenting philosophy, cuz it's not really important to the fact that they're airbrushing a photo.

And it's not like this is a cause that will have me taking to the streets or boycotting this particular company. I just don't like the thought of things being airbrushed out of a photo because that thing isn't PC anymore.

I think it's important for the truth to be seen, even an uncomfortable truth, and then for people to be allowed to make their own judgements based on that information.

Just like how some people were all upset that the news stations showed people jumping out of the twin towers. Horrible? Yes. But it is what was happening, an news stations are supposed to be reporting facts, correct? I personally think people should see something horrible like that, so that they appreciate the blessings they have and to realise that there are bad things out there...I think it's good for one's resolve. At the same time, it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Anyway, enough rambling...carry on!

|11.17.05 @ 5:32PM|#

The Real Bill,

I see now. Ok, that's understandable, if that is the case.

|11.17.05 @ 5:34PM|#

I gather from Joe's comment to Jennifer that we're heading towards the whole "It's immature to resent it when your betters make decisions for you road." It's the great unspoken presumtion of the Prussian nanny types.

|11.17.05 @ 5:35PM|#

Call it more evidence of the wisdom of the free market that HarperCollins, who make so much money selling books for children, have such a good understanding of how children's minds work.

I think it's more like they have a good understanding of how certain parents' minds work.

|11.17.05 @ 5:36PM|#

Folks are way too quick to heap praise on joe for what they see to be his support of libertarian or "free market" principles. In this particular case, free markets are simply a useful means toward his ends. One need look only at what he thinks of government-imposed smoking bans in bars, nightclubs, and restaurants to see that he has very little respect for the principles of libertarianism and free markets.

|11.17.05 @ 5:37PM|#

Outstanding post, Lowdog.

|11.17.05 @ 5:38PM|#

Joe--

Yes, I can see where you might find it hard to grasp, that this might even be a matter of principle for me.

And get this--I actually agree that smoking is bad and kids shouldn't do it. I quit way the hell back in the nineties, because I hated the evil tobacco companies--and then I started smoking again four years later because I hated even MORE all that holier-than-thou anti-smoking crap. And that's when I bought the 1930s-vintage smoking paraphernalia, too, so as not merely to smoke but be in-your-face about it, too. Why? Because you read me wrong, Joe: what primarily motivates me is that I damned sure doesn't like being told what to do, especially not from people toward whom I have the attitude: "I have no interest in your activities; why are you so fucking interested in mine?"

And I hate dishonesty, and experience has taught me that no matter how well-intentioned people may be, and no matter how good their causes sound, when they resort to dishonesty and trickery to accomplish their goals all I can wonder is "If your cause is so just why does it have to distort the truth to make its points?"

|11.17.05 @ 5:41PM|#

I see now. Ok, that's understandable, if that is the case.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's still annoyingly condescending to imply that childless people can't know and/or love as much as a parent. That's such a....Bathroom Wall Decoration sentiment. And it's not true.

|11.17.05 @ 5:43PM|#

I'm sorry you respond so poorly to being told you're not an expert in something, smacky.

As for your questions, the only way you're going to learn more about children and parenting is to raise a child. It's really not something you can learn from a book, like calculus.

|11.17.05 @ 5:44PM|#

Besides, just 'cause you don't have kids doesn't mean you've never interacted with any. I have tons of nieces and nephews to practice on :)

|11.17.05 @ 5:46PM|#

"I think there's an important distinction betwixt altering the text of a book and fiddling with the dust jacket "

I have a copy of "Life on the Mississippi" by Mark Twain with the word "nigger" replaced by "darkey".

Does anyone here think that this is not a horrible crime ? ( I think it is).

|11.17.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Smacky-It's more than that. If you haven't spawned, see, you're not a complete human being. Reproduction is the highest aim in life.

|11.17.05 @ 5:48PM|#

Also, ignore the post about the picture not being on old editions. My bad.

Lowdog, "I think it's important for the truth to be seen, even an uncomfortable truth, and then for people to be allowed to make their own judgements based on that information." A fine sentiment, but one that needs to be modified when considering children, rather than adults. Limiting the "truths" your kids are exposed to based on their age is an important part of parenting. You don't need to be explaining to your five year old, well honey, some men like to look at pictures of women fucking dogs, and so people make money selling them.

|11.17.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Say tomorrow I get preggers. Then:

*Poof*

I now have the magical wisdom of a parent. Now is that wisdom bestowed upon me during pregnancy, or after I popped one out?

I've heard it said that the moment you leave the hospital, the world suddenly seems a dark and dangerous place. I've often pointed out that Soccer Moms seem remarkably underrepresented among libertarians, and that I can't think of any part of our platform that seems appealing to Soccer Moms specificially. ...I suspect the reason isn't just that they've got their kids in AYSO--I suspect it's at least partially due to the fact that they're moms.

If Americans find the suggestion that they should trade their freedom for security appealing, why should it be controversial to suggest that moms are more likely to want to trade other people's freedom for their own children's security? ...or that they're likely to support whatever makes 'em feel like their children might be more safe than they would be otherwise? Is it possible, smacky, that you might be more conservative culturally if you had children and they were headed to public schools and would be watching television, etc.?

|11.17.05 @ 5:51PM|#

I think Joe, said:
Call it more evidence of the wisdom of the free market that HarperCollins, who make so much money selling books for children, have such a good understanding of how children's minds work.

To hear Joe say this brings hope to my heart. Now when a smoking ban law gets started and a bar owner resists it saying "the wisdom of the free market says I should be able to allow smoking in my establishment. I have a good understanding of how bar patron's minds work." Joe will side with him. If we can get everyone to understand this concept life will be good.

|11.17.05 @ 5:52PM|#

I'm sorry you respond so poorly to being told you're not an expert in something, smacky.


joe,

I have no problem with admitting that I'm an expert at nothing. I am taking issue with the fact that you argument goes like this:

I. I, joe, am a parent.
II. Therefore I know more about parenting than a non-parent.


I would argue that there exist parents who are worse parents and know less about handling children than certain non-parents. Example, crackhead mommas. Um, yeah, I think I can offer dem bitches a few pointers on raising their kids. I could give you similar examples of "normal" parents (i.e. non-crackheads), but I'm sure we'd differ on what behaviors and values are and are not acceptable to teach a child.

As soon as you can tell me how precisely I can be an expert in children, let me know. I'd like to learn from "the Master".

Similarly, can you please name for me some individuals that were raised by "expert parents"? I'd like to know who they are, so that I can measure my shortcomings by them.

|11.17.05 @ 5:54PM|#

joe - ok, but it's your responsibility as a parent to not allow your 5 year old to see pictures of women fucking dogs, not mine, and not the governments, right?

As long as you agree with me on that, then we're on the same page. If not, then your statist roots are showing.

|11.17.05 @ 5:55PM|#

Number 6,

I am not Prussian, but Irish-Italian. But yes, I act in a patriarchal manner towards my three year old daughter. Do you know why? BECAUSE I'M HER FATHER, YOU MORON!

Jennifer, I can dig not liking to be told what to do, or having your information censored. But you're an adult. Someone who reads "Good Night Moon" before bed is not an adult, but a toddler. Children need to be told what to do, and they need to have their information censored. I am "interested in her activities," her thoughts, and her development because she is my daughter, and I have a responsibility to be. And yes, I understand this, and you don't, because I have had that responsibilty imposed on me and have had to learn about it, and you haven't.

|11.17.05 @ 5:55PM|#

Ken Schultz-Smacky may or may not be more conservative in those circumstances. Regardless, she would not have the right to impose her views of how the world should be in order for her to raise her offspring on others.

And no, that doesn't really address the picture issue.

|11.17.05 @ 5:56PM|#

Is it possible, smacky, that you might be more conservative culturally if you had children and they were headed to public schools and would be watching television, etc.?

Um, no, Ken. That's called being a hypocrite.

|11.17.05 @ 5:57PM|#

The purpose of civilization, society and government is to make sure the children of people like Joe are never exposed to ideas which their parents find objectionable. At least, not until the kids are 18. Also, the parent's should not have to make an effort to create this idea-free zone; the zone must be the default setting in life.

|11.17.05 @ 5:58PM|#

Joe-That's all you've got? Calling me a moron? I'm embarrassed for you. And the nanny comment referred to those who want to act as nannies towards adults. Which you would have picked up on, had you read the post.
The funny thing is, I can actually picture you pounding on your desk as veins throb in your temples.

|11.17.05 @ 6:00PM|#

Joe-

When it comes to The Children, you tend to be patriarchal not just to your daughter, but to anyone and anything who might theoretically come in contact with her, including images broadcast over the airwaves. The one time you got loony enough to call me a "Randroid" was when I opposed the idea that everything broadcast over the TV channels should be child-appropriate, so parents like you wouldn't have to waste your precious time monitoring your kid's TV-watching activity.

|11.17.05 @ 6:00PM|#

Lowdog, it is my reponsibilty to keep my daughter from seeking out and finding such material.

The government has some role to play in preventing people from fucking dogs in front of her daycare, or the like.

smacky, stop pouting, or your face will stay that way. And thinking up an extreme example like a crackhead momma does not refute a point. Gee, somewhere I can think of a communist politician who would be a better mayor than Democrat. Only an idiot would draw a broad conclusion from such an exercise.

|11.17.05 @ 6:03PM|#

As for hormonal changes: true story: the BBC reported last week that men in the company of infants have lowered testosterone levels. Truly--the idea was it's nature's way of making the guy less aggressive, and less likely to kill the kid. Similar hormonal stuff goes on when moms get the "nesting" instinct and such.

|11.17.05 @ 6:05PM|#

Only an idiot would draw a broad conclusion from such an exercise.

joe,

The point that I can come up with an example of a better non-parent than a parent does refute the arguement I posed. Calling me an idiot does not.

|11.17.05 @ 6:06PM|#

Jennifer,

I'd have no problem with my daughter reading books full of smoking scenese, with a photo of an author holding a cigarette on the jacket, when she is older. Your lack of familiarity with the concept of age-appropriateness, your attempt to argue about what should be in a nursery based on ideas about people having freedom to learn about the cold, cruel world, is one of the giveaways that you don't know what you're talking about.

|11.17.05 @ 6:07PM|#

Billy read through the biography of Clement Hurd, author of his favorite childhood book -- a book he now held in his hand, cherishing the memories of bedtime stories. As he read, he came to the sentence, "Hurd, a lifelong smoker . . . "

Huh? Lifelong smoker?

But . . . that couldn't be! The picture on Goodnight, Moon clearly showed Hurd not smoking!

"My God!" thought Billy. "WHAT OTHER LIES HAVE THEY TOLD ME?!"

|11.17.05 @ 6:08PM|#

"The one time you got loony enough to call me a "Randroid" was when I opposed the idea that everything broadcast over the TV channels should be child-appropriate, so parents like you wouldn't have to waste your precious time monitoring your kid's TV-watching activity."

I wasn't arguing that then, either. Failing to understand these distinctions seems to be a recurring theme with you.

|11.17.05 @ 6:08PM|#

joe,

Protectionism may not be the answer. I've known students who were protected their whole lives by their parents from hanging out with the "bad crowd" (kids like me). They ended up picking up smoking as a habit in college, when all was said and done.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.17.05 @ 6:08PM|#

I will make it a point of honor to be holding a cigarette every time I appear in public.

you and Hitchens.

|11.17.05 @ 6:09PM|#

The "stalinism" isn't toward the children, cuz the kids wouldn't give a shit one way or the other if the guy smoked or not. It's the fanatically uptight parents, and more likely the uptight anti-smoking activists, the airbrushing is for. I suppose they've upset another subset of people, so they just picked to upset the smaller group.

Next will be Bowie's Young Americans.

They did airbrush the genitals off the Diamond Dogs cover, so it wouldn't be a first for Bowie. And on the 20th anniversary picture sleeve of The Beatles "I Saw Her Standing There" they did airbrush the cigarette out of Paul's hand. (And left the cigarette intact on the 30th anniversary edition. How's that for obsessive trivia?)

|11.17.05 @ 6:10PM|#

Um, no, Ken. That's called being a hypocrite.

I tend to argue by my principles rather than by my preferences. Some people, quite wrongly, think me culturally conservative because of that. ...but I imagine I would become more conservative culturally if I had kids--politically, though, my principles probably wouldn't change.

...So, for me I guess, there's hypocrisy on principle and there's changing your mind or your preferences. I'm persuadable on the latter, and I bet you are too. ...and so, once again, my question was about whether you thought you'd be more conservative culturally rather than politically.

|11.17.05 @ 6:10PM|#

Your lack of familiarity with the concept of age-appropriateness, your attempt to argue about what should be in a nursery based on ideas about people having freedom to learn about the cold, cruel world, is one of the giveaways that you don't know what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, your refusal to focus on the fact that my concern is with the alteration of a historical document, rather than any of the above, along with your dependence on phrases like "you don't know what you're talking about" and "come back when you have a child of your own" show that you don't know how to debate this without resorting to the magical mystery argument "As a parent, I just KNOW STUFF which you can't possibly know but trust me if you did you'd see I'm right, therefore I win the argument."

|11.17.05 @ 6:11PM|#

Now you're talking about balance, smacky. That's a perfectly appropriate idea. I've seen the same thing, and I don't intend my daughter to have her first drink in the basement of some fraternity when she's 18.

But there is another side here, and you've spent the entire thread before now arguing against it. No, a three year old does not need to learn about smoking, and does not need to come to equate Good Night Moon and the friendly looking man on the book with smoking.

|11.17.05 @ 6:13PM|#

you don't know how to debate this without resorting to the magical mystery argument "As a parent, I just KNOW STUFF which you can't possibly know but trust me if you did you'd see I'm right, therefore I win the argument."


Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Spot on, Jennifer.

|11.17.05 @ 6:13PM|#

Joe: if Smacky and I can't discuss issues of The Children since we have none of our own and therefore Just Can't Understand, does this mean you are not allowed to have any input when discussing something about Women, Minority People, Arabs or anything else that you Just Can't Understand, either?

|11.17.05 @ 6:14PM|#

"I will make it a point of honor to be holding a cigarette every time I appear in public."

Ooh, good for you! Maybe someone who doesn't smoke with think you look kewl, and start. Wouldn't that be awesome! How transgressive!

And Jennifer, I do know stuff you don't about parenting, because of my experience as a parent. If you don't like that, tough shit.

|11.17.05 @ 6:17PM|#

my question was about whether you thought you'd be more conservative culturally rather than politically.

I assume I would uphold the same cultural standards that I do now. Namely, I don't have a problem with the cussin' an' a hee-hawin'. However, I would obviously do my best to keep my very young children from seeing sexually explicit material (example: dog fucking). I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. Culturally versus politically? Please feel free to explain yourself. I don't know if I'm answering your question.


On that note, I have to go for now!

|11.17.05 @ 6:18PM|#

And thinking up an extreme example like a crackhead momma does not refute a point.

Yeah, just like if someone were to refute Lowdog's point:

I think it's important for the truth to be seen, even an uncomfortable truth, and then for people to be allowed to make their own judgements based on that information.

With

You don't need to be explaining to your five year old, well honey, some men like to look at pictures of women fucking dogs, and so people make money selling them.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but just thought it was funny that someone who brings up dog fucking would chastise someone for using an extreme example in an argument.

|11.17.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Ooh, good for you! Maybe someone who doesn't smoke with think you look kewl, and start. Wouldn't that be awesome! How transgressive! And Jennifer, I do know stuff you don't about parenting, because of my experience as a parent. If you don't like that, tough shit.

Spot-on! By pretending to be me using Leetspeak, you brilliantly wipe all my previous arguments out of existence! And then the magnificent follow-up again pretending that the issue here is one of "Parenting," not "altering historic images in line with what we think if Proper."

Fucking brilliant, Joe! You win! Everyone who previously disagreed with you now is convinced!

But seriously, now--no wonder you favor government force rather than persuasion to get people to go along with you.

|11.17.05 @ 6:19PM|#

joe, are you forgetting that Jennifer was a school teacher?? I think she's pretty damned knowledgeable about the care of children, probably most of the reason she has chosen not to have kids!

|11.17.05 @ 6:21PM|#

Jennifer doesn't have kids. At least none that she knows of.

(I always wanted to steal that joke.)

|11.17.05 @ 6:22PM|#

Haha, Brian! Thank you! I didn't even catch that one.

But then, I usually just sit back and watch you destroy joe...I'm not exactly what one would consider an excellent speaker or a master debator.

Masturbator? That's a different story! :)

|11.17.05 @ 6:47PM|#

I have never agreed with Joe about anything, so far as I can recall, but I have to say - you people are all out of your freakin' minds on this one. Joe is dead on; a child is NOT a miniature person, they are a developing person. You don't need to shelter them from reality forever, but you do need to introduce them to reality as they gain the maturity to understand it...

I have two kids, neither of whom has any idea what a cigarette is, and I plan to keep it that way as long as possible. Someday, inevitably, they will see someone smoking and ask me what that person is doing and I'll tell them the truth - that person is carrying around thier "I'm a complete moron" stick so you can know not to bother talking to them.

|11.17.05 @ 7:19PM|#

Viking (fill in the blank) the moose.
I just like that joe is on the side of the market here. and using this market argument has been used to "defend" sexual harassment of employees (they can get another job! is their argument), well, the author can get another publisher.

joe has the libertarian conclusion, and people still won't cut him a break.

1. Joe is never on the side of the free market.

2. Joe's conclusion is not the libertarian one.

We're very (un)cleverly trying to posit this whole issue as a 'free-market' issue, when I haven't seen a single post from the people bothered by what Harper Collins has done suggest that government intervention is due.

Not one. Anywhere. You see, some people have been horribly confused by the free market, especially those who neither understand it, nor believe in it (the two usually go hand in hand). I don't question HC's RIGHT to do this. Because I agree with the market principals in their COURSE of action. I'm assuming (I have no reason to doubt) that all the parties involved have acted in their self interest, and no copyrights or infringements have taken place. And that's good. Ie, no one 'eminent domained' the photograph and made it into something it previously was not.

But being the free market, I (we) can criticize, and criticize loudly. And criticize we will.

Long live the free market.

Paul

|11.17.05 @ 7:21PM|#

I have two kids, neither of whom has any idea what a cigarette is, and I plan to keep it that way as long as possible.

Great. So why do you need help from Harper Collins? Can you not do this yourself?

|11.17.05 @ 7:41PM|#

Josephus is getting really angry and mean. I hope his daughter doesn't grow up angry and mean.

|11.17.05 @ 7:43PM|#

Oh, and speaking for people who do have kids (joe seems to think that no one does- including me- something tells me he missed my previous post) raising kids isn't easy. As long as the Village(tm) keeps trying to get its mitts in my child-raising business, that is.

I don't need, nor do I want any 'help' from the Village(tm) when it comes to raising my kid. I don't know why, and I do admit sometimes it's reactionary, but when the Village(tm) comes to me and says it wants to 'help' me, I start to get very, very nervous. I figure one of the following is about to happen:

1. My taxes are going up.
2. I'm about to lose my property.
3. I'm about to lose the right to smoke, drink, talk about politics on my own terms.
4. Something everyone was doing five minutes ago is about to become criminal behavior.
5. New restrictions and regulations are about to be placed to increase my 'freedom'.
6. I'm going to have to give yet someone else my social security number to help protect my privacy.
7. Something I do in my living room is about to be declared 'interstate commerce'
8. A man with a clipboard and a ponytail is knocking at my door, asking me about the racial makeup of my family.
9. Someone driving a volvo is yelling that my three year old (something joe keeps 'airbrushing' out of my comments) needs a helmet while she rides her big-wheel.
10. I'm being told that I should put on a sweater, and turn down the thermostat.

That about wraps it up for this conversation.

Paul

|11.17.05 @ 7:54PM|#

The following telegram is an 'open letter' to all government agencies, and private organizations and/or non-governmental agencies with the words 'public interest' in their titles:

WE DONT NEED YOUR HELP STOP
WE DONT WANT YOUR HELP STOP
DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY HELPING US STOP
JUST STOP
PLEASE PLEASE STOP

SIGNED
AN INTERESTED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC STOP

STOP

|11.17.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Fabius,

I'm only "angry and mean" with grownups. It's that "age-appropriate" concept again.

So far, the peanut gallery has put forward arguments agains the propositions that 1) it's ok to be patriarchal towards your children, 2) parents know more about raising children than non-parents, 3) it is helpful to parents for the market to provide goods that reflect the values parents want to instill.

No one has bothered to argue against the central substantive point I made about childrearing and development: that children learn behaviors and come to understand how people act through what they see, and that images of people smoking can imprint this as normal behavior, particularly when it's connected in their minds with things they come to embrace as familiar, comforting and enjoyable. Like a favorite storybook.

But nobody seems to want to venture an opinion about that. Yeah, whatever, mean old joe thinks he's better'n you, and he wants to put you all in camps and outlaw fun.

|11.17.05 @ 8:09PM|#

No one has bothered to argue against the central substantive point I made about childrearing and development

Because that has nothing to do with the issue here, which is altering photographs to conform to a standard. If they just cropped the photo, I'd be fine with that, but they are outright altering it instead.

|11.17.05 @ 8:17PM|#

I'll bet all takers $100 that I can find an unaltered original of that photo within the next two hours.

|11.17.05 @ 8:20PM|#

I'm sure you could right now, Phil. I'm more worried about ten or twenty or fifty years down the road.

|11.17.05 @ 8:22PM|#

I'll save it to my hard drive, Jennifer. I somehow doubt that the Stalinist Historical Revision Society, or Minitrue, will be beating a path to my door to remove this last remaining evidence concerning THE TRUTH about this pivotal moment in human history.

|11.17.05 @ 8:24PM|#

Phil, do you seriously think that so long as it doesn't get as bad as that, there's really no reason to care?

Viking (filling in the blanks |11.17.05 @ 8:25PM|#

Hi Paul!

I was rather obtusely thinking about all the arguments where they deteriorate into the "don't like the sexist/racist comments your boss makes? tough" to a coupla of those same voices objecting to what HC did. Somehow, they didn't get the chance to say "well, a boss that does this is a scumbag, but i don't think laws would clear up the problem, just cover it for a while". no. they get all internet tough. then this comes along, and you see this hue and cry. no individual is getting hurt, nobody is coerced. it's just dumb. but some of those same voices were decrying this.

it didn't make sense to this individual.

and i was actually thinking of outcomes, not motives. which probably just sent me skidding down the "ends justify the means" slopes, but it's been a crazy day.

FWIW, i remember reading studies about the choices for smoking happen between 8-12. but then again, i was, as was joe, and a few others, a product of the no seatbelts, no child seats, leaded gasoline (ugh), lead paint, eating library paste, and no non smoking sections. yet i've never smoked anything (actively, at least).

there are other parents here: how many were worried about aspartime or whatever the hell that was? you want the entire world for your kids, you'll do anything for them. as all the parents out there know, your kids are everything to you.

sure, there's been a little acrimony out there, but go home, hug your kids if you got 'em. hug your significant other. hug your dog. it's the silly season. be thankful for all of them.

have a great evening!

V (drf) Moose

|11.17.05 @ 8:25PM|#

I'm pretty sure Orwell did not mean his books to be reassuring: "See how bad it could be? At least we're not like that! I feel better."

Viking (not the nauthgy poolbo|11.17.05 @ 8:27PM|#

Jennifer: kerry would have been worse.

Phil - post it at our other site :)

then report to the re-education camp immediately. Smacky will have the candlewax ready. Stevo, have the electrodes?

good.

|11.17.05 @ 8:28PM|#

Yes, Jennifer, I honestly do think that if it never gets any worse than a private company altering a photo to which they own the rights for market purposes, without making any effort whatsoever to destroy, hide or make unavailable the original, unaltered photo, that it's quite literally not worth wasting a moment's worry over.

|11.17.05 @ 8:30PM|#

Phil--
Then we disagree; I don't like the idea of living in a time where it's accepted that you regularly see old photos which have been altered to show a different reality. So we can show that nobody ever smoked, or drank alcohol, or wore sleazy clothes or whatever the Unacceptable Behavior Du Jour is.

|11.17.05 @ 8:37PM|#

There's a painting of Robert Wood Johnson hanging in the Johnson Pavilion (well, you'd hardly expect to see it at the Levy Library) at Penn. In his hand, a cigarette.

I'm surprised it hasn't been painted out.

"...children learn behaviors and come to understand how people act through what they see, and that images of people smoking can imprint this as normal behavior..."

As can watching father angrily banging away on a keyboard when he ought to be reading her to sleep!

Anti-smoking hysteria would be much more amusing if the precedents established by its results did not bode so ill for the future.

|11.17.05 @ 8:37PM|#

As long as the originals are still available, what does it matter? This is the age of Teh Internets -- nothing, but nothing, disappears down the memory hole forever anymore.

Viking Moose|11.17.05 @ 8:43PM|#

What about the FDR memorial?

Or how FDR wasn't shown in the press on crutches or in his chair, for the most part.

Both captures are interesting, as they not only capture the person, but also capture the esprit des temps. Or: look at how we laugh our asses off at the closed minded attitudes in "guess who's coming to dinner". or how we gasp at movies from the 50s with those gawdawful gender or race roles.

cheers.

|11.17.05 @ 8:45PM|#

Jennifer,

"So we can show that nobody ever smoked, or drank alcohol, or wore sleazy clothes or whatever the Unacceptable Behavior Du Jour."

To repeat, it is the photograph on the jacket of a children's book.

And half the ads in magazines these days show "old photos which have been altered to show a different reality." Hey, look at that, it's Humphrey Bogart with the new Lincoln Mark VIII!

Will you consider the possibility that, as someone who was sufficiently motivated to restart an activity that could end in your early, agonizing death because of your fury at the Smoking Nazis, that maybe your reaction here is fruit of the same tree?

|11.17.05 @ 8:46PM|#

As long as the originals are still available, what does it matter? This is the age of Teh Internets -- nothing, but nothing, disappears down the memory hole forever anymore

And as a cynical misanthrope, I suppose I personally should look forward to a time when it's normal for a person to have to fact-check even the most innocent of images to ensure they're seeing the reality of it.

|11.17.05 @ 8:49PM|#

Joe, is anyone expected to believe Bogart's really driving the car?

|11.17.05 @ 8:54PM|#

OK, fair enough.

But what about the reality that Author X had a big old zit on his honker that day? Where's your outrage that that historical reality is being altered?

It's ok to "change the historical reality" to make an author look prettier and sell more books, but it's somehow outrageous to avoiding having little kids flip from a picture of the bunny falling asleep to a picture of a guy smoking?

|11.17.05 @ 9:03PM|#

This is a really interesting discussion. I was listening to joe, and originally I thought his arguments were pretty bad, and so I was listening really carefully to Jennifer. ...and then it hit me that part of the reason I reacted to joe's suggestion negatively--the suggestion that he knows more about parenting because he's a parent--was because...ahem...Jennifer's a woman, so she should know more about raising children.

...and then I realized that that's probably the most offensive thing anybody's written in this thread. ...about either joe or Jennifer. ..and I felt like such a heel.

So anyway, I think some of the comments about joe are way off. ...especially the one about how joe is never on the side of the free market. That's just factually incorrect. ...and I think Jennifer's right to be concerned about book publishers caving in to politically correct pressure and portraying a world without warts, etc. ...and I think smacky has good reason to be indignant at the suggestion that her opinion isn't right or reasoned or rational just because she isn't a parent.

...and I think I wanna have some kids, but I'm in LA and LA sucks for that. ...I always thought I'd have kids with some nice girl back home. Maybe I should have converted to Islam and married that girl. ...Naw, I just couldn't do that. ...Maybe I'll just get a dog.

|11.17.05 @ 9:07PM|#

Hypothetical situation, Joe: I'll admit I use makeup not only to hide flaws like the occasional zit, but also to do some entirely unnatural things to my face--put some eye-enhancing colors on my eyelids, for instance, or use lipstick which is more colorful than human lips naturally are. But I wear makeup well within the "respectable" range. Many, many women do so; it's considered perfectly normal.

Now suppose that standards change again, and now it's not smoking but makeup that's considered absolutely vile and immoral. (It has been considered so before, and may well be again.) I would oppose people in the future using Photoshop to wipe out the eyeliner and eyeshadow and lipstick and other makeup visible in women of today. For the same reasons I oppose airbrushing out the cigarette. You want your kid to have a book with a cig-less photo--crop the photo so the cigarette's not in it. Cropping yes--erasing no.

And I'd oppose putting a burka on Emily Dickinson, too.

|11.17.05 @ 9:11PM|#

Ken, awwww, that's actually kind of sweet. You strike me as the Good Kind of Southern gentleman.

The irony is I actually am quite good with kids; I just don't need any of my own.

|11.17.05 @ 9:12PM|#

But nobody seems to want to venture an opinion about that. Yeah, whatever, mean old joe thinks he's better'n you, and he wants to put you all in camps and outlaw fun.

Ah, so you're with Ed Meese on the whole 'banning pornography' thing then, right joe?

joe, we know you think 'fun' should be a four letter word. And we also know that you want to put us in camps called 'new urbanist neighborhoods', but that's another argument. What we're talking about here is the (and I'll admit again) a relatively small gesture that is a creepy attempt to 'change history'.

People smoked. Pornography exists (and I hear tell, people even buy it on occasion). Slaves were owned. Drugs are done. Burkas are worn. Some people might even call a black person the 'n' word. Should we airbrush all of that out of history because we don't want to burden ourselves with the fact that our children might see it and 'imprint' on it?

Paul

|11.17.05 @ 9:17PM|#

My wife made a great comment to me this evening regarding this:

What if old photos of people on the beach had 'sunscreen' airbrushed into their hands- you know, to give kids the 'right' message?

We don't even have to compare this to more serious infractions or 'orwellian' concepts to show this as being ridiculous. Its ridiculousness stands on its own.

|11.17.05 @ 9:22PM|#

Ken
...especially the one about how joe is never on the side of the free market. That's just factually incorrect.

Oh, my bad... did I get caught airbrushing something out here?

You're right Ken... let me rephrase, joe is almost never... ever for the free market. I'd estimate about 99.99999999999% against.

|11.17.05 @ 9:30PM|#

...and I think smacky has good reason to be indignant at the suggestion that her opinion isn't right or reasoned or rational just because she isn't a parent.

And I resent being accused of NOT being a parent when I am. Well, ok, maybe I don't 'resent' it. But at least my kid won't grow up to be an insufferable busybody.

|11.17.05 @ 9:34PM|#

And as a cynical misanthrope, I suppose I personally should look forward to a time when it's normal for a person to have to fact-check even the most innocent of images to ensure they're seeing the reality of it.

Bad news: That age has been upon us for years now. There is no reason, when looking at any image, to assume that it represents unvarnished reality unless the photographer specifically says so.

|11.17.05 @ 9:47PM|#

Full disclosure: I've never smoked tobacco and I think that the overwhelming evidence is that doing so is hideous for your health. "Upset" would not begin to convey my emotional state if either of my two children, who are university students, started smoking tobacco.

Harper Collins doing this air-brushing cannot fairly be called "Stalinist" cuz our patronage of the company is voluntary. They're private and not supported by tax dollars; except for whatever sales they have to government. Now it's true that governments engage in the obliteration of facts that they don't like in exactly this manner and the Soviet regimes have been among the worst offenders. But those who object to the Clement Hurd airbrushing have avenues open to them that wouldn't exist if Harper Collins were a government agency.

I don't like what Harper Collins did cuz of the "see no evil" idea of behavior modification that it implies. Also, with this obliteration, there are missed opportunities for teaching kids about the harms of smoking. It might be pointed out that; yes more folks did smoke back then and the rates of cancer and other smoking related illness were also higher.

Lastly, FWIW, I really don't think that a old picture Clement Hurd smoking is gonna motivate little kids to wanna take it up. Granted, my kids are in their twenties now but recalling when they were the age to be enjoying Goodnight Moon, I just can't imagine it.

|11.17.05 @ 9:50PM|#

I don't get it. I have two kids, and I know that you can't hide the real world from them. I think my six year old asked what cigarettes were when he was two and saw someone smoking one. How exactly do you who are in favor of this shelter them so?

|11.17.05 @ 10:09PM|#

Sheesh.

I have to agree with joe, at least until he starts into his normal routine of deep into a thread calling people idiots. HarperCollins, as a non-government interest, has made a corporate decision, with the approval of the descendents, to make a minor alteration to a photo. There's no government intervention, and despite some of the hysterics I've seen here, there's no historical revisionism to be seen here.

I have one comment for Jennifer: When you demonstrate the same passion for such a minor controversy as this as you do for U.S. detainment and torture of non-citizens, don't you weaken your case for the latter? I've been swayed by your arguments in the case of torture, but sometimes when I see you get just as excited over things like this, I wonder if your not just a over-excitable loon (but I then figure, because I'm a generous sort, that you are simply a passionate, if misguided, libertarian).

|11.17.05 @ 10:26PM|#

In general I don't like modification of historical records. But what seems lake a far more egregious example than this case is when plays are modified so as to be PC.

I saw a performance of Macbeth in Boulder where the director saw fit to insert an ugly portrayal of anti-Semitism in the play to try to balance out the fact that Shylock is both Jewish and reprehensible. Now, I would have had no problem, even welcomed it, if the director would have instead, either pre or post play, made an announcement to the effect that even though Shylock is a creep, bigotry against Jews is unfair. I would have added that anti-Semitism and all racial bigotry is an abhorrence cuz it's anti-individual, but that's cuz I'm a libertarian.

|11.17.05 @ 10:46PM|#

It's kinda interesting that this thread engendered debate full of pique. I think that's cuz kids tend to be important to us, weather we have em or not.

|11.17.05 @ 10:47PM|#

Joe, I'm going to presume your comment about people not wanting you to be patricarchal to your children was about me, since you wrongly attributed that argument to me in an earlier post. So-I don't know how clear I can make this. I don't care what you do as far as raising your children. Not one bit. Be as protective and patriarchal as you choose. You may even be able to convince yourself that it matters. My objection to the sort of mentality many parents have is that they want to impose their will on everyone else so the world will be one they find approriate for their little Buffy or Todd. Of course, as one of the ignorant masses who has chosen not to breed, I guess I should just shut up and respect those who have gained wistdom by virture of being able to spawn.

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 10:49PM|#

Damn, lot happened since I left. Looks like joe and Jennifer had a bit of a catfight, eh?

Folks - the original didn't get "memory hole"d; Harper edited a picture for an advertisement. If it's okay in skin mags, why not kiddie books?

Also, in re: Jennifer:

"I suppose I personally should look forward to a time when it's normal for a person to have to fact-check even the most innocent of images to ensure they're seeing the reality of it."

Nope, buddy - you ought to recognize that what you're describing is the present day. Who told you it was okay to trust anything printed? :)

|11.17.05 @ 11:20PM|#

It is a very interesting debate and I have little to add, but here goes anyway.

First - I completely agree that this is market reaction that does not rise to the level of changing the historical record.

It infuriates me much more when they decided to remove the cigarette on the Beatles album cover Abbey Road than a picture of an author of a childern's book has been altered (click here ).

Second - It is true that one need not have childern to be able to understand how one might raise them. It's true that some here might have a poor understanding, but that has nothing to do with their parental status, or lack thereof.

Even some parents will claim they know more than other parents because they hvae 2 or 3 kids, instead of just 1. It's a worthless argument that would make it impossible for anyone to ever discuss anything other than those things that are "unique" to them.

|11.17.05 @ 11:28PM|#

I wish I could settle on a serious opinion on this thread. The truth is, I'm sympathetic to all sides, and almost every post made me think, "Yeah, they have a good point."

On the one hand, HarperCollins can do whatever they want, as long as they're not violating anyone's rights. On the other hand, we are free to criticize it. Of course.

On the one hand, you can over-shelter your kids. Once they reach an age where you can no longer control all their informational inputs, an unprepared kid can be more vulnerable, not less.

On the other hand, parents should be free to do anything in their power (short of violating other adults' rights) to filter out information they feel their kids aren't ready to handle yet. No one wants to have to answer a three-year-old's question along the lines of, "Daddy, what is that man doing with his pee-pee and why is his dog crying?"

On the one hand, there are probably some things you learn by being a parent that you're not likely to learn if you're not a parent -- because in most cases, no one knows more about doing a job than the person actually doing the job. On the other hand, that doesn't trump every challenge. Being a non-parent does not automatically disqualify you from having valid opinions, or even knowledge, about parenting. That reminds me too much of conversations I've had where I've been told I can't possibly know anything about the effects (or limits to same) of racial discrimination because I'm white. That usually leaves me with nothing to do but quote statistics from Thomas Sowell (the famed "Uncle Tom sellout").

And on the final hand, the practice of censoring records or depictions of the past to suit modern sensibilities and properly shape the minds of the audience is generally disturbing to me.

I like the comment by D Anghelone (November 17, 2005 02:50 PM.) Once depictions of FDR tended to hide the fact that he used a wheelchair; now people are more likely to play up the fact that he had a disability and hide the fact that he smoked. (In fact, this gives me an idea for a kids' book, aimed at promoting the idea that having a physical disability needn't prevent you from being successful. It will tell the story of admirable heros of the past -- George Washington, Marco Polo, Madame Curie, Neil Armstrong, etc. -- and depice all of them as being in wheelchairs. Because the message is more important than the truth, especially for kids.)

Besides, just 'cause you don't have kids doesn't mean you've never interacted with any. I have tons of nieces and nephews to practice on :)

This is true. And you can also take part in shaping their little minds. Whenever a friend or relative asks me, "Will you watch the kids for a few minutes while I go do whatever?" I say sure. And as soon as the parents are out of earshot, I say, "Look, kids, don't ever tell your fucking parents I said this, but you know how they say [cite any opinion of the parents that I don't agree with]? Well, that's complete fucking bullshit. Most of the recycling your family does is pointless. Drugs are bad for you, but not as bad as your mom and dad say. It's completely stupid and senseless that they don't allow you to play with toy guns. And your airhead mom uses up more resources by sending reusable diapers to the cleaning service than if she used disposables."

Okay, I don't actually do that. But my Evil Twin would.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:46PM|#

Rich Ard,

The clique has collapsed quite quickly.

_______________________________

(A) This isn't Stalinist. If it were Stalinist the government would have lined up most of the folks at Harper-Collins and shot them. Then they would have renamed Harper-Collins with some appropriately sinister acronym as the Soviets renamed most companies following their takeover.

(B) What Harper-Collins is doing is rather silly and will likely backfire on the anti-smoking activists by making this "secret knowledge" something kids and/or adults something that they will more readily talk about.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:51PM|#

As to "historical reality," well, we change that all the time.

Case in point, the stock market crash of 1929. Now, if you take a gander at the Congressional Record you'll note that what everyone is talking about are swindles by dealers and underwriters. Now, in the 1990s, someone does some actual analysis of what was going on at the time and finds that most of the muckraking about swindles, etc. was way overblown. Which makes one wonder, were the the '33 and '34 Acts really necessary? And if they were, were they written with a real problem in mind?

jadagul|11.18.05 @ 12:28AM|#

My main reaction to this: they don't have any photos of Clement Hurd sans-cigarette? Any at all?

I guess I understand the urge to keep kids from seeing cigarettes, although it seems a bit over-the-top (although this may be because I'm still young enough that I'm keenly aware of and offended by things my parents kept from me; and my parents were pretty open). But this seems a bit creepy anyway. I mean, the guy was that obsessed with cigarettes?

|11.18.05 @ 1:43AM|#

OT, but I just realized that if you don't enunciate the "H" in "Hurd" carefully, his name sounds like "Clement Turd."

And that reminded me of something else. When my friend's oldest boy was really little, he couldn't pronounce "firetruck." For some reason -- and I swear this is true -- he pronounced it something like "f'uck." Which was something the adults enjoyed.

UNCLE STEVO (at window): Jeremy, look outside! Look at the firetruck!

JEREMY: F'uck! F'uck!

UNCLE STEVO: There they go! (Gets hit with inspiration, even though it's a bit of a stretch) Say good-bye to the firetruckers!

JEREMY: Bye-bye, f'uckers!

Kids can be a lot of fun sometimes.

Note: He grew out of his pronunciation trouble before he went to kindergarten.

Oh. That reminds me of something else. When I was eight and my brother was four, our dad told us a version of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" that was the same as the original version, except that for his own amusement he changed the main character. He told it as "Tempest Storm and the Three Bears."

Tempest Storm was a burlesque stripper, circa 1950.

I'd heard the story of the three bears many times already, but it was new to my brother and he thought the "Tempest Storm" version was the real version. When my dad later tried to tell the original Goldilocks version, my brother would protest, "No, Dad -- it was Tempest Storm!"

Mom was pissed off at Dad because she was afraid my brother would start "correcting" people after he started going to school and heard references to the Goldilocks tale there.

I tell this tale because it might help you people better understand me and my upbringing.

My dad is also the author of the unpublished bumperstickers "It takes a village to tease an idiot" and "Has your dog hugged your leg today?"

|11.18.05 @ 5:58AM|#

I saw a performance of Macbeth in Boulder where the director saw fit to insert an ugly portrayal of anti-Semitism in the play to try to balance out the fact that Shylock is both Jewish and reprehensible.

If you saw a performance of Macbeth that included Shylock in it, it had much bigger problems than potential anti-Semitism!

|11.18.05 @ 6:16AM|#

He was probably thinking of Merchant of the Tempest.

|11.18.05 @ 6:21AM|#

There is no parenting expert. All parents are amateurs. Some fuck up more than others.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 7:05AM|#

Macbeth: The Shylock Strikes Back

Rich Ard|11.18.05 @ 7:19AM|#

"All parents are amateurs. Some fuck up more than others."

You mean those of us with more than one kid?

:)

|11.18.05 @ 7:43AM|#

More kids gives you more chances to fuck up.

Rich Ard|11.18.05 @ 8:12AM|#

Don't I know it!

|11.18.05 @ 9:45AM|#

To make my first comment a bit more clear,

HarperCollins didn't airbrush the thing as some socio-political statement about health and smoking, they airbrushed it so they wouldn't have to deal with the anti-smoking nut jobs who would hassle them. In other words, if you think joe's bad... (kerry would have been worse, yada yada)

|11.18.05 @ 10:00AM|#

If you saw a performance of Macbeth that included Shylock in it, it had much bigger problems than potential anti-Semitism!

Yep. Of course I meant The Merchant of Venice.
Sorry.

|11.18.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Perhaps typing an incorrect Shakespeare title will inspire from me yet another resolution to start using the Preview button!

|11.18.05 @ 10:34AM|#

...and then it hit me that part of the reason I reacted to joe's suggestion negatively--the suggestion that he knows more about parenting because he's a parent--was because...ahem...Jennifer's a woman, so she should know more about raising children.

Well, I probably shouldn't admit this at this point, since it looks like I have some support from a number of people who feel that non-parents can know what it's like to parent, too.... and those people will probably think I'm a sexist pig now for saying this....but I was kind of thinking the same thing to an extent. I'm not saying that any woman is better than any man at parenting; I am only saying that part of the reason I'd know what it's like to be a parent is because I'm a woman. I don't usually stereotype, but I'm willing to admit that women typically do have "nuturing" instincts. (And I don't want to hear any requests for a backrub and a sandwich from any of the guys here...). At the same time, I fully admit that my bowstaff skillz and nunchuck skillz are not those of a man.

Viking Moose|11.18.05 @ 10:37AM|#

you've got skillz, smacky.

Stevo: naughty. go to your room.

|11.18.05 @ 10:40AM|#

More kids give you more reasons to get fucked up.

|11.18.05 @ 10:44AM|#

I'm getting by raising my four without womanly instincts. In fact, one is strapped to my belly right now. Even a man can figure out when to pick the kid up.

|11.18.05 @ 10:54AM|#

Paul, you "know" an awful lot of things about me that aren't true. I'm sure it makes you feel better to think so, though.

The photos of authors on book covers are not "history." Get back to me when someone wants to airbrush Churchill's cigar out of a history book.

And no, I'd rather not have pictures of people shooting smack or beating slaves on my kids' storybooks, either. Call me crazy...

snarla, there's a difference between a three year old seeing someone do something on the street, and seeing it on her favorite storybook, you know?

Number 6, "My objection to the sort of mentality many parents have is that they want to impose their will on everyone else so the world will be one they find approriate for their little Buffy or Todd." Actually, it's you who want to impose your will on HarperCollins. You want to buy your kids storybooks with people smoking in them? Knock yourself out. But, please, sir, is ok if I feel differently, just this once?

V Moose|11.18.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Joe:

Happy Friday to you!

how do you feel about the FDR memorial
there are quotes out of context to make it appear he is some sort of equal rights, environmentalist
there was a huge bruhaha about showing his chair.
and he wasn't smoking, his trademark wasnt' there?

To Number 6's point: isn't that what consumers do when they patronize or reject a place of business?

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 11:15AM|#

V Moose,

Showing his wheelchair was such a P.C. move.

No, I don't recall there being any images of him there smoking, though he loved to smoke, drink, stay up late, etc. with Churchill.

Viking Moose|11.18.05 @ 11:18AM|#

exactly :)

not disabled. just alternatively abled.

|11.18.05 @ 11:20AM|#

Joe,

Each kid is different. My son enjoys reading, but he just does not get particularly emotionally attached to books. Perhaps my daughter will when she gets older, who knows. If your kid gets emotionally attached to books, I can see your point somewhat. I can tell you that for my son, what the author of his favorite story is doing on the cover of the book would not make a bit of difference in his development.

And of course, HarperCollins can do whatever its customers demand.

Rich Ard|11.18.05 @ 11:22AM|#

smacky, I think that it's silly to think that a non-parent can really know what it's like to be a parent; it's almost completely a trial-and-error process, and I've learned more from just being a parent than I have from reading about it or hearing anecdotes from others.

I don't think that means that I'm going to be a better parent to my kids when they turn six than someone who adopts a six-year-old - but I think the lessons learned via total responsibility for another human or two have totally changed my outlook on life in general, and particularly on kids.

As far as the 'soccer-mom effect' - for me, at least, having kids has made me value individualism more than I did when I was at Objectivist Society rallies; being involved personally with someone tiny, and knowing that the state's power over me has increased as a result, has made me more focused and vocal about my beliefs. I believe more strongly now than I did before I had kids that the state hasn't the right (nor the ability) to act in a supervisory role toward my children.

Boy am I glad there are no pictures of Eric Carle or Maurice Sendak on their kiddie books! (On my copies at least).

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 11:25AM|#

Viking Moose,

Of course, you also aren't likely to get any idea of him as a philanderer either, or that he was and remains a controversial President for many. Of course, just about every damn monument, etc. in D.C. has such whitewashes and omissions.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 11:29AM|#

Viking Moose,

Its a bit like the anti-slavery quotation attributed to Jefferson at the Jefferson Memorial. If you read that thing you'd think that Jefferson was some abolitionist figure who cared deeply about the welfare of slaves in the U.S. The problem is that the language is taken so much out of context that it doesn't reflect his true views on the slavery question - especially his views as a mature adult. Its one of the worst examples I can cite as P.C. bullshit (P.C. bullshit from the 1930s no less) run amok.

Viking Moose (ouais je suis fo|11.18.05 @ 11:34AM|#

good call, Hak.

FDR as plilanderer sure is a joke among the norwegian royal family.

a few years back the king was headed to DC and at the press conference, there were jokes a-plenty about FDR, etc. (also, they use the Du form with their royalty.)

that's really a good call about Jefferson. damn. two snaps and a circle to you, good sir knight.

back to fdr: it sure is pretty. and, as you've noted, it is worth a look-see.

i'm still not a fan of the WW2 memorial.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Viking Moose,

I actually haven't seen it in person (every time I am in D.C. since it opened I just don't have time to get over there). So I'll reserve my judgment.

My favorite new memorial remains the Korean War Memorial. My biological father fought in Korea and it reminds me of what he told me of the war there - especially if you go look at it at night when its cold and misty.

|11.18.05 @ 11:43AM|#

I think that it's silly to think that a non-parent can really know what it's like to be a parent; it's almost completely a trial-and-error process, and I've learned more from just being a parent than I have from reading about it or hearing anecdotes from others.

Different strokes for different folks, Rich Ard.

I've done my fair share of babysitting as a teen, and again I don't think it requires that I be a parent of my own child (adoptive or biological) for me to know about kids.

Also, I don't think considering children as smaller people is necessarily incorrect. You are probably making assumptions as to how I treat other adults! Granted, I wouldn't treat a child exactly the way I would treat an adult, but there are many similarities in communication between people, no matter what their age.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 11:46AM|#

Indeed, the Korean War Memorial is more "honest" than many monuments in D.C., which may be why it turns so many people off. People don't want to be reminded of the Eight Army's retreat.

Viking Moose|11.18.05 @ 11:51AM|#

Hak:

understood and agreed.

two of my dad's good friends fell during the retreat.

although I still like MASH.

Rich Ard|11.18.05 @ 12:06PM|#

I've done my fair share of babysitting as a teen, and again I don't think it requires that I be a parent of my own child (adoptive or biological) for me to know about kids.

Fair enough - I don't think we're going to resolve much here, but I'll try (and probably fail) to get in the last word by presuming that there's a difference between a fair share of babysitting and 24/7 responsibility that lasts for years or a lifetime.

You are probably making assumptions as to how I treat other adults!

Well, I've never gotten to observe you interacting with any adults. :)

Granted, I wouldn't treat a child exactly the way I would treat an adult, but there are many similarities in communication between people, no matter what their age.

I guess I won't be able to tell you if my manner of communication with my kids is the right one for another twenty or thirty years - but I'm lookin' forward to finding out.

|11.18.05 @ 12:10PM|#

The more my kids are exposed to smoking the more they dislike it. If someone lights up within a 100 yards or so, they raise their noses to the air and exclaim "yeeuuww". Photos of people smoking will not induce them to pick up the habit. Their grandmother has cigarette-induced emphysema and she is a constant reminder to them of the consequences of this addiction.

I agree with Jennifer that photos and history in general should not be altered - by any government. If an individual or private entity wants to alter photos they should be allowed to do anything they want if it does not cause harm to the people in the photographs.

Smacky - I think you would make a fine parent. I find that the kids respond very favorably to respect. They eschew actions which may cause them to lose my respect. They do respond to the stick, but the carrot is more effective and has far more staying power.

|11.18.05 @ 12:15PM|#

Washington DC in "Monuments Only Emphasizing Good Things About Their Subjects" SHOCKER!!!!!

|11.18.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Jennifer,

If tacky makeup was found to cause 20,000 deaths per year, and be both physically and psychologically addictive, I'd have no problem with a company toning down an author photo on a children's book that showed the author with tacky makeup. If it was being done just to make the author look more modern an hip, I'd consider it silly and shallow, but certainly not Stalinist.

Stop pretending that the objection to smoking is merely a change in social norms.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 12:41PM|#

How we view smoking is indeed a change in social norms.

|11.18.05 @ 12:43PM|#

smacky,

When you babysit or visit with nephews, you only have to think tactically. When you are a parent, you have to think strategically. Dig?

Moose,

While FDR was not what one would consider, in contemporary terms, an environmentalist or equal rights crusader, he was a progressive thinker who articulated principles of conservation and equality quite eloquently, and acted on them in ways that allowed those who came after him to build on. The same can be said of Jefferson - while he was a slaveowner, he also articulated a vision of freedom and equality that worked its way into our thoughts, themes that provided the basis for the abolitionist movement. In the same way, the Magna Carta was just a list of powers that nobles had over their peasants, but it was also a forerunner of much greater statements of rights.

|11.18.05 @ 12:45PM|#

Stop pretending that the objection to smoking is merely a change in social norms.

If it isn't a change in social norms, then what would you call it?

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 12:45PM|#

Next joe will tell us that mercury isn't used in OTC medications. :) Better look at the ingrediaents of eyedrops next time.

For some women, make-up appears to be psychologically addictive as they won't be caught dead without it.

Viking Moose|11.18.05 @ 12:46PM|#

"While FDR was not what one..."

dude - that's exactly why i like your posts. very cool answer. oh yeah!

fantastic post!

|11.18.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Clement? He sounds like a weirdo!

|11.18.05 @ 12:50PM|#

When you babysit or visit with nephews, you only have to think tactically. When you are a parent, you have to think strategically.

Um, earth to joe: "tactics" and "strategics" are the same thing!

|11.18.05 @ 12:52PM|#

For all Joe's insistence that makeup and cigarettes are different, I'm sure he'd strongly object to his daughter looking at a picture of a woman dressed like a stereotypical hooker, even if the hooker-outfit was perfectly respectable in whatever culture the woman was from. And if he were raised in a time where "only bad women wear face paint" he would be objecting to a makeup-photo just as strenuously as he's objecting to the cigarette photo. Because he shouldn't HAVE to explain to his daughter that there are women who wear clothes showing certain body parts, or women who paint their faces even though the daughter must never, ever do this.

And I ask him again: why can't they just crop the cig out of the picture, rather than just altering the reality of what a picture looks like?

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 12:59PM|#

joe,

...he was a progressive thinker who articulated principles of conservation and equality quite eloquently...

Are we talking about the same FDR who viewed black people as lazy, mentally inferior, devoid of good character, etc.? That FDR? The same FDR who dragged his heels on anti-lynching legislation? You are one of these oh so typical liberals who knows shit about about FDR's real actions and attitudes.

...he also articulated a vision of freedom and equality that worked its way into our thoughts...

Which means that it gives one license to lie about his views on slavery? Its one thing to quote him honestly, its quite another to quote him out of context and otherwise string together language in a dishonest fashion so as to hide and obfuscate his views on slavery and black people.

In the same way, the Magna Carta was just a list of powers that nobles had over their peasants, but it was also a forerunner of much greater statements of rights.

It was far more than that. Dude, quit buying into myths. Research the assertions that you make instead of living in ignorance.

* royal hunting lands were reduced in size so that all the population could partake of them

* at least two sections refer to political liberties for all free men (a sizeable portion of the population at the time that grew with end of serfdom in the 14th century)

* Article 39 is the most important of the articles:

No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

|11.18.05 @ 12:59PM|#

...FDR...was a progressive thinker who articulated principles of conservation and equality quite eloquently, and acted on them in ways that allowed those who came after him to build on.

Progressive thinker or reacting to his times?

Articulation is not causation. What conservation and equality padingas did he act on?

|11.18.05 @ 12:59PM|#

"If it isn't a change in social norms, then what would you call it?"

A change in the understanding of its objective effects.

smacky, no, they're not. I'll try to think of a less obscure analogy.

Jennifer, on the "picture of a hooker" thing: no, not really.

"And I ask him again: why can't they just crop the cig out of the picture, rather than just altering the reality of what a picture looks like?" I don't know. Maybe they liked the composition of the picture - the way he was sitting or standing or whatever. Maybe it looked awkward to zoom in. Maybe it was just easier. You'd have to ask the layout people at HarperCollins.

|11.18.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Jennifer, when, in your estimation, is it ever OK to airbrush a photo?

|11.18.05 @ 1:04PM|#

D Anglehone,

"Progressive thinker or reacting to his times?"

Both.

For example, he wanted to fund a massive system to public works as a response to unemployment. (No, I'm not terribly interested in discussing whether this was a good idea or not in this thread). There were any number of directions he could have gone in; but among the efforts he organized was the CCC, which carried out forestation projects, anti-erosion projects, and the construction of recreational facilities in national parks. Reaction to circumstances, and progressive vision.

I guess that answers your second question, too.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 1:05PM|#

smacky,

The tactical and the strategic are different.

Tactical refers to the actual engagement of say troops in warfare. The way one infiltrates a "box" of defended howitzers is the tactical aspect of warfare.

Strategic refers to overarching, global plans say in warfare. Its one's mission statement; one's plan of action; one's overall methodology.

|11.18.05 @ 1:07PM|#

smacky,

When you babysit or visit your nephews, you only have to worry about putting the closet where the plans say it goes.

When you are a parent, you have to design the house.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 1:10PM|#

joe,

For example, he wanted to fund a massive system to public works as a response to unemployment.

Of course, the Nazis did the same thing.

...but among the efforts he organized was the CCC...

The Nazis had their own version of this.

Did similar programs make the Nazis progressive too?

|11.18.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Hakluyt,

I knew you were going to say something like that. How do you know that distinction between the two? I mean, where is it written that tactics are what you say they are, and strategics are likewise as you define them? They seem virtually synonymous to me.

|11.18.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Jennifer, when, in your estimation, is it ever OK to airbrush a photo?

If you want to release your own photo and airbrush out your flaws, go right ahead. I'm not offended by airbrushed Playboy Bunnies, and I wouldn't criticize Bush if he had his staff airbrush out a pimple before releasing a press photo. What I find offensive is airbrushing a photo to change the view of the reality in which it was taken.

Think of my earlier analogy: the photo of me at a table with persons A, B and C. Cropping the photo so that person C isn't in it--fine. Airbrushing the photo so that the whole table is visible but person C just isn't there--NOT fine. The latter case tries to present a false view of history: "Here's Jennifer at the DC gathering sitting at a table with A and B. No C, though. Person C just wasn't there, or if he was he wasn't sitting at Jennifer's table. Nope."

I find that objectionable.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Also, the legacy of the CCC is fairly problematic. All the fishery projects they undertook ended up weakening the stock of "natural" species in Western rivers, particularly rainbow trout and the various types of salmon.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 1:17PM|#

smacky,

How do I know? Well, reading a lot of military history, etc. helps.

Viking Moose|11.18.05 @ 1:17PM|#

strategy:
over all plan.
we're gonna shock and awe them.

tactics:
today we're gonna blow (tee hee hee) that bridge head (tee hee hee).

tomorrow we're gonna work our way north to highway 69 (tee hee hee) and thrust (oh my) westwards.

all the while the french marines with engineer journalists will be heading through the western desert (cue Midnight Oil "beds are burning")

the division chair has the strategy.
your boss executes the tactics.

or: like the difference between a nanny and an Au pair.

|11.18.05 @ 1:19PM|#

joe,

Like I said, I never said knowing about kids is the same thing as actually raising them.

My initial objection was to your claim that people who "don't want kids" supposedly know very little about them or how to raise them. As I already said, aside from that being totally condescending, I don't think you can grasp the fact that some people do know a lot about kids, and how to raise them, and still don't want them. Despite what you believe, there are people like I described in this world. I think you are confusing understanding with appreciating.

|11.18.05 @ 1:20PM|#

I'm not offended by airbrushed Playboy Bunnies, and I wouldn't criticize Bush if he had his staff airbrush out a pimple before releasing a press photo. What I find offensive is airbrushing a photo to change the view of the reality in which it was taken.

I find the difference between removing a pimple and removing a cigarette to be "changing the view of reality" by about exactly the same amount, which is to say, indistinguishable from not at all. What important history is being glossed over if we do not know that, at that date, on that time, in the fraction of a second that that particular camera shutter opened and closed, Clement Hurd was holding a cigarette?

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 1:20PM|#

Like much of the conservation history of the U.S. government (especially in the West), the CCC ended up doing many things that really caused a lot of problems. This was in part because a lot of what they did were busy work programs.

|11.18.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Phil--
It's the difference between a cosmetic change versus a complete re-editing of reality. Whether or not you had a pimple when you were photographed says nothing about you as a person. What you chose to do, or what props you held when you were photographed, does.

If photography existed in Jefferson's day, I would oppose a modern person photoshopping a picture to make it look as though Jefferson regularly had dinner with black people and treated them as equals. I don't CARE that it's a prettier notion than the reality was--an ugly truth is better than a pretty lie.

|11.18.05 @ 1:25PM|#

I should add that I have, in fact, done exactly what you mention in your second example, Jennifer. A couple of years ago, my office staff attended an event at which we had a picture taken. We wanted to use the photo for something else, but there was someone else in it -- a vendor -- who we didn't want. So, I Photoshopped him out by cloning the wall we were standing against, then created the half of my body that been blocked by him by copying and mirror-imaging the other half and pasted it in.

Did I "change history" in any appreciable manner?

|11.18.05 @ 1:29PM|#

Np, Phil, you didn't. But if the photo were released in its original form, and then some time later you decided to airbrush out the vendor because he got arrested for some embarrassing sex crime and you don't want to admit that you were even photographed with him--THEN that would be dishonest.

And again: I have no problem with photo-cropping, which everybody KNOWS has been cropped; I just take offense to altering the protrayed reality.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 1:30PM|#

Jennifer,

If you ever visit Monticello you'll notice the incredible effort he went to hide his slaves from guests, etc.

|11.18.05 @ 2:09PM|#

For example, he wanted to fund a massive system to public works as a response to unemployment. (No, I'm not terribly interested in discussing whether this was a good idea or not in this thread). There were any number of directions he could have gone in; but among the efforts he organized was the CCC, which carried out forestation projects, anti-erosion projects, and the construction of recreational facilities in national parks. Reaction to circumstances, and progressive vision.

The commentary of Robert McNamara in Fog of War brought back a widely held view that FDR, Keynes and others 'saved capitalism' (not McNamara's words). Saved it, apparently, from various radical statisms(sic) that were filling the space left by a flagging faith in liberal structures. It's been a while (if ever) since any libertarian publications have addressed that era comprehensively and this might be a good time for that.

My take on FDR's regime is ambivalent. Given what he inherited, could he have done what we libertarians wish he had done? I dunno. That said, I do not agree that FDR's public works projects were anything to be called progressive or that they paved the way, so to speak, for any discernible future good. They were good enough for government work and little else.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 2:15PM|#

D Anghelone,

Well, since government actions were at the heart of the Great Depression, it wasn't capitalism that was the problem. Of course, the proper Senholzian view is that the Great Depression was actually four distinct periods.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 2:20PM|#

D Anghelone,

Then again, it was the Republicans who pursued a disasterous inflationary monetary policy in the 1920s and made the economic dislocation one hundred times worse by passing Smoot-Hawley in 1930 (which ruined American agriculture).

|11.18.05 @ 2:40PM|#

Jennifer, if I buy a copy of a book with headshot of the author on the back, how do I "know it's been cropped?"

If I buy a copy of "Goodnight Moon" that doesn't show a cigarette in the author's hand, how do I know it's been removed?

I think your response to Phil's example of vendor - basically, that you don't like photoshopping that is done to remove something because it's considered "bad" - is more honest.

You don't like the fact that smoking is considered bad, and that people would rather not have images of it in their kids' nurseries.

|11.18.05 @ 2:40PM|#

Hakluyt,

The problem I have with libertarian standard regressive argument is in not accounting for the fact that each person must deal with the world as is. The coulda-shoulda-woulda world is never in reach. That applies as much to the FDRs as to anyone.

|11.18.05 @ 2:52PM|#

You don't like the fact that smoking is considered bad, and that people would rather not have images of it in their kids' nurseries.

No, Joe, I've already said that I agree kids shouldn't smoke. What I don't like is distorting the perception of historical reality just to Set a Good Example For The Younguns. I also dislike those old bullshit cowboy Westerns where the hero would swagger into a saloon, mosey on up to the bar. . . . and order a glass of milk. To set a good exmaple. (On the apparent assumption that otherwse, every single kid who watched said movie would run out and become an instant alcoholic.)

|11.18.05 @ 3:06PM|#

Joe:
Paul, you "know" an awful lot of things about me that aren't true. I'm sure it makes you feel better to think so, though.

Don't even go there. Your comment about me getting back to you when I have a child to raise stands on its own. You always seem to 'know' a lot about everyone here. I just know you.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 3:10PM|#

Paul,

Don't ever expect joe to admit his own hypocrisy.

Hakluyt|11.18.05 @ 3:15PM|#

D Angelhone,

Well, FDR only compounded the earlier problems created by government by his actions.

|11.18.05 @ 3:21PM|#

If I buy a copy of "Goodnight Moon" that doesn't show a cigarette in the author's hand, how do I know it's been removed?

You don't. I didn't 'know' that the press had modified the photo of the soldier standing amongst a bunch of refugees either, until it was pointed out.

Things are edited all the time for brevity, space etc. All the time. And it's understandable. But the ethics of journalism should be a good starting point. I may edit an interview for time, and even cut out certain things that were said. But, to paraphrase certain a writer, if a [...] is EVER placed which changes the fundamental meaning of the original sentence uttered, you've got an integrity problem. Does HC's airbrushing of a cigarette out of a hand come to this particular level? No, I don't personally think so. And, for the record, I don't agree (and have never said, in any post, anywhere, ever) that this rises to Stalinism.

It is, however, what it is: a creepy, heavy-handed, tired, and scared corporate tactic to try to whitewash something to protect an image. The image being that of Harper Collins-- in the end.

And people continue to try to have it both ways. Either it's 'horray for H.C.' or 'my kids are too young to get it anyway'. Well, which is it'a gonna be, young feller?

I'll reiterate: HC is well within their rights to do what they've done- as we have no reason to believe they've violated any agreements between freely associating parties. It's just shitty.

If Margaret Cho can call an act of turning off her microphone at a corporate event where she was hired as the comedian UNCONSTITUTIONAL censorship, I think we should be at least free to criticize this act for what it is.

I haven't read every single post here thoroughly, but I am not aware of one single poster, ANYWHERE suggesting that legal actions, or the government should get involved. Criticizing a corporate entity for their idiotic decisions is a perfectly legitimate function of a free society.

And, also for the record, I agree with a previous poster, that what was really going on was that H.C. was balancing their decision- trying to ward off the anti-smoking zealots who would have undoubtedly called and complained had they NOT take the cigarette out.

|11.18.05 @ 3:29PM|#

Oh, and I echo the opinion that asks why H.C. couldn't find a SINGLE photograph of the man not holding a cigarette? If H.C. had simply opted for a non-cigarette containing photograph, this would all have been much-a-do about nothing. And even if we had been alerted about what they did, I'd have merely smiled, shook my head, and gone on about my day.

But airbrushing the cigarette out? That suggests that someone is trying hard, real hard, Ringo, to get out a message.

|11.18.05 @ 3:52PM|#

Eh, I'm more irritated by the lasted revision of Strunk and White to edit out something White passionately advocated for: the use of the male singular pronoun as the generic pronoun rather than using locutions such as "he or she." As much as I prefer nonsexist usage, this latest update--unremarked upon in the text--does much more harm than merely taking a cigarette out of a picture.

|11.18.05 @ 3:59PM|#

Serafina--

What? Strunk and White are saying we should use "he or she?" A three-word generic pronoun? Agreed, that's asinine and of greater concern than the cigarette airbrushing, but it's not even the same company doing it, I don't think.

|11.18.05 @ 4:04PM|#

Eh, I'm more irritated by the lasted revision of Strunk and White to edit out something White passionately advocated for: the use of the male singular pronoun as the generic pronoun rather than using locutions such as "he or she."

Yeah, what Serafina said.

|11.18.05 @ 4:11PM|#

I was unaware that I was as bad as "people shooting smack or beating slaves".

No pictures, please, as I plan to continue my self-destructive and exploitative habit in private.

jadagul|11.18.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Wow. Yeah, that's much more annoying, Serafina. I'm also a passionate advocate of the use of the male singular pronoun as the generic. "He or she" seems kind of silly, although not terribly annoying. But there are few constructions that set my teeth on edge as much as "Every child should take out their book"-a construction that several authorities now accept as proper. I use the masculine as generic exclusively, partly in protest.

|11.18.05 @ 4:18PM|#

It would be interesting to see if the new edition of Good Night Moon ends up spurring more sales of the old edition in the used book marketplace.


Here's a recent article on the new Elements of Style edition. I misremembered a few things--the text was apparently anonymously revised in 1999--but this is essentially correct. PenguinPuntman is the publisher.

|11.18.05 @ 11:07PM|#

dagny, if and when you have a child, you will be amazed about all the things you didn't know about children.

I am amazed daily by all the things I don't know about PEOPLE, of any age, but that doesn't mean I'm about to surrender all my opininos on human nature to the first person who comes along and claims to be an expert.