Blue’s Clues Commentary: Sponsored by Viewers Like You
Back in Blue, Alright!
This post is dedicated to Marie, and viewers like her. Thank you!
I haven’t been the most prolific blogger lately, but I recently got a comment on the post “Condiment Sex Ed: Revisiting Blue’s Clues” in which Neil Degrasse Tyson, my readers, and I speculated about sex with condiments. Not people having sex with condiments, but condiments having sex with each other, just to clear that up. I’m not that foul-minded. Anyhoo, famous Astrophysicist Neil asked a Blue’s Clue’s creator how Mr. Salt and Mrs. Pepper had a baby that talked. That was him, not me, but of course I thought about it too because I think about everything.
This post was a sequel to a post I made as part of a series of reviews of children’s television shows that annoyed me as parent watching with my child. I also feel the need to point out that this post was written in 2014, and that I was not then nor am I now affiliated with any children’s T.V. stations, though I think I could come up with plenty of great preschool show ideas considering a show about talking fingers was successful. “Condiment Sex Ed” was a quite popular post, with amazing thought-provoking ideas in the comments. People still read it today. Like Marie. Marie is not the first person to comment negatively on one on my posts. In fact, I earlier detailed the bizarre number of people who were incredibly upset about my “Dragon Tales” review. I am leaving links for viewers like you (and Marie) to check out if you want to, and not just because I like link dropping.
On to Marie’s Concerned Comment:
It’s a show made for little kids. The aim is not to entertain adults. So I think it’s Wrong for Adults to find details and start turning it into adult material. I guarantee these toddlers aren’t trying to think about how salt and pepper make babies. Or Steve, Joe, and now Josh using slippery soap to wash themselves.
This is a great show that not only entertains little ones, but also educates.– Marie
Steve and Joe professing their innocence.
There are so many clues to decipher in this comment that I can hardly put my paw print on it. I will, though, because I Learned So Much. Such as:
- It is Wrong for Adults to make fun of children’s programming no matter how fun it is.
- Toddlers do not think about how salt and pepper make babies
- Steve and Joe have yet another brother (I guess?) who is stuck in the Blue house because the others somehow escaped. They better put “Mr. Lock” and “Mrs. Security System” on the job pronto.
- The soap is called “Slippery Soap”. I repeat “Slippery Soap”, guys.
- The show is entertaining and educating.
These new facts make me curious, and since this is a show about answering questions, I have several. First, how did Marie find my post? Just googling “Blue’s Clues” or “Blue’s Clues review” gives me nothing. Typing the entire title “Condiment Sex Ed: Revisiting Blue’s Clues” does bring up my name, first thing! I’m proud. I would advise you not to look up “condiment sex ed.” on its own. I wish I hadn’t. My point here, is that the only way I could think of Marie finding my post was either by researching condiments and sex ed. (shame on you, Marie) or by stumbling upon it on a Pinterest board or something, which was how many “concerned citizens” found my Dragon Tales’ post. It’s always good to read something before referencing it. At least read the title. It’s in the title.
“Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.”
Okay, here’s another question. How does she know what toddlers think about salt and pepper and baby making? I raised two toddlers, and I can safely vouch that toddlers have a lot of bizarre ideas. Sesame Street taught my brother that he “could never go down the drain” and then he was afraid of drains. Yay! If toddlers are afraid of drains sucking them down, why wouldn’t they be concerned about living soap? Or wonder about how salt and pepper got paprika? I mention in my post that a friend of Thing Two’s (my youngest child’s name – I am a Good Parent) buried a salt shaker after exposure to Blue’s Clues. So yay for education! A child thought a salt shaker had to be buried! The more you know!
This must be our new guy. Blink twice if you need help, Josh.
I’m not knocking children’s T.V. I was thrilled to have it for my children, especially those shows on P.B.S. that were free. I knew that they might learn something (hopefully not that salt is alive) and that if nothing else, it was safe. New parents do get exposed to this repetitive stuff just like toddlers, at a time when they are already in a repetitive Ground Hog Day of juice delivery and potty-training done often in isolation. They cope however they can. Considering the times we live in now, Marie, maybe you should relax and not get so uptight over someone’s thought on a children’s show. Maybe find a little humor. Or just don’t read my blog.
It’s far too educating and entertaining.
So I’ve been thinking about what to write and I’ve had no gripping, world-changing ideas lately. Because nothing compares to that whole condiment Sex Ed discussion. You can’t just hide your spices away and pretend nothing is happening people!
I could use the excuse of not being able to type on account of my fractured arm and my messed up toe (if I wrote with my toes that is). That was why I loaned my blog to Thing Two for a little bit (ten-year-olds: you give them an inch and they want your whole blog). Thing One had part of a post ready to go but then declared she was too lazy to finish it. At least she’s honest.
I can write now, even though my arm is still messed up, just as long as I don’t turn my arm like this. OW. The doc said I have to keep moving it or it will get stiff so you know, keep messin’ with that elbow. Pain is good! I have exercises for my arm that make me look like I’m doing the Robot.
So I was thinking I should get back to the old writing gig. But wait, maybe not, cause I just got a negative comment the other day from a concerned reader who Googled his name. The comment was on an old post entitled “Libraries are for Porn?” (because I am always classy) that featured a list of silly reasons people offered for banning books. Here’s a bit I lifted from that post including the list.
- “Encourages children to break dishes so they won’t have to dry them.” ( A Light in the Attic, by Shel Silverstien)
- “It caused a wave of rapes.” ( Arabian Nights, or Thousand and One Nights, anonymous)
- “If there is a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it?” ( Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, by Dee Brown)
- “Tarzan was ‘living in sin’ with Jane.” ( Tarzan, by Edgar Rice Burroughs)
- “It is a real ‘downer.’” ( Diary of Anne Frank, by Anne Frank)
- “The basket carried by Little Red Riding Hood contained a bottle of wine, which condones the use of alcohol.” ( Little Red Riding Hood, by Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm K. Grimm)
- “One bunny is white and the other is black and this ‘brainwashes’ readers into accepting miscegenation.” ( The Rabbit’s Wedding, by Garth Williams)
- “A female dog is called a bitch.” ( My Friend Flicka, by Mary O’Hara)
- “An unofficial version of the story of Noah’s Ark will confuse children.” ( Many Waters, by Madeleine C. L’Engle)
If you think no one would really suggest banning a book for such a stupid reason, you clearly have too much faith in the human race.
Anyway, here’s the comment:
Anyhoo, back to the blog. I’m wondering what to write about next (and how to make more people angry). I’ve had other themes I’ve started and never finished like Game of Thrones reviews (interest in violent nakey parody seems to have waned), the “Behind the Fairy Tale” series (I’m to Pocahontas – ZOMG how can I not do that? There’s just so much there, so many, many awful jokes), and of course my tortures of virtual people like Boppo Sadface that are my most popular posts, taking over from the Dragon Tales psychopaths who were seeking out my blog. Now people just want to know how to kill pixels. Refreshing.
But what do you want, good readers? Let me know in the comments below!
As a lifelong lover of books, but also truth, I was a bit perplexed to find my name on your “ridiculous” list. At least it was only the eighth most silly thing you listed. I guess there is some comfort to be taken in that! In actuality, I agree that the statement made as #8 on your list deserves to be there. It is really quite foolish to say that public funds funds should not be used to purchase religious books. The only problem is that I never said that. It is not to be found in anything that I ever wrote, nor do I believe it. It would be an interesting research project to find out where it came from, but that would be your job, not mine, since you wrote it. WRITING 101 tells us “Check your sources”.
Please let me know when you find out where it came from.
All Good Wishes,
I like how he framed his condescension in a happy slappy sandwich there. I offered my own good wishes in return.
Thanks for the tip on WRITING 101. Now here are some tips on READING COMPREHENSION. If you will notice, I have the title and author of the book in ellipses, not the name of the person quoted. So that means that someone else said your book should not have been in the library for said reason. If you take a look, you’ll see that it would have been difficult for Anne Frank to gripe about her own book as she has been dead for quite some time. Now I don’t know who the person quoted was – the website doesn’t state names. It could have been an administrator or a teacher or parent or someone off the street. A lot of people want to ban things for stupid reasons.
I clearly pointed out my source as the American Library Association. If you will look above the list you will see the link to the their website. I checked the link and now the page of quotes has been removed or relocated because this post is actually three years old and the internet changes rapidly. I will still remove the quote about your book as this seems to distress you.