You see, my wife had bought juicy, deli franks. The ones with the sausage like casings. And as the dogs heated up on the grill, they made a little squeaking/hissing sound.

My daughter was in tears, “they’re screaming, Daddy!” she sobbed. And how could i make them stop? Poke a hole in it? Lift them off the flame?

The kids know hot dogs are meat and technically not “dogs” but they don’t understand the whole processed food. And to see them “plump when you cook ‘em” and to make a noise as the pressure burst the casing was just too much.

They obviously didn’t eat any hot dogs (I wonder if they ever will again), but did come back out and join us.

I attempted to explain what they had witnessed by heating a “steam in the bag” vegetable pack in the microwave, but I’m not sure it took.

We’ll see. But one thing’s for sure. We won’t be having hot dogs this weekend.

When the 60′s came around, people wanted something more real on television, so they were given less traditional families. A witch for a wife, a widower with three sons, a blended family with six kids and even a widowed black woman who was a mother and a nurse, not a maid, but a nurse. The public loved these newer , less traditional sitcoms and yet nobody seemed to notice that they all had one thing in common, everyone was happy and well-adjusted.

It wasn’t until the 70′s that TV sitcoms started showing folks some of the hard parts about being a family. Due to the genius of Norman Lear, American’s learned about how tough it can be to raise kids when you are a divorced mother, an impoverished widow living in the projects or a feminist living in a male-dominated world. Things got pretty real on television. Abortion, drugs, gangs and child abuse were no longer just seen on cop shows, they were problems that affected children and families in all walks of life. And yet, with the exception of the random actor who wanted to be written out of a series, everyone in the family survived. It all turned out fine.

I know I’m not the first person to recognize that real life is not like television, but I’m also not the first guy to wish that just once, his kids could come home with no bigger problem than a B in math and actually take the advice their given.

I know things are pretty tough these days. It’s hard to make ends meet, the future seems unclear and sometimes it seems like there’s nowhere to turn. But if you’re like me, Andy Griffith, Ralph Kramden or Danny Tanner, you’re lucky enough to have a close friend you can count on. Remember what neighbors and friends are for and no matter what decade in which you were born, you’re never too old for a best friend.

Of course, if you’re like Carl Winslow or Jerry Seinfeld, I got nothing for you.

Hear more from the King of TV on The Paul Goebel Show podcast and at his website, www.TheKingofTV.com. You can also follow Paul on Twitter @PaulGoebelShow.

We’re in the fruit section of the grocery store, and mom picks out a bunch of bananas.  She hands her son, who is about five years old, a banana.  Her son starts crying about the piece of fruit, saying, “You gave me a banana!”  Mom says, “You didn’t want a banana?”  To which the son again says, “You gave me a banana!” in even bigger hysterics.  She asks if he would like her to take back the banana.  Same response.  She asks if he would like a different banana.  Same response, he’s just very upset that she gave him a banana.

So to recap the situation mom found herself in, the child was upset not at something he did not get, but at something he was given, a piece of fruit.  Mom stayed cool, and calm, and continued to reason with the child.  No mean trick, because a five year old doesn’t have reasoning skills.  But these are the moments when they develop.  Getting to the bottom of a child’s perceptions is tricky, and it’s very easy to give in to anger and miss an opportunity.

I don’t know if we ever got to the bottom of did he or did he not want a banana, but she did get the child to calm down without placating and without yelling (by the way, if you yell sometimes, that’s fine, you’re human).  Now, something else you should know.  Her child is autistic.

When you are in the grocery store, and you see other parents dealing with a child, and you think they are being pushovers, you think the child should be spanked, you just plain think it should be handled differently, remember, you don’t know the story.  I heard some people at that grocery store wonder aloud what that mother’s problem was.  I will answer their question.  She didn’t have a problem.  She was in the grocery store with an amazing kid who needs some extra attention so he can grow up and function.  The problem lies in the adults who forgot about compassion, and forgot, more importantly to shut their mouth until they had the whole story.  Love to child and mother.

Hear more from Jim on The Paul Goebel Show podcast and at his Conspiracy Nut blog, http://theconspiracynut.blogspot.com/. You can also follow Jim on Twitter @ComicJimBruce.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+1×0 =?

As of noon PST on Tuesday June 14, the correct answer was NOt the most popular answer.

781,143 people believe the expression is equal to 0.

[These people are forgetting their order of operations. The 0 is multiplied by the final 1 and this takes place before any addition or subtraction.]

185,218 people belive the expression is equal to 16.

[These people are simply being careless and not noticing that there is a minus sign mixed in with the addition signs.]

34,805 people believe the expression is equal to 17.

[We can only assume these people miscounted the number of ones or counted all the digits. Either way, the answer is wrong.]

Only 663,922 people (barely 40% of the sample) would make their math teachers proud because they recognize the correct answer to be 14.

The most troubling part to us is the fact that the question is treated as an opinion problem as opposed to having a single correct answer.

These athletes learn skills that are important for lifelong success. They learn about sportsmanship, dedication, self-esteem, and self worth. They must learn to work together as a team. They must overcome differences between teammates and become a cohesive unit. They are pushed to do their best at all times, to give 110%. They are determined and hardworking to achieve goals. The cheerleading organization that we are part of does not allow any negative behaviors or attitudes (including towards other teams). They believe that it is more important to show good character and sportsmanship. They have made it their philosophy to foster the important qualities of integrity, loyalty, respect, hard work, dedication, commitment, and structure in order to develop world class competitors.

The cheerleaders also learn some life lessons that are not fun, but they are part of life. Sometimes even though the team does their best, they still don’t win. There may be another team that had a slightly higher level of difficulty, or maybe their performance was a little bit cleaner. The cheerleaders have to learn to handle disappointment and instead show good sportsmanship and congratulate the winners. And they hold on to that hope that next time they will perform a little bit better, and they may win first place at their next competition. Then there is the situation where a teammate makes a mistake – drops a stunt or falls during tumbling. The cheerleaders have to learn how to handle this situation – do they get angry at the teammate and blame them, or do reassure them that it’s ok and encourage them for next time?

Nicole and her teammates work harder than any other athletes I have seen. They practice 2-3 times per week (sometimes more during competition season), and practices are 2-3 hours each. They are required to wear specific practice clothes and they must be on time or the entire team must do conditioning exercises. They cannot miss practice without prior permission from their coach, and only for certain “excused” reasons. They are taught to be disciplined. Like I said, it is hardcore. But Nicole loves it, and I love it too.

One of the benefits of Nicole keeping so busy with cheer is that she doesn’t have time to get into trouble! I believe that kids who are home alone and bored are the most likely kids to get into trouble. I also believe that children will behave similarly to those around them. If your child is hanging with the wrong crowd, they are likely to get into trouble. I’m sure the kids on the cheer team aren’t perfect, but they seem to be really good kids! They are just as dedicated as Nicole, and I have met all their families, who are just as involved and supportive of their children.

Nicole has had to learn to prioritize her time to make sure she gets her homework and chores done, since cheer practice takes up so much of her time. Sometimes she can’t go to social events because she has practice, but she understands that she must be 100% committed to her sport. As long as she is fully committed to this, and she keeps her grades up, I will continue to support my daughter with this extra-curricular activity.

This is a link to Intensity All-Stars, the cheer gym we are part of: http://www.intensityallstars.com/
This is a link to a video on YouTube showing my daughter and her cheer team at a national competition in Las Vegas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgH0cg-xtKI

All things being equal, we lean toward the “healthy” looking variations – Simply Jif, for example. Lately we’ve been buying Jif with Omega-3 added.

We do it, because we feel like we should, but to be honest… I’m not so sure we’re doing the right thing.

The value of buying this product is debated by various sites. This one in particular outlines just how “not so good” the omega-3 enriched peanut butter is.

My main goal is to get my kids to realize that there are various degrees of healthy foods.  That some food choices are wiser than others. We talk about misleading advertising all the time, so at some point I will get into whether this is really that good of a product. But for now, I’m happy to have them thinking that the green jar of peanut butter is the healthy one because it has that extra oil in it. (do they have to declare it’s fish oil right on the label? geez!)

Whether that particular ingredient really does make the food better for you is something we can discuss as they get older. Similarly, we can talk about the moral aspects of misleading people and what parts of the pitch make it so alluring. I know that it’s not as good as advertised, but I’m using them just as they are using me in a way… I’m using the advertising to begin (just lay the groundwork, I’m saying) to educate my kids on healthy eating.

In the meantime, I’m trying to stay aware that in many ways I’m just loading them up with sugar saturated peanut butter flavored icing.

10. Homer Simpson (The Simpsons)
It’s very easy to be a complete moron when you’re animated, but Homer makes it seem like a calling. By being the dad who continually puts his kids lives in danger, Homer has become the archetype for the stupid but lovable patriarch

9. Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Peter, on the other hand is pure evil disguised as a boob. Not only is he completely disinterested in the well-being of his family but, at times, he seems determined to drive them to patricide. Just the sight of his naked body alone would push any normal child over the edge.

8. Dr. Tobias Funke (Arrested Development)
Hilarity aside, Tobias has to be the most clueless dad to ever appear on TV. I admit it didn’t help that every other Bluth was completely self-involved but only a true moron would refuse to remove a hair transplant that is clearly killing him.

7. Phil Dunphy (Modern Family)
In Phil’s case, his stupidity may not be all his fault. Since two of his three kids are total morons, he probably makes an effort to stay at their level. Whatever the reason, being a stupid dad, clearly works for him.

6. Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men)
It’s hard to pick between Alan’s stupidity or his lack of spine when determining his worst quality. In any case, it’s a good thing, his son, Jake is so intellectually challenged. That way, Alan can get away with fatherly advice like, “fire…bad”.

5. Jim Orenthal (According to Jim)
The only advice worthwhile that this dad had to give is how to land a smoking hot wife when you’re an unfunny, overweight jagoff. Too bad he only had daughters.

4. Ted Lawson (Small Wonder)
Only on a terrible show like Small Wonder could a father be smart enough to build a lifelike android but so stupid he found her antics funny.

3. Herman Munster (The Munsters)
There is no question that Herman was a loving father but his childish reaction to adversity is really inappropriate. How is little Eddie supposed to learn to be a responsible adult if his role model stomps a hole into the the floor whenever he doesn’t get his way?

2. Arthur Spooner (King of Queens)
Maybe he has Alzheimer’s, maybe he doesn’t, but in any case, Arthur was a handful. I’ll say this much, if he wasn’t sick and it was all an act, he belongs on the list of genius dads.

1. Tim Taylor (Home Improvement)
Not only is Tim Taylor the stupidest dad on television but he revels in his stupidity. He seems to associate being dumb with being a man. So instead of educating himself, he decorates his body with manly accessories and puts his limbs in danger of being mangled. So the question is did his three boys grow up and decide to avoid being a living stereotype like their dad or did they meet an unfortunate end with the help of a miswired power mower?

Hear more from the King of TV on The Paul Goebel Show podcast and at his website, www.TheKingofTV.com. You can also follow Paul on Twitter @PaulGoebelShow.

I’m not going to use this blog as a way to refute these arguments, instead I’d like to give specific examples to defend the medium that I have come to love.

Television is great because it is directly responsible for the creation of the Muppets.

Most everybody knows that Jim Henson started his career as a puppeteer at a local television show. While he was a freshman in college he created his own children’s show called Sam and Friends, a five minute program which featured puppets that anyone could recognize as early versions of Kermit the Frog and Rowlf the Dog.

What people don’t know is why Jim Henson became a puppeteer. It’s a very easy explanation. Henson’s childhood was a simple one and for his family, television was considered a luxury. So when a family friend got a television, naturally he was curious as to what it was all about. What he saw changed his life.

After spending an entire afternoon watching his friend’s TV, Henson was so determined to be on television himself, that the next day he ran down to the local television station and took whatever job he could get. The only job they had available for a young man with no experience was as a puppeteer on their local children’s show. From there, Henson went on to create one of the most beloved, creative and recognized franchises in the history of entertainment.

So whether it’s the TV shows, the films, the cartoons or the theme park rides, you have television to thank for the majesty that is the Muppets.

Hear more from the King of TV on The Paul Goebel Show podcast and at his website, www.TheKingofTV.com. You can also follow Paul on Twitter @PaulGoebelShow.

4 of the 6 children, including the youngest, had no problem opening a childproof pill bottle.
All 6 of the children were familiar with the push-before-turning mechanism, but only 4 of the children could actually implement the move and successfully open the bottle.

This raises a number of questions.

1. Are childproof bottle caps truly worth their cost?  Most likely the answer is “yes,” in that they did stop 2 of the 6 children from opening the bottle and we were working with a very small and unScientific sample.
2. Is there a more effective childproof cap to be developed? Again, the answer is most likely “yes.” There is no excuse for our 4-year-old to have been able to open the bottle. Similarly, it is sickening to hear someone assert that “if she is smart enough to open the bottle, she is probably smart enough to not mistake the pills for candy.”
3. Are childproof bottle caps environmentally sound? They have an extra layer of rubber or plastic or some such thing inside the threads. One would assume there is more plastic involved in the creation of these bottle caps than in others.

You can find many examples of mini-experiments testing the effectiveness of childproof caps online. For example, we found this 2009 report from Seattle’s King 5 News. Their results were, sadly, similar to ours.

What are your experiences with childproof caps on medicine bottles?  Please share your thoughts below.

Now that that’s out of the way, I feel a need to say that younger teachers are overrated. I’m not saying that they don’t have the potential to become excellent educators one day, but the buzz and preference to have a “new teacher, just out of college” is unfounded.

I understand that movies like Teachers and most television shows depict teachers over the age of 50 (which I am not) as sleepy, unmotivated, uninformed dinosaurs whose apathy and stubbornness impedes the education of our youth. As a foil, young teachers are depicted as being able to reach students in innovative ways and to be able to make the most dry subjects fun and interesting. While I understand the source of those stereotypes and cannot say there are no individuals who fit them, I must emphatically declare that it simply isn’t the case.

When I was first hired as a teacher, I liked to think I fit that stereotype. I’d just spent hundreds of hours studying the latest incarnation of my state’s standards and the national guidelines. I had drafted pages and pages of highly detailed lesson plans and familiarized myself with all the latest ideas on how to make learning productive and fun. I was hip (I used AIM and watched all the right TV shows). My student-teacher experience was positive, but in hindsight very sheltered. My cooperating teacher ran interference for me on much of the bureaucracy involved in being a teacher, and much of the planning that goes into a school year was already done long before my 8-week stint began.

I began my first teaching job, as one of a handful of young teachers. We “new teachers” stuck together and truly bought into the hype that we were somehow a better option for our students: that we understood our students, the material, and how to teach, better than our older peers. Our gung-ho ideas and right-from-the-movies enthusiasm ran into several obstacles, which we blamed on our older colleagues. With more than a dozen years of experience, I now see that our frustrations were misdirected and our perceptions of our peers were wrong.

Once my ego fell in check, I began to look more closely at what my older colleagues were doing. They were using some of the older, familiar techniques I grew up with, but there were some new ideas mixed in there. They were not resisting change or fighting against the progressive ideas bandied about in college – they were picking and choosing what they felt were best for their students. Using their experience as educators, their understanding of their students and the community in which they taught, to craft a teaching style which met their students’ needs. They had seen many “latest trends” come and go in their time as teaches, and knew better than to try and shift everything which each new journal publication. They were not ignoring what I had learned in college, they were adapting it… taking ownership of the suggestions and implementing them in a more effective way than I or any of the younger teachers were doing. What I had at first considered to be stubbornness, I now saw to be confidence and (again) ownership of their methodology.

By contrast, I look now at the teachers who are just coming out of college, and I cringe. They do things in their classrooms because someone told them to, not because they truly understand the reasoning behind it. They do not have the comfort, confidence, or wisdom to customize what they have been told to best fit their teaching situations. When something is challenged by a student or parent, they run to an administrator – most often because they cannot justify their actions. They genuinely do not know WHY they are doing things the way they are.

The younger teachers are happy to jump on any suggestion from an in-service day or workshop, and do not think twice about the consequences for students when you change style and focus abruptly. They have not yet seen the ebb and flow of support for various education movements, nor do they realize that the models sold by these traveling in-service salesmen speakers are purposefully generic and made to fit all schools on the surface, but none perfectly without some customization.

But the outside public doesn’t realize this. The thought is that these younger teachers are far superior to the burnt out, older teachers. I do not think there are nearly as many burnt out teachers as the public thinks, and I would contend that many of the not-so-good teachers have moved into administrative roles and are no longer in the classroom. I’ve seen more than ten colleagues who my peers and I felt were not strong teachers (I wouldn’t want my children to have them as teachers) go on to become vice-principals, principals, and department heads.

I would further contend, and I may well have been guilty of this 13 years ago, that the younger teachers are making it harder for the older teachers. It’s easy to sell out others to try to make yourself look good, and when you’re chit-chatting with the principal it’s easy to throw those veteran teachers under the bus for not rushing to support the latest administrative effort. Sitting squarely in the middle, age-wise, I see how little voluntary interaction there is between the younger and more senior teachers. I see the veterans shake their heads at the arrogance and quick-judgments of the newbies, and I feel badly for the veterans that they are stuck with this unfavorable image by so many.
If I had kids, I would not want them to have any teacher with less than 6 years experience. I share that advice with my neighbors and relatives all the time, but continue to see them clamor for the class with a student-teacher or the new hire from the teachers college down the road. I’m sure their children will turn out all right, but I strongly believe they are worrying about the wrong aspect of the education process. Instead of fighting to get your kid out of the class with a 22-year veteran because the son of a guy you know from the gym had bad things to say about her, fight to restore the school band or to see the school put a working pencil sharpener in each classroom. Contest the way winners of a county championship are each bought a $50 jacket (in addition to their varsity jacket) by the school when your school cannot afford to have their textbooks rebound.

There may be some brilliant young teachers, but you will find that they, like their peers, only get better with age and experience.