At least that's the underlying assumption. Apparently so were storytellers, the fireplace, the radio and just about anything else anyone has ever spaced out on. I think this has more to do with an elitist fear of TV than any actual "damage" it does.

Wake me when it's over.

Too much TV (especially poor quality TV) is bad for kids of all ages. Duh.

But maybe some of these we're-so-perfect-we-interact-with-our-children-every-waking-second parents can come over and give me a hand around 5 pm. My husband isn't home from work then, and I am trying to cook dinner. If the TV isn't on, my kids are on me like white on rice (not Full Metal Jacket, people... PBS kids and the like.) And frankly, it's a little dangerous for a 2 and 4 year old in the kitchen. I was getting something out of the oven with both hands, and though I had repeatedly warned my 2 year old to stay back and don't touch, she hurried right over and burned her hand on the oven rack. I couldn't stop her because I had my hands full. So cooking with kids on my legs is out for me. Some nights we don't watch TV at all because we have cold cereal for dinner, which takes no cooking time. But then we aren't eating from all the food groups, and you might have to report me to the Nutrition Police for that one.

Or maybe these people have a chef to do their cooking, or a nanny to play with the kids while they cook dinner. Or maybe they get take out every night, I don't know.

Sheesh, try living in the real world.

I am 35 and I have ADD. My son is 10 and he has ADD. A brief survey of my family on my mother's side reveals at least 6 family members who, in hindsight, most likely had moderate to severe cases of ADD, albeit undiagnosed. Undiagnosed because I'm looking back over 3 generations, to my grandfather and my uncles in their late 60s. These are men who grew up without TV and video games. They had a chemical imbalance that resulted in a lifetime of frustration and failure. Some of them resorted to self-medication with alcohol and drugs. Again, for them this was not about exposure to "screens" at a young age. The only screens were on their windows.

However, I was exposed to Sesame and Electric Company and Mr. Rogers. Those programs with their quick editing and constant color and movement, and short segments worked with the way my brain works. I could read at a 4th grade level before I began kindergarten and I am certain that those programs are largely responsible.

Dr. Mel Levine has written a few books about how there are different minds, different ways of learning. TV and computers are not evil. They are new tools and technology that allow us to reach the unreachable and teach through color and sound and interaction that was not available to previous generations.

These tools are not responsible for learning disabilities that are more likely genetic and chemical. Companies like Children's Television Network and its offshoots should be supported in their efforts to use new technology to solve age old problems and improve the lives of our children and families.

Millions of children grew up watching varying amounts of TV and somehow, millions of those now adults are intelligent, productive and happy people. Just because you let your kid watch a little TV does not mean they will become drooling couch potatoes.

I'm hardly advocating TV as babysitter but it's a hell of a lot easier to get stuff done around the house while my little one is watching a "Signing Time" dvd.

Kids are going to grow up in an environment with TV and need to learn how to handle it. My experience is that completely banning your kids from watching TV can backfire. The TV becomes the forbidden fruit and the kids desire it all the more, especially if they can watch it at a neighbor's or relative's house and find out what they're missing. If you let them watch a few children's shows and DVDs (which give parents more control over what the child is watching than regular TV) and don't make a fuss about it, the TV won't be anything special and the kids won't be fixated on it. A DVD like "Sesame Beginnings" is something that would be OK for young children to watch occasionally if the parents are taking this kind of middle ground approach to the boob tube.

Having said that, though, it is kind of disturbing how TV shows are being pitched towards younger and younger children. I remember the controversy over the Teletubbies being pitched to the under three set, followed by the Booh-Bahs being pitched to the under two set. And now "Sesame Beginnings" is being pitched to the under one set! What's next? TV in utero?

I've got an 18-month-old daughter who has been exposed pretty regularly to age-appropriate children's programming. She enjoys Clifford the Big Red Dog and Sesame Street but does other things while they're on. She also enjoys the "Here Comes the ABC's" DVD by They Might Be Giants, which is *absolutely* designed to bring parents into the viewing experience - TMBG is an alternative band which had a string of hits when I was younger and hipper. I know and enjoy all their ABC songs, sing them to her while it's on, and don't consider it coincidence that some of her favorite toys are her alphabet refrigerator magnets. She also adores the Wiggles, an obsession with which I have no concerns. They are teaching her how to dance (hello, motor skills and rhythm), and she has also started to sing along with the show as well as alone. This is not to say that she watches a TV screen all day - not at all! But her day is punctuated with brief (up to 1 hr) blocks of appropriate media exposure, screened and monitored by us, and I honestly believe she is taking something of value from most of it. I must also note that her interest in being read to, in imaginative play with toys, and in just running and jumping around have continued unabated despite the presence of the evil brain-sucking screen in her life.

I think this "Sesame Beginnings" thing looks cute and potentially enjoyable for all of us. I doubt I'd shell out the cash for it, but I wouldn't mind if a doting grandparent picked it up for her!