CCFC has for years sought to reveal the truth about so-called educational videos designed ostensibly to increase the brainpower of growing babies. Studies show no measurable gains in intelligence or verbal skills associated with baby videos. In fact, researchers at the University of Washington found that for every hour per day of screen viewing by infants aged 8 to 16 months, a measurable decrease occurs in communicative development.

In 2006, CCFC filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint against Baby Einstein and brand owner Disney, charging that the company’s marketing misled parents into thinking the videos could positively impact development and learning.

At that time, Disney stopped claiming that Baby Einstein videos were educational (in so many words). But it didn’t admit outright that it was selling a product under false pretenses.

CCFC kept up the pressure, and last week, Disney announced it would refund buyers for up to four Baby Einstein videos - not that there,s anything wrong with them, mind you, but just in case some folks mistakenly thought the product would make their babies smarter. The company says this is Disney,s standard quality guarantee.

There are a few lessons to be learned from Disney’s non-admission of false advertising. “Caveat emptor” is one. A savvy consumer - or just a reasonably rational parent - ought to wonder whether it,s realistic to think plopping a baby in front of a video screen can advance his or her intelligence.

“Be careful what you wish for” is another possible lesson, since, according to biographers, Albert Einstein enjoyed a normal childhood, “except that to his family’s irritation, he learnt to speak at a late age.”

But perhaps the most crucial lesson for parents is to remember that while babies don,t come with instructions, as oft noted at baby showers, we are blessed with a certain intuitive facility to care for them. And it turns out that the thing that comes most naturally - sitting on the floor, playing, singing and cooing - are the things that actually do advance the cognitive development of babies.

It might seem as though the Baby Einstein (and Baby Mozart and Baby Galileo) concept was meant to play into the competitive parenting instincts of those who would pay for videos today, Harvard tuition tomorrow.

According to Josh Golin of the CCFC, parents of lower socioeconomic strata have been equally vulnerable to the marketing tactics for baby videos on the fear that they don,t have what their babies need to be smart. “These videos have appealed to high-end consumers, yes, but also to lower-end consumers who simply want help,” he says.

Sadly, those folks only wasted their hard-earned dollars. But at least now they can get some of that money back, better to spend it on strategies that work, such as Jen Singer’s “Stop Second-Guessing Yourself” guides to parenting.

Says Mrs. Singer, “The recent blow to the Disney Corporation may be the beginning of the end of 21st-century competitive parenting. Perhaps now parents will start to trust their guts more, thereby swinging the pendulum back toward more sensible, confident parenting.”

Sensible and confident parents understand that babies don’t need animated “video board books” such as Baby Einstein. They need the animated countenance of a loving mom or dad, vibrantly engaged in the delightful work of entertaining, exciting and enlightening their infants.

“There’s no big secret to helping our infants to grow and learn, but there,s no shortcut either,” Mrs. Singer says. “You simply have to get down on the floor and play with them. But how hard is that?”

Today’s observation: Is it any wonder our teenagers are confused? They’re surrounded by absurd mixed messages from adults that defy logic and fly in the face of common sense.

Nope. Not kidding.

According to news reports, students in the Indian Creek High School marching band were permitted by director Donald Llewellyn to choose the music for this year’s halftime show.

Llewellyn may not have given his students clear parameters with respect to their choices. They picked popular songs from their iPod playlists – songs their peers sitting in the stands would recognize and enjoy.

The students chose “Gives You Hell” by the All American Rejects, “If You Seek Amy” by Britney Spears and “Don’t Trust Me” by 3OH!3.

Earlier this year when it was released, the Spears song made headlines because of its sly lyrical trick. In the chorus where the song title is sung, it’s meant to sound as if Ms. Spears spells out the f-word. The tune by 3OH!3 includes the f-word as an adjective, as well as a scathing reference to Helen Keller and her deaf/mute disability.

Now, here’s an important juncture in this story. It seems like most adults in a position of authority over a large group of high school students would execute some due diligence to be sure that the songs the students wanted to play were acceptable and appropriate. Then, finding that the original versions of these songs were laced with profanity and offensive themes, would respond, “Nice try guys. We’re a high school band. We don’t play stuff like this.”

Instead, Mr. Llewellyn and his staff choreographed an elaborate, nine-minute half-time show featuring precision marching, hip dance moves, and even a vocal rendition of the offensive Helen Keller chorus:

“Shush girl, shut your lips,

Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips.”

The show was performed at football games before someone complained to Indian Creek Schools Superintendent Jene Watson. Mr. Watson, asserting the wisdom and authority missing earlier in the chain of events, declared two of the band’s songs unacceptable and banned them from the show.

You might think his decision was supported throughout this small, suburban community. After all, he merely decreed that the band must restrict its choices to the millions and millions of pieces of composed music whose original lyrics did not include the few vocabulary words universally considered offensive. And to be sure, many parents, including some band parents, are relieved that the songs were removed from the band’s halftime repertoire.

But wouldn’t you know, some parents are upset. They believe their children’s freedom of speech is being suppressed and further, that since the band doesn’t sing all the lyrics, the songs are fine. They’re going to the school board in October to fight for their children’s right to… (now hum “Stars and Stripes Forever”) …play vulgar songs at halftime.

Somewhere under an oak tree at Washington’s Congressional Cemetery, John Philip Sousa rolls in his grave.

Here’s the kicker: The Indian Creek band has a web site for band members, parents and fans (www.ichsband.com), where this message is posted under the heading “Student Attitudes:”

“We have had some problems with students on the buses to games and in the stands at the games.  Language and attitude are the problems facing directors and chaperones. Please talk to your student and let them know that this is very disrespectful to the other band members, to Mr. [Llew] and Mr. Howell, and the volunteers who give their time to assist the band.  Please stress to your student the benefits of being respectful.”

Interesting. Perhaps this might not be an issue if they were taught to extend that same respect to everyone, including their audiences, and even the late Helen Keller.

Summing up: People are rude.

The flurry of incivility that lately has found its way to Youtube’s “most viewed” list ought to make us worry about the messages our children are getting, given that Youtube is the most popular Web site for children 8 to 18. It’s time to turn our kitchen tables into learning labs and take advantage of this week’s teachable moments.

To review:

• Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, now famous for shouting “You lie!” during President Obama’s speech to Congress.

• Serena Williams’ profanity-laced tirade at a line judge, as well as Roger Federer’s snarky back talk to an umpire, both during the U.S. Open Tennis Championships.

• Kanye West’s interruption of Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech during the MTV Video Music Awards, in which he decries the loss of the award by competitor Beyonce Knowles.

• Finally, Mr. Obama’s supposedly off-the-record comment calling Mr. West a “jackass” for his MTV antics. (More bad manners: ABC News reporter Terrence Moran conveying this indiscreet comment by way of a Twitter post to his 1-million-plus followers.)

There are enough bad examples here to fill a semester in the kitchen, starting with: Incivility begets incivility. A week ago, while accepting the apology of Mr. Wilson, Mr. Obama seemed to wish for a higher standard of behavior among citizens. In the span of six days, he apparently called someone else a jackass. (Remember that the practice of good manners doesn’t consider the truth of such a statement, just the propriety of speaking it aloud.)

To put a fine point on the lessons we might consider, I consulted an expert, P.M. Forni, a respected professor of romance languages and literature at Johns Hopkins University and also one of the nation’s pre-eminent authorities on civility, having written two best-selling books on the subject. (The paperback version of his second book, “The Civility Solution: What to Do When People Are Rude” was released this month from Macmillan.)

How would an expert such as Mr. Forni use the current crop of banalities to offset the underlying lack of civility they represent?

“Parents must transform these bad examples into assets as they use these instances to teach their children. We must explore how these actions would make us feel, and then find comparable examples in our daily lives that children can identify with,” Mr. Forni says.

Which is to say, imagine how Miss Swift felt when her big moment was stolen by a selfish, thoughtless buffoon. Now imagine how your brother feels when he’s telling the family about his day, and you interrupt and make yourself the center of attention. “The basis of civility is to realize that we all bruise, inside and out. Mannerly behavior is that which protects the feelings of others.”

But what is the skill that promotes mannerly behavior? “Self-restraint,” says Mr. Forni.

“We must instill self-restraint in our children. We do much to instill self-esteem in our children, but not much to reinforce self-restraint.” It was self-restraint that was lacking in every example of public incivility that unfolded during the past week.

Here’s another lesson suggested by Mr. Forni: We must teach our children that this sort of behavior is wrong. “We have to make clear to children that those gestures in which high-profile people find themselves is wrong … they did something wrong, something unfair to another person.

“Our culture of extreme informality makes us vulnerable to crossing into incivility,” Mr. Forni says.

Imagine if we simply resurrected the notion that it’s wrong to treat people badly, and that self-restraint and a more formal standard of behavior are ways to avoid such actions. We’d be living in a much more civilized culture.

But then what would we watch on Youtube?

As we stroll through the neighborhood, my husband, our four children and I take turns confiding our intentions for the coming school year. By announcing our aspirations, we turn our dreams into goals, our hopes into plans. But the exercise also reminds us we’re not alone in our efforts – we have family cheering us on and faith to support us.

Along the way, the encouragement and advice we give to our kids is not unlike the message President Obama delivered in his address to schoolchildren this week.

Make goals for yourself and announce them to others so you’ll be accountable. Work hard. Take responsibility for your success. Get help when you need it.

Since the President’s message was so similar to the advice we give our own children, why did it seem inappropriate to me?

It’s entirely fitting for schools to air presidential addresses. I certainly don’t object when it happens in the event of a national emergency such as 9/11, or during an historic occasion such as an inauguration.

Is it just that I’m cynical because I disagree with the President’s politics? Or because the Department of Education’s first pass at supporting materials for teachers was found to be overty partisan and subsequently were changed?

Those who favor the president’s speech to schoolchildren point to previous addresses by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as proof that a precedent has already been set for such an address.

I don’t want to be labeled a hypocrite, and I’m careful not to criticize President Obama for things that would not bother me in a conservative leader. So I went back and read those speeches by Presidents Bush and Reagan and realized why President Obama’s talk bothers me.

George H.W. Bush encouraged students to take greater interest in science and math. He used the occasion of a space launch to focus on the sciences at a time when it had been well established that US students paled in comparison to others around in the world in this essential discipline. The speech also pointed to several national education goals that had been adopted by the bi-partisan Governor’s Association together with the Department of Education. (Even still, then-Speaker of the House Richard Gephardt said, “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students.”)

Ronald Reagan’s speech was something else entirely. It was a primer on American political theory. He focused on the Founders and on our Constitutional Republic, and he talked about how our form of government and the lifestyle we enjoy because of it are the envy of the world.

Neither Presidents Bush nor Reagan inserted themselves into the personal lives of their audiences, but instead asked schoolchildren to insert themselves into the public life of our nation. (Sounds a lot like, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”, yes?)

On the other hand, President Obama’s talk was deeply personal – both about himself and his audience. He told the children about his experiences as a student and mentioned his family circumstances as a special challenge, and he spoke to kids about setting goals for themselves, establishing aspirations in life, and living up to their own potential and to the expectations of others.

Supporters of Mr. Obama’s address note that too many kids in America don’t get the kind of strong, positive message from their own parents that the president delivered. I agree, and it’s too bad. I wish more parents would help their children set and reach their goals.

But the President of the United States is not our nation’s “First Father.” His constitutionally mandated role is not to be an uber-parent, offering sage advice on personal behavior for school kids via televised lectures. Even if the message is a positive one, the very fact that he delivered it is intrusive and assumptive.

If we accept this display of non-partisan “presidential parenting,” we’re tacitly acknowledging that the government of the United States of America has an appropriate role to play in raising our children. Once we allow this, it isn’t a very big leap to a department of children and families, just like the ministry in Britain that imposes government-sanctioned advice through government schools and health clinics, much of which undermines parental authority.

To be sure, the president gave a great talk. It’s one that parents — not our president — ought to deliver.

As if there isn’t enough political news to elevate our national blood pressure, a new study released this week in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine says the blood pressure levels of America’s children are elevated thanks to - drum roll, because you’re going to be shocked by this - TV and screen time.

Just when you thought it was safe to park your child in front of a television set for six or eight hours on end to watch every manner of questionable - even depraved - human behavior (MTV’s "Real World: Cancun," anyone?), it turns out it’s not just media content that endangers child health but the very act of consuming media.

Experts from several Midwestern research universities studied children ages 3 to 8 who spent five hours per day in various modes of inactivity. They controlled for physical composition and other health factors, and what they found is that 1.5 hours a day in front of the TV and/or playing video games actually elevates kids’ blood pressure, regardless of whether children are overweight.

Proving, perhaps, that children instinctively know bad media when they see it, though the research didn’t confirm this as fact.

Bottom line: Excessive amounts of TV and screen exposure are unhealthy. Thanks, researchers, for spending the time and money to publish this conclusion, because sadly, parents in our culture lack the common sense to figure this out on their own.

Unfortunately, all the research in the world isn’t enough to compel parents to pull the plug and send children outside to play. In fact, while playing outdoors is still the healthiest and safest form of recreation, parents - propelled into fear, thanks to the time they themselves spend on 24/7 news sites - think that even the end of the driveway is too far from home to be considered a safe distance.

Lenore Skenazy, author of "Free Range Kids," says it’s not only the fear of creepy strangers that keeps kids indoors, but also the fear of parental shame and blame. Parents know that the likelihood of a random kidnapping is low, but the likelihood that Nancy Grace would chronicle your child’s abduction on CNN and make you look like a lousy parent is 100 percent. Those odds strike fear into the heart of every mom or dad.

Consequently, parents succumb to the irrational fear that playing outside is unsafe, while watching TV in the family room and zoning out in front of a video game in a dark basement are things you can do to avoid imminent danger.

Once again, our parenting compass is pointing to "due wacky."

In truth, it’s not the blood pressure research that is causing me to lament the change in the way our children recreate. It’s the fact that on any given sunny summer day, you can shoot a cannon through my neighborhood and not hit a living creature.

We’ve reached August, and my 11-year-old daughter has created so many imaginary friends with whom to spend her summer that I may need to have her evaluated for dissociative identity disorder.

We already had enough reasons to limit the time our children spend in front of an electronic screen before this evidence about the impact on blood pressure. How about we parents step up to the plate and do what’s right for children? All it takes is the push of a button and a simple command: "Go outside and play."

There’s a lot of wisdom in that phrase, but in our culture, it seems we parents spend a good part of our time trying to smooth out the bumps in the road for our children, rather than help them develop their own sets of internal shock absorbers. Our fixation on our children’s happiness has created a perverse and unnatural reality. We’re raising up a generation that expects life to always be fair and predictable; and also not too painful and not too difficult.

So entrenched are today’s children in the habitual comforts of their parent’s largess that the media created a narrative around the question, “How to say ‘no’ to kids in this difficult economy?” It’s hard to say which generation ought to be more insulted by such a suggestion — our youth, who apparently are so coddled that we don’t expect they’ll understand the notion of family sacrifice, or their parents, who are such wimps they don’t even know how to utter a simple phrase such as, “Sorry, kid, money’s tight.”

If I were issuing the indictment, I’d name the parents. I’m neither a historian nor a social scientist, and the only letters after my name are “M-O-M,” so take my opinion for what it’s worth, but I believe our culture has promoted a truly inept parenting standard that fulfills neither objective in that wise, old proverb. We’re not preparing our children for what’s to come by molding their character, as we should, and instead we’re deluding ourselves into thinking we can manipulate the universe to our liking.

There are myriad reasons to explain the general lack of parenting skills that’s become the norm. Some blame poverty or a supposed lack of social services for families, others point to the uneven playing field on which parents must help their children to achieve equal levels of success. Others say it’s the pressure to provide for our children’s material needs that keeps us from attending to their character development - something we would surely do if only we had national child care (as if.)

I think the culprit is something I call “the happiness myth.” It’s the belief on the part of parents that the principal job of parenting is to make our children happy. This is our cultural standard, as if happiness is a worthwhile measure of success and that maintaining a constant state of happiness will assure a continued constant state of happiness. All our focus on raising happy children robs them of the ability to be content and the skills to find intrinsic joy in life, no matter their circumstances.

In short, we’re working so hard to make them happy, we’re going to make them miserable.

Parents must accept and teach that life isn’t fair, and that this truism is neither good nor bad. It just is. We’re all gifted to a degree, but not all of us in the same way or to the same degree. We take life as it comes, we apply our talents and do our best, we rise above adversity, and we overcome.

A generation of children raised in such a way just might have what it takes to change the path. The question remains: Are we a generation of parents that will prepare them as we should?