# Make Toddlers Cry - It's OK, Since It's For the Anti-Bush Cause! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 29, 2006, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562 "2006-07-29T18:56:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/121 "2006-07-30T00:17:57Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Just as spring in Appalachia was the point of Copland’s [Appalachian Spring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Spring)? Artists make things, and then either name them, or don’t name them. The unnamed ones get titles like ‘unnamed oil #1’ or ‘Appalachian Spring’. The named ones also frequently get names that have [fuck](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marcel_Duchamp_Mona_Lisa_LHOOQ.jpg) [all](http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A3130&page_number=5&template_id=1&sort_order=1) to do with the intent of the work. To find out the intent of the artist, you have to ask them; and they’re notorious liars when money is involved. [/QUOTE] OK, I guess that’s one way to look at it. If that is your interpretation, great. But if you are trying to say that my interpretation has no basis in what I read or comes out of the clear blue sky, then I think you are being disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/122 "2006-07-30T00:21:14Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Just as spring in Appalachia was the point of Copland’s [Appalachian Spring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Spring)? Artists make things, and then either name them, or don’t name them. The unnamed ones get titles like ‘unnamed oil #1’ or ‘Appalachian Spring’. The named ones also frequently get names that have [fuck](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marcel_Duchamp_Mona_Lisa_LHOOQ.jpg) [all](http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A3130&page_number=5&template_id=1&sort_order=1) to do with the intent of the work. To find out the intent of the artist, you have to ask them; and they’re notorious liars when money is involved. [/QUOTE] [Gee, if only the interviewer had asked the artist how she got started with the project.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7627828&postcount=10) ---
**Author:** ![Hodge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Hodge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodge)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/123 "2006-07-30T00:23:48Z")
To my surprise, I agree with **Bricker** on this issue. I think Greenberg has acted unethically, at the very least. Yes, babies will cry for just about any reason and, no, they won’t be scarred for life, but it’s clear to me that she’s abused her position by intentionally manipulating models who are obviously unable to give consent. Not to mention that that her political statement smells like post facto rationalization. A convenient hook upon which to hang a buch of crappy, over-photoshopped pictures (and this is coming from a guy who despises Bush and his puppet masters). I guess that’s what bugs me the most about all this: it’s crappy art. Crying babies are a cheap and easy appeal to emotion and her photoshop technique is garish. I could probably duplicate it with the right combination of special effects filters and airbrushing but there’s no way I would want to do so. If you want to see some fantastic, surreal photos of children (none of whom are crying) then check out the work of [Loretta Lux](http://www.lorettalux.de/). Fight bad art with good art, I say. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/124 "2006-07-30T20:31:58Z")
The pictures were taken with the cooperation and approval of the parents. If they didn’t have a problem with causing their children to cry briefly, why should we? ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/125 "2006-07-30T20:51:17Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] You, among others: [/QUOTE] :dubious: My post was a hyperbolic, one-line quip (two, I suppose, if you count the “It’s okay, everyone” bit) poking fun at the ridiculous partisan well-poisoning in your OP. You drew the connection; I was just riffing on it. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/126 "2006-07-30T20:56:05Z")
[QUOTE=SkipMagic] :dubious: My post was a hyperbolic, one-line quip (two, I suppose, if you count the “It’s okay, everyone” bit) poking fun at the ridiculous partisan well-poisoning in your OP. You drew the connection; I was just riffing on it. [/QUOTE] In fact, most of the things he quoted make me wonder if Bricker has recently had his sense of humor surgically removed. Someone asked this last page, and I want to ask it again. How is this different from babies and toddlers being made to cry for films and TV shows? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/127 "2006-07-30T20:57:48Z")
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison] Someone asked this last page, and I want to ask it again. How is this different from babies and toddlers being made to cry for films and TV shows? [/QUOTE] Because the liberals are defending _this_ to the death. Duh. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/128 "2006-07-30T20:59:59Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] But if you are trying to say that my interpretation has no basis in… [/QUOTE] I see my reply got toasted in last night’s meltdown. I’ll try to reconstruct: Not at all. However, if you look at the [link](http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/index0.htm) I supplied in post #24, you’ll see that the going rate for these pics is $4,500 for a set of 10. Would _I_ consider giving some dubious art pics controversial names in order to sell a few hundred more copies at that price? _You bet I would!_ Would I tell an interviewer that was my intent? _Hell no!_ I think we’re all in agreement that the political titles are a bit of a stretch here, but the free advertising they garner do feed into profits. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/129 "2006-07-30T21:08:18Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] I see my reply got toasted in last night’s meltdown. I’ll try to reconstruct: Not at all. However, if you look at the [link](http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/index0.htm) I supplied in post #24, you’ll see that the going rate for these pics is $4,500 for a set of 10. Would _I_ consider giving some dubious art pics controversial names in order to sell a few hundred more copies at that price? _You bet I would!_ Would I tell an interviewer that was my intent? _Hell no!_ I think we’re all in agreement that the political titles are a bit of a stretch here, but the free advertising they garner do feed into profits. [/QUOTE] I wouldn’t deny that making $$$ is the goal here, and I wouldn’t deny that the crying babies could have been used to make some other statement if she desired (goodness knows there are plenty of other things to be upset about in the world that she could have picked from). I agree that when you consider that there are an awful lot of people out there who loathe President Bush (probably the majority of modern art fans, I suspect), I would not be surprised if she picked this particular theme in order to make more $$$. But, if anything, this reinforces my argument that it seemed obvious from the article that she was trying to make a statement, and that statement is that Bush is evil. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/130 "2006-07-30T21:11:35Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Yes, let’s review what’s actually been said, not your own cherry-picked spin: \*\*John \*\* repeated **Bricker** ’s assertion, \*not \* supported by the article he linked to, that she made kids cry for the purpose of anti-Bush political propaganda (note: read the thread title as well as the OP, okay?). After claiming to have actually read the link, \*\*John \*\* \*changed \* his tune to conform to the statement that the anti-Bush photo was made after the kid cried on his own. But he didn’t note that that what he had said earlier was incorrect. Later, though, he went back to the party line that she had made the kid cry for the purpose of anti-Bush propaganda. Clear now? That’s what he said, right? It’s all right above your post. [/quote] OK. Let us, indeed, see what has been said. First, we can look at the [article under discussion](http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/2552/cry-babies.html): > [@](#): > > **How did you get the kids to cry?** > Mostly we did it by giving them something, a lollypop, and then taking it away. Some would just cry for no reason—my daughter did that; she didn’t like standing on the apple box I used for a platform because it was a little wobbly. Some just wouldn’t cry at all. For all the kids I worked really fast. We would book 12 or so for one day and see who we could make cry. So, contrary to what you seem to be saying, the artist in the article actually said that she made kids cry and described the techniques used to accomplish that. Now, why was it that she made the babies cry? Well, again, according to the artist: > [@](#): > > **How did you come up with the idea for the project?** > I saw this little girl who’d come to a party with her mom, and she was beautiful, so I thought it might be interesting to photograph her. When they came to my studio, the mother brought along her toddler son, and I decided to shoot him too. We took off his shirt because it was dirty. He started crying on his own, and I shot that, and when I got the contact sheets back I thought, “This could go with a caption, ‘Four More Years,’” like he was appalled at George Bush’s reelection. The images have a real power—they immediately get under your skin. The emotion you see is just so compelling, yet they’re beautiful at the same time. That was one of the things that interested me about the project—the strength and beauty of the images as images. I also thought they made a kind of political statement about the current state of anxiety a lot of people are in about the future of the country. Sometimes I just feel like crying about the way things are going. So, according to the artist, herself, inspired by a proof image of one boy who cried spontaneously when she took his photo, she was moved to create a project that “. . . made a kind of political statement about the current state of anxiety a lot of people. . . .” If we then go to the Podcast link on the very page under discussion, we discover that the “project” she created was one entitled “End Times.” On that Podcast page, we discover both the name of the project and the gallery at which it is currently displayed and from there we can have a look at the photos and their titles as identified by **John Mace** in [Post #34](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7627959&postcount=34) using a link provided by **Squink**. The titles are all references to actions or views of President Bush, the Iraq situation, the Republican Party, or the Religious Right and its favorite themes. So, we have a declaration by the artist (on the linked site) that the she took photos for a politiacl purpose and that in order to capture those photos, she induced children to cry. It is true that the first photo that inspired the “project” happened to be of a child crying spontaneously. However, other children were induced to cry ( **as indicated by the artist on the linked story** ) in order to make a political statement ( **as indicated by the artist on the linked story** ), and a person may note that the child whose crying inspired the project was not, initially, induced to cry without contradicting oneself on the matter that other children were induced to cry. > [@](#): > > Your claim that **John** ’s statements are accurate is impossible when they are mutually inconsistent, and that assertion “does nothing to promote [your] own perception as honest”. No. Your insistence that two separate acts (the initial child’s spontaneous crying vs the later children’s induced crying) are somehow “mutually inconsistent” demonstrates a serious failure to understand the events described. You might, with a fair amount of twisting and writhing come up with a claim that the political (as identified by the artist) show was not directed “at” President Bush since it also included attacks on a number of issues of the political Right, but that would be a pretty weak claim against **Bricker** ’s OP since President Bush is clearly the target of several of the specific photos and the others are all tied to views or actions that he has embraced. > [@](#): > > You might actually read what I’ve quoted before making slurs about my character and embarrassing yourself as much as \*\*Bricker \*\* and \*\*John \*\* have here.. :rolleyes: Now go read the quotes from **John** , willya? > . . . > Now, set down your grudge, accept the possibility that you may be wrong once in a while, and get a damn grip. Shit, buddy, life is too short to engage in such juvenility. You will note that I made no personal attack on your person and I did not slur your character. I simply pointed out that your characterization of **John Mace** as “lying” was inaccurate, based on the simple fact that his statements corresponded with the facts identified by the artist in the linked article. I am hardly “stalking” you; it was simply your direct personal attack on **John** , accusing him of “lying” when he had done no such thing that prompted me to enter this fairly silly thread. > [@](#): > > Still stalking me, **Tom**? It’s at your own peril, ya know. I simply quiver in dread at the awful consequences I will suffer for having the temerity to point out your errors on a message board. If you dislike being corrected, stop making errors. ---
**Author:** ![imthjckaz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/imthjckaz/32/3223_2.png) [@imthjckaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imthjckaz)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/131 "2006-07-30T21:13:43Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] But, if anything, this reinforces my argument that it seemed obvious from the article that she was trying to make a statement, and that statement is that Bush is evil. [/QUOTE] I don’t that statement isn’t anything we already know. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/132 "2006-07-30T21:15:12Z")
As art its not much better than one of those Keane paintings of bug-eyed urchins, or dogs playing poker. As propaganda its even weaker, since the titles of the pictures are the only bridge to its significance, its preaching to the choir in pantomime. And “cruelty”. Suppose so, if one is inclined to a very expansive definition. Cruel in the same way that Minnesota hot dish is “spicy”. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/133 "2006-07-30T21:22:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*She’s taking lollipops away from them. I suppose that’s not a big deal, although I think it’s fair to call it cruel. I agree that it’s wrong to make a baby cry for your own selfish purposes. (But my post will probably be ignored since it isn’t the response predicted or desired.) And if taking candy from a baby is cruel, then how do you describe wars that kill more children than combatants? ---
**Author:** ![Monstre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Monstre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monstre)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/134 "2006-07-30T21:27:56Z")
In addition, the crying kids aren’t even as well-paid as the monkeys! > [@](#): > > _from the article_ > Kid models aren’t very expensive—not as expensive as monkeys, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/135 "2006-07-30T21:31:22Z")
I’d still like to see Bricker’s cites as offered in this post; [QUOTE=Bricker] By “a pass” I meant the numerous people who feel it was not a particularly bad thing; that it was no big deal. Still need the cites for that? [/QUOTE] I’m not seeing the numerous people, and as there are not numerous people saying this, it amounts to what can only guess is a pre-made assumption on **Bricker** ’s part that liberals on the board do not care about cruelty to children; clearly something which needs to be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/136 "2006-07-30T21:40:19Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] OK. Let us, indeed, see what has been said. …So, contrary to what you seem to be saying, the artist in the article actually said that she made kids cry and described the techniques used to accomplish that. [/quote] Let’s go back to what John actually claimed, shall we? That she \*made \* THIS child cry, _for the purpose of making anti-Bush propaganda_. That is, as I already said but which you obviously have no interest in considering since it might not support your state of dudgeon, NOT derived from the article. \*\*John \*\* knows or must know it since he’s apparently by now read it, and you too would know it if you actually gave a damn. Go clear up your confusion about the actual topic at hand, due perhaps to your zealous eagerness to find me in error out of some sort of revenge for it having been done to you or for whatever other sad, strange, but wankish reason you may have, and this discussion can continue. But you’ve wasted your time on nonfactual and/or irrelevant observations so far, and there is no apparent likelihood of your improving your performance. > [@](#): > > No. Your insistence that two separate acts (the initial child’s spontaneous crying vs the later children’s induced crying) are somehow “mutually inconsistent” That claim about what I said, too, is false. The topic is the child in the linked photo. That’s it. John referred to that photo in both ways. But you just don’t give a damn about such trivial details as long as you can continue your stalking, do you? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You will note that I made no personal attack on your person and I did not slur your character. Ahem. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Attributing falsehoods to John Mace when his statements are accurate does nothing to promote one’s own perception as honest. :wally To repeat, again probably uselessly, go get a fucking grip, okay? > [@elucidator](#): > > As art its not much better than one of those Keane paintings of bug-eyed urchins, or dogs playing poker. I’m just happy you haven’t deigned to compare them to velvet Elvises or Thomas Kinkaid. There are 30,000 or so Iraqi families with a lot more reason to cry than these kids. One would hope no one would be so partisan as to save their outrage for this photographer, or for the perpetrators of that tragedy rather than some anonymous message board posters, but one would be wrong. Obviously party is not only before country, but before basic humanity itself, for a saddening number of people who can nevertheless still manage to turn on a computer. **revenant** , you’ll wait in vain for **Bricker** to address his hate-ridden preassumptions about us to us. He just about never does, and the rare occasions on which it’s happened seem to have no influence on the likelihood of their repetition in the future. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/137 "2006-07-30T22:00:16Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Let’s go back to what John actually claimed, shall we? That she \*made \* THIS child cry, _for the purpose of making anti-Bush propaganda_. [/QUOTE] No, I never said she made the first child cry. “The women did a series of pictures in which she made toddlers cry…” is factual statment-- she made more than one toddler cry. Had I said: _The women did a series of pictures in which she made all the toddlers cry_, you would be correct. But I didn’t, and you’re not. Please stop harrassing **tomndebb** – he is correct. ---
**Author:** ![SkeptiJess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@SkeptiJess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkeptiJess)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/138 "2006-07-30T22:19:07Z")
I think it’s messed up to make small children cry on purpose. I don’t especially care _why_ the artist did it – whether it was art for art’s sake, or in order to make a political statement. Whatever. It’s messed up. The fact that it probably won’t cause them any permanent damage doesn’t make it any less messed up. I’m not crazy about babies being made to cry for TV or movies, either. This is one reason why I never would have allowed my children to be models or baby-actors. There were several comments the artist made in the linked article that I don’t trust, BTW. She said that toddlers cry “a hundred times” a day. Not in my experience. The kids in those pictures weren’t just fussing or whining (which most kids probably actually _do_ a dozen or so times a day) – they were flat-out bawling. If this woman’s kid typically cries like that “a hundred” times a day (or even a dozen times a day), then I wonder why? The other thing was this comment about her daughter: “Some would just cry for no reason—my daughter did that; she didn’t like standing on the apple box I used for a platform because it was a little wobbly.” In other words, the kid _wasn’t_ crying “for no reason” – she was crying because she was being made to stand on an unstable box and it (apparently) scared her. Makes me wonder whether the other kids who cried “for no reason” might have actually had reasons after all. Again, it’s just messed up. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/139 "2006-07-30T22:34:08Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] You, among others [/QUOTE] Nope, that was a joke about conservatives in equating stem cells with children. Hint: Look for verbage that actually indicates comparison, to parse whether a sentence is comparing two things. Phrases such as “not as bad as” and the like. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562/140 "2006-07-30T22:42:58Z")
Similarly, my comment about inducing the children to cry by telling them about the human and financial costs of Bush’s war was also a joke. But seriously, who is being condemned and why? As I said, the photos were taken with the cooperation of the parents. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-toddlers-cry-its-ok-since-its-for-the-anti-bush-cause/366562.md?page=8)