Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« A Lost Art Form. | Main | Not All Flowers and Candy. »



Will opposes both school prayer and smoking bans, leans away from the Federal Marriage Amendment, and cares about the welfare of animals.


Thanks for sharing this. While there certainly are vocal leaders among the "religious right" I think there are many more garden-variety Christians (even theologically conservative ones) who would tend to agree with Will. I know I do.

As far as abortion goes, I don't think changing the law will change hearts and minds. And I'm not in favor of a total ban, anyway. But Roe and Doe encouraged a 10-fold increase in abortions, so I think it's fair to say there's a connection between law and action. Speed limits aren't to change people's hearts, but to keep the roads safe.


Very good post, Amba.

Personally, I think that it was the left who gave more credit to the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells for Republican political success than they deserved. Politics is a great deal about perception, and if the left keeps screaming that the right won because of the Falwells, well then the Falwells are going to use that charge to their own ends, showing it off to the internal party leaders as proof that the election really did swing because of them. "Hey, if even the Democrats say me and my guys won the election for you, why aren't you enacting my policies?"

Way back when, I spent a year working at The Heritage Foundation, as a secretary. At a conservative conference one time, in a break-out session on abortion, I asked whether it wouldn't be smarter for us to focus on a more positive spin on our message, emphasizing adoption, promoting charities that arrange adoptions for unwanted babies, etc., rather than a straight "abortion is evil" approach.

The response was, basically, that we're doing that, too. It's been too long to recall any specifics, and I haven't time now to look it up, but as Pastor Jeff suggests, there are a lot of the non-Falwell types out there actually doing good works, far from the limelight.

Neither you nor I can control that the newspapers continue to call Falwell "a Republican leader of the religious right", or constantly refer to "former Republican candidate for President Pat Robertson." The fact that Robertson never had a chance, and in fact lost the nomination battle heavily except for Iowa, where he came in 2nd in the primary.

The people who like to do good works tend to keep their head down and, well, just work. They're not the "go-to guys" for a quick appearance on CNN or Fox, or a quick sound-bite in the Washington Post or the NY Times.

As for making abortion illegal once again, I don't think we will ever make political progress on this issue until it is returned to the political realm. Once Roe and Casey are overturned, Americans and the politicians they elect will work things out fairly quickly.


On abortion, I was thinking, "What will happen in the states where abortion becomes illegal?" And I thought, "Well, one thing that will happen is women will travel to other states where out-of-state abortion will become big business. But another thing that will happen is that a lot of women will become a lot more careful not to get pregnant, the way we used to be. A third thing that will happen is that it is poor, less-educated women who will get screwed, because they have the least ability to protect themselves from exploitation, the least enjoyment or power in life other than sex, the least knowledge of or access to birth control, the least resources to support a child, and the least money for travel." These women have only three options: strict religious conversion (how about Islam? just kidding), single motherhood, or illegal abortion.

Tom Strong

Even coming from the "other side," I feel the song Will's singing.

As far as my heart goes, for instance, I'm still very much a socialist. But over time I've become less and less willing to support social good legislation that insists people behave in ways they're not willing to. While sometimes necessary, I think that road ultimately leads to a dead end.


Amba, i live in a pretty- well... how do i say it?- Diverse w/the implants who have $$$$, but a very ~numb~ population(the uneducated, powerless, yadayada...women)up here in the stix.

I don't believe you are giving these ~women~(i say this w/the ~~ 'cause they(some) are pretty young to be considered as such)as much credit as they deserve.

Public schools really give kids a well-rounded sex education up here: diseases to catch, birth control to use, they even get a baby that cries to take home(in the 8th grade)- and they all know where Planned Parenthood is; lots of moms put their young daughters on the pill(or whaterver variation works best) not long after they start mensing, for crying out loud.

What i find really weird is that the proLife advocates talk about women in the 3rd world countries the same as you are talking about these women her w/less than ideal lives. Educate them, let them earn $$$$- w/$$$$ and learning comes power and control and knowledge. And less children. In 3rd world countries, it's said all that a woman has of worth is her fertility- everything else is either taken from her- or not offered to her. But, she can have children.

I guess i don't buy the ~poor, uneducated and powerless woman~ scenario, but, hey- i'm probably wrong.


Yes, Karen, they have the power to have children. So they're not powerless. But without a partner, do they have the power to feed them? Do they have the power to teach sons how to be men? Or to accomplish something besides just barely pay the bills? Of course it's wrong to say they can't, because many do. But what a horrendous struggle. And many can't, or think they can't. What's the answer(s)?


I often think about all these beautiful girls(like my daughter) who are lacking nothing except the power to be themselves- or the strength to be themselves.

I know a woman who's about your age, amba- she's a powerful Grammie, and her granddaughters are the apple of her eye- and she's primed them to be so powerful. Except, they are anything but. They are starving for something- not quite tangible to me, or even to themselves.

I think of powerful as taking care of yourself 1st(i never was very powerful, i attached my personal feeling of wealth to the end of a guy's... you know(Valentine :0)). Who i was hinged upon who he was- or what he wanted from me. That's twisted, and i see that(now that i've grown up and met my lifemate and had kids, and therapy, etc...)

I find it cruel(as in ~twist of fate~)that so many feminists that want to empower their daughters, grands... are (enabling?) them to be the opposite. What have we actually learned in these 30+ supposedly powerful years?

I think we should focus as much if not more on young men to teach them responsibily and that women are not objects or boodmares(i was warned not to be on forom a good friend once)- yet, to do so would be to turn the message of the Feminists opposite.

But, what's so wrong about teaching men to be ~protective~ or supportive of women? They can do this even while aknowledging our equality. We, as women, cannot have it both ways.


There's nothing wrong with teaching men to be protective and supportive (and there are more men now, I have the impression, who are protective and supportive rather than protective, controlling, and murderously possessive). But as women keep finding out, there's no substitute for being able to take care of yourself in a pinch. God helps those who help themselves, and all that.

I've wondered whether estrogen itself makes women depressed and insecure, because if it didn't they'd be way TOO powerful. It may be a contributing factor, but it can't be the whole story. I do think there is an enormous hangover from a history of having been dismissed as inferior and shut out of so much. Being less physically strong than men makes women feel vulnerable (yes, this is a generalization, there are exceptions, etc. etc.). Mothers who are ambivalent and insecure about themselves may pass that viscerally to their baby daughters, while feeling much more unconflicted about their sons (who carry their worldly power for them). None of this can go away in a generation.


That's all true- i know you're right, but it doesn't appear (to me anyway)- that too many women are aware of these facts.

When you had up "Emma's Diary"(please forgive my memory if the title is wrong)Anchoress had up "The Thrill of the Chaste"(it is on here Booklist)
and it may be the exact recorded history of one woman's life according to estrogen:0).

Our choices, collectively as women, reflect upon us as individuals- or maybe i have that backwards. Yeah, i do. And maybe if our girls would have reading lists in school that showed by example- as these two books do- the power and aftershock of our choices(their choices); well, then maybe more forethought would go into said choices- all choices.

I know what you mean about the weaker sex(physically)- cause, damn- my husband can work circles around me. I'm so tired tonight from shoveling snow and working in the barn... at least he's as tired as i am.


Actually, both books are history of life according to estrogen- my bad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004