Slashdot Mirror
Top Banned Books of 2003
michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003.
Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"
The title actual is "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-20001".
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
May I ask why the hell Where's Waldo? was banned?
Is the objection to Harry Potter that it depicts magic? I don't get it. C.S. Lewis had magic in his books, and Christians love him. What is the difference?
I used to think my high school literature teacher was the coolest person in the world. (Oh, and she was HOT!) Obviously a previous bra-burning flower girl...
Then, the school board told her that she had to quit teaching A Brave New World -- and she did.
What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.
AC
The Anarchist's Cookbook doesn't even make the list... I mean, is all this stuff really that dangerous?
My little site.
...it was in particular Where's Waldo: Waldo Has 2 Daddies.
here.
Not a list, but has a good portion of the books and actually gives inciteful commentary.
Harry Potter - encourages children to take drugs, mainly pot
Wheres Waldo - Encourages Stalking
and as for "how to eat fried worms" this obviously encourages animal cruelty
why The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende? why To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee?
"Who hasn't slipped into the break room for a quick nibble on a love Newton before?" - Mr. Peterman.
I can understand the banning of American Psycho (excellent book by the way), but Sex by Madonna (and lots of sex related books)? In the Internet era... i mean, is this serious? Is this to "protect" children or something? America is weird sometimes...
Weirdest ban go to 'Of mice and men'... What's disturbing in this story? It was obligatory to read it in Highschool for us in Canada.... Does it means Canadians are deviant or something? Can I live an healthy, balanced life after this? I hope so!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
No question after seeing the list and finding these.
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
That list is disturbing. The ones I highlited here are some of what I read that really shouldn't be banned in my own opinion. Though I think no book should be banned, it's up to people to shepard their children and decide for themselves.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
What I can't figure out is why To Kill A Mockingbird was banned. It's an excellent book and an excellent movie as well. I find it absurd and offensive that it's being banned.
The book I found most difficult to read in high school was Night. It's a vert graphic description of the holocaust. I gave up on reading it because it was so disturbing to me, and just took a bad grade. I can't believe that hasn't made the list.
30. "The Goats" by Brock Cole
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
See, I think that a more important list of which books were banned would be a list of which public institutions did the banning. If there are provincial, backwards-minded, insular communities out there banning books, I'm more interested in knowing where they are than what they're banning.
"* Where's Waldo?
Well, I understand this one. It's not even a book really. Banning this is like banning television from the school library. It's just not really an appropriate item."
Perhaps it teaches attention to detail?
~ All comments automatically moderated -1 since 2004 ~
There are much more serious and interesting instences of banning, like the actual 1995 book burnings of Germar Rudolph's published findings (a German chemist who found evidence showing no signs of Zyklon-B use in Auschwitz other than in delousing chambers). Extreme or not, his publications were literally burned...
And another similar instance wherein publication was halted and pages were ordered torn out of a medical study which showed people of Jewish ancestry to be significantly genetically linked to the Arab and Palestinian population.
Why is this under YRO? It seems like if it's not under Main, Books would be the most appropriate section.
A Wrinkle in Time is apparently banned because it contains magic and "new age" nonsense. (http://solonor.com/bannedbooks/archives/001742.ht ml). Oddly enough, Madeline L'Engle was openly Christian, known to run with other prominant Christian authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. It boggles the mind.
Slashdot encourages normally quiet and law abiding Geeks to question authority !
Ban teh Slashdot now !
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Out of curiosity what gets banned overseas? I would figure most NAZI related material isn't permitted in France, Germany, or similar countries.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Aahhh fourth grade,I remember our weekly trips to the school library.I remember the FIT my grandmother had when she saw I had not only a book on "body language but also Xaviera Hollanders "The Happy Hooker"(who the f**k knows how it got in there)hell,I was just impressed with the pretty lady on the cover,what did I know in 4th grade.
I had actually read about half of it before the old bat got her grabbers on it.
come to think of it I probably owe my love of reading to porn and comic books at a young age.
I mean c'mon granny,Im MENSA now,read everything you never approved of and more and you're just worm food who never had any fun.
Lets rethink this censorship thing.If you want kids to read,you have to LET them want to read.If johnny is gonna learn by reading The Necronomicon,Philosophy in the Bedroom or the Republican National Platform,LET HIM.
He may be a little different,but he's not gonna be an illiterate welfare baby if you let him develop some intellect.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
If you wouldn't like your kids reading those books, fine; the library doesn't have to stock them. Schools choose what books they do and do not show, and it's well within their right to simply not accept copies of "Sex", but banning them altogether is certainly inappropriate. Ultimately, it's the reader's choice whether or not he/she wants to read a book, not the author's; no book should be completely banned.
Not shelved, fine. If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children. But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No.
> * Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies
Well, need I say anything? These obviously don't belong in a school library. Six year old kids don't need to be learning about homosexuality anymore than they need to be learning about heterosexuality. Leave this stuff for the later years - like when they can at least tie their own shoes
I'm sure that last phrase is a euphemism for something, but I can't quite figure it out.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school.
And while I respect your right to decide what your child reads, you do NOT have the right to decide what MY child reads or what OTHER PEOPLE's children read. Just because you find Bridge to Terabithia to be crap doesn't mean all kids do, and I want my child to be able to check it out of a school library.
Keep in mind that this list does not just reflect school libraries, and that this is a list of challenges to books, not necessarily that all these books have been successfully removed from libraries.
I'd also disagree that Heather Has Two Mommies is inappropriate for elementary school kids. We have books picturing heterosexual couples, why not homosexual ones? It's not like the book advocates for only homosexual couples, or has sexual tones. Shockingly enough, there are also picture books about death out there. These kinds of books have a purpose. If your child brings it home, sit down and talk about it. If you don't want them reading it, tell them that. My parents vetted my reading.
If we're going to censor everything anyone finds offensive or inappropriate for their children, we're not going to have any materials in libraries.
Well.
Someone once said, "where they burn books, they will soon start burning people".
This has happend many times in history... and someone said that "What we learn from history, is that we never learn from history and are bound to repeat the same mistakes"
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
Is there some secret link in the story that doesn't go to a page that says:
/. mods don't actually look at the links, but isn't this pushing it a bit?
"The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000"
I know late stories go up sometimes and sometimes
I don't think highschool kids really read anythign like that anymore anyway. I know that when I was in school a decade ago, we didn't read things like Antigony or Slaughterhouse Five. No, our english class read "Jurassic Park". Fucking stupid. And then we wonder why our country is so far behind.
If she weren't over 200 years old...
She isn't. Try 76.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The Adventures of Tom Sawyer??? This is what they're keeping away from kids? Perhaps they'll ban Dr. Suess next.
A number of the other titles on that list were REQUIRED READING when I was in HS (and younger). Evidently the standards are chaning for the worse.
I understand some of these, but some just make no sense.
The Adventures of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Of Mice and Men" are widely recognized great pieces of literature. "The Catcher in the Rye" isn't on that same level, but it's still up there. "A Wrinkle in Time" and "The Giver" are about the only popular thought-provoking children's science fiction/fantasy books. That's just in the top fifteen.
What really did it for me was "A Light in the Attic." Seriously. How many of you developed your appreciation of poetry as a child largely due to this book?
-Amalcon
An interesting contrast:
coming in at #40: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
and at #61: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
Clearly, it's better for boys to learn about their bodies. I wonder what the rationale was for libraries that chose to ban one book and not the other.
A book entitled "The Alchemist." Basically, a short story about following omens and doing what you really want in life, etc. Maybe finding something you didn't know existed that could make everything better.
A quick 3-4 hour read that is definitely worth it.
gShares.net
-------
artlu.net
The webpage lists the top 100 challenged books. Of which I can understand why. Saying a book is challenged is like saying "I don't agree with this" and nothing more. If that were the case, I would agree with any book dealing with Sex, Homosexuality and the like for children in grade school. Stuff like that should be left to the parents to explain. Other books, I have no idea why. Certain Mark Twain has written some interesting things which challenge us, but Huck Finn ain't one of them. And the lot of others I grew up reading or seeing as PBS "After School Specials" -- I mean really? Give me a break.
Of course, nothing will substitute for good parenting. Parents should keep certain materials away from their children until they can understand it. If parents don't do their jobs, some one else will -- and those people won't exactly share your same values.
BTW, the link goes to the 1990-2000 list, where's the 2003 list?
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
Just because he doesn't like Angelou doesn't made him racist. Personally, I very much enjoy her work, too.
On the other hand, I don't enjoy the work of EE Cummings. Some of his work confronts the issue of race. It's not because I disagree with him, I just don't enjoy his style.
My point is, just because he doesn't like Angelou's work doesn't mean he's a racist. Am I a racist because I don't like Cummings' style?
Most of the non-Shakespeare books I had to read in high school english classes are on that list...
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
What amazes me about the list is that 80% of the required reading that I did at my school (just a normal public school) is on the list. The idea of someone graduating high school without having read several of them truly troubles me.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
* Bridge To Terabithia Oh good god what a piece of shit. I had to read this in school in fifth grade. It was short, sappy, dull and retarded
I couldn't have said it any better. This book sucks beyond description. In fact, that's probably what won it the Newberry Medal. Have you ever noticed that "award-winning" children's books almost ALWAYS suck? I'd gladly support a ban on Bridge To Terabithia just to spare kids from exposure to such stupid literature.
Keep in mind that this list does not just reflect school libraries, and that this is a list of challenges to books, not necessarily that all these books have been successfully removed from libraries.
Yes it does, mostly. 71% of the challenges were with regard to school libraries.
I'd also disagree that Heather Has Two Mommies is inappropriate for elementary school kids. We have books picturing heterosexual couples, why not homosexual ones?
What children's picture books depict heterosexuality as the entire point of the book? Yes, books depict them if you mean that in the story there is a dad and a mom - but dad and mom and their relationship aren't the topic of those books now are they? I don't think it's appropriate for a little kid to have to read a book focusing on anyone's sexuality. PERIOD. Christ, at least wait until they're in double digits. My six year old doesn't need to know this kind of shit. I don't have a problem with anyone's sexuality, but I don't want my child's brain being pelted with everyone's vies - be they religious or sexual - when he's barely old enough to tie his shoe and still holds my hand to cross the street.
no shit. oh vvell. Got a hint on forcing carriage returns for next time? This vvas my err... 2nd post. lemme
check
something
hrm. Seems to have vvorked.
My little site.
How can you read The Giver, and then ban it? That's like banning 1984.
Was? She's still alive, you know...
You forgot Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged! :P
A blog like any other.
A bit more readable:
MIRROR.
Ignore the url. It's honestly a mirror. I promise.
-Aaron
My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
Actually my sister is in 10th grade and is reading Night this year. I had to read it six or seven years ago in high school, too. I don't have a problem addressing the issue of the holocaust, but it's possible to capture how disturbing it was without reading Night. While it's not something I enjoy reading, The Diary of Anne Frank is a much more respected piece of literature, and something I would have been much more willing to read.
There was also some books I read in that class which I very much enjoyed reading. Fahrenheit 451 is an excellent book, as in Animal Farm. Huckleberry Finn is something I didn't have a problem reading. I just don't think Night was a good choice.
Were any banned? At all? Where's that list? Because if it's empty, then what's the big deal? I could start a campaign to ban public availability of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't really put it in any danger of being banned(I would hope not anyway).
I didn't remember how boring it was until I saw the movie as an adult awhile back and recalled the story.
What I remember about school - especially grade school - was how politically correct and ethnic everything had to be. You couldn't even have a decent fucking picture book without every character being named Santos and Pepito and eating fajitas. Talk about a way to alienate most kids!
There's nothing wrong with having variety out there for children to identify with, but much of the content we were presented with as children suffered in the entertainment and interest department because they focused more on making sure that they had one character from every major ethnicity and and mentioned as much as they could about different cultures at the cost of like.. you know.. HAVING A GOD DAMNED STORY.
More informative what've been a list of the most banned books, not merely the most challenged. Anyone can challenge a book, and you can never please 100% of the public with your writing. There's always a kook willing to challenge even the most family friendly novel. What I'd be curious to know is how many of these challenges actually succeeded.
Just, just below the text entry area, there is a pop-up list that says "HTML Formatted"; just switch that to "Plain Old Text" and you'll be fine.
Not only that, but many of the books weren't even banned, but the parents rather requested that they be simply moved. As in "This doesn't seem appropriate for a first grader to be reading. Do you think you could move it to a fourth or fifth grade level area?" The ALA makes no distinction about this, and the book being "banned".
... YES! This child is being subjected to a book, that were it a movie, it would have been rated R (or at best PG-13) and wouldn't be able to see on their own. And heaven FORBID that the school would sanction such a movie to be shown to the child.
Also, I heard a story from a parent, whose child in the second grade (it was elementary school at the least), was reading a book that had a vivid description of a rape scene.
So, the parent complains, and the school complies, and the ALA lists it as a "banned" book.
The ALA has a decent idea here, fight censorship, but they have to be aware, we should but the same sort of standards on our literature that we put on our movies. There simply are some books that aren't appropriate for children.
And NEVER have these "banned" books been truly banned. If the parent, or the child really wanted the book, they could obtain it for their child to read. It was just felt by the school system, that it wasn't appropriate for them to supply it.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Anyone see any more on that list that are public domain?
-jim
It's been a while since I read the series, but I remember some of the later books having some sexual situations in them. It looks like they're just talking about the first book and not th whole series though, and I don't remember anything bad in the first one.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
I agree with you that books like where's waldo should be banned. This isn't anything to do with free speech, but a lot of these books are total garbage and little kids flock to them which prevents them from actually learning how to read. People can't both complain that kids should read real literature and also that books with no educational value should not be banned because it violates free speech, but apparantly many people hold this contradictory beliefs. No one is banning these from the bookstore, but why would anyone want to encourage kids to 'read' books like this instead of true classic kids books like The Giver, Tuck Everlasting, etc.
offtopic?? the poster mentioned the bleeding article, i don't see how it's offtopic. maybe flamebait, troll, or overrated (if you're a coward/there's no better modifier), but not offtopic.
i've been seeing trolls modded offtopic a lot recently, anybody know why?
MANY of those books are in the UK's "nation's favorite read" books- the BBC (our state-funded tv/radio network) is actively ENCOURAGING us to read things like Huck Finn, Harry Potter, The Handmaid's Tale, Of Mice and Men etc (with good reason, I might add)
Good luck to the ALA!
There's hope for America's children yet!
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies
I'm not so sure how I feel about this one. Something like "The New Joy of Gay Sex" I could understand. But I like the idea of people seeing a homosexual couple as normal. (Conservatives will totally flip out over that?)
Go back 150 years, and imagine it was "Heather Has a Black Mommy." I'm not trying to defend gay marriage here or anything, but I think it's the same thing -- I strongly doubt the objection to this book was because of the homosexuality, as opposed to the homosexuality.
A homosexual couple has nothing to do with sex until, well, they have sex. It'd be like banning a book with a mother and father because they have a heterosexual relationship. The mere act of having a child proves they had sex!
I haven't read the book, but if it doesn't cover their bedroom activities, I don't see the problem. But maybe that's why I'm a liberal democrat.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Being able to get books for free is not a right.
#include "sig.h"
You forgot Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged! :P
That piece of crap made me never want to read again!
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Abbie Hofffman's classic 60's underground how-to , now free online.
I'm told that she once tried to get Sideways Stories from Wayside School banned because the first teacher in it was a witch and that must mean this book is a menace to all children. And that wasn't her only crusade. Mind you, this is a woman who once believed that God told her to have three more children (despite the fact they couldn't really afford to take care of more children) and move to the island of Java as missionaries.
Surprisingly, I haven't heard anything about her making any attacks on Harry Potter, but she has been slighly less nuts in the past few years, so maybe she's getting better.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Our school district provides a local "mirror" of WikiPedia for our students to use since our internet bandwidth is pretty crappy during the school day. The we've also removed the ability for students to "edit" the articles locally after we found most the edits were *ahem* "less than usefull" - they can go to the WikiPedia main site if they really have something usefull to contribute.
Anyway, after many of our teachers and students have been successfully using this wonderfull research tool for over a year, our *new* directory of Library Media has dictated that we have to take it down and block the main wikipedia as well "...because anyone can submit information! There's no one who approves the articles! How do we know the information is accurate?!"
Oh, yeah?!? So Ms. know-it-all, what about all the other research that students do on the internet? Do you have to personally approve every web-site? Or are you just afraid students might get some information which doesn't take the same slanted view of the facts that your precious, 20-year-old text-books take?
The fact that this was already approved by the previous administrator doesn't seem to make a difference. God, how I hate ignorant, mis-informed, self-important, beurocrats with power!
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Harry Potter I can understand... I mean that kid is just weird and geeky and talks to owls.
But "Sex" by Madonna? That is basically the pinnacle of literary achievement in the 1990s
TDz
Perhaps you just went to a shitty high school. When I was in HS less that a decade ago I read Night, To Kill a Mockingbird, Antigone (I guess that's how I know how to spell it correctly), etc... Granted I had to read a lot of crap too, like Things Fall Apart. But nothing quite on the level of Jurrasic Park.
hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
The Road Ahead by Bill Gates should be banned in all countries due to its immense stupifying effect.
My parents vetted my reading
,-)
So did mine. And that was a sure fire way of getting me to obtain and read those books
Your point is valid, tho. I get to decide what my child reads or not but I have no business doing to same with your kid. The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.
A desicion has to be made by the school custodian (or PTA or whatever) as to what books to have available at the library. It is unrealistic to think that the librarian will have a list of allowed books per student.
If I'm interested in making sure my opinion counts in deciding what books will or will not be available to my kids at school, I'll make sure my voice is heard at the committee that does the deciding.
That said, I believe children should be able to read what they please and form their own oppinions instead of being "censored" into thinking like we do. If my kid wants to read "Mein Kampf", I won't forbid it to him. I will, however, make sure he has access to counterpoint arguments and will sit down to discuss it with him.
No sig
amazon should have this list posted with links to buy the books.
"if you like being able to read whatever you want, these titles may also interest you:"
i went to a 50's pop culture exhibit here in calgary a couple of years ago and they had an entire section of banned media from that period in canada. i couldn't believe some of the titles. they had the books in a barrel, implying they were about to be lit on fire.
the title i remember best in that pile was "lord of the flies", which was required reading for english when i was in grade 6 in british columbia.
it's nice to see i am not the only person that gets "the rage" when i see organizations trying to ban books.
scott king
I am sorry, but I am more than willing to take a karma drop for these statements.
Many of these books were banned solely on the basis that they contradicted the religious beliefs of a single group. I thought that this country was suposed to be a democracy, but every day I become more and more convinced that it is becoming a fundamentalist christian teocracy. I also read that in Texas, information on condoms is not being included in books as a method of birth control and STD prevention. And that evolution is being removed from science books unless they include Creationism.
As an agnostic, I refuse to have my life controled by a group whose purpose is to preserve myths and stories that are not based on science or on truth. Religious indoctrination belongs in the churches, not in the libraries or in the classrooms.
If you want to ban a book based on violence, war, sex crimes, oppresion, racism and injustice, then the Bible should be first on their list, if you dont trust me, then go and read Deuteronomy.
Ok, I am sorry, I will quit my rambling and go rent Farenheit 451 and pray for the future. I just hope that I dont make the mistake of praying to a god that is not being supported and sponsored by the government.
Cheers
Adolfo
Anyone whos institution bans books, how about buying some of them and sneeking them in to the library shelves? give them a label and put them in the right section. And if someone claims they saw you put the book there, act outraged and point out the genuine library stamp and card (showing previous borrowers). then complain that there are unsuitable books in the library - the threat of the local republican paper/parents finding out will shut them up. Then when they get rid of them tell the local sane paper that your school is banning books and stick another load back in. For added effect populate the database with some non-existent fetish porn mags and be sure to spread _plenty_ of rumours. geeks sometimes get some extra access to the library and database - abuse it! ;)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
We got our lessons when the Germans had their book-burnings here during the war. You didn't. These whole procedings (banning books from (school) libraries) would be totally completely and utterly unthinkable here (Holland). I suggest to maybe try changing some things by using your vote come November.....
Non-Linux Penguins ?
What about "Mommy Laid An Egg"? Who knows how traumatized I would have been if in grade school I had read that and immediately thought back to those scrambled eggs I had for breakfast.
Little Bricklets
I'm 21, still finishing my university education, and my question is, which of these titles have you read? The following is my list, and for the most part I've enjoyed reading them all.
1. Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
7. Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
8. Forever by Judy Blume
13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
16. Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
22. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
24. Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
32. Blubber by Judy Blume
37. The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
45. Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard
46. Deenie by Judy Blume
47. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes (one of my favourites)
53. Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
55. Cujo by Stephen King
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
59. Ordinary People by Judith Guest
62. Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding (another favourite)
77. Carrie by Stephen King
83. The Dead Zone by Stephen King
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Anyone else?
This is not a sig.
Where I've been to school (both catholic and public schools) we were encouraged to read most of these books. I can't imagine being in a school that would ban them.
What major portions of the book are incorrect?
My experience was that if a person wanted to take shitty classes, they were available for the shitty students. My (public) high school had AP English, honors humanities (which qualified as honors college credit), but it also had sports lit. I think that's how most schools are. They don't challenge the morons because it's a waste of money. I'm sure a lot of kids are falling through the cracks, and I think that all students should be challenged early on. But hey, the students are the ones that choose what to take.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
Being able to get books for free is not a right.
But it should be.
Not when one of the main goals of high school is to give the young adult the tools necessary to make informed judgements about his/her world.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
I don't believe the ALA uses the term "banned" in their article. They (correctly) refer to the books as "challenged." This is a common mistake/propaganda device.
Banned books would be those books that it used to actually be illegal to import and sell in the United States, like Ulysses and Naked Lunch, as in "banned in Boston." Challenged books are books that parents and teachers ask libraries to discard or not order. There's a very important difference, because even in the most conservative town in the United States, you can't get arrested for walking into the public library with Madonna's Sex. The worst they can do is tell you to put it away, and even that would be
questionable under the 1st Amendment.
School libraries, obviously, are different, since they can claim disruption of the educational process or whatever, but it's still not the same as an outright ban, since the worst they can do is confiscate the book and tell the parents to come pick it up.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you have the right to prevent other people or other people's kids from reading them. If we could ban anything that people considered crap, Britney Spears and the all those "Spice Boy" bands would not be played on any radio stations if it was up to me.
* Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies Well, need I say anything? These obviously don't belong in a school library. Six year old kids don't need to be learning about homosexuality anymore than they need to be learning about heterosexuality. Leave this stuff for the later years - like when they can at least tie their own shoes.
I agree with you that material that deal with sexuality (homo or hetero) is not approprite to younger children. But the list is not definitive on what was banned and where. If these books were banned from a high school, I would have a problem with it.
Really, most of the books on that list suck. Some are great, but not many (Slaughter House for example). And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school. Others, though, make no sense at all. Really odd.
I think you answered our own question. People with strong opinions like yourself have probably taken on themselves to make sure that the libraries in their area do not carry books that are against their beliefs or tastes. I think one reason why the list is so huge is that some people don't distinguish between material they don't like with material that offends them. They think that they can speak for everyone and have that material banned.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, it shouldnt.
> I don't enjoy the work of EE Cummings
> I just don't enjoy his style.
Aparently you don't, as he is normally referenced as 'ee cummings' as reflected by his style.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
This isn't quite what it appears.
John Kerry's claiming the book is incorrect; he didn't use the word (that I see), but it's essentially saying it's a slander campaign. He's asking that they stop selling a book that's just out to slander him.
He's not legislating it away because it's damaging to him.
Granted, I'm a Kerry supporter, and you're clearly (by your signature) anti-Kerry. It's no secret that if you support someone, you'll make allowances for things, and if you oppose them, you'll blow things out of proportion. Which is why I hate arguing about politics.
Asking someone not to carry what you perceive as a slanderous book is totally different than him trying to legislate it away, which is what's suggested.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
I worked in a library many years ago, and one day, while returning books to the shelf, I noticed "Daddy's Roomate." I figured it might be funny, so I opened it up. I still can't tell whether I was more stunned or confused or whether I found it hysterical or disturbing. We're not talking about a book that simply says "it's OK for you to have two daddies," we're talking about a book on virtually every page of which daddy's "roomate" is topless and flexing his muscles. Showing them in bed together was a bit much, as well, but the fact that you couldn't turn the page without seeing him gardening topless or whatever it was he was doing was somewhat frightening. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. Showing two men hugging makes sense, kissing too. But they should keep their clothes on, same as any other children's book (The target audience was clearly ~5-year-olds). I'm not suggesting it should be banned, I'm just suggesting that libraries shouldn't necessarily stock it.
G
You forgot "Mushroom Inspired"...
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
Am I, as a adult citizen of the United States, unable to obtain a copy of said books? If so, then they are not "banned". If a library chooses not to stock a certain book, that is unfortunate, but not a "banning" of the book.
Can you obtain a copy of "Penthouse" at your average Elementary school library? No (or at least I certainly hope not). But is it banned? No, since an adult can obtain a copy pretty freely.
If an author writes a book that simply stinks, and nobody will buy it, is he banned? No.
The first amendment protects you from PROCESCUTION for excercising your free speech. It does not, however, require anybody to LISTEN to you.
Damnit to hell, every kid needs to read Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. You could have murdered a room full of people in front of me, and that would not have had the lasting effect that those books did. Kids need a healthy fear of the unknown, scarecrows, hooks, women, children, adults, women, dogs, and spiders.
Also, I've not read Heather has Two Mommies, but the title alone is an insult to my intelligence. I realize we're in a transition period, and that book was written ten years ago, but surely it's better to have stories that feature characters that just happen to be gay? It's hard to fight against something that doesn't fight against you (at least not directly). Leave the politics to the ignorant adults. Children don't develop morals through preaching, they develop them from experience. Preaching only inspires fear.
Well, allow me to retort!
The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents, Terry Pratchett.
The Outsiders, S.E. Hinton
A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle
The Witches, Roald Dahl
And that's just what happens to be on my bookshelf. If I were to think harder I could think of many, many, many more titles that were award-winning and didn't suck.
But Bridge sucked ass.
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
*snicker* ...Others from 150 years ago:
"I know why the caged bird is quiet and subservient."
"The new joy of...proper wifely housekeeping and cleaning"
"What's happening to my body? Shameful and filthy wicked things."
"Where's E.A. Poe?"
"Heather has an upper class mommy and an Irish daddy!"
"It's perfectly abnormal and wrong!"
"Saying no! to 'sex'!"
"The Whig's cookbook"
"A brave new world of corsets and revealed ankles!"
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
my kingdom for mod points. I looked 2 pages before finding an appopriate giver joke!
The top 10 from 2003 are:
Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
"Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
"Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
"Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
"Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
"We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
"King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
"Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.
Link
I just read
. . . .check this out. Nice to know our guardians of learning read 1984.
If the ALA wants a cause, it ought to look into John Kerry trying to force the Swiftboat Vets to stop publishing their book.
And I suppose if you were a public figure, and someone wrote a book with the obvious intent to tarnish your name with false accusations (as it happening in this case), you'd be waving the flag and thumping the first amendment. What if they went further, explained how you were in fact a criminal, or responsible for several murders?
You're trying to paint this as an absolute, when clearly it's not. There's an arbitrary line drawn between freedom of speech and slander, and Kerry thinks the Swiftboaters have crossed it, simple as that.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Things have changed a bit since we were kids, you know, the whole Intarweb thing? Watch the movie thirteen, and go talk to some junior high kids. Kids are finding out about sex from their peers, and media, at earlier and earlier ages. Where once a girl was a slut for even kissing more than one guy in the space of a few weeks, now she's a tease if she doesn't suck a dick on the second date....times change, try to keep up.
And no, I wasn't implying a correlation between those two books and teen pregnancy, simply the underlying fear of talking about sex with your kids that leads to trying to shelter them from ever learning about it until they're "old enough."
By all means keep sheltering them, it's your right to raise your children however you see fit. Simply put though, for those that shelter their kids as much as possible, don't be surprised if that over-sheltering comes back to haunt.
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
This is one that always confounded me.
Books that deal with issues of race are often banned by people who object to racism. I sometimes think it's because they haven't actually read the books, but have merely done the kind of sanctimonious counting of "offensive" terms or situations (e.g., like the CAP Alerts. Or anybody remember that lady who talked to the Meese commission, and enumerated the number of times the word "horny" was used in Catcher in the Rye?). You could argue this for several of the books:
Huck Finn was clearly written with an anti-racist agenda, but was written ironically, from the perspective of an ignorant kid. It contains the word "nigger" many, many times. As a result of these two factors, it's considered by some as inappropriate for children.
To Kill A Mockingbird deals with a rape trial, and therefore could be considered inappropriate for kids. It also contains a lot of racial slurs and violence.
I think what's underlying the attacks on these books, though, is less these characteristics (which are usually the nominal reasons for banning them), but the anti-authority themes running through the books. They question the conventional morality of the times they describe. People who don't like that kind of thinking may find that mroe offensive than all of the ostensible faults of the books. They don't wnat to encourage this kind of questioning (of course, they're way too late to try to stop it now.)
You can see a similar effect, by the way, against some of the best anti-authoritarian books like Animal Farm ("it makes kids think animals can talk!"), Brave New World ("but it mentions sex!"), Slaugherhouse Five ("it's filthy!"), and so forth.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
I read To Kill a Mockingbird in 10th grade which was only three years ago, so atleast some people still read books like that in highschool. As a senior I also read books like lemort de arthur and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
I read a Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle a million years ago and I forget the details. I've read all of the Harry Potter stuff, J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye, Flowers For Algernon, S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders, the
... I never viewed her as a particularly controversial writer.
Lord Of The Flies, Slaughterhouse Five, A Brave New World, A Light In The Attic, both Mark Twain books, all three Stephen King books, and this is a bit embarrasing and out of character for me, but I *own* a copy of Howard Stern's Private Parts.
The last time I busted my roomie watching Howard Stern they were interviewing a female dwarf porn star and I must say this is the most
redeeming episode I've seen, but his book examines corporate ownership of radio stations and is a fine read in a Hunter S Thompsonesque sort of way.
I see a smattering of gay parents are OK books and various juvenile magic manuals - no surprise on these getting the evil eye, but what is Judy Blume's stuff doing in there? She has five of the hot 100 and I just don't
understand
Can anyone shed some light on Judy Blume's presence on this list?
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Sura - 9 Ultimatum (Bara'ah)
Order Of Revelation 113, Verses: 127
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
"Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)
5:51 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them." This freindship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.
Sura 4:89 "seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Sura 2:187-189 "And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such the reward of the infidels...Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against the wicked."
Sura 8:57 "So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson."
Do you really think that he believed Maya Angelou was over 200 years old? It's called "hyperbole", look it up.
These classics are almost REQUIRED reading:
03. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
05. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
06. Of Mice and Men
13. The Catcher in the Rye
22. A Wrinkle in Time
41. To Kill a Mockingbird
69. Slaughterhouse-Five
70. Lord of the Flies
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
There is some dissent however, in the source code of the page the first 22 books are marked-up as <strong>, while the last 78 are just <b>.
Maybe their proofreading department is flawed.
Stuff that matters.
Not that I agree with banning it, but I can appreciate some academics having trouble with the material (Atticus Finch is seen as a "nigger lover" - a quote straight from the book, btw).
Academics should be broadening the minds of tomorrow's leaders. Racism still is an issue in our country, although not as bad as it used to be. "To Kill a Mockingbird" does explore racism a little bit, and that is a good thing. Banning it for quotes such as what you mentioned is a very bad thing. That is like living in denial -- if I pretend that word does not exist, it will not (at least not in my head). Ludicrous.
When my son is old enough to go to school I will be very proactive and make sure he learns about these issues. I will encourage him to read banned books if his school acts stupid. Government censorship is evil. There are two people allowed to censor what my son sees, and the other one is my wife.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Remember, a Leftist can simply parrot his instructors and be assured of high grades and graduation. They have never been placed in a situation where they must defend or even examine their beliefs. They just nod along to get along, and are rewarded.
Someone who thinks for himself, however, will be forced to do four times the work for half the grade. Every statement he makes will be challenged, and even if his logic is perfect and his writing is sublime, his chances of flunking increase exponentially with his deviation from the party line.
And since even an unadorned link to this book, the most important book published this year, must be suppressed, you are modded down by the open-minded Left.
It's sad, really, that these imbeciles were never taught to think.
I love lists like this as they remind me of long forgotten books that I really enjoyed growing up. "How To Eat Fried Worms" was the funniest book in existence when I was 9. At one time, the most powerful book I had read was "Bridge to Terabithia". "Lord of the Flies" entranced me in Jr High. Those, and books like them, were all ones that really had an impact on me at a particular age but were ones that I have since forgotten.
This don't think it's odd that a list of banned books would have a lot of very good books one them. Good books tend to be more challenging to the reader and it's exactly those challenging parts that certain people object to. To those people, if it's not the same old pablum, then they don't want anything to do with it.
Still, there are some books on the list that are decidedly NOT great or even good books. "Sex", by Madonna. "The New Joy of Gay Sex". I'll have to admit that I can definitely see why somebody would try to get them banned from a public library. After all, you don't see Hustler magazine next to the New York Times at public libraries so why should you expect to find "Sex"? But on the flip side to that, they ARE books and as such, were I at a public library, I would fight any attempt to ban them.
And finally, it would be nice if this particular list had the following info:
1. Was the book actually banned? All it says is they were all "challenged" which means "somebody tried to ban it" to me.
2. WHY was the book challenged in the first place?
Deidre Honnold's "English With Ease: Mastering the Basic Ingredients of English"
So you wish to enslave...
... so that you may have books without paying for all of the above services?
1. the authors of the books
2. the choppers of the trees
3. the processors of the wood into paper
4. the drivers of the raw materials
5. the printers of the words onto the paper
6. the editors of the books
7. all the people who support all of the above
highschool are on this list...
6. Of Mice and Men
41. To Kill a Mockingbird
47. Flowers for Algernon
70. Lord of the Flies
All required reading in my highschool english classes.
Book of Vile Darkness0 21206ex 1 17a t s/dndacc/881610000
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20030
http://http//www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=produc
But I like the idea of people seeing a homosexual couple as normal.
It's so normal that you have to have a book depicting it as normal. It's so normal that you have to mount feverish activist campaigns to push it as normal.
It's so normal that you have to reach children at a young age so they have the mental discipline to fight the constant, nagging tug of reality -- lest they think it might not be perfectly normal.
Why not just live your life the way you want and leave the rest of us out of your wish to be considered normal?
(Watch this post get "banned" now.)
No, I just think that the books should be made available in libraries for all. I have no problem with people selling books to make a profit. Indeed, I usually only buy books after I've read them in the library and enjoyed them.
Doesn't that involve bending over?
No, but sending letters to TV and Radio stations threating to sue them if they air the commercials is what has happened. Most stations went ahead and aired the ads.
In contrast President Bush has been silent all through the hate filled ads that Soros and others have displayed, Has said nothing when Farenhight 9/11 came out. After more than 60 x the money the Swift Boat group has spent has been spent against President Bush, who's crying about "Incorrect" statements? Kerry, that's who. Who has been trying to stilfe the speach, Um Kerry again.
If the book is slander, let Kerry take it a court of LAW, not send letters though lawer to try and bully someone into giveing up their free speech.
I don't really care for Kerry (the candidate not the man) nor do I like all that Bush has done... anyway well said about how personal/group desire often lead to extreme interpretations / mischaracterizations.
It makes addressing the real issues that much harder... such is politics these days it seems (or maybe always).
Bridge to Terabithia and The Giver.
I read The Giver and really liked it. Sort of a weak ending, though.
I read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn when I was about 9, and the S.E. Hinton books in school in 8th grade.
Where's Waldo ? That's pretty ridiculous.
Flowers for Algernon is an incredible story. I think I read it first in High School but I read it again a few years ago and it was still very affecting.
The Earth's Children series might not be appropriate for middle-school kids, with it's neolithic sex scenes and all. Poor beaten-up Ayla has her first orgasm.. Oooh baby.
I don't think I'd want to have Daddy's Roommate or The New Joy of Gay Sex in a school library, but one could argue that the other sex manuals would be ok for High School age kids.
Heh. People didn't see interracial couples as "normal". There were laws against it for many years, they didn't get repealed until the 60s.
A lot of things considered "normal" today - women voting, blacks not being slaves, minorities having equal rights - were not in previous years. What makes you think that our idea of "normal" today is any better than it was a hundred years ago?
The reason why we need "feverish activist campaigns" is because there are bigots like you - the same kind of people who were against civil rights 40 years ago - trying to repress a segment of society. And that's what they're fighting.
Heterosexual couples are necessary for the propogation of the species. Homosexual couples are not.
In other words, parents eventually having to teach their kids about heterosexuality is a requirement. Parents teaching their kids about homosexuality is optional. Not saying that justifies the latter being banned. But an argument based on equality of access to information about the two just doesn't work.
I wonder if Fahrenheit 451 is one of the banned books... I think that would be somewhat ironic...
Seriously though, the majority of the books in that list are great books, I have no idea why they should be banned.
Speaking as the parent of two small children, I am repeatedly dismayed that parental judgment is often cast as censorship.
The first amendment covers GOVERNMENT control of speech. Non governmental institutions have all the freedom to exercise judgment and set age-appropriate limits and match the prevailing values of the community.
Don't interfere with how I raise my kids and I won't interfere with how you raise yours.
Wow. Nice to see you have your head buried in the sand.
The last few decades of biological and psychological research has shown that homosexuality is, in fact, natural and innate. Some people are born with that orientation. And not just in humans.
Rotten.com has an article on animal homosexuality here that you might find enlightening.
The burning of books has long been a sign of an oppressive regime flexing it's muscles of propaganda to strike down things that counter their essence. From early Chinese emperors burning scrolls and burying the scholars alive to erradicate knowledge up to the Nazis burning books and sending off their undesirables to death camps. While some have been successful in their campaign to destroy knowledge and hide it, for the most part it is an exercise in futility. Reasons for burning books are typically to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses, reasons for banning books are to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses. In the age of the Internet this is a shallow useless act that only shows a repressive nature of somebody or some group.
Some books are banned because they showcase the shame of America, like Huckleberry Finn with the word nigger being used correctly in context as it was for the time the story was wrote in. Does banning this book for printing the word nigger as it was used make bigotry and racism go away, change history and the fact that it was used, miracle away American hypocrisy of liberty and justice for all except slaves? By not learning the truth and being exposed to facts we erradicate the lessons we should have learned. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If you have such a serious problem with a book, close the cover and get rid of it. If you are such a failure as a parent you don't want little George reading a book because you don't have the time to invest in your child, don't get them the book. If they have book because they do not want to follow in your silhouette, take it from them or find somebody to be the parent you are not. Nobody is making you read them, why force others down to your level of illiteracy.
Putting a book on a banlist is a quick way to get my attention, and usually much more reliable for a good read than the bestseller listings. Celebrate the banned book list, check them off as you read each one.
No book should be banned, censorship spawns ignorance.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
And i suppose if you were a public figure, and someone wrote a book with the obvious intent to tarnish your name with false accusations (as it happening in this case), you'd be waving the flag and thumping the first amendment.
Bingo. You got it. That's exactly right. I'd be thumping the first amendment. I would say:
"America is a free country, thank God for that. Like every American, $GADFLY has the freedom under the First Amendment to write anything they want in their books. That doesn't make it true."
Observe the real public statements of real public figures, and you will see that many of them actually take this response.
She wanted to keep her job, and feed her family.
Sometimes you have to pick your battles, and some just are not worth the fight...
I'm sure she was in that position.. Id not loose any respect and consider her a 'sell out' because she had adult responsibilities to consider.
When you grow up you might understand.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why why why?? +What's wrong with that book? It is sinister (all Dahl stories are), it doesn't have a true happy ending but why try to ban it? It just doesn't make sense.
Same goes for Slaughterhouse V (A Children's Crusade). A book about a terrible war? What's wrong with it? Was it because it was US and UK bombing the enemy and Vonnegut showing the ugly side? IMHO, It is one of the most pacifist book written to this date.
The adventures of Tom Sawyer???? These parents must be on crack!
Brave New World? Every young child should read it and understand technology alone cannot solve our problems.
Perhaps it's fun?
Come on, they are kids for christ's sake! Do they have to plow through War And Peace every visit to their library? My junior and infant schools both had several Where's Wally (same deal) books in the libraries and I am glad they did because we all loved looking for the funny scenes listed at the back of the book (personally I wasn't interested in finding Wally).
Can we let our children be children for once?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Well somethings here prove America has serious issues with freedom of speach.
2 2077.st m
May want to read why Harry Potter is being attacked in so many places.
Then read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/27
Even the Vatican approves of it!!!
I've went over a few of these on a blog post
The point of these books (i.e., Heather....), I thought, was to get kids to recognize that homosexual relationships aren't unnatural, immoral, or unhealthy. Prepare them for a reality for which, if they were sheltered by for instance bigoted parents, they would not be prepared. Or worse--to which they would respond aggressively and violently.
Some people, it's to be admitted, don't agree with this message or this lesson. I'm going to act a bit un-Fox News-like for a second here, though, and suggest that maybe they're wrong and this is the right kind of thing to teach children, no matter what age.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
Am I the first one who read it as And her freedoom of speech is irritating?
You might not like her style of poetry but you shouln't advocate banning the book.
"What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras"
"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain"
Furthermore if you ban a book from the library because you DO NOT WANT YOUR OWN CHILD to see it, your forbid ALL OTHER CHILD to see it even if they parent would have authroised them. In other word censor is always wrong in such case. For pity's sake your example is wrong too, "the new joy of gay sex" would be in the ADULT section of your library and certainly unavailable to 4th grader (at least around ehre we have very young, young, teen , and adult section !!!).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think the poster's point is that much of our current teen pregnancy and STD problem is the result of things like abstinence-only education, skittish silence about the subject of sex, and other similar attitudes.
Kids--even younger kids--are naturally curious about their and others' bodies, and it seems both unnatural and slightly hypocritical to assume that there's no room for sexual dialogue of any kind until a certain age.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
The New Joy of Gay Sex
At first, I thought this was an article modification troll, but interestingly enough, it's actually number 28 on the list. Also, I didn't realize The Anarchist's Cookbook (#57) was a real book. I thought it was just something people passed around on the internet.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
that Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf is not on that list.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I find it facinating that "Daddy's Roommate" is #2 on that list, while "Heather Has Two Mommies" is #11. Does this show that our culture is a little more accepting of a lesbian lifesytle?
Too bad that list isn't a click-through to Amazon to buy those books. I bet they could be raising a little bit of money from that website to combat censorship.
The New Soldier
For some strange reason, Kerry does not really want us to read this book...
Oh well, information wants to be free and all that.
I can still do this until the INDUCE act gets passed.
These files are in PDF format:
Here is the Intro
Here is the Main Section
Here is the Epilogue
Here is the Pics
When moderation time comes around, we will see who supports "banning" books.
Doubtless, there will be whiny replies of "But you are infringing this poor mans copyright!! You deserve to be modded down!!"
Yawn.
Wrong. The "evidence" you state are behavioral problems in nature, not genetic. There is NO evidence to state that "XYZ" gene makes someone gay.
Also, animals are just that animals. Are you stating we should act like animals and be gay?
The easy answer is that it contains multiple uses of the "N" word.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
It's a matter of semantics.
It doesn't make sense for Bush to personally take on Farenheight 9/11. That would lend it credibility by creating a debate between him and Michael Moore, and give it publicity.
Of course, Michael Moore is just as much a fabricator as the "Swift Boat Veterans" thing and Kerry, if he was responsible, might have pointed out the discrepancies.
It's a better tactic for Bush to have someone else do the job, and it's clear that those people doing the job are closely affiliated with his campaign.
I'm not sure where you get the 60x number you cite. Care to elaborate?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
It doesn't have to be like that. Especially with electronic resources.
The fact is, the public does have a right to free information through public domain, without compulsion on any person.
(Mind you, it seems this right is obliquely under attack, and has been for thirty years or so, as copyright protections have grown)
But listen: even if it were like that, consider countries which recognize free access to health care as a basic right; without enslaving health care professionals, they seem to get on well enough.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
Back when I was in school, a good way to write a book report without having to actually read it was to copy the notes from a classmate; though that was occassionally revealed because of the similarity of the results. My personal workaround was to borrow two notes from different people, and compile my own from them, which effectively killed the "signatures". (This, however, carried the obligation to help those helpful peers with sciences.)
No need to take bad grades. The primary purpose of schooling system is to provide a testbed for learning how to collectively cheat the System - satisfy its requirements while freeing resources for doing more enjoyable things.
Hats off. Brilliant comment, thank you.
While I agree with the principle, the reality is that they do have the right to decide what your kid reads. The key is that the institutions doing the banning are public institutions, which means that they are funded through government sources. Therefore, technically it's the government which has the right to decide what is and isn't allowed to be on the shelves. And since the government is, theoretically, "by the People and for the People", we must conclude that for government-funded institutions, the government, and by proxy, individual people, are given the right to determine what your kid reads.
Strange but true!
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Kinda like Farenheit 911? I'm disappointed in Kerry if he does this. This country is based on freedom of speech. If I can buy Mein Kampf, I should be able to buy whaterver the heck I please. It's my money after all.
I'm curious since the website is down... Did they "outlaw" the book "1984"? http://www.orwelltoday.com
Smile.
Actually, he always signed his name "E. E. Cummings". There was a big todo (which included his wife) over the issue.
http://www.gvsu.edu/english/cummings/caps.htm
So what's an appropriate process for determining which books are inappropriate for kids to check out of the school library. Keep in mind, schools have certain rights and responsibilities re: kids (locus parenti) that other libarary don't have.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
there is NO research stating there are ANY animals that practice ONLY homosexuality. what the research is REALLY saying is that BI-sexuality is 'normal', or rather, natural. Shit! i've seen male dogs jump on other male dogs (which, BTW, is actually a display of dominance, NOT sexuality), but that same dog would also be ALL OVER a female dog.
.... but getting pegged by my girlfriend, that's different!
and, to reiterate another poster, there is also NO research pointing to gene sequences saying "it's this gene sequence that makes you homosexual".
and innate?? give me a BREAK!!! I have NO desire to tup another guys arse, or him mine, or suck a schlong, or him mine
Public schools are government institutions, and because the 14th Amendment stretches the restrictions on the Federal Government to all local government institutions, public schools shouldn't be in the business of restricting access to books.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
How on earth has this pleasant little story got onto the list?
Since I would have a problem having my money spent on some books, and you consider it an imposition to have me decide what books should be bought, why not just end the problem at its source. Why should the government be buying books anyhow? Public really is a misnomer, these purchases are by the government. You buy the books you want, and I'll buy the books I want. Please don't force me to buy your books for you.
Heterosexual couples are necessary for the propogation of the species. Homosexual couples are not.
Thank god for the modern state. Without the constant intervention of the government and educators, people would never have figured out the intricacies of sex.
These lists of banned books often provoke the idea of what is to be banned, or controlled for that matter. The other night, I stumbled across Vigilence, a Macromedia game where you watch cameras and try to catch people committing certain crimes. The catch is that while looking for one crime, another could be occuring, and failing to punish offenses, leads to more offenses.
As for books, at the end of my senior year in High School, I inadvertantly got Billions and Billions recommeded to be stocked in the school library. At least Sagan's works aren't being banned, but they do espouse ideas conservatives may find anethema (limitations of religion; abortion feasibility; science as the savior of the people; etc). Its a lot harder to get someone for ideas, than it is for mere words.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
I think there's a certain organic beauty to this situation: the kid may have incomplete access to materials his parent doesn't approve of, while at the same time the parent has far-reaching but not total control of what the kid consumes.
Here's the beauty: the kid has the opportunity to be exposed to things that otherwise, esp. if say his parents were closed-minded, he wouldn't be, while at the same time there are controls in place.
Since parents have varying abilities and varyingly appropriate views of child-upraising, I like that there's some give in the relationship--bad parents, therefore, don't have an oppressive grip on their children, while at the same time bad kids don't have complete autonomy from their folks.
Since we likely will never agree on just what kind of ideas, ethics, etc. to espouse officially, this organic solution seems right to at least allow a churning of the ideological waters.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
Animal Farm was about the October Revolution, the start of the Soviet Union and the way that Stalin hijacked it and made himself "more equal" than everyone else.
No thanks - I really don't care to read Harry Potter, Where's Waldo, nor HOw to Eat Fried Worms. Am I supposed to "read a banned book" to "fight the system", "be a rebel", or other (usually left) nonsense rhetoric?
John Kerry is a Joke!
Does the one-eyed wink mean that one of those books was the Anarchist Cookbook?
/me ducks and covers
...The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!
Yeah, I'm pumped up! I'm going to read Where's Waldo and make a statement!
Nope. I don't live in USA and I'm glad about that. Also liberal is not a rude word, neither being a democratic person.
When I was in 2nd grade and moving up north, a teacher gave me a Bearenstein Bears book on moving. They weren't trying to push anything on me. They were trying to help me understand the world around me and my situation, which kids need.
Would you object to a book about divorce? That's considered immoral in some religions too. Maybe we shouldn't tell kids about it, or it will seem like an activist campaign to legitimize divorce? Maybe if we don't talk about divorce to kids, noone will ever grow up and have them. Maybe we shouldn't let kids read anything about divorce, or it'll seem like we're advocating it.
I guess you're a bigot if you want to make your own decisions rather than have them made by the government or some activist group.
Your depiction of some books as being done by activist groups while others are just 'normal' is kindof odd. If someone was trying to get any mention of heterosexual couples banned from libraries, that would be an example of an extremist activist group trying to make other people's decisions. And it would be pretty similar to your stance on the matter as well.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
It seems the conservative idea of freedom is to legislate, dictate, control what we think. Conservatives are afraid of free thinking and freedom of choice. I will say some of these books should be in and adults only section of a library, but people should still be able to choose to read them.
Choice is what Freedom is all about.
The author, Laura Miller begins
Perhaps the problem is that kids don't read enough fiction-- and so the adults in their lives feel compelled to push novels that will impress "life lessons" upon the hapless readers.
Does the "topless sunbather" they are complaining about look any different than any Barbie without clothes
But notice how Barbie's breasts aren't very realistic? (pointy, nipple-less lumps from what I can remember)
I don't like to take Budweiser adverts as gospel, but are there any public beaches at all in America that allow topless sunbathing?
Could it be sheer coincedence that the countries with relaxed nudity laws also have some of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates around?
Also, notice how the countries with relaxed attitudes to alcohol (most of which probably fall into the nude category and are in Europe) also have less alcohol related crimes (violence, vandalism etc.) and less of a binge drinking culture.
You don't need federal funding to find a pattern there.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Does that mean that I can ask for the national geographic magazines to be removed, since *I* don't like them too? It's not like these books are being handed to peple as they walk through the door. I read a number of books my parents would not have approved of when I was growing up, that didn't make the books bad.
Hello Kettle,
You, my friend are as black as pitch.
With love, Pot.
C. S. Lewis was actually an Anglican. J. R. R. Tolkein was the Roman Catholic.
(Pullman's first two books in that trilogy are good, but the third one falls apart halfway through. I found his resolution of the huge conflict the previuos two books set up with years of backstory deeply unsatisfying.)
how to invest, a novice's guide
[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.
[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.
[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
[9:7] How can the idol worshipers demand any pledge from GOD and from His messenger? Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honor and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:8] How can they (demand a pledge) when they never observed any rights of kinship between you and them, nor any covenant, if they ever had a chance to prevail. They pacified you with lip service, while their hearts were in opposition, and most of them are wicked.
[9:9] They traded away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. Consequently, they repulsed the people from His path. Miserable indeed is what they did!
[9:10] They never observe any rights of kinship towards any believer, nor do they uphold their covenants; these are the real transgressors.
Also read it in 5th grade. Thought it was awesome. Perhaps you don't have a frame of reference for appreciation of this book, doesn't mean that it sucks.
CAUTION--OFFENSIVE WORD USED BELOW:
... and twelve niggers." This is supposed to be ironic and to expose the racism of the character. Irony is not well understood in 21st century America.
(this is from memory, so the quote is paraphrased--my copy of Huck Finn is at least 30 feet away!)
The offensive passage in Huck Finn is when Huck is told about a steamboat accident and asks how many people were killed. The answer is something like, "six,
Mark Twain (Clements) was no racist and was actually very progressive on racial thinking FOR HIS TIME.
and what of childrens' innocence?
Children's innocence is an adult fantasy.
My parents tried hard to keep me not only sheltered, but their "little baby girl" forever. Yet by the time I was 10, I knew all the facts (or at least myths) of life, courtesy of classmates. I knew things that would have curled my parents' hair. Children were far from "innocent" when I was 10 years old -- and I'll be 42 in September.
Unless you isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who has seen mommy and her boyfriend going at it on the couch, unless your isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who has been molested by her uncle, unless you isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who knows about something you want to pretend doesn't exist, there is no "innocence." There never was. There is only adult blindness, pretending that if we don't talk to children about things we don't like then those things will go away, or at least never affeact our children.
The public library should never be in a position to deny adults access to any given book, ever. No matter what the content.
Children however are not considered adults legally or socially. Parents should be able to set restrictions for what their children see and do not see. If sufficient concern about a particular book is raised, and the means and finances for enforcing a ban or request exist, then I think it's absolutely fine to ban books. A more ideal solution would be library cards being flagged with stuff a particular parent doesn't want. Maybe one day... Still, even the choice of required class reading is subject to community whim, and it should be respected.
It does pay however, to live in a community with ideals similar to your own, or give your own child whatever content you feel he is missing. It's brainwashing either way.
Well said, too bad I have no mod points.
evil is as evil does
Hey kids, how about just reading ANY book, banned or no.
Start with one, if you like it try another. With the amount of material out there, you will eventually find something that they like. If you have a tough time trying to start, here's two authors for you: Steven Brust and Neil Gaiman (and not just the comic books).
Read more, become eduacted, think for yourself. You'll be happier when you do.
Now if you excuse me, I need to polish my walker.
Kindly elaborate. Is that books about sport, or books for people who do sport?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I see the following entries on the list:
40: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
61: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
Why? Is the sexuality of girls more quationable the that of boys, or is this list simply a list of sexual prejudice?
//Wegge
It's a list of the "most frequently" challenged books, which implies that multiple challenges were recorded for each title.
I suppose that somewhere, there might be a incompetent children's Librarian blowing his budget on subscriptions to Hustler, and subsequently raising the ire of "concerned parents." But such challenges would be too rare to enter the ALA list.
Most of the books on the list will be among the tens of thousands of volumes in any well stocked library. Some of the books are deemed to be of sufficient pedagogical value that they are assigned-- others are merely intended to appeal to a minority of readers.
Perhaps kid A's parents are so uptight that they believe a certain book may imperil kid A's morals. But that book may not have been acquired for kid A, but rather for kid B. If the book is banned, kid B suffers.
It may not be on the top 100 list, but my sister-in-law was raised by Jehovah's Witnesses, and she was definitely forbidden to read Narnia. (She wasn't forbidden to read Harry Potter, but that's only because it didn't exist yet.) So, at least some Christaholics are consistent about these things.
:)
BTW, my sister-in-law would like me to pass along a magic word: "disfellowshipped". She says this word will make the aforementioned brand of god-peddlers flee in horror and not return. I haven't tested it personally, but it's gotta be worth a shot!
Sure it lists the books. But it would be much more useful if each book title was linked to a short article explaining some of the reasons that book is being challenged.
Incidentally, there are a few books there I somewhat agree with not being in public schools... Madonna "Sex" and that other book "New Joy of Gay Sex" don't really have much of a place in a school library. Public community libraries, well, that I don't see a problem with having any book...
But, give them some credit. Libraries do not have unlimited funds or shelf space. They can't just throw a book into their collection just because it was released. And some books are in such high demand that they need multiple copies, further reducing space and funds. This is the main reason I don't find the list very useful without explanation- how are we to know if the book is being censored, or the demand isn't high enough to justify the resources needed to stock the book?
That said, if a sizable portion of the community wants Harry Potter, or Sex to be in the library, and they refuse on some moral grounds or whatnot, that is wrong.
It would also be useful to see in the explanatory notes I'd like to see, whether it was the libraries themselves denying the book, or someone above their heads that says "You will not stock this book no matter what".
Another side note, several of those books I borrowed from the school library to read for fun, and several others(Go Ask Alice, Lord of the Flies, and others) were required reading.
It would be interesting to see a list of books children are required to read, around the country and around the world.
My 6th grade class was required to read The Scarlet Letter. I still question adultery as an appropriate theme for grade schoolers. If it was supposed to impart a moral lesson, it missed its' mark as we all knew the teacher was having an affair with the gym instructor. It shouldn't have been banned, but should it have been required?
And why isn't Fanny Hill on that list? ;)
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it? ~ Albert Einstein
Fabricators? BZZT - Wrong. The Swift Boat Veterans have signed afidavits attesting to what they say. If they are lying Mr. Kerry can take them to court.
The 60x was what I remember from various discussions. You choose a number, Be sure to include the cost of the Movie, and all the Ads by Move On.org.
I totaly agree, but most parents are either not interested, not able to discuss this or - thats the worst case - not willing to spend any time on such topics with their kids.
In Germany we have a rather big problem today with those uncared-for kids, which come in contact with Nazi literature and Nazi supporters. They believe that crap and afterwards the parents are horror-stricken how this could happen.
I'm sure that this problem cannot be solved by banning books from public libraries, but on the other hand the teachers and responsible persons are not able to compensate for the lack of interest or dumbness of parents. So the banning is a simple way to say: I have done my best.
Sad, but true
tglxWhat I've heard (whether true or not) is that Kerry wouldn't dare take the Swift Boat Veterans to court. Doing that would mean he would have to release his records from Viet Nam.
If I have the story straight, he is the only one that can authorize having the records released. Supposedly, these records corroborate the lack of faith Kerry's superiors had in him, which is in part what the SBV allege.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I can't blame them for banning The Giver.
I would mod the parent up, but I already posted here.
Why is it the left always cries "Free Speech" for people who espouse the left's ideas, and "Censor Him" for people they disagree with?
The hard part, of course, is to get the parents to come to the library and have a conversation with the librarian about what books, or class of books, their child should be permitted to read. The motivated parents will come; for the unmotivated parents, have the default be that all books are accessible.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
The article should have cited the 2003 list:
The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2003:
1. Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group.
2. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
3. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
4. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
5. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
6. "Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
8. "We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
9. "King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
10. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.
Consider buying these books and donating them places where children can get them (schools, after school programs, librarys).
We already have libraries and none of those things have happened. What exactly is your point?
Well, the link I click on (same one you all did) gives a list for books from 1990-2000.
/. haters a reason to be right?
No offense, but can't we even get that right? If the person who posted the story bothered to read the title of the article he/she would of saw that.
I know this isn't a professional site and all, but why give the
Be seeing you...
Steinbeck, Harper Lee, Huxley? I cant wait to see the flavorless, culturally anemic youth that will result from the parenting and institutionalization that these people put forward. And they actually think they are saving their children from something; when in actuality they are harming them ten times more by not allowing them to live.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
I looked over the list. Couldn't I just read something good instead?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
* Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies Well, need I say anything? These obviously don't belong in a school library. Six year old kids don't need to be learning about homosexuality anymore than they need to be learning about heterosexuality. Leave this stuff for the later years - like when they can at least tie their own shoes. IF these books are about homosexuality, then 95% of the books in the library are about heterosexuality, wich aren't necessary either according to you. The only thing they do is tell the same sappy story with one difference that this time the kid had 2 mommys or, their parents seperated and instead of getting a stepmommy, they get a stepdaddy. No Agenda is being persued, just the normal diversity of society is shown. Even the books about sex have a place in the library, as they inform people!
pictures and ramblings
There are religious fanatics on all sides. Vehement Christian anti-abortionists regularly kill people and blow up clinics. It's not even about religion. Crazies attach themselves to all sorts of causes--even our favorite, free software. It is inappropriate and wrong to judge a group by those who claim to represent it.
yeah, back then when on average humans only lived to 40ish, they were getting married and starting families at twelve.
Actually, you're mistaking average life expectancy for the age people actually lived to. Average life expectancy includes infant mortality -- so if you have a society where 50% of the people die before they're a year old, and the other 50% live to the biblical threescore and ten, your average life expectancy is 35. But nobody is actually dying at 35 -- it's either 0 or 70. Of course, reality isn't quite that binary, but it's the same basic math. Since modern western societies have such a low infant/child mortality rate, we're used to seeing the average life expectancy number having something to do with how long you can expect to live, but when you're dealing with societies that have very high infant mortality rates, it's not even close to the same thing.
Wander around a cemetery in New Engalnd some time and read the dates on old tombstones. If a man lived to grow up, he was fairly well assured of living to 60+. If a woman survived childbearing, she would probably live longer than that. But that is counterbalanced in the overall average by those rows of little tiny stones that say "Baby Smith, 8 days old."
The average of first menstruation in girls has actually gone down in the past hundred or so years. This may be because of better nutrition and overall health, nobody is quite sure. Though, interestingly enough, it seems to have been at roughly modern ages in ancient Rome and possibly during the medieval era. It's rather difficult to determine, because in societies where marriage is arranged or contracted for social reasons rather than individual choice, girls often are married before they are capable of bearing children, and the actual consummation of the marriage is postponed. Without medical records, it's hard to tell when young women were sexually mature; mostly it's a matter of guessing based on birth records.
Your whole point is a non sequitur anyway. When people were getting married and starting families at young ages (12 or otherwise), it was not because they had seen the pigs making piglets. It was because they were ready to take on the duties of adulthood, which were much simpler at the time. They had learned the basic skills of household management, food production, etc., as children -- kids worked from the day they could toddle. Many young couples lived with one or another set of parents (usually the husband's) for a number of years and got further on-the-job training before they established a separate household.
They didn't have educations to complete -- if they were lucky, they went to the one room schoolhouse for a few years. They didn't have careers to decide on -- they did what their parents did, which was usually farming. They didn't travel and see the world -- most people never went more than 100 miles from where they were born. The reasons that modern people put off marriage and family didn't exist for any but the wealthy classes. Since they had learned the skills they needed for adult life since early childhood, the only thing they had to wait for was their bodies to be ready to do the job.
Obviously, that is not the case today. People have educations to complete, careers to plan, a world to explore. Having children in today's complex world is a much more complicated isse than adding a few more kids to a big farm family, more than doing things the way your parents and grandparents and ten generations back had done them. It is that, rather than knowing where babies come from, that determines things like age of marriage. That is true whether wishful-thinking adults try to keep those children in ignorance in the hope of achieving some mythical "innocence" or whether they give them accurate and reliable information. They are going to get information from someone, somewhere, no matter what. They are going to ask questions and get answers. Far better that those be accurate answers.
The parents get to impose limits because they are responsible for the child. The child does not enjoy the same rights as an adult because he is still developing his rational faculty, therefore it is both the obligation of his parents to nurture him and their right to to dictate within reason what he may or may not do. If parents had no control over a child, they could not be responsible for him.
English is easier said than done.
You are assuming that being gay is inherent, like being black.
Let me ask you this: Why would someone choose to be vilified, outlawed, and unable to find a date?
Also, animals are just that animals. Are you stating we should act like animals and be gay?
... are they stating that we should act like animals and be straight?
I have heard many people say that "animals aren't gay, so therefore it's unnatural and humans shouldn't do it." So
Follow the logic:
If animals don't do it, it's unnatural and we shouldn't do it. (like writing Slashdot posts)
If animals do it, it's acting like an animal and we shouldn't do it. (like eating)
Nice logic.
What's also interesting, in the same light, is that What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras is at #40 on the list while What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras is only at #61 on the list. So while apparently lesbians are somehow less offensive than gay men, teaching young boys about puberty is less offensive than teaching young girls about the same topic.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
There are still fatuous people who want to ban Huck Finn because they think it is racist. Am I angry? Am I appalled? No, I am amused. The morons who want to ban books like this are the exact same kind of morons that Mark Twain was making fun of. The man is showing people for the asses they are from the grave--you have to give him props for that.
English is easier said than done.
It is definitely a *behavioral problem* for animals, since animals have sex only to reproduce(with a few exceptions), and homosexual sex does not permit that.
...as the completely consequences-free environment known as Hogwart's.
I live in a fairly conservative area. Many, many families I know are strict Christians (Protestant, Catholic, across the board), and the ones that have read Harry Potter nearly all love it.
Once you actually read the books, it becomes fairly clear that the magic is just there as a gimmick. The author needed a British public school setting, but that's been done to death, so she made one with a slightly different curriculum.
The "nearly" part above... a number of people were bothered, not by the "witchcraft" but by the fact that in the first couple of books, Harry can do no wrong. Rules are bent or overlooked, everything is forgiven or ignored once it's all over, he makes bad decisions and doesn't discover -- via consequences, like the rest of us did -- that they were bad.
The later books definitely change that (people get injured, killed, etc, as a result of Harry's screwups).
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
there is NO research stating there are ANY animals that practice ONLY homosexuality. what the research is REALLY saying is that BI-sexuality is 'normal', or rather, natural. Shit! i've seen male dogs jump on other male dogs (which, BTW, is actually a display of dominance, NOT sexuality), but that same dog would also be ALL OVER a female dog.
:(
.... but getting pegged by my girlfriend, that's different!
It's not research, but it's not bad as anecdotal evidence goes: Back when I used to raise fancy mice, I had one completely homosexual male mouse. Ticked me off, too, because he had really nice markings (tan and white spotted) and I wanted to breed from him. But he would only mount other males. If I presented him with females in estrus, he would either ignore them or attack them. Males, any males, he'd be all over. I never did get a litter out of him.
and innate?? give me a BREAK!!! I have NO desire to tup another guys arse, or him mine, or suck a schlong, or him mine
So why do you think it's a choice when someone else has no desire to get pegged by a your girlfriend, but tupping another guy's arse, or sucking his scholong, that's different? Could you choose to be homosexual? Could you get up some morning, and say "today, I think I'm going to give up all attraction to women, and go find myself a boyfriend"? If you looked at gay porn for the next six months, would you get the hots for other guys? If not, then why do you think it's somehow not equally innate for someone who feels as attracted to women as you feel attracted to men?
When I was in 3rd or 4th grade, I had read the book How to Eat Fried Worms. I got this crazy idea to take a worm to school and eat it in front of the girls to gross them out. So, I went in the back yard, dug up a worm and put it in a medicine bottle (to suffocate it so it would be dead by lunchtime). Needless to say, it wasn't dead by then ... Anyway, I had told the teacher what I was going to do but I guess she didn't believe me. I dipped it into ketchup and gobbled it down. Other than all the girls screaming and one of them throwing up, it wasn't too traumatic.
I didn't get in that much trouble but my mom got called down for a conference when I told them about the idea I got from the book. They ended up banning the book from our school library so maybe I'm to blame for this one!
The works of Shakespeare and the Bible contain more gore and rape than almost any amount of teen fiction.
There's also a significant difference between reading "Sam sliced off the monster's head cleanly" and watching a video dramatisation with columns of blood erupting.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
I guess you're a bigot if you want people to be able to live their lives the way they want.
... to save my life I couldn't think of what it was, some random SF book I read long ago ... where some guy was complaining to the protagonist that he (the complainer) suffered from terrible religous persecution in that world. It turned out that the "persecution" was that they were prevented from suppressing all other religions. The big problem with a truly free society comes in when you have people who would take away freedom from others. That is the one freedom -- the freedom to restrict freedom -- that a free society cannot permit, because that is the worm that can eat it from within. Nice little paradox there.
You mean like being able to marry whoever they want to? To do whatever they want in their bedrooms with other consenting adults?
I guess you're a bigot unless you acknowledge there's only one set of acceptable thoughts and no others will be tolerated.
You mean like male-dominant, married, heterosexual relationships are the only permissable form, and all others are sinful and should be illegal as well?
I guess you're a bigot if you want to make your own decisions rather than have them made by the government or some activist group.
You mean like those groups that want to amend the Constitution of the United States to take those decisions away from individuals, from states, from the federal government, not only for our generation but for every one to follow?
I guess "live and let live" is bigoted now, and "you will think what we tell you and do what we tell you" is the only way to avoid this evil bigotry.
"You have to live in accordance with my religion" is bigoted no matter how you look at it. Nobody is trying to force you, by either laws or violence, to be gay. Plenty of people are trying to force gay people, by both laws and violence, to be straight, or at least to pretend so.
I'm put in mind of a passage from a book
Freakishly enough, there was a copy of it in my public high school library. (When they don't rearrange the shelves every so often, stuff just accumulates for decades.) I found it because I worked in the library during the study hall period. One of my jobs was updating the catalog. I would have been about 16.
(This was the card catalog, by the way. They used paper then. We were old school. Er, old skool. Anyhow.)
Went to an assistant librarian. Me: "Says this was written by Hitler. Was it the same Hitler?" AL: "Yep. Didn't know we had a copy of that." Me: "It was buried in dust. Nobody's ever checked it out. *pause* Wait. He wrote a book?" AL: "Yep. While in prison. It's universally considered complete crap for obvious reasons, I don't know why we have a copy when we're short on shelf space."
Me: "I'm going to try and read it."
AL: *raises eyebrow sternly* "Why?"
Me: "To find out what a racist murdering dictator thinks like. 'Know your enemy' and all that."
She knew I had a level head on my shoulders, so she let me. I gave up after about 50 pages. Rambling incoherent babble, lemme tell ya. My grammar teacher would have flunked the bastard for run-on sentences alone. Dubya is a master of eloquence compared to this book.
It's a few hundred pages longer; presumably the anti-Semitic crap starts up later.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I must have been lucky, I ready quite a few of those books by the end of high school. Mostly for class, as there are some fine pieces of literature in there. Several on my own. I still think at least a few of those should be required reading.
The Anarchist's Cookbook is the only one I see administrators having a valid problem with. First half is about making your own drugs, second half is about blowing yourself up (well, making explosives. Amounts to the same thing with a bunch of stoned teenagers). While some may see natural selection at work here, the school administration would nevertheless face a lot of tough questions.
This shows how stupid people are. The Harry Potter series is number 7 (a fictional story), yet the anarchist's cookbook (a how-to on building explosives) is about number 59.... wow.
...but I'm all for banning Madonna's "Sex". That was a waste of a tree if I ever saw one. It had the format of a "coffee table" book, but who the hell is going to put that on their coffee table?
What always strikes me as interesting about this topic is that people find it so "interesting" - as though there is something surprising or inconsistent about it. In fact most conservatives are quite explicit about the fact that male homosexuality is worse than female homosexuality.
Religious conservatives take this view because of the bible. Setting asside the question of whether the bible really condemns male homsexuality (there are good reasons to think that it does not). The bible certainly appears to condemn male homosexuality in some places, but never says anything that even appears to condemn female homosexuality.
Political conservatives tend to take this view because of their understanding of why marriage is good for society. Roughly speaking they think that the influence of women through marriage has a civilizing effect on men. So it is a bad thing if men don't get married to women - they remain uncivilized (more prone to promiscuity and violence). If women don't get married it just doesn't matter as much because they are already civilized in the relevant sense (i.e. inclined to monogamy and a peaceful life). The only downside is that they will not be able to exert their influence on men.
I'm an athiest so I don't buy the religious argument, and I am a libertarian so I don't buy the political argument. But at least I know what the arguments are. The fact that so many liberals are surprised to find that conservatives take different lines on male and female homosexuality indicates that most of them don't even know what the conservative arguments are.
Some freaked-out parent is trying to get this book (and its sequel) removed from the library in the public high school I attended.
I thought it was a powerful book. A little offensive in places, but the correct answer to that is, "okay, so your kid can read something else; this isn't required reading."
(Wow, I loved "Bridge to Terabithia". Tell me they haven't tried to ban that one too.)
What will they ban next? "The Phantom Tollbooth" because it makes kids think that dogs have clocks embedded in them?
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
If you've ever had your kid bring home a Where's Waldo book and ask you to find Waldo with them, and if you've ever agreed, you'd understand why people want the book banned. It drives an adult absolutely crazy, because the child either gives up and just flips from page to page, or obsesses over every tiny detail and won't let you leave until everything has been found.
Complaints against Where's Waldo probably all take this form: a poor, harried parent calls up the school and says, "PLEASE don't let my kid bring home any more of those blasted Waldo books! I haven't slept in days; I'm seeing Waldo in the wallpaper; every time I see a guy with glasses and a striped toque I get the urge to yell out, 'I FOUND WALDO!' Please make it stop!!!"
or somethin' like dat.
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
Let me ask you this: Why would someone choose to be vilified, outlawed, and unable to find a date?
Who the hell knows? But hackers and geeks have been living this way since the dawn of time... "vilified, outlawed and unable to find dates!"
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
just check it out - google "How to Eat Fried Worms" and all you get up is pages of school material and school worksheets and all sorts. Banned my ass. Someones just trying to get more lamers to read em.
Kids shouldn't be reading books that promote witchcraft! They should be watching popular, healthy, moral TV shows like Buffy, Angel and Charmed instead!
You must think in Russian.
No work should ever be banned. Period. If we are to live in an enlightened society, then we must be able to live with ideas which are contrary to our own.
In reading the various threads regarding this topic, I have come across many arguments for censorship from people who would probably consider themselves against censorship. Many have written something to effect of "I can understand why X,Y or Z is banned, but not A,B or C". It is my opinion that no work should be banned, ever.
Does this mean that I think "Sex" by Madonna should be on the shelves of an elementary shools library? No. It means that we (the people) should be free from censorship. Children do not fall under the category of "the people", so they should not be protected against censorship. I think it is allowable for a community, through it's local school board, to remove a work from their library. I wouldn't recommend it, but I can't argue against it. They have decided what they think is best for their children. If I were a parent and disagreed with the school board's decision, I could simply go to the local public library and borrow a copy of the work for my child to read.
I absolutely disagree with any attempt to censor any work (literary, musical, photographic, etc...). I view it as an attempt at controlling my thoughts, and I simply will not allow that.
Now this position of mine is limited to any attempt to make it illegal to read a book, or sell a CD. I do not think that economic pressures are a bad thing. Take Ice T's 'Cop Killer' song. I have no problem with it being sold, but so many people did have a problem with it that retailers simply stopped carrying it. That is economic force in action, not legal force.
May I ask you what is the point of your signature ?
Why are homosexual people (who, incidentally, cannot have children) so worried about what other people's children learn? This bugs me. Why not leave such decision to people who have chosen to have children. This is why some people begin to believe that there is a homosexual agenda. You have chosen not to have kids by choosing to 'mate' with someone of the same sex, and yet you want people to be taught about homosexual parenthood. This doesn't exist, so stop forcing it. I think there should be limits to what people can and should learn in school. What study is ther that shows that some perfect strangers know what is best for children. I would not trust teachers to give my children instruction. If they were that good, we would have less problems with discipline in schools. Some people seem to want to usurp parents responsibilities and this smacks of having an agenda. When I do get kids, they go to school to be taught Maths and English and Physics and I will teach them about life.
I do agree that maybe we ARE skittish about nudity and kids for all the wrong reasons, I mean these are our bodies we are talking about here. But I'm not sure I disagree with the idea of teaching abstinence, as it IS the most RESPONSIBLE decision. That being said, we shouldn't make condoms etc. impossible to find for the population of teens who aren't dissuaded from having sex (and there will always be at least a significant number of them). But let's not pretend that it is as/more responsbile than postponing sex until we are more capable of dealing with the consequences.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
People knew sex, and its intricacies, but were discrete about it. It wasn't something they depicted on television, or explicitly in leisure books.
Seeing this list of books reminds me of the non-logic behind the signs here in Upstate NY that says "Movies encourages teen smoking" and are endorsed by the state (far as I know).
You seem to use couples to mean families here. Unless one or both of them is bringing children from prior heterosexual relationships into this homosexual relationship, there is now way they are going to get children. Of all things homosexuals fight about. this is either the silliest, or the one that smacks most of having an agenda.
The title of the book says, "Heather has two mommies", which is impossible. A person can only have one mother and one father. So it is meant to be provocative at the outset. Until a child, especially mine, when I get one (by making love to a beautiful woman and producing one), I do not want them to be grappling with how on earth some people have a mommy and a daddy, when some have two mommies and some have two daddies, because until I feel they are ready for it, I just want them to know that having a mommy and a daddy is just the way it is. There are better things to be teaching young children in Primary school than complex things such as homosexual families. In fact, I do not want my child to be getting taught about that in school. I want them to know communication, and maths and science, and I will teach them life.
And I feel parents should have a say as to what goes into their school libraries. And if a parent feels strongly that theri child should be exposed to how to be a homosexual family, then they should buy them the books themselves. I suspect it is not the thing most parents want to do with their kids, so this problem dissapears once you make it the parents problem. Which brings us back to where this all started.
There are a few in San Diego that I know of and I'm sure there are more elsewhere.
Well, here's one example for you: gay penguins. They're pair-bonded, monogamous, and even adopted an egg together. And since they wear tuxes, they're better dressed than most waterfowl.
Furthermore, there's actually tons of evidence. See, for example, Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl. He lists well over a hundred animal species in which homosexual behavior has been observed, in the wild and in captivity. From dogs to wolves to dolphins to whales to butterflies.
Not always. In wolves, the dominant dog is sometimes the one getting mounted, sometimes the one doing the mounting.
I urge all of you that are parents, that once your children are old enough, you get them a full unrestricted adult library card.
I'm very grateful to my mom for doing this -- I wouldn't have been able to read "A Wrinkle in Time" in middle school otherwise. I'm also struck by a sense of "The more things change, the more they stay the same" -- middle school was 1977 for me, and the same thing was going on then.
Chip H.
Why are homosexual people (who, incidentally, cannot have children) so worried about what other people's children learn?
Maybe so that the next generation doesn't think it's necessary or proper to disciminate against homosexuals? If you humanize gays (as I'm assuming the 'Heather' book does) and think of them as real people it's harder to discriminate against them. And before you say the gays don't have anything to worry about, a guy who went to the same high school I did was recently jumped, and they did a real number on him. He wasn't robbed, and the slurs they were shouting gave a pretty clear indication as to why they were beating him up. (Yea, he's a flamer, and a fairly annoying human being, but these guys had never met him before, so they weren't exactly beating him up for his horrible personality.)
Society is still not friendly to homosexuals. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously doesn't have any gay acquaintances. Incidentally, contrary to your statement, many homosexuals have children. Lesbians can be artificially inseminated, and many gay men have children from previous marriages. Whether it's right or wrong for gays to be raising children, I don't know; I suppose we'll have to wait and see how this first generation of children raised by openly gay parents turns out.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
You get over it, and realize that like every parent in history, any attempt you make to shelter your child will FAIL MISERABLY.
What you do have control over is making them able to analyze what's in the book properly so that they aren't damaged by it, and can make their own decisions about what they want to read.
The title of the book says, "Heather has two mommies", which is impossible. A person can only have one mother and one father.
What part of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer don't you understand?
I agree with Hogwash McFly in finding a relation between facing problems with information and good-sense, rather than attempting to supress them. :) Do you recall seeing how the Administration recommends abstinence as means of stopping AIDS in African countries? Well, it's not just about that being hypocrite, that's a fine example of puritanism at the higher levels. Don't you find it at least a bit odd?! I mean... c'mon, abstinence? They don't have TVs or computers to spend their times in... ;) And the worst part is that I can imagine many people in most states in the US, in their homes watching TV and nodding in consent at those declarations of abstinence. Then they'll quietly change channel to the pr0n cable network.
:)
Maybe it's just that puritanism doesn't work.
Topless sunbathing is allowed in every beach in Portugal. Yet, it's a very conservative country, and quite religious (at least middle-age up). The thing is, it's a matter of personal choice and context. Respect for the other people and facing issues with information rather than attempting to hide'em, that plays a large role in the lack of sex-related crimes and a population with a healthier mind. Drinking is allowed to people above 16 that don't show signs of mental disorder, and although we have our share of people who exceed their account, most people are raised in the notion that there is a limit. It's a matter of teaching good-sense instead of forcing people to obey rules.
Another fine example - I've been to Marrocos, and that's a country where the majority follows the islamic religion. I felt ashamed at how easily they meet foreigners and accept the difference in cultures. They'll make jokes about Allah showing us the way while we're there and will usually meet you with curiosity as opposed to the arrogance you'd find for being a foreigner in a more developed country. In comparison, in the US and in other more developed places, pre-conceptions and the belief that "we know best"... well... you know where this is going, and I don't want to be moderated as a troll.
Cheers.
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
What always strikes me as interesting about this topic is that people find it so "interesting" - as though there is something surprising or inconsistent about it. In fact most conservatives are quite explicit about the fact that male homosexuality is worse than female homosexuality.
OK, here's my theory. It's all about the number of penises involved in the sex act. If there are two or more, it's outrageous, should be banned, there outta be a law. If there's only one penis, then it's dirty, no one should talk about it, but it's legal. If there are no penises, then it isn't a sex act. Just count the dicks and you have your answer.
"She was a great man whose only fault was in being a woman." -- Voltaire
I just read
People knew sex, and its intricacies, but were discrete about it.
I'd wouldn't call Saturnalia discrete.
My point was that the parent to my original reply was using a very poor argument.
Geeks/Hackers as well as many other socially classified groups have chosen to accept negative social and legal consiquences at times.
But this doesn't prove that being a Geek/Hacker is a characteristic you are born with. Rather it seems to prove that some people get their self-worth from things other than main-stream social opinion.
In other words, the parent to my original reply is full of shit.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
If they had a book that claims that the Nazis didn't kill any Jews during WWII and I asked it to be removed would that be wrong? Depending on where what library you are talking about it may be fine just fine not to have Catcher in the Rye in an elementery or middle school library. As I said a library deciding not to carry a book is not book banning. It is not illeagal to have that book or to publish it. As I also said people questioning libraries not carrying certian books is a good thing. It does protect the freedom we do have.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
That is if there are any Bill O'reilly books on the list.
John
I dream in binary.
Maybe the objection to Harry Potter books is that in the Hogwart's school library, there is an entire section of books that are off-limits to the students unless they have special permission to read specific books.
well, over here in Holland, as most of the world knows, we have some of the finest pot there is, and we're even allowed to buy it, smoke it and on a very small scale transport it. result: we smoke less pot than the british, the french, the germans, heck, everyone around us. it's allowed, so the whole thrill of "doing something forbidden" goes away. most highschool kids try it once at a party and decide it really isn't all that terrific to begin with and that's that, end of story.
another funny thing is that if you take a map of holland, and mark tiny red dots for every teenage pregnancy, you'll find a couple of big red blobs right in the areas where we still have some really, REALLY religious folks hanging out. the kind that refuses to take polio shots...or teach their kids about safe sex, or even the subject "sex" at all. imo this mindset is fighting a losing battle. kids these days have all the information they could ever want right at their fingertips. tv, internet, you name it. either parents adapt to this, and steer their kids in the right direction instead of simply saying "you're not allowed", or they'll utterly fail.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
While I've not read all of these books, in my high school The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier was a required reading. However it mentions masturbation, but for a group of 16 year olds that's not a big deal. I was distraught to see at least 2 Mark Twain titles on there.
Some of the titles I can see, however, "what's happening to my body" can help kids at "that stage" in life learn how to deal with things changing. It's much better then the "Fuzzy Bunny" cartoon they used on The Simpsons(tm)
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
Why doesn't kerry intro bills into the Senate to begin the process of implementing what he says on the campaign trail?
No reply needed. Your post speaks for itself.
By the way, are you aware that the Nazis were left wing socialists, you moron?
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
On the other hand, I don't object that libraries may refuse to purchase "The Anarchists Cookbook". "So Johnny, why did you blow up the school?" "Well, sir, I checked out this book at the school library..."
Well, in any case the Cookbook isn't terribly reliable anyway.
Logic, macros, and more
>> and steer their kids in the right direction instead of simply saying "you're not allowed", or they'll utterly fail. Precisely. But there is also a problem with parents that live their lives like children and couldn't care less about educating their prole. They just sit 'em in front of the TV or the XBox. No wonder they're so freaked at what shows up in there, including violence and gore. Kids go completly unprepared. :)
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
Being critical of censorship of print media is prudent, but what about online censorship (particularly in high schools)? Many districts still use CIPA as an excuse for excessive filtering. My personal experiences are told here: http://igloo.bigfiber.net/~the1/incident.txt
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
I also realize that this is not a case of the federal government banning books nationwide, but still. Banning books is a very serious matter, perhaps the most serious matter in any society.
The dangerous thing is not that local governments and pressure groups manage to ban books in public libraries and schools, but that the federal goverment is not immediately challenging this in the courts. Government's role in any civilized society is to protect its citizens, against threats to both their physical safety as well as their civil rights, something the current US administration doesn't seem to grasp.
The list doesn't look good:
- Restrictions on travel (secret no-fly lists)
- People incarcerated without court oversight
- Scientific research influenced by the government to fit their political agenda
- Funding for scientific research steadily reduced
- Unchallenged banning of books in public libraries and schools
Talk about your slippery slope. America has a good system of checks and balances but they seem to not be working properly at the moment.And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
this list is hardly accurate, as some of the books on the list "Sex" by Madonna, and "The New Joy of Gay Sex" could very well have been banned by a elementary (primary) school library because the subjects of the books are not appropriate by any stretch of the imagination for youngsters. That being said, if a parent wishes to allow their children to read said material, there is nothing a school can do to stop them, and most libraries of which I am aware will allow kids to check out almost any books, provided they have parents permission. I imagine most books of 'that' nature are being banned not to censor anything, but because the school has a duty to parents to restict kis' access to that sort of thing, if the parent does not wish the child to see it.
vr/
dcviper
Ummm, err, say what, now?
>It is definitely a *behavioral problem* for animals, since animals have sex only to reproduce(with a few exceptions), and homosexual sex does not permit that.
Not strictly true, it has other possible advantages, not to the individual but possibly to the herd/flock/pride. For example it could provide surplus adults, with no young of their own they can help look after others' children (this is one theory anyway). I'm not an expert by any means, but just because one animal doesn't pass on its genes directly that doesn't mean it is a failure, it can also (with some luck) pass on it's genes through its siblings (which share 50% of its genes).
heck, muslims don't even have to go the mosque if they don't want to
yeah, wonder what the heck all those muttawa in saudi arabia are for...
most israelis i've met really could give two shits about being orthodox, zionism, etc. they were quite secular in their views.
otoh most arabs i've met seem quite reasonable individuals, until the discussion drifts to islam -- then you get the most incredible spiels from them on all sorts of wild christian and jew conspiracies, the supremacy of islam, etc. that comes off as right wing nutcases and white power supremacists.
yep, this is exactly the same thing i've experienced. it's pretty wild stuff debating islam with them. one can only imagine all the congnitive dissonance they are forced to process all the time.
the most amusing one i've heard from them is the argument that the koran is a book of science, and that scientific discoveries daily are "proving" the koran correct.
also, even the most "secular" arabs i've met were still wildly antisemitic. which implies that the racism in arab societies is fundamental to arab culture and not necessarily to islam itself (though many do exploit aspects of islam to foster it)
> Being able to get books for free is not a right.
... they should all be removed from the library?
So if I wanted the Bible banned from my library, it should be banned? I object to Melville, Shakespeare, Dickens,
Not much point to having a library that's completely empty, is it?
Hell, the government spends MY money on all sorts of shit I don't like, half a dozen books aren't going to make a difference. Any idea how many books you could buy if you stopped farm subsidies?
no taxation without representation!
Why I must admit that some of these are pretty benign, let's not forget the ALA's stand on porn in the library. Something we could call, "Take Your Child to View Porn Day."
Lesbians are "less offensive" because all the religious types who do this crap are secretly aroused by the idea of two men having hot steamy gay intercourse, and so lash out more violently against it. And teaching boys about their bodies is of course sometimes good, it makes them men, whereas girls who know about their bodies are destined to be sluts. Filthy, nasty little sluts, instead of the obedient, righteous sexual chattel of one ignorant, prematurely-ejaculating man.
Freedom: "I won't!"
That's great, except Hitler WAS NOT democratically elected, so your entire post is based on a fallacy.
Elaboration: Hitler's party NEVER gained control of the Reichstag democratically. The only way they ever passed the law to give Hitler full power was with the help of other parties. After this, the Reichstag was just a rubber stamp for Hitler, all made up of unelected Nazis.
Elaboration: Hitler ran for president in 1932....and LOST, to Hindenberg. Twice, in fact, because the first loss Hindenberg only got 49.6 percent (in a field of four) and the Constitution required the winner to get 50.
Elaboration: Hitler became Chancellor by Hindenberg's appointment in January 1933, even as his party had lost seats in the last election.
Elaboration: Only after becoming Chancellor and using his power to suppress all opposition did Hitler ever win an "election," which was not a real election, since there were no opposing candidates, but a "referendum" on Hitler, and which was not a real "referendum" because the Gestapo were watching voters in wide open balloting areas.
I am aware it may be too late in the game in this thread for anyone to notice this, but truths must be fought for, and particularly we must fight that pernicious myth that Hitler was democratically elected that is being spread around nowadays.
the equity of access argument is based on the assumption that homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is innate in whichever individuals it affects; and that kids are equally entitled to information about their own selves regardless of what they're growing up to become. unless you'd like to dispute either of these two assumptions - and i believe i could make a decent, if very lengthy, defense of either one - it's pretty hard to say it "just doesn't work".
Is there a banning of books in Germany nowadays? Can somebody name some titles of books which have been recently banned?
As has been pointed out, Mein Kampf is not banned, it's simply not being reprinted: Rechtslage Mein Kampf.
Ah, the classics. Some books will ruffle feathers for a century.
Beyond that, I was amused to see that I couldn't always decide whether a book was hated by classic fascists or the "politically correct".
I'm not sure if this was the book, but at a library in Shaker Heights, Ohio, they had a terrible time keeping a book on two fathers in stock. It may have been "Daddy's Roomate" or something along the lines of "My Two Daddy's" or something like that.
Anyway, at the Library, they had a great deal of trouble keeping a legitimate intact copy in stock because the book was so often stolen, vandalized, etc. The main thing was some homophobe(s) or zealot(s) who were so insecure they felt threatened by enough by gay men they had to cut out pictures of one of the men from any page where two were present, so that kids would see only one daddy.
Stupid only really hurts yourself, but Ignorance and Bigotry hurts everyone.
If I had a real
Oh my GOD! They banned Madonna's book! Imagine the lost knowledge that ... oh wait ... it wasn't even good for porn.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
As the article makes clear, those are not behavioral "problems", as you would like to think. They are natural behavioral patterns that have an evolutionary purpose and show homosexuality is a a natural part of their existence.
The point being if they are for animals we can draw parallels to humans. You ARE an animal.
> The title actual is
> "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-20001".
Includes 'The Time Machine' by H.G. Wells?
Perhaps because the really religious teenagers get married younger/refuse to have abortions?
The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.
:)
;)
Well, yes, but that's true of anything. How do you know if your child sneaks a smoke? How about if they ride their bike without a helmet? Take off their earmuffs on the way to school? You'll never know everything your child does, and to believe you can protect them to that extent is somewhat delusional. (I know you weren't saying that, I'm just extending the discussion point here a bit.)
Usually librarians make the decisions as to what books are purchased and where in the library they are located, not a committee. That's why you pay librarians, and why they not only have to be certified as teachers but also have a Masters degree in library science. They make them based on curriculum needs, the current collection coverage, student interest and requests, reading level, critical reviews, and sometimes actual physical examination for appropriateness. They also have to consider budget. No matter what the ALA says, most librarians think there are standards for age appropriateness. (I'm a public librarian who has spent a lot of time with school librarians. They drive me nuts worrying about every scene in a book and every swear word. I'm SO not cut out to be a school librarian.)
Most schools should have a specific policy for how a book can be challenged as inappropriate (either for its current location or at all) that involves informal meetings and discussions, formal filing of complaint, and review by a committee composed of parental and school representatives. And really, no matter what rhetoric you read (either ALA or Family Friendly Bullpucky), most librarians I've met will agree that some books aren't appropriate for school (or other) libraries. That's why we have procedures for challenges.
Finally, I agree with you about the reality of banned book lists for each child. I can imagine the horror of trying to keep a checklist of what books a child can or cannot check out, and I frankly doubt it would be effective. Have you ever tried to check out seething crowds of children, keep them in line, and carefully read each and every screen? Besides,if Johnny wants to read a book but is barred from it, he gets friend Jimmy to check it out. (I've worked in children's rooms in a public library, and once you hit a critical mass of kids and books, you lose some accuracy. Being human does that.)
Anyone still awake at the end of this post?
The Old Testament may contain a lot of material that would in our modern "enlightened" era find displeasing. But it doesn't graphically describe any of it.
Pick up a bible, and reference the verses you're describing. You'll see that they are not graphic.
As for Song of Solomon being graphic, it's actually more metaphorical than graphic.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
and innate?? give me a BREAK!!! I have NO desire to tup another guys arse, or him mine, or suck a schlong, or him mine .... but getting pegged by my girlfriend, that's different!
Great argument. You've shown that you're heterosexual, congratualations.
Could you maybe use that tiny mind of yours to imagine that maybe some other people think the reverse?
If you read the article, you would see that the homosexuality is not just a "display of dominance", but also just pure recreational sex.
I am an American highschool student and all of these books were required reading. Obviously you haven't the slightest clue what your talking about. Not only that but the top 20 books on the list can be found in almost all local book stores. It is so scary how many foreigners think American's don't know about life and culture in other countries yet go on spreading idiotic lies that they heard about American's without even knowing for themselves or atleast trying to validate these statements.
Creative Demolition
1) It is not clear to me from the article what age groups are losing access to these books. Their break-down by institution does not, as far as I can tell, include any category more sensitive than "school" (>2000), "school library" (>2000), "prison library," and so on. Six-year-olds and sixteen-year-olds are a bit different in what they should be able to read. You want an appropriate amount of challenge to be available--you want to encourage critical thinking to the extent they are able.
2) That is why school lawyers invented *permission slips.* We were required to read (mostly "canon") works at school, including _Huck Finn_ and _Lord of the Flies_, but you could be excused to work on another project while 10th grade English watched & discussed _Apocalypse Now_. If a school does not attempt to tackle these materials, if not by middle school then certainly by high school, then they may be keeping their students from a successful liberal arts education. (Don't laugh. You'd be surprised how many professionals such as doctors do undergraduate work in philosophy or English--stories. Human stuff.)
3) You assume that the parents will "fill in the gaps" if things are not available at the library. However, not all parents are motivated to take their kids to another library or bookstore; not all kids have money or access to public transportation. I expect the people who are reading this discussion are not these parents, but, you know, I'm trying to watch the game, and you asked that last week, so stop nagging already. Not everyone is within walking distance of a municipal or university library--removing books from high-school shelves can make those materials *impossible* to get for those without resources. (Think accurate information about sex-related biology.) As if it weren't bad enough just coping with the budgets.
The web site states that for the period from 1990 to 2000, there were "6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom".
That's about 579 challenges total per year, or only 11-12 challenges per year in each state of the union.
Looking at it another way, the ALA reports that "There are an estimated 117,859 libraries of all kinds in the United States today." Of these, 102,990 are classified as public libraries or school libraries. Which means that over the course of 1990-2000, only 6% of these libraries received any kind of challenge.
Now, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Given that reporting of challenges is voluntary, they may very well be under-reported. Still, the nature of controversey surrounding a challenge seems to be the sort of thing that would attract attention - in many cases, they are specifically publicized (by the challenger, or the library) in order to attract attention. So it's probably safe to work from the assumption that challenges are not drastically under-reported. Still, let's err on the side of cuation and say that we assume that challenges are drastically under-reported, and that there are actually on the order of 6000 challenges per year.
Given those figures, an individual library would expect to deal with a single challenge about once every 20 years. Of course, that assumes that each library is an autonomous unit, which is probably not the case for school libraries - I'd expect that a challenge in one school library for a district would probably affect all other libraries in the same district as well. So the time period between challanges for a school library system might be smaller, but even then, I'd be surprised if any particular school district had to deal with more than a couple of challenges each year... and in that case, well, at least it shows you have active parent involvement in the district, right? So there's still something positive coming out of the whole mess.
Now, I'm not trying to downplay the significance of these challenges. On the other hand, their relatively low frequency seems to indicate that they're not so much an issue of pervasive censorship, but instead appear to be an issue of individual libraries making the occaisional misjudgement about the desires and mores of the communities they serve.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
You know, when I was like 14 I thought lesbians were totally hot. Then it turned out that my gf at the time was a lesbian. She came out of the closet, you know, while we were together. I was supportive and all, but let me tell you something about lesbians:
They don't like men.
See, all it takes is a threesome with two chicks, watching them make out and then realizing that they have absolutely no interest in you whatsoever. The threesome is just an excuse, you know, to experiment. You're the odd man out. They don't want your penis.
Men often seem to think that the two girls making out are just waiting for someone to come in and give them a dose of the dick. But they aren't. They really aren't. Porn lies, man. It lies.
Since then, I have found two girls making out only slightly more arousing than two guys sucking each other off, which is to say, pretty much not at all. When your gf leaves you for a girl, you'll understand.
And actually, I'm not sure that American culture is more supportive of gay women than men. While your point is a good one, you know, that lesbian sex dominates many straight men's fantasies, and so, living in a patriarchy as we do, this translates to greater acceptance of lesbianism, I think that this is actually rather limited. Because men's fantasies involve hot "lip-stick" lesbians making out; the mullet-having truck driver who can bench more than you can on the other side of the spectrum is rather less accepted.
Now, that's just a steryotype. I used to hang out at the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) center at my university because a lot of my friends were gay, and I can definitely say that lots af gay people don't fit any of the steryotypes out there. But having said that, the mullet-having truck driver lesbian does indeed exist. And she is even more marginalized than the flaming queen who just screams "bottom" at you with every squeally effeminate utterance and high pitched laugh he emits.
So yes, in a sense, lesbians are accepted, but only if they consent to being fantasies for straight men, ie, conforming to our social norms for female behaviour: effeminate, cute, sexy. If men can get off on the idea of her eating her best girlfriend out, she's "ok." But if she's a "diesel dyke", well, the answer is "hell no" for most of society.
Whereas these days, gay guys are accepted much more, whether they're straight acting or whether they're queens. Sure, homophobia runs rampant, but look at how the media portrays gay men (Will and Grace) versus how the media portrays gay women (Chasing Amy). In Will & Grace, we have the classic "fem" guy. Accepted. In Chasing Amy, all the gay girls are hot (from a straight guy's perspective).
But lesbian women are out to attract other lesbian women, not straight men with a girl-on-girl fetish. So they don't necessarily conform to the same standards of beauty as straight girls do. These women are anything but accepted by society.
It's a shame, really. Go to a gay-straight alliance meeting sometime and see how you can help promote understanding. The relationship between lesbians and straight men especially is rather tenuous, because there's so much misunderstanding. It wouldn't hurt to help bridge the gap.
The top 100 list is "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000," not the 100 most banned books of 2003. There's a nifty top ten list for that.
Also, there's a clear distinction between "banned" and "challenged."
To QUOTE (emphasis added):
"A *challenge* is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A *banning* is the removal of those materials. *Challenges* do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection."
And the negative message is to dupe folks like the submitter of this article into thinking the Dark Ages have fallen upon us.
READ FOLKS. Books are always banned from people who *don't read*.
Fix this travesty of an article now please. There's enough *real* dangerous abridgement of freedom going on in this country right now without yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater.
Thank you. TD.
and you're not going to get the answer on slashdot, or even the web. Find some books. Even then you won't get consensus among Christianity.
Even in a Christian Bible, the figure of the devil changes from one end of the story to the other. He rarely makes appearances in the Old Testament, as you said. Even in the story of Job, the figure there is more of a prosecuting attorney -- no, seriously -- than evil incarnate.
As the concept of a Hell became more solidly defined (from hell as being "separation from God" to "a big pit with fire and darkness and country music"), so did the concept of its most important inhabitant (although whether he's the boss, or the chief prisoner, depends on who you talk to).
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a short novel, Inferno, in which a sci-fi author dies, goes to hell, and finds out it's exactly like Dante described it. :-) The character keeps trying to find an explanation -- any explanation -- other than "take it at face value." It's a fun book, but the part at the end where he decides he's finally found a good reason for Hell's existence is (while not a new thought) fascinating.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
1) you're very much accurate on that mark. The information provided is totally inappropriate as it doesn't provide any context. They present a list, and claim that some freedom is being violated here, without providing accuracy on exactly how.
2) Saying that my child who I feel shouldn't have to watch "Apocalypse Now" can just do something else during the time, unfortunately creates an exclusion process, and this is the same tactic used against public prayer in school. The people against the school prayer (even when entirely student lead) can't just provide an alternate activity, or they can just abstain. This will generate a stigma. And actually, I knew that philosophy majors tend to make incredibly good lawyers because they are (and this is quoted from a "Why study philosophy" brochure) "belligerently argumentative."
3.) The school system is unfortunately driven by a more overriding constraint than just "teach my child". They need provide a safe school environment, and an appropriate school environment.
Why can't we have prayer in school? That's violating the right of freedom of expression, and the freedom of religious action. Why? because it violates the rights of too many others to allow it.
Why can't we have certain books in a school, or as a classroom assignment? Because some parents feel that some books are inappropriate for children at that age level. We're going to violate some people's right to this freedom against censorship, because there is an overriding freedom being infringed upon by allowing these books. That is the right for a parent to decide what is and is not appropriate for their children.
So, basicly you're making the claim in 3, that the right for the lazy parents, who don't want to do their job as a parent, are overriding the rights of the active parents, who pay attention to what their children are doing and reading in school, and outside of school.
You basicly want to punish these parents who are taking an active role in their childs development (as they feel a good parent should) because some parents want to be lazy bums and let their kids do what they will? Honestly, if a child has a parent such as this, they're going to care less about what books are in the library, and more about what kind of drugs are being sold on the street.
Squeeky wheel gets the grease, and guess what? A legal guardian of a child has final say over what is appropriate or inappropriate for that child to read, and they should have every right in the world to suggest that a book not be available for a child to read. And if you say this is them pressing their social beliefs on others, well by telling my child he can't pray in school, you're doing exactly the same thing.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
sorry, make that "unmarried teen pregnancies". as for abortion, kidding right? they never even have the choice as to whether or not they actually refuse to, the community does that for them. ofcourse the fact that the local owner of the drugstore is a cousin of the wife of the nephew of whoever happens to be running the local church doesn't help either when a youngun tries to acquire means to avoid pregnancies/scary diseases. still, fact remains, due to the fact that everything related to sex is completely taboo and not to be spoken about, kids are terribly curious as to what this thing is they've heard about and can't wait to go ahead and experiment with it, without knowing all the funky stuff that can happen if you do it *wrong*. myself, i got very extensive sexual eduction at school when i was, oh, i must have been 13 or something. they didn't just point at the various parts and explained what they were for, but they also quite openly discussed a lot of cultural issues surrounding sex, including the fact that ideally it's a two-way thing, and that us guys may think that a 5 minute wham-bam-thank you ma'am is a good thing, but that the ladies may think otherwise. kids will experiment with sex anyway, they might as well know what they're doing.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The very idea of banning books disturbs me, almost as much as destroying them, but I can kind of see why someone would ban that Scary Stories book, especially from public schools. I found that in the school library as a kid, and Jesus Christ was it the scariest damn thing I had ever read. It frightened me for years after that. I recently bought the Scary Stories Collection at the bookstore, and it still managed to creep me out. Jesus.
That said, when I was in junior high, I often had to sit out of class due to health reasons, and they made me sit in an extra room in the office. Maybe they hadn't noticed, but they also used that room to store all the books they'd removed from the library as inappropriate. That was some good reading, I must say.
[insert witty quote here]
The only kind of fiction banned in Denmark is child porn. I think there's some kind of exception if you can argue that it has "artistic value", so The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect might be legal. (Read chap. 8 to see what I mean, but you now know what to expect. Be warned.)
There is a nazi local radio station that used to receive government culture support funding - like every other local radio. This was not very popular, so recently the rules were made just flexible enough to deny them funding. I suppose Denmark is so lenient in this regard because it's obvious that the danish nazis are a bunch of jerks who can't even tie their own shoes. (They were even during the german occupation)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Here are some links for other entries in your post:
Check out Chad's News
I found a site called the banned books project to be very useful in figuring out why various books on the list were banned. Just search on the name of the book.
Check out Chad's News
As other posters have mentioned, parents can be extremely effective just by talking to their children about what they are reading. A few reasons why parents may not:
a) They are working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet.
b) They are intimidated by books, schools.
c) They are overwhelmed with problems with other family members, such as chronic illness.
d) They are "lazy" or distracted by their own activities.
e) They are repeating their parents' parenting.
Perhaps such parents might "care more" about what drugs are on the street--but they also probably care about their children and education, even if you wouldn't recognize it. But perhaps these children who have already "lost out" just don't matter.
Your parallel with school prayer suggests exactly why teachers are so cautious with assigned books (e.g. including _Kaffir Boy_ as one of several options for small groups in the ninth grade classroom). However, it is not at all a parallel case for libraries--students both read and pray silently. (And probably should read silently, to keep from being called retarded or a weirdo, and definitely should pray silently, as Matthew 6:5-7 explains.) It seems to me that you are arguing that the library should babysit (religiously) the students, that you are asking the library to make materials disappear so that the parents won't have to face actually discussing their beliefs and concerns with their children. (I am mostly thinking about secondary school, at which point most students have some idea what Mom and Dad do and don't approve of, and have been or are preparing to be baptized/confirmed/bar mitvah'd.)
I am not advocating that the library stock everything indiscriminately. I do, though, think, particularly in the secondary school, a few parents should not be able to override the judgment and expertise of librarians and teachers as to what is generally appropriate and educational for their clientele. Whether they are left or right, whether they report back to their parents or not, whether they would take the opportunity or not, if _The Handmaid's Tale_ or _The Color Purple_ is made unavailable, or tucked back somewhere patrons can't see it, then the secondary-school librarian has gone back on his or her duty to provide opportunities for intellectual growth and engagement.
Well as long as you have honkies you'll have racism.
It's as simple as that!
Didn't you know that Mein Kampf is banned because it turns everyone who reads it into a Nazi? So beware!
"banned from various ...public schools around the nation."
Some may have simply been a case where students were reading the book in class while the teacher was trying to teach.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Books about sports. But not very difficult ones. I believe "Maniac Magee" was one of the major books. I love that book, but the class was restricted to juniors and seniors (year 11 and 12). Don't worry, I wasn't dismissing all books about sports as unworthy of my time.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
I don't know about you guys, but Roald Dahl's Witches really scared me as a child!
;-)
Meeting my aunts afterwards was never the same again! (but then I grew op
I see your argument here. But again, the problem is that a very small group of people can effectively remove school prayer. There was a town where all the students participated in a student led school prayer. A single atheist mother comes into town with her two children, and she complains, and the school prayer is removed. You literally have an entire student body that wants the prayer, but the interests of a single lone parent outweighs that entire group, due to the interests that school should be seperated from religion.
It has actually been determined that children may not even pray at school if they were in public. This is basicly saying that they can't do it at all, even silently.
It just tends to be that a number of people (usually from the left) are very strongly opposed to suppressing any point of view, but they forget that those views that feel that some material is inappropriate and shouldn't be discussed, or should wait for a later period is also a valid point of view. They want to tear down and away all these closed-minded people, but they forget that in doing so, they are being closed-minded themselves.
I as a parent am solely legally responsible for determining what I think is appropriate content for my child to see. I was witness to one parent taking his children to see Super Troopers (elementary school age children for sure). This disgusted me, and I feel that it was wrong, but I didn't tell him it was wrong. They're not my kids, and I have no right to tell him how to parent his children.
What I want, is the same respect. If I feel that my child shouldn't be reading about rape until such an age that I feel it is appropriate, then I have that right. And guess what? This is a situation where the minority's rights override any majority's rights.
It's honestly just that simple. I can't have prayer in school, because the minority's rights supercede any majority opinion, so also does it follow in this situation.
Many people complain about "Banned" Books, and many people complain about Prayer in School. Both are arguing to have the majorities opinions outweigh the minority to a point of oppression.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
I agree, now if we could only extend it to the economic system too, industrial democracy.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
And yet these people aren't called "Christian Terrorists", which they are.
But if Muslim extremists do the same thing then they're called, "Muslim terrorists" smearing the whole religion.
Oh, and let's not forget conservative commentators who advocate "killing all the leaders" of muslim nations and "converting the people to Christianity" like Anne Coulter did.
How is that really different than advocating for the death of the author of "The Satanic Verses"? Answer: It's not.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
This reminds me of the time my physics teacher confiscated a VHS of "Naked Lunch" from me because she thought it was a porno. :)
Actually, a closer look at Orwell's other writing will show you that Animal Farm was meant as an allegory on all forms of powermad regimes using a revolution to grab power.
It's unfortunate that the closest thing Orwell had was the Stalinists taking over the Russian Revolution, but the book was meant as a mere example of a more general principle.
The narrow interpretation of Orwell's allegory is usually used by the right to defend their own version of the Animal Farm society, by using the 'Godless Commies' as their Farmer Jones.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Last time I checked I am an animal.
I mean, I'm not a vegetable or a mineral or a blue-green algae, so by process of elimination I must be an animal, right?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8-PP
But in 2002, the state legislature, rather than pretend the law did not exist, did the right and courageous thing by acknowledging the law, and repealing it.
This is not my sandwich.
Congress is not currently in session.
But that excuse will run out in about a week, so we'd better come up with another one. Interesting point, actually... maybe a shrewd political operative could use the upcoming session to his advantage. It's politics, man, on both sides. The Washington Post did an analysis of both candidates' spending and revenue proposals, and the budget defecit comes out to about the same for both of them. The difference stems mainly from the fact that Bush would 'spend' about 600bn on tax cuts while Kerry would funnel a comparable amount into new health care programs. But those are campaign promises, and the two administrations could in fact wind up looking quite different when it comes to fiscal policy. But yeah.
True. But he has been in the senate for what, 17 years?
Yeah, and I don't know much about his record there. But presumably we're voting mainly on competing world views. Whether or not he was effective and aggressive as a senator is not going to be a deciding factor for most people, given only two major candidates to choose from. If one disagrees with Bush's political outlook, it's not exactly a plus if he's been 'decisive' in implementing it. Point taken, though. These candidates are forced to make a lot of grandiose statements about their ambitions, and it's a rare one who has the on-the-ground record to back them up.
How are their views different?
That's like saying the primary purpose of computer-based games is to collect cheat codes and use them to win the game.
Loser.
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
> But notice how Barbie's breasts aren't very realistic? (pointy, nipple-less lumps from what I can remember) It's still jolly embarrassing when your younger sister puts a naked Barbie in your school bag and you don't find it until you're in the locker room surrounded by fellow male students.