PeterDavid.net

Last night, Jon had Mississipian John Grisham on and they talked about that getting banned in Missisippi (which has happened to Grisham) is a boon to your writing career.

If I read the piece on cnn.com correctly this morning, Willits was the only board member to oppose overturning the ban, stating that the libraries were not in the business of circulating pornography.

I have seen the offending pictures, and the only person who has a legitimate complaint about it (I hope, if only for his sake) is Clarence Thomas. Rhenquist, otoh, is probably wondering how he can get it posted in full view of every Federal court in the country.

I preferred Stewart's comment last night: the nude judges are probably among the least offensive sections of the book. Mississippi librarians, read it and weep.

What I didn't get is, if the whole book is perfectly good save that one page, why not remove that one page from the book? Or black it out? I mean, if you're only offended by the nudity, why not find some way to remove it, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater by refusing to carry the entire book?
I have to wonder how large a library the one in question is... I assume they're of an average size. Most average-sized libraries I've been in carry art books, medical texts, and the occassional textbook of human sexuality. I can see making the argument that while the nudity in those three types of texts serves an educational purpose, the nudity in "America: The Book" does not, therefore 'requiring' a ban... but again, if the nudity in "America: The Book" is the only fly in the ointment, why didn't Mr. Willits remove or black out that page? I'm assuming they have one, maybe two copies of it, and a sharpie doesn't cost THAT much... scissors even less...

Great book, hilarious!

Screw Wal Mart (I've managed to avoid shopping there since one opened near us several years ago), and screw the Mississippi libraries.

Backwards-thinking biblebelt jackoffs...

With the internet, between Amazon, Barnes & Nobles.com and Waldenbooks.com (Insert your favorite book site), who needs them?

WalMart deserves to die and so does Willits, along with the rest of the dinosaurs...

Wow. I wasn't all that interested in the book before, but now, I'M BUYING IT!

First.. this is the most hilarious book that I have ever read. I brought it to lunch with me to read in the restaurant and there were times where I could not stop laughing. BUY IT!

However.. there is quite a bit of obscene language and the mentioned nudity. So I can understand some places not wanting it available to where minors might have access to it.

Well worth getting! I look forward to more books from them.

*Sigh* This is the same system that tortured me as a kid while I was forced to wait for my mother to pick up her bi-weekly fix of trashy romance novels...... now that is obscene. :)

Y'all are a little late to the story, as the library board voted 5-2 Monday to overturn the ban.

The library board apparently overturned the ban after a wave of protesting emails and phonecalls about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=402729

Sorry for the unintended double post :)

What I didn't get is, if the whole book is perfectly good save that one page, why not remove that one page from the book?

It is possible that there is some law against doing so since it would be altering the book. Otherwise, that is a reasonable suggestion.

I think a total library ban is overboard. Surely they can have some way of having adults only check it out if it is that bad. At the same time, I think WalMart not carrying it is both their perogative and quite appropriate.

Let me be clear on something: I have no desire to "ban" the book. However, books like this do little to change the perception that Republicans/conservatives believe in family values and Democrats/liberals do not. If a conservative such as James Dobson or Jerry Fallwell were to publish such a book, people would point out that they are hypocrites because the contents go against what they believe. So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in family values.

Jim in Iowa

Jim in Iowa:

>Let me be clear on something: I have no desire to "ban" the book. However, books like this do little to change the perception that Republicans/conservatives believe in family values and Democrats/liberals do not. If a conservative such as James Dobson or Jerry Fallwell were to publish such a book, people would point out that they are hypocrites because the contents go against what they believe. So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in family values.

... or that the left have a different idea of what family values mean than Conservatives. Although, I'm not sure that I agree with you that a conclusion about family values can be drawn by the fact that tolerance for the publication and distribution of this book is connected in any way to that.

Fred

Jim in Iowa wrote...
So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in family values.

That's a tough statement to argue with, since "family values" in this context appears to be a rather arbitrary label, the definition of which you do not establish. If you truly believe that "family values" are a clearly defined set of rules to which there are no plausible alternatives, please state them.

Before we start slamming Walmart (and since there are much better reasons to slam it), Walmart said they wouldn't carry it in their stores because patrons would protest. It is, however, available from Walmart online and, believe it or not, Sam's Club.

However, at Sam's, you have to buy a case of twenty.

I have two questions:

One, doesn't the Supreme COurt's own definition of pornography include a clause that the material has to arouse sexual thought?

And two, who on the library board was turned on by that picture?

My question is, who could object to those pictures other than the Justices themselves? I mean, is any one really afraid that children will seek out pictures of overweight, old and wrinkly people? They'd probably be more likely to look at nude pictures in art books, since they tend to be more "aesthetically pleasing".

I'd also have to question Jim's correlation of this issue to family values. If it's a fact that Willits is a conservative/Republican, then that still doesn't mean much unless there is a prominent Democratic/liberal figure or group fighting for the other view point. I don't think I'm being clear. Basically, because Dems and Reps are usually opposites, doesn't mean when one side believes one thing that the other side automically believes the opposite.

By the way Jim, I tried to email you the other day about an article in Discover magazine. Did you get it?

Monkeys.

The following is my favorite bit from the book (mainly because I live in Eugene):

"Fortunately, candidates don't do it alone. Whether seeking city, state or federal office, they are undoubtedly running under the auspices of one of America's two politcal parties--the Republicans and the Deomocrats. (Yes, there's probably some state senator in Oregon who belongs to the Green Party, but face it: Hippie Q. Freakington ain't going anywhere outside the greater Eugene area.)"

Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc. I am making it broad to acknowledge that there is some room for disagreement, while suggesting that there is even still some agreement on this issue. Obscenity would still be considered inappropriate for a child, and at least some portrayals of nudity. I would also argue that we have lost an appropriate sense of respect for authority.

I realize I am arguing a lost cause with most of you since you have redefined family values to be something very different today. That doesn't make you wrong and me right (or vice versa), but it is frustrating when that very large change is not even acknowledged.

Jim in Iowa

By the way Jim, I tried to email you the other day about an article in Discover magazine. Did you get it?

I did today.

Jim

Jim in Iowa wrote...
Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc.

Well there we have it. So it would have been more accurate to say, "So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in my values."

Which of course could very well be true. Please understand that I'm not trying to pick a fight, it just really irks me to be told that I do not believe in "family values," simply because my values are not 100% in-line with the speaker.

Hell, I didn't even know they HAD libraries in Mississippi.

Mississippi, let me introduce you to a word you may not have ever heard before: satire. Look it up in the dictionary if you haven't banned that yet either since that book has some bad words in it.

Anybody else get the feeling, after reading about things like this, that maybe the USA would be a bettter place if we had just let the Confederacy go when they wanted to?

Jim in Iowa: Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc.

Well, that's one way of looking at it... but I honestly despise the "child-proofing" of America. I can understand that there are things that children shouldn't see, but the whole idea of "it should be banned all together!" is taking it a step too far, and very lazy parenting, in my opinion.

Just because something is "Not for kids" does not mean that it's "not for everyone else too!" The way I see it, so long as the book is not placed in the childrens/Young adult section of the library, what's the problem? That's like saying that there shouldn't be "R"-rated movies at Blockbuster because -gasp- what if a child gets a hold of one?

And to answer that "what if" question, if a child does get a hold of it Stewarts book, or an R-rated dvd, I'm perfectly ok with the parent of that child telling their own kid "you shouldn't be looking at that" and putting the book/dvd back on the shelf, or even for a librarian/blockbuster clerk to say to a kid "you're too young to borrow that"... but to just remove it from public space for the fear that a child could possibly get a hold of it someday maybe I think (and do what with it, exactly?) is pure overkill, not to mention somewhat irrational.

That's not "Family Values", unless by "value" you mean that the government does more of the job of parenting, and you do less work parenting, all for the same amount of tax dollars.

Rex Hondo wrote:
"Anybody else get the feeling, after reading about things like this, that maybe the USA would be a bettter place if we had just let the Confederacy go when they wanted to?"

Oh please... you're making it sound like this book has been pulled from every shelf in America and burned.

Slick pointed out:
That's not "Family Values", unless by "value" you mean that the government does more of the job of parenting, and you do less work parenting, all for the same amount of tax dollars.

Agreed, and wonderfully put.
In fact, I'd be willing to pay an extra couple of tax dollars each year, to institute mandatory testing in order to qualify for a parenting competency license before one is permitted to procreate. Too bad biology won't back us up on this idea. Wouldn't it be great if potential parents had to understand that parenthood is a commitment requiring hard work for eighteen years without any breaks?
Not long ago I knew someone who became a parent of two children, and within months complained that she doesn't get weekends and vacations away from mommyhood. Well, yeah, but that's part of the deal! Certainly the US government, the library system, the neighbors, and her social circle never signed up to be responsible for raising her children; that's her job, and her husband's. Any help the parenting couple get is a happy bonus, not a right to which she's entitled.

(This is, by the way, why I don't have children: I'd fail the test. I would not be happy giving up my leisure time, my ability to own breakables, and any concept of a "fun fund" in my budget all in favor of parenting ... and my Dearly Beloved is even less likely to give up such things. I have nothing but respect for people who do live as responsible parents -- hardier souls than I could be!)

Michael Pullman asked: Doesn't the Supreme Court
definition of pornography include a clause that
the material has to arouse sexual thought?
And two, who on the library board was turned on
by that picture?
----------------
Are you kidding? That super foxy Ruth Bader Ginsberg nude
with seven guys and a shiksa? Who wouldn't be?

Was nudity the stated reason? The cited page was part of a paper doll feature, after all. An open invitation to vandalism. Not unlike the Marvel Value Stamps of yore. If the library didn't want to vandalize the book be removing the page in question, doesn't it stand to reason they don't want their customers or clients or whatever a ibrary has, patrons, vandalizing the books either? Would a library stock a paper doll book or coloring book and not expect the book to be used as intended? (When have you ever seen a back issue of Mad Magazine with no creases on the fold-in page?)
Didn't some libraries have a similar problem stocking Abbie Hoffman's "Steal this Book" out of concern that the books title and logo might encourage theft? And most importantly, has anyone submitted this picture to the web site "the Fake Detective" to verify its inauthenticity?

Jim in Iowa:

>Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc. I am making it broad to acknowledge that there is some room for disagreement, while suggesting that there is even still some agreement on this issue. Obscenity would still be considered inappropriate for a child, and at least some portrayals of nudity.

I don't disagree entirely with this. I do have to wonder why anyone would think that this book would need necessarily be within a child's reach. The same library that I spoke of regarding my mother's romance novel supply had librarians who were aware of the kids in the library and monitoring those kids.

>I realize I am arguing a lost cause with most of you since you have redefined family values to be something very different today. That doesn't make you wrong and me right (or vice versa), but it is frustrating when that very large change is not even acknowledged.

I acknowledge it, but don't see it as negative thing. Beating your kid for an arbitrarily defined "inappropriate" behavior, having them work 17 hours a day in a coal mine and taking them out of early education in order that they can help in the home used to be commonplace and a part of family values. I suspect that you and I may actually be in agreement on many values considered to be family values, but change in our societal definition of it is'nt automatically a "bad thing".

Fred

Jim, to a point I'm playing devil's advocate here, but isn't it a bit sweeping of you to claim this as a sounding point to support the idea that democrats don't support family values? I haven't really seen one person say that the library would be wrong for keeping the book in a reserved or adults only section, which you yourself suggest. The only outcry I have really seen is against a move seen as censorship by a public entity.

In order for this book to be proof that democrats lack your concept of family values, wouldn't they have to be demanding that not only do the Mississippi libraries carry this book, but put it in the children's section? Or make it required reading for every third grader?

"Anybody else get the feeling, after reading about things like this, that maybe the USA would be a bettter place if we had just let the Confederacy go when they wanted to?"

Just came back from a visit to Pennsylvania, where the big news was a local school board mandating the teaching of creationism in the schools. I also recal from living there that PA has counties where it would be well nigh impossible to find a Playboy at any of the local QuickyMarts. So while, like any tranplanted Northerner, I find it amusing to joke about Southern stereotypes, the truth is that the North has plenty of the same, if not more.

Jim, to a point I'm playing devil's advocate here, but isn't it a bit sweeping of you to claim this as a sounding point to support the idea that democrats don't support family values?

In short, I think your point is valid in two regards. First, I would not support a ban on this particular book. I have not read it, but if after a review of it I find it clearly inappropriate for kids, then perhaps it should be dealt with accordingly. I suspect that such extreme measures are not necessary in this particular case.

Second, I should probably use the term "liberal elitists" rather than talking about the average democrat. I have relatives who vote democrat every time, but who share my moral values. And I know some republicans who don't.

HOWEVER, I do feel my basic point is true. When you look at what LEADERS in the respective party promote and defend, there is no question that there is a huge difference in values. I would argue that what liberal democratic leaders are actually doing, in spite of their denials, is to rip apart the very foundation of society by tearing apart some core family values. Defending that would take a huge post I don't have time to write right now, so I will leave it at that.

Jim in Iowa

I acknowledge it, but don't see it as negative thing. Beating your kid for an arbitrarily defined "inappropriate" behavior, having them work 17 hours a day in a coal mine and taking them out of early education in order that they can help in the home used to be commonplace and a part of family values. I suspect that you and I may actually be in agreement on many values considered to be family values, but change in our societal definition of it is'nt automatically a "bad thing".

You are mixing issues in your examples. "Beating a kid" is very different from living in hard economic times where it was necessary to have a kid help in the family business (whether a farm, store, etc.) so that there was food to eat. It is an anachronistic argument to apply todays standards to what they had to do 50 or 100 years ago. We would agree that child labor in a coal mine was always a bad thing, but we also better know now the huge health implications for a child's lungs when they work in a coal mine.

Jim in Iowa

>B>Why do these people hate America?

I forgot to ask this question sooner, but how exactly does banning Stewart's book equate with hating America?

Many of you argue that just because you are against the war in Iraq doesn't mean you hate America. Wouldn't the same standard apply here?

Jim in Iowa

I believe Peter was making a pun on the book's title, "America".

Jim in Iowa wrote: "Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc."

So what happens when your child is 12? Or 15? Or 17-18? Does the definition of family values change? Would you prohobit your child from entering a library/store/whatever that offered America: The Book today, but allow them to go in next year?

I, too, have young children (ages 7 and 5) and there are many, many things in the world that I don't want them to be exposed to yet. Sexually explicit material is indeed one of those things. Of course at the same time I recognize the fact that the target audience for America: The Book is not children ages 5-7. I also realize that by exercising a certain amount of parental oversight I can filter what my child is exposed to.

I feel perfectly comfortable taking my children into a Waldenbooks knowing that issues of Playboy, Penthouse, and other (far more explicit) magazines are for sale on the top rack in the magazine section. I also recognize the fact that the novels in the Romance section contain graphically explicit descriptions of sexual activity. However, when I go into such a store I am with my children at all times. We look at children's books together.

The same holds true for the public library in my home town. I do not want them to restrict the books that they carry to those appropriate for the least common denominator, and I certainly am not going to say that if they carry books and materials appropriate for adults that they are violating some characteristic of family values. I certainly do not expect people to use the ages of my children as a yard stick with which to measure whether or not something is appropriate.

My duty as a parent is to guide my children through life, and part of that is taking an active role in their experiences. I certainly do not rely on a librarian, a book store clerk, or the purchasing agent for Wal*Mart to protect my children from the world.

One might consider that the daily images of a war torn country in which men, women, and children are being killed in various horrible ways is much more offensive than a book containing nudity used for comedic affect. Then again, I've always thought it interesting that 'family values' seems to mean that sex is far worse than violence, but worst of all is harsh language.

Phinn

Let's put a better twist on this story by looking at it from the other side.

Jon Stewart's America is one of the bestselling books of 2004 and so far, 2005. It has been a #1 New York Times bestseller, an Amazon.com #1 bestseller, and I'm guessing many other newspaper and regional lists and bookstore lists as well, though I don't have the data.

His TV show The Daily Show is one of Comedy Central's top-rated programs and one of the most popular shows overall on cable, even though, as Stewart puts in, his "lead-in show is puppets making crank calls."

Stewart has been interviewed and featured on major newsmagazines, radio and TV shows and other media extensively over the past several months.

A penny-squat library objecting to the content or a store--even a mega-mart chain--not carrying this, is not censoring Stewart's book or keeping its "message" (even though I'm not certain its message isn't just a good hearty laugh at the current affairs of the country) from the American people. Stewart and his book are getting more exposure, more press, more attention than virtually any book until a mega-block named Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince plops in the bookstores in June.

That's a damn good thing, people. Stewart's getting heard, now more than ever. That's America: not just the book title, but what the country is interested in and wants to hear.

A Mississippi library ain't gonna change that.

Forgot to add this before, but from conversations with my mother, being responsible for your children does indeed extend beyond 18 years.

Jim, to a degree we agree with each other, although I don't know if democratic leaders are so much attacking traditional family values as they are trying to represent a section of society that is embracing evolving family values. If you're a supporter of tradition, you see it as an attack. If you're a proponent of change, you see it as championing. It all matters on where you view it from.

To borrow the child-labor of the past example, I'm sure the early 1900s father of 12 kids viewed them as cheap farm labor, and would have strongly resisted attempts to force those kids into public schooling and reduced work hours. But as you point out, society's needs at the time dictated what was accepted. I think the problem now is that we're not only dealing with needs, but desires as well. There's a need/desire to protect children from negative influences, and an adult desire to view a wide range of satirical and risque material, some of which conflicts with the first interest.

I should follow-up my previous comments with what I believe are the differences between 'conservative' family values and 'liberal' family values.

For conservatives, 'family values' means that the government should take an active role in legislating morality. This includes punishing those people who violate a code of decency that is not necessarily directly related to community standards (evidence of this is suggested when the current head of the FCC reveals that the fact that people are complaining about content is more important than the number of complaints or proportion of the population that is complaining).

This philosophy is, to me, entirely hypocritical as one of the pillars of conservative philosophy is 'small government'; allowing people the freedom to operate as they wish in business but not on a more personal level (such as religion or expression) is highly counter-intuitive and blatantly contradictory unless the only thing that you worry about is money.

Furthermore, we have seen time and time again (most recently in the case of the Majority Leader) that many of these leaders do not practice as the preach; they overtly use values as a tool to get voter turnout so that, once safely in office, they can steer policy that is unrelated to values.

Liberals, on the other hand, are more concerned with personal freedoms, and how maintaining standards of decency can be achieved without hurting the development of America and its culture. Typically liberals do not champion government sponsored censorship, or increasing governmental oversight of forms of expression (even though the stereotypical liberal wants nothing more than to create additional government programs and spend your tax dollars).

And using the term 'liberal elitist' doesn't help your case at all; touting yet another fictitious label bandied about by all the other ditto-head talking point parrots doesn't do anything to help your case; it just shows that you're not capable of formulating your opinions and ideas beyond what has been spoon fed to you. The fact that I disagree with your ideas of 'family values' doesn't make me liberal, and it certainly doesn't make me an elitist.

If anything a community of people who thinks that anyone who doesn't share their unique view of the world is a twisted and corrupt abomination of humanity that wants to force feed satanism and pornagraphy to our children seems to think pretty highly of themselves, their peers, and others who think like them (the definition of elite, if you will).

Phinn

It should be noted that Stewart announced on his show last night that the libraries in question reneged on the bans, with the end result being that the book was only banned for a short period of time, during which the libraries were closed. It seems that one library official cited a large amount of "outside scrutiny" as a reason for not going ahead with the ban.

Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc.

I assume that "by" there is supposed to be "my"

And that's well and good. As a parent, you should safeguard your child from things or ideas you feel is dangerous to them. But that's not what "Family Values" people want. They refer to things that they are will to expose any child to see. It's not enough that they police their children..they go for every child and adult. And they want the government to do it for them.

Phinn....

Liberal elitist means someone who reads books.

Thanks for your post..I wanted to say similar stuff, but just get to annoyed at the thought that in the 21st Century, we're still dealing with such backwards thinkers.

Just came back from a visit to Pennsylvania, where the big news was a local school board mandating the teaching of creationism in the schools.

Not exactly. What the Dover school district is mandating is "intelligent design," a belief that evolution has occured, but it was guided by some intelligent creator. Granted, many fundies see it as a way to "teach the controversy" and backdoor creationism into the schools, but it's not the same thing.

I also recal from living there that PA has counties where it would be well nigh impossible to find a Playboy at any of the local QuickyMarts. So while, like any tranplanted Northerner, I find it amusing to joke about Southern stereotypes, the truth is that the North has plenty of the same, if not more.

As a lifelong PA resident, I disagree with that. I've been in a lot of convenience stores and gas stations in PA and never found a shortage of Playboys anywhere in the state. In fact, it's my experience that the more rural a county in PA, the more "dirty book stores" the county has.

Now, as to our idiotic state owned liquor stores . . .

Second, I should probably use the term "liberal elitists" rather than talking about the average democrat.

Trying to dig your own grave there, Jim?

As somebody else already stated, it's YOUR values, not the values of conservatives, liberals, or any particular worthless party.

"Liberal elitists"? What if you don't share the values of "compassionate conservatives", an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Get over yourself already.

Jim In Iowa:

>>I acknowledge it, but don't see it as negative thing. Beating your kid for an arbitrarily defined "inappropriate" behavior, having them work 17 hours a day in a coal mine and taking them out of early education in order that they can help in the home used to be commonplace and a part of family values. I suspect that you and I may actually be in agreement on many values considered to be family values, but change in our societal definition of it is'nt automatically a "bad thing".

>You are mixing issues in your examples. "Beating a kid" is very different from living in hard economic times where it was necessary to have a kid help in the family business (whether a farm, store, etc.) so that there was food to eat. It is an anachronistic argument to apply todays standards to what they had to do 50 or 100 years ago.

Times change. Necessity dictates change. Enlightnement and growth of a society can't be argued for in one moment and dispelled the next.

Many of the situations weren't purely for economic reasons. Often, children were utilized in the home because honoring your mother and father and chores were more important than education. Thise didn't become a minority viewpoint until fairly recently. Also, Aren't most of your "family values" passed down from longer ago than 50 or 100 years?

Fred

I believe Peter was making a pun on the book's title, "America".

Ok. Didn't catch that one. It swam right by me (like the shark did in the Hulk). :-)

Jim in Iowa

If anything a community of people who thinks that anyone who doesn't share their unique view of the world is a twisted and corrupt abomination of humanity that wants to force feed satanism and pornagraphy to our children seems to think pretty highly of themselves, their peers, and others who think like them (the definition of elite, if you will).

Phinn, you just made my point. There ARE liberals who because I don't share their view on certain issues call me a bigot, homophobe, idiot, etc. Those are the ones I refer to as liberal elitists. Both sides can go to an extreme that is not right, healthy, etc.

Family values does NOT refer to just legislating morality. In fact, you seemed to have missed the fact that I do NOT want this book removed from the library. (Walmart is a private company, so I support their right to make their own decision.)

My point goes to the bottom line of what we value/believe as right and wrong. I believe using obscene language is crude and inappropriate. I don't want to "ban" or censor it, but I would love to see its use curtailed. I believe sexually suggestive and explicit pictures are unhealthy and hurt the formation of a healthy sexual relationships. Again, I am not calling for Playboy to be made illegal, but for most people to understand that looking at porn does have a negative impact on healthy relationships. You want to disagree? Fine, that is why we are a democracy. But be honest and admit that what is shown on TV, in magazines, etc., are images that would have been considered inappropriate for "public" (all ages) viewing 50 or 100 or even 1000 years ago.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth and deal with what I am saying. Our values have changed radically. In some cases, I think that is good (such as in racial equality), and we may even have room still to grow. In others, we have gone downhill and are now paying the price. It IS possible to argue for a value without believing you have to legislate it.

Jim in Iowa

And that's well and good. As a parent, you should safeguard your child from things or ideas you feel is dangerous to them. But that's not what "Family Values" people want. They refer to things that they are will to expose any child to see. It's not enough that they police their children..they go for every child and adult. And they want the government to do it for them.

Let's take an example: child pornography. Yes, it is extreme, but I use it for a reason. The ACLU has actually defended that once it is created, it is protected and should not be destroyed. Yet I suspect most on this site would say it is wrong, unhealthy, and inappropriate for anyone, and ESPECIALLY a child, to view.

There ARE appropriate times and issues when we do make rules that cover all children. We do want to protect them from things because we cannot be with our kids 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In a democracy, it is important that we do not have one small segment (whether on the right or the left) dictating the policy. That is when there is a problem. I would hope society in general (which in a democracy is what the government should represent) would act to protect all children (as much as is reasonably possible and to be expected).

Jim in Iowa

Actually, Jim, child pornagraphy isn't illegal (even possessing child pornagraphy is illegal) in order to protect children from viewing it. It's illegal because to allow it at all presents a threat to children, because in order to *make* it, you have to use actual children. So in order to deter anyone from abusing children to make porn, even the possession of pornagraphic material containing children is banned.

Actually, Jim, child pornagraphy isn't illegal (even possessing child pornagraphy is illegal) in order to protect children from viewing it. It's illegal because to allow it at all presents a threat to children, because in order to *make* it, you have to use actual children. So in order to deter anyone from abusing children to make porn, even the possession of pornagraphic material containing children is banned.

Kingbobb, I know that. That is why I specifically mentioned that the ACLU argued that ONCE IT HAD BEEN MADE, it was protected under free speech. For the very reasons you stated, as well as because of the ongoing harm it does to the child who was photographed, I believe it should be destroyed.

Assuming, for the moment, the ACLU had their way, would you still feel the same? I suspect you would still oppose child porn for the reasons you mention.

Back to the main point: Your argument makes my point. There ARE things we "legislate" to protect children. While violating a child by using them for child porn is obviously far more damaging, exposure to some other things can still harm a child. We may disagree on what fits on that list, but my point remains the same.

Jim in Iowa

Me--"Just came back from a visit to Pennsylvania, where the big news was a local school board mandating the teaching of creationism in the schools."

Den-"Not exactly. What the Dover school district is mandating is "intelligent design," a belief that evolution has occured, but it was guided by some intelligent creator. Granted, many fundies see it as a way to "teach the controversy" and backdoor creationism into the schools, but it's not the same thing."

My understanding of intelligent design is that it postulates that evolution CANNOT occur without this supernatural guidance. Thus it is creationism, pure and simple.

Tim, have you been following this story? I seem to recall you metioning that your wife was an evolutionary biologist.

Jim, by using Child Pornography to make your point, you set an extreme case for when it is appropriate to ban or censor a mode of speech. Yes, ther are things that we legislate to protect children, but generally, as kingbobb pointed out, they aren't banned because children might see or hear or read them, but because children will be directly harmed in creating them. The ACLU's argument aside, the law is in place not to protect children from reading child porn, but to protect them from being in child porn.

It is just as possible to argue, in fact, that preventing children from knowing about certain things is more damaging than letting them know about them. A recent case is when a California library banned A Child's Life, a book about the experiences of a young woman, claiming it was a 'how-to guide for pedofiles'. It's this kind of knee-jerk reaction (that writing about something is the same as teaching someone how to do it... I haven't noticed pedophiles being particular interested in the comic books of Phoebe Gloeckner, especially not this one, which is all about the consequences of such abuse) that disturbs me.

Now, I can imagine already someone saying that children shouldn't be exposed to a book about child abuse. Maybe that's a fair statement, but when I was a child, a book that told me what the hell was going on could well have prevented it. I greatly fear the idea that it is in the best interest of children to be kept ignorant. A family with strong values should be able to discuss difficult, frightening and true aspects of life openly with its children rather than pretending they don't exist, and a family with strong values should be able to explain satire, nudity, and other aspects of life without resort to falling back on the term 'pornography' to cover any and all uses of a picture of some naked people. There was no prurient interest in the book 'America' - there is no way to justify hiding a picture of this kind from children any more than there would be in hiding National Geographic or any Time-Life book covering prehistoric man with the now-famous 'march of life' of our hominid ancestors in it.

I would argue that Child Pornography is wholly wrong because children are raped to make it, not because children might see it. I don't believe there's anything that actually exists that is automatically harmful for children to see, especially if we as their caretakers and guardians are willing to discuss the things they see and read and hear, and even if I did, it's wholly and totally my responsibility to provide such guidelines and boundaries for my children and enforce them. (I don't have children, I should admit that now.)

I believe sexually suggestive and explicit pictures are unhealthy and hurt the formation of a healthy sexual relationships. Again, I am not calling for Playboy to be made illegal, but for most people to understand that looking at porn does have a negative impact on healthy relationships.

Porn, like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, television, video games, bacon, KFC, the Internet, and any number of items, hobbies, practices, and pasttimes, only has a negative impact when moderation goes flying out the window. For every single case of a porn addict ignoring his wife/GF in favour of one-handed typing, there's probably at least half a dozen case of couples spicing up their relationship through the inclusion of pornography or related sex items.

And please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to paint liberals as the only ones who ever indulge in raunchy behaviour. Need I remind you of Jack Ryan, the Republican who dropped out of the Illinois Senate race last June when his ex-wife Jeri Ryan revealed that he had taken her to sex clubs and pressured her to have sex in front of other people? Or Jimmy Swaggert and his prostitute pals? Or Henry Hyde cheating on his wife?

But be honest and admit that what is shown on TV, in magazines, etc., are images that would have been considered inappropriate for "public" (all ages) viewing 50 or 100 or even 1000 years ago.

50 years ago it was widely considered inappropriate for black people to use the same public washrooms as whites. 100 years ago it was widely considered inappropriate for women to be anything other than homemakers. 1000 years ago it was widely considered inappropriate to suggest that the Earth wasn't flat. What is your point?

6 million years ago people started cars by running inside them, worked on brontosauruses, and kept saber-toothed cats as pets.

Darn my Hanna Barbara upbringing....

Jim, you are correct, if the ACLU had successfully defended the free speech rights to posses child porn, I'd still feel that it should be outlawed because of the harm caused to the children used to create the photos.

But others have raised an interesting point. Why do we seek to protect children from exposure to violent images, or non-exploitive nudity? It's not because the images themselves cause damage to the child, it's because of the view society places on those kinds of acts. From a purely theoretical point of view, if the stigma against nudity were removed from society, a good portion of the need to insulate children from such images would vanish.

It is a fine line any parent walks, fighting the instinct to protect and insulate your children from anything that may cause them harm. On the other hand, it is our experiences that allow us to grow and develop as individuals, and at some point every parent must allow their child to experience and decide for themselves what they will and will not allow into their lives. Insulte too much and your child could become stunted, and unable to react to situations they have never contemplated before. Fail to insulate at all, and your child may develop a warped and twisted sense of morals completely out of line with even a radical view of what society accepts and approves.

I think I'll go back to watching Flintstone...I think the one with the Great Gazoo is on...

"Just because something is "Not for kids" does not mean that it's "not for everyone else too!" The way I see it, so long as the book is not placed in the childrens/Young adult section of the library, what's the problem? That's like saying that there shouldn't be "R"-rated movies at Blockbuster because -gasp- what if a child gets a hold of one?"

Sadly I have encountered severl ultra conservatives who feel this is should be the case, not only at blockbuster but at all. IE Hollywood should not be allowed to make R rated movies. Those people sicken me.

Jim:

Second, I should probably use the term "liberal elitists" rather than talking about the average democrat.

Tell you what, Jim. You avoid using the term "liberal elitists" to mean anyone with whom you disagree on "values" issues, and I'll stop using the term "willfully ignorant conservative wingnut stooges" along the same lines.

You want to argue a case, argue the case, not the proponents.

I doubt my opinion matters all that much to you, but quite frankly your use of that phrase just set back my opinion of you by several months' worth of conversation.

(As an aside, it amazes me how so many members of the far right wing simultaneously claim they're compassionate AND make it very plain that they think liberals have no values and no worth whatsoever. Unbe-frellin'-lievable.)

Bill:

My understanding of intelligent design is that it postulates that evolution CANNOT occur without this supernatural guidance. Thus it is creationism, pure and simple.

Tim, have you been following this story? I seem to recall you metioning that your wife was an evolutionary biologist.

She's technically a vertebrate physiologist, but "evolutionary biologist" works pretty well in a pinch.

I haven't followed all the details (though I did just go Google up the official Dover school board statement, which is about as mealy-mouthed cowardly as they come), but from my general and overall experience, "intelligent design" has a "God created humans" statement at its core. It's phrased far more implicitly and quietly than standard creationism, but the entire point of I.D. is that the complexity of life requires a designer. Call it God or call it six-headed purple aliens from Planet X, it's creationism in one shape or form.

Ask an intelligent design proponent more details about what's going on, and eventually you get down to nothing more than a blanket statement of faith in creationism.

They've got every right to believe that, of course, but I'll be dead before it happens in a science classroom anywhere I teach.

TWL

So the photo with the Chief Justices is pornography?

Well, an internet search says pornography is defined as "The explicit depiction or exhibition
of sexual activity in literature, films or photography that is intended to stimulate erotic, rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."

So, if someone is aroused by nude depictions of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices -- well, that someone has other problems.

Tell you what, Jim. You avoid using the term "liberal elitists" to mean anyone with whom you disagree on "values" issues, and I'll stop using the term "willfully ignorant conservative wingnut stooges" along the same lines.

The reaction to my use of "liberal elitists" is astounding to me. I was pretty clear, especially in my second post, that it does NOT simply mean anyone who disagrees with me, but rather to an extreme that most certainly does exists. There are perhaps two or three who post on this site who would fit this description (no, I won't post any names -- but it is not anyone who has responded today to me in this thread), but most of you who are liberal are not extreme as I defined it (such as the ACLU arguing to protect child porn).

I do admit that I threw gas on the fire by using the child porn example in a way that seems to have caused most of you to have not even paid attention to what I was saying. I NEVER said sticking your head in the sand is a family value. It is wrong to hide every issue of National Geographic because it has a picture of a nude tribal person. Over protection can be almost as much a form of "child abuse" as can over exposure. I NEVER said that I would be worried if my kid picked up a copy of this book. So go back and reread my actual point: Our values have changed, and some of them in a way that I think is bad for our society. Let me give a "safer" example: I am glad to hear that some women are starting to protest the portrayal of women in many rap songs. Would it forever devestate my kid to be exposed one time to a rap song that basically glorifies abusing and even raping a woman? No. But a culture that stays silent and allows such songs to be held up as "great music" shouldn't be surprised when we have kids who commit sexual crimes. Not every kid who hears such a song will do so, but it is absurd to suggest that such songs do not wear away at moral standards.

Jim in Iowa

(As an aside, it amazes me how so many members of the far right wing simultaneously claim they're compassionate AND make it very plain that they think liberals have no values and no worth whatsoever. Unbe-frellin'-lievable.)

Tim, how, exactly, are the two things linked? Being compassionate does not mean I cannot say you are wrong.

Your argument is a straw man that I never said. I said we had DIFFERENT values. I am sure, on some crucial ones, we would agree. I am sure on others (for example, my being pro-life) you might disagree. If you are pro-choice (for the sake of argument), I would say you have a very different value than me in this area.

Jim in Iowa

I'm sorry, Jim, but I'm not required to confine myself to what you want me to take out of an argument invoking Child Porn as one example. It's no more permissible in our society now than it has ever been, so our values haven't changed much on that.

I will, however, agree that some of our values have changed for the worse in a way that affects our society poorly. For instance, it's much more acceptable now for someone to try and tell me what I can and cannot read or listen to, to the point where the FCC fines terrify television stations so that they won't show Saving Private Ryan.

I am glad to hear that some women are starting to protest the portrayal of women in many rap songs. Would it forever devestate my kid to be exposed one time to a rap song that basically glorifies abusing and even raping a woman? No. But a culture that stays silent and allows such songs to be held up as "great music" shouldn't be surprised when we have kids who commit sexual crimes. Not every kid who hears such a song will do so, but it is absurd to suggest that such songs do not wear away at moral standards.

However, you've just pointed out the proper response to something of that sort: protest. Not censorship, not removing of the offensive material, but addressing it. Getting into the dialog, saying 'no, this is unacceptable'. Not pulling it from the library... if America is so offensive, its critics should be able to justify exactly what it is that is objectionable about it and why pulling it from circulation is the proper means of dealing with that objection.

I don't view our culture as so fragile that I need to be protected from 50 Cent. I can say I think it's crap just fine. The same with anything.

The reaction to my use of "liberal elitists" is astounding to me.

Yeah, and lots of people used to be astounded by the reaction they got when they used the term "faggot" in casual conversation.

Slurs are slurs, dude -- and it's not like it's any better when they're slurs that are simply parroting the words of others.

I was pretty clear, especially in my second post, that it does NOT simply mean anyone who disagrees with me, but rather to an extreme that most certainly does exists.

Except that it's pretty clear that's NOT what you mean, Jim. You've defined those who do not have family values as "liberal elitists", and you've defined F.V. in such a way that if I happen to disagree with you on them I simply don't have them.

That is not exactly a kind and gentle definition of family values, or of so-called "liberal elitists." That is my-way-or-the-highway thinking cloaked in oh-so-soft-spoken rhetoric.

And I've had more than enough of it to last a lifetime these last four years. No more.

I do admit that I threw gas on the fire by using the child porn example in a way that seems to have caused most of you to have not even paid attention to what I was saying.

Side issue, as I never even responded to the child-porn example, and indeed had my reaction to your statement well before I even read that particular post in detail.

So go back and reread my actual point: Our values have changed, and some of them in a way that I think is bad for our society.

Yes. I get that.

The problem, Jim, is that you appear unable to understand why someone might disagree with you that a particular change is bad. You sum it up as saying "they have different values", but you also make it very, very clear that those values are not what you would define or accept as family values. You talk a language of inclusion, but when pressed are quick to blame "liberal elitists."

That's not really any different from putting "values" in quotes when describing liberal ideals. It sets up an image in people's minds of two groups: those with REAL values and those who merely pose.

It's a devastatingly effective tactic when executed properly, and I commend conservatives for having done it so well for the last couple of decades. But it stops now.

Your argument is a straw man that I never said.

Given that I explicitly labeled said argument as an aside, it's not intended to apply to you and thus not a straw man.

But given that my phrase ("they think liberals have no values") was rebutted with "being compassionate does not mean I cannot say you are wrong", I think you just equated "being wrong" with "lacking values", thus strengthening my original claim.

Sorry, kiddo. I ain't buyin' this time. On the large scale (so I'm not referring simply or even primarily to you, just to be clear), I've tried playing nice -- and I've lost my country as a result. From now on I will challenge, as fiercely and as often as necessary, anyone who even *hints* that they own a monopoly on values.

And I sincerely hope I have made that point sufficiently clear by now.

TWL

Tim,

While you and I probably agree on more things than people might think, I have to totally disagree with the implication that liberals have "lost their country"--and I don't buy THAT either--because they played nice.

I've heard this more than a few times lately (I hang out at DemocratUnderground a lot--scary sometimes but you have to keep an eye on the extremists or you end up getting blindsided by them). My own thoughts are that the Democrats lost the fight very early on--right after the 2002 elections, when they bought the idea that they had been far far too accommodating to the Republicans and Bush, that what was needed was anger, fury, blood and guts partisan politics. The Chicago way, they bring a knife you bring a gun, that sort of thing.

So for 2 years we had lots of Bush=Hitler and assorted other "conservatives are evil" themes, somewhat replacing the older Bush=Smirky McChimp paradigms (and I just worked the word "paradigms" into a sentence. Yay me!). Left wing blogs made themselves heard; Atrios and Alterman and Josh Marshall and David Brock were as scathing as any right wing blogger could ever be. Air America debuted to an astonishing amount of hype and attention (I knew they wouldn't amount to much when they ignored PAD's musical bit that he sent them--really, that would have been radio gold but I guess they'd rather have Randi Rhodes blather on in that voice that is only slightly less annoying than the sound dry ice makes when you put it on a car hood)

Lots of angry books. Plenty of angry movies. reams of angry editorials.

Democrats got mean. Democrats got tough. Democrats got...creamed.

And the response since the election has largely been one of complaining about how stupid the voters are. Way to win those hearts and minds.

Why do I care? Because if the Democrats self-destruct the Republicans will follow. One party rule usually ends in corruption, cronyism and incompetence. I don't see how a new party could possibly get the national organization and support that is required to be viable--if one wants a 2 party system, which I do, we have to work with the ones we have.

I think a lot is on the line with the current search for someone to replace THAT IDIOT Terry McAuliffe. If they pick Dean (or, God help us, do what some are suggesting and KEEP McAuliffe...who came up with THAT idea, Karl Rove?) I think it's going to be more of the same.

All that said, challenging anyone who even *hints* that they own a monopoly on values is a worthy endeavor and one that people on BOTH sides will probably have ample opportunity to play.

The only way to make Jim understand some is either:

1) Have Rush Limbaugh say it

or

2) Get it printed in the bible...

One reason why I tend to avoid Wal-Mart. They've also banned George Carlin's WHEN WILL JESUS PASS THE PORK CHOPS?

You'd think a sense of humour to these people would have the same result as a vampire's reaction to a crucifix.

Bill,

While you and I probably agree on more things than people might think, I have to totally disagree with the implication that liberals have "lost their country"--and I don't buy THAT either--because they played nice.

First, I didn't say liberals lost their country. I said that I've lost mine. I'm not trying to speak for everyone -- all I know that so far as I personally see it, my nation was officially pronounced dead on November 2nd of last year.

I'm going to fight to resuscitate it, believe me -- by any and all means I can swing -- but that doesn't mean I think it's anything other than a gigantically uphill fight. There's still every possibility that I'll be renouncing my citizenship before all is said and done.

My own thoughts are that the Democrats lost the fight very early on--right after the 2002 elections, when they bought the idea that they had been far far too accommodating to the Republicans and Bush, that what was needed was anger, fury, blood and guts partisan politics. The Chicago way, they bring a knife you bring a gun, that sort of thing.

Perhaps that's what a lot of people said, but look at what actually happened.

The Democratic nominee with actual fire and passion, who actually was a blood-and-guts type as you describe, was trashed by every major media outlet after one overhyped and badly mis-miked cheer, and in his place we got a man who agreed with Bush on Iraq, agreed with Bush on NCLB, and agreed with Bush on the Patriot Act.

How is that anything other than nominating a milquetoast near-quisling? This to you is opposition?

I voted for Kerry. I even contributed entirely too much money to his campaign, Elath help me. But I never kidded myself that he was anything other than an ABB candidate.

The problem wasn't too much anger, Bill -- not from where I sit. The problem is that the so-called opposition party, and virtually every major media outlet, be it television, radio, or print, has been too goddamn terrified of the GOP juggernaut to actually point out when the administration is lying out its ass.

Which, I would point out, it seems to do, and to get away with, with absofragginlutely astonishing regularity.

You say "we had lots of Bush=Hitler". Can you name me one prominent liberal who has publicly made that comparison? (MoveOn providing web space to one single person out of a contest with thousands of entries doesn't count.)

Left wing blogs made themselves heard;

To WHOM? I read some of those blogs -- several of them were talking about Abu Ghraib months -- months -- before the mainstream press picked it up. Who exactly do you think "heard" this discourse you find so scathing?

(And I certainly don't consider Josh Marshall, he of Talking Points Memo, particularly scathing. Critical, yes -- but in a highly rational and non-namecalling way. Equating him with someone like Coulter just strikes me as nuts.)

Air America debuted to an astonishing amount of hype and attention

...and is gaining outlets and viewers at a rather considerable clip, unless you claim they're flat-out lying about their numbers. I didn't pay much attention to AA until recently, but from a business standpoint they've certainly beaten the numerous naysayers who predicted they'd be off the air in three months.

Lots of angry books. Plenty of angry movies. reams of angry editorials.

Some, yes. "Lots?" "Reams?" "Plenty?" Evidently we live in entirely different venues.

Democrats got mean. Democrats got tough.

I completely and utterly disagree. Democrats put up an ineffectual Senate Minority Leader who knuckled under to criticism when he dared call Bush's policy "a disaster." Daschle wouldn't have lasted a week in the British parliament. (Neither would Bush, for different reasons.)

Democrats nominated a presidential candidate who, while having his heart in the right place in a lot of ways, chose irrevocably (and very poorly) not to take the fight to the GOP. He let the Swift-Boat idiots run roughshod for a month, just for starters.

How on Earth do you see the last two years as Democrats getting mean and tough?

Frankly, I think the "Dems lost because they were too mean" is exactly the meme that a lot of Republicans would love, love, looooooove to spread far and wide. Sure, let's have even more soft and squishy Democrats who'll raise no more than token opposition when asked to shred the safety net that keeps millions out of poverty -- hot damn.

And now? Let's see, the new Senate Minority leader is soft-spoken, meek, and anti-choice to boot.

One of the people being touted as DNC chair, Tim Roemer, is also anti-choice.

They put him in, I may switch registrations.

And the response since the election has largely been one of complaining about how stupid the voters are. Way to win those hearts and minds.

Granted.

Why do I care? Because if the Democrats self-destruct the Republicans will follow. One party rule usually ends in corruption, cronyism and incompetence. I don't see how a new party could possibly get the national organization and support that is required to be viable--if one wants a 2 party system, which I do, we have to work with the ones we have.

Now there's a paragraph I can heartily agree with -- except that I think it's already happening, and you clearly don't.

I think a lot is on the line with the current search for someone to replace THAT IDIOT Terry McAuliffe.

I completely agree with that as well, though I have to wonder how that squares with your claims that Democrats got too mean. McAuliffe's virtually a GOP apologist.

Obviously you don't agree with this choice, but I think Dean is a fantastic choice. Get a party spokesman in there who cares about individual rights (first signer of a civil-unions law back when he was governor of Vermont, as an example), who's willing to call a spade a spade when necessary, and who can think well on his feet and not simply put a cheery face on a well-funded corpse a la McAuliffe. You want a real debate? You'd get one with him.

The DLC folks who keep claiming the party needs to move more to the right? Toss 'em. Every last damn one (with Lieberman the first to go). Every time the Dems inch to the right, the Republicans send somebody like Tom "lesbians in the bathroom!" Coburn to the Senate.

I want people who will question premises rather than raise ineffectual defenses to have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife framings of debates.

I want people who will clearly articulate what the premises are they value, rather than deciding to move to the right in order to capture what other people CLAIM are "values."

I want an honest debate -- and in the broad strokes of things these days, we're not getting one. That should worry everyone, regardless of whose star is currently in ascendance. (I can tell it worries you -- that's one of the reasons I appreciate this conversation.)

All that said, challenging anyone who even *hints* that they own a monopoly on values is a worthy endeavor and one that people on BOTH sides will probably have ample opportunity to play.

Appreciated, and acknowledged. It would be nice if both sides stopped to examine the occasional mote in their own eyes from time to time. These days, since your side's running the country top to bottom, I do have to say "you first." :-)

TWL

Tim,

I'll have to wait till tomorrow to go into this in detail since there's no way I'm going to try to make a worthy reply to you on short notice and a need for sleep...but MY side is running the country?

My friend, my side ain't on the map. I'm a firm firm believer that the absolutely best possible political system would be a benign dictatorship with me as the benign dictator. A large part of me admits that this scenario is unlikely.

Anyway, more on Thursday, unless Peter distracts us with some LOST reviews and/or other shiny objects.

My understanding of intelligent design is that it postulates that evolution CANNOT occur without this supernatural guidance. Thus it is creationism, pure and simple.

Not exactly the same thing. ID concedes that evolution may have occurred, but requires a supernatural creator to guide it. Creationism denies that evolution could have occured at all.

I will, however, say that based on the statements of the people on the school board, that their intent is clearly to backdoor creationism into science class. Same result, different tactics.

If I can return to the original topic of this thread before engaging in a discussion with Tim, let me just say that, obviously, as a writer, one who loves books and absolutely values libraries and has put a lot of effort to supporting them, I can understand why this has people's blood pressure up.
But you cannot fight EVERY battle well, and I feel a library choosing not to have a book like "America" on its shelves should be the least of our concerns.
Sure, it's funny and it's satire and I don't have a problem with the nudity contained, but a lot of people, especially in that part of the country, do.
Now, you can fight them over what you think they SHOULD have on a local library's shelves, but that is a we're-more-enlightened-than-you mentality, and if you're GOING to do that, I would rather the capital expended go toward getting books with actual IDEAS on the shelves and keeping them there.
Because THAT is a struggle every day. For various reasons, each having precious little to do with censorship.
DEMOGRAPHICS - Many in urban areas find "Huckleberry Finn" offensive. "Catcher In The Rye", for some unfathomable reason, still raises the ire of uber-religious types.
SPACE - Many libraries are small. It is tough to stock the "classics", best-sellers, magazines, contemporary novel series like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", children's books and - more on this in a moment - two of the main "draws" these days, computers and DVDs. Given the limited space, a library may choose a book like "Will They Ever Trust Us Again?" by Michael Moore, which will undoubtedly have controversial statements and ideas, versus "America". And I realize that doesn't look to be the case here, but I am simply illustrating a point.
LIBRARIES HAVE TO CHOOSE - You really want to make sure libraries are open to ideas? Stop by and make suggestions of what you would like to read, particularly new books which are readily available. It's paid for with your tax dollars, tell them what you want to see on the shelves. If all else fails, BUY a BOOK and DONATE IT! If it is a current book that would be eligible to be on a best-seller list, they really can't refuse you. Err..unless it has nudity or something similar.
If you live in a conservative community, donate Jonathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities" to get people thinking about education or "House of Bush, House of Saud" to get people to think about the Bush Administration in a different way.
If you live in a liberal community, donate "Losing The Race", which is a brilliant book that provides a diferent insight into race relations than is typically spewed forth or "Losing Bin Laden", about Clinton's opportunities to get Bin Laden.
Or heck, just donate "New Frontier" books or comic trades so people can use their imaginations.

Tim,
No surprise, but I agree completly. Well said.

GLENN---posted this subject, not Peter David.

GLENN---is not an alias for Peter David.

GLENN---probably feels that he is going unnoticed around these parts.

Bill Mulligan: "I'm a firm firm believer that the absolutely best possible political system would be a benign dictatorship with me as the benign dictator."

That's exactly what I'm trying to do! Wanna race?

Jerome Maida brings up some interesting points. Definately worth considering and I find that I agree with him to a large degree. I do, however, believe that it is in our best interest to question any act of cencorship, regardless of the perpetrator. My concern is that if we let something small get through then it may become easier to let something only slightly larger get through in the future and, before we know it, one of our greatest values is lost.

"Family Values." This is nothing more than trendy political phrasing. Let's face it, no two people will ever agree 100% on an absolute set rules onhow to manage/take care of a family. All such debates are rendered moot because, in the end, there is no resolution. I figure the best way to practice family values is to learn what it means to start a family and the enormous commitment that entails. Before you start a family. Further, the best venue to discuss family values is probably within said family. I'm not against discussing insights with others, but when it starts to become little more than a political talking point it seems to loose sincerity.

As to the value shift mentioned by Jim, I would say that he is correct insofar as pointing out that a value shift has occured. I may be wrong but it seems to me that we do not value courtesy as much as we used to. I mean 'we' as in the world at large, not 'we' as in posters on PAD's Blog. Example: I use 'Please' and 'Thank you' everytime I'm out and about, I hold open doors for people when I can and more and more often they seem to look at me like I've given some kind of offense.

Just watch any political race. Real issues are avoided in favor of making the other side look bad. That is a sure sign if not of a value shift then at least a demented set of priorities.

Regards,

Mitch Evans

Maybe Jim will come to realize someday that you can't argue with the 'lefties' of this country that they are so blinded by their onesided, narrow-minded, thinking pattern, that they don't know how to defend their points without repeating themselves and shoving their viewpoits down everyone throats like Michael Moore does with his trash movie, shove their belief system in your face. They pick apart posts, taking what you say out of context so you keep having to defend your points over and over again. It's called selective hearing. The "Liberal Elites" on this board follow the same path and only like to agree with each other. They're right and everybody else is wrong mantality. In their minds, they won the election because they insist that the Republicans cheated, that the rest of the country cheated and rigged an entire election, good trick if you ask me, without any facts to back up their claims. Porn has always been ok with the ACLU and te Left. The liberals are so well scripted that they should become actors. Maybe some of you can go write for Peter David. Keep whing about the Repblicans & the GOP that's all that you Leftwing fanatics that have invaded ths blog like to do. You've weeded out all the ones who disagree with you except for Jim. I have yet to hear an orginal thought be posted here except for PAD and we all know that Glenn is a diehard Leftwing Fanatic like the rest of PAD's followers.

oh and don't bother picking apart my posts and twisting my words to suit your own adjendas and hatred of the right. I have no intensions of responding to any 'Leftwing Fanatic's' from this blog. I catch on very quickly and see what Lefties do to the ones who disagree with them.

Sinbad, we know it's really you, Jim in Iowa/Dee

actually, my last post here: I can't stand onesided blogs or posters or the ones that come here sucking up. I see a trend here: the Hollywood/Jews, the entertainment industry, you know? The ones who hated Bush for 4 years and will keep on hating him for no other rason than hate, media, liberal jews, all seem so disgruntled don't they? They have their undies so tied up in wads over this election that they can't get past it. 90 percent of them just dont want to accept they fact their side lost? This blog used to be fun. Now it's just lefty vs righty.

and it's getting mighty boring to read this blog.

Sinbad, we know it's really you, Jim in Iowa/Dee

Funny, I just signed up today. So, anyone who happens by here that disagrees with the 'lefties' on here is either is pretending to be someone else or is a rightwinger? Good trick.

Single, narrow-minded, view points, hard at work.

I guess someone can't be a Peter David fan unless they're a Leftwinger or a member of the Democratic Party? Or, if, someone strongly disagrees with the leftwing opinions of this blog they are quickly labeled a Republican or a Necon? Which is it? I happen to be a member of Libertarian Party.

Right off the bat you assume I am someone else instead of someone you've never met before because I happen to disagree with the majority of the leftwinger's in this blog? Interesting perception you all got.

Your so narrow-minded in your thinking, you quickly 'label' someone without getting to know what side of the fence they're on?

All I see posted on these blog threads are 'labels' which, I thought the left didn't like to do? Guess I was wrong. Your side don't like to be labeled and neither does anyone else.

If I agreed with you or the other posters here Would you have questioned me? No, you wouldn't have, because, you would have assumed me to be the same type of thinker as yourself, narrow-minded.

The 'left' never have any facts to backup their accusations. Ever notice?

Bill,

I'll have to wait till tomorrow to go into this in detail since there's no way I'm going to try to make a worthy reply to you on short notice and a need for sleep...but MY side is running the country?

My friend, my side ain't on the map. I'm a firm firm believer that the absolutely best possible political system would be a benign dictatorship with me as the benign dictator. A large part of me admits that this scenario is unlikely.

Entertaining, to be sure -- but a tad disingenuous. I know you don't march in lockstep with the Bush administration on all matters (gay marriage in particular), but unless you're about to tell me you didn't vote in favor of Bush's second term I think I'm going to have to keep my original point intact. At best, let's say the people currently running all three branches of government are a lot closer to "your side" than to mine. Fair enough?

And a free hint to Sinbad. One of the inherent features of online conversation is that it's written. You're not being ridiculed because you're against this mythical Jewish-dominated liberal conspiracy (well, okay, maybe you are when I put it that way) -- you're being ridiculed because you can't write your way out of a paper bag. Just a thought.

And now, off to grade more papers...

TWL

has been too goddamn terrified of the GOP juggernaut to actually point out when the administration is lying out its ass.

I thought this might be appropriate:

they are so blinded by their onesided, narrow-minded, thinking pattern,

Are we back to talking about Bush during the debates again?

Ok, that didn't work. Apparently posting images directly doesn't work?

I'll just link it. I suggest any reasonable person view it, as it's quite appropriate:
Cartoon

Bladestar says:
"Sinbad, we know it's really you, Jim in Iowa/Dee"

Anyone with half the observation skills of a turnip could see that Jim in Iowa is a MUCH better writer than Sinbad or Dee and capable of far better arguments as well.

I dunno, I sneak up on turnips all the time. I'm beginning to doubt that a turnip could in fact distinguish Jim from the Shrouded One.

Then again, maybe turnips just don't regard me as that much of a threat....

Anyone with half the observation skills of a turnip could see that Jim in Iowa is a MUCH better writer than Sinbad or Dee and capable of far better arguments as well.

Well, duh....Jim has a triple digit IQ....not a room temperature (in Celsius) one....

Yes, and let's not forget: Sinbad has those big baggy pants and the curved sword (unless we're talking about the Norwegian Sinbad, as seen on Mystery Science Theater 3000).

Sinbad also frequently says, "Women be different from men."

Ok, here’s my long reply to Tim.

Bill says-While you and I probably agree on more things than people might think, I have to totally disagree with the implication that liberals have "lost their country"--and I don't buy THAT either--because they played nice.

Tim says-“First, I didn't say liberals lost their country. I said that I've lost mine. I'm not trying to speak for everyone -- all I know that so far as I personally see it, my nation was officially pronounced dead on November 2nd of last year.”

Bill replies- Well, that’s why I said it was an implication—I knew you would not presume to speak for all (and at the risk of sounding like I am trying to soften you up with flattery, I think that you are much much more intelligent than most on the left.)

Tim—“I'm going to fight to resuscitate it, believe me -- by any and all means I can swing -- but that doesn't mean I think it's anything other than a gigantically uphill fight. There's still every possibility that I'll be renouncing my citizenship before all is said and done.”

Bill- And I hope that doesn’t happen. I think, though, that you need to face the reality that in one’s lifetime one has to expect to see the pendulum swing both ways. If you get this upset every time conservatives find themselves in ascendancy you are setting yourself up for way too many letdowns in the average life.
I’ll add that the only thing that could possibly prove my pendulum theory wrong would be if people like yourself make good on their threats to withdraw. Had conservatives taken their marbles and gone home after Clinton got re-elected none of the victories of the last 4 years could have happened.

Bill-My own thoughts are that the Democrats lost the fight very early on--right after the 2002 elections, when they bought the idea that they had been far far too accommodating to the Republicans and Bush, that what was needed was anger, fury, blood and guts partisan politics. The Chicago way, they bring a knife you bring a gun, that sort of thing.

Tim- “Perhaps that's what a lot of people said, but look at what actually happened.”
“The Democratic nominee with actual fire and passion, who actually was a blood-and-guts type as you describe, was trashed by every major media outlet after one overhyped and badly mis-miked cheer,”

Bill- By the time of “the cheer” the Dean campaign was pretty much over. He had put all of his eggs in one basket and when he lost Iowa the wheels came off, to mix my metaphors. It wasn’t the media who killed Dean’s candidacy, it was Dean (Frankly, I don’t think he originally got in it to win and when the juggernaut took off he was unprepared to exploit it.).

Furthermore, when one looks at Dean as governor, he was hardly the liberal firebrand some think of him. He reinvented himself to appeal to the more partisan primary voters but he would have had to tack hard to the middle to have had any chance in the general election

Tim-“…and in his place we got a man who agreed with Bush on Iraq, agreed with Bush on NCLB, and agreed with Bush on the Patriot Act.

How is that anything other than nominating a milquetoast near-quisling? This to you is opposition?”

“I voted for Kerry. I even contributed entirely too much money to his campaign, Elath help me. But I never kidded myself that he was anything other than an ABB candidate.”

Bill- If Dean or anyone else had run on an anti-Iraq war, anti-NCLB, anti-Patriot act platform the result would have been different, for sure. Like Bush winning by 10 million votes this time. I think you are being unduly harsh on Kerry. He was certainly one of the most liberal men ever to run for president—Michael Moore called him (approvingly) the most liberal member of the senate. If this guy is a wishy-washy milquetoast (one of my all time favorite words) I can’t imagine any candidate will ever meet with your approval. (and whatever kerry’s flaws were, and they were many, I don’t think it’s fair to call him a timid soul).

Tim- “The problem wasn't too much anger, Bill -- not from where I sit. The problem is that the so-called opposition party, and virtually every major media outlet, be it television, radio, or print, has been too goddamn terrified of the GOP juggernaut to actually point out when the administration is lying out its ass.”

“Which, I would point out, it seems to do, and to get away with, with absofragginlutely astonishing regularity.”

“You say "we had lots of Bush=Hitler". Can you name me one prominent liberal who has publicly made that comparison? (MoveOn providing web space to one single person out of a contest with thousands of entries doesn't count.)”

Bill--Well, it depends on what one means by prominent. Granted, Linda Ronstadt is no great political mind, same with Margaret Cho or Ted Rall. There’s a guy who compiled a list of Bush=Hitler or republican=Nazi references at http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html and, except for Al Gore referring to “digital brownshirts” I don’t know that I would consider most of the feebs listed there to be “prominent”. Of course, I don’t consider Jerry Fallwell to be a “prominent republican” either so maybe my standards are too high.

But I was mostly talking about the protestors and internet funsters. While they may individually amount to nothing, they collectively created a pretty negative atmosphere one that turned off a lot of average people.

Bill- Left wing blogs made themselves heard;
Tim—“To WHOM? I read some of those blogs -- several of them were talking about Abu Ghraib months -- months -- before the mainstream press picked it up. Who exactly do you think "heard" this discourse you find so scathing?

(And I certainly don't consider Josh Marshall, he of Talking Points Memo, particularly scathing. Critical, yes -- but in a highly rational and non-namecalling way. Equating him with someone like Coulter just strikes me as nuts.)”

Bill- I don’t consider scathing and rational to be mutually exclusive. I never compared him to Coulter. I didn’t even know she has a blog. But I AM nuts.

As for who heard it…I saw a good number of these folks on TV or at least mentioned on TV. Begala used many left wing blogs as sources on Crossfire and Alterman made his dour presence felt, at least when he was pimping a book (which is often).

Bill-Air America debuted to an astonishing amount of hype and attention

Tim—“...and is gaining outlets and viewers at a rather considerable clip, unless you claim they're flat-out lying about their numbers. I didn't pay much attention to AA until recently, but from a business standpoint they've certainly beaten the numerous naysayers who predicted they'd be off the air in three months.”

Bill- I have no problem with AA succeeding (though the latest aritron shows them getting clobbered by Limbaugh in New York City, which amazes me. Franken can be a funny guy and Randi Rhodes’ voice can be useful when trying to get old wallpaper to peel off. I don’t know if they are successful or not. If they are doing as well as you say doesn’t that sort of go along with my point, that angry democrats made their voices heard? I said they got an awful lot of attention and hype and you say they deserved it because they are being heard. Ok. How does that fit in with your belief that radio is too terrified of the administration to take them on?

Bill- Lots of angry books. Plenty of angry movies. reams of angry editorials.

Tim- “Some, yes. "Lots?" "Reams?" "Plenty?" Evidently we live in entirely different venues.”

Bill- Movies: Fahrenheit 9/11, Silver City, The Day After Tomorrow ,The Manchurian Candidate, Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry, Bush’s Brain, all were anti-Bush to one degree or another.

Books—too many to list. Here are the ones from folks whose names I know--Richard A. Clarke's Against All Enemies
Kevin Phillips' American Dynasty
Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty
Worse Than Watergate, by John W. Dean
The Politics of Truth, by Joseph C. Wilson
Kitty Kelley’s tell-all
Big Lies The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason
The Lies of George W. Bush
Mastering the Politics of Deception by David Corn
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken
Thieves in High Places
They've Stolen Our Country--and It's Time to Take It Back by Jim Hightower
Bushwhacked Life in George W. Bush's America by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose
The Great Unraveling Losing our Way In the New Century --Paul Krugman
Checkpoint, in which the popular Nicholson Baker
Thomas Frank’s, What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

Bill- Democrats got mean. Democrats got tough.

Tim- “I completely and utterly disagree. Democrats put up an ineffectual Senate Minority Leader who knuckled under to criticism when he dared call Bush's policy "a disaster." Daschle wouldn't have lasted a week in the British parliament. (Neither would Bush, for different reasons.)”

“Democrats nominated a presidential candidate who, while having his heart in the right place in a lot of ways, chose irrevocably (and very poorly) not to take the fight to the GOP. He let the Swift-Boat idiots run roughshod for a month, just for starters.”

Bill- He thought that Big Media would squash the story. They tried but the New Media wouldn’t let it die. The media bias toward liberals doesn’t always serve them well.

TIM- “Frankly, I think the "Dems lost because they were too mean" is exactly the meme that a lot of Republicans would love, love, looooooove to spread far and wide. Sure, let's have even more soft and squishy Democrats who'll raise no more than token opposition when asked to shred the safety net that keeps millions out of poverty -- hot damn.”

Bill- and yet many republicans are salivating over the idea of Dean as chairman. What does THAT tell you?

Tim-“ And now? Let's see, the new Senate Minority leader is soft-spoken, meek, and anti-choice to boot.”

“One of the people being touted as DNC chair, Tim Roemer, is also anti-choice. “

“They put him in, I may switch registrations.”

Bill- But here is a serious problem for democrats. People can see that republicans do allow pro-choice folks to attain high positions of power in the party- Guliani, Swartzenegger, Powell, Rice. If the Democrats can’t do the same with pro-lifers you end up with republicans getting ALL of the pro lifers and some pro-choicers and the Democrats only get what’s left. That may be an unwinnable strategy.

Bill- I think a lot is on the line with the current search for someone to replace THAT IDIOT Terry McAuliffe.

Tim- “I completely agree with that as well, though I have to wonder how that squares with your claims that Democrats got too mean. McAuliffe's virtually a GOP apologist.”

Bill- I disagree—I think he’s a partisan hack. He’s just so BAD at it that he plays into the hands of the Republicans. He’s Clinton without charisma and it ain’t a pretty sight. What kind of party would hire this clown?

Tim- “Obviously you don't agree with this choice, but I think Dean is a fantastic choice. Get a party spokesman in there who cares about individual rights (first signer of a civil-unions law back when he was governor of Vermont, as an example), who's willing to call a spade a spade when necessary, and who can think well on his feet and not simply put a cheery face on a well-funded corpse a la McAuliffe. You want a real debate? You'd get one with him.”

Bill- I really think he would be a bad choice and I’m not being cute or anything—obviously these words will have no influence on the outcome so it’s not like I’m yelling “please don’t throw me in the briar patch”. I think dean’s legend far outstrips his reality.

Tim- “The DLC folks who keep claiming the party needs to move more to the right? Toss 'em. Every last damn one (with Lieberman the first to go).”

Bill- Leaving the party politically purified but sterile and very small, I think.

Tim-“I want an honest debate -- and in the broad strokes of things these days, we're not getting one. That should worry everyone, regardless of whose star is currently in ascendance. (I can tell it worries you -- that's one of the reasons I appreciate this conversation.)”

Bill- This is going to sound retarded but have YOU ever considered running for something? It’s not that I believe people of political convictions HAVE to do so but you have a great passion for this and, our philosophical differences aside, I’ll bet a lot of people would be interested in hearing that sort of thing coming from candidates. (I myself have absolutely no interest in running for anything, including dogcatcher)

Bill- All that said, challenging anyone who even *hints* that they own a monopoly on values is a worthy endeavor and one that people on BOTH sides will probably have ample opportunity to play.

Tim- “Appreciated, and acknowledged. It would be nice if both sides stopped to examine the occasional mote in their own eyes from time to time. These days, since your side's running the country top to bottom, I do have to say "you first." :-)”

Bill- Well, you guys still have the college campuses, where most of the really hot chicks are. So, you know, there’s that. And that ain’t bad.

Bill wrote:

He thought that Big Media would squash the story. They tried but the New Media wouldn’t let it die. The media bias toward liberals doesn’t always serve them well.

I like reading your arguements, Bill, but this one made me laugh. The idea that the media's reporting of the Swift Boat Liars is further proof of "liberal media bias," rather than evidence refuting that old trope, is riduclulous on its face.

It was dirt on a candidate, so the media reported it. Becuase the media likes ratings, and the viewers like to find out about dirt on the candidates. It's the same thing that drove CBS to make its errors -- not a liberal bias, but bias toward ratings and a big scoop.

I'd also say that conservatives have learned quicker than liberals how to use that bias toward ratings to their advantage.

Rob

Seeing as how the last person I remember spewing "Hollywood/Jew" bullshit was dee, how do you miss the connection? ;)

Rob writes:

"I like reading your arguements, Bill, but this one made me laugh. The idea that the media's reporting of the Swift Boat Liars is further proof of "liberal media bias," rather than evidence refuting that old trope, is riduclulous on its face."

"It was dirt on a candidate, so the media reported it. Becuase the media likes ratings, and the viewers like to find out about dirt on the candidates. It's the same thing that drove CBS to make its errors -- not a liberal bias, but bias toward ratings and a big scoop."

If one looks at the way the mainstream media handled the Swift Boat Vets issue you can see that, for example, the May 20th press conference got little attention from most outlets. CBS did a hit piece that linked it to what happened to Max Cleland (?), AP wrote nothing, and of the non-conservative outlets, only UPI bothered to mention how Kerry personally called one of the commanders for 45 minutes to attempt to get him to drop support for the event- which seems like a newsworthy story to me but I’m not a professional journalist.

The result was that the story festered for months, until the ads and book sales and threats by Kerry’s people to sue anyone who showed the ads made it pretty much impossible for the newspapers to keep the story down. So they spent some time trying to debunk the Swift Boat Vets but by that time enough things had been proven correct (the ever changing Kerry in Cambodia story for one) and the disparity between the microscopic investigative digging into Bush’s National Guard duty (“Bush’s Dentist Says He Doesn’t Remember Him!”) that it was too little too late.

But I have no problem with the media being liberal biased. It works against them. For one thing, it allows them to be blindsided time and time again (like the probably apocryphal story of Pauline Kael being shocked when Nixon got elected because she didn’t know anybody who voted for him). As Mickey Kaus says: "The point is that reporters and editors at papers like the Times (either one!) are exquisitely sensitive to any sign that Democrats might win, but don't cultivate equivalent sensitivity when it comes to discerning signs Republicans might win. (Who wants to read that?) The result, in recent years, is the Liberal Cocoon, in which Democratic partisans are kept happy and hopeful until they are slaughtered every other November."

Tim,
I actually replied to you last night and - boom! - my computer lost everything. Picture Charlie Brown's decibel level when he goes AAAAAAUUUUGH!! Combine that with more cursing than you'll hear in "Scarface", and that was my reaction.
So here once again for the very first time, are my responses to your points:
"First, I didn't say liberals lost their country. I said that I've lost mine. I'm not going to speak for everyone - all I know (is) that so far as I personally see it, my nation was officially pronounced dead on November 2nd of last year."
Strong statements. Serious ones, too. All I can say, earnestly, is that it's a shame you feel that way, but I understand it. About a decade ago, I felt we were going in a seriously wrong direction. Real answers to real problems were not being addressed and I felt the '90s is when the Everybody's - A- Victim mentality really began to take hold. If Gore or Kerry had won, we would continue to prop up outdated programs and ideas and perceptions.
Which is why I literally became physically distraught when I heard the initial exit polls two months ago.
Which is why I was incredibly heartened by the result.
Which is why I never even considered gloating or rubbing it in somebody's face, because have a pretty good idea how I would be feeling right now if the results were different.

"I'm going to fight to resuscitate it, believe me - by any and all means I can swing - but that doesn't mean I think it's anything other than a gigantically uphill fight."
Yes it will be. But that doesn't mean it won't be a worthy one, fought the right way, for the right reasons.

"There's still every possibility that I'll be renouncing my citizenship before all is said and done."
While I would hope you don't become so disenchanted that you take this step, I give you credit for having actual courage to go with actual convictions. 99.9% of "I'm moving to Canada" types are ignorant buffoons who don't even mean it when they say it.
But if you WERE to leave, one of two things could happen:
A.) You'll be happier
B.) You'll be like, "Holy crap! The U.S. isn't so bad!"
I'm simplifying, but I hope you get the nut of my point.

BILL SAID: "My own thoughts are that the Democrats lost the fight very early on - right after the 2002 elections - when they bought the idea that they had been far too accommodating to the republicans and Bush, that what was needed was anger, fury, blood and guts partisan politics. The "Chicago Way". They bring a knife, you bring a gun, that sort of thing."
TIM SAID: "Perhaps that's what a lot of people said, but look at what actually happened. The Democratic nominee was actual fire and passion, who actually was a blood-and-guts type as you describe, was trashed by every major media outlet after one overhyped and badly mis-miked cheer"

You are obviously talking about Howard Dean. First, let me say that I feel Dean was hardly as liberal as he was made out to be. He governed essentially as a moderate.
Second, you may be surprised at this but I agree with you about the now-infamous "I Have A Scream" speech. It was, in my opinion, a ridiculous cheap shot.
But everything in news - especially TV "infotainment" - unfortunately rests with journalists who because A)They don't understand the complex issues themselves or B.) Think their audience is too stupid too understand them, boils everything down to personalities. So McCain portrayed as the Maverick; Bush as Dumb; Gore as Wooden; Dean as Angry.
So when dean shouted down that heckler and then presented them with a nice long soundbite, they had their pre-sold package ready for public consumption. Just like they do whenever Bush gets tongue-tied in a speech or McCain is "ready to go against his fellow Republicans."
Sad, really. That's why I read about 4-5 different newspapers.
The guy was trying to pump up his "troops" after a loss. How dare he!

TIM (PART 2)Since my computer has been acting up, I'm goint to post every few paragraphs. I'll do my own "I Have A Scream Speech" if I lose what I'm typing again.

Back to Dean. I think it's worth rememering that he lost Iowa - came in third - and he did so for a very big reason.
One political observer put it this way:
INTERVIEWER: Were you surprised when Howard Dean self-destructed?
POLITICAL OBSERVER: No. Because I had met him. My wife and I went to meet him with the idea of supporting him. We brought our checkbook. But we weren't in the room with him five minutes when we thought, 'Geez, this guy is kindof a prick'. We didn't write the check. I was not surprised the night of the Iowa caucus. He had spent the better part of two years in Iowa, letting people meet him. To meet him is to be turned off by him, so I wasn't surprised that he lost. The concept of Dean was incredible. The movement behind him was a revolution. It was exciting to see, but Dean imploding was no surprise.

The "political observer" in the interview? Michael Moore, in the July 2004 Playboy.
If a liberal like Moore can be so quickly turned off by Dean, do you really think he is the wisest choice to lead the Democratic party?

Maybe Jim will come to realize someday that you can't argue with the 'lefties' of this country that they are so blinded by their onesided, narrow-minded, thinking pattern

Sinbad, most people on this site (from either side of the political or philosophical spectrum) seem able to engage in a reasonable debate. There are exceptions (you seem to be one of them).

Tim, if you are done grading your papers and check back, I read your response. While I do think my basic point is true, I can see better why the term "liberal elite" brought the reaction it did. I will leave it at that.

Jim in Iowa

I have a strong urge to retype what I posted in "Darn it". But I don't wanna have to subject anyone to that, so go take a look if you're interested. Anyway, trying to move this back on topic, the book isn't meant to be taken seriously. If you try pushing it across as a textbook for a history class, it fails. But, in a world where children are tought unquestioning obedience from the get-go, it's great to have something to remind people that anything that is put across as "too holy to be questioned" or something similar, usually has some fundamental flaw that some people don't want addressed too closely. In the chapter previews, "In this chapter you will..." I loved the "-get sick of hearing about how great Ben Fanklin was", because that's almost exactly what happened in school with those books. I think Wal-Mart honestly wanted some excuse to not carry the book because of it's (the book's) content and fear of putting off their stereotypical customer (I don't mean to USE a stereotype here, but almost all Wal-Mart commercials feature Texas housewives), so they conveniantly latched on to something they COULD reject the book over. (I KNOW there wasn't any nudity in "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?"). As for the nudity... it's in the same vein as the rest of the book. One of the chapter objectives was actually to '"-see a picture of the supreme court justices naked (p 98-99)" and "-identify pornography (p 98-99). It's not meant to arouse, it's a joke.