Why do these people hate America?
Yahoo! News – Some Miss. Libraries Ban Jon Stewart Book
GULFPORT, Miss. – Library officials in two southern Mississippi counties have banned Jon Stewart’s best-selling “America (The Book)” over the satirical textbook’s nude depictions of the nine U.S. Supreme Court (news – web sites) justices.
“I’ve been a librarian for 40 years and this is the only book I’ve objected to so strongly that I wouldn’t allow it to circulate,” said Robert Willits, director of the Jackson-George Regional Library System of eight libraries in Jackson and George counties.
“We’re not an adult bookstore. Our entire collection is open to the entire public,” Willits said. “If they had published the book without that one picture, that one page, we’d have the book.”
Wal-Mart has declined to stock the book because of the page, which features the faces of the nine Supreme Court justices superimposed over naked bodies. The facing page has cutouts of the justices’ robes, complete with a caption asking readers to “restore their dignity by matching each justice with his or her respective robe.”
• 
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 pørņ, but to protect them from being in child pørņ.
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 hëll 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 pørņ does have a negative impact on healthy relationships.
Pørņ, 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 pørņ 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 pørņ, 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 pørņ).
I do admit that I threw gas on the fire by using the child pørņ 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 Pørņ 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 “fággøŧ” 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 pørņ 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-pørņ 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 gøddámņ terrified of the GOP juggernaut to actually point out when the administration is lying out its ášš.
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 dámņ.
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 dámņ 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. Pørņ 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 gøddámņ terrified of the GOP juggernaut to actually point out when the administration is lying out its ášš.
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
Bill wrote:
He thought that Big Media would squash the story. They tried but the New Media wouldn
Seeing as how the last person I remember spewing “Hollywood/Jew” bûllšhìŧ 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
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 prìçk’. 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.