Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Books are for reading, not for banning

September 24, 2008

Advertisement

Of course, we all have questions for Sarah Palin:

Does she actually think living across the Bering Strait from Russia constitutes foreign policy expertise? Does she really take the parable of Adam and Eve as literal truth? How, exactly, does one field dress a moose? And why would one want to?

My first question, though, would not be one of those. I'd simply ask which books she wants to ban - and why.

Yes, there's a list of titles floating around the Internet right now, but it's a fake. It is, however, established fact that our would-be vice president has in the past tried to pull books off library shelves.

The New York Times reports that as a member of the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin complained to colleagues about a book called "Daddy's Roommate," described in promotional material as being "for and about the children of lesbian and gay parents."

Laura Chase, who ran Palin's campaign for mayor, explained that the book was harmless and suggested Palin read it.

Chase told the New York Times that Palin replied she "didn't need to read that stuff. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it."

Later, as mayor, Palin reportedly asked the town's librarian three times whether she would agree to remove controversial books from the shelves. Three times, the librarian refused. Palin fired her, but eventually bowed to public pressure and gave the woman her job back.

"I'm still proud of Sarah," said Chase, "but she scares the bejeebers out of me."

And in that context, it seems apropos that next week is Banned Books Week. As you doubtless know, that's the week set aside each year by the American Library Association to bring attention to attempts by some of us to regulate what others of us may read. The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom reports that it has seen 9,700 "challenges" - a challenge is defined as a formal written request to remove a book from a library because the content offends or is deemed inappropriate - since 1990. Chillingly, the office suggests that's probably an undercount. It estimates that for every challenge reported, four or five are not.

So Palin has company, to say the least.

Count among that number the woman from a Cuban exile group who bragged to a Miami Herald reporter how in 2006 she checked out and kept an elementary school library book she felt painted too rosy a picture of life on that communist island. Like Palin, she thought she had good reason. Would-be book banners always do.

I'm reminded of how someone challenged me the other day on my contention that anti-intellectualism has overtaken this land. I mentioned by way of example Palin's Bible literalism, but really, there's so much more. There's the "Jay Walking" segment on Leno. There's this notion that "elite" is a four-letter word. There's the White House's censorship and politicization of science. There's the recent survey which found that more people can name all five Simpsons than all five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment.

And there's this: As many as 50,000 incidents since 1990 in which a book was forced to justify its existence. We're talking books like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," books like "The Color Purple," books like "Harry Potter" and, yes, books like "Daddy's Roommate," books that offended because they expressed ideas that made someone uncomfortable. As if any other kind of idea was worth expressing.

We are becoming the stupid giant of planet Earth: richer than Midas, mightier than Thor, dumber than rocks. Which makes us a danger to the planet - and to ourselves. This country cannot continue to prosper and to embrace stupidity. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

So do us all a favor: Annoy Sarah Palin. For goodness' sake, read.

- Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

Comments

Satirical 6 years ago

If our economic crisis doesn't get solved and the Federal government wastes another 700 billion by poorly planning or executing this economic rescue attempt (but it worked so well in New Orleans...) we will all be burning books just to stay warm.

0

Moonbat 6 years ago

lol...Bondmen, Parkay, Invictus....you guys are so wacky! I truly enjoy reading you're thoughts on issues such as this. Hopefully we get an evolution thread going soon. But in all seriousness, it is very frightening to me to know that there are millions of other Americans that think the same way. Yowza!

0

bondmen 6 years ago

Isn't it true there are some 55,000 or so books published annually in the US? I am willing to make an educated guess that at most 550 to 1,100 are worth my valuable time to read, i.e. 98% or so are not worth owing or reading. Now that doesn't mean adults shouldn't be able to buy or read them if they want. Many people waste their time and money on stupid and friviolus things and that is their right of course.For children however, caring parents monitor what they put into their minds and bodies as they mature into adulthood. Part of this critical responsibility includes not promoting ideas and thoughts that frighten or harm them. Images of severe violence, sexual perversion, bizzarre alien intrusions, vampires, witches, suicides etc, both visual and written can do lasting damage to a young mind. For evidence just look as certain regular posters here at LJWorld who may reveal themselves in later postings.Banning certain books is responsible and necessary just like banning certain movies, certain interaction with particular types or groups of individuals is the right thing to do. It is acting responsibily on behalf of a young child who does not yet know better. Anyone proficient in computer technology or in gourmet cooking knows that trash in results in trash out. Books are no different!

0

sfjayhawk 6 years ago

Satirical - why would anyone ask about the process of banning books if they did not intend to ban books? Im pretty sure the library did not stock porn. Its funny how rednecks only care about 1 (the 2nd) of the 10 amendments in the bill of rights. Its clear from this forum that they dont care about the 1st. We also know that most couldnt care less about the 5th (due process).

0

Satirical 6 years ago

There are some things I would like Obama to read, like the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

0

BuffyloGal 6 years ago

Sure if you're willing to accept that Bush has little respect for most amendments, not just one (the fifth comes to mind). Rather like his respect for the American public.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

BuffyloGal..."Since I was quoting you on the Constitution, that's interesting. Last I checked, Palin was still a VP candidate. As for fallacious, is Bush being tossed on his keester and no one told me?"You didn't quote me "on the Constitution" you quoted my claim that everyone should be concerned if a candidate for President didn't support part of the Constitution. The context was Obama not supporting the 2nd amendment (which you failed to include when you quoted me).Palin and Bush were no more in the discussion than was Condi Rice (but, but, she is still Secretary of State...). While you may attempt to toss them into the argument this is not a counter to my argument that; since Obama does not support the 2nd Amendment he does not support his oath in the Senate to defend the constitution and does not deserve to become the POTUS. So, if you want to change to topic to Bush and Palin because you agree with my argument about Obama that is fine.

0

BuffyloGal 6 years ago

Sat - I was thinking more of the origin of the right to bear arms (12th Century) that shaped our inclusion of it in the Constitution than our more recent interpretation. Luckily I was raised on Schoolhouse Rock and know what happened in 1789.As for a militia, are they not here to guard us? Not Iraq? Where is the National Guard these days? Are the police not local and federal as well? I think more people would feel less of a need to carry a weapon if there were greater likelihood of someone being around when you are in trouble. As for the individual's rights, well, it seems odd that if it were so clear to all involved that it shouldn't be interpreted as pro-individual gun ownership until Ronnie Raygun was in office. It was only with his shooting that we got a waiting period under the Brady Act and it was under Bush that the Supreme Court decided that an individual had a right under their interpretation of the Constitution. Perhaps this is what concerns Obama the most, these recent changes to the interpretation of the second, and not to the idea of a National Guard to protect the populace as it was more generally interpreted until fairly recently in our history. He is the best trained of the three of us to make that determination, no?

0

booklover 6 years ago

Bondman I beg to differ. I think you should get a hold of a banned books list. Do you honestly believe that books like Tom Sawyer, In the Night Kitchen, As I lay Dying, Webster Dictionary, or even the Bible should be banned? Really? Who gets to decide? For whom? Each one of those books was banned at one time for various reasons. If we ban books on Witchcraft because some view it as a religion do we then ban all religious books? Including as I mentioned before the Bible? On the one hand you are correct. It is a parent's responsibility to monitor what their child reads and when. However, that is where it stops. It is no one's business, right or responsibility to dictate what me or my child reads. I make that choice. When they are old enough, they make that choice. To a narrow minded individual yes there may be an awful lot of so called trash not worthy of their time. I however choose to believe that reading a wide variety of material opens the door to a well rounded education and understanding multiple points of view. I would much rather have my child read about a controversial subject and discuss it with me than experience it in real life with real life consequences. Choose to read or not read whatever you wish. Just don't try telling me what I can or cannot read. Period

0

BuffyloGal 6 years ago

But if a candidate made it clear they didn't believe part of the Constitution should be recognized, it should cause concern for everybody. After all, members of the U.S. Senate vow to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. ----Yet when a President or VP do it, no biggie. They are just interpreting it in their own way. -------"She asked a hypothetical about whether material could be permanently removed from the library." SatiricalOh no no no no no. You people have got it all wrong.---- if I may add here - - It isn't for me, it's for a friend. or Your check is in the mail which ring equally true. Good one super.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Supertrampofkansas:Wow, you went to a large effort to paint me as a library hater simply because I made an argument about whether pornographic videos or literature should be in libraries, in my broader argument about why Palin may have been inquiring about removing material from the library.Sorry to inform you, your personal attacks fail. Ironically I am actually writing to you from a library right now, and spend a lot of my time in the library. Libraries are fantastic places and have a wealth of information of which more people should take advantage.Do you have a counter argument that pornographic videos should be allowed in public libraries or did you just stop by to draw devil ears on me?

0

supertrampofkansas 6 years ago

"Wow, you went to a large effort to paint me as a library hater...."- SatiricalWow are you really that stupid? Maybe you should look up the meaning of your name and then reread what I wrote. Buffylogal sure got it right though.

0

supertrampofkansas 6 years ago

Bondmen,You should notice the difference between "banning books" and "monitoring what children put into their minds and bodies". Not sure why you are equating the two but what you are advocating is currently available in certain countries. Maybe you would like a list so that you could experience that firsthand? As booklover appropiately notices, where does it end? Who gets to decide? You do understand that what you are proposing is communism. These are the same practices they had under Stalin and currently have in China. Is this really what you want Bondmen? Why do you hate America so much?

0

Confrontation 6 years ago

I can think of many books that Palin should have made her daughter read. Such as, "How not to get knocked up in high school," or, "How to handle growing up with a mother who is an idiot."

0

sfjayhawk 6 years ago

"all power stems from the barrel of a gun" another classic! Proof positive that redneck idiocy is alive and well in America.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Note to all:Please pick up and read the U.S. Constitution prior to making claims about what it does or does not allow or protect.

0

stephenj 6 years ago

OK, now you people are defending banning books???Insert incendiary remark here.

0

bondmen 6 years ago

Liberals like to foist upon conservatives the red badge of book banning (book burning) moniker as a vampire slayer might hold a cross up to a Bohemian midnight blood sucker. Then adding insult to injury they throw in the Hitler book burning incidents as if they had any relevance to the discernment displayed on the part of today's serious book readers. But these Hitlerian book burnings were used to burn evidence of and cover up for homosexual leaders who were medically and psychologically treated in pre-Nazi Germany!"The first book burning in pre-war Germany, one of the [now famous] newsreels shown here in the U.S. in the 30s, was at the Sex Research Institute, although the newsreels didn't mention what was being burned, outside of books and files that is. This institute had extensive records on the sexual perversions of numerous Nazi leaders, many of whom had been under treatment there prior to the beginning of the Nazi regime."http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/hitlers-homosexuality-pedastry-and.html

0

Luxor 6 years ago

Bondman, I think your posts are stupid so I insist that they be banned for the good of all.

0

bondmen 6 years ago

For you wackos who believe every book ever written is sacred and wonderful cconsiderthis. Our local library has let's say 55,000 new books every year from which to choose those it'll currently add to its collection.Every library everywhere, except the Library of Congress, bans thousands and thousands of books every tme they decide to make a new purchase! It is called practicing discernment or prejudice or bias - you choose a word.How many times have you filled out a book purchase request at the library only to have it refused, revoked or denied? Hey - that's banning books isn't it?

0

BuffyloGal 6 years ago

Ok, so the whole against the second amendment nonsense. Is that against militias in general that concerns you or that Obama doesn't agree with the rights of an individual interpretation that only came out in June of this year? Personally I can't see much of a need for a militia what with us not having a king anymore, since that was it basis. Do tell Satirical from your lofty heights.

0

BuffyloGal 6 years ago

BuffyloGal only made tangential and fallacious arguments which is why I didn't respond. The topic is not about a President or VP.- - -- Since I was quoting you on the Constitution, that's interesting. Last I checked, Palin was still a VP candidate. As for fallacious, is Bush being tossed on his keester and no one told me?

0

sfjayhawk 6 years ago

Satirical,I would think if palins request about banning books was because .." known someone who planned on requesting a ban and wanted to prevent it. She may have wanted to investigate whether banning were possible in case there were any pornographic material, or books on how to make bombs.." that she would have held a press conference to explain this - oh wait, she doesnt speak to the press.As for the second part of my post - it was not directed at you and I was not trying to put words into your mouth. But you must agree that most rednecks care only about the 2nd amendment - and believe that the US could hold people at Gitmo for over 5 years without due process, or could wiretap people without due process etc.

0

kidicarus 6 years ago

Godot = Jealous. Bondmen = Dumbest person alive.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says: "Satirical - why would anyone ask about the process of banning books if they did not intend to ban books?"There could be several reasons. She could have known someone who planned on requesting a ban and wanted to prevent it. She may have wanted to investigate whether banning were possible in case there were any pornographic material, or books on how to make bombs. She could have just been curious. But of course it is easier for liberals to assume she wanted to find out how to ban everything but the Bible."Its funny how rednecks only care about 1 (the 2nd) of the 10 amendments in the bill of rights." -sfjayhawkI am not sure to whom you are referring, but I never suggested I only cared about the 2nd amendment. (Nice try to put words in my mouth to create a strawman argument) But if a candidate made it clear they didn't believe part of the Constitution should be recognized, it should cause concern for everybody. After all, members of the U.S. Senate vow to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution."Its clear from this forum that they dont care about the 1st." -sfjayhawkPerhaps you need to take an intro Con Law class, or read a few cases sometime. Not everything is "speech" and not all "speech" receives the same kind of protection. Also, the U.S. Constitution only applies to the government, not to individuals who want to ban books (Obviously if Palin were actually trying to ban books in her capacity of mayor it would apply, but does not apply to people "from this forum".) Perhaps you would support pornographic videos or literature on how to make large explosives available in the public library, but others believe such material does not promote education and/or social welfare. Libraries are starting to loan non-educational video games. Personally I don't agree that is the purpose of the public library to entertain everybody. I would support efforts to reduce or eliminate funding for libraries to purchase these video games. Of course you could claim that I am "banning" video games and violating the 1st amendment, but such attempts would be in vain. Just like your attempt to characterize my and Sarah Palin's views."We also know that most couldnt care less about the 5th (due process)." -sfjayhawkNext time try using facts to support your claim (if you can find them).

0

jaywalker 6 years ago

Pathetic piece by Pitts. Hearsay that Palin 'complained' about a book and a question to a librarian; so therefore we should 'annoy Palin' and read? SHENEVERBANNEDASINGLEBOOKSee Lenny learn.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Buffylogal:.Maybe you are new to "arguments," but let me explain the way they work. I make an argument, lets call it "X." If you disagree with the argument you say "Not X." You don't say "Y." Bringing up Bush does not counter my argument about Obama. It is vain attempt to change the topic because you either know I am right, or think I am wrong but can't counter the argument. I suspect you fall into the latter category. This tactic may work on your fellow teenagers, but will not work against people who know how to argue.How about I make it easy for you since you appear to be new to how this works; if you want, you can make a counter argument about Obama, then start a new argument about Bush. Then I will counter both of your separate arguments about Obama and Bush. But if you continue to dodge my argument just and bring up another topic in order to hijack the discussion I will ignore it.

0

kidicarus 6 years ago

"invictus (Anonymous) says: For instance: A government official comes to your door and tells you that "all books except the bible are banned, hand them over." What do you do? How will you protect your rights? Liberals should care about the second amendment as much as any other freedom loving American."Are you insinuating that you would pull a gun on a government official? That'd be a smart choice - have fun in prison, idiot. I'd personally take them to court, or pursue other non-violent means of resolution..

0

TravisTyson 6 years ago

Bondman, you're an idiot

0

supertrampofkansas 6 years ago

"She could have known someone who planned on requesting a ban and wanted to prevent it." - SatiricalUh and the news conference for that revelation is forthcoming right Satirical? Since you are sitting in the library, why don't you go ask the librarian if she could point you to some pornographic or bomb-making "materials" and let me know what their response is. And maybe you should let Palin know that "curiousity killed the cat". After all we wouldn't want her to be in harm's way or at least answer to any possible criticisms right satirical?Keep grasping though dude 'cause it sure is entertaining.

0

supertrampofkansas 6 years ago

"She asked a hypothetical about whether material could be permanently removed from the library." SatiricalOh no no no no no. You people have got it all wrong. No banning books here. Just asking hypothertically (you know like not for real or like I didn't really mean like I was going to do that) about "permanently removing" (not banning mind you) materials (you know like perverted sex literature or porn but not books mind you I mean how could you get "books" out of "materials" because you know that dang library is just a filthy, in the gutter, redlight district, xrated type of place that stocks all kinds of stuff like that right satirical). Are you for real dude? I will admit, it is somewhat entertaining watching you stumble all over the place grasping for straws though.

0

Godot 6 years ago

Leonard Pitts receiving a Pulitzer is proof that the Pulitzer is no prize.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Supertrampofkansas:."Wow are you really that stupid? Maybe you should look up the meaning of your name and then reread what I wrote. Buffylogal sure got it right though."I realize you were using both facetious remarks and personal attacks. Calling me names like a 4 year old doesn't change this fact. Mocking a position is different from mocking a person, calling them names, and putting words in their mouth. Sounds like you are getting desperate. It is obvious you disagree with what you think I believe and were mocking it, and attacked me personally for the positions you created. It would be similar to me claiming you were a Nazi and mocking you for such a position even though I had no evidence. If you defended yourself against such stupidity it would be understandable.BuffyloGal only made tangential and fallacious arguments which is why I didn't respond. The topic is not about a President or VP.

0

Godot 6 years ago

Leonard Pitts masquerades as a journalist. He is no journalist, he is a propagandist for the Obama campaign.

0

triplegoddess13 6 years ago

They don't 'ban' the books when they make a choice, they decide based on the population in their region and past experience what they think the populace will read and enjoy. Banning books is never an option. Let everyone decide for themselves and monitor their children's reading habits so they can learn to make educated choices for themselves. If you want to see an example of what society could be like if you take away choices read The Giver and yes, it's on the banned book list because it just might put wild ideas in children's heads or make them start to think for themselves.

0

Left_handed 6 years ago

Given that Pitts is a partisan, racist hack I'm inclined to believe Godot.

0

kidicarus 6 years ago

"parkay (Anonymous) says: Obscenity in speech or literature aimed at schoolchildren is not protected by the First Amendment or by federal law. We don't have to tolerate it. We don't have to allow the promotion of sodomy amongst our schoolchildren. Palin should have confiscated "Daddy's Roommate.""Don't you have funerals to be protesting?

0

Satirical 6 years ago

I like how Pitts makes up facts. According to CNN, who spoke with the librarian, Palin never sought to ban any books. She asked a hypothetical about whether material could be permanently removed from the library. We don't know what she wanted to remove. Maybe she wanted to remove pornographic literature. After all if we don't want people to be able to check out pornography from the library, it should apply to both videos and literature.And people wonder why Obama's radical connections, including his close ties to people involved with Black Liberation Theology keep coming up. I thought the Obama crowd were above this kind of politics. Looks like it is just more of the same.Do Dems really think Sloppy Joe Biden is any better?Given all his mishaps (Hillary would be a better VP, patriotic to pay high taxes, telling a paraplegic to stand up in front of a crowd, plagiarism) does anyone trust him to deal with foreign leaders (one heartbeat away).

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Sfjayhawk:"she would have held a press conference to explain this"Last time I check the MSM doesn't go to small towns in Alaska to do interviews with small town mayors about topics that only affect that town."But you must agree that most rednecks care only about the 2nd amendment - and believe that the US could hold people at Gitmo for over 5 years without due process, or could wiretap people without due process etc." - sfjayhawkFirst; I do not agree that most rednecks care only about the 2nd amdendment.Second; the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. residents. Not to foreign combatants. So they don't get the same due process rights. However, one could argue for justice they should still be allowed to plead their case before an impartial judge.Third; the wiretapping you are referring was for against foreigners communicating to someone in the U.S. for likely terrorists. Not Joe from Lawrence talking to Sue from Topeka. Also, didn't Obama support shielding companies who complied with the government requests for this information?

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Supertrampofkansas:."Since you are sitting in the library, why don't you go ask the librarian if she could point you to some pornographic or bomb-making "materials" and let me know what their response is."I will take that response as you agreeing with my argument that it is ok to ban (see not support funding) some material (including books) from the library. i.e. pornographic material, books on making WMDs, non-educational video games, books on how to commit crimes.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years ago

Sorry guys that NT Y Slimes has already recanted this story.Never happened. Sarah did not ban any books.

0

BuffyloGal 6 years ago

Perhaps you are young or temporally myopic but the individual rights interpretation has always been the interpretation held by the majority of citizens. - but not a majority of the Supreme Court judges until quite recently. As for militias, it is not a backtrack of my argument nor does a source from Wikipedia help in yours. But if you find it so reliable, why not check what it says about the second amendment while you're at it. The concept of a militia dates back to the 12th Century. Last I checked, we did have a king before declaring our independence. Perhaps you think that Jefferson was already an American citizen when war began?Perhaps you believe that with age comes wisdom. As our national poet Ziggy once said - sometimes age comes all by itself.

0

acg 6 years ago

No no stephenj, we people are not advocating banning books. Some d-bag named bondman thought that books should be banned so he didn't have to go that extra mile and actually parent his children. I can't believe what I'm reading here from some of you. Banning books? Really? This Palin chick is dumber than a box of hammers, which is why they don't want her talking to anyone. She's good for photo ops and that's it!

0

Satirical 6 years ago

I am somewhat (not really) surprised to see so many people supporting public libraries carrying pornographic videos, criminal "how to" books, and books to build WMD's. After all, you can't ban this stuff, since "ban" is a dirty word and sounds like fascism, therefore I will close my mind when I hear the dirty word "banned" : )

0

Satirical 6 years ago

BuffyloGal:."I was thinking more of the origin of the right to bear arms (12th Century)"Nice try to back track from your failed argument, but militias weren't formed solely to remove kings, and even if that were true it wouldn't have been the purpose the 2nd Amendment was included in the U.S. Constitution because we never had a king.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#..."As for a militia, are they not here to guard us? Not Iraq?" - BuffyAgain, this is a separate topic (but since below you offered a counter argument to the Obama argument I will oblige according to my previous statement). The POTUS has the authority to use the national guard in Iraq. Their sole purpose is not just to defend us against foreign invasions into the U.S. While it would be great if there were enough volunteers into the regular military, this is not reality."I think more people would feel less of a need to carry a weapon if there were greater likelihood of someone being around when you are in trouble." BuffyUnfortunately this will never be possible. Crimes happen all over this country and there will never be enough police officers to protect everyone at all times (see domestic violence, home invasions etc). If you believe the government has a duty to protect its people, this should also included allowing people to protect themselves when the government cannot."As for the individual's rights, well, it seems odd that if it were so clear to all involved that it shouldn't be interpreted as pro-individual gun ownership until Ronnie Raygun was in office." BuffyFalse. Perhaps you are young or temporally myopic but the individual rights interpretation has always been the interpretation held by the majority of citizens. While I will concede some lower courts misinterpreted old case law to believe the 2nd Amendment provided a collective right, the Supreme Court has now made it abundantly clear it allows an individual right. "He (Obama) is the best trained of the three of us to make that determination, no?" - BuffyThis is a fallacy of false alternatives. My choices for POTUS are not between you, Obama and myself (I am not eligible). Since Obama has never supported the common understanding of the 2nd Amendment, the Founding Fathers intention in adopting said Amendment, and still does not fully endorse the SCOTUS's recent interpretation, Obama should not be elected POTUS. After all do you want another person in the White House who (as you claim about Bush) disregards the Constitution?

0

Moonbat 6 years ago

Oh come on guys....this is typical political stuff! I mean did you REALLY think the dems would just let Palin's "book" question go? Sure, it was seemingly harmless since it was just a question, no actual book banning, but it makes for some good political fodder.But you know, I think the republicans are bringing this on themselves. If they'd let the poor woman talk, she could probably provide some sort of an explanation. Just my opinion, but right now I bet Palin is wishing she hadn't accepted the VP nomination. It seems to me they're making a fool out of her with all these photo ops. I saw one clip on the terribly left skewed CNN, where she was meeting with one of the foreign leaders, and a reporter asked her a question, at which point all reporters were escorted out of the room. She looked humiliated.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

BuffloGal:.Sorry it took me so long to respond, it takes a while to run down so many stairs from my lofty heights : ) "Is that against militias in general that concerns you or that Obama doesn't agree with the rights of an individual interpretation that only came out in June of this year?" - BuffylogalI oppose the later. Obama thinks the 2nd Amendment applies collectively, but it is now clear it is an individual right (just like the other rights in the Bill of Rights, go figure). This ruling was obvious to the Founding Fathers, and to most people today, but Obama still supports infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms. I think most people would find it hard to support a candidate who doesn't want to allow you to protect yourself, and interprets an Amendment to make it meaningless (the old state militias are now the National Guard controlled by the POTUS)."Personally I can't see much of a need for a militia what with us not having a king anymore, since that was it basis." - BufflogalFree history lesson for you: The U.S. Constitution was created AFTER the Revolutionary War ended, and the U.S. has never had a king. So even if you take a collectivist approach, the purpose of the militia was to preserve federalism, not to overthrow a King. But in reality the 2nd Amendment is a right to hunt, and protect your life and liberty.

0

supertrampofkansas 6 years ago

"Calling me names like a 4 year old doesn't change this fact." - Satirical"Sounds like you are getting desperate." - Satirical"If you defended yourself against such stupidity..." - SatiricalTsk tsk tsk. Tell me Satirical if name-calling makes me a 4-year-old, what does that make a person who calls me a 4-year old? Oh wait a minute, another 4-year-old?Sorry dude, you get more and more entertaining. Not sure what it is that I am getting "desperate" about but if it helps you to dismiss my mockery then more power to you.When it comes right down to it, noone really knows what the "truth" is and everybody in this room is relying on second-hand news story accounts to back up the assertions on the assertions and sometimes even those second-hand news story accounts get recanted. So I would say the actual truth probably will never be known especially since Palin and company seems to have clammed up. Now granted Satirical that this is my opinion, just based on everything I have read on this matter is that Ms Palin really did want to remove some offending books (much like some of the posters on here) for fear that they would be read by children. A look at Ms. Palin's own habits, personality, and family, it is not too hard to discern a desire to control information such as this. Clearly you wish to control it Satirical as evident from your comments on porn and crime literature. Personally I find this desire to control the lives of their children through censorship to be nonsensical in today's pervasive world of internet and media. Children are immersed in a world full of ideas (whether they be deemed good or bad) which can come in the form of many different mediums and not just books. I would think that parents should be more worried about making sure their children are well-rounded and informed and not about the message of some book. They should be more concerned about preparing their child to be contributive members of society who are able to examine any idea and measure its integrity. How can you expect anyone to answer a question of why they believe they way they do without access to any and all ideas, to be able to form coherent knowledgeable opinions.Censorship should stay in the home Satirical. You have the right to control what your children view and interact with in the privacy of your own home, you don't have the right to control the public's right to information, no matter how offensive you might find it to be.I believe Sarah Palin is the type of person that would prefer to restrict public access to information. I believe she would govern through fear, fear of dissent, fear of the unknown, fear of truth. In short, Sarah Palin is not the type of person I want leading my country.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.