I believe the printed word is more than sacred, beyond the gauge of good or bad

[vovat]

People keep finding my blog by searching for information on Don Lapre's "Greatest Vitamin in the World" scam. I actually haven't seen that commercial in a while. I wonder if he's in jail again. Someone else found it by searching for "robin goldwasser people are mean." What, is that like People Are Wrong combined with Mean Girls? {g}

There's a copy of Friday's local paper in the back room, and one of the stories on the front page is about a neo-Nazi group planning to rally in Valley Forge. (If they went through with the rally, it would have happened yesterday.) Even without the negative example of Hitler, I really can't see why anyone would support fascism. "You say it's a system where we have absolutely no say in the government, and they can do whatever they want, even kill us? Sign me up!" Yeah, I know they think the government would only kill the types of people they don't like, but I get the idea that hate groups can easily modify the objects of their hatred to fit any given situation. I'm hardly saying anything original there, though.

By the way, the article quotes a woman as saying, "We can't pray in public schools, but we have a neo-Nazi rally at Valley Forge." Um, how are those two things comparable?

As a librarian and a member of the American Library Association, I suppose I should let you know that it's currently Banned Books Week. You can find out more information here. Of the 100 most frequently challenged books, I've read thirteen, plus part of Brave New World. Since I read most of them for school, I suppose the bans didn't really work out that well, but it's still disturbing that people think censorship is a good idea.

So, in conclusion, fascism, racism, and censorship are bad. Wow, what original, cutting-edge ideas! {g}

Comments

Ugh - Book Banning

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

What I don't understand is why some of the books have been banned. I mean, Where's Waldo? -- exactly what's offensive in that? Growing up, I read a lot of the books on the challenged list and I can't imagine what could cause someone to ban them (i.e. James and the Giant Peach, How to Eat Fried Worms). Some books I understand why they were banned (Little Black Sambo, The Tin Drum, which I didn't see on that list), but I still don't agree with banning. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who reads To Kill a Mocking bird or I Know why the Caged Bird Sings or anything by Twain and not only isn't enriched by the experience but condones them being banned... well, that's ignorance in the truest sense.

Re: Ugh - Book Banning

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I can understand why people might not want to read some of those books, or perhaps not want their children to read them (I like to think I wouldn't be that way with my children, but since I don't have any kids and might never have any, I guess I don't know for sure), but telling other people they can't read them is a sign of an annoying busybody personality. You know, "I don't like this, so no one should read it, even if their doing so has absolutely no effect on me!" It also ties into the pro-ignorance belief that I'm complained about in the past. Really, if you don't like a book, wouldn't it be better to write something of your own about WHY you don't like it, instead of trying to remove it from existence?

As for Where's Waldo?, I think I heard somewhere that someone saw nudity in one of the illustrations, or something like that. My theory is that the censors were just frustrated they couldn't find Waldo. {g}

Re: Ugh - Book Banning

[bethje.livejournal.com]

I'm really baffled by a lot of the things on that list, too. The Face on the Milk Carton? And I've read Where the Sidewalk Ends, but not A Light in the Attic, but I have to wonder why it's there. And out of all of Stephen King's books, why Carrie and Cujo?

Out of all of those books, I've only read four. Maybe five, but I always confuse How to Eat Fried Worms With Beetles Lightly Toasted. {g} I might not want my kid to read, say, Goosebumps, but that's just because I thought they were super corny. {g}

As for Where's Waldo?, I think I heard somewhere that someone saw nudity in one of the illustrations, or something like that.

I bet not. They probably thought they saw something in one of those beach scenes (because they wanted to), and they were super wrong.

Re: Ugh - Book Banning

[colleenanne.livejournal.com]

No, there was actually a boob or a nipple in one of the Where's Waldo pictures. hehe.

And might I congratulate you on a cohesive post, Nathan. ;)

Re: Ugh - Book Banning

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Was it in the beach picture in the first book? I wonder how anyone would have seen it. I'm sure that would be much harder to find than Waldo himself. Then again, some people can apparently find naked breasts immediately.

And might I congratulate you on a cohesive post, Nathan.

Thanks, but doesn't that stuff about search referrals kind of ruin the cohesiveness?

Re: Ugh - Book Banning

[revme.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- IIRC, in the beach scene, there's a woman without a bikini top lying on a blanket on her stomach, and where her breast is, there's a little added thickness to the line at the apex. It's been forever since I've seen the picture, but I remember being all "That's IT?" (That and, well, like, what are you doing, going over every centimeter with a gigantic magnifying glass to see every single thing?)

Re: Ugh - Book Banning

[vovat.livejournal.com]

It really seems like they just wanted to find SOME reason to ban it, which brings me back to my theory about their just finding the book frustrating.

[3x1minus1.livejournal.com]

lol, madonna's "sex" book inbetween the color purple and some children's series.... noiiiice. ::sigh::

i think what disgusts me the most on this list is the "what's happening to my body" books (interesting that the girls' book is 21 spots ahead of the boys. so female puberty is more offensive than "to kill a mockingbird"? {g} augh, what the heck?) and whatnot, because anything biological and natural is "dirty". :P

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Challenging Madonna's book is probably giving it more attention than it deserves. She's just so desperate for attention. "Look at me! I'm kissing Britney Spears! I'm edgy!"

i think what disgusts me the most on this list is the "what's happening to my body" books (interesting that the girls' book is 21 spots ahead of the boys. so female puberty is more offensive than "to kill a mockingbird"? {g} augh, what the heck?) and whatnot, because anything biological and natural is "dirty". :P

Girls should just learn about puberty the old-fashioned way! You know, by, uh, getting married at 13, or something. :P

[onib.livejournal.com]

I've never understood the fervor for banning books. I think the answer is pretty simple: if you don't like a book, don't read it. It's a shame that people can't do that, in their entertainment or their politics. I often wonder what happened to "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." You just don't encounter that sentiment much in modern American life.

Similarly, I think neo-Nazi groups are ignorant, but they have a right to get together and express their ignorance publicly. I still feel personally bothered that they get together at Valley Forge, considering the history there doesn't really support their cause very much. Speaking of ignorance in our area, I was amazed at the amount of Klan activity in the PA countryside outside of Philly. I mean, I grew up in the deep south, and I never once saw a KKK activity or heard anyone speak favorably of them. Then, I moved to Berks County and found out that many of the local political and business leaders are members. I really am losing my faith in humanity as I get older.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's disturbing that there are so many hate group members in politics. Who would vote for them? Of course, people kept voting for Strom Thurmond until he dropped dead at almost 100 years old, so maybe there are just a lot of stupid people out there. It's scary, though.

[onib.livejournal.com]

It might have something to do with the fact that the city of Reading is not terribly diverse. I think the official figure is something like 97% caucasian. Not that that is an excuse. I just wonder if maybe some of the residents have grown to distrust the unfamiliar or something like that.

I still think it's ignorant and scary though.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, unfamiliarity, ignorance, and hate go together like flies and honey. It's definitely scary stuff.