I HATE AMERICA!! I HATE OUR FREEDOMS!!

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Davey C
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Iowa City
Contact:

I HATE AMERICA!! I HATE OUR FREEDOMS!!

Postby Davey C » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:40 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/books/18newb.html

A story in the NYT about libraries all over the country banning (oh, verzeihung, bitte; "choosing not to stock") a book for 9-12-year-old kids because the word "scrotum" appears in it.

A thousand things worse than this occur every day in every corner of the world. Still, this particular stupidity somehow manages to nudge me more perceptibly than most in the direction of the church steeple and the high-powered rifle.

User avatar
Hathor
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 4:27 am
Location: The room you were in five seconds ago

Postby Hathor » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:34 pm

Ah, phooey. It's a DOG scrotum. :?
Nothing on par with a spontaneous woody in class like in "Then Again, Maybe I Won't", by Judy Blume. Tch, tch.

But then, anyone with a pair doesn't READ the NYT, so there you go... :twisted:

User avatar
Davey C
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Iowa City
Contact:

Postby Davey C » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:23 am

Ouch.

Carstonio
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:50 am

Postby Carstonio » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:48 am

I never read Judy Blume in school. I didn't know about the books' treatment of sexual issues. I had read that Blume's characters were ridden with angst, and that didn't appeal to me since I had more than enough angst in real life.

I've always said that when it comes to content of kids' books, the religious right cares more about flesh guns than real guns.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:21 pm

Kids are made of porcelin. They have to be protected you know.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:50 pm

Yes, heaven forbid they get nicked once in a while (in the American sense, not in the "my child's gone missing" English use of the word).

When did it become wrong for a child to experience anything resembling pain or real life???
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Duane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Duane » Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:06 pm

Hathor wrote:But then, anyone with a pair doesn't READ the NYT, so there you go... :twisted:


A pair of what? Pants?





Shoes?


:lol:

Donald Petersen
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Postby Donald Petersen » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:58 am

The current New Yorker makes good fun of this:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2007/03/ ... ts_rudnick

paul
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:04 pm
Location: ATX
Contact:

Postby paul » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:56 am

Thanks Donald. That is effing hilarious.

...I Need It Real Bad.

Snort.
The medium is the message.

User avatar
Davey C
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Iowa City
Contact:

Postby Davey C » Tue May 08, 2007 7:00 am

http://sensualwriter.blogspot.com/2007/ ... geted.html

Houston Hyatt hotel or convention center or some shit dumps author's promo materials at Romantic Times convention due, presumably, to its gay male content.
aaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!! My nipples!

-Bob Goldthwait

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue May 08, 2007 4:28 pm

Ironically, kids call each other "dick" on the playground all the time. You hear even worse, especially in inner city schools.

They will try to ban rap as well, it will not work. It never works. Light will always bat away those bats.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue May 29, 2007 1:31 pm

So ... Cindy Sheehan is tired of the bullshit that's being thrown her way. Good on her.

I can't even express (yet) how unhappy I am with the Dems in Congress.

But I will.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Jim Davis
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 9:27 am

Postby Jim Davis » Tue May 29, 2007 1:49 pm

Barber wrote:I can't even express (yet) how unhappy I am with the Dems in Congress.


Let Cindy Sheehan do it.

The Democratic Party is not anti-war. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they'll stop wasting their time hoping the Dems will do anything of substance to end the military occupation of Iraq.
--
"His plan therefore was not to refuse admission to the idea, but to keep it at bay until his mind was ready to receive it. Then let it in and pulverise it. Obliterate the bastard."--Samuel Beckett

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue May 29, 2007 2:55 pm

I don't agree that the party is not anti-war. It IS anti-war.

Anyone in their right mind (no pun intended) should be anti-war. No one should be pro-war -- not just in this case, in EVERY case. That does not mean we should never GO to war, but no one -- ever -- should be "for" a war. If they are, they don't understand what a war is.

(Do you remember the old Star Trek episode with the two sides who had made war so antiseptic that no one really opposed it? We're approaching that kind of a civilization now. When those in power can freely and directly criticize the families of those who HAVE made the ultimate sacrifice but dare to question. Damn the Constitution and your loss. Cindy Sheehan anyone???)

(And Speaking on behalf of a military family (mine), it's repugnant that we're told the people making that sacrifice are treasonous for objecting. The word "furious" can't even come close to what many, many military families are feeling towards politicians and pundits these days.)
________________________________________________

BTW: The vast majority of Americans are now anti-war -- or at least anti-how-the-war-is-being-conducted. (Citation: *May 24th CBS/New York Times poll found 61% of Americans felt we should have stayed out of Iraq and 76% feel the war is going badly. Bush and Congress are enjoying very low job approval ratings: 30% and 36% respectively.) This is a start.
_________________________________________________

But, back to the original point: you'll find that the Democratic party -- while Anti-War -- is not anti-military, a huge differentiation.

(One thing I would like to see changed, however, is the reference to War. We're not "warring" with anyone. Frankly, if it were a WAR we'd be firmly kicking someone's ass right now. This is an occupation as you noted above. Again, big difference.)

I am drawn to the variance in perception between our own 200-year-old situation as a restive colony of Great Britain prior to the Revolutionary War, and the Iraqi opposition to our occupation. Yes, the Iraqis are fighting each other more than they are the US, but it's a disturbing corrolation nonetheless. You'll find a lot of the tactics we decry in the Iraqis have analogies -- given the difference in technologies available -- in the Colonial independence movement before the Declaration of Independence. Our own patriots would've been hung by Britain as terrorists had England won that particular war.

(The same may be said of the French Resistance during WW2.)
_______________________________________________

Lastly:

The Dems disappointed me not by caving in on the funding resolution -- that was a fait accompli well before the vote on the first version of the bill. They disappoint me by being committed to the same political battles and tactics as the Republicans were. It isn't about getting our military out of Iraq, it's how many political points they can score in the meantime. And at that game, they have met the enemy and it is us.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Jim Davis
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 9:27 am

Postby Jim Davis » Tue May 29, 2007 5:11 pm

Barber wrote:I don't agree that the party is not anti-war. It IS anti-war.[. . .]

But, back to the original point: you'll find that the Democratic party -- while Anti-War -- is not anti-military, a huge differentiation.


The Democrats have traditionally supported almost every military operation the US has ever been involved in, including this one, so I'm not sure where you're getting this anti-war vibe, Steve. Despite the frowny faces politicians make when soldiers die, they've had no problem conducting war as "politics by other means." Sure, no one likes war when it happens to them--but when it happens to other people, including our own troops? They eat that shit up!

As for the differentiation between "anti-war" and "anti-military," the recent surrender by the Dems over the funding bill shows how meaningless and debased the terms have become. The party line is that "We oppose the war, but we support the troops and therefore must fund them," which is inane. When Bush shows no sign of deviating from his policies even an iota, opposition to a war necessarily includes opposition to its funding. I oppose the war, and I also oppose the military having more money to conduct it, especially when it's doomed to failure. If that makes me anti-military, even if only in a strictly limited sense, then by all means, I'm anti-military. Unlike Bush and the Democrats who rolled over and signed off on the supplemental, however, I don't want to send more of our troops to what has increasingly become the equivalent of a meat-grinder.

You support the troops? Then bring them home. Anything else is like giving someone a lethal injection with a sterilized needle and then rubbing an alcohol wipe on the puncture wound. Sure, he's not going to die from infection, but there's this little problem of the poison . . .

(One thing I would like to see changed, however, is the reference to War. We're not "warring" with anyone. Frankly, if it were a WAR we'd be firmly kicking someone's ass right now. This is an occupation as you noted above. Again, big difference.)


Eh, I don't see the big difference. Wars can go badly and they can also happen in the context of an occupation, which is exactly what's going on now.
--

"His plan therefore was not to refuse admission to the idea, but to keep it at bay until his mind was ready to receive it. Then let it in and pulverise it. Obliterate the bastard."--Samuel Beckett


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 190 guests