The Denver Broncos (my favorite football team since I was old enough to understand what everyone was yelling at the TV over) are going to the Super Bowl this year. I’m not normally overly concerned about football (or any other sport, for that matter), but this is a very exciting day for people in Colorado. So…
Yay Broncos!
We now return to your regularly scheduled blogging.
It’s almost the end of September, and another favorite time of year is here. This year, Banned Books Week runs from the 22nd to the 28th. For you uninitiated out there, Banned Books Week celebrates the freedom to read. You see, some people in the world are so terrified of knowledge that they actively seek to hide information from other people. In some unfortunate cases, this results in people attempting to remove a book from public access. In response to this behavior, the American Library Association started Banned Books Week, an annual celebration of free and open access to information.
I’m not going to mince words. I fucking hate people who push for the banning of books. It is the one thing that gets me upset more than anything else. It is an act of supreme ignorance to ban a book. No one should be able to tell someone else that they can’t read something. Period. In fact, I’m rather stubborn about it. If you tell me that I shouldn’t read something, I’ll ask you why. If you tell me I CAN’T read something, I’m going to find a way to read it.
So, why do people ban books? Most challenges to books occur in schools. This frequently has to do with a book that a class has been assigned to read having some content in it that a parent or guardian of one of the readers finds offensive. Case in point: Judy Blume’s Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret is a frequently challenged title. This is usually more because it includes a description of a girl having her first period than because it is about said girl’s questioning of the existence of a deity. Yeah, that’s right, kids. Talking about the changes that EVERY HUMAN BEING goes through are apparently reason enough to stop someone from reading a book. HOW DARE YOU CHILDREN ATTEMPT TO LEARN WHAT YOUR BODY IS DOING!
But yeah, “sexually explicit” and “unsuited to age group” are the two biggest reasons cited when someone challenges a book’s presence in a library. That’s because both of these terms are open to a very loose interpretation. If a parent feels that their precious little snowflake of a child isn’t ready to read about something that everyone else in their class at school has been talking about, then BAN THAT BOOK. Guess what, folks? Mitch Hedberg said it best. “Every book is a children’s book if the kid can read!” Look, if you’re concerned about what your kid might learn from a book, talk to your kid about the topic. It’s called parenting. The librarians aren’t there to do it for you. They’re there to provide information to their patrons, not to keep them from accessing it.
Why should I care? Orwell left us this gem in 1984. The oppressive regime in control of England in the book uses several slogans, including WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. It’s quite telling, and a bit terrifying, that 1984 has itself been challenged. We’re living in a world where our ability to access information is greater than ever. Thanks to the internet, we have an unbelievable amount of data that we can use every day, WHENEVER WE WANT. However, there are people who want to limit this sort of access to those things that they feel are appropriate for us to see. Sound familiar? People who want to ban books are proponents of ignorance. Fight them. Peacefully.
What can I do to help? Learn your library’s policy on reacting to book challenges. If someone says that they want to complain about a book, ask them if they’ve read it (Yes, this is a legitimate issue—most of the people I’ve met who complained to me about Harry Potter, for example, had NEVER ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK). Many complaints are based purely on hearsay. I like to think of this as the “Cycle of Stupidity.” Some day I’ll draw you a nifty illustration as an example of the cycle. For now, let it be known that only you have the power to stop stupid people. Fight the spread of ignorance. Embrace literacy. Read a banned book. Judy Blume has a great strategy for getting a kid to read. “The best thing to do is leave the books around the house and from time to time say, ‘I really don’t think you’re ready for that book.'”
Other people can stand where they like on the issue of reading freedom, but me? I’m with the banned.
This week is National Library Week, and so I would like to share a few of the things that have been going on at my library.
We’ve had a couple of very successful programs for our local teens. We hosted a Blind Date With a Book, where library books were wrapped in paper and labeled only with a small singles-ad-style blurb.
Happy Valentine’s Day, book lovers.
Teens were encouraged to take home a book based solely on the paragraph attached. This sense of mystery allowed for them to be surprised by an author that they may not have encountered, or to unwittingly revisit an old favorite.
Up next was our Readbox display. I’m sure most of you are familiar with Redbox, the DVD and video game rental kiosks.
It’s like a Redbox, only better.
And finally, some days it’s important to just have fun at the library. Nothing helps this like a subtle addition to our self-check station.
“Luke, this is where you scan your library card.”
If you’ve not visited your local library lately, you should. See what’s new. Libraries are evolving to meet your 21st century needs. Happy National Library Week.
What does equality mean? According to the dictionary I keep here at my desk, it’s the noun form of equal, which means “of the same measure, quantity, value, quality, number, degree, or status as another.” That’s all well and good, right? After all, our founding fathers always talked about all men being created equal.
Except that for a very, very long time, this wasn’t true. The earliest definitions of that phrase meant that all of the white, land-owning men of the world were created equal. From the day that phrase appeared on the Declaration of Independence, it took over 140 years for women to earn the right to vote. It took another forty years for the Civil Rights Act to be passed. Today, nearly fifty years after that landmark step toward true equality, we find ourselves as a nation looking at the next big leap for human rights, because for many Americans that statement is still untrue.
As I write this, the Supreme Court of the United States is discussing the issue of marriage. That’s right, marriage.
No adjectives necessary.
You know how that same dictionary defines marriage? “The state of being united to another person as a usually contractual relationship according to law or custom.” Pretty sure there’s nothing in there about restrictions based on religion or gender. Then again, this dictionary was printed in 2004, roughly two thousand years after the source of most of the arguments against marriage equality.
Now a year ago, one of my cousins shared a little note he called “A Conservative Defends Gay Marriage.” It’s a little bit lengthy, but given that it was written during an election season, that’s a bit more understandable. It’ll be included at the end of this post if you’d like to read it. I’d highly recommend it, though I will have to say that I’m quite likely the most liberal member of my family.
This is currently the top social issue dominating our lives here in the United States, when Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden already allow same-sex marriage, and similar bills are being considered in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the U.K., and Uruguay. Why must it take so long for us for us to realize that people are people, and therefore equal regardless of gender, age, race, or orientation?
Another quick history lesson. Until 1967, interracial marriage was still illegal in parts of the United States. It took us three years after passing the Civil Rights Act to allow interracial marriage. Three freaking years. It took less time to assemble the main components of the International Space Station, and that was multiple countries working in cooperation. So seriously, why is it taking us this long to legalize marriage and bring all of the people of the United States into true equality?
Let’s make all people well and truly equal. Maybe then our government can move on to something like, I don’t know, world peace. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?
* * * * * * *
“A Conservative Defends Gay Marriage”
“This note has been brewing with me for a while. As the presidential race drags on, I keep hearing about some candidates and their platforms, some of which include phrases like “defending traditional marriage” or the like. I think it’s high time that we, as conservatives, get over it. The divorce rate in this country, as well as our celebrity-obsessed culture and the Kardashians and Britney Spears’ of the world, etc., have made much more of a mockery of “traditional marriage” than any gay couple ever could.
As the subject started to rise to prominence over the last 3-4 years, my first, gut reaction to it was “absolutely not.” Marriage? Laughable. But time and reflection have allowed me some perspective, and as a conservative, and as someone who at least tries to be a good Christian, I find that I don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the notion of gay marriage. It’s silly to try and claim an institution that is supposed to be a reflection of God’s “binding” two people together (in the religious sense…) can only apply when the couple is one man, one woman. Love; true, honest, devoted love for another human being, knows no such bounds.
I know that I have gay friends…I would surmise that a vast majority of people in general do (some unknowingly, of course)…some still closeted out of fear for their lives or social and familial status, and some out there waving the rainbow-colored flag. I don’t want my friends to be defined by their color, religious belief (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or any of that. If I have ever made any of you feel that way, I sincerely apologize. It’s never been my intention to make you feel anything less than what you deserve, and if I have, I’m sorry. You deserve better than that from me. I had an uncle that spent years ostracized from our family, all the way to his death, for no other reason than he was gay. I refuse to perpetuate that any longer.
The point is, there are issues that we face as a country that are FAR, FAR more important than whether gay couples can be married. We face unprecedented economic problems in this country that affect our daily lives in ways that gay marriage NEVER, EVER will. It’s not worth fighting over, and if conservatives continue to stump on this issue, it will only serve to keep our message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility out of the ears of millions of potential voters, who instead only hear the bleating and braying of people that ignore the fact that the world has changed, and in my opinion, for the better.
One recent exchange that I was a part of on a friend’s thread here on Facebook was about the issue of gay marriage. I don’t know the guy that posted the following, but he said, in part:
There are nothing about my rights that are “gay”…quit calling them “gay” rights…just call them rights…and yes I want all of them. Marriage isn’t a business the government should be in on either side. It’s a religious act historically and if there is a separation of church from state than we can’t engage in “marriage” from a government perspective at all. But we want the same rights for our partners and ourselves if we do decide to marry…but let the church decide who they want to marry and we just need to call the rest Civil Unions from a government perspective.
and I replied:
I was once totally against “gay marriage.” If you ask me, “why?” – I can’t give you a good answer. It just seemed to me that was supposed to be my reaction to it. I’ve totally softened my stance on the issue, and your quote “… let the church decide who they want to marry and we just need to call the rest Civil Unions from a government perspective…” is exactly how I feel. It is up to the church to decide, and if they don’t want to accommodate gay marriage, they shouldn’t have to…just as you are free to find a congregation that WILL welcome you and your partner with open arms. Life is too short to keep perpetuating hate and discrimination against ANYBODY.
I thought that his perspective was kinda brilliant, and refreshingly honest about the debate. Marriage IS historically a religious institution. There are churches that are accepting of gay marriage, and ones that are not. If being married in a church is important to the couple, the onus is on them to find a congregation that will embrace them. We can’t make churches bend to societal changes (that pesky separation of church and state thing, you see). Churches will only adapt when and IF they need to, or want to. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I was just reading today (Jan.4th) that a conservative group in Colorado was trying to get the message out promoting civil unions. The article in the Denver Post included this line:
It shouldn’t be that civil unions and gay marriage can be slotted as Democratic causes or inflammatory Republican talking points. These are human rights issues that ought to cut across party affiliation.
I couldn’t agree more. I’m tired of social issues being used as political footballs on both sides of the aisle. It’s unavoidable, I know…due to the fact that both sides will continue to pander to the extreme fringe of their parties, while leaving those who gravitate towards the middle to sway back and forth, never really understanding which party or ideology is for them.
In recent years, it was the abortion debate…another one I’m sick of hearing presidential candidates debate. I don’t give a damn which candidate is for it, and which is against it. I just don’t care. Abortion is a tragic thing, something that no one (I hope at least) decides on a whim. To hear pro-lifers tell it, women are lining up to have abortions just because they can. I don’t believe anyone comes to that decision lightly, and if they ultimately decide to go through with it, I’d much rather they could do it safely and legally. That position makes me both a bad conservative, and a bad Catholic. Still, it’s how I feel…my opinion. You’re not going to find me protesting for or against abortion, EVER. I hope I’m never in the position of having to be party to such a decision. I’d hope that alternatives were discussed, but ultimately, it is not a decision for me to make, especially not on behalf of someone else.
Sadly, I don’t think that there are any conservative presidential candidates who share my perspective on these matters. So, our side will continue to be portrayed as bigoted, small-minded, homophobic, awful people who want to see the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. The debate HAS to be about more than these few so-called hot-button issues, but won’t be because things like economics are boring, non-emotional, mind-numbing…they lack the “sexiness” that we all apparently need in our headlines.
I hope that changes…and soon. We need to be debating the REAL challenges we face. The more we argue about things like this, the sooner we are going to find ourselves looking back on what was once the greatest nation, and wondering what the hell happened.”
Tomorrow is Dr. Seuss’ birthday, and so we’ve reached another Read Across America Day. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has released the following to celebrate.
Now get out there and read! Help promote literacy. The future of the world depends on it.
Can we be done with the end of the world?
I don’t mean the song. That’s twenty-five years old and still awesome.
I mean the doomsday prophecies. It’s 12/21/12, the day that some people decided would be the end of the world because it was the end of the Mayan calendar (as so many have already said, my calendar ends every year). I’m twenty-five years old too, but I’m already tired of the people claiming that the world is going to end on such and such a date just because somebody who couldn’t predict the downfall of their own civilization said that it would. I’ve lost track of how many times we’ve lived through “the end” just during my lifetime. Can we just all agree to stop claiming that we know what’s going to happen? The uncertainty of life is part of what makes it so beautiful. We have a (still relatively) beautiful planet that’s going to keep on spinning. We have so many things to explore and learn and see, but if we stop living each day just because we think that things are about to end, we waste so much potential. Just be happy.
This week marks the 30th anniversary of Banned Books Week, a week-long celebration of the right to read.
Throughout history, books have faced challenges and bans from people around the world. These challenges come from groups and individuals who have taken it upon themselves to determine what is “appropriate” for others to be reading based on tired dogma and personal opinion. In the words of Granville Hicks, “[a] censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to.”
Some of the greatest pieces of literature ever written have been banned or challenged in schools, churches, and public libraries for various reasons. The Great Gatsby, for example (one of my favorite books), was challenged in 1987 by Charleston, South Carolina’s Baptist College because of “language and sexual references in the book.” Now I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure that this particular phrase could have been used to challenge the presence of the Holy Bible, considering the Old Testament features several chapters which single-handedly contain more explicit sexual references than anything written by F. Scott Fitzgerald. J.D. Salinger’s classic tale of teen rebellion, Catcher in the Rye, was banned for being “a filthy, filthy book.” That’s a bit of a vague excuse if you ask me, and makes me wonder if the people behind that challenge had actually read the entire book, as, in an amusing twist, the narrator believes a “catcher in the rye” to be one who safeguards the innocence of children. As recently as 2009 To Kill a Mockingbird has been challenged for use of the word “nigger” among other language that was dubbed as inappropriate. The list goes on and on, and increases in absurdity. The works of Tolkien, a staunch Catholic, burned in New Mexico in 2001 as “satanic.” Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying “[b]anned at Central High School in Louisville, KY (1994) temporarily because the book uses profanity and questions the existence of God.”
More recent works are facing challenges and bans as well. Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and Captain Underpants have all been threatened with removal from library shelves. I’ve personally encountered people willing to ban materials on nothing more than hearsay. My mother, herself a Catholic, has encountered this at the bookstore she owns and operates.
Customer sees Harry Potter on the shelf: “I can’t believe you have that book in your store! It’s about devil worship and magic and terrible things!”
Mum: “Have you actually read the books?”
Customer: “Well, no, but I heard that they were bad.”
Mum: “Well, if you actually took the time to read the book, you’d learn that they’re about a little boy who overcomes terrible adversity and still manages to become a good person despite facing an evil enemy bent on the destruction of the world, and that there’s nothing harmful about the books.”
Customer: “Oh.”
It’s enough to drive a person insane. “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” -attributed to Stephen Hawking
My favorite response to any of these challenges is taken from Oscar Wilde, a man who knew quite a bit about dealing with people who were upset by things that he wrote and did. “The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame.” Humans have an unfortunate history of trying to hide our mistakes and our failures, from the child who attempts to disguise the fact that he wet the bed to avoid the anger of a parent to the government that covers up evidence that it had authorized criminal acts against its own people. It’s human nature, I suppose, but it shouldn’t stop us from learning from our own mistakes. If we hide away all of the bad things that people have done in the past, we can’t do that. You know what they say about learning from the past, and those who are unable to do so.
We need to get over this. If I may be rather earnest, it’s bullshit. Books are here, and they’re being read. If you stop someone from getting a copy at their local library, that might slow them down for a while, but the information, the ideas, are still out in the world. We can’t stop people from experiencing life. Sex and profanity and hate and love and violence are going to be there, whether someone read about it in a book or not. We’ve screwed things up before. Let’s not do that again.
It’s Banned Books Week. I’m celebrating by reading as many banned or challenged titles as I can. I work in a public library and a bookstore, and I’m providing the people with free ideas and ideas of freedom. “[a]nd ideas are bulletproof.” -V (This V, not that V)
I woke up a few days ago and I found this in my twitter feed. Now I like good zombie fiction as much as anybody else (and probably a hell of a lot more than some of you), but the topic is one that I’d tried to avoid mainly due to the over-saturation of modern popular culture. Well, that and I’ve worked in retail over Christmas, so I’m pretty certain I’ve already had some first-hand experience with fending off zombies. NO! BACK! YOU CAN’T HAVE MY BRAIN! HAVE THIS DELICIOUS HOMELESS MAN WHO HAS BEEN CAMPED IN FRONT OF THE STORE ALL WINTER INSTEAD!
The zombie craze has been going strong for several years now, and I am pleased to say that I think the vampire sex fantasies are dying off slowly, as exposure to light generally shows how stupid that concept is. (Disclaimer: I have read the Twilight books, and once I was done, I found myself wondering if I hadn’t briefly been turned into a zombie… I got better once someone handed me a copy of A Game of Thrones, and I am fully convinced that this is a legitimate cure. If nothing else, you can use the hardcover editions for bludgeoning weapons and a layer of the paperbacks as a sort of lightweight but still nearly bulletproof armor. Thank you for saving me, George.) Not that vampire stuff can’t be done well. Bram Stoker’s Dracula give me chills, three readings later, and Anne Rice had a great thing going with her earlier work. Or there’s always the Sookie Stackhouse books. You might know them as those stories that Stephanie Meyer completely ripped off when she wrote Twilight, or like A Game of Thrones, you might know of the story from the sexy HBO adaptation (I’m still waiting for the HBO version of my own life to kick in).
This isn’t to say that the zombie fiction isn’t just as ridiculous as the vampire fiction. Far from it. However, it is technically a little more plausible, especially given recent events. People are even catering to the zombie apocalypse with “anti-zombie” ammunition, bladed and blunt weapons, and fortresses. Zombies are in our video games, our movies, our books, and even our news articles. Combine pop culture’s love of this kind of shit with the fact that some people are legitimately convinced that the world’s going to end because a calendar carved in stone around 2600 years ago is running out of room (oh, hey, look, my calendar printed on paper is going to end this year too, I wonder if that means that the world really WILL end…) and people start to get a little twitchy. I must admit, though, that I am curious as to how a civilization that has supposedly predicted the end of the world couldn’t have foretold their inevitable downfall… I mean, it’s not like anyone who’s ever predicted the end of the world has ever been wrong. Wait, what? You mean they’ve ALL been wrong? Oh man, I need to rethink my strategy… But I digress. In all seriousness, the zombie apocalypse could be a lot of fun. There are some great depictions of it. I just can’t help thinking that any disease or thing like that might likely just kill everyone rather than creating living dead. You can blame my recent reading of Margaret Atwood for this.
Anyway, I should get some sleep. Zombies are making me sleepy. What’s that sitting beside me, you ask? Nothing, nothing, just a little shotgun in the event that you start moaning and craving brains in the near future. Can’t be too careful.
The Swords of the Ancients 