Does your dogma bite?

In keeping with my running theme (well, one day's worth, anyway) on books and those who would seek to restrict their content or distribution, today's topic stems from this piece about science fiction authors, which I got from Pharyngula.

Granted, there is no attempt for actual censorship here, at least not for the population at large. No, the superdouche who wrote that drivel merely wants to keep whatever sheep-like followers he has from reading anything by these authors, because...well, I guess because they're atheists, they believe in evolution, and they don't believe the way he does.

I find this every bit as disturbing as anyone who would seek to ban or burn books...because they wish to restrict ideas. The writings in question are works of science fiction. Fiction. They are not written as fact, although because many of the authors have a science background, they often have a solid footing when it comes to scientific fact, or at least a recognized possibility. No, this dickweed doesn't want his sheeple to read these books because they have ideas that are contrary to what they are supposed to be believing, and because the authors are nonbelievers. Forget the fact that these fictional works contain thoughts and ideas about what the future might hold; dreams and imaginings both peaceful and frightening. They can be either a source of hope for a brighter future, or a cautionary tale of things gone terribly awry. Either way, they make us imagine, dream, hope...they make us think.

Here's a tip: if someone is telling you to not read something because it contains ideas you shouldn't be reading, run the other way. Then stop off at the book store or the library, pick up the book or magazine in question, and read the holy hell out of it. Or if they tell you not to listen to something because it's a corrupting influence, make sure to listen well and thoroughly, over and over. Anyone who wants to keep you from seeing a different point of view, or contemplating another way of thinking, is not your friend. They are close-minded, weak, fearful, and ignorant, and they prey on the fears and ignorance of others. I've come to believe that many seek it out purposefully, sensing vulnerability and susceptibility in others in order to wield some sort of power over them in a desperate attempt to make themselves feel better about their own abject ignorance.

I'm a very tolerant person in general, but I'll cop to a certain amount of intolerance, and one instance is when people try to promote willful ignorance. When people are told not to read, not to listen, not to watch, especially when it is couched in religious terms and the implied—or overt—threat is eternal damnation and the fiery pits of hell. For far too many years, I was taught to believe that it was wrong to read certain things, or listen to certain music, or see certain movies, because it was dangerous to do so. Yes, dangerous. Dangerous as in "you could become possessed by a demon." Not kidding.

I reject such thinking as the equivalent of believing that the only possible explanation for thunder is that the gods are angry, or that the only way someone could become sick and die is because of demonic possession. The true danger is in wallowing in mediocrity and reveling in ignorance. Following blindly because that's just what you're supposed to do. Thinking that you have to believe a certain way because that's how you were brought up. Toeing the party line and taking the dogmatic bait hook, line, and sinker.

Think for yourself. Read. Listen. Imagine. LEARN.

Do these Lederhosen make me look fat?

A little follow-up to yesterday's entry about Banned Books Week. Someone who runs a site called Safe Libraries felt the need to leave a comment with a bunch of links about why they think Banned Books Week is kind of stupid. Why do people do this? It's obviously something I feel very strongly about, and do they think I'm going to suddenly say, "You know what? You're right. It was a mistake for me to write about Banned Books Week. I take back everything I wrote." I've left it up, though, in the interest of fair play, and because they didn't post anonymously.

The gist of the articles that I skimmed were that "banned" is a misnomer, and very misleading on the part of the ALA, as no books have been "banned" in the U.S. for years. Technically true. You know why? Because of those of us who say that it is wrong to do so and because it is unconstitutional. The challenges are still happening, but increasingly unsuccessful because I feel that the majority of people believe that no book should be removed from library shelves because of others' objections. Let me say it again: if you don't want your kid reading a particular book, do what you can to keep them from reading it--that is your right as a parent. I've got news for you, though. Kids will do whatever they can to find ways to push the envelope and to learn about things you don't want them to learn. I speak from experience, because I was once a kid. I still remember sitting in a Study Hall with my friends Kathy and Steve, looking up synonyms for "genitals" in the thesaurus. If I recall correctly, our favorite was "meat," and it gave us the giggles so bad we could hardly breathe. (Now it makes me laugh that it seemed so hilarious at the time!) Sheer silliness...but trying to stop kids from figuring out such things is like trying to empty the ocean with a sieve. They'll find ways.

The main goal of Banned Books Week, as I see it, is to draw attention to a long history of censorship and remain vigilant that such challenges are defeated. My friend Tim left a comment that included this: "That is the real danger of all this book banning - the chilling effect it has on librarians, publishers and authors." I would add "attempted" before book banning, but he is right. If an author is successfully challenged and their book is removed from library circulation, they may experience a spike in sales due to the "forbidden" factor ("The controversial best-selling book BANNED by the Hicksville Public Library!"), but might that banning not affect the way they write their next book, resulting in self-censorship and a dampening of the creative spirit? Might a publisher hesitate to take on a book because of past controversy? Or a librarian decide to not order the author's next book for the library because there was such a hassle with the previous one?

As I wrote yesterday, an attempt to restrict books is an attempt to restrict ideas. If that is your goal for your own family, good luck with that. One individual or group has no right to restrict books from others. End o' story.

I was looking at the list of banned classics last night, and it was astounding. Many of these books were banned in the 20's and 30's and beyond, and were still being challenged as recently as the 80's. It's interesting reading, especially some of the reasons and the wording used in the challenges:

• blasphemous
• undermines morality
• obscene
• smut
• trash
• filth
• the use of 'damn' and 'whore lady', a "filthy, trashy novel" (To Kill a Mockingbird)
• "demoralizing inasmuch as it implies that man is little more than an animal" (Lord of the Flies)
• indecent, "does not represent traditional values" (Of Mice and Men)
• teachers "can choose the best books, but they keep choosing this garbage over and over again" (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
• burned in Alamagordo, N. Mex. (2001) outside Christ Community Church as "satanic" (Lord of the Rings)
• "filthy, trashy sex novel" (A Separate Peace)

Jeez, everybody's a critic, huh?

~~~~~

So, I'm celebrating Banned Books Week, and it's a cool and blustery fall day here at Nutwood. What to do, what to do?

Break out the Lederhosen, Helmut, we're goin' to Oktoberfest!

Das ist richtig, Ken und I will be heading over zu Granite City Food und Brewery diesen Abend für eine "Mug Club" party. Wir essen brats und sauerkraut (at least I will...Ken kann nicht stand sauerkraut, but Ich liebe the stuff), und they'll be tapping their new fall Bier called, appropriately enough, Oktoberfest. Ich feel ein yodeling fit coming on!

Going green…for real

For the past two days, when I took a shower, I cleaned out the drain afterwards, and I found pieces of leaves.

Either I'm picking them up while walking on the deck with bare feet, or I'm turning into a tree. That might not be a bad way to come back in a next life (although if I had my druthers, I'd be a house cat). Maybe I could hold a hummingbird nest!

[A Silver Squirrel Award to anyone who can identify the plant in this photo! Click on the photo to embiggen and get a better look.]

Ken is off tomorrow, and it's supposed to be warm and sunny in the afternoon. I foresee a little deck-sitting time in our future! We'll go pick up the keys to his Mom and stepdad's apartment tomorrow, and make sure everything looks good. I'll be relieved to get this move taken care of because I'm telling you...they are absolutely buggin'. His stepdad wants to pick up the truck on Saturday and start loading it. The guy uses a cane and has had a couple of back surgeries. I think Ken convinced him to leave the loading of the truck to us and another couple who will be helping. There will be no back injuries if we can help it! I was writing to Cousin Shane today, and said that I guess Ken and I (and my family is like this, too) take more of a que sera, sera attitude. We definitely plan ahead and try to take care of all possibilities, but there will always be unforeseen bumps in the road, and I think it's important to be able to adapt and adjust accordingly. As REO Speedwagon said, gotta roll with the changes!

I don't think I'm a fatalistic person, believing that the worst that can happen will. I'm much more optimistic than that. But I also know that we're going to get a few curve balls when we step up to bat, and we'd better be prepared to adjust when life changes it up on us. As my Mom likes to say, "It'll all work out in the wash." Maybe that's why I don't like drama. It serves no purpose other than to work yourself or others into a tizzy, and being in a tizzy doesn't bode well for figuring out a solution to the problem at hand. Right?

Finally, a big thank you to Kristi of Rambling Woolysheep who has given me the Honest Blogger award. I thanked her for the award, but said that it was hard enough for me to come up with ten honest things about me the first time I received the award, so I was not going to be doing another ten! What she wrote about me was what really tickled me:

Beth DOES NOT, WILL NOT hold back an opinion. And she can take down snarkers with razor like wit and humor. But be warned she will fill up your updates box. She must just be able to think the words onto the page because I can't comprehend humans typing that fast.

That first line made me laugh! It's so true, but I really am trying to temper my opinionated self. I often hold back in real life, because in social situations, one does not create a stir, or an argument! I've written about how many in my family don't feel the same way I do about a lot of things, and in the interest of family harmony, I just don't go there. (We've got another situation coming up soon, with friends...I think I might have to take some duct tape along and place it over my own mouth.) However, this is my blog, and I will never hold back my opinion here. I try to be cool about it, but I think I make it pretty obvious how I feel about things. One of the things I feel very strongly about is censorship, and as with every other media, whether it's TV, radio, books, or music, no one is holding a gun to your head subjecting you to reading or listening. There is an off button, you can choose not to buy the book, you can change the radio station...and you can hit that big X and stop reading me if thine eye offends thee. Free will: it's a beautiful thing!