brain...exploding...from...irony...

Yeah, but if Goldwater had any hopes for power later in life would he have become a right-wing social activist? If Ronald Reagan had died before taking office in 1980, he might well be remembered as a gay rights champion, at least in California where I believe he worked with Harvey Milk to pass a law protecting the jobs of openly gay teachers and other public servants.The reality of republican politics leaves no room for old-time conservatives. We'll see what shape the social right-wing is in once this Foley thing plays out, but for now I don't see any important changes coming.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I'm hardly a AUH2O scholar or anything, but based on what I know about him, I strongly doubt that Goldwater would have sacrificed any of the principles that he believed in for political expediency. Would that have made him a political eunuch? Possibly. Alas, we will never know.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I happen to agree with your OP, and general sentiments, and I don't want to pull your thread off track. But I feel I should address this statement... That has not been my experience at all. I suppose one may find more liberals inclined to disagree openly with liberals than conservatives v cons, but I think that has more to do with the fractional nature of liberals, with many more diverse "causes" involved.Within any fraction of liberals I find the exact same team mentality behavior, and have even seen it here on specific topics. I have seen conservatives stand up against behavior from within their overall group... just not as many, with those in the directly affected portion likely to keep quiet.I think team mentality is a human behavior, all ranges of political persuasion are susceptible. Heck, so is the will to censorship. Even liberals have books they want outlawed, just for different reasons. Perhaps they won't burn them to avoid connotations, but the effect is the same.Edited by holmes, : subtitled

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Getting back to the first few threads that started this, I fail to see the connection with banning.
First, high school children cannot just have any book in their curriculum. Books, (in my opinion) that should not be allowed:
1. Pornography.
2. Excess violence
3. excessive coarse lanugage that does displays ingnorance and stupidity of speaker e.g. repeated cursing.
4.Political brainwashing..1 and 2 are normally implemented. 3 is normally debated among high school boards.
However 4 is more complex.
4 can be anything! it can be the religous right trying to impose fundamentalism - this never happens now save for a few places. What does happen is promotion of 'agendas'. I strongly believe against teaching young children asinine things like 'this child has two daddies' etc..The education system attempts to brainwash children into following certain agendas - many of these are liberal ..Bear this in mind - I believe that NO BOOK SHOULD EVER BE BANNED and NO ONE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR expressing their point of view or reading any book. However, the real controversy over book banning and free speech lies mostly in dangerous ideas (or what the censors deem to be dangerous. Like world war 2 revisionism and ideas that are at odds with the mainstream media.In my opinion, the greatest threat to civil liberties are the laws that prohibit 'hate' speech etc.High school curriculum needs to be decided by school teachers and parents not politicians.That's my two cents...I hope I was not too vague or unlclear.

mind telling us which is your stance? seems slightly contradictory to me. "books not allowed . . .NO BANNING BOOKS DAMNIT"I agree that politicians should stay out of what books are to be read, but parents and teachers are just as likely to fall into the same trap as the politicians. In fact, it is often parents who push these books to be banned because they don't want their kids reading them. which is really stupid--if the people in the OP article actually bothered to read more than just the first few pages they would have seen that there's a certain character that tries to save books. oops.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Parents should have a right to shape their children's minds. However, the politicians should not have that right. If the parents think that a certain book is not appropriate educational material, they should be able to take a stance against this book being introduced as 'compulsory' reading.
Unfortunately, there will be some parents with some funny views on what their children should read, but cramming 'required' books down children's throats is far more dangerous than parents imposing their will on their own children.If some 'group' with obscure ties to the politicians can decide what books children should read. We can have reading materials such as:
"When War is Justified."
"The Liberties we have to give up for Security".The American media is filled with programs with people justifying torture, murder of 'enemy combatents'. It won't be long when this 'discussion' will reach the schools - if it has not already.My point being Required school reading is very different from the issue of book banning, and parents should have a right to voice dissent.

quote:

---

Despite what you may have heard, or would like to believe, not everyone who listens to Rush agrees with everything he says, nor do most of them let him do their thinking for them.

---

Well, all I can say is that anybody who has listened to Rush or watched his show and doesn't realize that a great deal of what he says is pure horseshit is either a lazy-thinking team player, incredibly naive, or merely stupid.Rush is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with political discourse in this country.

wrong. dead wrong.
here was my list of required reading for my senior english classjane eyre
i know why the caged bird sings
hamlet
1984
their eyes were watching god
the power and the glorynow then, let's a parent objects to one of these books that have to be read by their child. if they are succesful in removing that book from the list, they have just banned it. take a gander at the OP article--farenhiet 451 is required reading. that parent wants it taken off that list--the first ban, and is pushing for a total ban of the book in the school system.censorship by any other name is just as foul

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

If the parents think that a certain book is not appropriate educational material, they should be able to take a stance against this book being introduced as 'compulsory' reading.

---

Then you should be happy with the situation. In the article linked in the OP: So the student in question was not required to read a book against the wishes of her parents.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

quote:

---

Within any fraction of liberals I find the exact same team mentality behavior, and have even seen it here on specific topics. I have seen conservatives stand up against behavior from within their overall group... just not as many, with those in the directly affected portion likely to keep quiet.

---

Maybe it's because most of my friends and aquaintences are academics, and specifically, scientists, and so are more accustomed to voicing criticisms and of receiving them, too.Many other friends are often from typically marginalized or disaffected groups (especially non-believers) who are wary of or disinclined to identifying too strongly with any authority figure or authoritative group.

quote:

---

I think team mentality is a human behavior, all ranges of political persuasion are susceptible.

---

Of course. That's why I spoke from my own experience.

quote:

---

Heck, so is the will to censorship. Even liberals have books they want outlawed, just for different reasons. Perhaps they won't burn them to avoid connotations, but the effect is the same.

---

What books do liberals want outlawed?

The biggest problem with Rush and his ilk is not that so much of what he says is horseshit. The biggest problem is that he starts out with a germ of truth and is able to make much more out of it than it warrants.For example, two of his frequent targets are "feminazis" and "environmentalist-whackos." As he uses those terms, there can be no doubt that such people exist. There are extremist feminists who hate men and hold most men responsible for nearly every evil in society. And, there are nuts who, under the guise of environmentalism, are more interested in taking down big, evil corporations. Rush takes what these rather small groups of people say and believe and spins it to make it sound like they represent all feminists and environmentalists.IMO, Rush is no worse than any other demogogue who is more interested in pushing a party line than pushing the interests of all americans. And there are plenty of those kinds of liars, thieves and villians on both sides of the aisle.Rush largely preaches to the choir. Are his listeners "lazy-thinking team player[s], incredibly naive, or merely stupid?" Well, no more so than any other choir that laps up what their favorite demogogue says. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a dittohead, and certainly don't mean to defend Rush or his choir. But to complain only about him without leveling he same complaint at the other side when they do the same thing only addresses half the problem.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

But to complain only about him without leveling he same complaint at the other side when they do the same thing only addresses half the problem.

---

Who, on the other side, does the same thing?And I don't think it is inappropriate to single Rush out. He is more reckless, more injurious to the facts, more insulting, and a much bigger liar than almost any other of his ilk, except maybe Ann Coulter.There are at least couple of dozen more like him on the conservative side.How many on the liberal side can you list that are just as bad? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But to complain only about him without leveling he same complaint at the other side when they do the same thing only addresses half the problem.

---

I don't know if I agree that this is only "half of the problem." Right now the President and a majority of Congress seem to be beholden to those who agree with Limbaugh.I can't think of any member of Congress who is representing those who agree with "extremist feminists who hate men and hold most men responsible for nearly every evil in society" or who agree with "nuts who, under the guise of environmentalism, are more interested in taking down big, evil corporations".I suppose if "feminazis" and "enviro-whackos" actually had any measure of political power outside of university lit-crit departments, I might agree that they could be considered "half of the problem." But in reality, it appears to me that mentioning these so-called "feminazis" and "enviro-whackos" serves more as a distraction from the true threats to our freedoms and well-being in the government and other institutions that have a large influence on our lives.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Arianna Huffington, Michael Kinsley and James Carville come immediately to mind.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I agree. That's why I said that's the biggest problem with Rush. I don't think they are beholden to them as much as they are pandering to them.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin