Actually, I rather like Duncan Hines' brownie mix. I don't think it tastes saccarhine-y. Maybe you're doing it wrong.
I think no worst of '07 list is complete without
Mr. Bean's Holiday
Reno 911! Miami
Who's your Caddy
I think there's more, these are just the ones that I first thought of when I thought "sucky movies of 2007"
Nancy, you say
" Lisa is correct that we must never ban choice of books in schools"
Never is a BIG word. Do you really believe that? Would you be ok with the schools providing books such as "The Big Book of Porn: A Penetrating Look at Dirty Movies" or "Working Stiff: True Blue-collar Gay porn" by Bob Condron? How about if we made it *required* reading for each child to read "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry". Would that be a good idea? We could also make available books about how to actually use drugs. Maybe explicity describe the "correct" way to smoke crack or shoot up heroin? We could make available books that advocate anarchy by killing all authority figures. How about magazines? I think most schools allow kids to read Times and Newsweek. How about High Times? Playboy? Juggs? BDSM Weekly?
If you're going to be against making ANY of these books available for young children in school then your "never" statement is already thrown out. I (and the Supreme Court) agree that there are some works of "art" that shouldn't be available for kids. Then it's just a matter of "where" to draw the line. But the line's there. Maybe you don't SEE the line because it's at the far horizon of the book choices you already make, but it's there.
I don't think they're recommending this process for nuclear power plants. I'm sure those guys have super high tech stuff that you wouldn't even understand.
However, if you have natural gas, then you do indeed want to be careful about where you find leaks. A lighted stick of incense is definitely not the recommended way of discovering you have a drafty spot right beside a loose spot on your gas line.
Maybe this is part of a super-secret (yet subtle) plan to encourage the school kids to read certain books by saying in essence "Whatever you do, don't read THESE books. You're not old enough." I know when I was in school I wasn't real big on reading the "classics", but I read some of the books on the banned list just because they were banned.
Or more likely, the school board might be morons.
However, you didn't address ONE possibility which is that maybe the books should be banned. Maybe it's not appropriate for school age children? I haven't read the book so I can't judge, but just because a book has won awards, doesn't make it appropriate. I have read the synopsis which discussed the graphic encounter with a child molester, the drug abuse, sexual encounters, profanity, adultery. While that certainly wouldn't discourage me from reading the book :o I don't think I'd want my kids to read it until I had.
It's all fine and good to imply we shouldn't ban any books, but just because it's in print doesn't make it good or right. There's award winning porn novels. Keep 'em out of schools. I think Ann Coulter's books should be kept out of kid's hands until they pass a test showing they understand that even mean-spirited idiots can write best selling books.
You make the point about book banners could do other things like take kids off busses to avoid profanity and ditch the TV set. This is an absurd reaction. FIRST, just because I know my child will not be able to be (or should be even) sheltered from all profanity and sex CERTAINLY doesn't mean I have to welcome it into my house. SECOND, I do monitor what shows my children watch. If I don't think the show is appropriate we actually manage to turn off the tv or change the channel without having to "ditch the tv set". There's also a little thing about "context". If there's an afterschool program about the dangers of heroin use, I'm not going to prevent my kids from watching it because it touches upon *gasp* drug abuse.
I think it's pretty clear Lisa that you don't have school age kids, because your opinions pretty closely mirror my sarcastic and contemptous thoughts towards book banners before I had kids. But once you have kids and you realize that you have a responsibility to help protect them as they develop the experience, understanding and judgement that will allow them to make wise decisions.
I wasn't sure of the full point of the article either. It seemed a bit of generic "guns are bad" type article. But we can't revoke people's constitutional right to bear arms on whims. If there's a diagnosis that she's a danger to others then that should be addressed, but it's just the nature of owning guns that a lot of gun owners are a bit crazy and think about shooting a lot. Kind of like drug users think about doing drugs a lot. We don't take guns from cancer patients who are doped up on pain drugs. By the same token we shouldn't take guns from the mentally ill just because they're mentally ill. It should only be if they're a foreseeable danger to society.
It sounds like from the description of a steel house, 10ft chain fence, and razor wire that maybe Aunt Deb didn't live in the safest neighborhood. Is that fact that she survived so long in such a neighborhood (done in only by her own hand) proof that gun ownership *does* reduce crime?
It's a fact that the criminal element generally try to prey on the weak and defenseless in society. If they know that the crazy lady in the steel house has a stack of guns, then odds are they'll skip her and find easier pickings.
It would be nice if we lived in a society where guns were not used. Where they were not used to guarantee safety and protect family and home. But we don't. The society we live in respects & fears power and a private arsenal of guns equates to power.
If you really want to help the country, vote Ron Paul.
Kellytil, glad to hear you're on board with getting this whole illegal immigration thing worked out. That's a big help. Voting Hillary '08 probably won't help much towards it, but still, great to hear you hope it will be resolved.
I vote we all go to JohnD's house. Sure, he may *prefer* that only people he likes and has "invited" come in, but clearly that's not a priority for him. Once we get in, our worst case scenario is that we pay a small fee, free doctor's exam, and we'll all vouch for each other and sign an affadavit, then we can stay at his place as long as we like.
JohnD, I like my beer ice cold, please go ahead and stock up the fridge. Rolling Rock.
All Comments »
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation