Now don't get the impression that I'm jumping off a proper and politically correct bandwagon just because it is headed over a cliff. I'm not. I can knee-jerk with the best of them. But when it comes to books I am bound to a higher loyalty; The unencumbered right to pursue the truth.
And I think that the fluff-headed folks at the ALA wouldn't know the truth if hit in the head with a volume of truth by John Stuart Mill.
***Why does
Banned Book Week list no banned books, only "challenged" books? Why the heck can't books be challenged?
*** Are these the same "Butchers of English" who gave us " Visually Challenged" for the blind, and "Vocally Challenged" for the mute?
***Are these paternalistic namby-pambies trying to take away the inalienable right of we the people to burn books of own choosing? What's wrong with a good old-fashioned book burning? Who do you like best - books or people?
***Public Library boards select daily for books to put in the children's sections of our libraries. We pay their salaries. Why should we not have any input into what they buy? I challenge anyone of you ALA-leaning Awaders to post some of the salacious, offending, sentences that were "challenged" by others, on this high-minded, open-minded, liberal-minded forum; the self-same sentences that have been put in the kiddie section of some of our public libraries.
***Name a book that a state, county, or city has banned by law in the last 50 years.
***Why was the innocuous
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury challenged? Maybe for the "ironic effect". Maybe it was challenged in anonymity by those who know what is best for the pedestrian masses. If so, the ironic effect was wasted on me. -
As for me, I'm saving my righteous indignation for touchie-feelie causes that have a toe-hold in reality.
