What's your favorite banned book?

So you can't think of any, but it really bothers you. Sorry if I just don't understand that. I'll try to comment on the things you listed though:

Smoking laws. I have a problem with this stuff too, being a civil lib and all, and I think it should be left up to the owner of the establishment. Just make sure you know who exactly has been pushing for this stuff, as it isn't the current administration. Wacko activist groups are.

State Testing - This has absolutely nothing to do with a rights violation. I see it as an attempt to make sure people aren't graduatin when they still can't read or write, or punctuate properly for that matter. The bill of rights, at no point states you aren't supposed to take tests. Absolutely nothing to do with rights.

Patriot Act - This is a touchy piece of law that I also agree needs some reworking, but definitely shouldn't be abolished altogether, as it has quite a bit of good in it as well. A bill of that magnitude could never be perfect out of the gate, and only time will tell how this affects us in the long run.

I can only say, it is wise to read up on this stuff before commenting on it, as don't just go around parroting what you hear about it on TV or something, as you are getting an incredibly slanted view. The media almost never tells you what is going on, but what they want you to think is going on. It seems to be working.

So:

The USA Patriot Act

__________________

I think it's common knowledge that when people are afraid, they are naturally conservative in the choices they make--conservative is virtually a synonym for wary or cautious, and wariness is stimulated by fear and paranoia. Fearful people are inevitably conservative. As such, when a society is clouded by fear, people lean towards conservatism.

On the other hand, when the times are characterized by boldness and free-spiritedness, a liberal political agenda is more attractive, because when people are bold and free-spirited, they tend to be more liberal in their personal choices.

This is basic psychology--you don't need a degree to figure this out.

So the question I tend to ask myself--and I admit that I am hypothesizing here and don't have the proof to back my statements--is that if you are a conservative politician, isn't it extremely tempting to exploit a situation like 9/11 by perpetuating the rhetoric of fear, knowing full well that it would make your conservative political agenda more popular in society?

Where does censorship fit into this argument? Well, censorship is one of the badges of conservatism. They go hand-in-hand--they're inseparable. But obviously, we're not only talking about right-wing conservatism--it applies equally to leftist conservatism, like that in China. Think about it--why would China need to "liberalize" its society if it weren't already conservative? Why did the Soviet Union need to "liberalize" it's society if it weren't conservative? Interestingly, it was that process of "liberalization"--Glasnost and Perestroika--that led to the downfall of the Soviet empire.

So, to summarize my point--it's pretty obvious that we live under a conservative administration that thrives on widespread fear and paranoia in our society (I won't claim that it is actively seeking to perpetuate such fear, but I can't rule it out as a possibility, or, at least, a temptation). And under any sort of conservative administration, whether right-wing or left-wing, freedom of expression is the first casualty--censorship thrives. That's what I find personally troubling.

replace "Soviet" with "Russian", and you still have the same (a lil bit smaller) colonialist empire you had previously. plus who exterminates Tchetchens are more Homini Sovietici to me than Russians.

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Maybe so, but the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist as political entities. I think that the process of socio-economic liberalization initiated by Gorbachev had a lot to do with that. Maybe Gorbachev is the real unsung hero of the breakup of the Soviet Union! Unfortunately, though, he is mostly remembered for the oddly shaped scar on his bald head and is, perhaps unjustly, demonized as one of the Soviet old guard.

State Testing: Yeah I see the point of it, but some times the tests even boggle the teachers, I mean the New York Math A regents test last year had questions a math teacher in my school who has been there for the past 50 years No joke, couldt even do, Honestly They go a little far with it!!!

__________________
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time!

A good exapmple of How corrupted our government is Is Clearly seen in Michael Moores Movies!Click here I am sure you have all seen this!

Yeah, I've seen the movie and I think it is very powerful (if somewhat biased).

To continue on what I was saying above, I just wanted to add my take on what conservatism means and how it differs from liberalism--just to expand on what I was saying...

I think that conservatism basically equates to fear of change. Conservatives want to keep things the way they are and they are afraid of change, of growth. They prefer the status quo. Liberalism is the opposite, IMHO. Liberalism, as I see it, is being open to change and growth rather than stifling yourself and society in a pointless, meaningless status quo.

That is why, I think, a good liberal is open-minded whereas a conservative is typically closed-minded. When a conservative disagrees with something, he bans or censors that thing, because his priority is to maintain the status quo, and he perceives any challenge to the status quo as a threat to be isolated and curbed or destroyed. On the other hand, if a true liberal (as opposed to a liberal in name only) disagrees with you, he/she attempts to establish a meaningful dialog with you--to communicate with you and learn from you or teach you. This is because, IMHO, a true liberal is open-minded and not afraid to change, grow and learn new things. A true liberal recognizes that life is a series of transitions and if we cannot adapt or adjust, change or grow, we stifle ourselves and, ultimately, die in isolation.

The problem is that, again IMHO, all too many people who call and consider themselves liberals really seem to be acting more like conservatives. Maybe the problem is that "Liberal" has become a dirty word, thanks to the scare tactics of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News Network. That's sad, because, in my mind, "conservative" is hardly a flattering term.

If to call someone a conservative means calling them a closed-minded supporter of the status quo who rejects change and growth and censors whatever he disagrees with, then that is a profound insult, IMO. On the other hand, if calling someone a liberal means calling them an open-minded, courageous person who is open to change and growth and embraces challenges in life as opportunities to grow and learn, then that is a huge compliment, IMO.

I'd like to add a quick footnote to what something I said above, so my point is not misunderstood. Of course, I know that when we talk about the "liberalization" of the Chinese and Russian socio-economic systems, what we are referring to is their privatization. (Interestingly, this raises the issue of semantics, which deserves a thread in and of itself.) However, my point is that if you consider the conservative point of view to represent the defense of the status quo, whatever it may be, and the any form of reform movement to constitute "liberalization", then the terminology, and consequent analogy, are apt, IMO.

i was in Latvia at the time of the insurrection and yr beloved Gorby didn't move a finger (and probably even gave the order anyway) to stop the tanks from killing pacifist students.

Hense the reason why i am liberal, I mean Republicans hate to be told they are wrong their reactions are only second to that of cults!

Hey, man... in no way did I way that I like Gorby! I don't deny that he did many questionable, terrible things as part of the Soviet establishment. You have to keep in mind that he was a part of the establishment and acted as such. Still, the fact remains that it was the process of socio-economic "liberalization" or privatization (i.e. Glasnost and Perestroika) that he instituted that eventually led to the break-up of the Soviet Union.

I guess the broader picture is that Gorbachev, for all his faults, and in spite of being a member of the establishment, was able to recognize that the Soviet system needed to change, adapt and grow or it was bound to collapse and die. So whereas the Soviet Empire did die eventually, Gorbachev's policies possibly prevented the collapse from being more dramatic and devastating than it might have been. But that's conjecture.

In any case, if you remember Chernobyl and how the Soviet nuclear program became unsustainable in the context of their controlled economy, it will give you some idea of the sort of crisis they were facing. Gorbachev's policies were, probably, partly about alleviating that economic crisis. But, in addition, Gorbachev also instituted the social acceptance of government criticism which was forbidden before him, so that was a major step forward in terms of overcoming state-instituted censorship of public discourse.

"Cultish" behavior particularly applies to Neocons, IMHO. Fox News, which is the ultimate Neocon news service, makes that abundantly clear. If you disagree with the point of view they represent, they start by putting untoward pressure on you and then cut off your mic! Very similar to cult practices. Excellent point!

On the subject of censorship, if there is any document that seriously deserves to be censored or banned on the grounds of extreme indecency, obscenity and filth, it has got to be the Bush Administration's budget proposal for 2005, IMHO. In fact, forget censorship--it deserves to be burned! It seriously makes Abu Ghraib look like a nursery playground and the Satanic Bible look like My Pet Goat!

But that's just me talking . . .

I thought this thread was about our favourite banned books? And its turned into a political thread? that is SO weird...

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

Censorship is a political issue, my friend--it is about political intervention into basic human rights, like freedom of thought and expression.

From what you called me and what you said to me when you gave me bad rep, (For pointing out exactly whats happened in this thread) i am most certainly not your friend.

My favorite banned book is Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

That's true. However, the budget proposal has nothing to do with banned books.

And what was that? Please be specific and avoid spreading suggestive rumors! From what I remember, I think I said that you needed to be more open-minded, or something along those lines.

That said, I do not consider you to be my enemy in any way, shape or form--I think that there are misunderstandings standing between us, but otherwise, I figure that, with a little effort on both our parts, we should be able to get along just fine!

Yes, the budget is awful. It's so very, very, very awful. It's the awfulest awful thing in the whole world. I hate it so much for being so awful. I despite it so thoroughly that we need not even discuss why it is awful.

In other news, FDR was a giant lizard person and you're adopted, but I won't bore you with any elaboration or evidence regarding either claim.