I don’t understand how her sex life is relevant. Aren’t there a lot of gays who believe it’s up to parents, not schools, to decide how and when to expose young children to sexual matters?
As to “book bans,” I live in Florida. When you say the state is imposing “book bans,” what are you referring to? Are you defining a “book ban“ as a system that does not give school librarians the final say on the books they keep in their libraries? Or are you referring to laws that prohibit the distribution books that advance certain ideas (the way the left seeks to ban books that criticize hormone therapy for children)?
Let's stipulate that some/many of the books they object to putting in school libraries are perfectly fine. Isn't the "book ban" debate about who ultimately has the final say? Is your view that school librarians should have the final say?
As employees of the LOCAL school board librarians should follow their direction and guidelines from the LOCAL board. Therefore it is the LOCAL board that should have the final say. If the librarian refuses to follow LOCAL district guidelines the that librarian can be disciplined or fired. IF the librarian is uncomfortable with those guidelines THEN the librarian is free to seek employment elsewhere.
We have something else going on here in Florida. State legislatures preempting LOCAL authority and responsibility in favor of State authority and threats of criminal prosecution for not obeying that authority.
LOCAL school boards were and are adequately competent to make decisions about textbooks used in the classroom and titles shelved in the libraries without the compulsion of state law.
As a conservative I find what is happening in Florida is reprehensible. And none of it would have happened without the political ambitions of our Governor and his compliant legislature. They have a habit now of usurping local control in areas which have ALWAYS been understood best decided by those closest to the local community.
In the past, I have subscribed to Robert Tracinski's work. I stopped doing so for a number of reasons but continued to receive free samples of his work. In one of those he put forward the concept that those of us interested in Ayn Rand's work should, to stop the 'threat' of Donald Trump, ally ourselves with the left. I find this suggestion to be at the very least shockingly evasive of the nature and purpose of the left which in my view is to establish a socialist police in America and around the world. I observe that to advance that cause, the left carries out two hallmarks of all of the vicious tyrannical movements of the 20th century. That is, before they gained 'life or death' power in their respective countries, the Nazis, the communists, the fascists, all did both. They virulently attacked freedom of speech and they mangled the law to both use it a s a weapon against their political opponents while giving their followers a free pass to commit any crime. In America now, we see the left attacking freedom of speech and prosecuting Donald Trump, while their own violent followers can loot, burn, destroy entire cities and law enforcement does nothing. For the record, I think Trump can be legitimately criticized in a number of ways, but to subject him to what are plainly 'two tier legal' 'lawfare' prosecutions is to me clearly the mark of vicious left wing 'wanna be' tyrants who, mostly unchallenged, especially by so called 'Republicans' and 'liberals', thirst for and use raw power against anyone who talks back. While I think those who ran Moms for Liberty clearly 'stumbled and fell', and perhaps their organization should take the fall with them, I really wonder why Mr. Tracinski is so harshly critical of a movement which seems to me to be legitimately pursuing improvement in education for children, while at the same time he is so forgiving of the left which in my view is desperately trying to enslave us and has made significant inroads in the schools, colleges, universities, in their attempt to do so.
Sorry to see that you are no longer a subscriber, Doug.
If you were, you might have been saved from repeating some clear factual errors. For example, you would not repeat the idea that law enforcement has done nothing to prosecute violent rioters from the summer of 2020. In fact, hundreds have been prosecuted. (A while back, I referred my subscriber to this review: https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8) I know this is a talking point being broadcast in conservative media, but it's not true. That's the problem with dropping a media source whenever it starts telling you things you don't want to hear.
Or if you had read my previous UnPopulist piece on Moms for Liberty, you could not accept the rather credulous characterization of them that you give here.
This points to a wider problem. You left out one of the things authoritarian and totalitarian regimes do. They tell people the only alternative to them is an opposing movement that is so horribly evil and vicious that you just have to support their preferred strongman, supposedly as your only protection. Hitler did this with the communists, and the Soviets returned the favor, justifying their imperialism for decades by claiming to be fighting fascists. (Putin is still doing this.) And Germans were right to fear the communists! But they let that fear blind them to the danger from the fascists.
You should consider whether your one-sided media diet is leading you to make the same mistake.
I looked at the link which you provided. I think many of our differences turn on the following from the link. "...they weren’t an attack on the very core constitutional processes that we rely on in a democracy, nor were they an attack on the United States Congress." I reject the notion that those involved in the January 6th event 'attacked Congress' or our 'Constitutional processes'. I think that is false on its face. In fact it seems to me that the most basic part of our 'Constitutional processes' is protesting that with which we disagree.. If they were excessive in protesting then yes, they can be prosecuted. But many were held in jail for excessive periods of time without trial and then received what in my view were sentences far beyond what was justified because again, my view, the Democrats, now in facile everyday fashion manipulating our federal, state, and local justice systems, attack and punish anyone who disagrees with them. My media diet is in no way one sided. I read left wing material quite frequently. And what I clearly see from the left in general and from the Democrats in particular is unrelenting hatred for freedom and individual rights (FAIR) with strong calls for a socialist police state in America and if necessary, violence to bring about such slavery. Example. A leading Democrat, Hillary Clinton called for 'deprogramming' of all Trump supporters. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/10/06/hillary-clinton-maga-cult-extremists-donald-trump-house-republicans-amanpour-cnntm-vpx.cnn As far as I know, this is the first time since WW2 when America was fighting for its life that any politician of either party has openly called for (absent 'Ms. Slippery' Clinton's nasty pathetic euphemism) concentration camps. Did anybody among O-ist intellectuals rise up in protest? Not hat I am aware. Since I don't read everything from all the various O-ist sources, obviously I cannot be sure but it seems to me that given the clear threat of the left to FAIR, some O-ist intellectuals insufficiently criticize the left wing and reserve their harshest analysis for Trump. Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, and I don't particularly like him but I do vote for him in comparison to the Democratic alternatives, the legal and judicial treatment of him is tome vicious to the point of being scandalous. Thank you for reading my reply.
Ayn Rand would think that kissing the ass of Christian Nationalists in order to win elections was a crock of crap. She couldn't stand Ronald Reagan not only for his intellectual vacuousness but especially for his reliance on the Moral Majority and its antiabortion agenda for support.
One could only imagine what she would think of a buffoon like Trump who in his business life and personal life has violated every ethical position upon which the Objectivist Philosophy rests.
I agree she would never have moved over to an alliance with the socialists, but to be honest, most of her followers here in the real world are merely dilettantes. So making a temporary alliance to get through the next couple of elections doesn't represent the wholesale sacrifice of any meaningful principles.
I agree there is a two tiered system of justice at work here but not in the way you think.
I haven’t studied the Florida law, so my knowledge is limited to reading some commentary on it. What is your understanding of how it works? What mechanism does it use to usurp control from local school boards? Is there a state official or agency that is designated to make the final decision on what books can be in school libraries? Aside from that, don’t commentators on the left generally oppose letting local school boards make the final decision?
It is really a solution in search of a problem. School Boards in Florida have always had the power to decide complaints by parents regarding instructional content and books provided through school libraries. The intention of HB1069 was to micro-manage from the state level who, what, when, where and how challenges are to be handled. It eases the ability for challenges to be made and places costly burdens of the school districts resources through an appeals process which any citizen can launch but the legal costs only attach to the school district. It also threatens suspension of state funding to school found to be "not complying" with state mandates.
What it ends up doing is making it easier for pressure groups like "Moms for Liberty" to impose their will on the whole community.
Exactly. And I would also add what I note in the piece above. These laws do not give "parents" in general a say in what books are in the libraries. They give power to some parents to dictate what other people's kids will learn--and often not even parents. The evidence shows that the majority of the complaints are made by a handful of cranks and busybodies, some of whom don't even have kids in the public schools. It's not parental rights; it's a heckler's veto.
I don’t understand how her sex life is relevant. Aren’t there a lot of gays who believe it’s up to parents, not schools, to decide how and when to expose young children to sexual matters?
As to “book bans,” I live in Florida. When you say the state is imposing “book bans,” what are you referring to? Are you defining a “book ban“ as a system that does not give school librarians the final say on the books they keep in their libraries? Or are you referring to laws that prohibit the distribution books that advance certain ideas (the way the left seeks to ban books that criticize hormone therapy for children)?
You can click through to read my previous article and see examples of the kind of books Moms for Liberty is objecting to.
Let's stipulate that some/many of the books they object to putting in school libraries are perfectly fine. Isn't the "book ban" debate about who ultimately has the final say? Is your view that school librarians should have the final say?
As employees of the LOCAL school board librarians should follow their direction and guidelines from the LOCAL board. Therefore it is the LOCAL board that should have the final say. If the librarian refuses to follow LOCAL district guidelines the that librarian can be disciplined or fired. IF the librarian is uncomfortable with those guidelines THEN the librarian is free to seek employment elsewhere.
We have something else going on here in Florida. State legislatures preempting LOCAL authority and responsibility in favor of State authority and threats of criminal prosecution for not obeying that authority.
LOCAL school boards were and are adequately competent to make decisions about textbooks used in the classroom and titles shelved in the libraries without the compulsion of state law.
As a conservative I find what is happening in Florida is reprehensible. And none of it would have happened without the political ambitions of our Governor and his compliant legislature. They have a habit now of usurping local control in areas which have ALWAYS been understood best decided by those closest to the local community.
In the past, I have subscribed to Robert Tracinski's work. I stopped doing so for a number of reasons but continued to receive free samples of his work. In one of those he put forward the concept that those of us interested in Ayn Rand's work should, to stop the 'threat' of Donald Trump, ally ourselves with the left. I find this suggestion to be at the very least shockingly evasive of the nature and purpose of the left which in my view is to establish a socialist police in America and around the world. I observe that to advance that cause, the left carries out two hallmarks of all of the vicious tyrannical movements of the 20th century. That is, before they gained 'life or death' power in their respective countries, the Nazis, the communists, the fascists, all did both. They virulently attacked freedom of speech and they mangled the law to both use it a s a weapon against their political opponents while giving their followers a free pass to commit any crime. In America now, we see the left attacking freedom of speech and prosecuting Donald Trump, while their own violent followers can loot, burn, destroy entire cities and law enforcement does nothing. For the record, I think Trump can be legitimately criticized in a number of ways, but to subject him to what are plainly 'two tier legal' 'lawfare' prosecutions is to me clearly the mark of vicious left wing 'wanna be' tyrants who, mostly unchallenged, especially by so called 'Republicans' and 'liberals', thirst for and use raw power against anyone who talks back. While I think those who ran Moms for Liberty clearly 'stumbled and fell', and perhaps their organization should take the fall with them, I really wonder why Mr. Tracinski is so harshly critical of a movement which seems to me to be legitimately pursuing improvement in education for children, while at the same time he is so forgiving of the left which in my view is desperately trying to enslave us and has made significant inroads in the schools, colleges, universities, in their attempt to do so.
Sorry to see that you are no longer a subscriber, Doug.
If you were, you might have been saved from repeating some clear factual errors. For example, you would not repeat the idea that law enforcement has done nothing to prosecute violent rioters from the summer of 2020. In fact, hundreds have been prosecuted. (A while back, I referred my subscriber to this review: https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8) I know this is a talking point being broadcast in conservative media, but it's not true. That's the problem with dropping a media source whenever it starts telling you things you don't want to hear.
Or if you had read my previous UnPopulist piece on Moms for Liberty, you could not accept the rather credulous characterization of them that you give here.
This points to a wider problem. You left out one of the things authoritarian and totalitarian regimes do. They tell people the only alternative to them is an opposing movement that is so horribly evil and vicious that you just have to support their preferred strongman, supposedly as your only protection. Hitler did this with the communists, and the Soviets returned the favor, justifying their imperialism for decades by claiming to be fighting fascists. (Putin is still doing this.) And Germans were right to fear the communists! But they let that fear blind them to the danger from the fascists.
You should consider whether your one-sided media diet is leading you to make the same mistake.
I looked at the link which you provided. I think many of our differences turn on the following from the link. "...they weren’t an attack on the very core constitutional processes that we rely on in a democracy, nor were they an attack on the United States Congress." I reject the notion that those involved in the January 6th event 'attacked Congress' or our 'Constitutional processes'. I think that is false on its face. In fact it seems to me that the most basic part of our 'Constitutional processes' is protesting that with which we disagree.. If they were excessive in protesting then yes, they can be prosecuted. But many were held in jail for excessive periods of time without trial and then received what in my view were sentences far beyond what was justified because again, my view, the Democrats, now in facile everyday fashion manipulating our federal, state, and local justice systems, attack and punish anyone who disagrees with them. My media diet is in no way one sided. I read left wing material quite frequently. And what I clearly see from the left in general and from the Democrats in particular is unrelenting hatred for freedom and individual rights (FAIR) with strong calls for a socialist police state in America and if necessary, violence to bring about such slavery. Example. A leading Democrat, Hillary Clinton called for 'deprogramming' of all Trump supporters. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/10/06/hillary-clinton-maga-cult-extremists-donald-trump-house-republicans-amanpour-cnntm-vpx.cnn As far as I know, this is the first time since WW2 when America was fighting for its life that any politician of either party has openly called for (absent 'Ms. Slippery' Clinton's nasty pathetic euphemism) concentration camps. Did anybody among O-ist intellectuals rise up in protest? Not hat I am aware. Since I don't read everything from all the various O-ist sources, obviously I cannot be sure but it seems to me that given the clear threat of the left to FAIR, some O-ist intellectuals insufficiently criticize the left wing and reserve their harshest analysis for Trump. Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, and I don't particularly like him but I do vote for him in comparison to the Democratic alternatives, the legal and judicial treatment of him is tome vicious to the point of being scandalous. Thank you for reading my reply.
Ayn Rand would think that kissing the ass of Christian Nationalists in order to win elections was a crock of crap. She couldn't stand Ronald Reagan not only for his intellectual vacuousness but especially for his reliance on the Moral Majority and its antiabortion agenda for support.
One could only imagine what she would think of a buffoon like Trump who in his business life and personal life has violated every ethical position upon which the Objectivist Philosophy rests.
I agree she would never have moved over to an alliance with the socialists, but to be honest, most of her followers here in the real world are merely dilettantes. So making a temporary alliance to get through the next couple of elections doesn't represent the wholesale sacrifice of any meaningful principles.
I agree there is a two tiered system of justice at work here but not in the way you think.
I haven’t studied the Florida law, so my knowledge is limited to reading some commentary on it. What is your understanding of how it works? What mechanism does it use to usurp control from local school boards? Is there a state official or agency that is designated to make the final decision on what books can be in school libraries? Aside from that, don’t commentators on the left generally oppose letting local school boards make the final decision?
It is really a solution in search of a problem. School Boards in Florida have always had the power to decide complaints by parents regarding instructional content and books provided through school libraries. The intention of HB1069 was to micro-manage from the state level who, what, when, where and how challenges are to be handled. It eases the ability for challenges to be made and places costly burdens of the school districts resources through an appeals process which any citizen can launch but the legal costs only attach to the school district. It also threatens suspension of state funding to school found to be "not complying" with state mandates.
What it ends up doing is making it easier for pressure groups like "Moms for Liberty" to impose their will on the whole community.
Exactly. And I would also add what I note in the piece above. These laws do not give "parents" in general a say in what books are in the libraries. They give power to some parents to dictate what other people's kids will learn--and often not even parents. The evidence shows that the majority of the complaints are made by a handful of cranks and busybodies, some of whom don't even have kids in the public schools. It's not parental rights; it's a heckler's veto.