WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
Is surprised by his own reaction: Long ago and far away, we ourselves were able to witness a public school "book ban."
At issue was the Hemingway short story, Up in Michigan. Experts who have read the story summarize its content as shown:
Jim Gilmore, a blacksmith, comes to Hortons Bay and buys the blacksmith shop. Liz Coates, who has a crush on Jim, is a young woman who works as a waitress for the Smiths. Jim, D. J. Smith, and Charley Wyman go on a deer-hunting trip. When the hunters return, they have a few drinks to celebrate their kill. After supper and a few more drinks, Jim goes into the kitchen and fondles Liz, and says, "Come on for a walk." They go to the end of the dock where Jim's hands explore Liz's body. She is frightened and begs him to stop. He forces himself upon her and passes out on top of her. She gets out from under him and tries to awaken him, and covers him with her coat.
Due to its undisguised content, this early Hemingway story was always controversial. Decades later, in A Moveable Feast, Hemingway recalled the way he'd been reproached by Gertrude Stein for writing material that no one would be willing to publish.
Around that same time, we high school students at Aragon High were handed copies of a collection of Hemingway stories. Up in Michigan had been razorcut out of each copy.
Even then, in a liberal-leaning suburban San Francisco high school, someone had decided that this one particular story was inappropriate for us high school kids. Our teacher, the late Jim Price, called our attention to this action—and, if memory serves, he strongly disapproved of this particular "ban."
Longer story shorter:
Rightly or wrongly, people have always felt that certain types of material would be inappropriate for distribution in public schools. Almost surely, there are books that most modern liberals would be disinclined to present to public school students, even today.
What sorts of material are age- or grade-appropriate for use in public schools? Inevitably, such questions will involve matters of judgment. That said, two victims of modern "book bans" are apparently ready to go to the mattresses over the ongoing bans.
We refer to the authors of And Tango Makes Three, a book we've never read. Their letter appears in today's New York Times. We include its text in full:
Civil Disobedience Against Book Bans?
To the Editor:
Re “This Summer, I Became the Book-Banning Monster of Iowa,” by Bridgette Exman (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 3):
The writer is clearly no monster, and we appreciate how hurtful it must have been for her to be harshly criticized for removing books from school libraries. But as banned authors, we sympathize more deeply with Iowa’s children, who deserve better from school officials than their dutiful execution (however reluctant) of laws that violate fundamental human rights.
Those rights, including freedom of speech, depend on the actions of courageous citizens willing to take risks to defend them. Countless Americans—teachers, librarians and superintendents among them—are working bravely and creatively to resist the regressive tide of book banning today, and we owe them our deepest thanks.
Sharing in The Times that her actions pained her does little for Ms. Exman’s students or the authors whose books she removed, Toni Morrison and Alice Walker among them. Of course, it is human to protect one’s livelihood by following orders even when they violate one’s principles and the rights of others.
But it is not good enough. Children and authors, and the freedoms they rely on, need heroes.
Peter Parnell, Justin Richardson
New York
The writers are the authors of “And Tango Makes Three” and recently filed suit in Florida over the banning and restriction of their book in school libraries.
You're right! These authors haven't exactly advocated "civil disobedience" in reaction to these Florida "book bans." The headline seems to refer to a recommendation found in the third letter published by the Times on this topic today.
Is there anything about And Tango Makes Three which makes it inappropriate for use in a public school? More broadly, is any book ever inappropriate for such placement?
Needless to say, those are matters of judgment. Today, we call your attention to Aymann Ismail's account of what happened when he decided to peruse one of today's "banned books."
Ismail is a staff writer at Slate, a site which has increasingly moved toward sex-based "advice columns" pretty much all the time. The dumbing down of this particular site may serve as a warning to us within our blue silo, where we're strongly inclined to overstate how brilliant we actually are.
Ismail is a 34-year-old father of two. He graduated from Rutgers in 2011. You can read his new essay here. As of yesterday, it was summarized on Slate's front page in the manner shown:
I documenteded “book bans.” I thought they were hysteria. Then I opened one of the most controversial books.
Uh-oh! Long story short, Ismail had been in line with the tribal claim that modern-day "book bans" were just the latest form of hysteria on the part of those in the red tribe silo.
Then he persued one of the books which has most commonly been "banned." In this passage, he starts to describe his reaction to the book. Below, we'll call attention to one amusing point:
ISMAIL (9/11/23): There is no shortage of books being used to panic parents into protesting their local schools or libraries. Concerns over books like The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison and All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson are easy to shrug off, given how challengers contort themselves to argue that scenes involving sex are simultaneously promoting promiscuity. And it’s hard to believe that a child would accidentally stumble on certain hand-picked selections from novels that are hundreds of pages long.
It’s Perfectly Normal is harder to shrug away. It’s not difficult to see why this book has been an effective cudgel, both in recent years and practically since it was published: Its images are particularly blunt and graphic. That articles and social media posts about parents’ concerns over those cartoons have often blurred them out serves to prove their point. Earlier this year, a pastor in Asheville, North Carolina, made headlines after his mic was cut off during a school board meeting. “If you don’t want to hear it in a school board meeting, why should children be able to check it out of the school system?” he reportedly shouted...
I felt sure that as a 34-year-old father of two there would be nothing in there that would offend my sensibilities. I’d heard nothing but glowing reviews from sex-ed pros about the child-friendly language in the book. But flipping through the book’s pages finally, I was a little shocked...
Ismail goes on to describe his reactions to this frequently "banned" book. Along the way, he touches on an amusing point:
Often, newspapers which defend such books against blue tribe "bans" refuse to publish the parts of the books which have produced the complaints. This may "serve to prove [the book-banners'] point," Ismail wryly muses.
Summarizing, Ismail was surprised by his own reactions to It's Perfectly Normal, given his general prior stance concerning the "banning" of books. His sensibilities rose up to offend him in a way he hadn't expected.
A shocking possibility may lurk in this essay by Ismail. As we noted yesterday, that shocking possibility was recently voiced by Bill Maher, in the following way:
[Trump supporters] see him as the one thing that is standing between them and something even crazier. And there is a lot of Crazy on the left.
Those of us within our blue silo have railed at the Others with their incessant "book bans." But when Ismail perused this particular book, he found that he himself wasn't sure how he felt about its graphic contents.
Should this book be on the shelves of libraries in our public schools? We have no idea how to answer that question, but we'll make this suggestion:
In an age of cultural segregation—in an age when we the people frequently live in separate silos—it's easy denounce the Others for their racist / homophobic / transphobic ways.
(Or for being "Marxists," an assessment commonly tossed around on the comically awful Fox & Friends.)
Our blue tribe does that sort of thing all the time. Whatever we may end up deciding about some particular policy or book, it may be harder to consider the possibility that the Others may not be quite as crazy or evil or subhuman as we have instinctively claimed.
Bill Maher told Ari Melber that there's even a lot of crazy over here on the left! When people have started living in silos, that can sounds like a crazy idea in itself.
That said, we've seen a lot of backsliding by blue tribe members in recent days. Have some of the notions we have framed as we live in our own blue silo possibly been a bit overwrought? Is it possible that Maher was a tiny bit right?
Long ago and far way, someone razorcut Up in Michigan out of our public school textbook.
On balance, that decision may have been unwise.
That said, is it possible that residents of our own blue silo can overreact to such behaviors? Is it possible that we ourselves can end up being unhelpful, self-defeating? Can we end up being unwise in spite of our ballyhooed brilliance?
Tomorrow: Some liberals say they (almost) agree with DeSantis!
Maher is correct.
ReplyDeleteTrump voters DO see him as the one thing that is standing between them and something even crazier. And there is a lot of Crazy on the left. In particular, the Left's craziness about protecting the rights of the marginalized, is what they are standing with Trump against.
Protecting the rights of the marginalized, is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to the country being a meritocracy, in which straight white men aren't in the pole position.
DeleteTrump is standing between them, and that craziness from happening.
Bill Maher said a lot of dumb shit that night, and Ari Melber sat there like a potted plant.
DeleteI don't watch Maher. Does he mention his support for open borders, because he's a Libertarian?
DeleteIf so, how does that go over with his audience?
People who follow a leader who has only read Hitler's "greatest" speeches are ill-equipped to decide what children should read at school.
DeleteBill Maher thought Hillary was a castrating bitch so he decided to become a Republican. He seems to think that shacking up with a series of much younger women is a "relationship" and he is smug that he can send them packing whenever they get too uppity. Somerby might take relationship advice from Maher except he likes them a lot younger (see his essays on Malala and Anne Frank). Real girls are too spoiled and like dumb stuff like Barbie or a feminist interpretation of Little Women.
DeleteYes, I do see a lot of craziness on today's left. Here are two big ones:
Delete1. The idea that we can just impose a new, untried social and civil structure and assume it will work well. This includes defunding police departments and not prosecuting many crimes.
The result has been a disaster in many cities.
2. The idea that we don't need to evaluate a new social or legal structure by looking at its actual consequences.
This is why we continue to spend trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty without noticing that we're not ending poverty. If liberals looked at actual results they would demand tactics.
1. Straw man. The kinds of changes involved in reforming police have been tried several places and have proven track results. Exaggerating that into "defund" much less do away with policing, is not anything said on the left. No national politician called for defunding police, for example. The right said that about the left.
Delete2. Every bill funding a program in Congress is required to include an "evaluation" component. That is the study of results that makes sure the program is effective and was implemented as proposed. I know these exist because many of them are written by psychologists, who design the evaluation parts of the grant or contract before it is submitted for approval. The idea that the war on poverty was never evaluation and that no one knows whether it succeeded (or which parts succeeded) is wrong. This is another lie being told about the left by folks on the right. Not only do "liberals" look at results, but "academics" look at results, because it is part of their job.
The craziness that you see may be a mirage fed to you by right wing disinformation merchants. This is why reality is important -- it is the antidote to toxic right wing memes aka disinformation.
You, of course, won't believe even my first hand experience. It is very hard to disabuse motivated true believers of their cherished mistaken info.
I guess we can count on Bob chanting Bill Maher’s observation without examples for some time.
DeleteIn this life, you are apt to find some crazy pretty much anywhere you go.
But to site a rather obvious, recent example, Maher weird bowing and scraping before Elon Misk outcrazies anything I’ve seen on MSNBC, ever.
MSNBC’s coverage of Trump’s attempt to overthrow the Government is far from crazy, and with a few exceptions, they have hit it out of the park. Bob is a loser with a chip on his shoulder, an enteral child unable to face this critical story in any meaningful way.
@12:26 You're right about me not changing my mind. In fact, I have never ever encountered any commenter who changed his/her mind in one of these discussion sites.
DeleteI don't necessarily trust the experts, because one of their incentives is to see that their expertise continues to be in demand. How many studies have you seen where the conclusion is that more study is needed.
I also distrust the experts because I can see some results myself. Regardless of what the experts say, there is a huge increase in crime in San Francisco. Many stores are closing. Large numbers of people are living on the street.
As the joke goes, should I believe the experts or my own lying eyes?
The idea that a single study provides all the knowledge useful or needed on any topic is itself bizarre. The accumulation of knowledge is cumulative, building on those who came before, by design. Have you never had a science course?
DeleteI don't believe you stood on a street corner and systematically counted the crimes.
DeleteThere's one kind of expert that I believe: the actuary.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeleteDe0funding the police is the compromise position. Are you against compromises?
So if the left are in our silos, and Ari Melber (MSNBC) invited Bill Maher into our silos to attack the blue tribe, something is not jiving. I wonder if Bob can explain , it seems like Melber was not limiting his guests to blue tribe silo people.
ReplyDeleteYes. Bob’s counter arguments often come from the very vendors he is demonizing. Beyond that, before he went on Melber’s show. Where he did, let’s note, plug an upcoming stand up appearance, said MSNBC was a stupid waste of time.
DeleteI think the truth of the Silo trope is illustrated in the fact that anonymices find Somerby, Drum, and Maher as questionable outsiders, rather than blue tribesmen with some beefs.
DeleteCecelia, I would gladly ferment my silage with you.
DeleteCecelia,
DeleteThat's ridiculous.
How could Somerby, Drum and Maher be "questionable outsiders"?
They aren't even trans kids.
I’m certain they’re not kids.
DeleteTheir political beliefs are childish, however.
DeleteThey’re liberals.
DeleteSomerby never seems to understand that context matters -- context changes the meaning and interpretation of many kinds of events, of language, even of color perception. Human cognition is driven by context of many kinds, for the detection of threatening sounds up to the structure of a symphony's movements.
ReplyDeleteAn act taken in a certain context has a different meaning than one occurring in a different context. So Somerby doesn't recognize that hearing a sexual passage in a young adult book might be received differently in a school board meeting than in a young person's bedroom while reading, because the two contexts are entirely different, as are the purposes, the company (people) around you, the mood and thoughts experienced and so on. It is all entirely different. Trying to decide whether to ban a book based on whether you would want to read it at a school board meeting is utterly ridiculous as any kind of standard for evaluating whether that book might be good for a teen to read. That Somerby fails to recognize much less acknolwedge this shows why his essays here are so rarely worth reading any more.
Framing can win the argument. In this case, it's the use of the term "book ban" to describe what's really a question of who decides what books to have in the library. Try this quiz:
ReplyDeleteWhich of the following is a "book ban"?
A. The school librarian decides not to put book X in the school library.
B. The Principal decides not to allow book X in the school library.
C. The Board of Education responds to public pressure and decides not to put book X in the school library.
D. None of the above
The correct answer is D. Book X has not been banned. It can be purchased and it can be put in other public libraries. Anyone who has a copy is free to read it.
No, B and C are also inappropriate. School librarians are trained to select developmentally appropriate books for children. The others are not and would thus be using the wrong criteria to decide what should be there (such as political pressure, personal prudery, individual taste or nostalgia) and not the best interests of the children, since neither the principal nor the board have the training to do the librarian's job.
DeleteWhen a government-funded institution decides to make a book off-limits, that is a ban, even if some other library elsewhere has not banned it. There have always been those with access to books banned in the USA by the govt, among those who have European friends. So your definition doesn't hold up well. Parents should be allowed to forbid a child to read a specific book, but not anyone else, in my opinion, and I am glad you are not on my community's school board or administration.
David, you forgot to mention the Catholic Church index. It lists books and films that Catholics cannot experience and still take communion. Should a church be able to to do this? When I was a girl, we leant our copy of Peyton Place to our Catholic friends, with the dirty parts underlined, because that's what kids do when adults ban something.
How about "E", David, one single asshole from a rightwing astro turf PAC who doesn't even have a child in the school system, objects to a bunch of books on his list, and this book is immediately removed? How's that work?
DeleteThe Index was abolished in 1966.
DeleteNow you can probably guess my age. Do you think churches have given up telling their members which books are OK to read and which must be avoided?
DeleteThanks for a very well-written argument @12:10. You make a strong case for you POV. Here's where I disagree
DeleteWhen boss delegates a responsibility to a subordinate with expertise, the boss ought to let the expert use her expertise. But, the boss is still responsible for the result. If the subordinate makes a mistake, the boss needs to deal with it.
E.g., in a tennis match the linesperson has the best view of whether a shot is in or out. His/her decision should generally be followed. However, the chair umpire has overall responsibility. S/he's the boss. In the occasional situation where the umpire believes the linesperson was wrong, the umpire has the responsibility of overruling the linesperson.
"'School librarians are trained to select developmentally appropriate books for children."
DeleteHow reassuring such an objective standard exists. And that it applies, one supposes, uniformly at schools across the nation.
Librarians subscribe to journals that review new books and discuss relevant topics. There is some professional consensus.
DeleteDavid,
DeleteWeird. I've been told all my life by Right-wingers that "the media is liberal" just because the anchor or reporter reporting the news was liberal, even though the owners of the media are corporations with Conservative (i.e. cut corporate taxes) mindsets.
It's almost as if you are spending your days blowing-up Right-wing shibboleths, finally.
If you watched the US Open just last week or any other major tennis tournament, you would know that in and out line calls by humans are a thing of the past.
DeleteLately, Somerby has been passionately defending ignorance. He frequently says that he has no idea how to decide certain questions, how to form judgments. But not knowing how to answer the complaints on the right, doesn't make those right wingers correct in what they are saying. It just makes Somerby as ignorant as those he is currently defending.
ReplyDeleteIt seems odd to hear a former teacher who is now unwilling to advocate on behalf of education, but that is Somerby's stance. He doesn't think teachers should be helping kids to understand books. He thinks it is fine for them to abdicate responsibility when it comes to helping kids reason through their questions about life. He seems to have bought into the meme of education as indoctrination, not education as process, a journey that a child makes with an adult as a guide and support.
Somerby has apparently chosen to join the ranks of the stupid, urging the rest of our society to leave ignorant people alone in their misconceptions and letting them damage whatever their ignorance touches should they acquire the mistaken notion that knowledge is bad or that learning hurts, or that knowing facts is evil. Because too many people on the right think exactly those things.
I am an educator too. I am still willing to help people learn and struggle with their understandings. I am not willing to agree with Somerby that nobody knows anything for sure, that expertise is a fraud perpetrated on the public in order to control their behavior, that science and discovery is bad for our world because it looks took much like witchcraft or satanic worship, or that two things that seem like they could be related must actually be related and that if a theory makes sense (or doesn't), it must be true if you can conceive of it, because why would those things be connected if they were not related? (As someone said yesterday -- why would it be called Wuhan flu if it didn't come from that Wuhan lab? They both have the same name.
Somerby refuses to defend truth, knowledge, expertise, facts, skill, wisdom, experience, logic and reason. He claims the whole human race lacks any of these things, so it is all a waste of time, and those on the left who disagree with this nihilism are just as wrong as those on the right who would prefer to ignore the ways we have of knowing reality. Somerby has joined the dark side, and it isn't the blue tribe.
Democrats can’t take voters of color for granted or assume that anti-bigotry rhetoric is a bulwark against losing their support.
Delete"Somerby doesn't think teachers should be helping kids to understand books."
DeleteAnd you, dear commenter, don't know how to read.
"Somerby refuses to defend truth, knowledge, expertise, facts, skill, wisdom, experience, logic and reason. He claims the whole human race lacks any of these things"
DeleteYou seem to be earnest and sincere, so I hate to break it to you, but this is crazy-talk.
Dogface,
DeleteDon't hate to break it to the lucky bastard. There's boatloads of grift to be made on the Right with crazy-talk. We should all be lucky enough to talk crazy and have no shame about it.
Dogface, I am quoting Somerby. He has many times lamented that the human race cannot reason. Why can't you trolls learn to use the TDH search function. It is a box at the top of the page. You put in what you want to explore and it shows you all the posts where Somerby has discussed that topic. Like magic only real.
DeleteFine. You assert that Somerby claims that "the whole human race lacks knowledge." With your superior expertise with the search function, please support your assertion with a citation from Somerby where he makes this purported claim - or, in decency, retract your assertion.
DeleteWhile you're at it, why don't you cite something from Somerby that supports your accusation that Somerby claims that "science and discovery is bad for our world because it looks too much like witchcraft or satanic worship."
DeleteOr, possibly, you're just making these accusations up?
George they are trolling your ass.
DeleteIt stops around 6:00 p.m. when they take the iPads away from the patients at the insane asylum.
DeleteActually it sounds like the trolls have a life.
DeleteI guess we can assume that Somerby didn't read Tropic of Cancer when he was at Harvard. But I do have to ask what the nuns did to Somerby before he left Boston. He was always kind of prudish about women comedians with potty mouths, but when did he become Church Lady?
ReplyDeleteI read Henry Miller when I was in college. However, a book that's OK for a college student might not be appropriate for an elementary school student.
DeleteThat particular book was banned at the time you were in college. That meant it was considered unsuitable for EVERYONE. Is that experience what warped you and turned you away from being a reasonable person and made you conservative, or was it becoming an actuary that did that?
DeleteVisiting Germany in 1963 changed my mind. WQest Berlin was a booming metropolis. East Berlin was downtrodden town. Many of the buildings still had WW2 damage. I had been trained to believe that Communism and capitalism both had some virtues. Berlin taught me that capitalism works and communism doesn't work.
Deletethat wasn't communism, David, that was Stalinism. But you support authoritarianism, so it evidently had no real effect on you.
DeleteAnd there's no irony at all having a member of the new pro-censorship establishment left throw out an accusation of supporting authoritarianism!
DeleteWhat was that about every accusation is a...
I've been to East Germany (including Berlin) in 1970s, and it was perfectly fine. Well, true, no whorehouses or casinos, so not exactly "booming".
DeleteIncidentally, so-called "ostalgie" is apparently still a relatively common sentiment there.
take your pro-censorship and shove it up your ass, Boris.
Delete2:21,
DeleteThe saying is, "Every Right-wing accusation doesn't cover-up the fact they want women to be 2nd class citizens."
You're welcome.
Nice dodge.
DeleteReading "you're welcome" in this context reminds me of a guy that came over with my best friend's wife's friend. He was making us nervous that night, a bit too drunk and being inappropriate.
We played some trivia and when he was the only one that new an answer, he posed, basking in his own magnificence, and said "You're welcome."
When he left with the girl, we were all worried he might sexual assult her. She was a bit drunk too.
Luckily, it turned out okay and he gave her a ride home without incident. But she said he was a creep and cut ties with him.
3:21 they don't know yet they are supporting a regime of authoritarianism and censorship.
Delete221
DeleteYou’re welcome.
Delete3:28,
DeleteSounds woke.
Fun game to try at home with these comments:
ReplyDeleteFigure out what's projection, what's gaslighting, and what is simply empty rhetoric. Separate all that out and look at what's left. Anything? In fairness, there is just a tiny bit.
David in Cal - this does not apply to your comments
DeleteIn regards to “it’s perfectly normal”:
ReplyDeleteIt’s certainly clear why a book with pictures of genitals would offend kids…after all, they don’t have genitals, do they?
(Can Republicans answer this question correctly?)
Apparently, kids should never see the genitalia that they have in their bodies depicted in a book. Shocking!
I’d much rather they read the “Hagiography of Kyle Rittenhouse: Why Blowing Their Heads Off Feels So Good” (for ages 6 months and up).
Lost in a fog of nonsense
DeleteUnmoored by rationality
Triggered and sarcastic
But not looking for a lighthouse
There’s a perfectly valid point that you failed to address. Why should a book that intends to discuss one’s body parts and sexuality for the purpose of education be offensive to anyone, including kids, who are well aware of their own genitalia and sexual urges? It’s the old notion that sex and sexuality and one’s own body should be shameful.
DeleteAnd, on the flip side, stories of violence and the glorification of guns don’t often get banned by these same people who want to purportedly “protect the children.”
Such a passionate advocacy for sexualizing the children.
DeleteDidn't you hear the news from Sigmund Freud? Children are born sexual beings. Sexualizing them consists of dressing them in adult female drag in order to participate in Little Miss beauty contests as toddlers. They get sexualized AND learn the thrill of defeat while their anxious moms hover in the background.
DeleteYou fucking hypocrites!
Is that the latest news from your silo's Sigmund?
DeleteMen should also be prevented from seeing all porn, especially that degrading to women. They won’t stay away on their own so we must “protect” them from seeing it, right David? Most women would agree, so that would make it ok, right?
Delete2nd Graders are too young to read books explaining that late-stage Capitalism inevitably leads to Fascism.
ReplyDeleteSo, two nominations for "Best Comment of the Day!" This one, and Anon 2:23 ("Fun game - projection, gaslighting, or rhetoric?"). Cast your vote!
DeleteI will now list the states with the highest teen birth rate:
ReplyDeleteArkansas
Mississippi
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Alabama
Kentucky
Tennessee
West Virginia
Texas
My home state finally comes in first in something!
I don’t think banning books like “it’s perfectly normal” is going to solve this red state problem, assuming this book was ever available in any school libraries in any of those states.
But right wingers love to take empty performative actions to “own the libs”, rather than actually solve the problem.
And left wingers, or more properly the new establishment left, never ever waste time deriding "the cons." They move forward with policy agenda. Bravely willing to find common ground.
DeleteOr wait that was in my dream...
That's right.
It's Trump Trump jail jail.
And look at what that fool MTG did.
Trump Trump jail is MSNBC (according to Somerby), not left wingers.
DeleteAnd the “cons” (a misnomer, let’s just say “Republicans Party”) deserve all the scorn they can possibly get, regardless of your opinion of “new establishment left” or whatever label you like to inappropriately apply.
DeleteMy favorite "owning the libs" moment is when they replied to BLM with "All Lives Matter". Central American refugees heard them, and thought they were making a good faith statement (yeah, I know), and went to our Souther border en masse.
DeleteGood times!
The best commenter on this blog is David in Cal.
ReplyDeleteSigned, David in Cal
DeleteThe right wing calls it censorship and complains that we will ALL lose our freedom, just because the White House asked Twitter to take down all those Hunter Biden dick pics that Steve Bannon's friend, Guo Wengui paid to spread all over the internet. Revenge porn is not protected by the first amendment, assholes.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/hunter-biden-threatens-to-sue-steve-bannon-and-exiled-mogul-guo-wengui/
It sucks that Biden dropped the ball on North Korea and is losing Africa and it was pretty embarrassing how Saudi Arabia owned his ass. But that's Trump's fault. Plus Biden orders ice cream with aviator sunglasses. I find that really appealing as a voter. The foreign policy disasters aren't his fault.
ReplyDeleteHard to misplace a whole continent. Are you aware the age of colonialism was over a century ago?
DeleteA century ago, the colonial empires were at the height of their glory.
DeleteMass gatherings did not affect COVID cases, deaths, or epidemic transmissibility across 700 gatherings in 2020-21, including for US primary elections, GA special election, NJ & VA elections, Donald Trump’s political rallies, & Black Lives Matter protests
ReplyDeleteSource:
https://nature.com/articles/s4156
https://t.co/5XXCdubgUp
DeleteSome things are learned from experience. Aren’t you glad someone stupied that so you don’t have to risk your life on it?
DeleteI wish you would stupy.
DeleteWar on Gore.
ReplyDelete