Re: Why Worry About The Economy When I Can Worry About This

**mp40x** · 01-29-2010, 10:26 AM

Why even read books anymore, they won't help you get a spot on the next hit reality TV series. We should just close down all the public school libraries, remove all the books, and turn them into karaoke lounges. The books could be sold to countries around the world who waste their time on educating their children, idiots, they just don't get it. The schools could even get corporate sponsorship for the new "Education Free Zones", once called libraries. Instead of having a librarian you could have Ronald McDonald, who would be responsible for directing the children into "areas of greater concern", instead of education. The local school districts could use the money to hire more worthless teachers and build more useless school board buildings. MTV Networks could run the new "karaoke lounges" to prepare the children for matters of more greater importance in life, such as who will be the next American Idol sensation. Simon Cowell could act as the next "Higher Education Czar", he would be responsible for the new "War on Education". Instead of having a reality show like Cartoon Networks "My Dad's a Pro" -this is where they follow children around who have dads that are professional athletes- you could have "My Dad's a Hoe". This is where you follow around the children of John Edwards and Tiger Woods examining what it takes to disgrace yourself and your family, then profit from it. Because you just know that both of those guys will write books at some point, even further humiliating their children. You could change the slogan from "No Child Left Behind" to "No Dollar Left Behind". Ahhhh, I can only dream. I suspect the kid in this video did not spend a lot of time reading books in the library, although he is talented in his own special way.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZsML4uWoiw[/media]

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-06-2010, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dredge

Whats next? Banning store recipts because little johnny got $0.69 back for the gum he bought?

My boss likes to work "69" into all our prices. I was thinking about using it in every software version number.

It kinda reminds me of this letter from the Guvernator:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...chwarzenegger/

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-06-2010, 02:51 PM

North Carolina wants to pretend the Founding never happened, by starting US history with 1877:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/...ever-happened/

**Lorelei** · 02-06-2010, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by SilentSunshine

Can we maybe get the firemen to start burning the explicit dictionaries?

Fahrenheit 451, anyone?

**Sir-Nerd** · 02-06-2010, 11:06 PM

"Always beware of book burners, they are truly evil."
-My Dad

We have a strict "No Censor" policy in the local library. As long as the material (usually movies) do not qualify as pornography, anyone can rent the material. We have high school students with sketchpads full of nude drawings since we have a building dedicated to the beauty of nudity, where people model all day and anyone is welcome to draw them. Censorship is basically non existent as long as no one is harmed. Anyone who would try to pull this in our school district would be eaten alive by the community.

**sordavie** · 02-06-2010, 11:42 PM

How can there be a strict no censor policy if some stuff is being censored? haha

By the way, Bradbury has clarified numerous times that his novel isn't about censorship, but about what he felt were the deteriorating effects of TV and mass media on reading. The state is not the bad guy in Fahrenheit 451; the people are.

Not all censorship is bad. I take it, and I hope everyone here would agree, that censorship of child pornography is a good thing. Military censorship is often necessary to achieve victory.

**Lorelei** · 02-07-2010, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by sordavie

By the way, Bradbury has clarified numerous times that his novel isn't about censorship, but about what he felt were the deteriorating effects of TV and mass media on reading. The state is not the bad guy in Fahrenheit 451; the people are.

Oh no no, I was merely commenting on firefighters burning books. But as you put it that way, his theory applies here as well. The dictionary is not the bad guy, the people banning it are. ^_^

**SilentSunshine** · 02-07-2010, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by sordavie

The state is not the bad guy in Fahrenheit 451; the people are.

Yes, just like Lorelei said. I was merely invoking two of my favored dystopias. And, in the United States of America, is not the state to represent the people?

@ Scratch - that article says the public high school curriculum for seniors may begin in 1877, therefore the included statement, "It will be as if the American Founding never happened," is only applicable if children don't attend or learn anything in grades K-8 about the nation's founding. I certainly don't think eliminating the redundancy a good thing, though.

**sordavie** · 02-07-2010, 12:41 AM

I'm not sure who asserted that the dictionary is a bad guy, and I'm not sure that Bradbury's idea applies here in the way you're thinking it does - whatever you think his theory is... But, yes, the people putting pressure on the school board banning the book are bad. But of course, we are collectively the people in Bradbury's eyes - too diverse and too interested in "factoids," resulting in a campaign against literature.

Apparently Bradbury thought that diversity is a bad thing for society since it, along with TV, somehow dilute our thought.

http://www.laweekly.com/2007-05-31/n...isinterpreted/

But while I feel some of the force of Bradbury's ideas (though I don't think he's right), I don't think that's what happened in this case. This dictionary story is a case of classic conservative moral censorship - not the kind that Bradbury imagines that's the result of an American society that's fixated on TV.

**sordavie** · 02-07-2010, 12:53 AM

Even if it is the case that the state represents the people, one can surely make the distinction between the state and the people. The top hat represents me in the game of monopoly, but I hope you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking the top hat is identical to me. After all, the top hat is made of metal, it is only half an inch tall, it's not living, it has no consciousness, whereas I am not made of metal, I am far taller than half an inch, I am living, and I am conscious. The politicians I help elect represent me within the state in some way, but they are not identical to me.

Apparently Bradbury imagined the society in Fahrenheit 451 to be a democratic society - though perhaps only procedural or formal due to too much diversity and every group being a minority. In the story, it's the people who are the source of the problem not the state, unlike Orwell's 1984. In the latter case, it was the totalitarian state that was the cause of the problem in the story.

This is all according to the author himself. I don't take credit for this interpretation. But given that it's coming from the horse's mouth, surely it should be given credibility as the correct interpretation of Fahrenheit 451.

**SilentSunshine** · 02-07-2010, 01:13 AM

I don't always take the complete context, with the author's thoughts on the text, into account before I make references to them. OK? lol. Nor do I take articles written about the texts and their author's thoughts as complete fact. I like taking pieces of what I've personally gained from them all and, on occasion, meshing ideas from contrasting quarters into something mirroring reality.

It could be easy to mistake you as the top-hat in Monopoly... for you have the brains to fill one, I should say.

Really, I know what you mean. There certainly is distinction in form, etc. But, if the people of a district don't want their children reading certain passages from a common book and they have their local authorities remove them, you can take your pick as to who to blame. I would say both.

**sordavie** · 02-07-2010, 01:18 AM

uh, whatever you say

**Lorelei** · 02-07-2010, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by sordavie

I'm not sure who asserted that the dictionary is a bad guy, and I'm not sure that Bradbury's idea applies here in the way you're thinking it does - whatever you think his theory is... But, yes, the people putting pressure on the school board banning the book are bad. But of course, we are collectively the people in Bradbury's eyes - too diverse and too interested in "factoids," resulting in a campaign against literature.

Apparently Bradbury thought that diversity is a bad thing for society since it, along with TV, somehow dilute our thought.

http://www.laweekly.com/2007-05-31/n...isinterpreted/

But while I feel some of the force of Bradbury's ideas (though I don't think he's right), I don't think that's what happened in this case. This dictionary story is a case of classic conservative moral censorship - not the kind that Bradbury imagines that's the result of an American society that's fixated on TV.

I think you're reading more into my comment then was intended. Fahrenheit 451 was about firefighters that burn books. Someone made a comment about firefighters burning books. And this being a thread about censorship (particularly towards a book), I found it amusing that such a comment was made and a book reference fit so perfectly. I wasn't referring to the meaning behind Fahrenheit 451. I wasn't referring to why firefighters in the book burned the books. Just the obvious fact that they burn them. ^_^

No harm no foul.

**sordavie** · 02-07-2010, 02:24 PM

I thought that the reference was intentionally made to Fahrenheit 451 in the first place. The comment was made about firefighters burning books was in reference to the book.

**DrunkenPirate** · 02-07-2010, 02:26 PM

Why don't we just ban all knowledge? It's not like you really need to learn anything is it?

Thread Tools

Display