Skip to main content

June

   So I have spent the last few days thinking about writing a blog post, but I have so many things going around in my head, I was having trouble deciding on just one.  Today, I decided to just start writing and see what comes out.  It may very well be word vomit, and for that I apologize.

  I wanted to talk about banning books.  We seemed to have become very confused on what exactly banning books means.  Refusing to stock sexually explicit books in an elementary school is not banning books, especially if you can go on Amazon and order that book and have it delivered to you the next day.  I spent most of my life in conservative Christian schools.  And yet, from 6th grade on, I developed an intense fascination with the writer, John Saul.  He wrote horror books.  I also really had a thing for the Sweet Valley High books (yes, my tastes were all over the map.)  Neither one of those books could be found in my Christian School library, but somehow I managed to read them all.  They were effectively "banned" in my school, but they weren't banned in general society.  As a matter of fact, most of them were available at my public library.  There are a bunch of books I can't get at my public library, because they have been shouted down by people who don't want others to read them, but I can still get them on Amazon if I really want to read them.  My point?  Not allowing sexually explicit books in a school library is not banning books.  It's simply not allowing them in a single space, a space where a kid can check out a book, never bring it home, and the parents will never know.  I'm a big proponent of parents ... you know...parenting their kids.  My mom let me read John Saul, and I'm grateful for that, because I really loved his books.  In turn, when the Christian Schools were banning Harry Potter (I still don't get that), I let my kids read them all.  I was parenting, my way.  Not the way anyone else wanted me to.  Schools do not take the place of parents, and sexually explicit material doesn't belong in the hands of elementary aged school kids if their parents don't approve.

  When did we start forcing kids to participate in events that may contradict the way their parents are raising them.  We can disagree with how certain parents raise their children, but they aren't our children, and we don't get dictate how they are raised.  Due to the occasionally explicit content that can be seen at Pride parades, I would never take my elementary aged child to one.  However, if some other parent wants to do that, it's none of my business.  But what if I don't think my kid should be forced to wear rainbows and celebrate pride?  Now I'm a bigot?  Look, I don't care what you do in your bedroom.  That's between you and God.  And if you want to dress up like a woman, or a man, because you feel like you are in the wrong body, I'm not gonna tell you can't.  But I also don't really think I need to celebrate that.  And I don't think kids should be forced to either.  We've gone from equal rights to "we get a whole month where celebration is compulsory and if you don't, then you are the worst human being on the planet".   I read the other day from a person on one of my social media accounts "I wish all you homophobes the most uncomfortable month."  But you see, because I'm not dressing in rainbows and bowing down to the LGBTQ+ gods, I'm a homophobe.  Never mind that I have never treated any person in that group badly, ever.  Nor would I, since it kind of goes against my belief system.  I'm not having an uncomfortable month, sorry.  I think it's all a little bit overkill.  Honestly, if you, as a straight person, have to post some affirming message to the LGBTQ+ community on social media every day to prove you love them, I'd suggest the problem is with you.  Me?  I treat all people the same, every day of the year, and I kinda think most of them are more than okay with that.  And if they aren't?  Sorry?  But let's stop forcing people to celebrate or be branded intolerant.  I'm sure many people would not approve of certain aspects of my life, but as long as they treat me as a human being, I'm good with that.  And let's stop forcing kids to celebrate as if that will make them more tolerant.  Remeber when you were a kid how you felt about your parents and school forcing you to do things... and if it made you more tolerant of those things.  

  I guess where I'm really going with this is why can't we just live and let live.  Why do I need to make you feel better about the things you do in your life?  I'm not asking you to make me feel better about the things I do in mine.  And honestly, why should you care?  If you are happy, if you are loved, if you are afforded the opportunity to achieve your dreams, why do you care what your next door neighbor thinks? (Maybe, if you met my next door neighbor, you would understand why I don't give two craps what she thinks, but that's a story for another day.)  Why do you feel the need to not only be accepted, but also to be celebrated, and to have everyone participate in your lifestyle?  Just go be happy.   And stop caring about what everyone thinks.  Trust me, life is so much better that way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Taking Down of a Soundbite.

I saw this cartoon this morning on Facebook, and I thought "wow, what a bunch of fallacies."  This cartoon embodies the majority of Democratic Talking Points since 2008 (with a notable absence of the "War on Women" theme... hmm... wonder why).  The thing with this cartoon is, many of these arguments can't be boiled down into signs.  They aren't bumper sticker slogans.  They are real issues, with much deeper thought processes.  I'm going to take just a few. 1) We want dirtier air and water so CEO's can make more money. This issue has to do with the Environment.  It stems from things like the Kyoto Protocol, and various other internationally pushed treaties to help prevent Global Warming, er um... sorry, Climate Change.  Recently our President made a deal with China, whereby we cut our Greenhouse Gas Emissions, while they commit to maybe, possibly, making changes 20 years down the road.  The problem with all of these solutions is that they cost

When Feelings (and apparently Justices) Don't Need Facts

I have a few questions about the vaccine mandate that no one seems to be able to answer.  The mandate makes little sense to me, because of these questions. If those who want to be vaccinated, are vaccinated, and the vaccines effectively protect against serious illness and death in most cases, then what is the compelling interest in forcing the vaccine on people who don't want it?   We now know (despite previous statements to the contrary) that the COVID-19 vaccine does not prevent a person from catching and spreading the virus.  If you need proof of that, look to major sports in the US.  Despite the vast majority of players being vaccinated, COVID has spread like wildfire through the ranks of the NBA, NFL and NHL.  It got so bad in the NFL that they changed their policies. So, if a vaccinated person can spread and catch the virus, how exactly does the mandate protect anyone?   Does the mandate violate equal protection under the law by requiring vaccine mandates for business with 10

Observations 10-26

I generally stick to writing my own stuff, not posting the writing of other people. My whole point in having a blog is to have my voice heard. Maybe that's a little narcissistic. You will have to decide. I have, however, decided to have a feature in this blog called Observations, where I take something I've read, and share it with you. Then I'll make my own comments. (I can't not comment. It will kill me haha.) So, from this morning's reading: From Mary Mapes's monster Share Post Print October 26, 2008 Posted by Scott at 7:04 AM In 2004 Mary Mapes was the celebrated CBS News producer responsible for stories that had won her the recognition of her peers. In September that year she produced Dan Rather's 60 Minutes II report on President Bush's military service that was exposed as fraudulent the following day. CBS commissioned an internal investigation (the Thornburgh-Boccardi report) demonstrating in detail