DeSantis vs Newsome

Many, many kids don’t have access to public libraries. As you know, practically every kid who has a computer or a smartphone will be able to find all kinds of stuff that will make all of us blush. Parents and lawmakers who tell other parents what books they can read from the school library are full of shit.

 

Let's just get this straight, you want to deny children access to books in school libraries because they can access them at public libraries that may or may not be close to where they live? Do you think this is actually a good argument in favor of banning books from schools?

Are we talking about classroom instruction or books being available in school libraries? It would help if you'd make up your mind. They are separate issues.

 

Two Words: Richard Nixon

 

His argument is also coming from a place of privilege. What if a kid is in foster care? Homeless? Many of you would be shocked at the number kids that attend Florida public schools that are homeless/impoverished. The school library can be a lifeline for these students.

 

"Ban" refers to the the revocation of the standard purview of professional librarians in terms of what is in a library and utilizing government to specifically forbid certain products. In this case, the books in a library is usually the purview of the professional librarian put in charge of the library. The governor, school board, or other political bodies do not generally spend time deciding which books in particular to carry versus not carry, as that would take up the vast majority of their time given the numbers you provided. Instead, they delegate that task, properly, to a professional with expertise on the topic, a librarian. In these instances, the government officials have decided to ban the book by not allowing the professional to make their decision about the proper library materials for the library that they manage.

 

As you know, practically every kid has access to all kinds of dangerous narcotics that will make all of us blush. Parents and lawmakers who tell other parents what drugs they can take are full of shit.

At least in your scenario, practically every kid has online access to the books gator_lawyer and others fear have been "banned." Good to know.

 

Just so we're clear, you are in favor of a book like Gender Queer being in an elementary school library if the "professional librarian" deems it ok?

 

Can you point me to the elementary school library that had that particular book available? Or is this an entirely hypothetical that you just made up?

 

No more moving goalposts or nuances.
1. There are people who write sexually explicit books/guides catering to children using simple language and cartoon figures of children to demonstrate sex acts. (Note: advertisers are prohibited from marketing alcohol and tobacco to minors - granted they find creative ways around that.)

2. There are publishers who pay for these books/guides to sell to schools and online.

3. There are strict laws against child pornography. Just ask the sad excuses of men caught with child porn on their computers.

4. There is a small contingent of our population who believes making these books/guides available to children and/or instructed on them in school is a good idea.

5. There is a much larger contingent of our population who believes that the subject material is inappropriate and should not be exposed to children, or worse given instructions about same by someone other than a parent.

There are no book-burning events happening - heaven knows, the environmentalists would shut those down due to the carbon emissions. To the extent certain books have been "banned" for undeserved reasons (e.g. Toni Morrison), I'm happy to lend my voice to correct that error. But we all know those are diversionary discussions. Do you want kids to be taught explicit sexual materials at elementary age, or not? If you don't, then what's the harm. If you do, what's your problem and why do you believe you can impose your values (or lack thereof) on others.

 

Are you going to answer the question or keep trying to avoid going on record?

Books including 'Gender Queer' being pulled from schools, sparking controversy

 

I notice a lack of elementary schools in that link. Is that because you couldn't find one that actually included that particular book? I will answer your question as soon as you provide either an example of what you discussed or admit that you just made it up as a hypothetical.

 

Wait, so if it was never there in the first place why complain about a book being banned? That doesn't make any sense. So you are too scared to answer. Got it. Shocking...

 

They should add Santos to these ridiculous debates. Would be far more entertaining

 

So are you going to provide an example or admit it was hypothetical?

 

So you won't answer the question. Shocking.

 

That was the debate in a nutshell.

If I'm going to be critical of both, Ron DeSantis looks a little too artificial with the facial expressions and he resorts to the typical political grandstanding and talking points that you always see in these debates. Nothing new, but his expressions should be a little more organic and a little less scripted.

Newsom on the other hand relied almost entirely on trying to control the conversation, raising issues unrelated to the question asked or argument presented by DeSantis, backing up his assertions with straight up false information, then playing the victim when DeSantis attacks the governing of California as though that wasn't the purpose of the whole damned debate, and as though Newsom himself didn't just do the same thing with respect to the governing of Florida.

Newsom has a lot in common with Trump in that it's just impossible to argue with him. You can't argue with someone who won't answer questions, won't respond to the topic, and builds all of his arguments on the stage on assertions that amount to a house of cards which he expected both Hannity and DeSantis to just accept as undisputed fact. Then, smirk and act like he did something impressive when all he did was feed the viewers a bunch of bullshit with confidence.

 

Even though I mostly stay out of this debate, I will answer. Banning is the centralizing of government power. Banning is creating new BIG GOV laws at the state level. It is impowering centralized government. Further, it is doing it, where no real problem existed. Parents have recourse w/o state laws to address virtually every issue in schools without having to get Tally or Denver pols involved.


So, bans create new laws, diminish local power & centralize power. We already had librarians, principals & school boards who could make a call & parents who could go to their kid's school & address books they think are inappropriate. They may not get their grievances addressed every time, but that's life. I've no doubt I could've gone to Olander Elem. & said, Hey Principal, there's a book in your library & I think it is too _______ for my kid, could you consider putting behind the counter & allow it to be checked out only with parental permission? He'd've done it. No big gov. reasonable people solving minor issues with no new consolidation of power.

An absolute pillar of conservatism is decentralization of power; matching decision rights with the parties best informed for exercising the decision.

& all the prohibition happy CINOs are IMO being performative, VERY myopic & manufacturing problems & creating new laws & bureaucracies were they are not needed.

Oh, & I love the ole BIG GOV whine, what, you think it is appropriate to talk sex in kindergartens? The BS tactic of labeling people who don't support BIG GOV prohibition as supporters of the activity is dumb.

 

How's Gavin polling in the Presidential race?

It's a lot easier to take cheap shots from the sidelines.

 

Something maybe most of us can agree on - after seeing that debate probably no one wants either as president or even running.

 

Florida residents are still subject to federal law.

Felons can also easily obtain them in California if they really wanted to. That's the point. If you're willing to break the law to get a gun in a country with more guns than people, it's going to be pretty difficult to stop you.

That's the rebuttal I hear with Chicago all the time. "It's because the guns are imported to Chicago."