stackan

TwinCities.com

Vikings improve to 8-1 with win over Detroit

Yeah, me too. That Buchanan must be pretty fast himself. One of the best things to watch about AP is his acceleration.  (Monday Nov 16 | post #141)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

Look you knucklehead, no one is saying these books should not be available. As I suggested in my first post, perhaps making a restricted list of controversial books THAT PARENTS COULD GIVE THEIR OWN CHILDREN PERMISSION TO READ would be a good solution. Ergo, all the 'rights' screamers could allow their children access and wouldn't feel violated in any way. Good points about selecting which books- I agree that it would be difficult. But that could be left up to individual libraries. After all, even the supreme court couldn't define pornography. This might surprise you, but I am a firm believer in individual rights. In fact, I think everything should be legal-drugs,et al- as long as your imbibing doesn't interfere with MY rights. But I also believe we need to do a better job as a nation raising our kids. An 'anything goes' mentality has crept into our culture, to our detriment as a society. Parents cannot do it all, all the time. There has to be a sense of community, where certain behaviors are not tolerated, and deviant behavior can be corrected no matter the parents are not around. If my kid was misbehaving in public, I'd EXPECT an adult to jump in and say hey! stop that nonsense and straighten up. Or is that censorship of behavior, and thus against the kid's rights? See, to me this is not about censorship at all. It's about protecting children.  (Monday Nov 16 | post #40)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

Well, I guess you chose the right moniker! Let me put this in simpler terms for you. Children are NOT adults. They don't enjoy the same 'rights' as adults in America. This is by design, so that we try and protect them until they mature and THEN they are allowed to make bad decisions . If an adult has access to something, but a child does not, it is NOT CENSORSHIP. It is child protection. The library board did nothing, thereby possibly being in violation of the law vis-a-vis child protection. Cook does not want censorship, she does want to protect children. The library board did NOTHING- not even dialog with local citizens. Faced with a choice of protecting children, or doing nothing, Cook acted in the best way she could (check out the book indefinitely or destroy it) She chose to preserve the work of art, while protecting children. I applaud her, and denounce the aloof library board.  (Monday Nov 16 | post #34)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

PS http://wiki.answer s.com/Q/Who_said_' Evil_will_prevail_ when_good_men_do_n othing' The Quote has been misattributed to Burke.  (Monday Nov 16 | post #33)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

My goodness. Yes, I UNDERSTAND that the course of action she took was IN EFFECT censorship because no one had access to the book. At the same time, it was IN EFFECT the protection of minors. What the problem is, is that the library board did not respond to her entreaties, doing nothing- not even allowing dialog with local parents. Cook was forced to her action by her conviction to protect children, this was the ONLY course of action left to her (other than destroying the book). I believe her when she states she is against censorship, and made this decision with reluctance, rather than ruin the book. What we have here is a clash of two ideals- mutually exclusive- and I think Cook made the right decision with her limited choices. Do something or do nothing. It's the library board that was the cause of the problem for doing nothing. This could all have been avoided if they had, for example, held a forum for the community to discuss the issue. Since they took the easy way out and did NOTHING, I applaud Cook for standing up for her convictions. Try this analogy- a loved one of yours has a serious accident and needs medical attention IMMEDIATELY. You now have a choice, follow the speeding laws and drive sedately to the hospital- or drive quickly breaking the law but in order to save a life. The choice is mutually exclusive. You drive slow, the beloved dies. In such a case you would willingly break the law to achieve a greater good. Did you speed? Technically yes, but it was not frivolous and should be forgiven. Did Cook practice censorship? Technically yes, but not because she WANTED to, she had a higher goal in sight. She wants the book to be available for adults, just not children!  (Monday Nov 16 | post #32)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

Jeez, you're just wrong on EVERYTHING today. She was not trying to keep the book from everybody, just minors. She states IN THE ARTICLE that she is against censorship! But her only course of action to keep the book out of immature hands was to check it out indefinitely. (or ruin it) That's not what she WANTED to do, it's what she HAD to do. And I believe I am correct in attributing the quote. Edmund Burke did NOT make this statement.  (Sunday Nov 15 | post #28)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

No, the point here is that the easy recourse is to do nothing. Anyone can do that. But it takes gumption to take an unpopular stand. But I guess I could make the argument that the corruption of minors is evil. After all, it is against the law...  (Sunday Nov 15 | post #27)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

Sorry- I think you are missing the point. If we don't think kids should be exposed to explicit material, what good does it do to have it available at the library? Kids shouldn't be allowed access to alcohol and tobacco. You're saying that stores should be allowed to sell to minors, and that parents are ultimately responsible. NEGATIVE. Just like the prohibition on minors, libraries should be able to deny access of questionable materials to youngsters on a tiered system. This is NOT censorship- if adults are allowed access. Is it a denial of rights to refuse a 13-yr old a driver's license? NO, kids are not adults, and are not accorded full status as citizens. I said nothing about the 'government' providing the moral compass- although I guess community standards could be construed as government. But I did suggest that parents be given control over what their kids could read- the caveat being that they get informed BEFORE the fact. Doesn't do much good to get upset that the library was forced to give your kid porn just cause the kid wanted to see it, and nobody had the common sense to say 'No son, you're too immature for that material right now- come back when you're an adult' What strikes me is the attitudes of most of the comments, saying Cook didn't have the 'right' to do what she did. Well, let me ask this- when someone is convinced they are right, and are left no recourse... what does one do? Most of us take the easy way out and do nothing. But a few brave souls stand up for their principles and take actions unpopular with the rest of us sheep, at least at the time. Look at Muhammed Ali and his stand against the Vietnam war. The vitriol he was subjected to! But he was right, and did what his principles guided- even though it was against the 'law'. I think Cook did the right thing in light of the circumstances. This was a reasoned, thought out decision- not a ' well,I don't like it so nobody else should read it' selfish attitude. The real story here to me is the library administration. They are the knuckleheads that forced Cook to this action, and then fired her. Those are the guys that should be the subject of the article.....  (Sunday Nov 15 | post #26)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

Cook tried to have something done by going through proper channels, but the library administration didn't do anything- so she was left between a rock and a hard place. She is not stupid by any means. She is principled, with more character than you will ever have with that attitude. Yeah, just do the easy thing which is nothing. "'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men fail to act" - Neitzche'  (Sunday Nov 15 | post #22)

TwinCities.com

Vikings improve to 8-1 with win over Detroit

Thanks BGBDWOLF. Launching!? Don'tcha have to make contact for a penalty to be called? Otherwise, if INTENT is is considered, well, I INTENDED to make that touchdown catch....?? As to some of the other posts- I hate taking knees while the game is on (i.e. the last play of the first half) but the primary objective is to win the game, so if the win is achieved by kneels, OK. Don't care much for Childress myself- but it's hard to argue with 8-1. Peterson fumbles...nah, that was a good play by the defender (although I think he could've been called for 'horse collar') Like the one against the Pack where they took the ball away, it wasn't really a fumble. Nothing to worry about, balls get punched out now and then- it's rough out there.  (Sunday Nov 15 | post #55)

TwinCities.com

Vikings improve to 8-1 with win over Detroit

Hey, had to watch the game in a bar w/o sound (in Alabama) I've got a couple questions- What was the call, on Edwards I think, when Stafford was sacked and fumbled, but the Lions got the ball after a penalty? The replays kept showing Edwards leaving his feet but he never touched Stafford who was hit and moved the other direction. ?? The other question is, on the bomb to Rice, he made the catch at the 5, then jumped into the end zone. But it wasn't ruled a touchdown. But he wasn't down by contact, since the defender didn't touch him AFTER the catch, and if that was the call, why wasn't it a penalty for contact BEFORE the catch?? Otherwise, glad for the win- but it wasn't a good game to watch. Expected Vikes to play better, especially defense in that third quarter. Ouch. Thanks, and Go Vikings!!  (Sunday Nov 15 | post #4)

TwinCities.com

Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

I disagree with censorship, as does the Cook. BUT, children are not adults, therefor the rules don't apply (i.e. tobacco, driving privileges, alcohol) I think this lady made a good decision in a very difficult situation. After reading the article, I agree with Cook about her actions, and think the library board acted stupidly for not even having dialog. For the people that think since kids can get porn on the internet, a book is alright are missing the point. Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. How are kids supposed to develop a moral compass if they are allowed to do everything? This lady made it clear she was worried about a particular passage in a CHILDRENS book... the issue therefor is not censorship at all, it's about what is appropriate for children. I think in issues like this, a compromise should be reached. Maybe keep the book on a restricted basis, that a child could check out,but only with express parental permission. That would take the onus of appropriateness out of the librarians' hands and put it back on parents- where it should be.  (Nov 12, 2009 | post #8)

TwinCities.com

Vikings looking past NFC North, on to rest of NFC

The Vikes outplayed the Steelers in that game, and caught a couple bad breaks at the end to lose. I felt pretty good about their play, though, showed that they do have talent and can compete with the elite. Naturally, I'd like to see them dominate...which they have for short periods, but then they let up and let teams back in. So the point is, they have the potential- just need to sustain. I think the Vikes are improving, and will have a decent second half. 'Any Given Sunday' is a concern, but from what I've seen, the Vikes can hold their own with any team this year. SKOL Baby!  (Nov 12, 2009 | post #50)

TwinCities.com

Cannon Falls man charged with poaching white-tailed buck believ...

I guess I think that the charges seem to be excessive. I know the guy is a jerk, but if he was bow hunting- an extra deer doesn't seem to warrant $19,000 in fines and a lengthy jail sentence. But reading between the lines, I'm guessing the DNR don't believe he got the deer while hunting,,,,maybe 'shining'- which I think is the lowest of the low, or some such unsporting conduct. Throw the book at him, if that's the case- but an extra deer is no big deal.  (Nov 12, 2009 | post #104)

TwinCities.com

Man dies after shooting self while deer hunting

Did you know that there are a certain amount of deaths each year from people drinking too much water? Seems silly to me, but what do I know? Anyway, by your logic, this means we should let the government ban drinking water....or people will continue to die! Not to mention the automobile, which is THE biggest killer of Americans EVERY year. Ban it. I am getting quite sick of the movement in America to pander to the lowest common denominator. In schools, smart kids are held back by the need for teachers to spend more time with the slower ones, etc. But I digress... Hunting groups have led the way on wildlife conservation. I realize that it was most likely self-interest, but the point is that now we have a pretty good balance between hunters and game- so that the animals are in no danger of extinction nor starvation because of population swells. The issue of gun control is going to have to be a compromise also- sure there are nuts, and criminals, and tragedies..but that's a very minute percentage of the gun-owner group. The issue should be to reduce THAT small percentage, not just declare a ban on the medium. Take a look at the 45 year war-on-drugs. Banning drugs really didn't cure the problem. And it seems to me, that in this land of the free, we're supposed to respect what OTHER people want to do in their lives, as long as they don't infringe on OUR rights. So if you want to, for example, dye your dog pink and wear metal all over your face...I'm not going to call for a law against it even though I think it ridiculous.  (Nov 9, 2009 | post #105)