Who's In Charge Anyway?

In the library and banned book debate, parents are encouraged to edit their children's inputs so they don't get any weird ideas that they didn't already hear about on the bus or their phone. Kids need phones so they can plan their visits with friends on the spur of the moment or call the mortician or cops when some nut opens fire at the school (with nobody there who is prepared to defend them).

Anyway, I'm with the anti-censorship crowd. My so-called conservative friends might find me blasphemous, but I find any censorship to be demeaning in much the same way as affirmative action. Affirmative action cheats unqualified individuals by getting them in over their heads. It cheats qualified individuals by denying them opportunities they deserve. And it cheats society in general as it denies us the benefits of gifted people. Censorship assumes an authority knows better than us ordinary folk and limits our options. Sometimes some of those options are obviously foolhardy. Censorship stifles critical thinking.

With the idea presented by the librarians that parents should rule over their own children, not the state, comes an inconvenient truth, parents should rule over their children. Where does that put public education?

I just read an article about a student at Iowa State from Ukraine. He was sad about a “pause” in US aid to Ukraine. This is an extreme example of twisted opinions shaped by censorship. He believes there could be a good outcome in his country if US arms makers remain at the tit of US taxpayers. The people of Ukraine don't know the truth. It is common knowledge that the media there is the epitome of state-run propaganda. The truth is more available here, but his studies should leave little time for exhaustive research into Ukrainian politics.

I don't know what good can come from the weird stuff that the do-gooders want to keep out of libraries. I wrote to Moms for Liberty (Liberty to restrict liberty. How about that?) and asked for a list of materials they want kept out of the schools or libraries. They apparently forgot to write back.

The books in question encourage mental illness. Would you withhold food from an anorexic or offer booze to an alcoholic, or would you try to help them toward a happy life?

In order to have the maximum amount of information available for kids or anyone to make informed decisions, we might have to wade through some garbage.

As long as these institutions are funded by a diverse collective, it is imperative for parents to be in charge. The normalization of biological lies opens the door to acceptance of lies across the board. Remember the student from Ukraine who thinks war brings peace?

Covid brought a realization to a lot of people. When my son worked with the movie business he told me about a restaurant closed to stop the virus. There was a film being shot near that restaurant. The film crew crammed into a tent on the street to eat lunch. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) had thousands more reports about the untested “vaccines” than at any time in history. The VAERS numbers were widely censored. A free market of ideas would have either kept those people out of the tent or allowed them into the restaurant.

As students were locked out of school in Virginia their parents were shocked at the anti-science agenda in the curriculum. We sent our kids to school when we would have gladly schooled them at home. The school functioned as a babysitter while we tended to crops and pigs. We bawled when they got on the bus the first day after summer vacation. But we were very cognizant of their school work.

Banning books is a way to abdicate our responsibility as parents. If you don't like what is at the library or school, stay away. We are a long way from turning back to a collective economy. We will fund it or go to jail for tax evasion. But we can try to limit our participation. 

Please comment on my column through a letter to the editor or directly to me at 4selfgovernment@gmail.com