Skip to main content

Musing on the News - Book Bans

 

              Time published an article on 4/20 titled “New Report Finds That Book Bans Have Reached Their Highest Levels Yet.” As an avid reader I am immediately bothered by this, but I think it is worth explaining why.

              First, over half the country is functionally illiterate, and even more don’t like to read, so who are we banning books for, anyway? It’s not like online ads that subliminally change your thinking. If you want to read a book, you have to physically get it, let someone else know what you’re reading (checking it out of a library or buying it in a store), and spend hours reading the material, depending on how fast you read. Reading is also self-selecting, as you can figure out by the book cover and back if you want to spend the time to decipher its contents. Reading social media and news is anonymous (except for the data points being collected on your online behavior), short, and based on what will keep you online, not what will enrich your life. Oh yeah, and it’s not vetted by anybody.

              One reason I know this idea of banning books is bad is historical. No movement that restricted access to books ever signaled anything positive. Another reason I know it is bad is because it doesn’t impact most people, so any good they are intending to do is lost on most Americans. I know this because I have worked for several schools in the Bay Area, including those that can be considered “elite,” and do you know what I learned? Most high school students don’t read the books, and this has been true for over a decade. So who are we protecting? The books are too advanced for young kids, and the older ones don’t read anyway. If they did, their targeted ads will give them something they will want to read. Oh wait, the targeted ads don’t advertise books; they advertise games, make-up, vaping, and clothing. So why are we banning books?

              Have any of these people even read any of these books, or are they just afraid of the content? We fear what we don’t understand, so it may be worth reading those book after all.

I am sure that anyone who is advocating banning books has not read Fahrenheit 451. If they did, they completely missed the point. The only thing Bradbury got wrong was the nuclear end: it’s psychological manipulation on our digital platforms that will be our demise. To read a book is to commit to learning what someone else has taken hours, months, and sometimes years to present to the public. They have been read, edited, and vetted by other people. The ads and social media posts that people choose to look at have not been. This is more chaotic, less regulated, and more dangerous than a book could ever be. So I ask again: why are we banning books?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Hold

  The Viral Candidate – On Hold               I really don’t want to run for office. I’m an idea person, not an implementation person. I have a lot of ideas that I think would do a lot of good. I realized that all the political candidates have done something “noteworthy” in politics or life before trying to run the country. This feels elitist, but also ensures intelligent, capable people are the ones running. Or maybe those are the people who refuse to run because our political landscape has gotten so toxic. With that thought, I want to finish some of my ideas and do something larger than being a high school teacher before I try to imagine a national political campaign. Therefore, I am putting the Viral Candidate project on hold for a year.               I have been trying to find a way to build a platform and have done so with little guidance so far, and little success. The only accomplishment I have in writing is one book being published by one of the nefarious for-profit edges o
Post a Comment
Read more

The Viral Candidate - Kids

Kids               I don’t want to run for public office, I never have, but if I did, I would focus on our children and how to set them up for future success. As a member of the first generation in this country predicted to be worse off than their parents both physically and financially, this is particularly important for me . Kids are our future, and we need to do a better job taking care of them and enabling them to have the quality of life we wish for them (which I’m assuming is better than the one we have made for ourselves). I’m a public-school teacher of middle and high school students and have been for over a decade (since before the iPhone came out and teaching fully metamorphosed into an exercise in frustration). As a public servant and one who has a heart for the future success of our nation through the next generation, I find it important to address what we are going to do for our descendants (while figuring out what to do for ourselves); the next generations will deal wi
Post a Comment
Read more

The Viral Candidate - Introduction

  What if a public-school teacher ran for President of the United States? Just to be clear, I am talking about me. What if an average American ran for president?   Twenty years ago, this would have been unthinkable, as there was no inexpensive and effective method to disseminate information to enough voters. The PAC’s will certainly ignore anyone who has no interest in increasing their wealth, so where would the money come from? Now we have social media, the internet, and GoFundMe. I can share information with the largest voting block without spending a dime; merely becoming viral will get me the support and start the discussions to bring voters around to a new (and old) way of campaigning. GoFundMe will allow a person with student loan debt and making less than living wage to go around the country and talk to fellow Americans about what they need. This is the first thing that will separate me from the pack: I want to listen. I want to know what you need. What we are afraid of
Post a Comment
Read more