Catherine's comments (member since Jun 17, 2009)

Catherine's comments from the Banned Books group.

Why did they protest Spencer's involvement? Do you know who the other original panelists were? It sounds like quite a shame, that a panel that's intention was to open minds and introduce more people to a wide variety of Islamic perspectives and experiences was canceled.

Unfortunately, I can't view the video until later, but I'm sure we'd be cracking Carlin up, as much as he always cracks us up and makes his point as well.

William, whether accurate or not, Wikipedia is not a primary source. And while you have many interesting points, I fail to see how a book with low sales can be considered banned. Have people protested against it's sale and distribution or requested it be withdrawn from libraries? Have governments prohibited it's sale? There are many books for sale that criticize the US government and your arguments so far are nothing I haven't seen before, therefore likely in print. And in wikipedia. Furthermore, you have yet to suggest any solutions. It's broken. Fine. What next? Ranting against a problem without suggesting workable solutions is juvenile. It's grest to see a problem and try to draw attention to it, I appreciate that. But without ideas on how to overcome it, it's just grandstanding and rabblerousing. But thank you for answering my questions. I hope your book sales improve and you find better forums for these discussions. It's not that it wasn't appropriate at first, it's the extent to which you carried it out and the extreme distance it's come from the stated purpose of this site and this group. It's just too much. If you do indeed have solutions to propose, please post a link to a more approriate site where people can continue this discussion. I still vote that this thread be closed.

My point is that this is supposed to be a discussion about a book or a group of books. Many discussions in this group become political, or moral debates, etc. But they are supposed to begin with a review of a specific book and continued discussion ideally should reference relevant source materials/books so people following the discussion can review the sources to form their own opinions. You know, find more books to discuss and debate, the point of the group. This isn't simply a group to debate politics, but to do so within the scope of books that are considered inflamatory enough to be banned by governments or other groups. I would like to see more about those books.

And I'm sorry, William, but wikipedia is not a valid primary source. Please reference original source material, or at least say that it's wikipedia so we can go to the page and verify the original sources and perhaps read them for ourselves. I would be interested to know more about your book, William, and your sources as well. Have you received challenges to getting it shelved for what appears to be inappropriate reasons?

Kaila, William is just one person with strong opinions. He has offered a lot of information that you should study. But Kelly and others have different opinions and their own experiences and research to back up their views as well. Please don't get so upset over one set of remarks in one topic, but instead become an informed citizen by reading and debating multiple people from different backgrounds and perspectives. And most of all, vote. I have been involved with the behind the scenes world on Capitol Hill in Washington for 20 years and I know for a fact that votes count, as do letters to your representatives and actions at the local level. If you see something that upsets you, do your research to understand why it happens and then get out there and try to make a legal and responsible change.

That said, I'd really like this topic to return to books. This isn't a political forum. If you have controversial books that you would like to discuss as sources for conversation, great. If not, I would recommend that after 2 years this topic be closed, as the discussion seems complete.

Oh good! I just finally got Lolita from my library, now I have more incentive to read it.

Oh, and would it be ok to edit those group books by adding to "Why This Book" something short about why it was banned? I'm starting to look up some familiar books and would like to pass the knowledge on, and that looks like a logical way.

Did the group actually read all of the books on the bookshelf? In some other groups it's unclear if some of the members' suggestion or their personal read books have been included, as opposed to the monthly discussion books read together. I just want to make sure I know know what's expected and don't offer repeats.

Facts are facts. Whether or not the penguins were really in love, they were successful parents. Pretty impressive. Trying to cover up facts is just disgraceful. If you don't like it, don't read it. Keep you own kids from reading it if you must. Tell everyone you know how wrong you feel it is if you want. Agitate, advertise, protest, network, do what you will. But don't try to block my rights in the process. Why don't people realize that someday they may find themselves on the other end of bigotry and oppression? Even if they were right about their views (which I do NOT believe), you can't fight for right by doing wrong. It will never work in the end. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, by the nature of this group and to some degree GoodReads in general. It just gets me fired up.

As for gay rights, like many others I feel like it's a matter of human rights. And our constitution. I think there should be a clear distinction between the legal contract of marriange and the religious rite. I'd like to see the reaction if someone proposed a law limiting business partnerships to mixed-sex twosomes.

Hey Trevor, what's a fluffy duck?