Kevin Schofield's Weblog
Musings on life, kids, work, the Internet, Microsoft, politics, orcas, etc.





Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

 

Saturday, August 28, 2004
 

The American Library Association has posted their list of Most Frequently Chellenged Books of 2003.

This is a fascinating list. "Eclectic" is probably a good word for it -- how often do you see "Where's Waldo?" and "The New Joy of Gay Sex" on a list together. To me, though, the list brings home two points:

1. As has been said so many times, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

2. It's so important for parents to be involved in their kids' lives. I wouldn't object to any of these books being in the public library, but I would like some parental control over whether my 12-year-old daughters can access them. I don't think there should be any control over adults' access to any of them, but I do think that there's a critical role for parents to exercise control over what their own children do, see and read. It's my job to raise and educate my kids, and it's a responsibility that I take very seriously. Of course, I have no say whatsoever in what other people's kids should have access to; that's their parents' responsibility.

I realize that this puts schools and libraries in a difficult position in terms of managing access to books, but it's interesting to think of this as a GOOD use of DRM technologies; the infrastructure to give me as a parent the opportunity to have some measure of control over books that my daughters can access would be a great service -- and it wouldn't even be that difficult. In fact, it would make it nearly impossible to argue for blanket bans on any books, since individual parents could restrict access to any books that concern them.


2:10:49 PM    ; comment []


OK, I've been stewing on this some more this evening.

The link I provided before was to an article that was about the US Boxing Team protesting the judging.

I ask you: how can you keep a straight face when protesting the judging in a so-called "sport" where the main goal is to beat your opponent unconscious? This is not a sport, and this is not civilized; it's legalized assault, and it's glorified violence. And it has no place in the Olympics. If we let boxing into the Olympics, then the quality of the judging should be the least of our concerns. Since we've pre-approved violence as a worthy human endeavor, why don't we just settle judging disagreements by letting competitors beat the snot out of the referee?

I think we all want to see athletes strive and compete for the ultimate human performance. Can we please just get back to that:?


12:10:44 AM    ; comment []



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2004 Kevin Schofield.
Last update: 9/4/2004; 9:46:21 AM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.
August 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Jul   Sep


Blogroll

Robert Scoble
Ross Mayfield
Dan Gillmor
Larry Lessig
Joi Ito
misbehaving.net
simplegeek
Ray Ozzie
Doc Searls
Boing Boing Blog
Paul Andrews
Chris Pirillo
Halley's Comment
Instapundit
Scripting News
Beyond the Beyond
Don Box
Mary Jo Foley
WebMink
Dean for America
kuro5hin
John Batelle
PDA and Tablet PC News
AlwaysOn Network
The Old New Thing
PR Opinions
Critical Section
Backup Brain
Seattle P-I Microsoft Blog

Books I Like

The Diamond Age
Cryptonomicon
The Tipping Point
The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design
The Design of Everyday Things
Contact
Earth
The Mythical Man-Month
Peopleware
Wicked French
Linked: The New Science of Networks
As the Future Catches You
Pattern Recognition
The Da Vinci Code
The Man who Stayed Behind
Angels and Demons
The Confusion
Quicksilver
Free Prize Inside


What I'm Reading Now

Bachelors Brothers Bed & Breakfast Pillow Book