Should've gone before we left.
- Jul 18, 2009
They obviously don't want to send the message that the Holocaust wasn't bad, but they also don't want kids to get the clearest and least baised view on it. In a way, it is all about that one page. In conservatives eyes having a more open mind regarding sexuallity, and the sexuallity of teens, means Liberal/Leftism, which means a non conservative view on everything else that went on during World War 2. Everything that goes on in wars in general; who starts them, who benefits from them, who get used as cannon fodder. It's about control, but the removal of sexuallity is one of the steps in attaining that control.As an outsider looking in Texas banning Anne Frank adaptions over one page certainly seems petty and bizarre, and those pushing for it come off as clowns and freaks. Especially because I just don't buy the idea that those ''parental rights!'' folk genuinely think its '''''porn'''. It so very rarely is so why should they be genuine about it being '''''porn''' THIS time?
While the odd parent who also moonlight as the town drunk might be manipulated into going along with this, the stronger voices among them and especially the politicians pushing for it most certainly can't. To me it seems more like an excuse to ban a work with the message that torturing minority groups is wrong. Because if you're a party with rather...ahem ''tense'' relations with minorities that must be a very vexing message. Its not about ''porn''. Its about control, and about removing one more warning against abysmal treatment of minorities.