All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Tendrin]

You put "Parents have no rights, only responsibilities".

What was it actually supposed to mean? If it actually meant something like "some parents try to control their children too much, etc, why not say that?

Completely baffled that you are incapable of admitting you phrased something in a misleading way.

My dude, I didn't 'mislead'. I said parents don't have rights, in the context of your response to CatLady. Go back. Read what you were responding to. In that context, Parents Do Not Have Rights. They have responsibilities. Children have rights. Most often, they need to have their rights protected *from their parents*. Cat's 100% correct.

[thwhtGuardian]

My dude, I didn't 'mislead'. I said parents don't have rights, in the context of your response to CatLady. Go back. Read what you were responding to. In that context, Parents Do Not Have Rights. They have responsibilities. Children have rights. Most often, they need to have their rights protected *from their parents*. Cat's 100% correct.

I think you two are talking past each other here; you're arguing against the Parents Rights Movement which is indeed terrible and he's talking about the very basic laws that states have enacted codifying the rights and privileges that parents have like school choice, privacy rights(basics like you can't just take pictures of random kids in public for instance) and religious freedoms. Heck, providing and supporting gender affirming care would fall under parents rights.

The two positions are just not the same.

Now you can say that those should be the rights of the children...but the way law has been written in pretty much every society(both modern and ancient) is that children exist in a state of guardianship stewarded by their parents and all laws and rights that would normally be exercised by them are instead executed by their parents.

As I said earlier when discussing school choice, there are certainly people and groups that would like to exploit and abuse that guardianship but bad actors aren't a terribly good reason to throw out a practice that does a lot of good. And let's be honest, having adults hold sway over children is something that is needed; if we were to give children and teens the same autonomy as adults there would be a lot of negative consequences.

That said, is the way the current patchwork of laws pertaining to child welfare beyond reproach? No, absolutely not there is certainly room to improve as children do need to be protected better from the assholes pushing the Parental Rights Movement which not only proposes laws that would allow for the further exploitation of children but also abuses current laws to their advantage. But the answer isn't "Parents have no rights" as that is going to turn off a lot of people, it's that we have to tighten the loop holes in current laws and like many things federalize these rights so children in Alabama aren't less protected than Children in say Maine.

Basically it should be a cry for reform, not of nuking the hole idea of guardianship.

[mortari]

Trump campaign asks for cut of candidates’ fundraising when they use his name and likeness





Get all that money!

I wonder if they realize this would only leave him the democrat attack ads?

[The Cool Thatguy]

I wonder if they realize this would only leave him the democrat attack ads?

Could he enforce such a thing? From the GOP, I mean

[Mister Mets]

Another aspect is whether these supposedly controversial books are actually being checked out. A couple of instances doesn’t constitute a crisis and if the problem is essentially nonexistent why does it necessitate legislation?

There may be a bit of a Catch-22 with that argument.

If a book is popular, critics can say it's a crisis that so many are exposed to lies and propaganda.

If a book isn't popular, critics can say the book represents wasted resources (Why use the space & money for something that the public isn't interested in?)

Of course people with money and access to information are able to buy the books instead of borrowing them. But for some children, the school library might be the only place they can access some books. Children with controlling or abusive parents for example. Do you think they have the money and the free unsupervised time outside of school? There are children whose parents track their every move, even their internet searches. The school library might be the only place where they can safely read some books and learn different viewpoints.
Of course, some people will immediately start talking about rights of parents to teach their children only what they want. It's a red flag for me if people talk about parental rights instead of children's rights.

It seems like a very unpopular political argument to say that one of the aspects of libraries that must be protected is that it allows minors to access material their parents do not want them to access.

This is also in the context of public libraries, which receive funding from elected officials, who are going to respond to public pressure.

Two individuals with Russian and German citizenship were arrested on charges including espionage, sabotage and membership in a terrorist organization. The organization would be the so called Dontesk People's Republic. This means Germany is considering an administration that Russia, Syria and North Korea acknowledged as an independent country a terrorist group.

Nice.

I know this is unpopular, but I don't think parents should have a right to decide religion for their children. No, I don't know how it could be done in law, just speaking how I would prefer to have it. I'm not talking about teaching them about religion, but about stuff like baptism when the child is clearly unable to consent. Circumcision or piercing of ears should be no go too. Funny how nobody who worries about "permanent damage to the bodies" ever mentions those. I'm not saying wait until they're 18, but just until the're old enough to decide.

And it seems like in the US, parents have more options to make decisions about their children based on their ideology. Not vaccinating them, keeping them home-schooled. It's one thing if it's for the benefit of the child (like if the child is bullied in school or disabled and can better learn at home), it's something else when the parents want to shield their children from some boogeyman like gender ideology or CRT.

An argument with baptism is that it does not have permanent effects on someone's body. In some religions there is the belief that someone needs to go through a religious process to go into the afterlife (IE- you need to be baptised to go to heaven) so you're going to get a lot of pushback at any hint of an effort to prevent that.

Piercings are different. Part of it is that it's socially accepted, and the physical harm is minimal.

There is some pushback against circumcision and significant pushback against female genital mutilation, so that's mentioned often. Obviously, a major distinction is that the people pushing circumcision don't see it as a bad or damaging thing.

I think a lot of parents see the 'my' in 'my child' as proprietary, not relational. As if children are chattel. I think we see this more in conservative parents and has deep roots in religion.

People want to raise their kids in a way that they believe is right.

This isn't about seeing their kids as property, but wanting their kids to become good adults.

[Mister Mets]

There are some politicians and pundits who are trying to pass laws that restrict gender affirming care for trans people until that person becomes 25 yrs old.

This doesn't seem very common on the right.

A state senator in Oklahoma wanted to limit transgender services to anyone below 26, but there was too much pushback in Oklahoma.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...uthor-reveals/

The basic rationale is that the mind isn't fully formed until 25 (this itself is not fully accurate; it can vary from person to person.)

Slate had a piece on this that gives an overview to the controversy in a different context (Can 20 year olds consent to marry? Should the minimum age to buy guns be increased?)

https://slate.com/technology/2022/12...eme-court.html

An impetus for the article was a Michigan Supreme Court decision that it was cruel and unusual to sentence an 18 year old for life without parole even if he was legally an adult.

In this discussion, it seems people can very easily talk past one another if one person is figuring things out and considering nuanced questions, and another is looking for a cudgel in a culture war fight (and I would include the legislators trying to argue that 26 should be to cutoff for gender-affirming care in that category.)

[thwhtGuardian]

This doesn't seem very common on the right.

A state senator in Oklahoma wanted to limit transgender services to anyone below 26, but there was too much pushback in Oklahoma.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...uthor-reveals/

The basic rationale is that the mind isn't fully formed until 25 (this itself is not fully accurate; it can vary from person to person.)

Slate had a piece on this that gives an overview to the controversy in a different context (Can 20 year olds consent to marry? Should the minimum age to buy guns be increased?)

https://slate.com/technology/2022/12...eme-court.html

An impetus for the article was a Michigan Supreme Court decision that it was cruel and unusual to sentence an 18 year old for life without parole even if he was legally an adult.

In this discussion, it seems people can very easily talk past one another if one person is figuring things out and considering nuanced questions, and another is looking for a cudgel in a culture war fight (and I would include the legislators trying to argue that 26 should be to cutoff for gender-affirming care in that category.)

To be fair, the Parental Rights Movement people do deserve to be cudgeled. Anyone who uses, "Think of the children..." as a scapegoat for racism and homophobia deserve every bit of hate and ridicule they get and no amount of, "they're just trying to raise their kids right" excuses it.

[hyped78]

Parents don't have 'rights'.

They have responsibilities.

Wow. Do you really not realise how extremist that view is?

https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-r...responsibility'.

Parental RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES

[Catlady in training]

My dude, I didn't 'mislead'. I said parents don't have rights, in the context of your response to CatLady. Go back. Read what you were responding to. In that context, Parents Do Not Have Rights. They have responsibilities. Children have rights. Most often, they need to have their rights protected *from their parents*. Cat's 100% correct.

Thank you. Yes, the original topic was about children having access to books via libraries. I was talking about the way people speak about it, centering it on parents rather than children and how there is a pattern with that. Like somebody else said, it's like the children are a possession of the adults, incapable of making decisions for themselves. Also, we use the word children (some use the word minor, which makes it also sound a certain way), but the discussion is usually about teenagers, not 6 year-olds. Again, the language often makes a difference about how the argument comes across, especially to people who are not used to the discourse.

It reminds me of how some people speak about the threat of sexual violence towards women. "They will rape your wives and daughters", ... they don't even try to talk to women, just about us. As if the damage that might be done is to the man who owns the woman, not to her.

When are they raising the age to join the military to 25? Think of the children! Our country shouldn't be defended by 18-year-olds who are basically toddlers nowadays.

[aja_christopher]

To be fair, the Parental Rights Movement people do deserve to be cudgeled. Anyone who uses, "Think of the children..." as a scapegoat for racism and homophobia deserve every bit of hate and ridicule they get and no amount of, "they're just trying to raise their kids right" excuses it.

It's a given at this point that Mets will demonize "liberals" for wearing t-shirts but has no such concerns when it comes to conservative bigotry.

As posting factual information about said behavior historically leads to denial, ignorance and outright malice, it's generally a lost cause to expect any real dialogue on the topic until that changes.

It's fair to argue that conservatives who don't care about the concerns of others should be responded to in kind -- especially when many civil rights have already been lost to a Republican Supreme Court.

Certainly "discussion" has done little to sway said course -- the only working solutions at this point appear to be election losses and prison time.

Thank you. Yes, the original topic was about children having access to books via libraries. I was talking about the way people speak about it, centering it on parents rather than children and how there is a pattern with that. Like somebody else said, it's like the children are a possession of the adults, incapable of making decisions for themselves. Also, we use the word children (some use the word minor, which makes it also sound a certain way), but the discussion is usually about teenagers, not 6 year-olds.

Taking people's comments out of context is a common behavior for those seeking to defend the indefensible.

Projection is a useful means of deflecting from the actual discussion -- note that the actual bigotry and sexism within said movements still has yet to be addressed.

[Tami]

A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They’re there for the same conference.

LAS VEGAS — A conference for a far-right sheriffs group this week drew a parade of felons, disgraced politicians, election deniers, conspiracy theorists and, in the end, a few sheriffs.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, met in Las Vegas’ Ahern Luxury Boutique Hotel conference center to publicly counter reports of extremism within the group and set a course for the coming election — one that involves sheriffs’ investigating what they claim, despite a lack of evidence, is rampant voter fraud.

The group sees sheriffs as the highest authority in the U.S., more powerful than the federal government, and it wants these county officers to form posses to patrol polling places, seize voting machines and investigate the Democrats and foreign nations behind what they claim is a criminal effort to rig the vote by flooding the country with immigrants who vote illegally.

Critics of the group — including voting rights advocates and extremism researchers — fear the CSPOA’s new focus will amount to interference and legitimize disinformation about U.S. elections.

But the event Wednesday, which starred MAGA celebrities speaking to a half-empty audience made up of few actual sheriffs, pointed to just how fringe the group’s ideas are — and how what once seemed like a movement on its way into the mainstream has lost political pull.

The conference opened a little behind schedule; the Pledge of Allegiance was delayed when organizers couldn’t find a flag. After he searched the conference center’s rooms, Tom Hamner, a Colorado man who served over two years in prison for the felony “interfering with law enforcement” on Jan. 6, 2021, came forward with the scarf from his wife’s neck. It wasn’t exactly a flag, but it was emblazoned with stars and stripes.

“That’ll work!” emcee Alex Newman, an Epoch Times contributor, said before he led the crowd of dozens in the pledge. A smooth jazz rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” followed, sung by a Las Vegas man awaiting trial on multiple felony charges who is accused of fraudulently posing as a certified firearms instructor.

[Tami]

In Superman’s 'hometown,' a pastor vows to fight Satan’s influence at the local library

METROPOLIS, Ill. — The pastor began his sermon with a warning.

Satan was winning territory across America, and now he was coming for their small town on the banks of the Ohio River in southern Illinois.

“Evil is moving and motivated,” Brian Anderson told his congregation at Eastland Life Church on the evening of Jan. 13. “And the church is asleep.”

But there was still time to fight back, Anderson said. He called on the God-fearing people of Metropolis to meet the enemy where Satan was planning his assault: at their town’s library.

A public meeting was scheduled there that Tuesday, and Christians needed to make their voices heard. Otherwise, Anderson said, the library would soon resemble a scene “straight out of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

The pastor’s call to action three months ago helped ignite a bitter fight that some locals have described as “a battle for the soul” of Metropolis.

The dispute has pitted the city’s mayor, a member of Eastland Life Church, against his own library board of trustees. It led to the abrupt dismissal of the library director, who accused the board of punishing her for her faith. And last month, it drew scrutiny from the state’s Democratic secretary of state, who said the events in Metropolis “should frighten and insult all Americans who believe in the freedom of speech and in our democracy.”

Similar conflicts have rocked towns and suburbs across the country, as some conservatives — convinced that Democrats want to sexualize and indoctrinate children — have sought to purge libraries of books featuring LGBTQ characters and storylines. Republican state legislatures have taken up a wave of bills making it easier to remove books and threatening librarians with criminal charges if they allow minors to access titles that include depictions of sex.

To counter this movement, Illinois Democrats last year adopted the first state law in the nation aimed at preventing book bans— which ended up feeding the unrest in Metropolis. Under the law, public libraries can receive state grant funding only if they adhere to the Library Bill of Rights, a set of policies long promoted by the American Library Association to prevent censorship.

[Gray Lensman]

A sheriff, a felon and a conspiracy theorist walk into a hotel. They’re there for the same conference.

A group of idiots if you ask me. The central conceit of their argument is total bull****. The notion that the Constitution only allows for County-level law enforcement is laughable right out of the gate, at least once you realize that the Constitution doesn't do anything for government of any kind below the State level. That's why State override laws aimed at cities pass Constitutional muster.

[Tami]

A group of idiots if you ask me. The central conceit of their argument is total bull****. The notion that the Constitution only allows for County-level law enforcement is laughable right out of the gate, at least once you realize that the Constitution doesn't do anything for government of any kind below the State level. That's why State override laws aimed at cities pass Constitutional muster.

It is right out of the dark side of the Twilight Zone.

[Tami]

Freedom Caucus deploys ‘FART’ group as Republican tensions simmer

GOP leadership could face a real stinker.

Hardliners in the House Freedom Caucus have activated their Floor Action Response Team, also known as FART, to carefully monitor for any surprise resolutions aimed at sabotaging them, a source familiar with the move told The Post.

I laughed so hard I nearly gave myself an Asthma attack.