Yes, it’s Banned Books Week again - time to mourn, and to celebrate. It’s especially poignant that this year, Banned Books Week coincides with the date of the Vice Presidential Debate for Campaign 2008, one of whose participants, as almost her first act in elected office, tried to ban books in her city library.
The upside to Banned Books Week, as Nicole Belle points out in her lovely post linked above, is that it is as much a time to fight back against ignorance, intolerance, and the enemies of freedom of thought as it is to beware their perpetual campaign of oppression. We have seen in too many ways in recent years the dangers of complacency and an unfounded confidence in progressive values. It is important to remind and re-energize ourselves about the alternatives that constantly stalk us in politics, social policy, and our private lives. And looking on the upside, one of the delicious satisfactions of this year’s remembrance will be the chance to see the party of book-banning and the religious war on tolerance get their ass righteously handed to them at the polls, at long last. That’s going to be worth celebrating.
Until then, the usual suspects:
The most frequently challenged books of 2007
The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2007:
The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom received a total of 420 challenges last year. A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness. According to Judith F. Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, the number of challenges reflects only incidents reported, and for each reported, four or five remain unreported.
The “10 Most Challenged Books of 2007” reflect a range of themes, and consist of the following titles:
1) “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
[NB: A factually correct non-fiction book about a baby penguin parented by two male penguins. What is it with right-wingers and the penguins?]
Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group
2) “The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Violence
3) “Olive’s Ocean,” by Kevin Henkes
Reasons: Sexually Explicit and Offensive Language
4) “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint
5) “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
Reasons: Racism
6) “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language
7) “TTYL,” by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
8) “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou
Reasons: Sexually Explicit
9) “It’s Perfectly Normal,” by Robie Harris
Reasons: Sex Education, Sexually Explicit
10) “The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
September 29th, 2008
|
General, Politics, Church & State, School, Religion, Culture, Privacy, Education, Media, Books, Evidence of Harm, News & Current Events |
3 comments
J.K. Rowling has a wonderful gift for pushing the religious wingnuts’ “insane gibber” button, seemingly without trying. Her Harry Potter series consistently ranks among the books most frequently targeted for banning by the winger legions, and now she’s got them in a sex panic over what must be the most sex-free coming-of-age stories on record. I like her more and more.
October 21st, 2007
|
General, Politics, Church & State, Religion, Culture, Privacy, Media, Books, Evidence of Harm, News & Current Events |
21 comments
I had a lengthy dream last night about a first-date encounter with Maureen Dowd. For some reason this involved placating her precocious 5-year-old, like Tom Cruise in “Jerry Maguire”. For some reason also, I had to nonchalantly pretend I had not shown up at her apartment wearing only short pants and no shirt - a look that, in my case, does not bode well on dates with sophisticated hotties like Maureen Dowd - which became increasingly difficult to pull off as the “date” wore on.
I’m fully aware there’s no chance in hell Maureen Dowd is going to invite me over to attempt to seduce her in her apartment. (In fact, she has published an entire book on exactly that point - I believe I’m named in the Index.) As far as I know also, she doesn’t have a 5-year-old child. But dreams don’t have to make sense - they just have to express your innermost yearnings in the most nightmarish fashion possible.
All I can say is, no more late-night cheesesteak sandwiches.
December 16th, 2005
|
General, I do too have a life, Religion, Culture, Weekend Flame Bait, Media, Books, Evidence of Harm |
no comments
Evidence of Harm is a mess of a book, and these two chapters display that mess perfectly. On the one hand, we have arguments that look as if they belong in a conspiracy-minded high schooler’s term paper. On the other hand, it details the great lengths that companies like Elli Lily went through in order to keep making money from thiermosal. There is half of a really good book in here somewhere — but you really have to work to find it.
Chapters Nine and Ten deal with the parents attempt to gain accurate data and press in support of their theories, at least partly in response to the attempts to hide immunity for Eli Lilly in the Homeland Security Bill in 2002. The data and press portions of these chapters are the most frustrating. The author sometimes glosses over important aspects of the history of some of the heroes, from the parents perspective. They make assertions that are not truly supported and even go so far as to echo some parent’s more conspiritol thoughts without providing the reader with any way to judge their validity. In one case, they present the story of a news reporter who did series of stories on this issue. The book states that the reporter confronted a CDC person with questions about a report detailing the rate of autism and a possible link to Theirmosal. The book calmly states that no answer to the question was given on camera, and then state that the reporter - -Vanessa Williams — was fired shortly after attacking Eli Lilly on the air. The implication being, of course, that the station buckled to advertising pressure. But the station’s side of the story is not presented, not even so much as the official reason for stopping the stories or why Williams left. Was her reporting accurate? Was their no response on camera because it was edited out — or because the question was not allowed to be answered? The book makes no effort to tell us. And that leaves questions unanswered that should not be unanswered.
Which is a shame, because the behavior of the Republican controlled Congress is shameful. They did, unequivocally, shelter companies from lawsuits without knowing whether or not the companies did in fact knowingly harm children. They deliberately protected Eli Lilly without knowing that Eli Lilly deserved protection. It is possible that Lilly owes millions of children life time care and an eternity of apologies. But, because of the actions of the Republicans in Congress, they may never have to pay on that bill. The book does a very good job highlighting just how despicable those actions potentially are without short-shifting the notion that they are necessary. The book as whole would be much better if it was all written with the care Chapter Ten was written with.
The next chapter, Chapter Eleven, details the various dueling studies and interpretations in this debate. I hope that the author takes advantage of the actual data to clear up any lingering wrong impressions he might have left in the earlier chapters. At any rate, the next chapter is what the entire passionate debate is about: the data and what it means.
October 10th, 2005
|
Legal Issues, Health, Books, Evidence of Harm |
3 comments
This book is beginning to irritate me.
Somewhere in here is an important story a story with possibly important implications for how our society protects itself from the dangers of diseases and the dangers of a health system dependant upon the profit motive. Except the author doesn’t seem to be interested in telling that tale. Instead, he seems to be interested in conveying the parents’ point of view, and only the parents’ point of view.
Perhaps there is value in that if it is done well, but he is not being done well. Every character in the book is introduced through the perceptions of the parents. At almost every turn, people skeptical to the parents claims are presented as, well, doofuses. In some instances, the author tells of meetings and hearings and describes in great detail the parents’ arguments and the statements of those in agreement with them — but he provides nothing for those skeptical. No rebuttals, no quotes from those leery of the parents viewpoints — nothing. Chapter 7 provides a good example of this tactic.
Chapter 7 deals, in part, with a meeting of CDC doctors at Simpsonwood. The author spends a lot of time detailing the parents’ reaction to the memos and emails from that meeting. The parents are presented as believing the documents prove that there is a cover up designed to allow vaccines companies to poison children. There are several quotes of that nature from parents, and no dissenting views, before any of the documents are quoted. But when you read the documents, they can be read as a group of doctors using an uncertain methodology and coming to two conclusions: there is no certain evidence, but further study is warranted, and they have to be careful not to panic people about vaccines before they actually no one way or the other. But that interpretation is not mentioned in the text — the reader is presented with the quotations as if they prove the parents contentions. Putting aside the question of whether or not the decisions made at Simpsonwood were appropriate, there is a huge gap between the documents and what the documents where used as proof of. And that is just one example.
I am, frankly, at the point of wondering whether or not I can trust that the author is providing me with an accurate picture of the reality surrounding the controversy. I am sure that he is providing me with an accurate picture of what the activist parents he has built the book around believed, but that is not sufficient.
And it is incredibly frustrating. Because there are legitimate questions about the way the government conducted some of its research. There are odd discrepancies between California’s data and the CDC’s. There are potential conflicts of interest at work within the CDC and FDA. There is the undeniable similarity between mercury poisonings symptoms and those of autism. There questions that I want answered. But I am no longer sure that I can trust that the author is trying to honestly answer those questions.
August 15th, 2005
|
Legal Issues, Health, Books, Evidence of Harm |
2 comments
Chapter 5 of evidence of Harm is a perfect snapshot of what is frustrating about both the book and the debate over autism and vaccines. The chapter deals with a set of hearings that Dan Burton held regarding the issue and the release of preliminary data that the parents in this book take as proof that autism can be caused by the mercury preservative in the vaccines. The chapter allows people to make a lot of accusations, but it doesn’t provide us with much in the way of evidence for those accusations.
Dan Burton held hearings where he asserted that the FDA and the CDC where riddled with conflicts of interest. There is some evidence for that, and based on how things like Vioxx and Phen-Phen where handled, I think it is clear that the FDA, at least, is not structured to provide the kind of independence needed. Fair enough, though some more context would have been nice. So far, there has been no exploration of exactly how the FDA is structured and what the process for approving or recalling drugs actually entails. Nor is there any exploration of how the FDA came to be in its current situation. More importantly, Burton makes a blanket accusation against the individuals that where involved in researching and approving the vaccines with mercury preservatives. But he and the book provide no real evidence for the vast majority of th scientists having conflicts of interest. And yet the accusations stand without correction, at least yet. That is particularly ironic considering that one of the boldest accusations made in the chapter — that the government would never admit to making an error — is refuted before the end of the chapter.
Ironically, though, that refutation provides another example of the confusion of both the book and the debate. The chapter describes a government study that looked a three populations of children who received vaccines with mercury preservatives. In two of the populations, they detected a weak correlation between exposure and neurological problems. the third population showed no such correlation. The parents acted as if that was proof of their contention. I am sorry, but while it is suggestive and demands further study — study that the government was engaged in at the end of the chapter — but it is not proof of anything. If the picture of the parents painted in the book is accurate, then they where claiming proof when they had none. that makes the resistance to them from the scientific community easier to understand.
But it is not sufficient to explain all of their actions. The study, while not conclusive, was certainly alarming. The symptoms of the mercury-caused pink disease mirror autism in many ways, as do the effects of general mercury poisoning. Considering that there were mercury free vaccines available, then why didn’t the CDC and FDA and NIH move faster? The book provide no answer aside from vague hints of deliberate malice on the part of the people involved. Since the book is told entirely form the point of view of the parents, there is not even an attempt to find out what the reasoning on the other side actually was. So we are left with vague hints, assertions not proven, and questions about the actions of everyone involved.
Much like the actual debate over vaccines and autism. It would have been nice if the book had made a better effort to actually unravel these questions rather than just report on their existence.
August 6th, 2005
|
Legal Issues, Science, Health, Books, Evidence of Harm |
one comment
Slate is the latest magazine to jump on the Thiermosal discussion, with an article that comes down heavily on the side of “perfectly safe” It is also a good example of why people who have been following this issue can become so frustrated and disgusted with the state of research and advocacy on the matter. The author of the article says the following:
A far more obvious explanation for the increase in autism rates in California was the one that mainstream autism experts expounded: diagnostic changes, new laws that expanded federal payments to care for autistics, and greater parental awareness of these resources.
Except that the study he is citing rules that possibility out:
Byrd wrote a recent study for the M.I.N.D. Institute at UC Davis that ruled out better testing and population increases as possible causes for California’s dramatic increase in autism cases.
The author also cites a Danish study as proof that there is no link between autism and the preservative. Except that the study in question has some flaws and does account for certain variables present in the United States. No one can honestly say that the study is definitive in nature.
You see enough of this kind of disregard for the facts of the matter, and it not hard to understand while some parents have become distrustful of anti-link advocates.
August 3rd, 2005
|
Legal Issues, Science, Health, Books, Evidence of Harm |
4 comments
One of the reasons that so many parents came to believe that mercury in vaccinations was causing their children’s autism is often over looked. Most people focus on the increased rates of diagnosis of autism, both here and in countries that more recently adopted vaccines with mercury preservatives. But Evidence of Harm layouts another, more emotionally compelling case: the symptoms for autism and mercury poisoning are strikingly similar,
The book lists many examples of well studied cases of mercury poisoning that lead directly to autism like symptoms, but the pink disease is perhaps the most arresting. In the 1930s, Europe saw a rash of the “pink disease” In addition to physical rashes and skin discoloration (leading to the popular name of the disease), the diseases led to a mini-epidemic of the kinds of behavioral and cognitive problems that are characteristic of autism. Once mercury had been eliminated from a host of personal grooming and medical products by 1954, the disease vanished from Europe. As I said — it is an emotionally compelling argument.
But it is not scientific proof. There could be other explanations for the similarities, and it should be pointed out that autism children do not have all of the symptoms of mercury poisoning, for example, and the fact that many people with autistic children, including doctors, do not believe the connection is real. But some of the activist parents in Evidence of Harm do not allow for the possibility that they may be wrong. You can see the anger and contempt leaking form some of the pages. One activist treats a scientist who told him that the government was looking into the link with undisguised contempt. At one meeting between NIH scientists and believers in the link, parents angrily interrupted the scientists, threatened to walk out, flatly stated that they — the parents — had proven that autism was related to vaccinations and even screamed at that scientists, accusing them of spreading “propaganda”. They where hardly acting in a fashion that would encourage the scientists to take them seriously –as at least one parent admitted afterward.
This is not to absolve the scientific establishment of blame. Far from it - -the NIH scientist in the anecdote above presented basic information about autism that they should have known a group of committed activists would already have known. It was an insulting under-estimation of the people they were facing. But treating the scientists as the enemy, as people on the take and completely blind to the obvious truth that the parents could see, the parents lost a potential source of allies and, more importantly, lost the trust of a group of people who could have been a great help to them.
The parents seemed incapable of seeing past their complaints and anger. Which, while understandable, is counterproductive. Lurking behind the stories in this book is the question “How many children would die f the vaccinations went away?”. It is only rarely touched upon, and it has yet to be mentioned as a concern by any of the activist parents who the book is following. Again, that is understandable. The reality of dealing with autism and the desire to never see another child go through what yours has can be all-consuming. But the vaccination of children has been one of the greatest achievements in human history. It has literally saved million to tens of millions of children from death and permanent disability. Any scientist who looks at this issue has to have that at the forefront of his or her mind. Confronted with people lead by a Congressman who shot a watermelon in his back yard to prove that Clinton murdered Vince Foster who then act as if they are as deep into conspiracy nonsense as Burton was, it would be easy to dismiss them as the same kind of cranks.
Again, it this is not to absolve the scientists form their share of blame. They had been dismissive and too often condescending, and they did not, to this point in the story, do a good job explaining why the parents concerns where not well founded, and the medical establishment, as I have already said, did not do a good job managing mercury preservatives over a course of almost seventy years. But by telling the story only form the point of view of the parents, by treating the doctors as cardboard cutouts form bad Hollywood movies, you get the sense that Evidence of Harm is missing the most compelling story. Because the sense one is left with after these chapters is sadness. Sadness at the lost opportunities, the failure of people who had the same concerns to end up on the same side of the fight, and the sadness of the struggle to balance health with outrage from parents, damage to children, pressure from industry, and the demands of good science.
The author seems to want these chapters to tell a story of the parent’s David going up against the Goliath of the government and the industry. But read between the lines a bit and you can see the sadder tale of the clash of personalities and responsibilities resulting in perhaps years of missed opportunities.
July 31st, 2005
|
Legal Issues, Health, Books, Evidence of Harm |
no comments
The introduction and the first chapter of Evidence of Harm have three lessons to teach us. The first is the least surprising: drug companies and the Republicans have attempted to remove even the possibility that they could be held liable for any wrong doing with regard to vaccinations and autism. They quietly slipped in a rider that essentially prevented them from facing any justice — even if such justice was warranted — into the Homeland Security bill. The Bush Administration then filed a motion to keep all government records on autism and vaccinations secret.
The second lesson is that Dan Burton is the worst kind of hypocrite. Burton fought the protection for drug companies, speaking out eloquently against cutting families off from the help and justice they have been entitled to. One of Burton’s grandchildren had a serious illness that Burton blamed on childhood vaccines, so he had a personal interest in the issue. And since it affected him personally, his long standing support for limiting lawsuits went right out the window. Other families and people in need are parasite dragging down the American economy. His family and families in situations like his are noble crusaders for the truth.
The third lesson is perhaps the most important and, I suspect, they key to understanding the vicious battles over the vaccination issue. The families in Evidence for Harm no longer trust the medical establishment — and they have good cause for that mistrust. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the medical establishment began to treat autism as something that could be treated. Even in the 1990s, the families in this book were lied to or kept in the dark about what was actually happening to their children. There concerns were brushed aside or minimized (”Take him fishing”, one doctor offered as treatment to a mother of an autistic child) , their children were treated like animals (one mother went to class early and found her child literally tied to a chair) and their children were placed in classes with uninformed and untrained teachers who, at best, ignored their children. And all the while they watched the treatment centers and special ed classes fill with other autism children at an almost exponential rate.
Those who do not believe that autism is related to vaccinations have a tendency to think that autism advocates who do believe in the connection are anti-vaccine and ant-medicine. There is a nugget of truth in that statement. But it does not come from the same place that belief in black helicopters comes from. Many advocates for autistic people are distrustful and demanding of the medical establishment because they feel that the medical establishment has lied to them, treated them with contempt, and been unconcerned with their children. After reading the opening chapters of Evidence of Harm, it is hard not see a grain of truth in that attitude.
July 30th, 2005
|
Legal Issues, Health, Books, Evidence of Harm |
no comments
