This petition calls for censorship -- little different from book burning -- plain and simple. Be careful about signing it, no matter how compelling might be the reason.
by GREGG DesELMS | Sun 24 Nov 2013
No one wants anyone promoting or condoning child abuse; and so signing this petition, once you read its pitch...
This book is atrocious. It has been linked to the deaths of three children, Lydia Schatz, Hana Williams and Sean Paddock. This book teaches "discipline" in the form of child abuse, neglect and torture. As a long time customer of Amazon, I was shocked to see that this is sold through their company. No one should advocate that a child should be whipped or spanked into submission as this book does. The book states: "Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers."
As you can see from this article, this book has been linked with these deaths.http://www.examiner.com/article/another-child-s-death-linked-to-pearls-and-to-train-up-a-child
Why would anyone support this kind of parenting? Why isn't someone doing something about it? Please join me in this fight. Amazon please remove this horrible book immediately.
If you have not read the book and would like more insight on the terrible teachings, please view this video:
...might seem like a no-brainer. But not so fast. The problem with petition sites where just anyone can create a petition is that... well... just anyone can start a petition on such sites. And as we all know, "just anyone" can be friggin' nuts! People, even when well-intentioned, are not always right or fair or just regarding whatever it is about which they're outraged. Or, worse, they misrepresent and/or manipulate the facts to suit their purposes; or they, themselves, have been misled and so are proffering wrongheadedness without even realizing it.
And the CHANGE.ORG website's petition service is fairly notorious for that. Last year there was a hugely-popular petition on it which twisted the facts and made it look like poor "Dutch" the dog was being victimized by humans for having done nothing at all when, in fact, he had viciously attacked a human, seriously injuring her and endangered her life. The dog lovers' argument was that she had hit the dog, and so all bets, apparently, were off. But the facts of the case were that the dog, which outweighed the woman, was attacking another dog and she was trying to break it up. But even if she was mercilessly beating the animal for no reason, we do not place the lives of canines ahead of the lives of humans, no matter what!
Here's my story about it all.
SEE | http://bit.ly/1bd9eRj
Dog lovers -- at least the most over-the-top of them -- are friggin' nuts! And I'm a dog lover! Season 4, Episode 19 of CBS' "The Good Wife," titled "Death of a Client," contained a sub-plot where one of Alicia's particularly litigious clients is killed on the street by an unknown assailant; and the murder just happens to be caught on a security camera tape, yet the assailant still can be seen well enough on it to identify him. Alicia's law firm's investigator, Kalinda, is put onto the case, and there comes a scene, toward the end of the episode, when Kalinda talks a police detective who's kinda' sweet on her to let her sit as his desk in the squad room and look at the video, over and over, pausing and freeze-framing, as she looks for any clue as to the assailant's identity. Any of those being sued by the deceased is suspect, and among them is a neighbor of said deceased whom said deceased sued over his dog's barking; but police quickly eliminated him. However, Kalinda spotted, on the tape, the assailant opening his car door after the murder, to get in and make his escape; and she saw, inside, a plastic item which she recognized as a device used to hurl tennis balls (for dogs, while playing fedtch) further than the human arm would normally be able to hurl them; and so she determined that the murderer was, in fact, the neighbor dog owner. When the detective asked her why she thought so, even after police had eliminated him, her answer, simply, was, "have you ever *SEEN* a dog lover?" And after the whole Dutch thing, I knew exactly what she meant. I'm asking you, the reader, to, as well, here.
From that Dutch debacle moment forward, I never trusted the CHANGE.ORG petition site again; still don't; and there's no reason to reconsider that position with this case. But I haven't based my disdain for CHANGE.ORG petitions, and questioning, out of hand, their veracity, just based on that. Once the whole Dutch thing happened, I started paying more attention to CHANGE.ORG petitions; and I started double-checking the stories behind them. I didn't do it for very long, mind you... maybe eight stories in all. But I was stunned to find the differences in how the petitions presented the facts, and how multiple reliable news outlets presented them. In five out of the eight that I double-checked, there were manipulations of fact sufficient to make most people re-think whether they'd sign the peition if they knew what I had by then discovered. When I wrote to CHANGE.ORG and suggested that it should have some kind of fact-checking or vetting procedure to ensure that there would be no more of what I had found, I was told, simply, that anyone could start a petition, and that it's not CHANGE.ORG's responsibility to question them.
So, right out of the gate, I have my suspicions -- grave ones, based on past experience -- about the credibility of the claims against this book, just categorically. I'm not saying it's not every bit as bad as the maker of the petition claims. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But that really needen't even be the case in order for us to question whether what this petition calls for is a good idea... under *ANY* circumstances.
There is a far larger issue that goes straight to the heart of our very liberties and whether or not the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States actually even means anything: Censorship of books.
Every not-free society, run by an oppressive and civil-rights-violating government engages in censorship as a means of controlling the masses, and their ideas. The worst of them, as in Nazi Germany during World War II achieve it, in part, by means of book burning...
...which is very little different from calling on Amazon to not carry this book.
Book publishers bring them to market all manner of objectionable materials containing such things as racism, misogyny, torture, rape, and every other bad thing under the sun; and they do it for all manner of reasons which, yes, sometimes include that whatever bad is in the book is something in which the publisher believes, and so said publisher wants it out there for public consumption. Most publishers, though, put it out there not because they agree with it -- they quite likely, in fact, despise it -- but, rather, because it's part of the marketplace of ideas, our full exposure to which is ensured by the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. It is not the book publisher's job, then, to fly in the face of that by censoring the book. Most libraries and bookstores go ahead and put objectionable things on their shelves for exactly the same reasons.
I didn't want the skinhead Neo-Nazi's to march in Skokie in the '70s...
SEE | http://bit.ly/19ldoBP
...either; and it was a temptation to drive up there (I lived in Northwest Indiana, at the time, less than 50 miles away) and be part of the protest against it which I already knew was likely going to become a beat-down of the skinheads by said protesters. But even back then, only three years out of high school, I completely understood the constitutional free speech imperative; and agreed with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals's ruling which ultimately force the town to issue a parade permit to the skinheads; and allow them to insult every Jew in that nearly completely Jewish town with their march. Fortunately, ultimately, said march never happened; but if free speech as provided by the First Amendment is to mean anything, we must all tolerate the words of others, with which words we do not agree. We must, or it's all just a big lie... everything every US soldier has ever died for!
As Voltaire keeps getting blamed for having famously said, but which his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, actually suggested he could have said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Hall never actually wrote that Voltaire said it, but she proffered in her 1906 biography of him, entitled "The Friends of Voltaire," that the quote so deftly illustrated his beliefs that he might as well have said or written it; and I posit that anyone who has ever read Voltaire would be pretty much forced to agree. And so the saying has become part of the national lexicon, and appropriately so; cited, equally-appropriately, at moments like this.
I don't know if the book in question is dangerous, or not. But it doesn't matter: calling for its censorship by asking Amazon to stop selling it is just facially wrong, regardless of its contents.
Please don't sign this petition. Please.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com