what's in your underpants?

I have always thought that the word "underpants" was inherently funny. Drop "underpants" into a sentence, or drop your underpants in the middle of a conversation, and you've got comedy.

Puritanical freak-out parents fixing problems they don't have because they can't fix the problems they do, think not so much. The most banned book last year? The whimsical children's book Captain Underpants.

Makes me want to run out and buy a copy. And a costume.

NC School Board needs educating

Apparently, the Randolph County Board of Education in North Carolina is competing with the Texas School Board for "Most Stupid People Ironically In Charge of Educating Others."

They have not just removed Ralph Ellison's important work The Invisible Man from the curriculum, they have banned the book and removed it from the library. Basically, because one parent complained that it was hard and made her think about things that made her uncomfortable. Like the moral imperatives of a democracy. Thinking is hard. Facing previously unquestioned ideas can be uncomfortable. But that is also called "education."

From The Raw Story: North Carolina school board bans Ralph Ellison’s ‘Invisible Man’:

Excerpts:

“I didn’t find any literary value,” board member Gary Mason said at the meeting. “I’m for not allowing it to be available.”

In 2010, Time magazine named the book one of the top 100 English-language novels of all time, calling it “the quintessential American picaresque of the 20th century.”

In his acceptance speech after winning the National Book Award for Fiction in 1953, Ellison described the book as his attempt to bring back “the mood of personal moral responsibility for democracy” common in 19th-century fiction.

“When I examined the rather rigid concepts of reality which informed a number of the works which impressed me and to which I owed a great deal, I was forced to conclude that for me and for so many hundreds of thousands of Americans, reality was simply far more mysterious and uncertain, and at the same time more exciting, and still, despite its raw violence and capriciousness, more promising,” Ellison said at the time.

Hey, Boo.

Be subversive and read: it's Banned Books Week!

From the ALA:

Banned Books Week (BBW) is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment.  Held during the last week of September, Banned Books Week highlights the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States.

Intellectual freedom—the freedom to access information and express ideas, even if the information and ideas might be considered unorthodox or unpopular—provides the foundation for Banned Books Week.  BBW stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints for all who wish to read and access them.

Consider this, the top ten challenged books last year (2009):

1. ttyl; ttfn; l8r, g8r (series), by Lauren Myracle
   Reasons: drugs, nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group
2. And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
   Reasons: homosexuality
3. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
   Reasons: anti-family, drugs, homosexuality, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, suicide, unsuited to age group
4. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
   Reasons: offensive language, racism, unsuited to age group
5. Twilight (series) by Stephenie Meyer
   Reasons: religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group
6. Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
   Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group
7. My Sister’s Keeper, by Jodi Picoult
   Reasons: homosexuality, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexism, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, violence
8. The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big, Round Things, by Carolyn Mackler
   Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group
9. The Color Purple, by Alice Walker
   Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group
10. The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
    Reasons: nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group 

I never really understood the impulse of busy-bodies to challenge or ban books, until I realized that those with no real ideas of their own are afraid of anyone else's.  Subsequently they feel they must panic and kick and scream and shout when faced with an idea contrary to something already in their head.  (Na na na na na na, I'm not listening to you.  Those who cannot think critically have no business leading.)

education, not ignorance

Please, please support book learning, with truthful history and science, not ideology.

more bad Apples

Apple was ridiculously prudish with approving apps for the iPhone, if you recall going so far as to ban the dictionary, because it had words like cock (rooster) and ass (donkey) in it.

Now Apple is banning books and graphic novels from the iPad if they don't "approve" of them. Unsurprisingly, as with most censorship, it is not being enforced on an egalitarian level. Graphic violence and sex scenes from some comics are okay, but graphic novels of Ulysses and The Importance of Being Ernest are denied or blacklined—even after the user certifies they are over 18. Seriously.

Every day Apple makes it easier to spit out the Kool Ade.

I'm waiting for the Amazon Kindle ads: "The Kindle: The digital book reader that doesn't tell you what you're allowed to read."

Memo to 555 California: photography is not a crime

Seriously? This has been covered many times before. Are security douche-nozzles harassing, and by that I mean physically and verbally threatening, law-abiding people with cameras again?

Have commercial properties learned nothing of the past six years of incident/punishment when it comes to this.

IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS OF BUILDINGS IN PUBLIC. And private "security" has no authority to prohibit it. Much less use intimidation to physical threats, much less actual physical violence, to stop it.

• See Troy's photos on Flickr:
  "You are not allowed to take photos here!"
• Troy Holden's post on his experience here.
• And local photographer, and photographer's rights activist, Thomas Hawks comments here.
• Comments on Reddit here.
• Digg here.

And download "The Photographer's Rights" PDF here.

Apples iPhone app process complete fustercluck

When it comes to the completely closed and obfuscated iPhone application review approval process, Apple's hypocrisy, inconsistency and capriciousness bordering on cruelty continues unabated, if not at an accelerated pace.

The intended-to-be-reliable dictionary, and the only reliable one so far for the iPhone, has been met with constant censorship, crippling restrictions, and now an adults-only rating. Never mind that there are dozens of other dictionaries approved for the app store with offensive content and inaccurate source material, Apple has now gone on to censor a freaking dictionary! And require it to be tagged as restricted to 17 and over. Censored words include ass (as in donkey) and cock (as in chicken). In a dictionary. The chicken says fustercluck.

Ninja Dictionary had a simple and admirable goal—and word man that I am I would have paid happily for it. Matchbook Software describes the app as such:

Ninjas are three things:

1. They’re smart
2. They’re quick
3. They’re deadly accurate

Ninjawords is a dictionary for the iPhone built on these principles.

Alas, Apple appears to have no such aspirations.

And if an Apple acolyte like me is getting all ranty, you know that division must be really effing up.

Maybe I could help. Maybe they are hiring. But would I really want to throw myself into that pit? Maybe, if the attitude was one of change and improvement. The silence from Cupertino says no.

Update: Engaget has more.

We've seen plenty of stories thus far detailing the company's absurd, reactionary, and typically confusing application rejections or changes for its App Store, but the treatment given to dictionary app Ninjawords seems particularly telling. In essence, the program, a simple and fast reference tool -- a straight-up dictionary -- has omitted a handful of common words seen as objectionable by the Star Chamber of application reviewers at Apple HQ. What kind of words, you ask? Well, namely the same kind of words which you can find in any standard dictionary in just about any classroom in this country.

As does Gizmodo: The Stupidest App Store Incident Yet: Apple Censors a Dictionary

or something

For those of you unfamiliar with the children's book And Tango makes Three, it's a true story of two male penguins ay the New York Zoo who partner and mate with each other, and adopt, hatch and raise a chick of their own.

Amazon.fail anti-gay classification "glitch" update

From Mary Hodder at TechCrunch, a knowledgeable update on the #Amazon.fail classification of any gay content as "adult" content.

And it is NOT just a glitch.

Is Amazon.com hiding gay literture?

It's looking that way. And authors and readers are pissed. Basically, it appears that any book with gay content had their sales records and such removed, preventing them from showing up in certain searches. Then certain prominent author caught on, Amazon released a statement—which no one in the blogosphere is buying—that it was a localized "glitch" related to reclassifying adult content. Except that it seems to be happening at Amazon.everyothercounty domains, and "straight" erotica remains unaffected while gay lit devoid of any such "adult" material is gone.

As a sign of the times, most of the frenzy and rage has been exploding on Twitter of all places. Is that really effective. We'll see. Towleroad has been keeping an eye on the story.

If it turns out there is an anti-gay censoring worm over at Amazon, this could get really, really ugly.

Here is Wired's story. And this was the status this morning via Publisher's Weekly. The comments are revealing too, as PW ha a much more literate, professional, and professional literatti readership.

Update: It's not really clear what's going on. First a hacker claimed credit (for of all things "as revenge for having his Craigslist ads for heroine partners flagged as inappropriate by gay men" WTF.). He also claimed to use both algorithms and third-world labor to mess with the system. Then Amazon claimed it was only an internal error.

I'm guessing more news will follow soon.

Update: i09 has a report.

open shelves

Officer Asswipé

I am fairly sensitive to security and non-security people overstepping their bounds to harass photographers to intimidate and prohibit public (and legal) photography. I've posted about it many times before.

Now there is a new blog for photogs to post video of abuse in action. It's called Schmuck Alert!

It's only been up a week or so and there is already this INSANE tirade by on Oakland police officer who soooo oversteps the line, and illegally threatens an Oakland Tribune photojournalist who was breaking no laws.

OMFG. WTF? And SRSLY, NSFW.

photography is not a crime, update 2

The SF MOMA has made some sort of statement, which I find to be entirely lame.

They fucked up. Big time. And now they appear to be waving the issue away with a dismissive flick of the hand.

Not good enough.

Previously one and two.

update: Photography is not a crime

It appears now despite the nasty, indefensible behavior of Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint at the SF MOMA (no matter his motivation, his behavior to achieve his end are indefensible) and the online shitstorm (4,000 Diggs and sympathetic posts all over the Internet) regarding the physical ejection of a member and local photographer who was following the Museum's own rules-- The SF MOMA has decided to take no action, make no statement, and offer no response.

And so they'll be getting more support from me.

And I'm sending a letter.

I'll just try not to take inspiration from my morning. On the way to work I stopped to return a Netflix at the corner mail box. I waited patiently for several beats as a mad stood there, hand on open handle, re-reading the postcard he was perched to drop. I continued to wait, and finally had to say "excuse me" before he would relinquish the missive and let me drop mine in after. Not intending to readg over his shoulder but watching patiently, I could read the enormous block letters at the bottom of his postcard: "FUCK YOU!"

Really? On a postcard? Wow.

But considering the complete failure the SF MOMA has demonstrated to their mission (accosting artists and not supporting them), and to the public trust with which they are charged (treating a member of the public and a member of the museum in the manner of arrogant, ignorant, jackbooted thugs), I sympathize with the author of that postcard.

SFMOMA, if you're listening, an explanation and an act of contrition are in order.

Your community is art-lovers in San Francisco. Do you not think that this community might side with an artist of San Francisco, and the SF blogosphere, in the absence of any comment from you?

Photography is not a crime

I've cited stories here before, but more and more in this post 9-11/Bush Administration Culture of Paranoia, photographers are wrongly, unjustly, and illegally harassed and attacked by security guard, policemen, and paranoid passersby who have no idea what is going on, what is allowed, or what is legal. (I am reminded of the recent story of the man who was accosted by paranoid parents for taking photos on a playground. The man was taking photos of his own children.)

SF, full of photographers and creative types who are reluctant to give away their rights, is often the front line for citizens fighting to defend their freedoms.

I remember a couple of years ago photographers, and tourists, were getting physically confronted by over-zealous security guards for taking photos on public sidewalks. Some even called the police, which made matters worse with both the cops and the security guards erroneously claiming it was illegal to take photos of buildings downtown. I think a photographer or two even had to deal with handcuffs and extended time in custody before the lawyers had to explain to the police that the photographer was breaking no laws.

As local artists and bloggers, the kids and Boing Boing usually run with this and call for people to assert their rights and take as many legal photos as possible, post them online, and preserve our freedoms by exercising them.

Today, via the SFist, come this rant from a popular and successful photographer/blogger, who was physically ejected from the SF MOMA for taking photos in the atrium where the museum itself explicitly states that photography is allowed. The photographer even cleared this with museum superiors prior to his visit. The Director of Vistor Relations caused a huge scene and ultimately had security physically throw the guy out. (He is now claiming that he was trying to protect his staff from being photographed, as if the photographer were trying to get shots down a woman's cleavage from four stories up, despite the fact the camera had a wide angle lens and could not zoom.)

Here is Thomas Hawks' angry take on what happened. And his follow up thoughts on the incident.

The story has been picked up by the SFist, Boing Boing, and has over 3800 recommendations on Digg.

This has not, as far as I can tell, been picked up by the San Francisco Chronicle.

But a shirtstorm is raging online.

From Thomas Hawk's blog:

After the incident I still spent several hours deeply considering the impact of my blog post on Mr. Blint and his personal name and reputation as well as that of the SF MOMA. The fact is that I feel very very strongly about public treasures and public arts. I currently have over 20,000 photographs mostly documenting San Francisco online. I shoot every single day. I shoot hundreds of photos every single day. I believe art to be one of the highest callings one can pursue. I'm trying to publish one million photographs before I die. To learn more of what I and my photography are about I'd point you to this set on Flickr. It certainly is *not* shooting down unsuspecting females blouses.

Along with a respect for my own art comes a deep respect for the treasures that live in museums. A museum to me is an *incredibly* important public treasure. The SF MOMA one of our finest. The point is though that the SF MOMA does not belong to Blint. He is simply one of many employees presently entrusted to help manage it. He is a steward of a national and public treasure. And the more I thought about the fact that such a person could be in charge of thousands of experiences by thousands of visitors to such an important public treasure, the more I felt it necessary to ensure that his sort of behavior not take place in the SF MOMA again. I have by the way personally contacted several members of the SFMOMA staff, none of which have responded to me as of yet.

So why did this post resonate so strongly with everyone?

What made this story the number one story on digg yesterday, all over friendfeed, SFist, Boing Boing and dozens of other blogs? To me the answer is simple. Increasingly we are living in a world where photographers are routinely harassed again and again by authority figures over stepping their authority -- and it makes you feel like crap when that happens.

Maybe the best lesson learned: In San Francisco, don't be a loud jackass in public and piss off a active artist with a popular blog. You will hear about it again later.

And if your job is Director of Visitor Relations, you should probably not behave in such a fashion that riles the villagers to storm the castle with torches and pitchforks calling for your head.

Here is Thomas Hawk's shot of the atrium that started the ruckus. On Flickr.

I think it's pretty.

I'm just sayin'.

another library caves to pious prude

Granted, this case is a bit more, well, sticky.

The Bloomington Library pulled its copy of Shortbus from its shelves. It isn't cleear but it looks like it's not even available by request.

I never understand people who want to ban or ban access to books and media. If you don't want to read it, then don't. And just because someone is reading something, doesn't mean they have to agree with it. Reading about World War II doesn't make one a nazi. I believe book-banners and censors are simply terrified of ideas. It's a failure to be able to think.

I think Shortbus is a great film, and that Cameron Mitchell successfully made an engaging, interesting film with human sexuality as a theme (as, like it or not, it is in all of our lives) but it was not a movie about sex. That was sort of his point.

A library patron complained and the library removed the DVD from the library. I'll go so far with the 'community standards' thing, but it is the libraries' duty to have something to offend everyone. And if someone wants to view it, they should be able to. The hypocritical prudishness of the MPAA and censor-happy Americans is also something the film was standing up to. I enjoyed seeing it in a crowded house in a formal theater. It was not seedy.

This is perhaps what galls me the most:

Bill Swearingen, of Bloomington, had complained about the movie. He said he was pleased to learn of the results.

“I think that’s great,” Swearingen said. “I’m not a prude but it really was soft porn and to me I don’t see why it should be in the library.”

The film went out if its way NOT to be porn. Not even close. There is nudity. There is sex. There is graphic sex. And three-ways. And a young dominatrix that lives in a storage unit. And someone manages to ejaculate across the room onto a Jackson Pollack. But there was nothing salacious, scandalous, or remotely prurient about it. Again, that was the point.

This was soft core porn on the same scale as roman sculptures and child birth videos. "Sexually graphic" does not equal "porn." You see what you want to see.

Bill Swearington, you have just proven that you are a prude. Because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you should keep others away from it. Stick to the Young Adult section. Although I fear that you'll think that's porn too because it is labeled "adult" material.

With six awards and five nominations worldwide, clearly many others think the film has merit.

I'm not saying it should be shelved next to Shrek, and I wouldn't show it to my niece. But I would show it to my nephew. (That's an age thing, not a gender thing.)

The shame here is on the library board for rolling over. And not into the wet spot. This was an opportunity for education as to why a library should have a diverse collection. They failed their patrons twice.

Another example that Waco is Wacko.

Texas: The State of Willful Ignorance.

Films such as Fahrenheit 9/11, The Last Temptation of Christ, and Shut Up and Sing are informally but effectively banned from all theaters, video rental stores and most retail outlets. As apparently are new ideas, scientific information inconsistent with doctrine, and you know, "gays and stuff."

The only bastion, embattled though it may be, is the library. Thank God for libraries and librarians.

A writer for the Waco Tribune-Herald writes about his efforts to find a viewing copy of Shut Up and Sing, and his appreciation of the liberty libraries afford the citizenry.

I kept waiting for "Shut Up and Sing" to pop up on the "new releases" marquee at the video rental I patronize. When I asked, an employee told me that the store had abstained because of the film's controversial theme.

I tried to confirm this assertion with a regional manager. I found that getting ahold of someone who would confirm or deny this assertion was like asking to interview Dick Cheney without Fox News credentials.

It seems that in Texas, or at least in Waco, the tag line for Shut Up and Sing is official policy: Freedom of speech is fine, as long as you don't do it in public.

I'm guessing the reason they say "don't mess with Texas" is that Texas can be like the giant retard Lenny in Of Mice and Men. He's kindly stupid, but big and dangerous. On in this case, willfully ignorant and heavily armed.

Or maybe it was the only thing the Chamber of Commerce could come up with that rhymed. We should have named the territory Orange.

Of course, the more open-minded and edumacated citizens excepted. And good luck.

unamerican activitives

The Patriot Act(s) continue to be anything but.

Librarians Describe Life Under An FBI Gag Order

up all night

Another conservative, red-state wing-nut is attacking a library for something they find offensive. Frankly, the mantra of any librarian in Collection Development is that any library should have something to offend everyone. The Library should have something for everyone, but not every thing is for everybody. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

This guy is suing the "Bentonville (Ark.) Public Library for keeping The Whole Lesbian Sex Book by Felice Newman on the open shelves where his sons could find it." Okay, these kids were 14- and 16-years old! News flash Pops: if teenage boys find a book about sex, or lesbian sex, they were looking for it.

The father claims they found it while researching military academies. Right. (Meaning What? Meaning his sons are manly boys not interested in photos of women having sex but rather "masculine" in their male-only military homoeroticism and interested only in male-on-male domination and sodomy as plebes at a military academy?).

As part of the complaint, the father alleges that finding the book made his childen "greatly disturbed" and "caused many sleepless nights in our house."

Seriously Pops, your sons may be staying awake at night under the covers, but that's not because they are "disturbed." They are not running out of Kleenex because they have been crying all night, if you catch my drift.

I thought he was a nineteenth-century French playwright

It may have not have registered on your radar, but there has been a recent row over a Newbery Award-winning book and school librarians. The Newbery Award is the most distinguished award for Children's literature, so why would this year's honoree be libris non-grata in schools and school libraries?

The book's heroine is a scrappy (as child heroines tend to be), ten-year-old orphan named Lucky. On the first page of the book, she hears, through a hole in the wall, a boy telling the tale of his dog getting bitten on the scrotum by a snake. "Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much. It sounded medical and secret, but also important."

The book is The Higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron, and it is the appearance of the word "scrotum" that (ironically?) has gotten Children's Librarians nickers in a twist. Fearful of parental backlash, banning requests or challenges, and hysterical fears that teachers might/will have to explain to a bunch of youngsters what the scrotum is, librarians are actively preculding this book from their collections.

Okay, that's the first "Are you kidding me?" in this saga.

The next, is that this controversy was recently covered in the New York Times.

(Favorite quote, from Durango, Colorado, Sunnyside Elementary School librarian Dana Nilsson: "I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.")

The next link in this silly chain:

Neil Gaiman, notable author and usual fan if not champion of librarians, weighed in on this issue in his blog:

So normally my love for librarians is unconditional, but recently I find myself inserting a sort of a "but..." in there. In this case it's "But I wish some of them didn't have such a problem with dog's scrotums... or do I mean scrota?"

Then again, I'm English, a country in which "the dog's bollocks" is an expression of approbation and unconditional approval.

There's a book with a dog getting bitten on the scrotum by a rattlesnake in it. It's called The Higher Power of Lucky and is by Susan Patron. It just won the Newbery Award.

Read the whole take--it's pretty funny.

And it is via Mr. Gaiman's blog that we find the biggest "Are you kidding me?" in this whole thing: Because of this ridiculous hullabaloo, someone has taken it upon themselves to make a list of popular and award-winning children's books also featuring the word "scrotum."

The title of this article?

Youth Literature is Filled with Scrotums





I wonder... If schools start setting limits to the number of these titles their libraries may include, will this form of censorship become known as the Scrota Quota?


Update: This story made it to the front of Google News this morning, with a link to 26 other articles on this topic.