GRIBBIT'S HALDOL PRESCRIPTION EXPIRES -- AGAIN
This spring, in response to complaints from parents who emigrated to the U.S. from Cuba, the district voted to pull the book from school shelves. The ACLU is involved in a suit claiming that the book was removed without due process. A federal judge recently decreed that the book must stay until he can issue a formal ruling, which is scheduled for this week.
Gribbit doesn't approve. He offers his usual variety of witlessly paranoid observations about leftist subversives and throws in an impassioned and wonderfully irrelevant coda about China, North Korea, Vietnam and Russia, but the best part is when he states:
"The left cannot win by playing by the rules. They run to the courts in order to further their ends."
That's interesting. I wonder, though, how he can reconcile this observation with the fact that the only reason the book was pulled from schools in the first place was because some wounded whiners went running to the school board with the arbitrary claim that the book was inaccurate. Are "the rules" different for conservatives?
Cuban-Americans in South Florida are, as one would expect, notoriously anti-everything related to Cuba under its current regime. They are famously opposed to anything that does not openly vilify Fidel Castro. This isn't necessarily wrong as an ethos, but does it grant anyone the authority to start censoring literature? Is personal political aversion a legitimate rationale for doing so? At the very least, I can see why the ACLU believes that the situation deserves further scrutiny.
Gribbit waxes agitprop in making this claim:
"This book is attempting to white-wash a Communist dictatorship. A failing dictatorship at that. It’s goal is to brain-wash children into the socialist mentality. This is indoctrination of 5 - 7 year old children in hopes that they grow up to be good little liberal voters."
Sure, lardass. Anyone wanna bet Gribbit has no idea of the book's actual content and is, in the finest tradition of StopThe ACLU.com whiz kids, merely parroting something from another right-wing source? And besides, even if he were right, is this grounds for removing the book from schools? Well, sure, if you're the kind of assclown who thinks that it's okay, even desirable, to go running to the courts in order to further certain ends.
The simple truth is that Gribbit thinks suppression of free expression -- however illegal -- is fine and dandy as long as such actions appear to support wingnut causes. He needs to pay attention to this passage from the Post article:
JoNel Newman, a University of Miami professor and ACLU lawyer, said school districts are limited in what they can legally remove from library shelves.
"You can't discriminate on the basis of content, or make political decisions on what you take out of a library," she said.
He would also do well to read Carl Hiaasen's column on the matter.
Once again, this miserable Stop the ACLU turd fondler makes a complete ass of itself and exposes itself as ignorant, uncomprehending, loony and a champion of double standards. He obviously doesn't get it and would be well advised to not make his words publicly available unless he enjoys making a spectacle of himself.