What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 17, 2022

1 minute ago, nursej22 said:

I believe that TMB stated that some Trump voters were followers of Q, and I agree. I have no way to quantify how many. I see from news reports that many who attend Trump rallies sport Q signage and clothing.

Even if they aren't followers per se they believe in some of the conspiracies such as Trump won the election, corona virus is a hoax (although people now are starting to believe it's not), etc. Trump called them people that love their country (but didn't endorse them) and people elected Marjorie Taylor Greene. Q-Anon once was fringe, and it still might be fringe, but it's become less so over time. In my opinion.

Justlookingfornow · May 17, 2022

31 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

There was a grammatical and punctuating closure of one thought before a clear introduction of a separate thought.

Justices should follow judicial precedent and the law when offering opinions in cases. There's no question that SCOTUS decisions should be nonpartisan on a political level. Yes they should be as impartial and unbiased as possible, that's why temperament and character are so important in those who occupy those seats.

As I've previously mentioned, I believe that our first amendment right to peaceful public protest allows protest in the neighborhoods and public areas of this country. If that means that they (the focus of the protest) think that they need protection, OK, we have weak gun laws and some triggered zealots running around so it's completely understandable. In this case people are protesting what they believe to be the decision of this court. They are expressing their disappointment and anger and betrayal. IMV

As far as other judges, most are subject to the will of we the people. For instance, the judge who presided over the Brock Turner rape case was recalled by the community. He lived that protest in the public marketing of that response over time. They are certainly free to live their lives but they aren't beneficiary to some insulation from the consequences of flawed decisions. Public protest might be one of those consequences.

Fair enough I suppose. However I feel their protest would be more appropriate somewhere else other than the private homes of people and their children. I most certainly wouldn't appreciate my staff coming to my private home and expressing their disagreement with a decision I made.

May work the other way as well. It may have an opposite effect in that it might just embolden and motivate the Justices decisions further and make them less likely to reconsider the very thing they do not like? Counter productive?

They should be protesting at the legislative building not private homes, in my opinion.

toomuchbaloney · May 17, 2022

26 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

No. I do not determine a person's mental health on how they voted or what political party they subscribe to.

Some of the topics you referenced are still up for debate.

An example is the "book banning". I have not heard of any conservative requesting for books to be banned. They do not want books depicting Mediaography and inappropriate content for school children. "Book banning" is a reference to historical instances in which a tolitarian government removed books in which did not align with their rhetoric. A deliberate attempt to subscribe this to conservatives that do not want their children to be exposed to inappropriate content. No one has advocated to remove these books from public libraries or book stores or anywhere else. (I'm sure there is an exception somewhere but in general).

Those conservative parents have not actually demonstrated that their children are exposed to inappropriate content in the public schools. Evidence to support the fears and outrage has been thin. Nevertheless, too many schools are removing books from library shelves and classrooms because of the conservative parent "concerns". Local public librarians also get pressured to remove books.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60261660

https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1222/122245.html

toomuchbaloney · May 17, 2022

4 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Fair enough I suppose. However I feel their protest would be more appropriate somewhere else other than the private homes of people and their children. I most certainly wouldn't appreciate my staff coming to my private home and expressing their disagreement with a decision I made.

May work the other way as well. It may have an opposite effect in that it might just embolden and motivate the Justices decisions further and make them less likely to reconsider the very thing they do not like? Counter productive?

They should be protesting at the legislative building not private homes, in my opinion.

Opinions are allowed.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We don't even need to be a member of a group to exercise this right to peacefully assemble.

Justlookingfornow · May 17, 2022

23 minutes ago, Tweety said:

That is a good distinction to make that removing books for children's consumption is not the same as book banning. The books are still allowed to exist.

For me the problem is what some people consider "inappropriate content". In the 90's I remember a book called "Heather Has Two Mommies" that was highly controversial because it was anti-family and pro-homosexual. I think that perhaps books should be monitored by their parents, and if a child brings home a book they don't want them to read, then they don't read it. But to remove it as "inappropriate" doesn't seem fair.

I don't think that children should be exposed to sexually explicit literature, although I think high schoolers can handle it. I read sexually explicit books (not from the library) when I was in high school and wasn't corrupted or traumatized by it.

http://www.newnownext.com/heather-has-two-mommies-30th-anniversary-banned-books-week/09/2019/

What I consider inappropriate is graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex(regardless of the orientation). Sexual acts that include violence and/or sex between adults and children.

I fully support removing these books. The problem also is when children are away from home, they have access and parents cannot monitor this.

I could be wrong but what I hear is the objection of descriptions of graphic sexual acts between homosexuals. Not that the book is about homosexuals and thats why it should be banned. I've only hear the books involving LGBTQ the parents have issues with are those with graphic depictions as well as heterosexual books with the same content.

Beerman, BSN · May 17, 2022

29 minutes ago, Tweety said:

That is a good distinction to make that removing books for children's consumption is not the same as book banning. The books are still allowed to exist.

For me the problem is what some people consider "inappropriate content". In the 90's I remember a book called "Heather Has Two Mommies" that was highly controversial because it was anti-family and pro-homosexual. I think that perhaps books should be monitored by their parents, and if a child brings home a book they don't want them to read, then they don't read it. But to remove it as "inappropriate" doesn't seem fair.

I don't think that children should be exposed to sexually explicit literature, although I think high schoolers can handle it. I read sexually explicit books (not from the library) when I was in high school and wasn't corrupted or traumatized by it.

http://www.newnownext.com/heather-has-two-mommies-30th-anniversary-banned-books-week/09/2019/

I don't have much to add, but this discussion reminded me of a recent news story. I actually heard audio of the school board meeting. A mother read from a book in the library. Much of it was bleeped out on the radio, where I heard it. She was eventually warned she'd be kicked out if she continued.

Yet, it was a book in the school library.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/lawn-boy-gender-queer-adams-12-schools/

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 17, 2022

3 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I've only hear the books involving LGBTQ the parents have issues with are those with graphic depictions as well as heterosexual books with the same content.

Those are the one's they hold up as examples. And if there is graphic sex, then I understand it. But they are also banning books that do not contain graphic sex such as "Melissa" about a trans student that was apparently the most challenged book three years in a row.

Other books like "All Boys Aren't Blue" speak of masturbation and gay sex, so I might bend a little on that one.

But some are being challenged just for LGBT content, like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and nothing explicit.

Beerman, BSN · May 17, 2022

1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Where's the line between your last paragraph and interference?

Do you believe justices should make non bias, partisan decisions? Would a protest be crossing a line to influence or intimidation?

A loose comparison would be people protesting outside of criminal court judges home. Would that be acceptable?

Should they not be free to live their private lives?

Or, another comparison would be peaceful protestors outside the homes of jurors. Would that be acceptable?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, educated or not. I wonder how many of these protestors, talking heads in the media, the outraged members here, have actually read Roe vs Wade, the draft opinion, and the Constitution?

My bet is a very small minority.

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 17, 2022

13 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I don't have much to add, but this discussion reminded me of a recent news story. I actually heard audio of the school board meeting. A mother read from a book in the library. Much of it was bleeped out on the radio, where I heard it. She was eventually warned she'd be kicked out if she continued.

Yet, it was a book in the school library.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/lawn-boy-gender-queer-adams-12-schools/

I can imagine, especially in high schools there are books with profanity and sex and some are inappropriate. I'm of the opinion that students can handle this but understand not all parents want this for their children.

5 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Or, another comparison would be peaceful protestors outside the homes of jurors. Would that be acceptable?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, educated or not. I wonder how many of these protestors, talking heads in the media, the outraged members here, have actually read Roe vs Wade, the draft opinion, and the Constitution?

My bet is a very small minority.

I don't think you have to read Roe vs. Wade or the draft opinion word for word to understand the implications on what it has for choice. Granted some of the rhetoric like "Americans lose right to govern their own lives and bodies" is a bit much.

Beerman, BSN · May 17, 2022

7 minutes ago, Tweety said:

I can imagine, especially in high schools there are books with profanity and sex and some are inappropriate. I'm of the opinion that students can handle this but understand not all parents want this for their children.

I don't think you have to read Roe vs. Wade or the draft opinion word for word to understand the implications on what it has for choice. Granted some of the rhetoric like "Americans lose right to govern their own lives and bodies" is a bit much.

Maybe or maybe not to understand the implications. But how can one credibly protest the basis of the decision without even bothering to read, understand, and apply those decisions to the constitution?

toomuchbaloney · May 17, 2022

3 minutes ago, Tweety said:

I can imagine, especially in high schools there are books with profanity and sex and some are inappropriate. I'm of the opinion that students can handle this but understand not all parents want this for their children.

Indeed.

I find it ironic that while Texas is one of the states leading the pack in removing books from libraries, they also have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation and have turned to vigilantes to enforce their abortion laws. Weird, huh?

Justlookingfornow · May 17, 2022

23 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I don't have much to add, but this discussion reminded me of a recent news story. I actually heard audio of the school board meeting. A mother read from a book in the library. Much of it was bleeped out on the radio, where I heard it. She was eventually warned she'd be kicked out if she continued.

Yet, it was a book in the school library.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/lawn-boy-gender-queer-adams-12-schools/

Yes. I heard this as well. I did not hear the parent Make any reference to her objection to LGBTQ, Only the content which was very graphic.

The panel were obviously uncomfortable with the content as well. Yet,it's in the school library!