Social media is turning local book bans into national stories

There was a debate among the Republican candidate for president last night. Of course, I avoided that waste of time and brain cells. Instead, I relied on Kos of Daily Kos for a (thankfully brief) summary of the winners and losers. A winner (only in terms of the debate) was the nasty guy. This time his decision to skip the debate was a good one. Another winner was Ukraine. Four of the candidates strongly supported Ukraine. Only Ramaswamy clung to pro-Putin talking points. Moderators won by actually asking decent questions and decent follow-up. It’s not their fault the candidates didn’t answer them. Losers: All the candidates. None of them looked presidential. Also, to get the job they have to pile on against the nasty guy. Instead, they attacked each other. And, though this was seen as a debate for the job of vice nasty, the nasty guy declared none of the current crop will be his running mate. Individually, DeathSantis was too easily ignored and what he did say gave Biden an easy score. Last time Haley did enough things to get noticed. The second debate canceled that notice. Also losers were the audience. They were bored. Mark Sumner of Kos discussed how to interview the nasty guy. He did this because Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press interviewed him and she allowed him to “release a Niagara of unchecked lies. It was a masterclass in handing a sharp knife to someone who wants nothing more than to murder you.” So how to interview him? First of all: Don’t.

Bringing Trump on and allowing him to speak is nothing short of a campaign contribution. By now, everyone in the news business should be well aware that inviting Trump onto a program is inviting him to spread lies and attack democracy for the length of his appearance. Anyone who doesn’t know this shouldn’t be in the news business.

But if your bosses say you must...

How many lies should journalists attempt to correct when confronting not just Trump, but any politician or candidate for public office? All of them. And especially the first of them, because letting that first one go is simply giving permission for an unlimited number to come.

Orion Rummler of The 19th, posted on Kos, reported that the American Community Survey, put out by the Census Bureau and done next year may ask about LGBTQ+ people. In 2020 (or was it in 2010?) the census asked about same-sex couples living together, but that misses a lot of LGBTQ people. This is important because a lot of government funding is based on data and without asking about LGBTQ people a lot of this funding can’t happen. Unlike the census, this survey does not go to every household. It will be sent to roughly 271K houses. The questions are to be asked about every member of the household older than 15. Other LGBTQ organizations see a problem in the way this is set up. A head of household typically fills out the survey for the whole house. And if that person doesn’t approve of a teen being LGBTQ it won’t be noted on the survey. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Kate Sosin of The 19th. She discussed a Franklin & Marshall Global Barometers Report which gave a letter grade for LGBTQ human rights that looks at a country’s climate of tolerance and their policies.

Uruguay, Luxembourg, Brazil, Norway, Colombia, Malta and Chile are the countries that best uphold the human rights of their LGBTQ+ citizens, according to a report released last week. Conspicuously off that list? The United States, which scored a C or “persecuting” grade when it comes to LGBTQ+ human rights... The report ranked the United States 31 out of 136 countries, based on the lived realities of more than 167,000 queer people surveyed worldwide, trailing behind France, Vietnam and Hong Kong. But the United States is also headed toward a failing grade, said Susan Dicklitch-Nelson, professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College and the study’s founder.

There is plenty of evidence why the US got only a C. Such as... Dartagnan of the Kos community reported that the Charlotte County school district went way beyond current Florida law, though maybe not the desires of Gov. DeathSantis. All libraries in the district removed all books that have any LGBTQ character or theme. Not just the ones that others have claimed are obscene. All of them. Students are not allowed to bring the books to school for the time they sit at their desks and silently read. Even And Tango Makes Three was removed. This is the book about two male penguins who adopt and raise a chick. There is no sexual content, just parenting. The Florida Department of Education has refused to clarify what is to be removed to comply with the law and what isn’t. So the only way to stop overzealous (or even confused) librarians is a lawsuit. Laura Clawson of Kos reported the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina has banned the children’s picture book Red: a Crayon’s Story. They’re banning a story about crayons?

”Red: A Crayon’s Story” is about a crayon that is blue but has a red label. Everyone tells the crayon that it’s red, and tries to help it be better at redness, until a friend helps it see that being blue is what it’s good at. Yes, that can absolutely be read as a parable about trans identity—but that’s not the only way it can be read. As is the case with so many apparently simple children’s books, it can be about lots of things: being true to your inner self, as the publisher explains the message of the book, or finding out that what you’re best at is not what you’ve been told you should be good at, or, in an example taken from the author's life, being told that you’re lazy or stupid when really you’re dyslexic.

Yeah, this is part of the freakout over trans people. But it is also part of the assault on social-emotional learning.

“Let's say a student is working on a really difficult algebra problem and they get so frustrated because they can't remember what the next step is," Aaliyah Samuel, president and CEO of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, explained to NPR. "They have to be self-aware enough to say, ‘You know what? I'm feeling frustrated. How do I handle this?’”

And why do Republicans say that is bad? Because in addition to simply getting in touch with one’s feelings, which toxic masculinity roundly rejects, another aspect of SEL is learning how to disagree respectfully. They don’t want to do the respect thing either. Clawson also reported how social media is turning local book bans into national stories. A tweet or post about a book ban or ban prevention in one town is pounced on by the leaders of the movement – Christopher Rufo and Corey DeAngelis – who amplify it through their large social media followings while adding their praise or condemnation – and lies. So the removals in Charlotte County, Florida don’t stay there.

Right-wing book-banning efforts have money and power behind them these days. Objections to specific books that just a decade ago might have been brought up by one person in one town and laughed out of that town are now taken up by prominent right-wing operatives and pundits and nationalized—which in turn means that local school districts have to take the individual complaints more seriously, lest they become a target for the likes of Rufo or Moms for Liberty.

Not all LGBTQ news is bleak. In another pundit roundup Kev quoted Rebeca Queimaliños of El País in English who is demonstrating Put Yourself in My Skin, virtual reality scenarios to allow people to “experience” LGBTQ+ discrimination for themselves. They show three scenarios: a gay couple being beaten, a lesbian teen, and a transgender person (the actual scenarios of the last two aren’t mentioned).

Once you put on the virtual reality glasses, it is impossible not to feel the panic of a lesbian teenager or the helplessness when witnessing a couple being beaten for being gay. Those feelings are universal. However, after months of touring, Porteiro believes that the capacity for empathy among people between the ages of 60 and 80 is greater than among young people. “I don’t know how to explain it. Without sounding pessimistic, I think there is a regression.”

Alas, the quote doesn’t explain that last bit. Alejandro Serrano and William Melhado of the Texas Tribune in a story posted on Kos report that a federal judge has declared the Texas law banning public drag shows that might be seen by children is unconstitutional because it impermissibly infringes on Free Speech.

"Drag shows express a litany of emotions and purposes, from humor and pure entertainment to social commentary on gender roles," the ruling reads. "There is no doubt that at the bare minimum these performances are meant to be a form of art that is meant to entertain, alone this would warrant some level of First Amendment protection."

A similar case in another federal court in Texas came to the opposite conclusion. And this case addresses that one. That one was a suit brought again West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler because he canceled a campus drag show. This ruling includes:

"The president's sentiment reinforces this Court's opinion that while some people may find a performance offensive or morally objectionable, it does not mean the performance is not expressive or given First Amendment protection," he wrote. "Not all people will like or condone certain performances. This is no different than a person's opinion on certain comedy or genres of music, but that alone does not strip First Amendment protection."

State Sen. Bryan Hughes wrote the bill and pledged to challenge the ruling. He said:

Surely we can agree that children should be protected from sexually explicit performances. That’s what Senate Bill 12 is about.

And the rebuttal:

Critics of the bill, though, say that Republican lawmakers and officials this year have incorrectly — and unfairly — portrayed all drag performances as inherently sexual or obscene.

In yet another pundit roundup Greg Dworkin quoted John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times. In a tweet Burn-Murdoch wrote:

People are becoming more zero-sum in their thinking, and weaker economic growth may explain why Older generations grew up with high growth and formed aspirational attitudes; younger ones have faced low growth and are more zero-sum.

In a quote from the accompanying article Burn-Murdoch wrote:

You wouldn’t typically think of affirmative action advocates and anti-immigration nativists as being bedfellows. The former group skews young and is composed overwhelmingly of progressives, and the latter skews old and conservative. But according to a fascinating new study out of Harvard University, they have one significant thing in common: a predilection for zero-sum thinking, or the belief that for one group to gain, another must lose. The same way of thinking crops up on all manner of issues that cut across traditional political divides. Roughly equal numbers of US Democrats and Republicans agree that “in trade, if one country makes more money, then another country makes less money”. And while Democrats are more likely to say “if one income group becomes wealthier, this comes at the expense of other groups”, a third of Republicans agree.

To me that last bit is important. Over the last 40 years one group – billionaires – has become wealthier at the expense of the working class. I’d love to live in a society in which we can all become wealthier together. But billionaires define their worth by the difference between their wealth and that of others. They are practicing their own zero-sum thinking – I take more money to myself to make sure others make less money. This is a good time to include a couple cartoons. Both cartoons are about the auto strike that is at the end of its second week. A cartoon by David Horsey of the Seattle Times shows a worker on an assembly line and behind him are a member of the board of directors and the CEO, who is wearing a huge golden parachute, not yet deployed. The CEO says, “...And you know why we’re going bankrupt? That guy thinks he needs health care and a middle class wage!” The other cartoon is by Christopher Weyant of the Boston Globe. It shows a guy in a small rowboat with an “On Strike” sign. Looming above him from the prow of “SS Obscene Profits” a man shouts down, “Livable wages? Benefits? How dare you complain! Do you know how hard it is to squeak by on only $35 million a year?”