Call Me Crazy
In Saul Alinsky’s Marxist handbook “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky advises that “ridicule is your most powerful weapon.” This seems to be a lesson well learned as evidenced by nearly every Letter to the Editor or comment section which contains some name calling, insults, ad homonym attack, or slur.
While Alinsky purports that ridicule is a powerful weapon, he fails to mention its half-life; every time it is used it loses effectiveness. A first derogatory volley may mortify or even traumatize the target but once that anguish has passed the next and subsequent assaults have an ever diminishing effect. Eventually the true nature of the insult is revealed; it is just words, and words only inflict damage if you let them.
Over time the target of the invective not only becomes immune to the assaults but they actually seem to gain strength from them. Donald Trump is the most maligned president in history yet he seems to draw energy from these attacks. How is this possible?
One reason may be that an insult is not AN option, it is the ONLY option. The critic is unable to refute a logical and intelligent statement, and so they are reduced to making a feculent retort. Such a response is tantamount to admitting defeat, so just take the win as no further engagement is needed.
A real-time example of ridicule replacing reason can be found in our local election contest where two incumbents face off against two challengers for trustee seats on the Community Library Network.
The major issue in this campaign is the documented fact that our local libraries are, according to Idaho Code 18-1515, disseminating material harmful to minors, materials which are more commonly known as pornography. The definitions of these standards are clearly laid out in Idaho Code 18-1514. Giving these harmful materials to minors is a crime under Idaho law.
Reasonable people intuitively know that distributing pornography to minors is not a good thing. Most cannot imagine harmful materials being distributed to minors using tax dollars in our public libraries, but that is exactly what is happening.
Local concerned citizens organized into the group CleanBooks4Kids.com to see for themselves what was on the shelves of our local libraries. They found over 330 books labeled for minors that contain obscene sexual content as defined by Idaho code including incest, pedophilia, prostitution, and rape.
These books are not in the adult section where they belong. They are in the sections of the libraries specifically for minors.
When community members discover this they are shocked and outraged. How can this happen in our libraries without people being arrested? Because the legislators appreciated that there were situations when a parent, guardian, or library employee would need to provide basic sex education material and so they created an affirmative defense for those individuals. It would still be considered breaking the law but they would not be prosecuted.
Unfortunately our library director, with the approval of the supervising incumbent trustees, has interpreted this immunity from prosecution as a mandate to encourage distribution of harmful materials. Books depicting or describing every manner of sexual conduct are on display and within easy grasp of browsing minor children.
When trustees Meyer and McCrea were confronted by this fact nearly two years ago their first reaction was to deny it was happening. When presented with irrefutable evidence they ridiculed the messenger claiming that it is a matter of free speech; that minor children have a fundamental right to receive information; that there is a constitutional mandate of separation of church and state, and that people who say otherwise are “crazy.”
Meyer and McCrea’s sophistry and name calling are easily brushed aside. The right to free speech is not unlimited. Speech is a crime if you falsely yell “fire!” in a crowded theater or if you hand pornography to a minor child. Children obviously do not have a “right” to be psychologically traumatized. The phrase “Separation of church and state” is not present in our founding documents, which do establish that our rights are a direct endowment from the creator, also known as God.
Were their statements made due to ignorance or deception? Either should disqualify them from overseeing our repositories of knowledge.
While we cannot know someone’s true motivations, the proponents of having harmful materials on display for minors run the risk of sounding exactly like pedophiles seeking to groom children for their nefarious purposes.
Pro tip: If you are being accused of allowing children access to sexually explicit materials then you probably shouldn’t associate your brand with a popular candy. We all know what happens to children who take candy from strangers.
Protecting minor children from harmful materials has been the consistent pledge of Tom Hanley and Tim Plass. If wanting to protect minor children from exposure to harmful materials is crazy, then call me crazy. But I still will be voting for Tom Hanley and Tim Plass.
It’s just common sense.
