Censor$h!@%

The theme of the article is irony, as it is the only one I could gather from it as it is hypocritical and almost extreme to the point in which she says that our public school libraries should be like maximum security facilities in which children get little choice in what material they read and librarians who allow the children to read "inappropriate" literature are penalized and/or punished for repeat offense. While it is understandable that the writer is concerned about her children and those in the school, her solutions are VERY extreme to the point of fining, or even taking away pensions, for librarians who allow children to read age inappropriate books, the article is basically slander from a woman who obviously does not know what she is talking about as one of the books she trys to ban is that of a biology book, and her methods to stop children are rather outlandish, unheard of even in some places of more serious matters, extremely biased, impractical and poorly thought through, one idea is to use bear cages to close off books to "advanced" for some children, and she even considers retinal scanners as one way to stop them from obtaining some books. Although she is justifiably angry her methods for dealing with the censorship in schools is poor at best and it is understandable why one of her books were banned as she is a raving mad women with nothing better to do then to rummage through her own children's position's and try to impose herself, and control every aspect of their learning.
Which brings me to my next topic, Is there a need for censorship? My answer, No because despite popular belief I have yet to witness any real or Very Lewd behaviour and most of society is fairly good at keeping their indiscretions a secret. While there have been some people who could be considered to exposed for society, the rest seem rather good at keeping in check their own deviant acts to themselves. In conclusion censorship is not really needed in my opinion but it is appreciated as it helps to keep children what they are children.

Illusions

In the Beau Otto's presentation is a set of optical illusions designed by TED, the general theme of the presentation is that sight means almost nothing and that almost anything we see is an optical illusion. The presentation shows that colour is nothing but an illusion, therefore racism is not real? Therefore the Holocaust was REALLY not necessary, although the Jewish people being of the same skin colour i don't think it was because of the colour of their skin thus making this a bad example for this particular topic, should have went with segregation, or apartheid, but i just thought it was a little Cliche, in any case racism is just more of a status sort of thing rather than being better than someone in any form said racist sees fit. Another optical illusion is time as it is merely a fourth dimension, therefore making most things that people do rather pointless but then again who am i to judge, as i wasted most of the readers time with the holocaust and am doing it again by rambling, so i shall stop referring to the holocaust at this time, if it exists. A connection between me and the presentation is that i did not see any of the so called illusions, except for the bee one but really who didnt get that one, and therefore i can differentiate between reality and whatever that presentation was, therefore confirming my sanity, finally. In conclusion i would like to leave my reader with a riddle, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody seen it did it still fall, think about it.